Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs)
11,178 edits
AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs)
11,178 edits
Line 629: Line 629:


====Responses====
====Responses====
I would like to point out to QG that this is to amend the case, as such the time frame should be prior to the case closing, not after. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 21:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


=== Statement by QuackGuru ===
=== Statement by QuackGuru ===

Revision as of 21:13, 21 November 2015

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough none (orig. case) 8 October 2015
Clarification request: Privatemusings none (orig. case) 8 October 2015
Amendment request: Lightbreather none (orig. case) 27 October 2015
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles none (orig. case) 8 November 2015
Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) none (orig. case) 9 November 2015
Amendment request: Editor conduct in e-cigs articles none (orig. case) 17 November 2015
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (2) none (orig. case) 18 November 2015
Amendment request: Topic ban appeal none none 21 November 2015

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 12:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 2
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Terminate the remedy

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

In a case brought against me some three and a half years ago, it was found that certain community norms had been broken by me, specifically WP:BOTPOL, WP:5P4 and WP:ARBRFUAT.

I note that in the intervening period I have complied with WP:BOTPOL, been civil and collegial with other editors, and been responsive to other editors concerns, as anyone active in the community will know.

In particular I have continued to work at WP:TEAHOUSE, welcome new users, attempted to smooth ruffled feathers at WP:GGTF, mainly by focussing discussion on substantive issues, provided assistance to other editors both on and off-wiki (a list could be made available if desired). I have continued to work on other wikis with no issues.

I also continue to perform work high community trust, on protected templates, but more importantly on edit filters where, together with others (notably Dragons flight) I have overhauled almost every filter to ensure that the whole system continues to work (it was failing) and new filters can be implemented.

Moreover not only have I been policy compliant, collegial and responsive, I have every intention of continuing indefinitely to be so.

For these reasons I request the Arbitration Committee to terminate remedy 2.

Addenda:

Please note that I am eligible to request termination of this sanction from 15 January 2013. The sanction, qua sanction, is continuing to impact my good name in the community, notably impeding my recent RfA, and so the time has come to remove it.

Please also note that I have suggested a more nuanced approach to complete termination in the past, which has been dismissed by various committee members, with rather unflattering characterisations.

Responses

Thryduulf@ I would certainly consider you views valuable. I have met with other members of the committee at various wiki-functions. Whether to recuse must be your decision. I would not find fault either way. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thryduulf@ "editor's future employment prospects" maybe; however they can and maybe should consider the effect on the project - especially if the reasons for maintaining the restriction aren't particularly cogent.
"All automated tasks paused or blocked until..." You may be aware that I offered this as part of a solution in the workshop. (I was under the illusion that a workshop was for co-operating to find a way forward.) And I believe that SmackBot was the only major bot that allowed anyone (including IPs) to stop it - a facility I intended to reintroduce for Helpful Pixie Bot.
Hotcat: really I would doubt that I would use it more than a few times a week at most.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Clarification - I am not looking to any of the half-dozen tools I mention to perform masses of edits. I am probably one of the slowest Huggle users there is - because I tend to look in more depth at anything that could possibly be good-faith. It's simply that these tools are all useful, and most of them can be used by every Wikipdia editor except me. Certainly even an IP is allowed to prepare a table in Libre Office and paste the result on-wiki.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Guerillero@ You must have a reason for saying that, do you mind if I ask what it is?

Gorilla Warfare@ It's hard to be specific. Indeed I have very little time to put into large scale projects. But even simple things like:

  1. This list I created on Meta today are forbidden on en:WP.
  2. User:WereSpielChequers has a number of lists that need updating.
  3. There is a lot of work with WP:Women in Red that needs doing.
  4. User:Carrite was looking for better information on editor activity, which I have acquired the data for, but not started coding, partly because I would not be allowed to upload the results.
  5. The correction of the User:Jagged 85 issues has ground to a halt, partly because I had to load my diagnostics onto Meta
  6. It would be nice to be able to use Twinkle, Reflinks and Hotcat
  7. I might even do some anti-vandal work with Huggle or STiki

But the main point is the stigma. This affects not just my standing in the community, but my ability to volunteer for certain roles on-wiki, and even my eligibility for employment off-wiki.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Seraphimblade@ What lead up to it? A lot of things, that I can address here (or elsewhere) if you wish. However what I prefer to address specifically is the negative "findings of fact" which are putatively the committee's take on "what lead up to it." For example one suggested that I was "not responsive". I do not here challenge that claim, I simply point out that since that date I have been responsive. Similarly I have not infringed on BOTPOL. And I doubt anyone could challenge that I have been collegial - indeed my main thrust on the non-content part of Wikipedia has to be to encourage people to work together - and civil. Indeed I have had two complaints about being too civil.

Moreover I can state categorically that I have every intention of continuing to be collegial, civil, responsive and policy compliant.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
(Currently watching WikiConference USA live.)

Corcelles@ Your response does not provide any useful feedback. I have explicitly invited feedback from Arbitrators on several occasions over the years, which has given you plenty of opportunity to discuss any issues you think remain unresolved. If, of course, you believe that I am an unredeemable case, then no feedback is to be expected, as it would be a waste of your valuable time. Otherwise a more detailed response would be useful.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

AGK@ I am surprised you are not recusing yourself here All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Native Foreigner@ I am always interested in any wisdom about my actions. I reiterate the invitation to share or discuss them, here, on my talk page, by email, by phone/Skype or in person which I made some considerable time ago.

As to looking into the case, I'm afraid it's a bit of a mammoth, but I find the weakness of the supporting evidence to the findings, and particularly the need to go back additional years quite telling. To take one example, I am under sanctions now, partly for making edits in 2010, which someone has deemed were "too fast" to comply with BOTPOL. And yet there is nothing in BOTPOL of 10 November 2010 about any limitation on assisted editing speed. (Later versions specifically exclude speed alone as being an issue.) And the speed wasn't excessive - most editors who do administrative work will have had bursts of comparable speed - for example you edited at 10 edits per minute on 17 July. According to the 2012 committee you should have submitted a BRFA authorisation for that.

Now this is just one part of one finding, and it took quite some research to check the BOTPOL pages for the appropriate dates, check the evidence, come up with a comparator. It is also a nominally objective piece of evidence and a nominally objective policy. For subjective matters like being "civil" and "responsive" the amount of work required to construct a good refutation is much higher. I therefore requested the committee allow me 14 days to put together a response to the proposed findings. This was refused and I never got to defend myself from the very surprising proposed decision, and have been working on-and-off to deal with the problems it has caused ever since.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

DGG@ Perhaps you would like to give an example? We have a lot of tools in our kit-bag to deal with problems, making them mostly trivial to resolve. There are no negative findings about any automated edits. Indeed finding WP:ARB RF EX EX EX states:

He has extensive experience with and expertise in the use of automation...

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Salvio giuliano@ Thank you for your positive response. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Doug Weller@ Thanks for your thoughtful response. It might be of interest to know that I offered to work with a similar halting system during the workshop phase of the case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

DeltaQuad@ Thanks for your response, it's good to see another positive outlook. It's not really out of the blue I have suggested such steps as most arbs now seem to endorse several times over the years. In fact I emailed this request to the Committee over two months ago, so there was plenty of advance warning!

So perhaps it's time for a motion? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Carrite

I'm not sure what exactly would prevent Rich from parsing a large data set and posting his results, which he mentions above with regards to analysis of WMF data to draw inferences about the editing population. If anything stands in the way of this, it needs to be set aside, at a minimum. As for the rest, once again ArbCom is looking more than a little stubborn and vindictive here in not allowing RF some sort of path back to full functionality as an editor. Drop his restrictions and restore them by motion if he resumes negative behavior, it seems obvious. I'm very frustrated with the current committee's lack of faith or willingness to take minor risks for the greater good of the project. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WereSpielChequers

I can see that Arbcom might see an opportunity here merely to clarify the original excessive limitations and allow Rich to use hotcat and reflinks and to generate reports in his own userspace or ideally Wikipedia space. But really the time for such a clarification was three and a half years ago, surely by now it is time to simply lift that sanction.


As Rich mentioned he has produced some very useful lists Wikipedia:Articles with UK Geocodes but without images being my favourite example. Along with a couple of other editors I've been testing image adding as an exercise for new editors, and we reckon we are ready, we just need this sanction lifted so we can get the report regularly refreshed instead of telling newbies to remove items from the list.

With the loss of toolserver and the problems at labs we have lost many regular reports. Including three areas I've started or been involved in such as Death Anomalies - which would be the next one I'd ask Rich to consider adopting. The lack of these reports is incredibly frustrating, and seriously holds the project back. You have an opportunity to reduce that problem by lifting or at least reducing the restrictions on Rich. ϢereSpielChequers 09:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fæ

It is time to move on, and let the Community of Wikipedians take over, rather than Arbcom never letting go and in the process throwing away the Committee's valuable time, which ought to be invested on real risks and divisive harmful issues within the community.

