Page semi-protected


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

This page trancludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:


Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Infoboxes

Initiated by Gerda Arendt at 17:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create. (#4)
  2. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.(#6)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Information about amendment request
  • Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create. (#4)
  • To be worded.
  • All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.(#6)
  • Is a good idea but had no consequences.

Statement by Gerda Arendt

About two years after the infoboxes case I look back. Reminder: It was requested because - after {{infobox opera}} was introduced - too many infoboxes were reverted, for example Rigoletto. I counted 59 cases before and during the case. Most of them have an infobox now, including Götterdämmerung, The Rite of Spring and Handel. The project is at peace. Missa Dona nobis pacem.

I am quite happy with the restriction of two comments per discussion because it saves me time. However, I think that it should be more evenly observed by all participants in discussions, not only me.

I believe that the restriction of adding infoboxes to only "articles I create" supports the ownership of articles and should be dropped. I promise to not add an infobox where I believe it is not wanted, - actually that's what I always did.

I wish that the clause about "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" would be observed more. Look at current discussions such as Talk:Beethoven#Infobox, subtract what contradicts this clause and see how little is left. (Did you know that even Beethoven had an infobox, until 26 December 2014?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Beethoven was closed in favour of an infobox. It pleases me how similar it looks to the one proposed in the workshop of the case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

RIP Viva-Verdi. We got the sad news only yesterday. As far as I know he didn't engage in infobox disputes, but silently amended all of Verdi's operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: regarding "better ... than she previously did": would you please say more precisely where you think I did something wrong? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There was a case, my first meeting with arbcom. I didn't even understand the terms, thinking "motion" meant setting something in motion. I promoted the new template, which is by now accepted. I said "A way to determinate if a new infobox is to be kept permanently needs to be found, a consensus respectful of the principal contributors, but also looking at usefulness for readers and site consistency." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I leave it to the arbitrators to see that your diffs don't show what you claim, and find the attribute "senseless" for debates surprising. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The diff you present for a 'related "senseless debate"' shows a sensible debate. - I think to alleviate all "remedies" of the case (which wasn't looking at facts of 2013 and is outdated even more in 2015) would make a lot of sense, but I didn't dare to ask that much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: The current restriction does not allow me to add an infobox to an article which I expanded significantly (for example Polish Requiem), only to those which I turned from red to blue (or made a redirect an article). It also doesn't allow me to add an infobox to an opera, while I could help to continue doing what Viva-Verdi did. All works by Verdi have an infobox, several by Wagner including Götterdämmerung (remember my question: "If there are only 10 readers who profit from the structured information about this article in the infobox, would you deprive them of it?" - still on the talk), Don Giovanni, Carmen, but there are hundreds more missing one. - I have added infoboxes to all "my" articles since the case (including three FAs), - none of them was reverted or questioned. - I believe that infoboxes are good for our readers, and that will not change. - I know by now to avoid certain biographies by certain authors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tim: "Gerda manages to cause much alarm and despondency on the subject to other editors", please let me understand better by providing one example of me causing such alarm. (I will look up "depondency".) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Please give me one example of what you mean by a general "forcing infoboxes into articles". - Admitted: I am proud to speak up for good-faith edits of new editors who have no idea that they enter a minefield. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I have no list of "infoboxes targeted", only a (incomplete) list of infoboxes that have been reverted. That list began as part of the evidence for the arb case, it had 59 entries then. As of today, 15 of those have no infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I know you as a man of compromise, remembering that you offered an "identibox" for L'Arianna and a version accepted by the Main editor for Chopin. I think Carmen looks more attractive and more informative, and the discussion was sensible. Michael Tippett was nominated for TFA and appeared without ever mentioning the topic infobox. - Your reflections in the Signpost make sense to me. - Could you perhaps word rules or recommendations to be observed by all participants in infobox discussions? Such as only one revert, then discuss. I really enjoy "only two comments". (I asked others before, a former arbitrator, a lawyer and a participant in the case). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I removed myself from what you call the infobox-arena for one year. That year was over on 11 September 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@AGK: My behaviour was to insert infoboxes in opera articles too soon after they were made available by project opera, which led to reverts and sometimes longish discussions. What changed is that now the operatic infoboxes are mostly accepted by the project. - I have not inserted an infobox in a TFA, not even suggested one for a FA before being featured. I have not suggested one for articles of authors where I knew they don't want one. (I sometimes made mistakes in that respect, but am willing to learn.) I have collaborated in DYK with Nikkimaria and Smerus, the other parties in the case, with whom I shared one of the better debates about an opera infobox, literary, short and amusing. (I don't know if the arbitrators noticed that.) - I do question when editors new to the problem of infoboxes for classical composers and other biographies are reverted without explanation. I also was shocked in disbelief that editors improving an article to FA threw out an infobox that had served readers for eight years. I am sorry if by doing so I hurt people, - it was not intended.

I am on a voluntary 1RR and should know by now to avoid articles of Main editors who dislike infoboxes, therefore nobody needs to be afraid of me. Regarding infoboxes (and I mean just at-a-glance orientation about a subject's position in place and time), I have a simple belief: if they help a few people, why not? They help me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@AGK: You decline what? A rewording of the restriction to not reflect ownership? (That is all I asked to have amended.) Additional question: What behaviour precisely do you think I need to reform? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Olive

Gerda is an incredibly prolific and expert editor who is not just liked but loved by many even those who at times disagree with her. She has deliberately used a restriction, that of making only two comments, to improve herself and her editing. This is ideal editor behaviour. Why not expand her abilities to edit. I don't see any reasons why she should not be given the chance to edit in a more expansive way; she's earned it, seems to me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC))

      • AGK could you clarify? Why does Gerda's response merit a decline? She is asking for clarification. You declined in a very general way without specifying anything and with out any evidence that Gerda has not edited per her restrictions. I believe all editors want to trust the admins and arbitrators who control the sanctions. We can only do that if those in control very specifically outline the concerns, so we can see that there is good reason to limit another editor's editing, and that the restrictions aren't the result of grudges or anger or positions which indicate non-neutrality in dealing with other people. I am not accusing anyone of this but with out clarification no one knows what the problem is or how to correct it. WP is not punishment based; it should be an environment were editors help each other even arbs. As a community we have to trust you, but trust takes time, patience, and fair dealing with the editors here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC))

Statement by OccultZone

Looking at her contributions, I would say that her editing scope is wide and her edits are very beneficial to and after so much experience that she earned, she would better know what to do with infoboxes than she previously did. Similar to Littleolive oil, I believe that she should be given chance to broaden her range. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 06:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt I was pointing to the case concerning infoboxes and that it lead to the imposition of restrictions on a number of editors. I just said that you must be knowing better about it, than you did previously. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes and that's the plus point. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:50, 11 May (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken

It is my profound opinion Gerda Arendt shouldn't be left near any infobox (discussion), ever.

