Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Callanecc (talk | contribs) at 11:36, 7 May 2014 (→‎Motion: Enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Abortion none none 6 May 2014
Clarification request: Gun control#Gaijin42 (topic banned) none none 6 May 2014
Amendment request: Falun Gong 2 Motion (orig. case) 29 April 2014
Amendment request: Fæ none none 28 April 2014

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

Amendment request: Abortion

Initiated by Anythingyouwant (talk) at 22:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Abortion arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 9
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment


Information about amendment request

Statement by Anythingyouwant

This seems like an opportune time to request lifting a topic-ban imposed on me in 2011. ArbCom has just finished a case (gun control) in which my contributions were scrutinized, so making this request now seems timely given that I am fresh on your minds. I was “indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed”. During that case, I repeatedly made very clear to ArbCom that I objected to accusers going over the word-limits, and said that I would not exceed my word-limits to address accusations which exceeded the accuser's word limits, unless given permission by ArbCom to do so, and I was not given permission. I don’t know what your rules say now, but back then they said this:

I made very clear my objections to violation of this rule, and my intention not to violate it.[1][2]

As to the two accusations back then which I did not address for the reasons described above, they were mostly false. On the first, all I did was quote a book, not realizing that a later edition changed the quote, and I didn't object at all when I was corrected (I was even thanked for correcting a further error made by the person who corrected me). On the second accusation, I made a policy edit merely intended to clarify what the policy already said, it would not have advanced my position anymore than anyone else's even if it had been a new policy requirement, I said upfront that it related to an article I recently edited, and I did not refer to the policy at the article talk page until weeks later (long after other editors had discussed and modified my edit at the policy page, and without having had any intention to refer to the policy---which intention unfortunately cannot be proved).

Even if you regard these accusations and the remedy as legitimate (I don't), then perhaps you might think that several years is "indefinite" enough. I'd appreciate that. If you would like further diffs to substantiate any of this statement of mine, then just ask. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB: Brad, I have not looked at Wikipedia’s abortion-related and pregnancy-related articles in several years, so I cannot say how I would be inclined to edit them. I have no desire to dive back in anytime soon, at least not in a big way, that’s for sure. Eventually, maybe I’d start a new sub-article; in May of 2011, I made this comment at one of those pages, suggesting creation of a new sub-article about biological facts that are cited by either side of the abortion dispute (I said "there isn't any comprehensive article on this subject, and it would be good to have one, at least as a sub-article of this Wikipedia article"). So, I might want to someday work on something like that. I think the issue that really got me into trouble at the main abortion article (i.e. the real issue) was that I supported keeping an image that had been in the article for a year, showing what it is that is aborted in a typical abortion (which occurs at about 8 weeks after conception/fertilization). So, I might support inclusion of something like that; Wikipedia has a no-censorship policy ostensibly, and I think removal of such an image without consensus violated that policy and others (especially when you consider some of the images that Wikipedia does allow in its articles). But I have no desire to jump back into this anytime soon. At the very least, I would have to get back up to speed on the subject, and on the coverage that Wikipedia currently provides. I certainly am not going to edit any of these articles if I am under a sanction that says "Anyone can topic-ban Anythingyouwant for the slightest bullshit reason." Been there, done that.
Regarding "misrepresentation" of sources, I will not do one little iota of a thing differently, because the accusation in this case was phony. As for editing policy pages, an arbitrator once told me: "This is Wikipedia, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals." But I understand now that more care is needed when editing policies based on non-hypotheticals, and would exercise same.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mastcell, you know very well that the user in question denied (repeatedly) that the Nazis were tyrants, and said that they were in a worse category than tyrants. I said repeatedly that I was not accusing that user of having any sympathy with Nazis, while trying my damnedest to disagree with that user's absurd contention that they were not tyrants. Mastcell, let me just say right here in black and white: you are accusing me of a hideous offense knowing very well that it is false. And I find this entirely typical of you. If people want diffs, I will provide diffs. MastCell dragged me through countless unsuccessful administrative actions in the past that failed because they were frivolous. But he hit the jackpot by exceeding his word limits in this arbcom case. And I fully expect Arbcom to do his bidding again. I say: go for it. I hope it makes you feel proud. You can see that MastCell makes me mad, and if being mad is against ArbCom rules, then go ahead and drop the boom. Your comment below is utterly disgraceful, MC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