There is no risk whatsoever to Wikimedia projects if all sanctions are now lifted. This long ago became a incomprehensible and bureaucratic punishment, rather than a sanction that can be claimed to be done to "protect the community", or Rich for that matter.

If members of Arbcom wish to advise the Wikipedia community, they might validly suggest a voluntary restriction like 10 pages per minute. I have no doubt that Rich would subscribe to these suggestions and make a case with the community when he is ready to relax them further. There are plenty of highly active Wikimedians that will help Rich out with advice and reviews of his edits, should they introduce any issues with articles or templates.

Everyone writing here knows that Rich is a valuable contributor who has rare talents to offer our shared mission and he should be supported, encouraged and praised for his astonishing commitment, rare skills and patience during this years long case.

I haven't talked in person to Rich since last year. However we have had several chats about the future of the projects, chapters and the Foundation over the years. Back in 2012 I interviewed him about his experience with Arbcom, this remains unpublished. I expected to write it up once his Arbcom sanctions ended, as I did not want an interview which examined the experience and emotional impact that long punitive cases like this have, to influence the case or later appeals. We had no idea that this would be eating up our time and stopping Rich from contributing in 2015. --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IJBall

After three and a half years, it's time to just lift these sanctions. I don't think leaving them in place in any way serves the interest of the project. I doubt very much that Rich is suddenly going to go off into 'La La Land' if these restrictions are lifted. It's time to AGF here and move on. Also, it is reasonable to assume that leaving these sanctions in place will make it impossible for Rich to advance at RfA and be resysopped – thus leaving sanction in place almost seems punitive at this point. Anyway, that's my $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jenks24

Adding my support for the sanction to be lifted. Others have said it more eloquently above so I won't try and rehash it. Plus, if I'm honest, I'm still pretty annoyed about the original decision and I'm not sure if writing a few paragraphs criticising the committee would help Rich's case here. Suffice it to say, I think they made the wrong call then and it looks even more wrong three years down the track. Please do the right thing and extend Rich some good faith. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil

While intuition and gut feeling about something might be legitimate on Wikipedia; in an Arbitration case and with the arbs as with the rest of the community those feelings must be supported by specific diffs of actions which clearly indicate a user cannot be trusted or has not functioned appropriately under a restriction. 31/2 years is along time, and I don't see any specific diffs from that time period pointing to poor editing behaviour or to behaviours which would indicate a restriction is necessary. Arbitrators are held to the same standards we all are and should support allegations with substantive proof for their positions. Arbitrators are not judges or juries; they are the neutral third party in disputes. Here the parties. the members of the community who have concerns and Rich have spoken so the arbs then, given the definitions of their role must indicate why this is not sufficient to undue a restrictions. In my opinion assuming a position on 3 1/2 years of editing with out anything specific or substantive to support that position is unfair and punitive neither which are appropriate.

  • Per Thryduulf:

The community is the encyclopedia. They, community and encyclopedia, as I think you are implying are not mutually exclusive except in some instances. Your comment brought up for me an conern I have when I see the statement, "this is an encyclpedia first." It is not an encyclpedia first, it is first a collaboratibe project the goal of which is to create an encyclopedia. Unless the individuals are treated fairly the communithy will eventually collapse and so of course will the encyclopedia. I have great respect for Thryduulf's consistent, deeply thoughtful comments. Thank you. :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)) Statement by {other-editor}[reply]

Statement by Sladen

Some of Rich statements are extremely encouraging: "one suggested that I was "not responsive". I do not here challenge that claim, I simply point out that since that date I have been responsive." and reassuring: "I am not looking to any of the half-dozen tools I mention to perform masses of edits.". These are countered by argumentation: "There are no negative findings about any automated edits."—Findings of fact are hopefully neutral; and rationale that are not obviously for the benefit of the encyclopedia: "eligibility for employment off-wiki" and "notably impeding my recent RfA".

The block has had a positive effect on Rich's contributions and it is extremely pleasing that Rich has built a new niche after the boundaries were made clear—but editors have long memories of the (past) unparalleled disruption caused by self-invented-up AWB tasks, so it's unlikely to be able to find a route that's going to please everyone the first time around. We can see the clearly divided opinions, so something down the middle is probably the least unpalatable to all.

It is extremely easy to simply say "no", but perhaps Doug et al's suggestions of limited parole in own User space and performing tasks requested by others (ie. not dreamt-up) in non-article space, are a plausible solution. For the proponents this gives Rich Farmbrough a chance to prove himself, and for the doubters this can be seen as WP:ROPE. Enforcement likely needs to stay at WP:AE with incrementing draconian blocks, because this is the only remedy has worked effectively in effecting behavioural change, with everything else has resulted in endless discussion ("dramaz"). For AE to be effective any new boundaries require equally clear-cut edges so that evaluation can be quantifiable and enforcement can be emotionless—Rich should know where the edges are without the need to feel or push.

Yes, I have [past tense] been massively inconvenienced by Rich + bots for several years, half-a-decade ago. I've been watching this and I'm even willing to argue for some level of rehabilitation. Even I'm amazed by that. Support has its limits through; and I would invite Rich to make a clear statement about whether he wishes to go the bot route (here) or the admin route (RfA)—I don't think any combination of trying to do both is either tenable or feasible. Such an undertaking might well be sufficient for even the most resolute doubters to come around. —Sladen (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wbm1058

The only lingering damage from Rich's automated editing that I'm aware of is that which is part of the history-merge backlog. It's unfortunately a catch-22 that Rich can't repair these without the admin tools. Can anyone with a long memory identify any other issues caused by Rich's automated edits which have not yet been repaired? If yes, I'd ask him to fix those first before granting this request. If no, then I agree that by now it is time to simply lift the sanction. "Probation" can simply be requiring him to promptly fix any damage he creates, and to make limited "trial runs" of any new major repetitive automated edits, then stop and wait to ensure that there is no negative reaction to it, so that if there is, the repair of such damage will not be exceedingly difficult or time-consuming. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, Fram's statement below is just devastating. I couldn't bring myself to read through to the end of their critique on your Arbcom candidate page, after I saw this. The timing of this is particularly bad, given the recent bad publicity caused by the revelation of mass-redirect creation by another editor (who named himself after a Star Trek character). Unfortunately, as you can only tag these for deletion, others will need to clean up this mess. I'm sorry, but after seeing this, I cannot support any relaxation of restrictions beyond allowing you to make automated edits in your own userspace, where others can make QA checks before moving your work to another namespace. It's sad to see such talent going to waste – User:Rich Farmbrough/Redirect tool seems very clever, with its core and inner core. I wish that talent could be channeled to more productive uses. You need to stop focusing on quantity and pay more attention to details to achieve more quality edits. I know this won't be easy for you, but please try (I perhaps have the opposite problem: in the past I've taken heat for missing project deadlines, and didn't like to consider a coding project finished until it was bug-free and perfect). Wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

It's been over 3 years now. IMHO, the restriction should be repealed & Rich given a chance to prove himself. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deryck

Rich's sanctions were made 3.5 years ago. They were criticized as ill-defined back then, and 3.5 years on they are more ill-defined than they were, because Wikipedia editing tools have moved on. I would like to see the sanction lifted altogether, but I understand the "risk" that our honorable Arbitrators think they're taking on this manner. Even so, I think Remedy 2 desperately needs to be rewritten in a way that is tool-independent and objectively enforceable - "any edits that reasonably appear to be automated" has never been properly enforceable and has generated so much adverse wiki-lawyering over the years. As a compromise, I propose limiting the scope of Rich's sanctions to reader-facing namespaces only (article, template, category, portal; excluding all talk pages); and redefining the sanction in terms of edit rate, e.g. max 1 edit per minute, or 200 edits per 24 hours. Deryck C. 22:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MichaelMaggs

You can tell when a sanction has become punitive rather than protective in the mind of an arbitrator when the response to an amendment request is simply "no". That's it. No reasons, no discussion, apparently no consideration. This sanction should be lifted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fram

I have added a question at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Rich Farmbrough/Questions#Question from User:Fram which contains some information relevant to this amendment request, particularly the part about the User:Rich Farmbrough/Redirect tool (an automatic redirect creator made between June and August 2015) and the apparent test runs of it in the mainspace, resulting in huge numbers of often useless (newly invented) redirects. Fram (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Rich Farmbrough: Clerk notes