  • The current unnecessary content forking (note: content forking, not POV forking) of BWV 243 and BWV 243a rooted in Gerda Arendt's prejudice regarding infoboxes: "243a ... 243 ... I "strike" by not adding to articles without infobox ;)" (diff 1)
  • "Farming" tensions regarding infoboxes (diff 2)
  • Beethoven infobox:
    • Treating infobox discussions as "votes" (diff 3)
    • Typical indirect statement of argument, a technique rarely beneficial for the quality of a debate: "... what would a reader say who never heard the name Beethoven before? Perhaps: ..." (diff 4) – a bit pretentious about "knowing" other people's preferences, instead of clarifying her own.

On the whole, whenever Gerda gets involved in an infobox debate this never has a soothing effect on tensions, drawing a consensus nearer, more often tensions are increased, by a deep rooted "I will not be convinced by anyone else's arguments – my prejudice rises above that" attitude.

I'm not really convinced by the quality of the content of infoboxes Gerda produces. I remember these often need adjustment (which often isn't conceded to unless after a lot of senseless debate and reverts, e.g. diff 5) It is my contention that Gerda would be involved a lot less in tensions regarding infoboxes when she would be able to produce higher quality infoboxes, which is however something difficult to prove by diffs.

Gerda didn't contribute to remedy 6 of the Infoboxes case: "The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion..." I don't say she should have, but asking here to alleviate some of the remedies of that case, while not exploring the more positive ones is, in my eyes, sanctimonious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ad diff 5: illustration of related "senseless debate" --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing "sensible" in starting a third talk page section about the infobox (diff 6), overriding active discussions (diff 6a, diff 6b) without actual content contribution to the issues being discussed. Illustrates "I will not be persuaded by anyone else's arguments – my prejudice rises above that". Confirms imho that Gerda Arendt should not be left near any infobox (discussion) in the best interest of Wikipedia's content: Gerda Arendt's self-realization of how she behaves in that field is zero. The remedies of the infobox ArbCom case proved ineffective to ameliorate that, so the best solution, again IMHO, would be to take her out of that particular arena entirely, at least for a year or so, and re-evaluate after such period whether the state of affairs regarding infoboxes has improved or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Really? By now Gerda Arendt should know not to promulgate publicity like that, and not to post flawed summaries anywhere. As a token regarding nature of intentions please remove my name (and any link to my user/talk page) there without delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Re. I ping people whom I mention – tx, but better would have been not to mention me on that page at all, so I wouldn't have seen this nauseating interaction between the initiator and one of the active Arbs of this amendment request. After having been forced to see this... @Euryalus: maybe consider recusing yourself from the current request, the mentioned interaction display is far from enlightening. I don't see the need to treat this public amendment request anywhere else but here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • This edit accepted Gerda Arendt's self-aggrandizement at face value (as if I would have been less motivated by such concerns, so no that's not how she "... arrived in conflict with Francis Schonken ..."). The out-of-proces presentation of so-called additional evidence triggered no concern whatsoever... There was also no "previous" in this interaction as to be exempted by "Previous routine ... interactions are not usually grounds for recusal", so I don't think there's much to be found in using ARBPOL as an excuse here. I'd like to be able to take active arbitrators serious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: please stop creating diversions, this page is not the place to start deploying remedy 6 of the Infoboxes case, and even less under your conditions – I'm as much a man of compromise as the next guy, and my recommendations to you are clear: remove yourself from the infobox arena, completely, for at least a year. General recommendations regarding participants in infobox related issues can't even technically be treated here, per the initiator's selection of involved users. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Re "...over on 11 September 2014" ... make that 6 September 2014 - oh, wait, that's around the time when the next round of this time-sink began. Removing Gerda Arendt from the arena apparently works to make treatment of infobox issues go back to normal. Maybe make it somewhat more than a year, starting today. And no returning to that arena before the arrogant "I will not be persuaded by anyone else's arguments – my prejudice rises above that" attitude has been given up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    Short year indeed! – Please make it at least a real time year this time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tim riley

Gerda has most honourably drawn my attention to this page, knowing full well that devoted as I am to her in all other regards I strongly disapprove of her zealotry with regard to info-boxes, and that I will – as indeed I do – oppose any easing of the restraint on her in this respect. Even with the current restrictions Gerda manages to cause much alarm and despondency on the subject to other editors who hold equally conscientious views to the contrary. Tim riley talk 13:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, come on Gerda! See SchroCat's comments below. It's no good doing passive-aggressive on us at this stage. Tim riley talk 16:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat

I oppose any relaxation of the restrictions, given the disruption this editor still causes with IBs. For example, after three comments on the thread in the Talk: Laurence Olivier page, and a warning on 16 March 2015 from Cailil to advise that the "two comment limit, in discussions about Infoboxes, is a bright-line rule", and that any further breaches would face sanction. It was something of a surprise to see a fourth comment on 26 March 2015 in the same thread. It seems that this part of the restriction hasn't been adhered to, and the pattern of behaviour has not changed as much as has been claimed. I'll also add that following postings on IB-related matters to my talk page and directly to me by email, I have also had to ask Gerda not to post to my talk page any more. – SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ssilvers

