Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3	Motion	(orig. case)	25 April 2019
Amendment request: The Rambling Man	Motion	(orig. case)	16 July 2019
Clarification request: GamerGate	none	(orig. case)	2 August 2019

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	21 July 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

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:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

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:

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Nyttend at 01:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 3 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:

• Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Galobtter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Ymblanter
• Galobtter

Statement by Nyttend

This is not some sort of complaint/argument/etc. Just trying to get an authoritative statement on this decision's scope.

Airbnb is a US-based company that acts as a broker for people who have spare rooms in their homes and people who want to rent those rooms. Apparently there was some controversy related to Israel-Palestine and this company, so the article has a section on this issue. Ymblanter recently protected the article under ARBPIA following some disruptive editing to this section. I questioned this action, saying basically "did you accidentally protect the wrong article", and Ymblanter responded basically "I protected it intentionally, because the disruptive editing was related to Israel-Palestine". His response mentions some consultation with Galobtter regarding the duration.

So the question...are this decision's stipulations on page protection meant to apply to all articles that have bits related to Israel-Palestine, or is it only intended for pages to which Israel-Palestine is an integral component? This article is definitely the first — one can understand the company quite well without a tiny Israel-Palestine section sourced only to news reports and an advocacy organization. By the latter, I'm talking about Israeli politicians, places in the West Bank, events in the history of Gaza, etc. The situation here reminds me of the "weather" situation at WP:TBAN — if we had similar sanctions on the topic of weather, I suppose we'd not consider all articles with "climate" sections liable to ARBWEATHER protection.

If we assume either Ymblanter's perspective or mine, there's no room for dispute over whether this is an appropriate protection; if Arbcom meant to include all pages with Israel-Palestine sections, of course this is an appropriate protection, and if you didn't mean to include pages like this, obviously this should be treated like any other victim of disruptive editing rather than an Israel-Palestine issue. So once again, no hard feelings exist yet, and I don't envision them arising in the future; I just want the scope to be clear.

if the result of this clarification request is that only dedicated articles can be extended-confirmed protected (or anything else) this is perfectly fine with me says Ymblanter. I agree — if the committee intends ARBPIA to apply to articles in an Airbnb-type situation, that's fine with me. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, at User talk:Ymblanter#Protection of Airbnb, Ymblanter said I am not sure I can now so easily remove or lower the protection. I do not think we have a mechanism of lowering ARBPIA protections. If an admin levies an ARBPIA sanction and then changes his mind, is there something preventing the admin from self-reverting? If this is indeed the case, and it's specific to ARBPIA (I don't know; I don't do WP:AE), it would be helpful if you implemented a mechanism for lowering ARBPIA protections or allowing other self-reverting. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

The consultation with Galobtter which Nyttend mentions is at my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#Protection of Airbnb. Concerning the issue itself, I indeed interpret the decision such that if an article contains a significant part (in the case of Airbnb, this is a dedicated section) the discretionary sanctions apply. However, I do not hold strong opinions here, if the result of this clarification request is that only dedicated articles can be extended-confirmed protected (or anything else) this is perfectly fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Huldra: Without giving my opinion of the motion you mention, if someone compiles a list of articles where the notice must be placed I volunteer, after a reasonable check, place the notice to all these articles (which obviously is going to take time but it is still better than nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: Yes, it is time to conduct review of all remedies. We are slowly moving towards professionalizing of AE in general and PI in particular, when one first needs to study for five years and then run an internship in order to be able to act there responsively. This is not really good.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller

It looks as though this problem is going to continue. It's been discussed for over a week at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Some issues relating to the IP area which I urge everyone to read (and User:Huldra has found a slew of articles that need templating and edit notices given the current sanctions). Towards the bottom of the thread I've tried to outline how I understand ARBPIA sanctions are meant to work. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It's also virtually the same issue as I raised a few weeks ago which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, isn't it? Doug Weller talk 09:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'm pretty sure that my understanding as outlined at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Some issues relating to the IP area is in line with yours, if not please tell me where I have it wrong. What's needed now to clarify "reasonably"? I presume a motion, right? Doug Weller talk 14:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'd like to see a discussion of your suggestion to remove the "blanket 500/30 of "reasonably construed" pages in favor of discretionary but liberal use of 500/30 to combat abuse across all "broadly construed" pages." In the last two days I've had to disappoint an Admin (User:El C and an experienced editor(User:Nableezy) who thought IPs couldn't edit anything to do with the conflict. I also like rewording somne DS alerts to mention 1RR. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

This is not related to the issue about parts/whole of the article being under ARBPIA, but it relates to the imbecile motion added March this year. Yes: imbecile!

After that motion, no-one can be sanctioned for 1RR unless an admin has placed an edit notice on the article in question. Since there are thousands of articles, and only a few hundred of them have edit notice, the result is that clear cut violations of the rules goes unpunished; see this example.

So while "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted" are placed under "discretionary sanctions", the 1 RR rule has become unenforceable on most article.

This is a totally untenable situation, I hope that arb.com either:

• 1. Undo their March 2019 motion, or
• 2. Start templating the thousands of articles which need to be templated. (In addition to the ones I have already mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, we can add all the ‎Israel settlements on the West Bank and the Golan Heights, all the kibbutz, etc built on the 48 villages land (they will be found in the "current localities" in the infobox, see eg Suruh.....you would be amazed as to how often that information "disappears"...)

I would prefer that you chose option 1, that's because admins are not the best persons to see what is under ARBPIA, or not. Case in point: Solomon's Pools, where both, say, Icewhiz and I agree that it comes under ARBPIA, but "outside" admins have a difficulty in seeing that. (For those of you who don't know us: Icewhiz and I disagree about just about everything regarding the I/P area...) Huldra (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter: All articles mentioned in Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus (and the Israeli localities on their land), all Palestinian localities on the West Bank; listed under Template:Governorates of the Palestinian Authority. I would also say all localities listed in [[Category:Arab localities in Israel]], and all localities in the Golan Heights: Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab–Israeli conflict, and the places mentioned in it and Template:Golan Regional Council. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That old expression: "Don't fix it if it isn't broken" should also be the guiding words for arb.com. This 14 March 2019 change basically changed a structure which was working..sort of..to one with lots of complications. I cannot recall any editor wanting to edit ARBPIA articles, achieving 30/500 status, and not knowing about ARBPIA sanctions. What normally happen, is that they wander into ARBPIA territory before they reach 30/500, they are promptly reverted, most with a note on their talk page. Then, if they are mature enough, they stay away until they have reached 30/500, and then they return.User:SilkTork: yes, the 14 March 2019 added "This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice." I just became aware of that, as I reported an obvious offence, but the editor walked scot free, thanks to this. See here.

User:AGK yes, it is a patchwork, and I would love to see one standard. Especially what "broadly constructed" and what is not. (I think User:BU Rob13 is the only one who understands it!) 1RR is one of the best things there are in the ARBPIA area, alas, the 14 March 2019 change was horrible: it made 1RR unenforceable on most ARBPIA articles. Why have rules if there is absolutely no punishment for breaking them? Huldra (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, User:SilkTork, I hadn't seen the January 2018 note: [1].(I don't follow the "Discretionary sanctions" page), that makes me more understand the 14 March 2019 changes. We have two set of rules for ARBPIA, and I have given up hope of ever understanding those rules....

Also, according to these idiots, I have a IQ of about half a zillion, I don't know if I would trust them, but I tend to understand things that have a logic to them. And as a corollary to that: when I don't understand a thing, it is usually because there is no logic to it. I would love to see some logic to the rules in the IP area...Huldra (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I went to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor, and got pagemover rights. So now I see a "Page notice" on my editing screen, where I can put {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}. I will advice everyone (who is not admins) to apply for this, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

To editor SilkTork: I think you missed the point when you wrote "If someone feels that there is significant enough content which falls under a DS topic on a particular page/article then they can place a DS template." No they can't; only administrators and template editors can add the editnotice that arbcom decided is needed for enforcement. Zero^talk 10:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

To editor BU Rob13: Before 500/30, IPs and new socks would cause disruption because they don't care about rules while the good editors trying to preserve article integrity were constrained by 1RR from reverting the disruption. The combination of 1RR and 500/30 has proved very beneficial to the area and I don't understand why you think removing 500/30 would be an improvement. Zero^talk 07:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think that articles that are not broadly about the conflict should not be locked down under ECP, they can be locked down temporarily, they can be IP protected, etc and then when the vandalism passes, it's good to go. We should not have many articles under a patchwork of horrible ARBCOM rulings that are terribly confusing to enforce and understand. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Davidbena

I think that it is wise and pertinent that no-one can be sanctioned for 1RR unless an admin has placed an edit notice on the article in question. If the 1RR edit-notice were to apply to all articles in the I/P area, and if ordinary editors could add such notices, who would prevent them from adding these notices to every town and city in Israel (Palestine), irregardless of whether or not the town had been involved in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle? Editors would still find a way to include it, since both sides vie for the control of the same country. This would greatly impede progress and make the simple task of editing much more difficult, just as we found in the article Solomon's Pools, which to my dismay came to be associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although it has absolutely nothing to do with that conflict other than the fact that the pools lie within territory controlled by joint Israeli-Palestinian Authority officials. In my humble opinion, we should avoid making the task of editing bogged-down in red-tape and litigation, whenever possible, and only in those articles where by their nature they spark heated debate or POV views should these 1RR edit warnings be added.Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass

I have long argued that discretionary sanctions should be applied not only to articles within the topic area, broadly interpreted, but to edits clearly related to the topic area in question, regardless of whether the article topic itself is related. This is because the topic area to which discretionary sanctions apply can be referenced peripherally in almost any article (falafel, anyone?) If somebody is making edits somewhere, anywhere, that can be reasonably construed as pertaining to the topic area, then surely all the usual discretionary sanctions should be applied to those edits regardless of which article they were made in. It seems to me that if this approach were to be adopted, the regular tiresome debates about whether or not a given article belongs in the topic area could be avoided altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add, with regard to extended-confirmed protection, which is a special case because it works to automatically block anyone who doesn't meet the editing criteria on a given page, that an alternative approach might be to manually enforce extended-confirmed on articles which only peripherally relate to the sanctioned topic area (such as Airbnb in this case), in order to avoid penalizing the vast majority of users who are not making edits that pertain to the sanctioned area. Or alternatively, to use the automated protection only for limited periods, until the related dispute cools down. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

@AGK: In response to your question: yes, ArbCom rules in the I/P area are too complicated, to the point where I'm reluctant to help enforce them because of the likelihood that I'll do something wrong and/or need to spend too much time reading up on the rules. I agree that the relevant decisions should be reviewed. Off the cuff, it might be worth it to consider reverting to basic discretionary sanctions. That's because drive-by disrupters using new accounts can be easily dealt with without the need for complicated rules, and AE regulars who are playing long-term games with the I/P content are quite capable of gaming complicated rules to their advantage. I could be wrong, though, and maybe the rules are actually helpful. Hence the need for a review. Sandstein 09:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

WP:NOTBURO. Yall have made this more complicated on each iteration. You have made it so what was intended to be a way of limiting edit-wars for the topic and limiting the sockpuppetry into one that on too many pages is unenforceable due to a technicality or not applicable because of this reasonably or broadly dispute. To me the answer here is obvious, divorce where extended-confirmed is applied (reasonably construed), but apply the rest of the prohibition to the larger set (broadly construed, with only the sections about the topic area covered). And remove the edit-notice requirement. What is important is that a person know that the edit is covered by the 1RR. Having the {{ARBPIA}} banner on the talk page and having been notified of the sanctions is enough of a notification, and requiring the edit-notice is allowing for some of the sillier games to be played without a hint of shame. Besides, I have yet to see an example where an editor was not asked to self-revert prior to being reported. By the time a report is made they are effectively notified and their refusal to self-revert should be enough to consider sanctions. This was supposed to be simple, and for years it was successful. The last several "clarifications" have undone a decent chunk of that success. nableezy - 09:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Or at least make me a template-editor so I can add the edit-notices myself. nableezy - 09:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

Rob's suggestion to make 500/30 conditional on ECP being applied to the page makes sense. I would suggest making this a "package deal" with 1RR (so if ECP is applied - 1RR is always applied as well). If these are handed out on an article level on a very liberal basis (e.g. mere relation of a page to the conflict - assuming requests at RfPP will be handled quickly and promptly - even without evidence of disruption for "reasonably construed" (for "broadly construed" - one should have evidence of disruption)) - then the amount of disruption should be fairly low (and if a new editor hops around many unprotected pages doing un-constructive editing - regular DS would still apply). For new articles, all one has to do is ask at RfPP (e.g. diff for a new current event conflict article).

The advantage to moving to a more normal (in relation to other topic areas) DS regime is that the current regime in ARBPIA is a rather severe roadblock for new editors, who can accrue sanctions at an alarming rate due to a mere misunderstanding of 500/30 and 1RR (which are even confusing to regulars (some long term editors diverge from AE norms in the parsing of "what is a revert") - let alone new comers). New Israeli or Palestinian editors invariably edit many pages that are "reasonably construed" (e.g. geographic locations, the country articles, all sorts of organizations) - even if their particular edits are not particularly conflict related (e.g. updating the head of the local council in a West Bank settlement after local elections) - the "survival rate" of such new editors on Wikipedia (without getting TBANNED from the topic area - and potential TBAN violations subsequently leading to blocks) is pretty low under the current sanctions regime - as they are able to edit non-ECP articles (running foul of 500/30 and often violating 1RR).Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

The rules should apply where they apply naturally or rather the use of common sense is necessary. Every article need not be given a templet or protected simply because it dips it's toes in areas that are under sanctions. However when editors import the conflict into these articles due consideration should be given on a case by case basis for the appropriate action. An editor topic banned from ARBPIA related topics should be able to edit AIRBNB but they shouldn't be allowed to edit the portions of the article related to ARBPIA. Uninvolved admins also need the ability to take some appropriate form of action when the general disruption associated with articles under sanction is exported to articles that merely get their toes wet on the subject. I'd have to endorse a rewrite of these sanctions or any others that simplify them but they do need to have teeth.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

I would like to check whether my understanding of the situation is correct and to clarify how the remedies would effect interaction with editors on pages which could not be reasonably construed as relating to the AI conflict.

Two sets of sanctions affect the ARBPIA area, the general remedies (1RR and 500/30) and discretionary sanctions.

The general remedies appy on pages which could be 'reasonably construed' as relating to the conflict. For them to apply, the ArbCom Arab-Israeli edit notice must be placed on affected 'pages'.

Discretionary sanctions apply, more broadly, on pages which may be 'broadly construed' as relating to the conflict. The ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement notice may be placed on the talkpages of affected articles, but such a placement is not necessary for discretionary sanctions to apply. However, discretionary sanctions may not be applied unless editors are aware that discretionary sanctions are in place.

The Airbnb article as a whole cannot be 'reasonably construed' as relating to the conflict and therefore the general sanctions do not apply to it, though part of it does and editing of that part may be subject to discretionary sanctions.

If an editor who doesn't meet the 500/30 standard edits the part of the article which is conflict related or leaves conflict-related comments on the talkpage, how should (or may) another editor handle it if he or she thinks that those edits or comments are problematic? Similarly, how may it be handled if an editor makes more than one revert to the conflict-related material within a 24-hour period? Is all that can be legitimately done to give a warning that enforcement under discretionary sanctions may be sought (though, if enforcement was sought, there would be no bright lines and it would be up to individual admins to decide whether to apply 500/30 and 1RR)?

    ←   ZScarpia   15:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Retro

Since there's a motion to open ARBPIA4, it seems appropriate to mention a discussion I was involved in just today related to another aspect of the previous decision.

There seems be some ambiguity regarding whether 500/30 should be preemptively applied to pages clearly entirely related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Local practice at RfPP has generally been to avoid preemptively protecting, following a 2017 discussion. This local practice seems to contradict the General Prohibition, which states: [Non-EC editors] are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Some administrators have mentioned they avoid reverting non-EC editors who aren't disruptive on these pages, despite the General Prohibition.

The state of current practice suggests a clarification regarding this prohibition's interaction with WP:PREEMPTIVE is needed at the very least. If the committee is considering a new case, this is probably an opportunity to review how practical these measures are for administrators to implement and how easy they are to understand (echoing concerns expressed above).

Doug Weller also mentioned related concerns in their 12 May 2019 comment above. Retro (talk | contribs) 01:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Maile66

Whatever you decide, please put it in a table format, easily accessible to any and all. As is, this policy is explained differently in separate places. It's been open to individual interpretation by whomever applies it, and, therefore, challenged by non-admin users who feel it is applied unnecessarily. We need something concise, easy to read, and very clear about what the policy is. The current policy is rather ambiguous. — Maile (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Question from User:MJL

While the motion below is still on track to be passed, I would like to ask how this would affect the decision of Antisemitism in Poland as it still awaits a proposed decision? I know during the workshop period, TonyBallioni suggested a broader remedy be applied to the topic of Antisemitism. Is this related? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Sometimes we can bogged down with the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The intention of DS is to prevent disruption; if there is material on Wikipedia which is likely to lead to disruption, then it is appropriate for us to monitor that material. If the DS wording inhibits us from appropriately preventing disruption then we may look to change the wording rather than allow the disruption to take place due to unclear wording. The material in this case, Airbnb#Delisting_of_West_Bank_settlements, does fall under the Palestine-Israel tension. It is currently neutral and factual, and we would want to keep it that way, so applying DS to that material is appropriate. (For me the greater debate is should that information be in the article on Airbnb, or in the article on Israeli settlement. But that's an editorial decision, not an ArbCom one.)