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

Rich Farmbrough: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm considering whether to recuse on this, given extensive interaction with Rich IRL at wikimeets and the like. Rich, if you have a strong opinion either way let me know and I'll respect that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have decided I do not need to recuse here. I do not think that an editor's future employment prospects are something that we can consider (cf Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Motion Carried re images of sexuality in ancient and medieval times) as our remit is to act in the interests of the encyclopaedia and the wider project rather than the interests of individual editors (where these are mutually exclusive). In contrast perhaps to previous committees I'm tempted to allow a modification to the restriction. As an initial proposal for discussion I would suggest allowing:
      1. the manual use of WP:HOTCAT at a rate not exceeding a rate of 10 pages edited using hotcat in any 60 minute period. Your hotcat edits should not exceed 50% of your total article namespace edits in any 24 hour period.
      2. the use of automated tools to generate project-space or userspace lists and to maintain those lists if necessary, where these have been asked for by other Wikimedians and have permission granted at WP:BOTREQ.
      These would all be subject to the requirement that in the event of any complaints or queries raised about your automated edits by another editor, all automated tasks must be paused or halted at least until the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, or to the satisfaction of an uninvolved administrator if agreement cannot be reached.
    I would not, at this stage, be inclined to allow the use of any automated tools that make any edits to content namespaces (other than hotcat). I do not think that these would lead to the problems that lead to these restrictions in the first place, but would allow Rich to demonstrate he can use automation responsibly. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rich Farmbrough: I intend to try and move this request forward and get an actual outcome, however the Eric Corbett, Lightbreather and Gender gap issues have rather stolen the Committee's time at present so I can't say exactly when that will be. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC) resigning to fix the ping Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not inclined to remove this sanction --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rich Farmbrough: What kind of bot-assisted edits would you intend to make, should this sanction be removed? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rich Farmbrough: What do you understand as the issues that led up to the sanction being placed, and what steps would you take to prevent similar situations from occurring again? Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I could support a relaxation of the restriction, as I do see the point that Rich's overall style of interaction really has improved. I think I'd want to see how that works out before supporting a parole leading toward eventual lifting. I think the restrictions to non-mainspace for automated tasks are wise, at least initially, and certainly only to preapproved tasks (and any tests necessary prior to approval). For semiautomation, like Huggle and the like, I think we could allow normal use of that, provided that such tools are not used for any unsupervised, fully automated editing in mainspace and Rich is in fact pressing the button for each such edit. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not support removing or loosening this sanction. Courcelles (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too would not allow this request. AGK [•] 09:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have serious concerns about lifting such sanctions. That being said I do somewhat concur with the view that occasionally risks must be taken. The action which Rich took were indubitably problematic and I think to some degree he may not fully understand what was problematic about them. I feel, personally, like it may not be prudent. However, we're quite far down the line and to take a risk (or even to do something as minor as allowing bot edits in non content workspaces so long as the bot is reviewed, or perhaps implementing a somewhat more strict mentor or approval process). As my term continues I am growing less and less enthusiastic with the notion of grand packages of restrictions to allow problem editors to stay, although this is primarily within the realm of civility. Nonetheless I think this needs discussion past the point of "I have issues trusting this individual." Don't get me wrong, I have concerns about lifting the restriction myself, but it's been 3+ years and some of the originally identified poor behaviors seem to have changed for the better. The general community support for removing them also bears considering. The individual certainly seems to have more trust with the community than with the members of arbcom, and why exactly this is I am not sure, but it has convinced me I should look more into the case to see if I am missing anything from either side. NativeForeigner Talk 17:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, I support a parole; alternatively, if there is no consensus for that, I also support a relaxation of the restriction. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support gradual relaxation, with the first stage his own userspace and talkpage, work on User:Jagged 85 if that doesn't involved directly editing articles, and specific requests from users such as User:WereSpielChequers to do non-article space work (which other editors could then move into article spaceif required). Where appropriate obviously he'd need permission granted at WP:BOTREQ. I don't see any particular risks in such a relaxation and it appears that other editors and indeed the project could benefit from it. I'd include Thryduulf's requirement that "These would all be subject to the requirement that in the event of any complaints or queries raised about your automated edits by another editor, all automated tasks must be paused or halted at least until the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, or to the satisfaction of an uninvolved administrator if agreement cannot be reached." Rich should be given a chance to show that he can use his skills responsibly. Doug Weller (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see completely dropping this measure out of the blue, though I do see the community that wishes we'd move on. So that said, a gradual relaxation or something of the sort of things mentioned above is definitely in order. I would start with the userspace first and see where that goes though. I'll ponder some thoughts over the next steps. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support lifting the restriction entirely without prejudice to reimposing it via a successful ARCA request or similar, if problems recur. I've read through the original case and would have voted the same way as the majority In imposing the restriction in the first place. But three years later, am willing to AGF and see how it goes. For avoidance of doubt, also support any gradual lifting of the restriction as proposed above, if these seem likely to get a majority of supports here. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification request: Privatemusings

Initiated by CypherPunkyBrewster at 15:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Privatemusings arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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 CypherPunkyBrewster

Note: This is a legitimate alternative account. I will be happy to reveal my main account to arbcom on request.

In the 2007 Privatemusings case, (Final decision --> Principles --> Sockpuppetry) the following language was used:

"Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates."

This is referenced by Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts --> Editing project space) with the language

"Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project."

I created this account after the gamergate arbcom case. In that case, I did not comment on that case using my main account because so many people who have expressed an opinion on gamergate have received real-world harassment off-wiki. I was hoping to use this account if that ever happened again (and, of course, only in cases where I was unambiguously uninvolved.)

Q1: In cases where I have had no prior interactions with anyone named in an arbcom case and had never edited the pages being discussed is using my alternate account to make a statement in an arbcom case a legitimate use of an alternate account?

Q2: Same question, but for ANI, RS noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard, AIAV, COI noticeboard, etc.

Q3: What, exactly, are undisclosed alternative accounts? Is this account "disclosed" by way of my disclosing that it is an alternative account, or do I have to name my main account?

Q4: What, exactly are "discussions internal to the project" and/or "edits to project space"? Are we talking about namespaces here, and if so, which ones?

Basically, I just want clear guidelines on what I can and can not do using this alternative account. I am not disputing any policies or decisions; I just want to know how to follow them.

  • To User:JzG, who wrote "CypherPunkyBrewster is an account apparently created to advance the cause of climate change denial": You are wrong, and you are failing to assume good faith. This alternate account was created in order to edit articles and participate in discussions related to those articles where there is a significant chance of being branded as pro-gamergate, anti-gamergate, global warming denialist, global warming alarmist, pinko liberal, tea-party conservative, or even swivel-eyed loon. I am well aware of the discretionary sanctions associated with American Politics and Climate Change. I do not believe that I have violated the DS using this account, and I have completely stayed away from climate change on my main account for obvious reasons. If you think that I have violated the DS, feel free to report me at AE (I have no problem with identifying my main account to arbcom and asking them to publicly confirm no global warming involvement.)
  • To User:Rich Farmbrough, who wrote "Of course that is a matter for the community, not the committee, though their comments would undoubtedly have some weight", because the 2007 Privatemusings case is cited at the sock puppetry page, I strongly suspect that any attempt to start a community discussion on this topic would quickly devolve into multiple comments telling me to go to arbcom, so I did that first. Also, depending on how one answers my questions above, I could very well be forbidden from starting a community discussion on this topic. It would be, after all, a "discussions internal to the project". CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To User:Seraphimblade (regarding the entire comment), That makes perfect sense to me, and I will have no problem following the clarification you posted. Thanks! On reflection, I see the wisdom of using the alternate account only for article editing and dispute resolution directly related to those articles. I will stay away from discussions of project policy, requesting sanctions against other editors, or general participation in dispute resolution or audited content processes when not related to articles I am working on with my alternate account. And of course I already knew that the main and alternate account must keep strictly clear of editing in the same area, and all the other "don't do that"s listed in the sock puppetry policy. I will note that I made one edit that I now know was not allowed.[1] I apologize for that and assure you that it will not happen again. Again, thanks for the clear explanation. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Salvio giuliano, If another case like gamergate ever hits arbcom, I would like to comment as an uninvolved editor (revealing my main account to arbcom so you can verify that I am not involved), but not if it means revealing my real-world identity. Some of those involved in gamergate have done some nasty real-world harassment against those who disagree with them. Let me know if you think a majority of arbcom agrees with you and I will post an RfC at the sock puppet page. I have never made a gamergate edit using either account, but assuming that I had edited gamergate using my alternate account, as I understand it it would be OK for someone to name me as being involved, followed by my revealing my main account to arbcom so you can confirm that the main account has never edited gamergate. So let's say that happens and I end up being blocked (not likely, BTW; my main account is over five years old with over 10,000 edits and no blocks or editing restrictions and I don't intent to abuse this one either). It would seem reasonable in that case to block both accounts, but how to do that without revealing my real-world identity? In my particular case I know the rules about block evasion and would cease editing using my main account until the block was lifted on my alternate account, but I doubt that this would be a good solution for the more aggressive editors who end up at arbcom. So how do we handle that situation? --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To GorillaWarfare, is it even allowed for an alternate account like mine to make a clean start while the main account stays the same? I kind of assumed that that wouldn't be allowed. Unrelated question; I do want to give people confidence that I am not violating our sock puppet rules, so if I put a notice on my user page saying that any and all checkusers can look at my account for any reason, would that override the usual checkuser restrictions? Is there any way my waiving my privacy in that way could compromise the privacy of someone else? CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related question: Again just asking about what this particular arbcom decision does and does not allow, and of course assuming that the other legitimate sock puppet restrictions are obeyed, is an alternate account allowed to ask questions at the teahouse, reference desk, or help desk? I think that we have already established that this is allowed if in support of an article the alt account is working on, but how about generally? Some questions might be of a personal nature. How about answering questions posted by others? I saw a recent rrefdesk question where one of the answers mentioned that the person answering was transgender. That might not be something you want to be published on the internet about yourself. --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I urge the committee not to accept any requests from this account until there is a public declaration of the editor's primary account. BMK (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Guy's comment below, I concur that CPB's edits do indeed seem to be pushing that agenda. I have asked CPB on their talk page to reveal what account they are an alternate of, but if he or she refuses or ignores the request, I strongly urge the committee not to proceed without CPB revealing to the committee what that account is, and an evaluation being made to see if any aspect of WP:SOCK is being violated. Alternate accounts may not be used to avoid scrutiny, and the climate change area is certainly one in which there has been a significant amount of sockpuppety and other disruptions. BMK (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed a Climate Change Discretionary Sanctions notice on CPB's talk page. BMK (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So on his talk page - as well as personally attacking me and my motivations - CPB says that he wants to use this account to edit contentious subjects, such as Gamergate, Climate Change, and American Politics. But there is a standard in place for editing Gamergate - since we don't know who CPB is, how is that standard of time/edits to be applied? Certainly the CPB account wouldn't qualify.