I also oppose any relaxation of the restrictions for all the reasons mentioned by SchroCat. One can see from Gerda's statement above that she is actually proud of her role in forcing infoboxes into articles where (I would argue) they do not provide any value. I think Gerda is a nice person, but this infobox zealotry, as Tim riley calls it, is destructive to the project by sucking away the time of other editors that they would prefer to spend creating content and by increasing the stress level of every discussion on the subject without actually adding any useful analysis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia

Francis Schonken gets it right (also agree with Tim Riley, Ssilvers and possibly for the first time ever, SchroCat). In fact, rather than relaxing any restriction, I for one would be a much happier editor if Gerda were restricted from using the thank button or the ping button or having anything to do with the ongoing "metadata" issues, so my watchlist could be uncluttered by her frequent and irritating "observations". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I really feel empathy here for Brianboulton, one of our finest writers ... it is time we recognized the damage to content creation caused by the metadata fan(atic)s, and the ongoing underlying conflict that has been furthered by ... and enabled ... and allowed to be furthered by ... such a small group of adherents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

My initial outlook is similar to those above. Heck no. However, this is difficult because Gerda is otherwise a lovely person (at least in general on wikipedia) and it saddens me that an editor like Gerda should ever have to have sanctions imposed upon her though. My main concern isn't in general with her, she's not going about forcing infoboxes on every article and that's like that's all she does. It is actually a small percentage of what she does, even if enthusiastic. In fact in recent weeks I don't think I've seen her mention infoboxes. Even in the most difficult of situations, she's never aggressive, sarcastic, yes, but never aggressive. It's as Ssilvers says about the time wasting and stress that occurs from the discussions involving Gerda/Mabbett and Schro/Cass/Tim/myself etc when an article an infobox might be removed from an article during the FA promotion. I really think it needs to be avoided and a solution provided. I'm sure Mabbett thinks of me as an enemy now, but otherwise I've long supported the work he does on reducing the redundancy in infoboxes and simplification. I just simply disagree that an article must have an infobox for the sake of it and his approach to it. I'd support the removal of the restrictions if Gerda could agree to respect the decision of editors surrounding an infobox once a featured article is promoted, and to avoid adding infoboxes or being involved in disputes or stirring on related talk pages with any of the editors above. In general, she should be allowed to add infoboxes to her music articles or whatever she is doing, but should be advised to stay away from those time consuming long disputes. I'd support a trial run without restrictions if she can avoid being involved with infobox disputes with the group of editors I mentioned, and to delete that list she keeps of articles to be "targeted" with infoboxes as it's a potential area for conflict. If she can't agree to respect the decision of editors who put in the massive amount of work needed to promote articles then I oppose, but I'm always open to the possibility of somebody changing and always want to think the best about somebody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda, Yes I know the list was originally drawn up for the arb case, but you have been updating it. It does look to me like you're keeping tabs on what needs an infobox added, even if that's genuinely not the main purpose of the list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia Yes, that's the main reason I've been outspoken against infobox enforcement on here. I believe when promoting an article to FA that editors should decide on infobox or no infobox before being promoted and that view respected at a later date. If they put in that great effort needed to promote an article they should have the say on the infobox matter I believe. And it's not as if we oppose infoboxes everywhere, I encourage them in things like settlement articles, with a pin map, but in arts biographies I believe I share the same view with yourself and others that their use is very limited if not redundant. I believe arb should pass something banning the protest of them on TFA today and in general once an article is promoted, at least for a year of two anyway. When it's reached a point that several editors are put off actually contributing an FA or oppose even the showing of their great efforts on the main page on TFA day then it's clear that it's gone too far. With Gerda though, I don't see a general drive by her to frantically add infoboxes to every article under the sun, it tends to be music/arts featured articles, and those contributed by Tim, Brian, Cass, Schro and myself I see her speak out more on. I think that needs to be acknowledged here, and a solution to deal with that which is the heart of the issue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Brianboulton

In 2011 Gerda was a co-nominator, with me and Tim riley, in the successful FAC nomination of Messiah. It was a great collaboration, based on mutual respect and with never a moment's controvery over infoboxes. Her disruptive obsession with these boxes developed later, and led to these restriction being put in place. She was at the time, I believe, treated more leniently than her co-offenders, because of the excellent work she had otherwise done for the encyclopaedia, and I thought this consideration might temper her future behaviour. Unfortunately I was wrong. I hate to say it, but she is the main reason why I no longer write opera or music articles for Wikipedia, and why I oppose the appearance of my music FAC noms at TFA – I just can't deal with the likely hassle. Until she shows some practical recognition that her actions have hurt people, the restrictions should remain or be tightened. Relaxing them now would in my view be giving her licence to create more trouble. I am deeply sorry to have to write this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

It's time for the restrictions to go. Gerda has shown a clear ability to work within them and in fact has often commented that some of them she has found to be useful (1RR, for example). That said, it is still time to lift the restrictions. One reason is that editors under restrictions are often subject to a game of "gotcha" by other editors and thus these restrictions get to the point where they generate more heat than light. Another reason is that - to those who somehow worry about Gerda - it's clear that she's managed to work within them and has expressed willingness to avoid the circumstances that gave rise to the situation in the first place. Third, In the real world, people get off "probation" automatically within a set time, only on wiki is it an apparent life sentence unless one begs forgiveness. I think it's time to drop the stick, drop the restrictions and see how things go. Frankly, I think Gerda has gone above and beyond. So I support Gerda's request. Montanabw(talk) 19:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • You know, what strikes me here is the incivility of Gerda's "opponents" in response to her sincere statements that she "gets it' about who and what to avoid. If there ever was a case for "you get your restrictions lifted when you understand the issue," this is it. Gerda gets it! Probation and parole is ended, Gerda has paid her debt to the wiki, now let it go. God knows that Francis Schonken and some of the others here will be lying in wait to say "GOTCHA!" if she is not being honest. The vitriol here needs to end and I do wonder if the members of arbcom are reading some of the baiting and bad faith commentary that's here. AGF, for heaven's sake! Montanabw(talk) 06:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

I find AGK's approach to this request problematic. No evidence has been brought forward illustrating any behaviour by Gerda since the infobox case closed on 11 September 2013 that a disinterested viewer would find fault with. There are no diffs of behaviour that would cause concern anywhere above. Unless of course you find Francis Shonken's desperate attempt to discredit her by pointing to her "support infobox" comment anything more than a smear. Just look at the comments preceding Gerda's there: "Support Infobox"; "Oppose infobox"; "Support Infobox" - why shouldn't Gerda express her opinion in that debate the same as anyone else? In fact there were another 12 editors who wrote "Support" or "Oppose" as they made their contributions to that debate. How can Schonken seriously criticise Gerda's comment there? Does he think the Arbs don't follow diffs, because anybody who does can see that Gerda has behaved perfectly reasonably on that page.