Brad, you asked what Anythingyouwant would do differently if his sanction is lifted. His statement boils down to one word: nothing. He's still re-litigating the ArbCom abortion case, not to mention his push to include fetal images in the abortion article which began more than 7 years ago. His recent editing in other controversial areas doesn't inspire confidence; while he was not sanctioned in the gun control case, he didn't exactly cover himself in glory either, falsely accusing one case participant of being a Nazi apologist and nearly challenging another to a duel. What basis is there for lifting this sanction? MastCell Talk 03:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Considering. Question for Ferrylodge: If this request is granted, what, if anything, would you like to edit that you can't as of now, and how, if at all, would you edit it differently from how you did previously? Note to newer arbitrators: see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge (2007 case involving same editor under prior username). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Somehow I get the feeling that lifting this sanction would not lead to an improvement of the editing environment in the relevant topic area. As a side note, since you are fresh on our minds, I'll also add that it's probably a good idea if you choose to voluntarily stay away from contentious articles for a while... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, I don't see any persuasive argument for lifting this remedy at this time. WormTT(talk) 09:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unusually, this request is made on the grounds that there were procedural improprieties in the original case, and specifically that the complainant had insufficient space in which to respond to evidence against him. While I am sympathetic to the pressures of being accused from all sides, I reject these grounds because: (A) named parties have a 1000 word limit on their evidence (not 500 words as claimed); (B) rebuttals to evidence can be made on the Evidence talk page; and (C) none of this is relevant to whether the remedy imposed is still necessary. Decline. AGK [•] 11:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Gun control#Gaijin42 (topic banned)

Initiated by Lightbreather (talk) at 15:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Gaijin42_.28topic-ban.29"

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

Gaijin42 and Scalhotrod notified here [3] and here.[4]

Statement by Lightbreather

Yesterday, Scalhotrod removed a "See also" link three times from the Gun politics in the U.S. article, as documented here: [5], [6] (scroll down), and [7]. Rather than then make a fourth revert, he unilaterally moved/renamed the article, as documented here: [8] (I reverted it and asked him to talk about it first, but he moved/renamed it again.)

Within hours of these edits, this discussion was posted on Scal's talk page by Gaijin42. [9] I don't know what the Wiki-term is for this, but it seems like coaching to me. It's not specifically about gun control, but it's related to material Scal had been warring with me over off-and-on for five days. Is this kind of behavior OK?

Statement by Gaijin42

I provided a direct quote to a policy/guideline. Something I do for many users, including Lightbreather, for which she has specifically thanked me for. [10] including her mentioning my helping her with policy multiple times during the ArbCom case. In this case, I did not edit any page or talk page of gun control, and did not discus any edits, arguments, or editors involved.

I had planned on asking for a clarification of the topic ban myself, but was going to wait for things to calm down first User:Gaijin42/GunControlArbClarification Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by thenub314

(edit conflict with above)

I found the move frustrating, because it was clearly the type of edit that people would like to discuss first. But there was no discussion and it seemed to be a somewhat heated move that was directly in response [11]. I admit my knee jerk reaction was to move the article back and start a discussion but I found I lack privileges to move over redirects. In hind sight that probably saved me from a heated edit. But the unlevel playing field also adds to the frustration. But I too find the coaching (or appearance thereof) concerning. Thenub314 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • It is obvious front he way that Gaijin's staement on the talk page was framed that he was aware he was skirting the edges of the TBAN. This is unfortunately all too common in the first weeks of such a ban and our reply in the first instance is generally to inform the user that if we see further testing of the limits of the ban it may become a siteban. Gaijin's cute little explanation here is as transparent as the ham-handed phrasing of the original post.
Gaijin, you are topic banned fromt his area. What this means is that the committee has determined that the project would be better off without your involvement in this one area, but that you are valued as an editor otherwise. So, I strongly suggest you simply take any page even remotely related to gun control off your watchlist and just leave it alone. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essentially what Beeblebrox said. A topic ban means to stay entirely away from the area, not to stand on its sidelines and shout suggestions to other editors involved. It is clear that Gaijin42's message was posted in response to an ongoing debate in the area covered by the topic ban. If this type of behavior continues, I expect blocks at AE or further consideration here will be the result. Being banned from participation in the area does not mean to find clever ways to remain involved and pretend not to be, it means to stay well clear. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my learned colleagues. Gaijin, further instances of boundary testing will probably lead to sanctions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with all three above. Decline. AGK [•] 11:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Falun Gong 2

Initiated by  Ohc ¡digame! at 02:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Falun Gong 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2#Ohconfucius_topic-banned
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2#Ohconfucius subject to mandated external review