In any case, from CPB's description on the talk page, it appears to me that what he wants is a "get out of jail free" card, where his "legitimate" alternate account can raise hell in contentious and disputatious subject areas, and his primary account can merrily edit without suffering any consequences, or scrutiny from other editors. BMK (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since anything the Arbitrators say here is simply advisory in nature, and since CypherPunkyBrewster has outed his other identity ([2]), perhaps this ought to be closed. BMK (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NE Ent: Blocks are for people, not for accounts. BMK (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note for the record that admin Swarm has rev del'd or oversighted the self-identification I referred to above, I'm not sure under what theory. BMK (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also note that the AN/I thread which Guy Macon opened about this issue has been moved by Swarm [3] to Archive 901, and then was rev del'd or oversighted from that archive by him [4]. BMK (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: There is no reason to "rejoice in one's own cleverness" when the master account discloses their identity and then attempts to deny it, instead of simply standing mute. Seeing hyprocrisy such as that brings joy to nobody. BMK (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Rich Farmbrough (CPB)

This has always seemed to me an invidious limitation of legitimate socks. If someone wants (for whatever reason) to use different accounts for different subject areas, then to suggest that those accounts be banned from "project space" discussion is not useful. Certainly crossover should be minimised. I have always imagined that this was an unintentional broadening of the proscription regarding creation of false impressions of support.

Of course that is a matter for the community, not the committee, though their comments would undoubtedly have some weight.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Addendum

This is a clarification request about:

  1. A previous ruling
  2. Opinion on policy

Clearly if it constituted trolling and was also deemed not useful, then the Committee would be very likely to speedy close it one way or another - and in the very unlikely event that the trolling nature was obscure, posting evidence to that effect would be legitimate.

However this seems a perfectly good faith question - and the fact that there is difference of opinion, and legitimate hemming and hawing from respected editors indicates that it is one that needs to be taken seriously.

In this context neither attempted outing nor tarring the interlocutor with the brush "climate change denialist" are necessarily useful.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Salvio@ - I think NE Ent is perfectly correct. Editing while blocked is of course blockable, and generally leads to block extensions. It would certainly verge on self-outing if a block of the alternate account/extension of block resulted in people putting two and two together. Of course there would still be no need for anyone to, rejoicing in their own cleverness, comment on the identity of the main account. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by JzG

CypherPunkyBrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account apparently created to advance the cause of climate change denial. Given the arbitration cases in that are already (both American Politics and Climate change), it would seem like a really bad idea to let this alternate account edit in project space. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from NE Ent

If one account gets blocked, the editor simply doesn't use other when the block is in place. NE Ent 19:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callanecc

The way I've handled the main account blocked and alt account issue is leaving the alt account unblocked, then if it evades the block on the master's account blocking it for block evasion (without saying more) or asking another admin (a CU when it happened) to block the alt account. That way the two blocks are either separated by time, or, even better, by different blocking admins. If you wanted to block both accounts for the duration of the block the same principle applies, one admin blocks the main account and another blocks the alt account (with a different, but similar block summary). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

The editor is asking a long string of hypothetical questions. Some of them are brainteasers and not without interest. But the editor has not identified any special hardship that causes them to need relief from the sockpuppet policy. Since there is no valid grievance here there is nothing to adjudicate. My suggestion is that Arbcom should close this request with no action. Changes in policy can be proposed elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Privatemusings: Clerk notes

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

Privatemusings: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • As Rich Farmbrough says, this is a matter of the sockpuppetry/alternate accounts policy, but it was also brought up in the Privatemusings case. The idea behind it, I think, is quite clear. Some editors, if they, for example, edit articles on sexuality, politics, or other "hot button" areas, may not want those edits to be associated with their main account. Provided that the main and alternate account keep strictly clear of editing in the same area, and the alternate account isn't being used to behave badly or otherwise avoid scrutiny, that is permitted. But the alternate account is not to be used in areas outside of article editing. Article editing, in my view, would generally be composed of the article and article talk spaces, any dispute resolution processes directly related to those articles such as mediation if you're reasonably a party to such a process, and other areas directly related to article content editing such as featured article/good article/DYK candidacies related to articles edited by the alternate account. So at least in my view, it wouldn't be entirely bound to a given namespace. Rather, it is bound to a purpose, content editing. It would not, therefore, include discussions of project policy, requesting sanctions against other editors, or other such internal processes. Nor would it allow general participation in dispute resolution or audited content processes when not related to articles the alternate account is working on. The editor would need to pick a single primary account to use in such internal discussions, and use only that account for them. If you'd prefer that the primary account not be associated with such discussions, your option would be to avoid participating in them.

    For your specific hypothetical scenarios, then: In an ArbCom case, the alternate account should be used only if it is a named party. If you'd like to jump in on a case you're not a named party to, use your primary account. (If the alternate account is a named party, it would be wise to inform the Committee privately of the situation.) AN(I) and other administrative boards, generally not (though I personally wouldn't care if you reported blatant vandals to AIV with it.) Content discussion boards like RSN, NPOVN, etc., yes, so long as the discussion there is directly related to the alternate account's edits. So, discussing content yes, discussing editors no. For your third question, "disclosure" in this sense would mean publicly and clearly disclosing what primary account the alternate account is linked to (you can see my public terminal account for what that looks like), not just disclosing that it is an alternate. I think your fourth question is answered by the above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: You bring up some additional good points. In the case that an alternate account is engaging in poor or sanctionable behavior, I would see it as entirely justifiable for an administrator to indef the alternate account as a "bad hand" sock. Alternate accounts are not meant to engage in poor behavior without that reflecting on the primary account, and the sockpuppetry policy already forbids that type of misuse. The conduct of the alternate account must be absolutely above reproach. So far as areas like Gamergate where editing restrictions apply, if the alternate account doesn't meet the requirements to edit there and isn't clearly and publicly linked to an account that does, well then, that account can't be used to edit there. Admins need to be able to verify that the editor is eligible to edit there; a vague handwave that "Oh, I have a different account that does meet the requirements" doesn't cut it. Nor is private disclosure and verification in that instance. Even when feasible, that would be too much of a timesink. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My interpretation of current policy is as follows:
    • Q1: In cases where I have had no prior interactions with anyone named in an arbcom case and had never edited the pages being discussed is using my alternate account to make a statement in an arbcom case a legitimate use of an alternate account?
      No. Participating in "discussions internal to the project" on an alternative account is explicitly prohibited by WP:SOCK, and ArbCom cases qualify.
    • Q2: Same question, but for ANI, RS noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard, AIAV, COI noticeboard, etc.
      Same as above; these are internal to the project.
    • Q3: What, exactly, are undisclosed alternative accounts? Is this account "disclosed" by way of my disclosing that it is an alternative account, or do I have to name my main account?
      No. Publicly disclosed alternative accounts are accounts that are identified by name and clearly linked to the main account. For example, if User:Foo stated clearly that they had registered the account User:Foo(public) for use on unsecured networks, it would not be a breach of policy for them to comment on internal discussions, as this account would be clearly linked to the primary account. Simply stating that an account is an alt is not sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q4: What, exactly are "discussions internal to the project" and/or "edits to project space"? Are we talking about namespaces here, and if so, which ones?
      I'm hesitant to say concretely that alternate accounts can only edit the Main and article talk namespaces, because there are plenty of exceptions. I think Seraphimblade is correct to instead identify edits that are not directly related to improving article content as inappropriate.