I think I'm comfortable with the template wording as is so we don't need to be fiddling with "page/article/section/material". If someone feels that there is significant enough content which falls under a DS topic on a particular page/article then they can place a DS template. If another person doesn't agree, the matter can be taken to AE for discussion and consensus. While the template is in place, any inappropriate edit to any part of the page would be liable for sanction - that would be to prevent, for example in this case, anyone deliberately vandalising Airbnb to reflect badly on the company in retaliation for their actions on the West Bank.

In short, I think we're fine as we are, and nothing needs to be done. Disagreements about siting of templates can be taken to AE. SilkTork (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Zero0000. My understanding is that a DS notice goes on the talkpage to let people know that the article comes under DS, and if someone edits that article, and it appears they are not aware that DS applies to the article, they need to be informed on their talkpage before sanctions can be applied against them. I understand that an editnotice can also be added, but does that mean a talkpage notice cannot be placed, and a user cannot be informed? Has there been a rule change which says that we are no longer using talkpage notices, and no longer informing users? I wouldn't have thought an talkpage notice editnotice is sufficient notice alone before sanctioning someone because, lets be honest, most people don't read talkpage notices editnotices. But they do read notices left on their talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Huldra, I see what you are saying. Though the rule regarding editnotices has been in place since January 2018: [2]. I think the intention was to ensure that users get warned by having editnotices placed on appropriate articles. But it has created a limbo loop hasn't it? The rule to place editnotices should be separate from the general rule on warning. That is, an editor who meets the general criteria for being warned, should not be able to escape sanction by wiki-lawyering that there was no editnotice in place. It looks like Rob intended or hoped that a bot would be created that allowed editnotices to be created if there was an appropriate talkpage notice in place. I think AGK is right - it would be helpful to conduct a review of the remedies. SilkTork (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Huldra - Hah, yes, I was a member of Mensa in the Seventies, yet my mind glazes over when faced with some ARBPIA stuff. But, truth be told, IQ tests only test how good someone is at solving IQ tests, they don't measure the ability to handle arcane Wikipedia bureaucracy created by an ever changing committee. SilkTork (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Arbitration remedies applying to the Arab–Israeli conflict seem to have grown confusing and patchworked. Is it time to conduct a review of all remedies? I'd like to hear from editors and enforcing administrators who are active in this topic area. Among other questions for a review, we should look at whether 1RR is effective – both in general and under the current rules of notification. AGK ■ 10:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Retired arbitrator

Airbnb is rather obviously not "reasonably construed" to be within the topic area of an international conflict, though it is "broadly construed" to be. That would mean discretionary sanctions are in force, but 1RR and the general prohibition do not apply. As for calls to review the entire topic area's sanction regime, I consider that unhelpful. There are some editors, admins even, who seem like they just simply won't understand anything we throw their way in this topic area. Further tweaking is highly unlikely to change that, because we've tweaked these sanctions about a dozen times already to try to solve such issues, and the repeated changes have never helped. If anything, they've made things more confused because we aren't just settling on one set of sanctions and sticking with it. What we have now is discretionary sanctions on articles "broadly construed" - meaning any article that's even tangentially related to the topic area. Additionally, we have 500/30 and 1RR on articles "reasonably construed" - meaning any article where one could not talk about the article subject at the top level without delving into the topic area. That really isn't that complicated or confused. The one positive clarification we could make here is to set forth a formal definition of "reasonably construed". I would suggest what I wrote above. ~ Rob13Talk 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC) My thinking on this has changed rather sharply after the recent Huldra/Sir Joseph kerfuffle, especially the admin response at AE. It has become clear that the current sanction regime, in total, is not working. I think we need another ABRPIA case to review the entire situation. As a potential road map, I'd like to consider a removal of blanket 500/30 in favor of implementing 500/30 where disruption occurs as a discretionary sanction, with a remedy explicitly noting that the Committee would like it to be used liberally but not unreasonably. Blanket 500/30 is a relic of a bygone era when 500/30 could not be applied by technical means in case-by-case scenarios. Existing protections could be automatically converted to discretionary sanctions appealable at AE like any other sanction, so no "mass-unprotecting" during a switch. I also think we need to rethink the awareness requirements of 1RR and its applicability. In particular, we could change the DS notice to include mention of 1RR and then allow a consensus of administrators at AE to enforce 1RR in cases where a reasonable editor who had received the notice would be aware the article was covered in addition to being able to enforce it where edit notices exist. In other words, edit notices would only be truly needed to enforce the requirement on articles that are difficult to tell are reasonably construed to be within the topic area, but not on those articles that are obviously related. Plus I think a look at the long-term contributors in this area would be useful to determine where there are issues that have not been solvable by the community. ~ Rob13Talk 19:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @Zero0000: Read carefully what I have written. I have not proposed removing 500/30. I have proposed removing blanket 500/30 of "reasonably construed" pages in favor of discretionary but liberal use of 500/30 to combat abuse across all "broadly construed" pages. I have proposed zero removals of existing protections, stating all existing protections should remain if we were to make such a switch. In fact, such a proposal may increase some protections by eliminating from our vernacular this "reasonably construed" language that is proving hard for admins to parse. The current rule is clearly causing some issues, given the protection of Airbnb, which I believe is rather plainly not intended by our sanctions, and I no longer think the benefits outweigh the harms of removing administrator discretion from the equation in this remedy. ~ Rob13Talk 08:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)  Note: We are trying to reach a consensus, so placing comments by a retired arbitrator into {{Hidden}}. AGK ■ 11:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• PIA ARCAs make me want to hide under the blankets, and it seems I'm not the only one. Frankly I'd love to see this topic area get a rules overhaul, but I don't have the time to do it. A number of these repetitive requests on PIA issues have centered on this point about "what if it's just a small section in a larger and mostly-unrelated article" and I've generally held the view that such things should not be included in all the warning/templating/etc infrastructure. I don't see any reason this should be an exception to that general view. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what's more to be said here - but I've been lax at ARCA, so I thought I'd pitch in. In my opinion - the discretionary sanctions can be applied where the disruption occurs - hence the broadly construed nature of that. I would hope that the sanction would be as light as possible in areas that are more tangential to the case, be it through time limitation of the sanction or through a tailored sanction which hits as small an area as possible.
  I like the idea of re-doing ARBPIA, similar to OR, I'd want to hide under the blanket! Worm^TT(talk) 08:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Arab–Israel conflict

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

Proposed:

The committee opens proceedings on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, naming it Palestine-Israel articles 4. Proceedings will take place in the normal form. Evidence (and related submissions, including at the Workshop) must remain within the proceedings scope. The following matters will initially be within scope:

• Trends in disruptive editing of related pages, but not the specific conduct of any editor.
• Difficulties in Wikipedia administrative processes, particularly arbitration enforcement (AE), with regard to related pages.
• Currently-authorised remedies under any arbitration decision that affect related pages.
• Prospective amendments to, or replacements for, existing remedies.
• Other general matters relating to the ease with which Wikipedia keeps order on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Support

1. Proposed. We don't have a lot of bandwidth right now, but we seem to agree that it is time to formally review these decisions and look into why participating editors and uninvolved administrators alike seem to be discontented. This motion proposes a low-fuss path towards conducting such a review, and hopefully matches with what colleagues were thinking. AGK ■ 11:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
2. I don't want to, because these discussions are sprawling and polarising. I don't know how we are going to fit it in, with our other workload. However, I do agree that this is probably the right time to do this, it needs tidying up. What's more, if the committee itself can let this stall so long, it appears that we don't have a clear way forward and that's what we're here to try to sort out. I do like the proposed scope, making this a bit more meta and might make things a bit more manageable, good job AGK. Worm^TT(talk) 12:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
3. I have been meaning to do a motion on this for a little while now, but never got round to it, so thanks to AGK for taking the initiative, and for giving thoughtful shape to the proposed proceedings. SilkTork (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
4. I support this in principle, and agree with the above, thanks AGK for tackling this. But I don't know that we have the bandwidth for this right now. One possibility would be to schedule the opening for a specific time in the future after we've moved through some of the current business. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
5. It's daunting to think about redoing ARBPIA, but it looks like there is fairly widespread agreement among editors in that topic area and administrators trying to enforce remedies in that topic area that the restrictions there are in bad shape. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
6. With the caveat that we get the big thing on our plate out of the way first. Katie^talk 16:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
7. Per everybody else - inescapably necessary, but let's deal with our other priorities first. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain/recuse

Comments

---

Amendment request: The Rambling Man

Initiated by Ritchie333 at 21:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

The Rambling Man arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=873547734#The_Rambling_Man:_Motion

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

• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification to User talk:The Rambling Man

Information about amendment request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=873547734#The_Rambling_Man:_Motion

• Propose changing the ban text to the following (deleted words struck, new words in bold):

The Rambling Man is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process), or to discussions anywhere on the project where his input into a DYK nomination has been solicited.

Statement by Ritchie333

I have recently made peace with The Rambling Man (TRM) following an earlier dispute. As he has been very helpful in the past with good article reviews, I suggested one he might be interested, and also mentioned an earlier thread where Gerda Arendt had wanted a DYK hook reviewed that TRM would probably also be interested in. TRM simply said that he was unable to help due to the ban listed above.

The bold addition to the ban text above would allow TRM to make more positive contributions to the project in a good spirit of collaboration with willing editors, while continuing to address the concerns raised by the proponents of the original ban. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man

I've been asked many many times to contribute to, review or otherwise provide wisdom on DYKs. I'd be delighted to do so, thus enriching our main page for our readers, and reducing the shocking error rate we currently see. As long as it's only when someone asks me nicely, I can't see a problem in me generously offering my time to enhance the experience of our audience. After all, this project is all about our readers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, hang on, let's correct, it's only when the nominator of a DYK asks me nicely then I'll allow my expertise to be sought. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Gatoclass There's no such thing as "DYK privileges", just an aspiration to stop the usual errors getting to the main page. And for what it's worth, I'm not happy with the sudden relaxation in quality going to the main page, the ERRORS page has been full of issues with DYK lately. Let's try to work together to reduce the garbage our readers see, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. And yes, I'm only going to comment on DYKs whose nominators have asked me nicely to comment on. Nothing else. That's what this amendment is all about. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 23:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Gatoclass thanks, once again. Indeed, before I was topic banned, I had participated many times at DYK during the review process. I can't think of a single instance where my reviews weren't considered (as a minimum) perfectly suitable for the process. It's clear to me that there's some very unclear thinking on this proposal from a few, where various issues are being incorrectly conflated, not for the betterment of the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 seriously, the quality of the DYK section is so poor, every day, that it really needs help. I think the ban on me helping is simply cutting off one's nose to spite one's face really. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you get sarcasm really, right? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Banedon great input, I'm not sure it makes any sense though. This is simply to allow me to review articles for suitability. Nothing more. The hysteria surrounding some mythical "slippery slope" is pure fiction, there are plenty of people, yourself at the head of the queue, who are there to ensure I will remain persona non grata. Problem is that I'm a brilliant reviewer. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh my god, it's just how these cases work, people ping each other to let them know that they've responded to their comments. But I suppose it's yet another chance to make a mountain out of a molehill. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, not hostile at all, just conventional. Deary me. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

ERRORS2, as the name suggests, is for ERRORS, not for DYK reviews. That's pretty obvious. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I've already said once My input would be purely at the review stage, i.e. checking the article complied with every single DYK rule, that the article in general was up to scratch, and that the hook was verifiable and adequately interesting. If it was twiddled and tweaked thereafter, I'd have nothing to say about that, I'd have done my bit. I don't expect to request anyone's opinion on anything during a review as I'm more than capable of these matter myself. Does any of that need clarification? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

PBP89, that's false, I don't expect anything to adhere to one particular "style", that's a very odd (and fake) accusation. I expect general compliance with MOS, but that's just what you'd hope from a professional encyclopedia, isn't it? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!)

And please stop following me around Wikipedia. This is basic harassment. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It's only you who is harassing me PBP89, casting aspersions about my "requirements", telling me to "shut up", calling me a "bully". Disgusting. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you should leave it now, many other editors have asked you to dial it down a couple of notches. As this is about the DYK process, something you don't participate in, I'm not even clear how you found your way here to start harassing me again. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

As I suggested above, you've been asked to dial it down a notch or two and avoid personal attacks and other such problematic behaviour. I'm not displaying arrogance, just honesty. My skills are in demand, as noted by many many editors here. That you arrive here to attack me again and again is highly problematic. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

And you would be advised to strike your personal attacks and stop harassing me. This isn't a case against me, by the way. Your hyperbolic "increase sanctions" is a very good example of why you really need to dial it down a few notches. Or I suppose you could just tell me to "shut up" and call me a "bully" instead? As for examples, I'll leave that to the hundreds of editors I've reviewed GANs, FLCs, FACs for. Several of them have commented right here. You might like to read what many of them have said. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

And that logic is flawed twice over. Firstly, this is about reviews asked for by specific editors. So they can choose whether to interact with me or not. Secondly, DYK is the only section of Wikipedia where I don't interact with other users. I have given literally thousands of reviews at GAN, FLC, FAC etc with no problem at all. I know there's a desperation to keep "punishing" me, but when attempting to do so, people should use logical arguments and really resist the temptation to just reiterate their grudges. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis what do you mean "user subpage"? That's just for reporting errors on the main page (or about to go to the main page, around six per day), not for requesting review of items at DYK. I think the point being made here is that people are looking for me to actually review the DYK nomination. Which of course I'd be glad to do, and as described, I'm very good at doing, but the current ban precludes that. Hence one of the reasons for WP:TRM funnily enough. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis My input would be purely at the review stage, i.e. checking the article complied with every single DYK rule, that the article in general was up to scratch, and that the hook was verifiable and adequately interesting. If it was twiddled and tweaked thereafter, I'd have nothing to say about that, I'd have done my bit. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee One step at a time. There's so much protection around the DYK project from regulars, there's little chance of opening up the topic ban to that extent, we'll still have to wait until the last moment before queues are promoted packed with errors, but the initial proposal might just help those who need a critical pair of eyes before that last moment. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Gatoclass boom, there it is. Exactly. Appreciate the level-headedness. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein since you're wikilawyering, please take this as me requesting that this amendment be heard. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, personal attack noted. This really isn't the appropriate venue for such insults. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, no that's an errors page. This is about reviewing DYKs. The two are completely different. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you've missed the point again. To perform a review of a DYK at the request of a nominator, the review must be conducted on the relevant DYK template. It makes literally no sense at all to place the review in a user ERRORS space. I don't think you realise how DYK reviews work. Nor do you appear to be paying attention to the vast majority of the contributors here. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I said you weren’t paying attention to the community consensus here which is clearly in favour of allowing me to perform formal reviews of DYKs when explicitly requested to do so by nominators. Indeed, even those intimately involved in the process are encouraging my input. And as you are familiar with DYk, you will know that explicit formal reviews can’t be performed in user space. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, but you haven't offered a single reason in logic to oppose me from providing high quality DYK reviews, but then I suppose that's how you arbitrate. Who said anything about counting votes? I was considering the array of logical arguments from many who are actively involved in the DYK process, and from those who have received quality reviews from me in the past. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Even more now. Those that are espousing logical argument are in favour of me helping out. Those who are espousing hate and grudge are not in favour of me helping out. I see which side you have selected. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv that's bang on the money. I challenge those here to actually look at the quality of the reviews I have provided in the past, and even quite recently, at DYK, FAC and more frequently at GAN and FLC (where I suspect I've made in excess of 1000 reviews over the years). I challenge those claiming that allowing me to provide such quality reviews to those who ask for it and those only would be of any issue to the community to provide evidence as to why that would ever be the case. As I think several editors have noted here, this is simply about improving the quality of the main page, yet unfortunately it appears that this is being used by certain users and Arbs as a chance to berate me once again or to simply state the status quo as if that is, in any way, helpful to this process. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv Of course, calling me "toxic" is a direct personal attack (I know you didn't) and of course I'm more than happy to help the project with my expertise, but we have Arbs here who are just making personal decisions and ignoring the community. It's a lost cause really, as they'll all gather round the Arb for self-protection. C'est la vie. PUNISHMENT is alive and kicking at Wikipedia, and some Arbs are promoting it. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I just took a quick sojourn around my "template" edits (which is where you'll find DYK nominations, preps etc, for those of you unaware of the arcane DYK process), and didn't quite realise how many incredibly helpful edits I'd made in a bid to keep the main page free from so many errors. I went back over a thousand or more, practically none of them saw any kickback. So given none of the reviews I have ever done for DYK were objectionable, nor any of my corrections to prep sets were objectionable, I would venture to suggest that the only real objection was to me time and again berating the project for its general lack of quality at the project talk page (which, for those not in the know, can be found at WT:DYK). So, perhaps to simplify things, we could actually just make the topic ban applicable to the project talkpage itself, as that seems to be where all the problems manifested. There really was never an issue with my reviewing, that's fake news I'm afraid. Opposing allowing me to do the encyclopedia a favour by performing reviews upon request really is punitive. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