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

Statement by Ohconfucius

It has been more that 18 months since the case. Since then, I have performed tens of thousands of edits to align date formats, and have also made significant contributions to numerous articles, including developing many DYKs and several good articles. Arbcom can have faith that I can stay away from articles about the movement and from drama relating thereto. I am seeking to remove a topic ban not so that I can go back to editing articles on that sect. The ban no longer serves any purpose except to potentially prevent me from contributing to China articles to the fullest extent and to the best of my expertise and ability, and also to edit a page in my own userspace. In addition, it would be important for me to once again to restored to an editor of good standing. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Floquenbeam: The great irony is that once the topic ban came into being, I couldn't do anything to that rant without being in breach of the ban. -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Floquenbeam: @Beeblebrox: I'm fine with that being deleted. I've long gotten over it and see no useful purpose in dwelling over the bitter past history of editors most of whom are no longer active in the project. Falun Gong isn't going to change as a result of my ranting about it, but I've been too lazy to do any housekeeping – not that I could have even mentioned it to anyone, let alone ask for it to be deleted due to the breadth of the TBAN. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beeblebrox: The answer to that is easy. The TBAN states: "Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces." The typical Arbcom "broadly construed" provision is the killer. I am afraid to death of editing any China-related article because of that provision. Jiang Zemin, Bo Xilai are the obvious ones due to their unproven roles in the alleged persecution of FLG practitioners.

    However, the problem is not only China articles where there is mention of Falun Gong persecution, but any article where The Epoch Times or Shen Yun are mentioned; any article where ET is quoted or cited is technically off-limits to me. As an example, I am currently working through Category:CS1 errors: dates yet I cannot correct the cs1 date error in Shen Yun. More specifically and problematically, there are Robocop admins prowling, and I can see myself blocked and/or have my ban extended for technical breaches by making even minor changes to apparently innocuous or unrelated articles such as List of newspapers in Australia and Korkoro. I trust that you can see how the breadth of the TBAN is a restraint for me.

    I now seek to repair my reputation – and this is the most important reason for this appeal. But if it pleases Arbcom, I would add a voluntary undertaking not to edit any article directly connected with FLG. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heim

For what it's worth, this ban barely passed in the first place, getting through by just one vote. And there's a good reason: It was an exceedingly ill-founded ban. As two arbitrators pointed out, the evidence for Ohconfucius's POV-pushing was weak. Frankly, the rest of the committee erred in forgetting that editing with a POV is not necessarily pushing a POV; sometimes, adding a POV to an article is balancing the article. (Frankly, Wikipedia has a serious systemic bias problem with these articles because of the unwillingness of Western editors to consider an anti-FG stance for fear of being seen as pro-PRC, and ArbCom fell into this trap hook, line and sinker.) Either way, if no one can show evidence of recent problematic behaviour, this appeal should be granted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Noting, that I changed the title of this request from Appeal request to Amendment request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Could you give an example of a specific page that you are prevented from editing by this TBAN that you believe you should be able to edit in a productive manner?
  • Would you like the "rant" page in your userspace deleted? I'm not trying to put you over a barrel here, just giving you a way to be rid of it without any chance of violating the topic ban by actually editing it. Say the word and I'll zap it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm liking the sound of Salvio's idea below, although I might like it better if it were six months instead of a full year. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to accept the amendment request, albeit in a slightly modified form. Instead of removing the topic ban entirely, I'd go for something along the lines of a "parole": Ohconfucius' topic ban is suspended but, for a year, any uninvolved admin may reimpose it in the event of fresh misconduct within the original area of conflict. After a year of trouble-free editing, the topic ban will automatically expire. @Ohconfucius: would this solution satisfy you? Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with SG's proposal of a year's provisional lifting, to be made a permanent removal if no problems occur and be revoked if any do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there seems to be reasonable support for the provisional suspension of the remedy, I'll propose a motion tonight. Would anyone else like to weigh in as to how long the probationary period should last? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Salvio's idea of a provisional suspension. I personally feel like one year would make sense to ensure all is well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 1 who is recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be repealed.

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Worth trying. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weakly. AGK [•] 23:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With the request that Ohconfucius steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 07:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments by arbitrators
Motion carried. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Fæ

Initiated by Fæ (talk) at 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
This restriction is not logged as an action resulting from the Arbcom case. It was added when I was unblocked as documented on my talk page.
A previous discussion in advance of this request was made here in January 2014.

The restrictions were stated as:

  1. topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed
  2. topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed

Statement by Fæ

I would like the committee to remove the restrictions. They are so broad that they remain blight major barrier to my return to productive work as a Wikipedian editor, my future employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, and ensure I cannot create proposals for, nor take a lead in, future Wikipedia projects.