I do think there is an interesting issue here, though. People who have accounts that are clearly traceable to real-world identities may not be comfortable participating in situations like the Gamergate case, where there is a real risk that people will try to retaliate. These people are effectively barred from participating in these discussions, as alternate accounts cannot be used in projectspace discussions even when used to protect privacy. The only real way for a user to get around this is a WP:Clean start, which comes with its own host of problems. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • My thoughts on this are essentially the same as Seraphimblade's. One way to allow alternate accounts used for the purposes of protecting privacy to participate in internal discussions would be to allow disclosure to the Arbitration Committee (possibly with some safeguards to prevent abuse of this). However, this would require amending both the sockpuppetry policy and the Privatemusings case. I would be amenable to the latter, but only if there is a community consensus for the former at an RfC or equivalent. Until that happens though, alternate accounts that are not publicly disclosed may not participate in arbitration cases, etc. to which they are not a party and that are unrelated to article content they are working on. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, I tend to agree with my colleagues, with one exception: for me, alternative accounts disclosed to ArbCom cannot be considered "undisclosed alternative accounts" for the purposes of WP:SOCK. Then again, this is only my opinion and we are being asked to clarify a policy, rather than one of our decisions, so I don't know how much weight our collective opinions carry here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an editor has good reasons to desire to participate in an ArbCom case with an alternative account, he can try sending us an e-mail, explaining those reasons to us and if we're persuaded, we may grant an exception. That doesn't need an RfC.

      It would seem reasonable in that case to block both accounts, but how to do that without revealing my real-world identity? [...] So how do we handle that situation? I'll have to think about this a little more before I can give you an answer... Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is important to understand that principles reflect policy and generally-accepted best practices at the time they were written; principles are not in-and-of-themselves binding if community norms or policies change after the fact. It is not clear to me that any action is required on this matter. LFaraone 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belatedly getting around to this. I agree that there's nothing here for us to do, although a change in policy might require us to look again at Privatemusings. Doug Weller (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Lightbreather

Initiated by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Lightbreather arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Site-ban


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
  • That an exception be made to Lightbreather's sanctions, allowing her to respond on-wiki to on-wiki criticisms, paralleling the exception advocated for Eric Corbett, making an exception to his topic ban allowing him to respond on-wiki to off-wiki criticisms


Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Lightbreather has been subjected to innuendo, aspersions, derogatory comments and personal attacks in connection with the discussion of the recent block and unblock of Eric Corbett. There is strong community sentiment that, despite his topic ban, Corbett should be allowed to comment on-wiki about comments and accusations made against him off-wiki. Given that no one was been sanctioned or warned for their attacks on Lightbreather, and no comments have apparently been removed or suppressed, it is only fair that she be afforded the same opportunity to respond on-wiki to on-wiki attacks and criticism, especially since much of that commentary rests on assertions made without evidence. It is anomalous that such comments may be freely made about Lightbreather while statements made about the male editor (not Corbett, to avoid any confusion) accused with evidence of sexually harassing Lightbreather on-wiki and off-wiki have regularly been expunged. Therefore, an exception should be made to Lightbreather's sanctions affording her a decent, reasonable, and adequate opportunity to respond to these sustained on-wiki comments and aspersions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter and Fæ: Are you arguing that female editor Lightbreather needs to ask for equal treatment when male editor Corbett didn't have to ask for the exception that seems to be being made, and the male on-wiki sexual harasser didn't have to ask for suppression of criticism and comments? Do some editors receive such grace as a matter of course, while others must go hat in hand to beg for fair treatment? Are some of the animals here less equal than others? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: This is not a ban appeal. This is a request for consistent treatment, which would not have been necessary if Wikipedia had been willing to afford the same rights and protections that other editors enjoy. Being site-banned does not paint a target on Lightbreather and authorize free fire with no ability to return it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: How can you maintain that I have introduced concepts like "male" and "female" into a matter that already involved serious sexual harassment? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lightbreather

Statement by John Carter

This looks very much like a bit of a nonstarter to me. Lightbreather is currently not even able to edit her user talk page. That makes it extremely difficult for any statement by her to be presented anywhere, except, perhaps, by e-mail to the committee. That being the case, it would presumably be reasonable for her to e-mail the committee to request this herself. Also, honestly, it would be useful to know whether Lightbreather had any intention of returning, which, without a visible comment from her, is at best theoretical, at least to those of us who don't see the presumptive e-mail she might send. Lastly, she was site-banned in July of this year, and as per WP:UNBAN she might not be capable of even appealing that ban until next July. All that taken into account, even given the presumption of the best of intentions by the person making the request, this very much seems to me to be something that would require input which can't be made, at least visibly, here.

Having said all that, if there is a basis for believing this individual has allegations here she wishes to address, it might, maybe, be possible for the Wikipedia:Signpost to interview her, and maybe others, regarding the current brouhaha about the Atlantic article, which I am going to presume is the proximate subject of discussion here. In fact, I even suggested such coverage myself at Jimbo's talk page recently. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to HW, I am saying nothing of the kind, I think a reading of my comment above would demonstrate that, and I rather strongly object to the presumption that I might be. And I find the introduction of "male" v. "female" arguments nothing less than appalling. Lightbreather, for better or worse, is sitebanned for a year. Eric is not. "Sitebanned" vs. "not sitebanned" is the more appropriate differentiation here. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In response to GoodDay below, Lightbreather had her ability to edit her own user talk page at the same time as the site ban was imposed. John Carter (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: you introduced them to this particular discussion, which honestly is about the lifting of a ban of a sitebanned editor, not about anything about men or women. And that editor was not banned because of any issues related to sexual abuse, but rather gross misconduct in the topic of gun control and still-private evidence of WP:OUTING, which is at best tangentially related to any issues of sexual abuse. By so doing, it could reasonably be seen that you are attempting to basically distract from the more central issue, about lifting a siteban implemented on the basis of gross misconduct, to a marginally related issue, that the individual involved is a woman. That woman has recently taken advantage of her ban by providing information for a rather embarrassingly bad article off-site. And you did it on the basis of that individual being subject to "innuendo, aspersions, derogatory comments and personal attacks in connection with the discussion of the recent block and unblock of Eric Corbett," seemingly ignoring that Eric Corbett has been subjected to outright lies in the same article, and her own history of OUTing others, which, honestly, are probably more important. The central issue is about the lifting of the siteban, not the gender of the person sitebanned. Having said that, I would support with some reluctance lifting the talk page ban, with perhaps the understanding that if the individual in question abuses the privilege of editing that page that doing so will almost certainly be considered a factor in any appeals to lift the broader siteban. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fæ

This amendment would only be relevant if Lightbreather has written to Arbcom expressing an interest in correcting the record and/or expressing a viewpoint from their experience.

Though it may be felt that Lightbreather is free to email Arbcom with any issue, at the same time is easy to understand why this would not be a realistic process to follow to have corrections or commentary posted on-wiki. Should Arbcom be minded to accept this, I recommend the parties consider taking advantage of a trusted interlocutor, perhaps an interested Arbcom member. This would reduce the chances of a "misspeaking" moment resulting in iterations of further controversy. --Fæ (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HW, I have made no statement on whether there is equal treatment on our projects, in fact I would not be comfortable expressing my uncensored views in this place... My comments are limited to the request made above and are based on my experience of relying on an interlocutor when being part of an Arbcom case. --Fæ (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade:, in the light of the information from @Elvey: below, would you revisit your opinion? To avoid confusion, it would be sensible if Arbcom publicly stated whether an email request to the committee was received from Lightbreather. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

Having gone through a 1-year siteban, I believe (or remember) one is only allowed to post on one's own talkpage & only then, about one's siteban. AFAIK, Eric Corbett is not sitebanned & so there's a difference. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JC, I recommend that LB's talkpage privillages be restored. Although again, as I understand it, LB would be limited there to discussing her siteban. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question for HW - Are you making this request per Lightbreather's wishes & consent? GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend arbitrators reject this request. It appears the request hasn't been made via proxy & the requesting editor seems to have abandoned it. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This post at Lighbreather's talkpage doesn't quite make sense to me. I can't tell if HW's is getting consent from LB to make this request or not. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

In light of many comments that have been made on wiki in recent days, this is an obvious and necessary step; I am ashamed that I did not propose it sooner and thank the proposer for realizing its urgent necessity. Many editors assert that this right of reply is a matter of Wikipedia custom or one of human decency; until and unless ArbCom definitively refutes those contentions, this is demanded by fairness and equity. It is imperative, moreover, that this motion be granted promptly, in light of active discussion in the case request, Signpost, and elsewhere; fairness delayed in this case would indeed be fairness denied.