valereee I'm not sure I follow. What I mean is that the DYKs etc I've reviewed have gone through the main page etc without any complaints. In other words they're of a quality sufficient for our main page. Plenty of people complain about other DYKs, etc. It's not just me. Or else why do we have the quaint WP:ERRORS? It's not circular at all, it's just evidence that what I do in my reviews is of benefit to Wikipedia. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it. Because right now, all those in opposition have offered not a single shred of evidence in that regard. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee you know what, I'm not sure I've ever used the word "perfect" in relation to my reviews, so you might like to revisit all your comments and adjust accordingly. All I know is that I see errors (like "I see ghosts") just before the hit the main page. On average, around five to six per day. So all I'm saying is that I could probably help reduce that. You need to choose your paraphrasing more carefully friend! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee No, I'm not sure I've ever said my reviews couldn't be criticised. You need to work on that again. Please stop putting words in my metaphorical mouth. If you want "the answer" (TM), then it's "all my reviews are designed to minimise errors on the main page as to reduce the embarrassment for the project every day and in every way". Feel free to use that verbatim, or how you see fit. But stop making stuff up about me. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee thanks, but now your comments make no sense. There's nothing circular about an open review system where I do my utmost to fix things and leave it to others to finish the job. Unless, of course, you're acknowledging that I'm the ultimate perfect reviewer. I doubt that too. Once again, please think about what you're saying and how you're saying it. This is a very serious Arbcom case, and we already have several contributors simply not reading evidence, please don't exacerbate the situation with further obfuscation and confusion. It seems like some people contributing here can't quite grasp what's happening, and your misguided assertions really aren't helping. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee Yes, and I appreciate your comments. Just the problem is we already have one Arb who has literally shown no interest at all in the evidence being provided, and hyperbole like making claims I think my reviews are "perfect" just feed that problematic behaviour. There's no "logical fallacy" at all. It's empirical evidence. Please, before you continue to make such bold claims, re-assess what you're doing. I'm here to reduce problems on the main page. Arbs, users etc don't like it. Individuals who have experienced what I do believe it's a good thing. Let's leave it at that. Stop trying to re-position it. You're not quite making it, and every time you try, it's still not quite right. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee Once again I appreciate your support, but I've never made any claims that I am infallible or perfect or close. I'm not clear on why you're making such claims using various different terms. I'm here to improve the main page. Let's at least agree on that. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid if we can't see this kind of thing for what it really is, we're beyond repair. I think humour plays a large part of a community, if EEng's block and subsequent friendly discourse with the blocking admin is now being positioned as something "disappointing", all hope is lost. Forget it all, block everyone, the game is over, Pacman is dead. Wow, just wow. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 you don't get it, I get that. It was humour, and every single person but you got it. Never mind. By the way, what does any of this have to do with my ability to provide top notch reviews at DYK if someone requests it? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are some basic communication problems then. Not one single soul at ANI had a problem, including the admin, yet you personally found it problematic without being involved at all. How curious. I'd suggest a break from trying to continually identify problematic behaviour in my posts when you don't appear to understand or appreciate the context in which the posts are made. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ironically there are several errors about to go the main page tomorrow, i.e. in less than three hours. No-one cares here, because it's all about process, bureaucracy, grudges, etc. Bravo. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset bravo. I posted a few hours ago that the main issue was with the interaction with the overall DYK community, not with individual reviews. I continue to maintain that the DYK community have to work harder to make their contributions more inline with the main page quality expectations, but this request is not about allowing me to post there, it's just about posting and reviewing specific nominations. So there should be absolutely no problem at all. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset could you describe why you think the proposal is too broad? After all, it's all about me being constrained to review a DYK if and only if a nominator requests me to make such a review. I have then stated that I would make such a review and if subsequent comments were made, I would ignore them. Can you explain what is "too broad" about this proposal? Can you explain the negative aspects of this suggestion? (PS No-one has suggested I would post to "that page", which I believe you mean WT:DYK, so can you clarify your statement?) The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf spot on. It's abundantly clear from the two or three users here staunchly against any kind of relief of the topic ban that it would only take the slightest lapse before it's all rushed back here again. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis I'm not disappointed, it's the quality of the encyclopedia that you've let down. I guess I am disappointed by Arbcom's inability to read community consensus, with overwhelming support for me to be allowed to conduct these reviews under highly constrained conditions, even by those at the coal face of DYK right now, but that seems part and parcel of how the system operates these days. Punitive sanctions are very much in favour for certain users. We should certainly amend WP:PUNITIVE to reflect the outcome of this proposal. Cheers to Ritchie333 however for trying, I think we knew where this was headed from the get-go. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

AGK, you need describe where my behaviour has been "appalling". And as for your threat, I don't appreciate that either. Is that really what you should be doing here, bullying and threatening me? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 you couldn't be more wrong, as most of your colleagues at DYK have testified here. Spectacular would be a great way of describing my reviews. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Just because I said you were wrong, that isn’t condescending or rude, just the truth. The barnstar is a perfectly apt example that when I am asked to contribute a review that I can do so very well and work incredibly well with nominators to help them improve Wikipedia. Disallowing nominators from seeking my input in a formal review is harming Wikipedia, we can see that from the ongoing error rate at DYK. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. This is about offering reviews to people who specifically ask me to. Nothing more. You’ve blown it up into something it never was, and coupled with your attacks, I’m no longer interested in what you have to say. I’m not shooting myself in the foot, you are continually shooting the encyclopaedia in the head. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

MJL, I think fundamentally if people want me to review their nominations, and as I said, I will provide the review and not interact with any one else during the review other than the nominator, there is no conceivable issue. I was pleased to receive a reviewers barnstar this morning, isn’t that a pip?! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

General comment, such a time sink, imagine if all the time spent here trying to continue the punitive measures had been spent reviewing DYKs? Sometimes I think all perspective is lost here. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis The evidence is all over Wikipedia. I've conducted dozens of DYK reviews in the past without a single problem (as I have had dozens of DYKs of my own). I've done a couple of hundred GAN reviews and made possibly in excess of a thousand FLC reviews without problems. I've also engaged in scores of FAC reviews without issue. That's the problem here. The focus hasn't been on what I can bring to those individuals who seek my help, it's all about a bunch of other grudges. If people could focus on the facts and that is that I have provided and continue to provide (even during this timesink) top notch reviews to those who want to work with me. Everything else, including the threats, baiting, attacks and harassment I'm receiving here, is irrelevant to the purpose of the request. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

MJL, if people continually attack and bait me, they will receive what they dish out. That has absolutely nothing to do with this proposal which, once again, relies on my proven track record of hundreds if not thousands of problem-free reviews. You can all make up as many doomsday scenarios as you like, but simply put, that's a waste of time. I will work with only those who request my help, and then only in the capacity of reviewer and then only to make my review, respond only to the nominator, and no-one else. Now then, I'm really exasperated by this giant timesink, and I have far better things to do than continue to battle against all odds here, so I'm getting back to reviewing articles in every other part of Wikipedia. If it's decided that the only part I can't do it (DYK) remains thus, well that's punitive to both me and the DYK project (and patently absurd as there's not a single shred of evidence that my reviews have ever been problematic). If the evidence is overlooked in favour of long-standing grudges and the attacks, harassment continue, well there's nothing I can do about that, I'm a fair target these days. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it's a huge timesink for the community. Just look at how many people have edited here over the last couple of weeks, how much support there is from those who are deeply invested in the DYK project, how frequently the evidence of my reviewing has been completely ignored, how often I've reiterated that I won't engage with anyone outside those who have asked for my assistance. The problem is, as always, that these are always an opportunity to bring out the grudges, personal attacks and harassment. Many thanks to the many many level-headed individuals who have analysed the facts and are encouragingly non-punitive who wish to see the encyclopedia and other good faith editors benefit from my reviews. That, after all, is all this clarification is about. Now, back to me reviewing OTDs, GANs, FACs and FLCs. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Worm That Turned, I've already told you how this can work. I've already told you all that I support the ARCA. I've already given a plethora of evidence as to why it would work. I'm not going to beg for these punitive measures to be removed, that you have testimony from a dozen or so people that support the modification should be more than sufficient. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  And please demonstrate evidence that in any of my reviews in any format that there is a risk that this might not work out very well indeed for everyone concerned? I.e. could you please make an evidence-based decision constrained to the request in hand? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  So you have precisely no evidence that any single review of mine has been problematic? I didn't think so. And forgive me for asking, but what makes you think you know more about how I will behave in the DYK review process than all of those involved in the DYK process? Gatoclass, Vanamonde etc all do sterling work there, were party to the project talk page topics for which I was topic banned, yet they still believe I can be of benefit. But you don't. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  Nope, you're still not getting in. There exists precisely zero evidence that I will be nothing but helpful in reviews. You keep arguing about what could happen but nothing of that sort ever has happened in the review process. Moreover, I will only be commenting on DYK reviews that I am asked to review. Honestly, exasperating doesn't really cover it. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I'm sorry but you're just saying the same thing again and again. And none of it is based in any way in relation to the reviews I have made or the caveats I and others have already stated would be in place. There is not one shred of evidence that I have been or would be "rude" (or disruptive or whatever) during a review of a DYK nomination. There never has been, nor ever will there be. Claiming otherwise goes directly against all available evidence of my reviews over the past 14 years. Your DYK colleagues are in disagreement with you. Clearly I would not be invited to review anything you ever produced, but that's the whole point, because you find me unpalatable we still wouldn't need to interact. I am simply offering my services to those who actually want to work on improving their articles and DYKs, no-one else, and nothing more. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been very clear about what this proposal would mean. And it's not bragging, it's simply pointing at evidence, rather than just making hand-waving arguments up about scenarios which may well never exist. It's all about assisting those who ask for it, nothing more. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, thank you, your comment barely makes sense and literally has no relevance at all to this proceeding. Having said that, it's a great example of why TRM is a simple target as users and arbs alike pay no attention to actual evidence. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

For those continuing to advocate punitive measures: "When a toxic person can no longer control you, they will try to control how others see you. The misinformation will seem unfair but stay above it, trusting that other people will eventually see the truth just like you did." The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Actual evidence update turns out I've had 72 DYKs which means I've done at least 67 DYK reviews. And I know I've done more than that because I gave up on nominating my own DYKs and just reviewed other DYKs for fun. Can anyone find a single instance a DYK review that I've made which resulted in disruption or dismay? I'm sure those commenting here have done the research. I've got time, so please, take your time and let me know. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Gatoclass with respect, I think it's pretty obvious that this has been entirely about the formal review process as if I want to review any DYK informally and engage in any kind of conversation, I can already do that. But that's not what's been requested of me from others. However, no harm I suppose in using the term "formal" review, or even your suggestion. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You are aware that the wording is: The Rambling Man is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process). In other words there's nothing stopping me talking about the DYK process at ERRORS2, so I'm not sure what I could say about the process there which could be "actionable" (as you put it). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The wording as I've described to you is clear. And the restriction on commenting on the process is not restricted to ERRORS, but ERRORS2. And no, I don't comment on editors, I comment on the process failures. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It now feels like it's getting to filibustering time. Continually raising the same concerns again and again which are covered by other existing sanctions which aren't being modified here is outside the scope of this amendment. We all understand you don't like me, but many many others appreciate the work I do and I've given all I can here in terms of my assurances that I will review only those DYKs I am asked to, commenting only on the content, and not responding to anyone but the nominator. I fail, therefore, to see the purpose of continually hammering the same points to death. Please take a moment to re-read the statistics. I've conducted literally thousands of reviews across all aspects of Wikipedia. I have been waiting for any evidence that all the purported hypothetical horror stories could come true during such reviews. I haven't seen anything. Now could we put this trivial amendment to bed one way or the other? And then we can spend all the valuable time wasted here arguing about things which aren't going to happen on other things like improving the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL perhaps you're not aware, I already can discuss anything related to DYK at WP:ERRORS2, including nominations. This amendment doesn't modify that at all. Yikes indeed. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL ok, well ERRORS2 is to point out the many problems with the DYKs (and other main page content) that I'm not permitted to comment on directly (per existing sanctions). This modification would allow me to simply review DYKs which nominators have asked me to help with (usually to prevent last minute issues and to improve the content of the encyclopedia). It's unfortunate that you are commenting as you are with the limited understanding of the overall picture. To summarise: I am disallowed from discussing DYK processes or nominations anywhere other than at WP:TRM. This proposed amendment seeks only to enable me to assist editors who wish to ensure that DYKs on the main page are promoted while minimising the usual (3 per set) error rate. I have made it clear, many many times what this minor adjustment to the terms of my topic ban would mean. I have also noted, perhaps five times (?) that I would only respond to the nominator, and if the nomination became entrenched, I would walk away. Sadly, some users are intent on continuing the punitive measures and are apparently not interested in the community's well-argued and considerable consensus. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass

I haven't had much time to consider this proposal, and will be going offline shortly so will be unable to comment further for some time. I'm a little concerned about some of the comments TRM has been making with regard to some DYK hooks lately, so I'm somewhat ambivalent about the notion of his DYK restrictions being eased at this point. However, I have said from the outset that he should be permitted to copyedit DYK hooks himself as his work in that regard has always been both useful and uncontroversial, and as he would no longer have to prompt other editors to do it for him and those editors in turn could employ their talents elsewhere. With regard to Ritchie333's proposal above, I have considered making the same proposal myself occasionally, but I worry about the potential for abuse, as his supporters could constantly canvas him for his views at DYK and we'd be back to square one. But at the same time, I don't want to be unreasonable. I'll need some more time to think about this, and see what others have to say. Gatoclass (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I see TRM has amended his previous statement to propose restricting his commentary to requests from nominators only. On the face of it, I can't see much objection to that. Gatoclass (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@TRM: I have refactored my original statement as I think it could have been better expressed. And of course, I'm always happy to work together constructively to improve the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Having had some more time to think about this, I'm struggling to see a downside. TRM's problematic behaviour has arisen almost entirely around his dissatisfaction with the quality of reviewing at DYK. It's hard to imagine any such problems arising if it's TRM himself doing the reviewing - is he going to be castigating himself for not doing a good enough job? Moreover, DYK is always in need of more reviewers - particularly quality reviewers - and TRM is about as rigorous a reviewer as they come. So I see this as potentially a win both for those who are seeking TRM's assistance in creating better nominations, and for the DYK project at large. In short, providing he intends to confine his reviewing to the nomination pages of those who request his assistance, I'm in favour of it. And it's not as though, after all, we can't return to the scope of the original ban if new problems arise. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia, I probably should have responded to your question earlier asking why TRM can't just conduct a review on his dedicated "ERRORS2" page. The reason (if you are unfamiliar with the process) is that DYK reviews are conducted on dedicated pages which look like this. They can also at times get quite complex, like this recent example.

TRM's errors page is not designed for extended reviews, it's there to identify hook and article errors. You can't approve a DYK nomination anywhere but on the dedicated nomination page, and if TRM were to conduct reviews on his errors page, you would have to save the resulting discussion to the nomination page anyway for future reference. So why not simply have the discussion at the dedicated page from the outset?

I reiterate my previous statement that I think easing TRM's restrictions in this manner would not only be highly unlikely to have a negative impact at DYK, it should have an outright positive impact as we are always in need of more reviewers at DYK and TRM is the kind of rigorous reviewer that the project needs more of. Moreover, he will only be reviewing the articles of users who have specifically invited him and with whom he therefore has a positive working relationship.