So with no evidence of problems, AGK decides to require Gerda to prove a negative by asking her to supply evidence that she has "reformed". Reformed from what? The only finding of fact in the case was

So Anthony:

  • Has Gerda added any more infoboxes sytematically? No.
  • Has she added them without prior discussion? No.
  • Has she added them to articles where she knew or should have known that adding an infobox would be controversial? No

You need to understand that restrictions designed to calm down a situation in 2013 are now well past their sell-by date. I'm not interested in your concept of "re-litigation"; I'm only interested in seeing restrictions that no longer serve any purpose lifted from an editor whose value to the encyclopedia is beyond doubt. I just hope the other arbitrators will actually read the prior case, look at the evidence presented and not be fooled by unsubstantiated attacks. --RexxS (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PumpkinSky

Really AGK? Are you serious? Per Rexx. Not only is Gerda one of the nicest most helpful editors ever, but you let the real problem child off in the original case--NikkiMaria. Get a dose of reality and lift these appalling sanctions. PumpkinSky talk 20:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

First I do have to acknowledge Thryduulf. True integrity can be hard to come by, and it should be revered.

  • OK - way back when I requested that Arbcom look at the iBox issues - what followed was, to say the least, laughable. Not only were ALL the sanctions handed out to only one side - but in Gerda's case ... without ANY prior notification. Not only had she never been blocked - but she had never even been warned!! I do understand that I/we did not provide "evidence" against the oh so holy "anti-box" group; but rather the "pro" group simply defended their actions. Well - there's no use crying over spilled milk I suppose. So here we are a couple years later. Things seem to be working out on an article to article basis .. and Gerda asks for some common sense. Low and behold - read the above from the "anti" group. I read somewhere that someone actually found fault because Gerda used the "Thank" function ... REALLY??? Just wow. What a sad and pathetic life some people must lead.
  • Oh well - I figured since I was the one that brought the original case, I should make some sort of statement. You Arbs do whatever it is you do - I honestly don't give a fuck. Pardon my french, but I can read above and below - and it's pretty easy to see where the good folks are .. and where the mean, nasty, vindictive, petty, self-righteous, arrogant, ... (ok, I'll stop) folks are. Have fun - look in the mirror - whatever. — Ched :  ?  03:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • addendum: It absolutely amazes me when the so called "upper echelon" of Wikipedia outright enable the cruel and suppressive behavior that we bear witness to above. But hey, as Kermit the Frog would say: "That's none of my business" — Ched :  ?  04:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (other editor)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Infoboxes: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • recuse. I am not neutral with regards the infoboxes topic and was heavily involved in this case before I was an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: apologies if I'm not reading this right, but the core request is to drop restrictions on you adding Infoboxes? Agree the current restriction encourages ownership by elevating article creators over other people. Noted that you agree not to add an Infobox where it is not wanted, presumably by a consensus of other editors in the relevant page. But not sure why you need the restriction lifted - if a consensus of other editors wants an infobox in an article, can't they simply add it themselves? Let me know if I've missed a key point, happy to consider further either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Support lifting the restriction on Infobox addition, on the basis outlined above - that Infoboxes will not be added to any article where a consensus of editors opposes that addition. I note in passing that consensus for or against Infoboxes might exist or be established for an individual article or a group of them, presumably via WikiProject discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: ARBPOL appropriately provides for recusal under certain conditions, none of which apply in this instance. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm unsympathetic to the arguments that the restrictions are convoluted or unusual, and should therefore go. We generally don't allow re-litigation of the proposed decision. Consequently, the only argument I'd find compelling would be one demonstrating that the restrictions are no longer necessary to the smooth running of the project. I would therefore like to hear from Gerda as to how precisely their behaviour has reformed since the restrictions were imposed. AGK [•] 21:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline based on the response submitted by Gerda. AGK [•] 08:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am fairly neutral on this issue --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Initiated by A1candidate at 09:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Complementary and Alternative Medicine

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by A1candidate

After the Committee declined my request for abitration, I was prepared to move on and slowly disengage over some time, but yesterday, Kww came to my talk page and made the following comment:

No, DrChrissy was topic-banned because he interpreted fairly accurate descriptions of his behaviour as "personal attacks" rather than address the root problem, and because he did not show any sign that he was capable of understanding what he had done wrong. WP:NPA is not a license to describe all criticisms of your behaviour as a "personal attack", nor is it intended to prevent legitimate criticism from occurring. Your own similar attempt to take JzG and I to Arbcom failed for much the same reason. No one was leaping up to champion either JzG or I: both of us are brusque and neither of us is widely loved. Still, it would appear that most arbitrators found our criticisms of your behaviour to fall within the bounds of legitimate criticism rather than being "personal attacks", as I can promise you that if either of us did attack editors, we would lose our bits. [1]

Can the Committee please clarify if Kww's assertion (in bold) is correct? Thanks. -A1candidate 09:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Yunshui

If there was no Arbitration decision, how can Kww claim that there was??? -A1candidate 09:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Kww

You have apparently ignored the statements of at least 2 arbitrators who accepted my request with the following comments regarding WP:CIVIL:

  • Salvio guliano: Those who oppose those they perceive as doing the POV-pushing should of course strive to be civil [2]
  • Thryduulf: Just because someone holds a view that differs from the mainstream consensus does not give anyone the right to be uncivil towards them [3]

Given that 3 arbitrators voted decline (without further comments) and the rest of the Committee did not even vote, how can you claim on my talk page that "most arbitrators found our criticisms of your behaviour to fall within the bounds of legitimate criticism"? [4] If any arbitrator did make such a finding, they should state it clearly and without ambiguity.