The motion should not merely permit LightBreather to participate but should actively invite her participation and offer the committee's assistance, as needed, to facilitate this. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some commenters here and in the Case Requests page have denounced Lightbreather and @GorillaWarfare: for granting an interview to The Atlantic, claiming that Wikipedians should not give interviews about Wikipedia. Before sanctioning Lightbreather for doing this, ArbCom would have to sanction itself, since it not only granted an interview but actually distributed a press announcement during the Gamergate case. Wikipedia is not Fight Club: the first rule of Wikipedia is not that editors may not talk about Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of repeated calls to censure Lightbreather for granting an interview to The Atlantic, which constitute a large portion of the so-called evidence in this motion -- I believe we require an affirmative ruling from ArbCom indicating whether or not Wikipedians may be punished for discussing Wikipedia in books, newspapers, or journals. Otherwise, Wikipedians (and outside observers) reading the evidence will conclude that commenting on Wikipedia to the press will be punished by its arbitration committee, especially if the committee or foundation dislikes the way those comments are used. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: @Euryalus: With regard to "why anyone thinks [it] is a possibility" that someone would be censured for granting an interview, see "evidence" sections above by Rich Farmbrough and Mangoe, and statements in what we're now calling Arbitration Enforcement 2 [6] Case Request phase by Black Kite and many others. Clearing this up unambiguously is clearly desirable, lest the many calls to censure LB and GorillaWarfare in this matter be taken by the general public to reflect the community’s position or Arbcom’s acquiescence. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

It would be simply unkind to refuse Lightbreather the courtesy of being able to gravedance on-wiki at the time of her figurative execution of her arch-nemesis. Anything that can be done to liven the festivities by rolling back editing restrictions upon her or any other banned editors should be done most expeditiously. This is a fantastic idea and hopefully a lasting precedent for future ArbCom circuses... Carrite (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe

Lightbreather has been plenty free with responses in the comments on the Atlantic article, so I don't see why we have to reopen a venue just for that. And as far as I can see (not wanting to read everything from the old case) this is pretty much an invitation to bring the dramafest from Disqus over to here. We are here to write a reference work, not to provide a forum for these discussions. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (LB)

While I would welcome Lightbreather back to editing, I have concerns that they have been unable to drop the stick.

Lightbreather is solely their Wikipedia identity and they have left the project several times (as well as - and before - being banned) claiming to be here only for the sake of the the ArbCom case.

However they have continued the dispute off-wiki through a dedicated website and Twitter account. Enablers on-wiki have assisted promulgation of inaccurate narrative, in support of doubtless worthy goals.

This is not, historically, a new tactic - however it is one that is abhorrent to most encyclopaedists. Truth may be the first casualty in war, but if it is a casualty in building this encyclopaedia, we loose all credibility and may as well put fire sale signs on the servers.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Elvey

But User:Fæ, User:Seraphimblade, User:Thryduulf: Erm... Lightbreather DID email arbcom on Oct 27.--Elvey(t•c) 23:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fæ, thanks for pinging. User:Seraphimblade, User:Thryduulf: can you please provide, in the interests of transparency, a reason for your votes that don't rely on apparently false information? Seraphimblade, you wrote, This has not, in any way to my knowledge, been requested by Lightbreather. It would seem appropriate to check your inbox(es) and strike that claim unless you have reason to believe Lightbreather did not send what she said she sent. Retracting your claim does not require disclosing the content private email. FYI I don't have a dog in this fight, I just find this behavior odd and needing light. Addendum: It sounds like "site ban may be appealed no less than one year after it was placed" would be a valid reason - well, unless that was applicable but ignored in the case of Eric Corbett; I haven't looked. Anyone? --Elvey(t•c) 20:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply User:Thryduulf. I feel I understand where you and arbcom were coming from now; the decision y'all made makes sense now. Confidence gained; concerns addressed. Seems safe to assume Seraphimblade's statement merely quickly became out of date and remained so, but was correct when made.--Elvey(t•c) 22:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Lightbreather: Clerk notes

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

Lightbreather: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Decline. This has not, in any way to my knowledge, been requested by Lightbreather, and we don't consider third-party ban appeals. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For reference, while I will not disclose the contents of any private email, the site ban stated that it may be appealed no less than one year after it was placed, which would be 17 July 2016. At that time, and not before, an appeal could be considered if it were made by Lightbreather. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse, as this is directly related to the Eric Corbett discussions from which I am also recusing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Seraphimblade. Also, GoodDay is correct when he says that the only reason a blocked or banned editor may edit their talk page is to seek clarification of or appeal their block/ban. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkBernstein:. Arbcom has not, and is not proposing to, sanction Lightbreather for giving an interview. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkBernstein: It's no different to a self-published source - if they out or harass another Wikipedia editor then obviously sanctions, up to and including a ban, will be considered. If they merely express an opinion, however controversial or unpopular, then there will not be a reason to consider sanctions. In all cases though the full circumstances will be considered, and nobody is going to get sanctioned because someone else misquoted them for example (although if the misquoting is deliberately intended to harass, the person doing the misquoting may themselves face sanction). To be explicit about the case in hand: Nobody will be sanctioned for what they said in this piece in The Atlantic. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tangentially related but worth saying here in case it comes up, a Wikipedia editor should not quote themselves in a content namespace (no matter their expertise or the reliability of the source) without discussing it first on the talk page (or centralised discussion space if appropriate). Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elvey: Lightbreather's email post-dates the opening of this amendment request and is explicitly in reaction to it. She did not ask for anything as extensive as Hullaboo did, and the implication is she hadn't planned on asking until she saw this request. The difference between this and the Eric Corbett case is that (a) this is a third party appeal; (b) Lightbreather is site banned, Eric was only topic banned; (c) Eric was not given a minimum time before he could appeal his topic ban (as I recall, I haven't double checked), Lightbreather was. (PS: your first ping did not work for me, I don't know why). Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - talkpage access is only restored under certain circumstances, and offering evidence in case pages related to other editors is not one of them. If anyone (including banned editors) want to send evidence to the committee via email on any current case relevant to them, they can do so. Separately, anyone who uses case pages to engage in personal abuse of other editors is likely to be sanctioned for it. And +1 to Thryduulf's second comment above - to the extent that this was a genuine query, there is not the faintest prospect of an arbcom sanction for anyone who offered their opinions in the Atlantic article. I really struggle to see why anyone thinks this is a possibility. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkBernstein: Hopefully the responses in this section help address the concern. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be prepared to reopen the question of modifying their sanction. Asa reminder, the vote for banning her was 8-4, not 12-0 or 13-0 as for most other votes in that case. I was in the majority, but due to more recent private information to the committee, I'd now support modification or even withdrawal of the site ban. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Euryalus puts it well. Doug Weller (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles

Initiated by Jeppiz at 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel_articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Area_of_conflict
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Jeppiz

I believe neither Jews nor Palestinians to be covered by WP:ARBPIA, and I'd suggest that amending this situation may benefit the project and discourage much edit warring. Having watched both articles for a long time, I notice that Jews (and to some extent Palestinians) see quite intense disputes. As the edit history of Jews show, there have already been over 20 reverts in November alone. Below user:Debresser asks for examples, so a short non-exhaustive list from the last days [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. These disputes are never about Jewish culture in 17th century Poland or Palestinian culture in 17th century Palestine, but very often about the origins of both peoples, along the lines of "who was there first", "do modern Jews descent from ancient Jews", "are modern Palestinians the descendants of ancient Jews" etc. These questions are directly linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict, as both sides try to up their own claim to the land by invoking history. Furthermore, the most active editors engaged in these disputes are almost always the same few editors engaged in other ARBPIA-covered articles about the conflict. As the disputes at Jews and Palestinians are directly linked to the area covered by WP:ARBPIA, and see much more conflict than many articles currently covered, I suggest ARBPIA be extended to these two articles. It would benefit everybody involved, except a handful of people who frequently revert, and would benefit the whole project.
No individual user is concerned, so I have not named anyone, but I will post a short information notice at the talk pages of both Jews and Palestinians.