Perhaps I should also remind the Arbs that I can hardly be described as a fanboy of TRM, having strongly advocated for his DYK restrictions in the original request. In that regard, I am still strongly of the opinion that his ban from DYK talk, WP:ERRORS and any other highly visible page, where he has shown a persistent tendency to soapbox about the DYK project, should remain in place. But for dedicated (and intrinsically low-profile) DYK nominations pages - where he has been specifically invited by the nominator - it's very hard to imagine how that could become disruptive - on the contrary as I've suggested it should be of net benefit to the DYK project. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia - yes it's true that individual nominations pages are transcluded to the global nominations page, but relatively few nominations get input from more than one user as people are generally looking for a new nomination that has yet to be reviewed. And as TRM is a rigorous reviewer, it would probably only be on rare occasions that somebody would want to challenge his conclusions, so the likelihood of exchanges with DYK regulars would probably be slim. As I've said previously, the main issue with TRM's participation at DYK in the past has been his disparagement of users, and of the DYK project in general, for defective reviewing. Since the proposed modification to his sanction would only allow him to do his own reviews, by invitation, there would be little reason or opportunity for him to be commenting on the reviews of others. But again, in the event that this modification did result in significantly more problematic behaviour, which seems unlikely, one could always go back to the previous regime. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Banedon - that was an exceptionally long nomination discussion that is a rarity at DYK - I included it only as an example of how long the occasional review gets, and how impractical it would therefore be for TRM's ERRORS2 page to be doubling as a review page. Most DYK discussions are brief and have only one reviewer. In TRM's case, he doesn't miss much and consequently as I said his reviews are only likely to be challenged infrequently. Also, if people don't want to interact with him, they can simply ignore any nomination he is a participant in. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Banedon - apologies for the delay in responding - I've had a very busy last couple of days. In response to your comment:

I don't agree with the argument that "if people don't want to interact with him, they can simply ignore any nomination he is a participant in" - if we accept it, then it could literally apply anywhere, e.g. "let's lift the topic ban from DYK and if people don't want to interact with him, they could simply avoid DYK"

- With respect, there is a world of difference between allowing a user to comment in an obscure nomination page, where he has been specifically invited and is welcome, and allowing him to comment at will on any topic he chooses on a high-traffic page like WT:DYK, potentially causing chronic disruption. Having said that, I have acknowledged that there would be some risk of disruption, however small - I just thought the proposal would be worth a try. Regardless, it looks as if it's on the verge of failure now (TRM has hardly helped his cause with some of his comments), I'm just putting my response on the record. Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The motion to amend as currently worded does not I believe accurately reflect the discussion here. The amendment states: As an exception, he may review any DYK nomination at the direct request of the nominator, but may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination, but that would allow him to review a nomination by request of the nominator anywhere, when there were clear objections to him being permitted to participate in DYK discussions at high-traffic pages such as DYK talk or WP:ERRORS. The motion should read he may review any DYK nomination on its nomination page only, at the direct request of the nominator, or something similar. Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

On reflection, I think the proposed amendment could be better expressed anyway, as the wording is somewhat confusing as it stands. I would suggest striking the second sentence altogether and simply modifying the last sentence, which is currently This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process) to: This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page, to DYK nomination pages where TRM has been invited to conduct the review by the nominator, or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process) or something similar. That way, all the exceptions are covered together in the one sentence. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, he could do the same thing at his own errors page, WP:ERRORS2, if he wanted - and in fact he has sniped at DYK on occasion there, but not to a degree that I've felt was actionable. Given that that page has been extant for a considerable period now, I'm finding it hard to imagine how he could be more disruptive at individual nomination pages. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@TRM: I would have to refamiliarize myself with the context of the debate that led to your sanction in order to respond fully to that, but while it may be true that the wording of your sanction does not expressly bar you from commenting on the DYK process at WP:ERRORS WP:ERRORS2 there is the restriction against commenting on the competence of editors, and there sometimes can be a fine line between the two - though as I've said I don't think you've overstepped the line. Given that, my point is simply that I don't see much reason why you couldn't be trusted to also conduct reviews when invited at nomination pages, where the incentive to soapbox would be further diminished. Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Cas Liber

I think the modification provides clarity. Wikipedia is also desperately short of reviewers. I see this as a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Narutolovehinata5

Considering the issues with TRM's behavior at DYK before, I still feel that it would be better to stick to the status quo, unless TRM would promise to abide by the rest of his topic ban (i.e. refrain from making judgments about editors' competence) and he would promise to tone down his rhetoric. The main issue why he was banned from DYK in the first place was due to his attitude, which led to conflicts and frustrations with the rest of the DYK community. I'm not comfortable with him coming back unless there is effort that these issues would not happen again.

If consensus determines that this proposal be implemented, may I suggest some kind of probational period where in he could be allowed to contribute to DYK again (in what manner, let consensus determine), but if returns to his old ways or the prior problems return, then the stricter ban would be reinforced. I'm not sure how long would this period be, but probably no more than six months: if after the period there are no problems then he can be allowed back for good. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Upon seeing TRM's new comments in his section, I am putting it for the record that I am opposed to this proposal at this time. Even here he is showing the same kind of attitude and arrogance that got him into a lot of trouble before, with statements such as "Problem is that I'm a brilliant reviewer" and "I think the ban on me helping is simply cutting off one's nose to spite one's face really" showing that he either is unable to or refuses to stop belittling other editors (whether implicitly or explicitly). Considering it appears that his attitude remains unchanged from before, I fear that letting him back even in a limited capacity will result in the resumption of toxicity that greatly hurt the project in the past. Thus, I strongly advise that the status quo remain for now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gerda if the word "toxic" was harsh, but it was a frank assessment of the situation at DYK in the past. Too much drama, too much fighting, and sagging morale took place because of TRM's comments (whether directly or indirectly). Sometimes you need to be direct to the point to get your feelings across, even if the words sound harsh. I would only be open for TRM to return to DYK if he can promise and prove that his prior attitude problems will no longer arise. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Even here in this very discussion, TRM is still showing that snarky attitude. I suggest to the arbitrators to keep this in mind when discussing the matter and making a final decision. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• I do not mean to stalk or anything (in fact, the discussion I'm about to link, I had stumbled upon for reasons not related to this ARCA discussion), but I am very disappointed at the behavior TRM showed at WP:ANI#Block of User:EEng and am starting to feel that he is being given special treatment on-Wiki. I'd imagine if a different editor with the exact same attitude did the same thing, they would have been gone long ago, or been given stricter sanctions. As a response to the other comments below, while I'm very much a believer in second chances and I'm not closing the door on supporting this proposal, I will only do so if and only if TRM promises to be more civil, refrain from making insults or other similar comments, and only follow the rules of the proposed motion. Right now, with absolutely no sign that TRM is even willing to change his ways, it greatly disappoints me that people here are even willing to consider this proposal, and I fear that, in spite of this proposal having limited scope, it would still be enough to make the old issues resume. (I personally have my opinions about WP:ERRORS2 and think it should go away, but that's a story for another time, and right now I think it's a necessary evil if only to prevent more drama). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What I find unbelievable is how an editor can get away with a comment that simply says "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" in a discussion. That's not humor, that's incivility. TRM, I was not even referring to EEng's block or EEng in general, but rather your behavior on that discussion. Did you really need to gravedance on the block being lifted or doing that "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" comment? If any other editor did that, I'm sure they would have been given at least a warning. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between humor and insults. Humor is supposed to make you laugh, make you feel good. Like for example a comedy show or a light-hearted moment. Laughing at people's misery is not exactly what you'd call humor in that sense. At best, it's a lame attempt at humor, and at worst it outright does the exact opposite (i.e. it makes people mad instead). And again, I was not referring to EEng's block. I don't have any opinions on said block or its circumstances. I am only referring to your "HAHAHAHA" comment. replyNarutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I know this is basically a slippery slope fallacy, but there is a fear that, even under the limited set of circumstances that he would be allowed, it might not be enough to prevent the issues with civility that were commonplace in the past (and indeed can even be seen to some extent in this discussion). Sure it could be argued that those with issues with him could simply avoid interacting with him, but what if such an avoidance is impossible? There also seems to be the fear that, in practice, such an exception could be abused to the point that it would make the original restrictions useless in the first place (i.e. people would just keep asking him to participate, rendering the original topic ban moot). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• After reading Vanamonde's proposed guidelines, I would say that I would be willing to support such a proposal, if TRM would be limited to strictly only talking about the hook wording and the articles themselves, and that he can still be sanctioned in case he goes beyond such restrictions without approval. However, I still have concerns that, due to his alleged reputation for "nitpicking" (note that I am quoting other editors here, this is not necessarily my thoughts), that even such a limited proposal may not be enough to mitigate concerns about civility. For example, I fear that, even if he is only asked to discuss about article and hook issues, he may raise "issues" that the nominator or other reviewers think aren't issues at all, which could lead to problems. I also agree, that if consensus is to add another exception to TRM's case, that such an exception should initially be short-term and should only be made permanent if the previous issues no longer arise. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Well AGK, if, as you say, TRM's attitude in this discussion has been "appalling", then I honestly and frankly have little hope that things will improve if this exception is implemented. It's kind of worrying that TRM is still showing a really condescending attitude in this very discussion (about granting him an exception), when him keeping civil and working on improving his attitude would have been the proper action, to increase the chances of the proposal passing. With the way things are going, it seems very likely that, considering TRM's continuing attitude, that the proposal will fail spectacularly if it was implemented. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• You're being unnecessarily rude in this discussion TRM and that is not giving confidence on your ability to keep civil. So what if you were given a barnstar? That is besides the point for the purposes of this discussion.　Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Thryduulf: This is a late reply to your last comment, but considering TRM is already showing signs of incivility on this discussion, as well as apparently showing a superiority complex, it leavea me with little faith that he would suddenly turn civil and the issues would not reappear if the proposal is accepted. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• You're pretty much proving my point here TRM, about the superiority complex. Sure it's nice to get a barnstar at all, but you don't have to brag about it. And in any case, the fact that you received a barnstar here has little-to-nothing to do with the actual topic of this discussion, which in the end, boils down to civility. Few people here are doubting your reviewing skills and in fact even some of the opposers here acknowledge your ability to detect errors. The question of this whole discussion is basically if that is enough to excuse your previous and current issues with civility, or if the proposal has enough safeguards to ensure that the previous problems won't resurface. And from the way you've been replying all this time, I can already tell that this proposal, of accepted, is doomed to failure. You were already asked nicely by some of the comments here to cease your tirades against DYK or its participants, and it was even proposed by another editor as a condition for you to return even in a limited capacity. And yet you have continued to berate DYK, as can be seen in your last message. It does not matter if it's "the truth" or not, that is for consensus to decide. But what is clear is that, with your current attitude, you are basically shooting yourself in the foot. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Gerda: If we really need to pass this proposal, then at least to me Vanamonde's proposal seems to be the most reasonable: TRM would be allowed to comment, but only upon the request of the nominator, and can only bring up article and hook issues, but cannot say anything about editors or the DYK process; failure to adhere to the latter could result in sanctions. If further safeguards are necessary, then perhaps there could be additional restrictions. Like perhaps TRM could be limited to a maximum of one or two comments per nomination, and/or he can only comment on a certain number of nominations per day or week, and/or he can only participate upon consensus agreeing to do so (either on WT:DYK or the nomination page). The proposal to allow him to comment "if no one else has commented" honestly seems too broad for me: there could be various reasons as to why no one else has commented, including the fact that the nomination was just newly-started and no one else has gotten around to reviewing yet. It could actually mean that, under the proposed criterion, it's possible that the nominator simply requests TRM to do the review immediately (i.e. before anyone else could do the review), when as far as I have interpreted the proposal, it's intended mainly for cases where the nominator and reviewer(s) can't come into an agreement and TRM is intended to break the ice. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew

• Well, the fact that you have been very rude in this discussion (which is a fact that even some of the supporters such as AGK have acknowledged), as well as showing an apparent superiority complex (in which you imply that everything you do is correct and the encyclopedia will "collapse" if you do not get your way) is enough to give pause as to your possible behavior if you come into DYK-related conflicts. If even here in this very discussion you have been unable to keep civil and been unable to refrain from attacking editors who do not agree with your work or sentiments, it makes it seem unlikely that your behavior will suddenly change if this proposal is accepted. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your DYK colleagues are in disagreement with you. While I acknowledge that some (and indeed arguable the majority) of DYK participants who have commented so far are supportive of the proposal, there are others who are opposed as well (such as BlueMoonset), and even among the supports (including from both DYK and non-DYK participants), other editors have also have reservations about your behavior, such as AGK, SL93, Vanamonde93, among others. Meanwhile, as for your statement There is not one shred of evidence that I have been or would be "rude" (or disruptive or whatever) during a review of a DYK nomination. Well the fact is, you have been unnecessarily rude in this very discussion. If you claim that "I am going around in circles", then sure, but that's also because it appears you have also been unable to do something that has been requested from you multiple times: to keep civil. Let's put it this way. If, for the sake of argument, that this proposal does end up passing, would you promise to keep civil, refrain from making the kind of comments that you have give in this discussion, refrain from belittling editors and the DYK process (whether implicitly or explicitly), cease bragging about your on-Wiki contributions, and only comment on article and/or hook issues but not on editors? Because if you can answer yes, then maybe I would consider changing my mind and giving my support. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• The motion wording strikes me as too broad. "But may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination" seems a bit too unspecific and still leaves open the possibility of making comments about editors or the DYK process even in an initial comment, which has been a major reason for conflict in the past. Would highly suggest that wording be added along the likes of Vanamonde's proposal, wherein TRM would only be allowed to comment on content but not editors or DYK. Also, would also suggest that the new motion, if passed, initially be only done as a limited-time trial, which could be extended or made permanent if no issues arise during such a trial. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Gatoclass - The issue with your proposed rewording is that, if it only includes the words "or to DYK nominations where the nominator invited them to review", that would still leave open to TRM commenting on editors or the DYK process as a whole, which is something that other commenters here are worried about. I understand that the current wording about TRM's topic bans include the statement that he "cannot make reflections about the competence of editors", but it does not seem enough. If perhaps some kind of wording was added which would say something like "in cases where TRM is invited to review the nomination, he may only comment on the articles or hooks but can make no comments about the editors or the DYK process" then I might be more open to the idea. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• What worries me about this whole discussion is that most of the comments have either ignored or declined to talk about the civility issues that TRM has faced in the past and arguably continues to have problems with. It's like the elephant in the room that people don't seem to want to talk about. And in fact, some of the supports even more-or-less say that they don't care about TRM's attitude, as long as he does what he does. What kind of editor would you prefer: an editor who is civil and good at what they do, or one who is an expert on such things but has a very questionable attitude? The way things stand, the proposed motion is too broad and in my opinion does not have enough strong safeguards to ensure that civility issues won't happen, and it shocks me that most of the comments here are supporting such a lenient motion. I mean, if the exception would be to allow TRM to comment when requested by the nominator, what would happen if, for example, TRM wholeheartedly disagrees with the nominator's work and begins to question their competence? Personally I would not be opposed to the motion if there was a restriction against commenting on the competence of editors or soapboxing, and I find it very strange that such a restriction doesn't have more support. I fear that if the motion is approved, TRM will end up back here at ARCA or even at AE or ANI sooner than later. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon

Not a fan of this change. The current text means one can read DYK without encountering TRM. This change means one can again encounter TRM as long as someone has invited him there (and someone is undoubtedly going to do so). Adding this kind of loophole makes me uncomfortable - it makes it harder for anyone trying not to interact with TRM to also read DYK, plus it's a long slippery slope all the way to just not having any restrictions at all. Banedon (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way arbs, you can see above that TRM has pinged me again even though I told him not to do so in the past. In other words, the objectionable behavior is still there, it's just at a lower and less visible level. This is also but one example of TRM trying to attract my attention even though he undoubtedly knows I am manually ignoring him and don't care about anything he has to say. I consider this incident another reason not to make this amendment: it makes it easier for TRM to aggravate people. You don't even need to interact in any explicit way, simply reading the same pages is enough. Banedon (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I don't mind TRM participating, I don't mind him rebutting what I wrote, I just do not want him to ping me. That's easy to do: just don't include the tags that ping the person, so in my case I would simply type Mendaliv or @Mendaliv without using the replyto command. It's something that's easy to do, so since he did not do it I interpret his action as hostile. Banedon (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Question: why can't anyone who wants TRM's input ask him on WP:ERRORS2, where the restriction already does not apply? Banedon (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@valeree if you don't like the atmosphere at WP:ERRORS2, there's a good chance you'll regret this amendment if it passes. ERRORS2 is hosted by TRM, after all. @Mendaliv, this is a long and complex case. If you're looking for evidence that the restrictions are beneficial, I'd suggest the amendments & enforcements section of the main case page (and discussions within), as well as searching AE for results. I was in favor of simple restrictions as well, but Arbcom in general have given signals that they'd rather impose minimally restrictive remedies (see e.g. [3], such as the ones in this case. Banedon (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Do DYK nominations involve only the nominator and the reviewer? If not, then I don't see why adding this loophole makes sense: any other reviewer or reader is going to be affected as well. Even if the nominator doesn't care, others might. Banedon (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: that sounds good on paper but is risky nonetheless, because if someone is annoyed they might not complain but simply not participate. See statements by e.g. Kevin McE and Sunshineisles2 in original case request. Further, fighting these cases & going through dispute resolution takes a mental toll. As you can see from the case request, the alleged problem behavior went on for years before it wound up at Arbcom. Would you fight a case if half the people are going to say TRM has done nothing wrong and you should grow a thicker skin, when the alternative of simply not participating is painless and instant?
@Gatoclass: Looking at the complex discussion you linked, lots of people participated: Ted52, DannyS712, SkyGazer 512, Peacemaker67, Flibirigit, EdChem ... further, it looks like that nomination was for an article created by someone other than the nominator. How would this amendment not lead to people who don't want to interact with TRM having to interact with him? Banedon (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I don't agree with the argument that "if people don't want to interact with him, they can simply ignore any nomination he is a participant in" - if we accept it, then it could literally apply anywhere, e.g. "let's lift the topic ban from DYK and if people don't want to interact with him, they could simply avoid DYK". Banedon (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I still don't understand - if this amendment is implemented, what if someone who doesn't want to interact with TRM wants to participate in a DYK nomination for which the nominator has invited TRM to review? Even worse, what if the author of an article (who doesn't want to interact with TRM) is not the nominator, and the nominator invites TRM to review? If the answer to these two questions is "just avoid that nomination", then this amendment is not harmless; it has collateral damage. On the other hand if it were possible to make an amendment that is harmless - such that only those who want to interact with TRM actually interact with him - then I still don't see the purpose of that amendment, because anyone who wants to interact with TRM can already see his input on ERRORS2 or his talk page. The only thing that changes would be the venue. Banedon (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda

Since I have been called in the proposal. I have found The Rambling Man (TRM) most helpful regarding the quality of the Main page, and had frequent positive interactions, before and after WP:ERRORS2 was established. Yes, it's sometimes time-consuming to have to supply more references, and I sometimes think that it would be more urgent to write about a person who recently died and has a poor article than supplying references for stage productions which nobody would question anyway, and sometimes I decide to not take the time to search for the refs missing in translated articles, and feel a bit sorry for the readers who then have to go without those facts.