-A1candidate 18:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Thryduulf

Thank you for explaining your statement.

-A1candidate 12:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I think it's a fair assertion that if most of the Arbitration committee had, upon reviewing the evidence, found that JzG and I were indeed guilty of attacking A1candidate, we would have been admonished at the very least or desysopped. Instead, the declines were generally of the form "I don't see much in terms of concerns beyond the administrator conduct, which I don't think rise to the level of a case", "the allegations about the administrators are insufficiently compelling to merit a case", or "I do not see evidence to warrant opening an arbitration case".—Kww(talk) 17:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

While it's pretty clear this isn't going anywhere, a clarification for the record: my comment was in response to A1candidate specifically referencing the language of the failed Arbitration request in a way that clearly indicates that he did not understand that he hadn't provided evidence of personal attacks.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox

I just became aware of a1candidate a few days ago, but they have very quickly made an impression on me as a busybody who desires to order other users around and stir drama. I mean really, look at this. they have decided that DrChrissy needs them for protection and they are trying, quite unsuccessfully, to bully others into submission and get the community-imposed topic ban on DrChrissy overturned. There is nothing for the committee to do here, except to reject this request and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

This seems like a bit of pot stirring and an exercise in point making to me. Perhaps there's a semantic conversation to have here but honestly I don't see it. The consensus amongst ARBCOM members seemed specifically that no case was merited. If you do not agree with Kww position, perhaps it would be better to agree to disagree then bring it here. To remind A1candidate, I would like to reference this case here. Specifically the close. While this is not AE it would stand to reason that conduct is actionable here and that abuse of the process to pursue personal grudges can result in sanctions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

Arbitrators, it's fairly obvious that what happened here is that after A1's case was declined, KWW went by his page to taunt him about it and try to provoke him into a escalated response to try to use it to get him banned. Notice that Beeblebrox has fallen right into helping out with that plan. WP's admin drones' behavior is so predictable. That's why KWW was doing this. Your responses are further enabling this type of behavior and this is one of the reasons why so many good editors have departed WP, because they're fed up with seeing or experiencing this kind of shite. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Since there was never a Complimentary and Alternative Medicine case (it was declined), there is no Arbitration decision to clarify or amend. Yunshui  09:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe we are being asked to clarify here the reasons why we decided to decline a case, which when done in good faith (as here), seems to be a perfectly legitimate thing to do. I don't have to review this now and don't recall it in sufficient detail to express an opinion on the actual request. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @A1candidate: That quote of mine is not a finding of fact that anyone has been uncivil, it is a statement of my personal opinion about the general philosophy that should be applied in the topic area (and indeed elsewhere). I made it in response to allegations of incivility, but I offered (and still offer) no opinion (as an arbitrator or as an individual) whether those allegations are correct. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur with Yunshui.  Roger Davies talk 10:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur with Yunshui and RG. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Me too. This venue is for clarification of the intent and scope of a decision, not to discuss declined cases. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And me. AGK [•] 07:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Scientology

Initiated by Francis Schonken at 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Rick Alan Ross instructed and restricted:
"26) User:Rick Alan Ross is requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename; instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses; and restricted to one account only with his other named account, User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected to the main account."
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
"26) User:Rick Alan Ross is requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename; instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses; and restricted to one account only with his other named account, User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected to the main account."

Statement by Francis Schonken

Subject was referred to Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) by OTRS. In order to proceed it should be best that the situation resulting from the 2009 Scientology case is cleared. See Talk:Rick Ross (consultant)#Discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Corrected Allen → Alan, sorry for the typo. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @ re. what can be done:
    • contact the Arbitration Committee by email (if you haven't done so already)
    • login as User:Rick Alan Ross and edit with that account exclusively (instead of editing as IP
  • @Yunshui and Guerillero: (and other arbitrators), some suggestions:
    • check the ArbCom mailbox whether such email arrived recently, or in a more distant past, and if so see what actions have been of should be given accordingly
    • explain to Rick Alan Ross why it is advantageous to comply with the ArbCom decision, or what can be done.

Note that my only stake in this is dealing with WP:BLP issues under WP:COI conditions (not my COI, the COI of Ross/, without my current actions risking to be ultimately invalidated for a technical reason related to a past arbcom case. I think ArbCom can do something to avoid such risk. Some creativity may be needed, my creative proposal to amend the Scientology case is only one among several possibilities to iron this out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by

I was instructed by Matthew at the Wikipedia Support Team to go to my bio page and use the Talk Page to discuss problems there. My name is Rick Alan Ross and some years ago I may have entered the name Rick A. Ross on Wikipedia. I have never gone by the name Rick Allen Ross. I have no general interest in Wikipedia other than the bio about me at Wikipedia (Rick Ross consultant). My concern is that my bio has been used as a convenient propaganda platform for those who don't like my work to attack me. My bio is not NPOV and has a great deal of biased POV editing. That editing is often misleading, intentionally omits certain relevant historical facts and information and generally reflects the slanted POV of certain anonymous editors at Wikipedia. I have repeatedly complained about this matter to the Wikipedia Support Team. Again, Matthew recommended that I specifically explain this at my bio Talk Page. I have followed his directions and posted my points of concern with supporting references and sources at the Talk Page per Mathew's instuctions. Now I am somehow here. Excuse me, but I don't understand all the Wikipedia protocols and rules. Please explain what need to be done to resolve this and address my concerns.

Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Scientology: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Why does he need to edit as an IP instead of using his account? Yunshui  11:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It also appears that the 2009 decision was never fully implemented; User:Rick A. Ross, the alt account, has never been blocked and doesn't appear to have been redirected to his main account. Yunshui  11:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


Requests for enforcement

Darkness Shines

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Darkness Shines

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 06:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced 
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 12 May 2015 tendentious editing. Reappears on article talk after three weeks to make a declaration that he will be inserting the image yet again when he has been told by multiple editors that it is against consensus, and does it immediately.
  2. 13 May 2015 You're obviously an idiot. non constructive to say the least.
  3. 13 May 2015 And what the fuck is that fo? Edit summary: dick.
  4. 27 April 2015 When is this constant hounding going to be fucking stopped? He is told in ani: Request has no merit but he continues it several times all over the place. Exemplary assume bad faith over an extended period.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 15 May 2014 Darkness Shines is blocked for two months and topic banned from WP:ARBIPA related pages.
  2. 8 December 2012 Darkness Shines is warned under ARBPIA for his inappropriate comment.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them 
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

His tendentious editing, assuming bad faith, and uncivil comments discourages collaboration acutely. He has been advised to avoid these multiple times before and in the light of the fact that he just returned from an indefinite block and still repeats similar behavior recklessly is a serious concern in my opinion.

@Kingsindian: The diffs and case evidence presented is entirely of Darkness Shines and is related to his interaction with McClenon as well as Fut. Perf. It is his attitude that is disruptive. Wikipedia is not therapy. Making tendentious edits, assuming bad faith and being uncivil towards Fut. Perf. and McClenon is entirely on him. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush and RegentsPark: the block was made by Callanecc, because of DS's conduct towards Robert McClenon not Fut. Perf. I had not even considered that diff in adding the request here. The diffs I added also contain interaction with McClenon. While there is criticism of Fut. Perf. here, it does not resolve the concern raised about DS, and clearly ignores that the other side includes McClenon here. There were other uninvolved editors on the page,RfC was suggested, instead he tendentiously inserts the image a 7th time. The restrictions were placed on him due to his own actions. --AmritasyaPutraT 11:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Messaged on his talk page.

Discussion concerning Darkness Shines

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Darkness Shines

Statement by Fut.Perf.

This is actionable under three different provisions at once: as a breach of the civility parole imposed under the BASC unblock, as a matter of WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions, and possibly under WP:ARBGG discretionary sanctions too. On the civility side alone, I'm finding a 72h block as imposed by Callanecc remarkably light, given that Arbcom prescribed a block sequence for infractions that should escalate to indef in at most 4 steps [5], and given the long history of prior blocks and recidivism for the same issue. DS has had more than 30 distinct blocks, not counting the indefs for his various sock reincarnations, and the latest few NPA blocks among these were of 7 days (at least three times) and 14 days respectively. In addition, this most recent outburst is the immediate continuation of the pattern of hostile edit-warring and tendentious misuse of sources discussed only a few days ago at ANI, in a thread that unfortunately sank into the archive without action, but where at least one uninvolved admin observer (User:Akhilleus) opined that the pattern of disruption was enough to justify a reimposed indef ban.

In terms of WP:ARBIPA, keep in mind that DS is already indefinitely topic-banned from all India/Pakistan topics and that the article Female infanticide in India is merely an exception, granted for him to try to bring it to GA status. At the very least, this exception ought to be rescinded at this point. Reasons:

  1. In the seven weeks since his unblock, DS has in fact done nothing to improve the quality of the article at all. Every single edit he has made to it was a hostile revert to his old version [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]; he did nothing to address any of the quality issues noted in the GA review. (In fact, you will find that he has barely done any constructive content building anywhere else either; virtually all his mainspace contributions since March have been reverts.) This: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] is the total of his contribs to the talkpage during the same time; it shows constant hostility and refusal to address other people's concerns.
  2. As a result, the GA push has effectively failed. The GA nomination was rejected [23], and there are no signs of resuming work on it anywhere.
  3. In the specific matter of the image in question, he has conducted a slow but persistent edit-war, reinserting it 7 times since March [24][25][26][27][28][29][30] (plus at least twice before his block [31][32]), against a growing consensus of pretty much everybody else on the talkpage (at least four other editors having spoken out against its use).

Frankly, I can't see any reason why DS was unblocked in the first place; the project will clearly be the better off the sooner his inevitable reimposed indef will come. Failing that, for now, a block of a duration commensurate with his prior block log and a scrapping of that topic ban exception should be the minimum. Fut.Perf. 15:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:: it is hardly for me to say, as I'm obviously involved here, and it's commonly known that if it was up to me DS would have been indef-banned years ago, but it's my impression that for clear-cut violations of restrictions that come up at AE standard minimum block lengths start somewhere around 2 weeks. That would also be the minimum kind of block length that would follow logically from the prior block record. Fut.Perf. 21:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc:: it is of course true that the arbs have specified a progression to indef in several steps, implying several further chances, but that's the provision for infractions that are just one-off lapses in civility. What we have here goes significantly beyond that. It's a pervasive, structural pattern of disruption, involving low-quality content editing, source distortion, inability or unwillingness to constructively engage with other editors over content problems, and long-term edit-warring, with personal attacks coming just as the icing on the cake. Ed is spot on in saying that short blocks seem of little use here. Surely, the BASC decision cannot be construed as protecting DS from sanctions that admins would be justified in imposing on any other editor under comparable circumstances? Fut.Perf. 09:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of procedural fairness, could somebody give DS a talkpage note that this is still open and sanctions beyond the present block are being considered? (I'd do it myself, but he doesn't like me posting there.) Fut.Perf. 14:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Update: Can we get some action here soon-ish? DS is back from his 3-day block, and is immediately back to exactly the same behaviour in yet another case: edit-warring [33][34][35] to reinsert an image that's apparently been misattributed to the wrong historical situation (explanation here: [36]). Again, DS uses blanket Twinkle reverts, without any effert at all to engage with other people's arguments, in fact without even a word of explanation. (Note that this is now no longer in ARBIPA but in ARBEE territory, another area from which he has previously been topic-banned.) Fut.Perf. 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
So what's going to happen now? It's been four days since the last edits in the admin section below; we have a consensus of three admins favouring an indef block, with one considering alternative restrictions instead. DS has declined to comment [37] and has given no signs of willingness that he might somehow modify his behaviour. We are, in short, back at exactly the point we were at before and after every single one of the 31 blocks in the past: waiting for the next time DS will act disruptively. Fut.Perf. 10:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