Statement by Debresser

The nominator of this amendment first proposed this at Jews, claiming that discussions about the origins of Jews should be subject to the 1RR rule, because often the issue is raised in connection with the IP-conflict. I will comment only on the merits, or more precisely the lack thereof, of this proposal in regard to the Jews article.I have no clear opinion regarding the Palestinians article, although I think that the issue is much stronger on that article than it is on the Jews article.

I think the claim of the nominator, which is not backed up by any links to discussions either on Wikipedia or outside of it, is incorrect. In addition, I think that the proposed measure is not proportionate, even if the claim were correct. Ergo I feel strongly that the proposed 1RR restriction should not be considered. My arguments are as follows.

  1. I have not often seen discussions about the origins of the Jewish people in connection with the IP-conflict, neither on Wikipedia nor in the real world. I am not saying it never happens, but not as often as the nominator makes it seem (without giving even one example).
  2. The cases in which the origins of the Jews are discussed without connection to the IP-conflict are many times more numerous than the cases in which such discussion is related to the IP-conflict. It would therefore not be fair to put all discussions regarding the origins of the Jews under a restriction that applies only to a minority of the cases.
  3. The article Jews is so much more than just the question of the origins of the Jews, that it would be completely disproportionate the put the whole article under a 1RR restriction because of that.

Statement by Musashiaharon

I agree with Debresser that putting Jews under 1RR is disproportionate.

In addition to Debresser's points, I'd like to add that overall the discussion seems pretty civil to me, and I see no reason to stop WP:AGF, certainly not to the point of imposing 1RR. I don't think the intensity and nature of the discussion merits it. Jeppiz himself links to my only counter-revert, where I specifically note that the discussion had a three-day gap of silence in it after I requested an explanation of a previous revert. My request was answered soon afterwards. 1RR is unnecessary.

Statement by Nishidani

I don't think the article Jews should be placed under ARBPIA IR restrictions, while I think this should apply to Palestinians. I gave my reasons here. That said, Jeppiz does have a serious point however. It is absolutely impossible to discuss Jewish origins on Wikipedia in a rational, rigorously high RS source based manner. One is just over-ruled, as are the relevant sources and the reason is that the definition is perceived by a majority of editors as one which must contain a political statement about Israel and the Law of Return, meaning that whatever sources say to the contrary, the definition of a Jew must state that (s)he comes from ancestors who lived in Palestine, which is total nonsense.. But this, which relates to one or two sentences in the lead, should not translate into making the whole article, which has nothing to do with the I/P conflict, lie under an ARBPIA sanction. Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yossiea

I think the question ultimately on the table is whether or not any article with the word Jew, Israel, Palestine, etc. is subject to arbitration. I think it's a far stretch to include Jew within the scope of ARBPIA. I haven't seen any solid evidence of major edit warring or even minor edit warring to warrant inclusion. It should be a last resort to include articles within a sanctionable area, and we should be working to remove articles, not add them.

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

I'm not really seeing any common sense reason, or for that matter any other reason to do this other than as an attempt to chill speech. Ending major disruption is generally the only reason to even consider it. The diffs provided, I'm not sure if they even show minor disruption. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel_articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel_articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Decline Excessive--and inadequate to deal with the key statedproblem on origin of Jews, which couldb e fought equally well on other pages. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. There are two separate topics here, "origin of Jews" and "origin of Palestinians", neither of which are not part of the Arab-Israel dispute, and which form only small parts of the noted articles so extending the existing discretionary sanctions in this manner is a poor fit. With no evidence that prior dispute resolution has been sought, let alone tried and failed, I don't see this as something that Arbcom should be involved with at this stage. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - too soon to consider. Doug Weller (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Initiated by Callanecc at 06:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

  • [diff of notification Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]
  • [diff of notification Beyond My Ken]

Statement by Callanecc

I am filing this request here as an uninvolved administrator in response this AE request. Sorry for another job for you all to do (hopefully this can be resolved one way or the other without a motion) but there does seem to be some uncertainty regarding whether this edit (for clarity, this was the series of edits made by RAN, before the first edit by someone else) breaches RAN's prohibition on creating articles.

So the question is does turning a redirect into an article count as "Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace" (from the restriction as modified last month)?

Whether or not the Committee considers this possible violation worthy of sanctions or not I believe it's worth clarifying that point for everyone's benefit. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I don't have anything much to add to what I'd already posted on the AE Request. As Callanec says, I contend that although they are both pages, a redirect is not an article – see How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article on WP:Redirects, where the word "convert" is a clear indication that a redirect is not an article, but must be changed in some fundamental way in order to become one; see also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, in which there are different rules for the deletion of articles and for the deletion of redirects; and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion vs. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. By converting a redirect to an article, RAN created the article, violating his ban. Another editor has proposed that the redirect was an article from the time it was created (by me). I reject this contention, but if it is true, then RAN has violated his ban by creating numerous redirects, as can be seen here. BMK (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andreas Philopater

I'm not sure how appropriate it is that I speak up (I have nothing to do with this), but this is a case where I think "no harm, no foul" can safely be applied, as long as there is clarity moving forward as to an edit of this type (article creation vs page creation) being subject to the ban or not.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bencherlite

FWIW, the act of turning a redirect into an article was regarded by Arbs in October 2013 as the creation of an article for infobox restriction purposes at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Arbitrator views and discussion (there may be a better link to be found to more a pertinent discussion than that). In other words, if X is restricted from adding infoboxes to articles save for those articles that X has created, X can turn a redirect into an article and add an infobox without breaching the restriction. If Y is restricted from creating an article, then it would seem to follow that Y is not allowed to turn a redirect into an article. BencherliteTalk 15:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (RAN)

Committee should clarify that this will be considered a violation in the future. Then take time for a motion to remove the restriction completely. There is no benefit to it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thryduulf@ What purpose? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Clerk notes

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

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • For the purposes of RAN's restrictions, changing a redirect to an article is the same as creating an article from scratch meaning this was a violation. As there are almost no occasions on en.wp where this is not regarded as creating an article, I am more inclined to see this as an intentional gaming of the restriction than I am to see this as a genuine misunderstanding - however I invite RAN to convince me otherwise if he wishes. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To hopefully prevent a future requests for clarification:
    • If a page was previously an article (written by someone other than RAN) but was redirected without consensus, RAN may revert that redirection, but he may not completely rewrite the article (i.e. it must remain based on a revision prior to redirection).
    • Completely rewriting a page such that almost no previous material remains and/or the topic is changed does count as a violation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rich Farmbrough: We will not be amending or removing this restriction without an appeal by RAN. The purpose of the restriction was explained and discussed when it was enacted, and again when it was recently amended - that you disagree with the committee about whether it will achieve it's purpose does not change this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to what counts as starting an article, I agree totally with Thryduulf ;
With regard to asking us to modify our decisions. I think anyone can ask. We may make mistakes, what we say may become superseded by events, there may be factors we had not taken into consideration, or we may simply be well advised to reconsider. The idea that we might do something wrong and not want to fix it because the wrong person asks us is totally alien to my sense of justice, but it is unfortunately true that most of the current committee seems to feel otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Editor conduct in e-cigs articles

Initiated by AlbinoFerret at 23:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Editor conduct in e-cigs articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. [[13]]
  2. [[14]]
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
  • Provide evidence so Quackguru is topic banned or blocked.
  • Include Cloudjpk and allow arbs to block for tag teaming/meatpuppetry.

Statement by AlbinoFerret

I would like to provide evidence that was impossible for me to provide during the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles case. I was on a 6 month self ban from E-cigarette related topics during the start of the case. That ended on September 16th, the case was still open and I asked to provide evidence.[20] The evidence I would like to provide is about two editors, Cloudjpk and QuackGuru.

The complete evidence I would like to present totals a little under 6000 words and 228 diffs/links. It averages about 27 words per diff. The complete evidence is copy/paste ready. I request more words and diffs to add more here. Examples are below.

QuackGuru

Competency

  • 12/24/2014 The McKee source was clearly marked on the source as an editorial.[21] Per WP:MEDRS it was not usable for medical claims. This also NPOV problem, improper source used for negative claims. QG added it here.[22] Talk page on it.[23] Argues Its a review.[24][25] Says its MEDRS compliant.[26] Starts a new topic on the same article with deceptive heading arguing again that it should be included.[27] Inserted the editorial into the main article below line 158.[28]
  • Mixes first and second hand aerosol claims.[29]
  • QG cant understand there are different size particles.[30]
  • Endless round in circles, 11 Year old girls.[31][32]
  • Does not comprehend that while something may be possible, it isnt always the case. [33] SPACKlick points out that the sources do not list Propylene Oxide as a component of the vapor.[34] QG, unable to tell the difference between "can or could" and "is" defends that the source says it is a component of the vapor.[35] GuackGuru says he is basing the claim on future sources.[36]
Misuse of OR
  • Fixed OR and POV problem by adding POV to recreate the problem. [37] Reintroduced edit below line 23 [38]
  • Youth changed from young people. [39] The talk page section. [40] saying not Verifiable. Websters dictionary suggests they are the same.[41] as does Youth.
  • QG argues over the word "some", even when he admits the source says that the chemicals are not found all over. [42]
Misrepresenting
  • "There is no serious dispute". This is not just misrepresenting, but is a serious competency issue with ongoing issues. [43][44][45] [46] [47][48]
  • Misrepresents consensus [49] when its the opposite [50].