How would it hurt others if TRM did a DYK review for me, or improved "my" hook, when asked? Fondly remembered: Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Martin Kränzle. I would like the committtee to find a creative way to make that possible. My way would be to let go of all restrictions with probation.

@Narutolovehinata5: I believe that DYK would profit if all participants would refrain from comments about the shortcomings and the attitude of others, which make "judgments about editors' competence" as you said. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: "Civil and respectful people should not apply the word "toxic" to fellow editors." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Still same: you paint a rough picture of the DYK scene without any diff. I invite you to read the review I linked above from start to finish. That is what I call a model of constructive reviewing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@PBP: I ihave interacted with TRM for many years, and found him always civil (to me), and never insisting on a style, just on facts and references. I don't see you much at DYK, so what do you observe? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@PBP: I am often at ITN, for the sad reason that people die and have insufficient articles (see above, now on the Main page). TRM helped fixing a link to a dab page. At ITN, he also has never been incivil to me. Do you see any incivility in the model review? Do we perhaps have different ideas about civility?

@Sandstein: ARCA for someone else whom you see in trouble is not frequent but has been done, and even successfully so in a seemingly hopeless case, remember? (admittedly a pointed edit on Bach's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(forget the following for now, please, baby steps, only within DYK nomination)

I made a corner on my talk, User talk:Gerda Arendt#welcome TRM where people who think as I do can sign that TRM is welcome to review their articles, provided this little step to more article quality will be taken. We can make it a template like this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I am not sure I understand what you mean. I wanted to give TRM permission to review all my nominations (implying: within those nominations), but heard advice to take baby steps, so: I am ready to invite TRM within each nomination (even if 20 times per month, sigh), and his input only within that nomination. What I read from your comment is to ask the question on TRM's talk, and then somehow copy his answer to the nomination, - that awkward construction is what should be avoided by this amendment if I get it right. Ritchie, perhaps clarify the request, because it can be interpreted differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Same: What I would like to be able to request is not just some comment, but a review, - otherwise someone else would need to work on that part, which I think is needless double work, and a waste of time. It's kafkaesque that TRM can handle GA and FA reviews, without complaints afaik, but not simple DYK reviews. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: you say "it doesn't matter if his input on an article takes the form of a formal review or not", which is true but besides the point. DYK is not about an article, but about the proposed hooks, and to make comments about them anywhere else than in the nomination seems needlessly complicated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I am grateful that TRM took up the GA review for my last Christmas gift. My suggestion for a modified request would be (instead of "or to discussions anywhere on the project where his input into a DYK nomination has been solicited"): "or to DYK nominations where his review has been solicited and no other reviewer has commented". Better wording welcome, - the idea is to make sure interactions happen only where they are wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

As an outside observer, I find TRM's behavior here to be perfectly normal, if a bit jocular. We aren't monks, and this isn't a court.
As to TRM's pinging of Banedon, I believe this complaint is both frivolous and vexatious. Banedon came here voluntarily to oppose TRM. Banedon's statement invites interaction from TRM. I believe that this is yet another case of unilateral WP:KEEPOFF-style declarations that the Committee should rightly hold as unenforceable in this case. Yes, if someone is bothering you, it is reasonable to ask him to leave you be, and it would be rude for that person to not leave you be for a reasonable period of time... but it's not an interaction ban, nor is it a restraining order.
What else is not reasonable is to keep a reasonable request like that in your back pocket for three years only to throw it down as a "gotcha" in a situation like this. It's dirty pool, and moreover, it's a form of incivility to bring oneself into this discussion and then complain when a participant talks to you. It's frivolous and vexatious and should expose the person making such a complaint to sanction if repeated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein’s latter point, that the sanction regime that exists is needlessly complex. Just lift the whole thing and if there’s a problem, hand out IBANs and sitebans. I see no evidence that it’s still necessary to prevent disruption even being presented. Rather concerns about having to see his posts. That doesn’t merit continuing this ban. Sandstein’s former point, on the other hand, is moot: TRM is here and is participating as though he wants this specific outcome. So there is standing to proceed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think what's being missed here is that as part of a preventive (i.e., nonpunitive) regime, there should always be a default position of determining whether the sanctions are still necessary. I posit that this hasn't been done. Most of the argument against loosening these sanctions seems to come from a position of "why should we?" I would counter by asking, "Why shouldn't we?" I've yet to see anybody credibly answer that question here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

As an alternative suggestion, let's even take this as a chance to try something different: Give TRM six months of this and then revisit it. If there are no credible complaints about his conduct at DYK, then it becomes permanent. If there are credible complaints, rescind it. And of course, if there are serious misconduct issues, rescind it early. This way there's no knock-down drag-out fight over whether and when to reinstitute the previous regime. The Committee has crafted relief from sanctions in this manner before and, if memory serves, it has been successful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think Banedon and PBP raise some legitimate concerns that we shouldn’t dismiss (though I won’t call all concerns legitimate), but at the same time, these should be balanced against the guiding principles for sanctions (i.e., “preventive” means they must be preventing something). Taken with a genuine interest expressed here by multiple editors (including those with past dust-ups with TRM) in seeing him able to help DYK noms with their noms outside of TRM’s walled garden. When coupled with reasonable safeguards against this reduction becoming permanent without Committee approval (as I suggested in an earlier post), this is both eminently reasonable and quite compelling. I urge the Committee to give TRM a chance here. We do this sort of thing all the time for people who were previously sockpuppeteers. I understand that some may view TRM as toxic or an unblockable, and thereby see granting any request as making that greater problem worse. But it is not the place of the Committee to legislate or to be a roadblock or to supervise quasi-permanent sanction regimes. The Committee’s job is to arbitrate. If TRM is given this chance and bottles it, reimpose the sanction as-is, and possibly sanction him more. If TRM takes this chance and does nothing with it, then the Committee can have it default to being reimposed. And if TRM takes this chance and succeeds, then the Committee has succeeded. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we might conclude the discussion between TRM and valereee by recalling that we're all giving our own opinions and arguments here, and that valereee is here more as an amicus than a direct participant or party. Thus it's entirely reasonable and normal for their framings of the situation not to line up perfectly despite generally supporting each other's views. And I think that's what's important. Spirited discussion is a positive thing, and even difficulty can be positive. There is a recent research article on Wikipedia that comes to mind that concluded polarization in a topic area was correlated with more neutrality on average, despite the views of the participants that the discussion was difficult. See Shi, Feng; Teplitskiy, Misha; Duede, Eamon; Evans, James A. (4 March 2019). "The wisdom of polarized crowds". Nature Human Behaviour. 3 (4): 329–336. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• @AGK: as my first post in this request somewhat addressed, TRM has been getting baited and bullied throughout this request, so I think some understanding would be in order. While he's had support, an unfortunate fact of life is that TRM is not too hard to bait. And so, rather than enjoying the broad support he's received throughout this request—and as you can see, that support has come from virtually every sort of editor—he has a tendency to react when people try to cause him to react. But is it fair to blame him for the wrongdoing of others? I don't think so. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Worm That Turned: I'm struggling to understand your rationale that TRM is "not invested" in light of all (or any) of the discussion that's taken place here. Sandstein's point is a patent non sequitur, as well as completely inappropriate given (as far as I know) we do not have a legal standing requirement here. Yes, it's poor policy to allow third parties to start proceedings, but that is dramatically different from the jurisdictional bar Sandstein appears to be raising. And again, TRM has mooted that objection by participating. If the Committee is going to enact rigid procedural requirements, it should do so through its rulemaking processes and not piecemeal through adjudicative processes (unless, of course, we are starting to follow a stare decisis system here). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• In line with what Nartuolovehinata5 suggests, the wording could be tightened a bit, though I don't think it's necessary to expressly prohibit such commentary. Rather, I would prefer to see the motion make clear that when TRM is invited to comment on a DYK by the nominator, he will be held to the same minimum standards of behavior of other editors. Let AE figure out what that means in practice. I think we should be clear here, the goal of this change of sanction is not to prevent every possible disruption or hurt feeling, but to loosen the restrictions with the intention of letting TRM prove himself useful. It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to be the permanent babysitter of a few well-known editors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by StudiesWorld

While I have at times found TRM to be unnecessarily rude, I have also found that he seems to be the person who cares the most about the quality of the main page. Therefore, I would be very pleased to be able to have him review my hooks at DYK. I believe that the committee should adopt this, so long as the request must come from the article's nominator, updater, or improver. I would also appreciate if the committee would permit general kind requests on all of a user's DYKs, to avoid the need to ask each time. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by valereee

I have no objection to TRM commenting when requested to. I often find his comments useful, though I also find his definition of “error” loose in the extreme, as it includes non-crucial stylistic preferences different from his own. And I sure wish he could exercise some self-discipline so we wouldn't need this silly rule. TRM, why only the nom? Oh, I see the comment from WTT. Frankly, I'd probably ask you him every time I moved a prep to queue if you he'd be willing to take a quick look at the set before it hit the main page. --valereee (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I'm not reading this as only doing DYK reviews of nominations awaiting approval when requested. I'm reading it also as doing rechecks when requested. I agree with WTT that it should be someone involved with the nom who makes the request, not just some random drive-by potstirrer, but there are multiple editors involved with every nom. Creator/nominator, reviewer, promoter, and whoever moves prep to queue, at minimum. I would think any of those people at any point would be able to ask you what you think. --valereee (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

TRM, not arguing that your reviews aren't good, but to be fair, it's a little circular to argue that none of your reviewed noms receive pushback, hence they're perfect/there's nothing an editor with your skills and inclinations would complain about you've already done what you can to minimise errors on the main page as to reduce the embarrassment for the project every day and in every way, when you're probably the person most likely to be pushing back. --valereee (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, not arguing that your reviews aren't good, and I'll add that I'm also not arguing that they aren't beneficial. They are both good and beneficial, and I wish I could take advantage of them. But the fact they don't get complaints can't be taken as evidence that another person whose eye was similarly sharp, whose willingness to go over the main page with a fine-toothed comb was similarly obsessive, but whose opinions about various issues were different from your own -- say TRM's doppelganger showed up -- that they wouldn't receive complaints. You aren't going to complain about the quality of your own reviews; you've already perfect/good enough to need no criticism done what you can to minimise errors on the main page as to reduce the embarrassment for the project every day and in every way from your point of view. That's all I'm saying. --valereee (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Gosh you’re difficult. You realize I’m supporting you here, right? 1. You complain about DYK more than anyone else. 2. You aren’t likely to complain about your own reviews. 3. Your reviews get few complaints. You’re using that to, and I quote, argue that “none of the reviews I have ever done for DYK were objectionable, nor any of my corrections to prep sets were objectionable.” It’s a logical fallacy. If there were someone scrutinizing your noms as closely as you scrutinize everyone else’s -- but there's not -- then perhaps you’d have a different set of data. --valereee (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to work with you when you said "none of the reviews I have ever done for DYK were objectionable, nor any of my corrections to prep sets were objectionable" was not a claim to perfection. A lot of folks might take exception to that, but I backed off, twice, with still no joy. It absolutely is a logical fallacy to claim that no objections = nothing objectionable when the source of the lion's share of objections has been taken out of the equation. --valereee (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely no question on your motivation; it's clearly to protect the project by ensuring errors don't hit the main page. --valereee (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Banedon, I don't mind reading there, but I don't want to post there. I don't like the general atmosphere; it feels the opposite of collegial. I probably wouldn't ask for help there. I'd post to TRM's user talk, I guess, but I'd really rather just have all discussion in one spot. So, yeah, being able to ask TRM at T:DYK to do another recheck on a prep set I'd finished rechecking and was ready to move to queue would be useful to me. I'd rather have potential issues pointed out before the thing's just hours from or already on the main page. But as TRM said, baby steps. If all Ritchie is suggesting is that TRM be allowed to do the original review when asked, that's also fine with me. --valereee (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Banedon, yes, I'm aware of that. I read there regularly when it was being updated and often made article fixes or suggested main page fixes at ERRORS when I agreed an issue was an error. --valereee (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Purplebackpack89

Oppose proposed amendment, and support additional sanctions. The Rambling Man is perennially uncivil to many, many editors and no evidence that his continually uncivil behavior has abated has been provided. If anything, the present topic ban doesn't go far enough. I'd also like to echo the above point that, both in DYK and in other areas, TRM is too interested in making everything conform to one particular style, when conformity to said style isn't necessary. pbp 23:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

TRM's attitude in dealing with this arbcom, casting inaccurate aspersions (such as accusing people who oppose the amendment as "harassing") and making snide remarks, steels my opinion that this topic ban is justified, probably even an under-reaction. Furthermore, if you were to peek onto ITNC at almost any time, you'd find TRM badgering other editors, essentially mimicking the behavior that got him the DYK topic ban. pbp 17:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: He is incivil and badgering at ITNC, among other places. Heck, he's incivil in his post here. @Jehochman:@Davey2010: I feel like you're ignoring the reasons this was originally implemented, and the reasons his other sanctions exist. pbp 23:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

+1 to Naruto's comment's above where it's said Even here he is showing the same kind of attitude and arrogance that got him into a lot of trouble before and Even here in this very discussion, TRM is still showing that snarky attitude. That's exactly why I feel he cannot be trusted to be civil at DYK, or, frankly, anywhere else. Instead of quelling concerns about his behavior (which should be the main focus of this discussion), TRM has assailed those who criticize him. He seems to be ignoring the guidelines at the top of editing this page, Be professional. Comments that are uncivil or intended to provoke a negative reaction are unhelpful. pbp 11:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, small point of order: a quick perusal of my user page reveals that I do have DYK credits, so TRM's statement above is inaccurate. pbp 12:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: You'd be helping your case a lot more if you provided examples of how you can interact civilly and positively. Because, right now, you're doing the exact opposite. . pbp 16:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Mendaliv: Why shouldn't we allow TRM to review DYKs? To succinctly answer your question: reviewing DYKs inherently involves interacting with other editors. These sanctions were put in place because TRM demonstrated serious problems interacting with editors when reviewing DYKs. Since those sanctions were put in place, TRM continues to demonstrate problems interacting with editors in the spaces he is still permitted to use. Because of past problems interacting with editors on DYK, and current problems interacting with editors elsewhere, we shouldn't allow him to review DYKs in order to prevent him from interacting poorly there. pbp 22:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• @AGK: I wasn't expecting prostration, I was expecting civility. If TRM had said nothing in this ARCA, this might have not been controversial. If TRM had said nothing but, "I'm good at reviewing articles", this might have not been controversial. Instead, TRM attempted to bludgeon everybody who disagreed with him, something he's done on almost every part of Wikipedia he frequents. You yourself said that his behavior here was disturbing, yet you've chosen to ignore that in your vote. pbp 15:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I don't have an opinion on this particular situation or editor(s), but I'd like to put it to the Committee that (a) that this is an appeal by somebody other than the sanctioned editor, which is normally not allowed; and (b) based on my AE experience, the Committee should refrain from micro-managing editors' behavior through complicated and individualized sanctions with exceptions and qualifiers. Such sanctions are invariably difficult to apply and enforce. Sanctions should be as simple as possible - ideally, a plain site ban, interaction ban or topic ban. Sandstein 08:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

semi-involved only due to frequent interactions at ITN, another main page section. What TRM is good at is accuracy and language precision. TRM isn't great in the "process" part of things (that is where past issues have come up), but if you are just asking TRM to review and comment (and asking without contempt for his past actions), it will going swimmingly well and for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Yes, there will be some disagreements on TRM's suggestions but as long as that does not create the same behavior that TRM's concerns on the process had created, we should be okay to add this additional allowance. --Masem (t) 17:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jip Orlando

The committee should endorse this request. Some agree with TRM, and some disagree. TRM is an exceptional reviewer (GA, FAC) and cares deeply about the integrity and accuracy of the main page. I don't see there being any trouble with allowing his solicited opinion on DYK items. If he reviews something, and the nominator disagrees with his assessment, the onus is on the nominator. Simple, really. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I’ve had many disagreements with TRM at WP:ITN. I support this request. He should be allowed to comment whenever invited by the nominator. Jehochman ^Talk 21:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dave

I too support the request - If TRM's been invited to DYK then he should be allowed to comment there. –Davey2010^Talk 21:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93

If a nominator has solicited TRM's input, I see no reason he shouldn't give it, assuming his other restrictions continue to be adhered to.

Also, since we're here, this is probably a good time for someone besides myself to remind TRM that the exemption to his tban is specifically User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS, and not (for instance) his much more visible talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@ all the folks who are concerned over conflict arising from TRM reviewing DYK nominations; there's an easy way around this. Word the exception to the TBAN to allow TRM, in the course of performing a DYK review, to comment on a) the hook(s) on offer, and b) the bolded article, narrowly construed. He can then do what he's good at, but he would remain restricted from, for instance, making comments about the nominator, the promoter, the DYK process, and anything else that bugs him. Not only would this reduce the reviewer burden at DYK, I believe this is more in keeping with ARBCOM philosophy in general; we should work toward a situation where remedies are no longer necessary. This provides a good test case; if TRM returns to making unnecessarily personal comments, the old restriction can be imposed again; if not, we're all the better for it. If we want to add further safety valves; word this exception so that it expires in six months, at which point TRM would have to demonstrate constructive contributions at DYK for the exception to be restored. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat

Why not? If a DYK editor has specifically requested TRM's input into a singular nomination, it would make sense for the good of the encyclopaedia if he is allowed to assist that editor. To those complaining above about TRM in general, just don't ask him to comment on your nom and ignore him - you don't have to get riled just because he has an opinion and you don't like his personal style.