I am uninvolved in this matter, but I have had interactions with DS in WP:ARBPIA (mostly disagreements). While Fut. Perf. was of course within his rights to edit any article which he wishes, and DS does not own any article, it seems a bit strange for him to focus on DS's edits so much. The disagreements with DS on many articles are not straightforwardly changing "wrong" edits. The picture at Female Infanticide in India is a good example. While I am of the opinion that the picture shouldn't be included, I can see DS's argument that it is just an illustrative picture, and is not meant to show actual female infanticide. It seems to me that DS has become exasperated by Fut. Perf's perceived following of his edits. Surely, Fut. Perf. can give the guy a break, though he is of course not required to. Kingsindian  02:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by OccultZone

Recent block has likely increased the chances of further blocks. That's why I think that the requirement of 3 blocks before indef is still fair. Maybe he has some plans for better. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: DS has not contributed to any WP:SPI since his return, and last SPI contribution goes back to November 2014,[38] but given that sockpuppetry is on a rise, I think that we should wait for his statement. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 04:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Fut.perf: I have notified him.[39] OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Glrx

Uninvolved but have commented on DS at AE and ANI.

ARBIPA. Still reading/digesting diffs, Female infanticide in India, and GA review. Absolute population sex deltas in FiiI (25, 35, 50 million) are very troubling; saying infanticide is underreported (male+female infanticde is 111 per year) gives implication of 50 million female infanticides. Article on India's population, Demographics of India#Neonatal and infant demographics, gives more neutral view and states, "These [female infantcide] claims are controversial. Scientists who study human sex ratios and demographic trends suggest that birth sex ratio between 1.08 to 1.12 can be because of natural factors, such as the age of mother at baby's birth, age of father at baby's birth, number of babies per couple, economic stress, endocrinological factors, etc." Compare also Female foeticide in India. The FiiI article could have a much better PoV, but I don't believe DS is the one to bring it. The interaction between DS and FPaS clouds many issues (see Kingsindian), DS has some traction (OR for sex deltas on years rather than sources), but I continue to get the sense that DS edit wars without understanding the underlying issues (see, for example, Talk:Female infanticide in India#Why do you keep edit warring OR into this article? where infanticide not related to sex is not addressed). As I understand it, the article was an exception to the TBAN. I'd remove the ARBIPA exception because the GA failed, DS did not significantly improve the article, and DS said he would no longer edit the article.

I read clause 3 as applying only to civility blocks. The grant allows DS to be rude three more times, but it is not a license for (slow) edit warring or going against consensus. Three days may be light given the history, but the block length under clause 3 is not an issue for me. There can be an advantage to starting with a short duration: 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, and done would keep the civility issue current.

There are significant problems with DS's editing: neutral point of view (WP:5P2), civility (WP:5P4), understanding, edit warring, and consensus building. Twenty-two blocks in 3.5 years. I'm sympathetic to an indefinite block but this venue seems wrong, and there was little interest at ANI. Glrx (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

I don't like this 'editing under restrictions' thing because it rarely works. It is relatively easy for the other side in a dispute to take the editor to AE and, given the tendency on Wikipedia is to look unfavorably toward any editor who is under arbcom sanctions, sooner or later the restricted editor ends up banned. For example, the complaint filed by AmritasyaPutra would likely have got little traction on ANI but here it resulted in an immediate block. (I also don't see why there is a civility restriction on DS when his ban was for socking. Ideally, the only restriction that should have been placed on DS is "one sock and you're out". And, as OccultZone points out, DS has been a consistently good sock finder but is barred from filing SPIs. Go figure that one!) There is also the history between FPAS (who, imo, in every non-DS matter is an excellent admin) and DS that colors any interaction between the two and I suggest not giving excessive weight to FPAS's opinions about DS.

As Girx identifies, there are significant problems with DS's editing, which doesn't fit the mould of polite non-commitalness that we're constructing through various arbcom rulings. But, this tendency to be draconian toward anyone who doesn't fit the mould comes with a cost and particularly impacts editors like DS who take (as Girx identifies) a 'blitzkrieg' approach toward editing. An approach that involves throwing a lot of stuff at an article and then fighting anyone who tries to clean it up. On the face of it, this sort of editing is troubling but, from a larger perspective (the 'forest' so to speak), it is actually quite good for the encyclopedia, particularly if it does not come from a single well-defined POV (and, while he may push certain views in specific articles, it is hard to identify DS with any agenda). We get a lot of material on subjects that are only peripherally covered, if at all, in other encyclopedias and we have something to prune and refine and shape into something encyclopedic. Unfortunately, when we toss these sort of editors out of Wikipedia, we end up tossing out the baby as well. Meanwhile we are left with the polite POV pushers who collect enough fringe sources to make their material look mainstream and, because they are polite and do not attract block ready admins, they are very hard to combat. (I know, none of this is appropriate here. But it seems to me that we're continually fighting the wrong battles on Wikipedia!--regentspark (comment) 17:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The latest report by FPAS and the comment by User:Heimstern exactly illustrates my point above. DS reverts FPAS once. FPAS comes running to AE. and Heimstern says "edit warring - let's indef block". This wouldn't even merit a blink in the normal course of editing. At least for content focused editors (as opposed to wikispace focused editors). --regentspark (comment) 12:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc:. Reviewing the sequence I can see that your block was actually independent of the AE report so I stand corrected on that point (and, under the conditions laid down, is probably a warranted block). But, the larger point is still valid. Most of what DS has done would not be sanctionable (or even worth examining) in the normal course of editing (particularly FPAS's last report). --regentspark (comment) 13:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