Failing removal, replacing with a narrow and well-specified restriction that is relevant to the original complaint in 2011 (which never went to dispute resolution as it was resolved amicably with the other editor), would prove far less damaging, such as restricted from adding external links on BLP articles to sites featuring sexually graphic material, excluding external links to germane non-profit/charity archives with educational medical or political material, such as the Wellcome Digital Library, British Library or similar respected archive or museum. However even this seems excessive, when there are sufficient members of the Wikipedia community closely following my edits to ensure that any problematic link would be rapidly challenged and widely discussed for consensus.

The previous discussion confirmed that members of Arbcom are not of one mind on how to read the restrictions, leaving them interpreted as broadly as technically possible. This stops editing where there would be any way of interpreting the topic relating to sexuality, women's rights, or of LGBT cultural interest. Specific examples included:

  • Suffrage in Britain.
  • Ancient history connected to gender or sexuality. I have created Assyrian statue (BM 124963) only after reviewing it specifically with Arbcom.
  • Women in Science edit-a-thons that touch on sexuality, for example my article on Professor Susan Lea, created before realizing her speciality is sexual assault.
  • LGBT cultural initiatives within the Wikimedia LGBT programme.

Specific projects that these restrictions have made impossible, damaging content improvement for Wikipedia:

  • Educational material to support Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Of the 100,000 images that I have been working with the Wellcome to make available (see demonstration upload set), a significant number relate to AIDS education and ACTUP posters, as well as more general LGBT related historic material. I am free to support these on Commons, but unable to help on Wikipedia.
  • My proposal with an LGBT archive was withdrawn due to these restrictions. I was hoping to start this project back in February (diversity awareness month).
  • I have not applied for Wikipedian in Residence positions in 2014.

In January it was suggested that I create new BLPs to demonstrate my competence (I improved several hundred before the Arbcom case). I have created the following articles in the last couple of months, mostly on living women:

Biographies
Historical biographies

Two of these, along with my photograph, were featured on Signpost as part of promoting Wikipedia's improvement during Women's History Month.

I believe the broad restriction was partly in place out of concern for my welfare. My interactions on controversial LGBT topics, LGBT safety rating for Wikimania bids and Ticket:2014033110012549, show that I can handle difficult discussion on LGBT topics and BLPs without inflaming debate.

@AGK: I am sorry that you read my request so negatively. I have removed the word "blight", which I meant in a technical sense (I am used to the word being used in a legal context), this may have set the negative tone you were reading into my statement. I am presenting the relevant impact the restriction is having, which includes employment prospects. My intent is not "martyrdom", but to ignore the facts would seem odd, particularly if a concern of the committee was to place restrictions as a means to protect me, or to protect Wikipedia from me. --Fæ (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Responses to questions:
1. This is Arbcom's call, I have no issue with a gradual approach if they feel it is helpful.
2. First choice would be LGBT biographies and cultural images so I can support Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014 next month and may be able to renegotiate the LGBT archives proposal I had to withdraw. The contested site back in 2011 was part of a legal case, adding a link to that website without a community consensus was a serious error in judgement. I have learned a lot about how to interpret policies both here and on other projects with regard to respect and dignity of the subject in the years since then. That case is quite distinct in my mind to the projects I have mentioned above where I can support Wikimedia with relevant illustrative historic images from respected sources, or images from public events illustrating contemporary LGBT culture.
3. I suggested a refined form of words above, though I wonder if rather than spending time debating a technical form of words better to define a restriction, a probationary period for BLP editing and images relating to "sexuality" would be pragmatic, perhaps running a log of articles as evidence of review during probation in preparation of restrictions being removed.

Statement by AGK

Fae's statement implies that the committee decision is affecting his real-life employment. This does not mean the ban was unjustified, and I am not impressed he would claim otherwise (or by the tone of his statement in general). As this subtextual martyrdom is the same sort of conduct that led to Fae's ban in the first place, I question whether he has reformed. AGK [•] 07:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

The Committee is explicitly required to act in the best interests of the English Wikipedia - it is not in their remit to consider how their decisions may or may not affect someone's personal life. In my opinion, this amendment request should succeed or fail solely on the basis of whether the Committee believes that removing or relaxing Fæ's restrictions will be a good or bad thing for the Encyclopaedia. Whichever they decide though, it is important that the reasoning is explained so that all parties may understand why that decision was reached. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Given that at this point a complete removal of your restrictions seems unlikely but a partial relaxation has not been ruled out, it might be helpful if you could offer some thoughts around the following questions:
  1. If you were offered a partial relaxation, would you accept one (depending on the exact terms) or would you reject it in favour of an all-or-nothing approach?
  2. If you do want a partial relaxation, is there one area you'd prefer to see relaxed first?
  3. Again only relevant if you do want a partial relaxation, but if the partial relaxation doesn't take the form of narrowing the scope, is there any looser but still realistic and practical form of restriction that you would be happy with and that you think would allow you to demonstrate to the committee that you are ready to return to full editing?