It seems as if many would like a pound of flesh here, rather than anything aimed at improving the standard of the front page. God knows DYK is quality sink normally and the MP would be better off without it, but while it is there, let's try and ensure standards are adhered to, and if TRM's offer takes the pressure off some of the other reviewers, that can only be a 'Good Thing'. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by BlueMoonset

The proposed additional wording strikes me as far too broad. In particular, the DYK talk page had become a highly unpleasant place to work on for a very long time, and the atmosphere there improved immediately and significantly once the Arbitration committee's decision was handed down. TRM should continue to be restricted from posting to that page: if people have questions or requests and the committee thinks it's important that he be allowed to answer, they can easily be made elsewhere. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, the proposal as written at the top of this section still reads to add the following to the remedy: or to discussions anywhere on the project where his input into a DYK nomination has been solicited, and that seems to be what the arbs are responding to. I don't see that Ritchie333 has rethought the wording; indeed, valereee's most recent response indicates a desire to ping you from WT:DYK and have you answer there. Under those circumstances, I thought it was important to register my opinion. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Bilorv

I doubt TRM has any recollection of many of our interactions but there have been a fair few, some positive and some negative (currently we're having a positive one). I actually take issue with TRM's behaviour at ERRORS2 and also support this modification (understanding it to mean: if a DYK nominator wants TRM to review a nomination then TRM is permitted to). On ERRORS2, the issue I have is with the often factually incorrect nitpicking of all of the DYK hooks, which some admins who've watchlisted ERRORS2 blindly rush to pull out of the queue and complain about. I often watchlist ERRORS2 when my hook is in the queue in case someone starts trying to tear apart the nomination because I have a period out of place. But if a hook nominator wishes for TRM to participate then I see no issue with this, as TRM's thorough reviews mean there'll be no problem with the hooks he accepts. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I'm honestly struggling to understand why the suggestion to allow nominators to seek input from TRM if (and only if) they desire is at all controversial? If anyone does not want to interact with TRM they don't have to - they can just choose not to comment on those reviews where TRM's involvement has been solicited. All those in opposition seem to be arguing against things that are not proposed or are even less relevant than that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Narutolovehinata5 and Banedon: TRM would only be allowed to participate if the nominator asks, so unless there is some grand conspiracy among DYK nominators the chance of the restriction being moot or TRM being unavoidable is not realistic. If it does turn out that this very small limited exception does lead to TRM being uncivil then it can simply be withdrawn. Given the number of people who are desperate for TRM to make any transgression so they can pounce on him any problems will be reported PDQ and sanction will be swift. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

To Thyrduff's point, the reason that point does not seem persuasive is because someone like Gerda can go to TRM's DyK page and seek their practically unbridled input without any fuss. Take what, eg. Gerda, learns there and make the DyK nom anything they think worthwhile with the input. All of us, when we choose to, from time to time go to someone's user pages and ask advice on things, and we don't normally say, I will only take your advice elsewhere. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Gerda: Not sure why you would have to copy anything: 1) Go talk to the person whose opinion you want; 2) ask them for their opinion/critique etc on your DyK 3) incorporate their ideas/critique in the DyK yourself. If I go to someone's talk and ask them if this is a good way to phrase something, or to source something, they don't have to go phrase it or source it, I will do that, taking their advice into account. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Well Gerda, to comment on something capably, reveiw is usually involved. You can ask him anything you want and get his answer. Assuming you both do great, you make the nom process a cake walk for everyone else (win-win). It's doubtful even Kafka thought consulting an editor on his work was kafkaesque (even if many editors and authors 'hate' each-other, just a little). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

I didn't think I was going to post here, but I guess I am. The original proposal fails flat on its face as making the entire sanction toothless and pointless. If literally anyone can just ping TRM and suddenly the sanction stops applying, then it really isn't much of a sanction.

As for the talk of limiting it to only when the nominator asks for TRM's input, well it's certainly more agreeable than the original proposal (which isn't saying much). However, and this is why I decided to post here, let me break down as to why I specifically still see this as causing more issues than it helps and provide an alternative.

• Background: In 2016, arbcom had found TRM was consistently being uncivil. If that is no longer the case, then fine. Let's just not forget that the remedy we are talking about was designed to resolve that issue.
  • @AGK: I'm really confused by your statement. If you think TRM is still acting poorly in this request, then why... support granting it?
• Scenario: Okay, so here's a likely situation that I can guarantee will happen at some point were this to pass:
  • A DYK reviewer (let's say Narutolovehinata5) starts a review for a new DYK made by someone who knows TRM well.
  • NLH is doing his reviewing thing, maybe even suggests an alternative hook, but the nominator takes issue with it.
  • They ping TRM for advice who, while not exactly siding with them, completely disagrees with most everything NLH said.
  • TRM comes in and disparages NLH for giving such a poor review (by implication or otherwise) because he missed some mistake found in the hook's reference
  • There is no recourse for this, and NLH is just either supposed to drop the review altogether or just sit there and take it.
• Suggestion: If the issue there are nominators who want TRM to do their review for them, then I do have an odd suggestion.
  • Iff the DYK nomination is a self-nomination, they can forgo transcluding the nomination subpage to Template talk:Did you know and instead use WT:ERRORS2.
  • WP:FORUMSHOPPING is not allowed (pick one; no take backs).
  • There TRM can proceed as the reviewer just like the regular process. Other people reviewing WT:TRM noms should be discouraged when avoidable.
  • If a hook is approved, then someone should transclude the nom subpage to WP:DYKNA.
  • It goes through the normal channels from there like any other nomination (except TRM can participate if civil)
  • This process would require ratification from a majority of editors in an RFC at WT:DYK to take effect (closed by a super uninvolved admin- no major interactions with TRM even if just admin actions).
• Conclusion: This is certainly... an idea. I don't know. It's probably a bad proposal, and it at least nominally addresses everyone's concerns here.

I'll leave off by just saying that I sort of hate that long established editors get this special treatment even if they're uncivil. If you can't get through a disagreement with someone without insulting them or being unnecessarily hostile, then I genuinely question why you are here. However, Sanctions always seem more designed to accommodate them rather than the project. Even my proposed sanction modification is way too lenient imo, but at least the DYK folks get a direct say in it this way. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Note. If I had read the latest comment from GorillaWarfare, I wouldn't have posted this. It doesn't address those concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Re: this. Well, truth be told; this discussion inspired me to learn more about the DYK process, so I promoted some DYKs on Prep 6. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Re: this. See... this is what I'm concerned with. NHL claims you are uncivil, you disagree, he says you display incivility right now, you disagree again, you claim your reviews are crucial to the functioning of Wikipedia, NLH politely argues that there still exists civility concerns here, you spout off your accomplishments, NLH says you are shooting yourself in the foot, you say NHL is continually shooting the encyclopaedia in the head.
It was at that moment in time of which I read that response where I completely gave up any hope I had left here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm really confused why everyone else gets a ping but me. I'm not like Banedon here; I really like pings lol A few things: (1) If you are aware enough of your situation to think/know you are being baited, then don't take the bait. (2) It's really not a battle against the odds here. A good amount of well established users have commented here to support this request. (3) If this is really such a time sink for you, then ask for it to be withdrawn. People with past issues with you are going to comment here, it's unavoidable and necessary to gain their perspective. (4) You also never commented on my suggestion (which was skind of the important bit?). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@SL93: Facts: I'm better at this stuff than DYK prepping lol –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yikes That motion below is decisively not what I want to see. It completely avoids the self-nomination issue. It also effectively kills the sanctions imo. It's poor wording means that can continue to discuss the nomination on User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS. If you think that won't happen, then I'd like to point you to the discussion on this very ARCA there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  @TRM: [Thank you for the ping] You are correct in that I do not know many of the circumstances that surround this sanction. My concern is that if you are prohibited generally from further commenting on your DYK reviewed hooks, then I don't see why you need ERRORS2 to be an exception. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man and AGK: I'm in over my depth here. I fully admit have no decent response. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SL93

The scenario presented by @MJL: is what I have been afraid of happening. The Rambling Man's reviews are great, minus being uncivil. If editors think that he can remain civil in his great reviews then fine, but there should really be a trial run at first. SL93 (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: It seems like the immediate issue to me. SL93 (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Leaky caldron

Seems straightforward to me as someone completely uninvolved and totally disinterested in the topic in hand. TRM is clearly the subject matter expert. There seems reliance - far too much - on him. This is not good for a Main Page feature and needs to be addressed. However, as far as this request goes it seems obvious that if he sticks to his self-imposed constraints it will be for the betterment of the feature. If he fails to do so he will no doubt end up back here fairly quickly. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

Firstly, I want to echo Sandstein, this is a clarification request not started by TRM so it should be TRM. Secondly, I think it should be denied. As others have pointed out (or I believe I saw it) TRM is at ITN and it's not a friendly place. If he's banned at DYK we don't need a loophole. If he has a place at TRM/ERRORS, let him stay at TRM/ERRORS. If someone wants to talk to him about a DYK, they can talk to him at TRM/ERRORS. Letting him in to DYK is inviting trouble by letting him talk to unsuspecting people who may not want to interact with him. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jonathunder

As someone who has occasionally worked on DYK and other main page queues, I find User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS quite helpful. Why wouldn't we be free to ask this editor's opinion if it benefits the project? Jonathunder (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem

• TRM has a long history of expressing his views in problematic ways, reflecting on other editors in a way that has caused issues and led to sanctions being imposed, and struggling to recognise and respond colleagially to views with which he disagrees – and particularly about the DYK project. TRM is also strongly motivated by and committed to quality encyclopaedic content for WP, has a well-established and entirely-justified reputation for identifying and addressing problematic content and providing high quality and persuasive reviews. I believe that neither of these observations can reasonably be disputed.
• I applaud the comment from AGK that ArbCom acting to modify a sanction does not require grovelling. The question here – is a modification appropriate for pursuing the goals of Wikipedia and will any modification lead to disruption – does not require TRM to act in a certain way. To me, the two most significant facts in this ARCA are, firstly, that the views of other editors offer a consensus that allowing TRM to review DYK nominations on request is a net positive, and secondly, that that consensus recognises his prior behaviour (which justifies maintaining a ban on WT:DYK and meta-discussion of the DYK project) and so demonstrates nuance. Support is not "TRM is perfect, remove all sanctions," it is "TRM is capable of contributing positively to nominations without causing additional problems and this is a reasonable step forward... if it turns out to be problematic, the step can be reversed."
• I have one suggestion regarding the proposal from AGK, which is that the restriction "but may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination" is too strict, in my view. If I, as a nominator, ask TRM for a review, and he complies but I don't understand his concern, I can ask for clarification but he can't respond. I would change the added sentence to something like:

As an exception, at the request of the nominator he may review any DYK nomination including subsequent discussion of that review at its nomination page only, but may not engage in discussion of the DYK project or its editors

I think TRM would be a valuable reviewer and demonstrating this is in everyone's interests.

• Opabinia regalis, it is true that some of the material at TRM's ERRORS is nit-picking and trivial, and he does clearly still have strong views on DYK. However, speaking as a DYK editor, I find it irritating to have problems raised so late in the process and I would much rather have TRM point out an issue on a nomination than when it is on the main page. I agree with TRM that some reviews are very inadequate and if TRM can help to establish a new standard of what is and is not a sufficient review (by example), that is a positive thing IMO. If he uses the opportunity to review to just post criticism, his ability to offer reviews will quickly be rescinded. If the motion were worded as I have suggested, you could add that any uninvolved administrator can instruct that he cease contributing to a particular nomination – though that would add complexity and I don't expect it would be needed. His contributions on this page have been less than ideal, but that is TRM... had he been all politeness and grovelling, I would have thought he was playing games or mocking the process. EdChem (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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

The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment I don't like the idea of a loophole where someone can ask for comment on the DYKs that they are not invested in, so the only people who should be eligible for such a request should be the DYK nominator... but other than that, I don't object. I'd like to hear other opinions before I support though. Worm^TT(talk) 22:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  I'm amazed the way this has degraded and I'm very sympathetic to Sandstein's first point here. The request was not made by The Rambling Man, meaning he is not invested in it - and that's led to a whole lot of disagreement that doesn't help any matters. I was optimistic about the request initially, I am no longer. Allowing The Rambling Man to "help people who ask nicely" is only going to create problems going forward. If The Rambling Man wants to work towards removal of his sanctions, let him come up with a plan that achieves that - one that he is actually invested in. This one, however, I would decline to change anything. Worm^TT(talk) 07:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  I understand that you support this, and that it could work. If you had brought it here yourself, I believe (or perhaps just hope) that you may have taken a different tone in responding to comments. That different tone would have meant that there would have been less of a pile on, and this snowball effect would not have created a mess of an ARCA. That's not what happened though. I see no reason to believe that any reviews that you make will be "incorrect", but what happens if there is disagreement over your decision? From your tone in this ARCA, I see no reason to believe that you would be able to manage the interactions without falling into past behaviours.
  You argue "community consensus", but the editors here are self selected, and we have to take the past case into account - this isn't a simple "see who turns up and what views they have" situation. But of course, you already know that. You argue "my reviews are good", no argument from me, but it's also beside the point - because however good your reviews are, disputes will come up - and that's where the issue lies. Worm^TT(talk) 08:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, I find it interesting that you feel the need to suggest that people do not know about the DYK process. A few years ago, I was a regular there. Now, I am not - largely due to atmosphere that has been brought about there. I have written 2 articles this month that would be eligible, and would make fine additions to the front page, but made a conscious decision that I didn't want to get involved in that process. I don't know how you would behave if you were added to the process, but given that a) I see the DYK process as an area where disputes are common, b) I do not see a commitment from you to improve how you handle yourself in disputes and c) your tone throughout this ARCA, I do not see the benefits of allowing you to review specific DYKs outweigh the risks of doing so.

  Mendaliv I hope the above answers your questions regarding my thinking too. I often wouldn't be concerned by the process issues that Sandstein raised, however, my point was that this wasn't part of a plan to return to full "good standing" by TRM, this was an editor who thought they could see a good faith way forward to help. Generally, I have personally found that when an individual requests something themselves, they are more likely to be aware of what they could stick to. Worm^TT(talk) 12:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  Having slept on it and subsequently had a chat with TRM at my talk page, I'm again on board with this. I'll propose a motion when I get a few minutes. Worm^TT(talk) 09:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be comfortable with "or to discussions on his own talkpage when his input into a DYK nomination has been solicited." SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Why can't people who specifically want TRM's input on an article ask either on his user subpage or on the article talk page? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see, thanks Gatoclass - I originally took the OP's wording about "input" to be more general than that. It would be hard to track 'official' DYK reviews and approvals anywhere but the usual subpages. The subpages for DYK reviews are transcluded onto the nomination page, though - so on the one hand this would allow TRM to participate only by invitation, but on the other hand it would result in others who had not invited him having to work in the same vicinity. Would there be a problem with downstream processes (whoever is picking the hooks, etc)? I haven't done anything with DYK in a long time, but IIRC it often happened that the person doing the choosing would end up making small edits to the hook text, which would then end up getting re-discussed by the nominator or reviewed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm going to disappoint some people here. Tl;dr: I thought it over and I don't think this is a good idea.
    I'm usually in favor of proposals that prioritize reader-facing content over back-office interactions, and I understand the argument that these review subpages are isolated enough places that TRM could participate in the DYK process there without causing much wider disruption. TRM, I'd be more persuaded by that argument if your comments and behavior on this page during this process had given a little more evidence to support that view. It's never a good sign when you start thinking that anyone who disagrees with you must be espousing hate and grudge. (For the record, the answer to why TRM can review GAs or FLs or whatever but not DYKs is simple: DYK is where he's been disruptive.) Since it's really all about giving readers accurate information - as TRM is fond of (correctly!) reminding us - then it doesn't matter if his input on an article takes the form of a formal review or not. If editors nominating articles for DYK want his opinion on their articles, they're welcome to ask for it. If he's as thorough and reliable a reviewer as he says - and there's no reason to think he isn't - then the articles should be fully prepared and the extra work of a "formal" DYK approval by someone else should be minimal. (Though I have to say, I don't expect to request anyone's opinion on anything during a review as I'm more than capable of these matter myself sets my overconfidence detector abuzz.) If we see some successful examples of that process in action - and by that I mean constructive feedback without the sideswipes at DYK or its participants that we've been seeing on this page - then I'd be open to reconsidering this suggestion in a couple of months. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gerda: Yes, I know, and yes, it's complicated. But we need some evidence that TRM's input in this specific context will be constructive, and since we don't have it on this page, it'll have to be gathered the complicated way.
  • @AGK: Not to put too fine a point on it: while I won't stand in the way if others want to support this, I think granting this request would increase rather than decrease the probability of the future you predict. (Note: that is not a warning, a threat, or encouragement to third parties. It's a prediction that I hope doesn't come to pass.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• I definitely see no reason to loosen TRM's restrictions, especially when he can already provide this input at his ERRORS page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If you don't want to use the page for DYK feedback that's your prerogative, TRM, I'm certainly not going to force you to. But I don't see adding a caveat that you may be summoned to DYK pages by anyone for any reason as productive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I do not support TRM performing the formal "review" step in DYK; he is banned from that, and as I already stated in my first comment, I see "no reason to loosen TRM's restrictions". As I also explicitly said, if he wants to provide input, which does not have to happen within a DYK template, he can do so within the bounds of the restrictions. TRM: I am familiar with DYK, having participated in the process some myself, and I don't appreciate the accusation that I am not paying attention to the comments here, which I have read in their entirety. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
      • And as you are familiar with DYk, you will know that explicit formal reviews can’t be performed in user space. I am not sure how I can be clearer that I do not support you being allowed to perform the formal review step anywhere, and I have not suggested you try to do so in userspace. As for "community consensus", decisions at ARCA are not made by just tallying up the !votes of the people who show up to comment, and you know this. I'm confident that I have been clear enough for my colleagues to comprehend my stance here; hopefully you do as well now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• I do not really get why we have a problem with this request, and accordingly I would grant it. I think that TRM's attitude during this request has been appalling, but that is not immediately the issue, and I suspect we will be dealing properly and separately with that matter in due course. AGK ■ 21:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  @MJL and Narutolovehinata5: Why should I not? The behaviour of The Rambling Man in this request does not affect whether it is appropriate to amend the sanction. Prostration is not a prerequisite of being granted an amendment by this committee. AGK ■ 11:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Motion to amend

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Proposed:

In remedy 9, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read:

9) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. As an exception, he may review any DYK nomination at the direct request of the nominator, but may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process).