I am with RegentsPark on this. A big part of the problem here is FPaS, who seems to be stalking DS, and other people are piling-on for what are often very minor things. The Heimstern example given is a classic: I wouldn't have survived 5000 edits if that was applied to me. Content creation is a world that too many policers do not understand and if someone was stalking me as FPaS has for a long time been stalking DS, I would react very similarly to DS. In situations such as this, the stalker has the advantage because we all makes mistakes in content from time to time but the stalker only has to find one to push the button. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Darkness Shines

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Was already in the process of blocking for this edit when I saw a note on their talk page about this. Blocked for three days per item 3 of BASC unblock conditions. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I originally closed this however I've been asked to reopen it on my talk page. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Surely Callanecc's 3-day block is the minimum that should be considered. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, do you want to propose an alternate duration? Based on on what you have said, I assume you must be thinking of a month or more. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've now read some past discussions and have reviewed Darkness Shines' block log. Between November 2014 and March 2015 DS was under an indef block. On March 26 the BASC accepted an appeal under a set of conditions that he has now violated. (More details were in the April 26 ANI). I recommend that the indef block be restored. Short blocks (say from 1 day to one month) usually are issued in the hope that the editor will take note and return to editing with a different approach. It seems to me that short blocks have no power to motivate DS one way or the other. Either we accept his presence, and put up with the constant stream of problems that seem to follow him inevitably, or issue an indef block. After 30 blocks and the failure of the last reprieve it appears that the time has come for an indef. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
      • The unblock conditions said after 4 offenses the block becomes indef so he gets a few chances (I wouldn't have had it that way but it's not m call). We could impose three blocks with long durations, however my approach would be (and is) that instead we impose three blocks (no more than 1-3 months) in the hope that they'll get the point if they don't then it's indef with appeal to BASC. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
        • My reading of the unblock conditions would be that the four blocks rule is a floor, not a ceiling. That is, if DS makes an edit judged to be grossly uncivil or a personal attack, he is definitely going to be block, and a fourth instance of such will definitely result in an indefinite block. I don't read it as prohibiting harsher sanctions if the need arises. Since this request shows a pattern, rather than a single instance, I wouldn't read Ed's proposal as out of accordance with the unblock conditions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
          • As one of the drafters of those restrictions, my personal view is that they apply to blocks for incivility/personal attacks only - a second block for such must be longer than the first, a third longer than the second, and a fourth indefinite. They do not specify the starting duration, other than it may not be indefinite, nor do to they preclude blocks (of any length or number) for reasons other than incivility, should the community feel that justified. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
            • So, everyone, do we have any sort of consensus here about what should happen? I'm tending toward Ed's view of reimposing the indef block based not so much on DS's incivility as his slow edit warring as shown by FutPerf. Alternatively, I would favour a lengthy block, at least a month, plus seeking consensus for the topic ban exemption to be rescinded. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
              • I also agree with Ed that restoring the indef is appropriate. We should also remove the topic ban exemptions. T. Canens (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
                • With the case DS's return to edit warring, I believe the case for restoring the indef is now solid. @EdJohnston:, @Callanecc:, do you have anything to add at this point? If not, I plan to go ahead with the indef. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
                  • I still don't think an indef is necessary. I'd rather (re?-)ban them from ARBEE, and remove the ARBIPA exemption for Female Infanticide in India. Plus possibly also looks into other sanctions (such as 0RR or 1RR (per 7 days maybe)) as I agree that they are still a useful contributor they just have problems working with others. I'd like to hear from Darkness Shines though - perhaps if it was a binding, through blocks, voluntary restriction to get a consensus before reverting (except for WP:BANEX). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm open to removing the exemption/s to the TBAN but I can only (unilaterally) remove the SPI exemption the exemption for Female infanticide in India needs to be removed by consensus if we want to go down that route. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @RegentsPark: Darkness can report socks, that's one of the exemptions I gave them to the TBAN I imposed and I don't see that there is a need to remove it. I disagree that if taken to AN or ANI it wouldn't have resulted in sanctions, I would have blocked for personal attacks whether the restriction was there or not. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting to keep this from being archived without a close. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Gamergate hatting thing has blown up again

Hell in a Bucket

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Hell in a Bucket

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 09:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
ANI discussion Lightbreather and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other, broadly construed. :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 23 May 2015 Edit warring on prohibited page (Lightbreather's talk page)
  2. 23 May 2015 Edit warring on prohibited page (Lightbreather's talk page)
  3. 23 May 2015 Prohibited interaction
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Hell in a Bucket

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

Well I figured this might happen, perhaps if the illustrious User:Hawkeye7 had been more on top of his game he would've reverted it. It was indeed a violation of the Iban. I waited a couple of minutes and when no one was reverting it I decided the right thing to do was to remove it. As Sitush mentions there is some very serious accusations being thrown about editors off wiki. At least one person has been victimized and it's possible both mentioned in the post were. The allegations are something that could have effect in real life and there has been threats made to make it happen. I certainly will not violate the ban under ordinary circumstances but I thought that this was worth an exception and if not I'll take the block. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

C'mon! HiaB was removing very insulting/disruptive posts by anons. This has been spreading from off-wiki harassment of a very nasty nature and while maybe they could have left it to someone who was not IBANNED, the sooner it went, the better. You'll note that the stuff (which I saw in some cases) got revdeleted. You've been waiting to pounce, Hawkeye, but this is not the moment to choose. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by OccultZone

Even if the editor in question is I-banned or T-banned, it is still one of the usual standard to revert socks or harmful speech, like Fut. Perf mentions. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hell in a Bucket

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Obviously frivolous request. HiaB was reverting edits by some IP sock troll that were subsequently fully oversighted as severe BLP violations. I don't know what those edits were, but given the oversighting I assume they were of such seriously harmful nature that their removal must have been justified under WP:BANEX. I don't know, nor really want to know, if those IP edits were attacks against Lightbreather or against HiaB himself, or against some third party, but I don't think it matters either way. Fut.Perf. 10:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)