NPOV/Negative advocacy

  • 12/25/2014 Removed cited claim that none of the components environmental impact has been done.[51]
  • 4/26/2015 Toddlers motivated to ingest, using non MEDRS source.[52]
  • On August 16, 2015 QG inserted a claim,[53] but left out the rest of the information that says " nicotine outside tobacco has not been shown to be associated with cancer in the real world" that was added later by Johnbod on the 20th.[54]
  • 3/10/2015 Nicotine is "lethal" poison (source says harmful).[55]link to the discussion. Tweaked it a bit.[56] Sees talk page and changes to "toxic".[57]
  • 3/21/2015 From the source "Based on 76 studies, ECs cannot be regarded as safe, even though they probably are less harmful than CCs." QG added to the article, leaving out probably less harmful [58]
  • 3/24/2015 Exposure to children, added claims about the dangers. [59] But did not add that this had not been studied yet. From the source, "Nicotine levels in infants and children exposed to electronic cigarette aerosol and surface deposits have not yet been studied and the health effects of nicotine in this age group are uncertain." England, Lucinda J "Nicotine and the Developing Human"
  • On 6/10/2015 Quack removed a part of a positive referenced claim that he completely removed later[60]
  • Moved negative claim in front of a positive one. [61]
  • On 6/10/15 QG removed a positive, referenced claim. [62] citing "Dated and repetitive" in comments. The source is from 2011, within 5 years WP:MEDDATE.
  • Blatant twisting of a source to a negative claim. The PHE source.[63] On pages 76-77 discusses the failed methodology of studies that found formaldehyde. What QG added, near the bottom of the edit. [64]

Cloudjpk

Out of the blue

Cloudjpk appears out of the blue whenever QuackGuru needs support, then disappears off WP. As of 11/16/2015 he has 579 total edits and 379 to E-cig articles 65%.[65]

  • I went to RSN about a source and made a post to the talk page.[66] QG starts to replace the questionable source.[67][68] Cludjpk hows up and WP:RSN having not edited for 4 days.[69] QG undoes one of his replacements.[70] Cloudjpk doesnt make another post for 18 hours.
  • 9/14/2015 QG added 70% information in WP's voice.[71] but did not include where the information comes from. The source states " now 70 percent of American smokers who are looking to quit are turning to e-cigs, according to statistics compiled by Ecigsopedia." TracyMcClark added a FV tag because QG left off the source.[72] Cloudjpk showed up out of the blue to remove the FV tag.[73] He had not made an edit since 9/9/2015, did not comment in the talk page section on this. He did not make another edit until 18 hours later at 00:35 16/9/2015 September. The purpose of this edit [74] was to argue against a temporary injunction because of QG's activities.[75]
  • 11/10/2015 QuackGuru doesnt want a image added to the page.[76] Out of the blue Cloudjpk comments against it having made one other edit 18 hours earlier to another page.[77] then doesn't make another WP edit until 11/16/2015.

Responses

I would like to point out to QG that this is to amend the case, as such the time frame should be prior to the case closing, not after. AlbinoFerret 21:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QuackGuru

I acknowledge there is a request for clarification. If this request is accepted or admins have any questions let me know. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was evidence of disruption by the e-cig promoters, but there was no specific remedies to dealing with any specific editor.

It is my view S Marshall was waiting for this Arbcom case to be over to make significant changes to the page including deleting all the known unknowns, rather than respecting consensus. He thinks the known unknowns is useless crap.

There was a previous discussion about deleting the text about "tobacco harm reduction" from the WP:LEDE. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 23#Removal. On 31 March 2015 S Marshall deleted "Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."[78] On 20 April 2015 he deleted "The role of electronic cigarettes in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."[79] Now on 19 November 2015 he deleted "Their usefulness in tobacco harm reduction is unclear"[80] again. This edit by S Marshall also reverted against the status quo. QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall claims he only made one revert. The first revert deleted information about tobacco harm reduction was unclear. The text about tobacco harm reduction was restored by User:Johnbod.

The second revert was replacing two previous images when there was no consensus for the change according to User:Bluerasberry. The discussion was still ongoing. Rather than have one image we currently have two images. He also deleted another image, but according to User:Sizeofint the point was to illustrate the e-hookah. The diffs shows S Marshall is making preemptive changes against status quo and while talk page discussions are ongoing. He claims it was a preemptive change. But there was a discussion on the talk page that the text was misplaced. The misplaced text was removed from harm reduction. I added some of the text to the correct section. I did state it would be better to shorten the text when it is moved. There was a discussion to relocate the text.[81] See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safety_claim_in_Harm_reduction..

S Marshall is making claims against me without supporting evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cloudjpk

If this case for clarification is approved I am happy to discuss this matter. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by S Marshall

Apparently the fun never stops.

I don't see any need for me to present any evidence here. I see from QuackGuru's evidence that one of the edits I made today does vaguely resemble one I made in March. I offer no defence, and I'm content for Arbcom to deal with this complaint in whatever way it sees fit. It is definitely true that I waited for the Arbcom case to be over before making any changes to the page; in fact I said at the time that this is what I was doing. I'm amused to note that QuackGuru lumps me in with his group of "e-cig promoters" and I'm content for Arbcom to judge the truth of this for themselves based on the diffs he provides without further input from me.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Editor conduct in e-cigs articles: Clerk notes

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

Editor conduct in e-cigs articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (2)

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 19:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Articles part of the ARBPIA arena


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



Information about amendment request
  • Articles part of the ARBPIA arena


Statement by Sir Joseph

The article Haredim and Zionism has nothing to do with the ARBPIA arena, or if it does 5%, and it should be removed to clean up those areas under ARBPIA sanctionable spaces. This article used to be edited heavily back in the early 2000's and had some disputes involving some sockpuppets but the article and disputes if any in general do not involve Israel-Palestine and just involve intra-Jewish halacha response to Israel as a Jewish State.

Statement by Serialjoepsycho 2

This article seems fairly stable. It doesn't seem to be much of a focus of the Israel and Palestine partisan divide that causes so much disruption on Wikipedia. Removing the cumbersome discretionary sanctions such as 1RR doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request. If an issue later arises it can always be put back under these sanctions. You can leave it to administrator discretion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel_articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel_articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

Amendment request: Topic ban appeal

Initiated by Nadirali at 03:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
{{{decision}}}
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Nadirali unblocked
  2. Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
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
  • [diff of notification Username]
  • [diff of notification Username]
Information about amendment request
Topic ban appeal
  • Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

Statement by Nadirali

As expressed in the title, I am finally here to appeal my topic ban but also with a new proposal. As it is, it's been about a year and a half since I re-joined Wikipedia. Worm That Turned told me to show the arbcom that I can be a productive user in one of my first conversations with him (probably part of gaining the arbcom's trust). In the year and a half since I returned, I have created almost thirty pages (most of which I can guarantee would not exist today had I not returned to create them) with the intention of creating more and made hundreds of edits on various topics. I think it should be more than sufficient enough to earn the trust of the committee. There are a number of articles on Pakistan that need updating and others that need creation and I'm just the man to do it.

I still intend to create and work on articles not related to Pakistan topics, but would like to work on those side by side as well. But if the arbcom is still worried about my edits on these topics I come with the proposal of a restriction of one revert per week on any topics on or related to Pakistan as well as India and Afghanistan (excluding vandalism) for that matter so I can continue creating and working on some of my desired topics without worrying the arbcom. If I can continue for at least a month with this one-revert-per-week restriction without worrying the committee, then the topic ban should be lifted all together. I also offer to stay away from articles sanctioned by the committee, but I'll let the arbcom decide on that.

However, if the committee continues to enforce a complete ban, all I can term it as obstructing a user from contributing in his best ability and therefor obstructing the development of Wikipedia all together. I think this topic ban is ridiculous when going back to it's roots, but I'd rather not get into what happened several years ago. I am here to express that I kept my end of the deal and wish for the committee to give something back, specifically trust, in return.

Looking forward to your responses.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Username

Statement by Username

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 amendment request or provide additional information.

{{{title}}}: Clerk notes

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

{{{title}}}: Arbitrator views and discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=691733523"