Support

1. I accept that I have flip-flopped on this topic, but when it comes down to it, I believe there is more here to be gained than damage that could be done. I have mitigated my concerns, that arguments might break out over at DYK or that individuals may bait him there, and per discussion at my talk page, I'm satisfied that TRM will attempt to not do allow that to happen. Also, by only allowing the nominator to request, we should stop any loophole that might encourage bringing TRM into disputes. With those concerns mitigated, we get an editor who is able to review DYK nominations, and therefore improve the encyclopedia. It also allows TRM to prove he is able to work in the DYK area without upset. If he can't, well, that will prove something else. Worm^TT(talk) 13:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Strikes me as harmless enough. Courcelles (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
3. As in my earlier comments: AGK ■ 11:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per my comments above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Recuse

Discussion

---

Clarification request: GamerGate

Initiated by Fæ at 14:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

GamerGate 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:

• Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Fæ

The GamerGate case superseded, and by my understanding of procedure, took on the covers the original motions and amendments of Sexology. In particular "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages dealing with transgender issues ...". This request is a clarification to Arbcom to confirm the interpretation of "transgender issues", along with the practical expectations of how implementation can be possible in cases where the requestor is concerned about the likely hostile experience of taking any gender, and especially transgender, related case to a public English Wikipedia forum like ANI in order to request enforcement, based on past cases.

I am requesting that to avoid doubt, Arbcom confirm by motion that use of discussion pages on Wikipedia to state or imply that trans people are part of a transgender conspiracy, agenda, ideology or similar defamatory "gay agenda" type conspiracy theory, shall be considered a breach of the discretionary sanction. This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics.

This request is that to avoid doubt, Arbcom confirm by motion that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics. Anti-trans language includes the use of TIM (trans identified male) to refer to trans women, TIF (trans identified female) to refer to trans men and other deliberate use of misgendering terminology that may be established through case precedent, such as deliberately referring to a known trans woman as a man or a 'biological male' during Wikipedia discussion when trans woman is correct and accurate.

This request is that Arbcom lay out how individuals may best raise an enforcement request, without being first required to exhaust dispute resolution processes just because they are observing the incident. Given the topic, and the likely practical experience that LGBT+ contributors have when "fronting" initial complaints and later requests, it is unrealistic to expect requesters to be so expert in process and dispute resolution methods that their complaint about, say, the inappropriate use of transphobic language, that they will ever want to go through the hostile opposition research and open trolling and pillorying that is the recognized norm for gender and LGBT+ related disputes. It is also unlikely that any LGBT+ identified editor wants to seek out confronting someone who is deliberately misusing Wikipedia to be offensive about trans people; our experience is that doing so is likely to lead to being accused of causing a two-party dispute and be the subject of immediate hostile counter-allegations. A failure of cases to make it to a discretionary sanction stage, is not evidence of Wikipedia's policy implementation working.

My expectation is that given Arbcom's confirmation, it will become far easier to gain a consensus for the creation and improvement of guidelines that relate to civil discussion on Wikipedia for LGBT+ topics and issues, especially if external best practices such as GLAAD are used to inform and educate contributors to LGBT+ related topics.

Though I am raising this request based on my related experiences in the past two years editing trans-related biographies and topics, I have named no other parties. This is a technical request, not one relating to an active dispute. I am confident Arbcom members are aware of relevant examples without having to call people out in this clarification.

@Mendaliv: My request is based on reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=812091637#Sexology:_Motion_2 and the prior motion on the same page. I doubt that the original GG parties are directly relevant to this specific amendment, even if they might wish to make a helpful comment. I may be missing the point but naming them here seems overly wikilawyerish, probably.

With regard to the later points, sure, you are making Arbcom related procedural points that can be clarified. However the DS exist, and are supposed to apply to "transgender issues" today (see Template:MOS-TW for example). The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't. If Arbcom wants to clarify that they are uninterested in ensuring the current DS help to reduce disruption or harassment of transgender editors, and thinks someone else should do it, fine, but I really do not believe that's what the committee intended or indends the Wikipedia community to read in to a lack of implementation by administrators and a lack of requests for implementation. --Fæ (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Struck part of the opening statement, thanks to the clarification by clerk that GG is considered to include but not technically have superseded the Sexology "transgender issues". This case request for GG is correct in this sense. --Fæ (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Sexology was specifically amended to apply to "all pages", not just articles, for the reasons you put forward. The focus here based on experience is more about article related POV comments that you infer, for example stating that a trans ideology exists during discussions, appears and can deliberately demean Wikipedia contributors, if not strictly stated in the context of directly quoting a source for an article about this topic rather than an editor making this statement in their "own voice". Even then, abusive quotes can be used abusively, so editors on these topics benefit from very clear Arbcom level directives about how DS can and should be interpreted (c.f. Arbcom Fram case, where use of the n-word should never happen casually in discussion space).

WRT "I have several RSes here that identify ...", is fine. There's no attempt here to stop discussion of sources, as my words "not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion" are intended to make clear. If you can think of a different way of framing an Arbcom motion that better addresses your potential censorship concern, while making it easier to ensure that DS are applied for clearly inappropriate or uncivil transphobic language, please post it. Again, compare with the n-word being used as a rhetorical trick, sanctioning against casual racist abuse can be done without hampering the valid discussion of historical racism. --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: If anyone wishes to create a trans ideology article, based on the anti-trans myths found in various anti-LGBT+ publications, that great, it benefits the encyclopaedia.

What is a problem is a statement that a BLP subject notable for their anti-trans hate speech is not "trans-exclusionary" if all they are doing is fighting the "trans ideology", because that rationale is the same thing as using Wikipedia talk pages to promote and validate the existence of a "trans ideology". That ANI is not a workable venue for raising a Discretionary Sanction request about this (for most people) complex issue of transphobic language, is raised in this request. The alternative, as I have been advised several times off-wiki in the past, is to report all such cases to WMF T&S, which is part of why I would like Arbcom members to suggest better on-wiki processes. Note that you were not named as a party to this case, as we have no ongoing dispute and this request was procedural in nature. --Fæ (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: If your intention is to restrict GG Discretionary Sanctions to article space and talk directly about articles, then this withdraws the motions agreed by Arbcom in Sexology which were amended to apply to all pages. For this to be true and enforced in this way (as currently it is not the community's interpretation of the existing DS as they apply to transgender related or any BLP page discussions), then Arbcom should consider a motion to make this explicit. Specifically this appears to mean that the Arbcom clerk's advice that the withdrawn Sexology motions are covered by GG is not the case. Obvious consequences of your statement, should Arbcom agree this as fact, is that enforcement requests based on Arbcom DS provide no protection from casual use of transphobic language, such as calling an openly trans woman Wikipedian a trans identified male, rather than a woman, or casually or repeatedly using Wikipedia discussions to promote the view that a gay agenda or a trans agenda exists, because anti-LGBT+ publications say so. For many Wikipedians, this is not a question of accepting free speech, but accepting casual transphobic language as the potential norm in Wikipedia discussions in a way that would never be acceptable with casual racist language or casual misogynist language.

(Responding 'to the room') As for the advice that people observing or being targets of this language should go to ANI, sorry, that's a joke. Nobody on the target end of this wants to be pilloried at ANI for having a thin skin, being a "gender warrior" (as one current Arbcom member neatly puts it), told they lack a sense of humour or repeatedly threatened with a topic ban for being "disruptive". Case histories already available, new ones not needed, as you are aware. --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Your assertion that I am failing to go to dispute resolution seems to ignore the fact that I am not in any current dispute needing dispute resolution. There are plenty of past cases I can point to of previous LGBT+ related cases where I have taken up dispute resolution, making your statement false whichever way it is read. Please focus on the case request, not hypothetical tangents. Your "7 million edits across all foundation projects" comment is unhelpful and appears to be an attempt to dismiss this request on the basis of my number of edits, which I fail to understand. --Fæ (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: This is a Clarification request, not a case request. This has never been a requirement for Arbcom to only accept clarifications if there is an active dispute. I know, having posted past clarification requests where there was no active dispute. --Fæ (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem: Your advice would be the equivalent of telling newbie LGBT+ contributors to "grow a thicker skin". It does not work, unchallenged bullies become bolder. Unless we choose to improve the hostile environment that exists today, Wikipedia will continue indefinitely as a publisher of lockerroom type transphobic and homophobic language which is protected as "humour" or "free speech". --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv (GamerGate)

First a technical point: Given this is a request to clarify or amend the GamerGate case, I think it is necessary that the parties to that case be notified.

Second: I don't believe this is a mere technical clarification, but may be a significant expansion of scope. The GamerGate case itself, after all, was explicitly scoped to the article Gamergate controversy and related articles including biographies (see WP:ARBGG FoF #1). I don't think Fae's point that the GG arbitration case superseded or "took over" the Sexology case is correct. I certainly don't find any indication of this in the casepage of either WP:ARBGG or WP:ARBSEX, but I admit I could be wrong and thus think some further explanation of this would be appropriate. I'll also note that the DS regime from the sexology case was rescinded in 2017. The clarifying note in ARBSEX that "Discretionary sanctions authorized in the GamerGate arbitration case, which may apply to this topic area, remain available." does not strike me as extending the GG DS regime to everything that the sexology case covered, but merely pointing out that articles previously covered by the sexology case which also fall under the GG arbitration case could still have discretionary sanctions applied under the GG case.

I think the proper vehicle for this idea is not an ARCA-based motion, but a general sanctions regime as ratified by the community, or (failing that) a new arbitration case on LGBT+ issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: Thanks, that actually clears it up a lot for me. I think there are two parts to this: First, what the motion actually says (the DS regime is rescinded), and second, that there are some additional comments by the arbs indicating that the GG DS regime may be useful for the topic area. That certainly wasn't an extension or expansion of the GG case to cover all LGBT+ issues. If it was, why wasn't it reflected in the motion? And why wasn't it raised as an ARCA of the GG case rather than of the Sexology case? Similarly, even if it was intended to transfer "ownership" of the problem to the GG case, I think it raises almost exactly the same problem that led to the ARCA that spawned that motion: Just as it being inappropriate to handle LGBT+ issues in the same regime as we handle ones related to paraphilias, it strikes me as inappropriate to handle LGBT+ issues in the same regime as we handle ones related to Gamergate. While I have no doubt that some rulemaking, particularly related to misgendering and civility in discussions, would be a great idea, I don't think this is an appropriate use of the Committee's discretionary sanctions power. The Community should be given an opportunity to work together and scope this properly, rather than leaving it to "legislation by ArbCom". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't. I think that would be evidence to present either here or in a new case filing, and why I think it would be better to open a new case if general sanctions don't happen. This is a different set of issues than covered by the GamerGate case (as the findings of fact in that case make abundantly clear) and it is frankly an improper use of the arbitration mechanism to do things this way. If Arbcom wants to clarify that they are uninterested in ensuring the current DS help to reduce disruption or harassment of transgender editors, and thinks someone else should do it, fine, but I really do not believe that's what the committee intended or indends the Wikipedia community to read in to a lack of implementation by administrators and a lack of requests for implementation. I think this is a very unfair statement both to the Committee and to the administrators who are involved in enforcing discretionary sanctions regimes. The fact that the Committee shouldn't be legislating has nothing to do with the individual arbitrators' belief that LGBT+ issues are important. This is clearly a matter for a new case, and not for expansion of DS regimes—which are supposed to be the exception, not the rule—to cover more and more areas of Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The expansion and consolidation of DS regimes revealed by MJL is shocking. This is not an appropriate use of the Arbitration Committee. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to end discrete disputes; it is retrospective in nature, and to an extent discretionary sanctions merely existed to provide a uniform means of ongoing control over areas of dispute while those disputes were ongoing. What is being contemplated here, and where discretionary sanctions are being used, is very prospective. What’s even stranger, is that these regimes are being consolidated into a case that made no evidentiary findings of fact related to sitewide discussion of gender. If you want to roll these things under the Gamergate arbitration case, the amendment must include new findings of fact. Otherwise this is policymaking, pure and simple. I have no doubt that the community will agree that issues of gender need to be handled in an appropriate way throughout the site. That is the community’s role in the absence of a discrete controversy with a finite scope. This is not the role of the Committee and is expressly prohibited by the arbitration policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What's important here is that the Committee's role is in dispute resolution: There must be a dispute, and it must be properly before the Committee. This is the case because the Committee adjudicates disputes, and adjudication is by definition a retrospective and remedial action. Rulemaking or legislation, on the other hand, is prospective and deals with factual issues either not yet developed or not particularized to the individual level. This is a problem commonly found in administrative areas, the distinction between adjudication and rulemaking, so it is not surprising that the Committee has run into this same problem. But let there be no mistake: When the Committee seeks to regulate all pages, all persons, or all future events, it is engaged in rulemaking. What Fæ proposes is rulemaking, and it is improper within the arbitration policy, which I suggest you all read along with my comments: First, the scope of arbitration is clear that it is "To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". While other tasks and purposes are mentioned, these are all adjudicative in nature. This is coupled with the clear statement in the section on policy and precedent, which states, "The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced." These are not vehicles for creating new substantive rules, which is clearly the aim of this request. Regardless of intent—and I'm sure both Fæ and the members of the Committee have only the best intentions aimed at resolving what is clearly an important area—this Committee is not a rulemaking body. The community is the relevant rulemaker.
I additionally object to the change of scope of the GamerGate case, which does not include generalized issues relating to LGBT+ rights either in article or talk space as Fæ wishes to expand it. Not one single finding of fact in that case dealt with gender generally. Therefore, I submit that the issue of gender is not and was never properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case, and it would be manifestly improper as a matter of procedure and of practice to implement new discretionary sanctions to cover them. The fact that they are important issues and that there is active disruption is not relevant to this Committee's jurisdiction. The relative simplicity of the construction requested change—that things like misgendering be prohibited everywhere—is an even greater reason to deny this through ARCA: Why should the community be unable to handle it if it's properly requested to handle it? This is why these matters must be properly before the Committee before a decision is rendered: There must be evidence of failed resolution through other channels and that arbitration will end the dispute. I therefore move that this ARCA request be denied, and Fæ be encouraged either (1) to start a RfC requesting general sanctions in the area of LGBT+ rights, or (2) to file a request for arbitration requesting the Committee to decide on these issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: Having read what you just linked, I agree that this is the most likely event to precipitate this request. On the basis that this has no relationship to Gamergate whatsoever, I renew my request that the Committee summarily deny the clarification petition and direct Fae to pursue other dispute resolution, and failing that, file a request for arbitration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding Fae’s indication of an unwillingness to seek lesser dispute resolution, I think this provides sufficient evidence of a failure to seek lesser dispute resolution. As others have indicated, the scope of the GamerGate case is not infinite, and so the scope of the discretionary sanctions, even as broadly construed as they typically are, is not infinite. If the problem Fae has personally encountered is indeed personally troubling, then Fae surely must have sought lesser dispute resolution somewhere, anywhere—even if not ANI then someplace else. The failure or refusal to do so terminates this Committee’s jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction, the Committee must deny this request. You cannot IAR your way around the arbitration policy—for if you can, it would be an utter slap in the face to everyone who has had a case request denied under it. All this says is that if you accumulate over 7 million edits across all foundation projects, you get special handling. Please don’t send that message. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• In light of Fae’s statement that there is no current dispute requiring dispute resolution, and that this request is merely to deal with what is presented as a general problem, I renew my request that the Committee deny Fae’s petition here as inconsistent with the Arbitration Policy, which has always required a live dispute. If there is no live dispute, and Fae is requesting general changes to policy (or discretionary sanctions, however you wish to describe it) then all the more reason this petition should be denied and Fae directed to start an RfC, or a more preliminary discussion at one of the village pump pages. Furthermore, in light of Fae’s assertion that there is no active dispute requiring intervention, I withdraw my suggestion that the Committee direct Fae to file a request for arbitration: Fae’s own assertion that there is no live dispute would mandate the Committee’s denial of such a case request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• @AGK: An excellent analysis, and in my view the one that must carry. Fae is asking for something imminently unreasonable from the Committee; it is the equivalent of insisting that a round peg (LGBT+ issues) be forced through a square hole (Gamergate controversy issues). Even within the Committee's (over)use of the phrase "broadly construed", this is a step (or two or three) too far. The vast majority of the universe of issues subsumed under "LGBT+ issues" were not properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case (nor in Sexology, nor in Manning, nor in GGTF). The intentions here and in previous ARCAs are certainly noble, but those noble intentions must be enacted through the proper channels. And in light of Fae's confirmation that there is no live dispute here, that must be through community rulemaking processes.
  Moreover, Fae has raised a great deal of issues that should be substantiated by fact evidence in order to properly counsel the form of Committee action. I believe AGK tees up this very issue. Indeed, if the Committee is not required to collect fact evidence and make findings of fact before taking actions, how is it different than a policymaker by fiat? Certainly, there are cases where "interpretation" (i.e., providing binding or nonbinding guidance in the event of disagreements in application of past decisions in active disputes) and "amendment" (i.e., providing binding changes to previous cases in light of changed circumstances or errors) might be appropriate, but where the request seeks a complete change of the scope of those past cases, such requests must be denied as an improper use of Committee processes.
  I urge the Committee to respect the community's autonomy and first give it the opportunity to answer Fae's call for equity before concluding that it is utterly impotent to handle these serious issues. This community is not so bigoted as to be utterly unable to thoughtfully and reasonably handle such a request for general action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Masem (Gamergate)

Fæ's concern is 100% valid. I was originally going to say though that trans-gendered issues didn't really apply to GG, but reading the discretionary sanctions about it: (i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed., the concerns of ridiculing transgendered individuals seem to fall within b and c of this. So if an editor is going about clearly mocking a known transgender individual (including on-wiki editors), that should be stopped immediately.