I guess input from the Committee other interested people about questions 2 and 3 might be useful to. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

The question that ArbCom needs to address is how they are to manage restrictions on editors. If the intention is that certain editors are to carry restrictions forever, then be honest and say so. It is cruel to offer false hope and the editor affected at least can make a decision on whether they wish to continue editing at all under those restrictions or whether they will channel their energies into something else.

On the other hand, if Arbcom believes that no-one is irredeemable, then it would make sense to encourage whatever processes of rehabilitation are considered suitable. For infinitely banned users we have the standard offer, but I am unaware of any similar guidance for indefinitely restricted users. Were I in your position, I would be looking for clearly defined milestones that a user could aim toward in order to show that they no longer need restrictions to be able to edit productively and without undue conflict. If you are serious about bringing editors back into 'normal' editing, then you ought to be marking out timescales and expectations for targets that restricted editors could achieve to demonstrate their progress. Simply leaving them without any direction and having to guess how to demonstrate their progress is just not good enough. If that's too much work for ArbCom - and heaven knows your workload is heavy enough - then find some reliable way of delegating the tutoring of restricted editors back into full editorship. --RexxS (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand ArbCom's desire to ensure that our BLPs are as free from problems as possible. I would therefore suggest in this case that someone - an ArbCom member, a clerk, or an uninvolved admin - assemble a collection of diffs of problematic BLP editing by Fae and enter into a dialogue with him on how he would avoid such problems in the future. That should give you a lead on what he must do to demonstrate that he has moved forward. Obviously, the more diffs he is given to address, the more time and effort he'll need to undertake in order to illustrate his progress. That would at least be a step forward in clearly defining the problems that need to be solved. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Cla68

Has Fae ever fully disclosed every single one of his sock accounts to the Committee as he was required to do? If so, please tell us that he has so the community can let that matter drop. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worm that Turned, acknowledged as resolved. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Changed to an amendment request as it is asking for a past decision to be changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recuse. AGK [•] 07:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still considering this, but I will comment on RexxS's point. There are editors that I have come across since I have been on Arbcom that I would say should never have their restrictions relaxed, just as there are a small number of editors who I would be reluctant to unban under any situation, even OFFER. I will say the area I'm least keen on relaxing restrictions is on BLPs where there has been previous problematic editing.

    Now, I'm open to a relaxation, but not a removal at the moment. I will need to think about what relaxation would be appropriate - and would be interested in hearing from other committee members to see if one is even worth proposing. WormTT(talk) 07:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had a little while to think about this and have a few ideas on a possible relaxation. However, @Fæ: I have been struggling with your request due to the way you've framed it. AGK may have used evocative language but his point is well taken - if the ban is affecting your future livelihood, then that is unfortunate but should not be relevant to the Arbcom's decisions. It should not be down to the Arbitration Committee to ensure your livelihood - if you insist on tying your income to Wikipedia, you make damn sure to follow the rules. Raising the issue of future employment appears to be an attempt at manipulating the committee, similar to the behaviour which landed you in the situation in the first place.

    On top of this, you've implied that you are restricted from areas that you don't appear to be. Suffrage, for example, is about gender, not sexuality - and if you cannot tell the difference between those terms, you should not be working in either area. LGBT cultural outreach should not require you to be editing the BLPs. If you are leading by example, there are many non-BLP LGBT articles. The Assyrian statue you checked with us that it was outside the scope of the restriction, we agreed. There wasn't confusion there, no Arbs suggested it was a problem.

    @Cla68: per this, Fae needed to pass the committee a list of his accounts prior to being unbanned. I, for one, was satisfied with his disclosures and consider the matter resolved. WormTT(talk) 12:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there were to be any relaxation, given that BLPs are involved and with the previous issues in the BLP area, it would have to be very, very gradual. I would be categorically opposed to a total removal of the ban, but might be willing to consider a narrow exemption for some particular purpose to gauge things, with an understanding that any problems will lead to that exemption being revoked. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the above comments, I do not think a wholesale removal of restrictions is what we want to do here but I might be persuaded to support a more gradual reduction on a trial basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the preceding comments. There is a core of restriction that should stay in place for now, but the boundaries may sweep too broadly. I have no interest at this stage in the issue raised by Cla68. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree with Worm That Turned that "sexuality" is quite different from "gender." Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=607464693"