I question though if this really is appropriate for GG, because it is dealing with behavior that was not explored during GG. GG was more about disruptions on mainspace pages in the GG area, and extending to some gender-related disputes (individuals at the center of it). There were some behavior problems that were explored, but it was not for insulting other editors in the manner Fæ brings up (irrespective of the trans angle).

Adding what Fæ has asked as an GG extension feels wrong. Even going back to the Sexology case, that was more about POV conflicts than editors demeaning other editors or people. So if the Sexology DS was still active, it would be wrong to add it there too. So I really feel this is a worthwhile statement that should be made to address this type of behavior, but not as part of the GG DS. I don't want to discourage Fæ from pursuring this type of principle elsewhere on en.wiki, just that I don't think adding it to a DS that is in the same ballpark is necessary the best way to do that. --Masem (t) 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Fæ, going off Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, I'm not seeing any of the statements or FOF that point out the ridiculing of transgenders as part of the issue, though that may have been part of the off-site behavior. I do see mention about unprofessional behavior, so I can fully understand why its DS was moved from "articles" to "pages", but that doesn't still seem to suggest that it was due to ridiculing editors on trans-related issues. I can speak as a key party on GG that that case also wasn't about similar ridicule, but did involve similar unprofessional approaches several editors did on talk pages, leading to the DS to cover "pages" and not just "articles" (but that also was because we were being brigaded by IP, and thus bore the 500/30 rule).

But that said, stating that a trans ideology exists during discussions, appears and can deliberately demean Wikipedia contributors, if not strictly stated in the context of directly quoting a source for an article about this topic rather than an editor making this statement in their "own voice". is concerning. We clearly want to stop targeted insults from WP editors, obviously, but we also want to make sure talk pages are open enough to properly discuss an article, and we have to be able to separate these. I should not be wary of being hit with DS if I went to trans woman and said "I have several RSes here that identify (insulting term) as a negative slang for trans women, should we add it appropriately?" (which I can see some editors feel as if that is possibly insulting but clearly meant to improve the article), whereas if I went "Why not just call them (insulting term)?" I would fully expect some type of warning or action. Making sure when it is proper to apply a DS here would require more effort than what went into the GG or Sexology case, and hence why I think slapping an addendum onto the current GG is not a good approach. --Masem (t) 16:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My primary concern is not with the intent, as I said, we should have some language - strong policy and/or immediate administrative actions like a GS or DS - to stop the disruption. It's more that GG, while it meets the topic area of gender-related disputes, didn't really have to do with editors using demeaning language. It's a convenient spot to put it in, but if a future editor came to review the DS, there's nothing in the case to support it being there. A community-agreed GS separate from any Arbcom case (but clearly allowing that GS to stand atop results of GG, Sexology, and GGTF) would be the more proper solution, to me. --Masem (t) 16:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL: with GGTF, thought, there is at least clear review of an editor demeaning other people including other editors, and the language of its passed motions make that a reasonably strong point. GG didn't really have that. --Masem (t) 16:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv states my concern is much more policy/procedures-based argument. --Masem (t) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The point that Johnuniq brings up (which just came up at BLP/N) is exactly the concern I expressed above. To be blunt, talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be "safe spaces" where certain concepts are forbidden. There are going to be ideas and concepts that some editors may feel offensive, but if the context is wholly within the scope of trying to discuss improvements for the article, that's 100% acceptable use of a talk page. The case that Johnuniq is troubling because it seems to be aimed to stifle ideas that, while controversial, seem appropriate to discuss. These issues are waaaaay beyond the scope of what the FOF of GG resulted in, so again, I don't think this should be just amended onto GG. --Masem (t) 17:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

@Fæ, Mendaliv, GoldenRing, and Masem: The request would no doubt fall under Gamergate. This was the premise for the request I made earlier this year which resulted in this motion. It brought Manning (which dealt with issues related to transgender identity) unequivocally within the scope of Gamergate. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

GGTF also was amended in the same motion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I am incredibly confused as to what I stumbled upon here. Though I was a fresh editor, the whole purpose of my original request was to avoid this one. Manning covered conduct as it related to gender identity. For the same reasons for Eastern Europe being amended did this occur. Arbcom has a clear interested in ensuring there are as few overlapping DS as possible.
  At the time, I suggested that GamerGate be renamed. However, Thryduulf had an even better idea to open up a case titled Gender-related disputes for the purpose of collating and renaming the existing sanctions. That'd be my preference now because we already have Findings of Fact from Manning and GGTF to justify DS. It's just a question of where to log it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

• People misgender on this project all the time. Almost always, in my experience, it is unintentional, although sometimes people get very upset about it. I only edit LGBT stuff occasionally and usually when it intersects with something that I more regularly edit. I get confused with the politics of it all, I sometimes tranpose the letters in various acronyms, I understand that some groups want to remove the "L" from LGBT, others want to add "Q" and/or "I", others use "+", and so on. Then there is the TERF stuff that boggles my mind, and now Fae is mentioning a couple of other terms I've never seen before. It is a minefield for anyone who is not right on the ball (a recent cartoon in Private Eye showed a teacher in a sex ed class writing "LGBT+" on a blackboard and one kid saying to another, "Since when did sex ed involve algebra?" Or something similar). I'm not entirely sure what Fae's intentions are here, nor even if they are correct in their interpretation of what is or is not a misgendering (which seems to be a very politicised subject), but it does concern me that inadvertent use of a word or acronym might lead to summary sanctions. I don't think we can compare this complex, oft-changing scenario with a multitude of neologisms etc with, say, use of the n-word. The latter is, I think, pretty well established territory but I suspect that the former is not. Am I misunderstanding something? Do I now have to first read several articles discussing the various terms before I write anything on the subject? - Sitush (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks @Johnuniq: for providing what appears to be the context. In light of that, I wonder why Fae didn't use TERF as an example in the request. Even I know it is a political hot potato, even if I don't necessarily fully understand it. I'm not convinced that weaponising a DS regime by amendment to resolve a current dispute is a good thing, if that is what is going on. Sort out the dispute and then ask for amendment etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• An excellent set of comments from EdChem. I think they're the way forward, both in terms of this request and any future developments/strategy. - Sitush (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I wondered what the background for this was. It appears to be Meghan Murphy where there are disputes over the degree to which the person or her blog should be described as trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF. The talk page shows the dispute including Pyxis Solitary saying "she's against trans ideology" which caused Fæ to respond with diff saying "trans ideology" was an attack on all trans people which, if continued, would warrant sanctions under WP:ARBGG. The issue of whether mentioning a "trans ideology" among off-wiki activists is a sanctionable attack should not be decided in a clarification request. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

I support this motion. The "Manning naming dispute" case made it clear long ago that transgender topics are an area with disruption. The GG case included issues of gender identity as well (see histories of discussions related to Quinn and Wu). Discussing that GG covers gender, cisgender and transgender, would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pyxis Solitary

This comment addresses the mention of my name in the  Statement by Johnuniq  regarding the Meghan Murphy BLP talk page discussion: First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist.

Allow me to shed all the light  from/to  Pyxis Solitary:
In reponse to the Murphy topic I said: "her history regarding transgender issues is that she is not against trans people, she's against trans ideology and transgender rights legislation. It's a fine line, but an important distinction".
To which the other editor mentioned replied: "By the way, Pyxis Solitary, there is no such thing as "trans ideology". If you continue to spout unsourced damaging nonsense that so blatantly attacks all trans people this way, you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia in line with the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions applying to gender related topics that you were alerted to in May this year". That last bit refers to this notice she/he left on my talk page about a candidate for deletion.
Then this editor continued to pile it on with this and this. To which I responded here.
The editor continued with this. And I replied.
Followed by said editor continuing the inquisition. Again, I replied.
Editor continued with the same line of accusation. I responded. Editor continued. I again replied.
It's shameful how ArbCom has made it possible for the Discretionary Sanctions policy to be weaponized as a threat used by editors with axes to grind.

By the way, the same IP editor that personally attacked me in the article, and accused me of being a "TERF" in the talk page, attacked me again with a bogus statement attributed to me with a fake signature — which was deleted by editor Fæ before I returned to the discussion. And of course, IP editor left another accusation in my talk page. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC); (edited) 08:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re: GamerGate)

That MJL I do still think that it would be a good idea to have a new case, Gender-related disputes covering

• Disputes and controversies related to gender, gender identity and gender expression (including pronouns)
• Disputes and controversies related to gender gaps (i.e. editors and content) and actions/projects/etc related to these
• A review of what existing sanctions exist, how they are being used, and how well they are or are not working
• What, if any, areas that are covered need not be covered any longer
• What, if any, additional areas should be covered
• Whether collating all the existing and new sanctions into one set would be desirable (and if so, do so).

This would be quite a large case, which the Committee probably has not got capacity for while Fram is ongoing and Palestine-Israel 4 is pending so I suggest adding it to the queue rather than opening immediately. In the mean time, I would strongly encourage Fæ and everyone else to try and resolve any disputes using the current available methods (AN/I, AE, etc) so that there is good, recent evidence to feed into the review. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde (GamerGate)

I confess I am not as familiar with the GamerGate dustups as some, but this request, and the responses to it, baffle me. I cannot see how disputes related to transgender rights and transgender activism do not fall under "any gender-related dispute or controversy [broadly construed]". If the Meghan Murphy dispute were under discussion at AE, I for one would consider it within the scope of the discretionary sanctions. I see no purpose being served by addressing a hypothetical statement about a gay agenda. The very reason discretionary sanctions exist is that it is sometimes difficult to determine in advance what disruptive behavior will look like; DS regimes allow administrators to make decisions on a case by case basis, and with a few exceptions that don't apply here, we are generally quite good at sanctioning disruption when it is brought to our attention. Fæ, if editors are being disruptive in the way you describe, and you believe their edits to be sanctionable under GG discretionary sanctions, why are you here, rather than at AE? Do you have any evidence that admins are unwilling to apply these sanctions in this situation? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Judging by comments elsewhere and recent edit history, this is not a good faith request for clarification, it is an attempt to use arbitration sanctions to enforce Fae's views of how a subject should be covered, in a context where numerous attempts to do this via normal Wikipedia processes are failing. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What EdChem said, absolutely. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem (GamerGate)

• Given the quote from Masem, it seems to me that there is a lack of clarity here about the coverage of some gender issues under the DS regime.
• The fact that there is a lack of clarity does not mean that the suggestion by Fæ is the way to resolve the problem, nor does it mean that Guy's observations of attempts to weaponise DS regimes is necessarily incorrect.
• Please, in clarifying, make clear that there are distinctions between misgendering / comments that can give offense that occur as a consequence of mistake or ignorance, those arising from deliberately provocative wordings and made with an intent to cause offense, and situations where an editor might be looking to push an agenda and express outrage. The Manning naming dispute included plenty of examples from the first two categories and a motivation to right great wrongs has led to postings / main space edits that are inconsistent with policy-compliant editing.
• As a gay man, I've experienced comments and behaviours that I found obnoxious even though they occurred from ignorance, been targeted by deliberate homophobia, and had times where I have had to decide whether to speak up or hold my tongue. I'm all for WP being a safe environment for all members of the broader LGBTQIA+ community but some incidents call for discussion, education, and persuasion and not sanction or threat (which is exactly how DS notices can be perceived, notwithstanding the notion that they are information only, etc).
• Short version, clarification is appropriate as the Committee's various motions appear inconsistent... but sensible clarification that does not weaponise the DS regime for those who might want to use it to advance a campaign, and that makes it clear to AE admins and others enforcing the regime that it is important to understand the actual issues. Societal understanding of LGBTQIA+ issues and acceptable behavioural standards are changing and will continue to develop, no doubt too slowly for some and too rapidly for others, and also vary from place to place. I don't envy the Committee or AE admins in trying to balance issues in this area, but I do believe that deliberate provocation and being intentionally offensive calls for a strong response but that this approach is counter-productive for dealing with ignorance or misunderstanding from editors of good will. EdChem (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Guy has commented at my user talk page, which has led me to reflect on my words and to add a clarification. The term "safe space" has different meanings in different contexts. I believe in a WP that is free from homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, racism, anti-semitism, and prejudices in general when it comes to interactions between editors, and I heartily endorse Guy's term "respectful space." We need to be able to cover difficult subjects in a policy-compliant way, however, and that means discussions of topics and considering views that will sometimes cause a degree of discomfort. I don't mean a safe space in the sense that views that will cause disagreement should not be expressed, even though there are safe spaces in which such rules may be appropriate. WP is not a therapy or support space and should not impose standards that are more appropriate to such spaces, but it is also not a place where deliberate deadnaming, crass generalisations or outright bigotry are tolerable. Consequently, I state for the sake of clarity that "respectful space" is closer to the mark on what I meant as a norm for on-wiki communications than are some connotations of "safe space."

I would also like to clarify that, in referring to my own experiences, I was not thinking solely of on-wiki experiences, or even only online experiences. The first time I had homophobic abuse screamed at me was shocking and a little frightening – and would have been more so had I been alone or in vulnerable circumstances – but I quickly decide that ignoring the event was the wisest course of action. It was illegal, no doubt, but pursuing it was not worth my time, nor was given this individual the satisfaction of having provoked a response. I would encourage Fæ to consider whether there are times when silence is the most eloquent response, where providing a response is not worth the time or effort involved, and whether dismissing something as not worth pursuing is actually a more dignified and effective way to communicate that it isn't worth supplying oxygen to, either by replying or by seeking redress. EdChem (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I concur with Guy and EdChem, and I thank EdChem for their reasonable and rationale statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

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

• @Fæ and Mendaliv: As far as I understand, it is not accurate to say The GamerGate case superseded and ... took on the the original motions and amendments of Sexology. However, discretionary sanctions were rescinded in the Sexology case by the motion Fæ has linked to, and it seems clear from the discussion of the arbs in and around that motion that this was done because the GG sanctions, which cover all "gender-related controversies," already covered the "transgender issues" topic that the ARBSEX sanctions covered. So I believe ARBGG is the correct case to file this under. GoldenRing (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

• We usually issue guidance on this page without formal motions. I think this request can be handled well enough by arbitrator comments (or Views and discussion, if you want the jargon). We have been asked: is use of discussion pages on Wikipedia to state or imply that trans people are part of a transgender conspiracy, agenda, ideology or similar defamatory "gay agenda" an example of conduct enforceable under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions? In many cases, the answer will be no. In my view, such conduct must take place in the context of content relating to gender. Mentioning gender or transgender questions does not in itself trigger the DS regime. The GamerGate discretionary sanctions were designed to deal with conduct at Wikipedia articles, and the scope of sanctions does not extend to all corners of Wikipedia. None of this is to say that Wikipedia does not need, or ought not to develop, a set of rules for enforcement of the issues highlighted by Fae; I make no comment about that here. The arbitration decision about GamerGate simply does not stretch endlessly beyond edits to the related articles and closely-related discussions (eg talk page or noticeboard threads about conduct on the articles). Its scope is clear and this request seems to raise new matters that should be addressed separately, probably in a fresh arbitration request. The prospects of the latter being accepted are poor if there is no prior attempt to develop proposals by community consensus. AGK ■ 12:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  Those protections already exist under GamerGate. An acceptable reading of the decision is not that the enforcement may happen against any insult, allegation, or slur. Both the setting and the content of the offending edit need to be correct. Your proposal removes the first test, and therefore needs a fresh case. AGK ■ 13:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

---