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 Smallbones (talk | contribs) at 02:09, 20 February 2015 (→‎Statement by Smallbones). 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: Wifione Motion (orig. case) 15 February 2015
Amendment request: GamerGate none (orig. case) 18 February 2015

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: Wifione

Initiated by Smallbones at 15:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wifione arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione#Paid editing


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Please delete this princple, or copyedit it to "6) ... The Committee ...has... a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry ..." where the ... indicate words I've removed.


Statement by Smallbones

The principle seems to say that we do not have a policy on undisclosed paid editing or that ArbCom and admins cannot even consider enforcing the current policy WP:Terms of use and guideline WP:COI (1st section which repeats the relevant part of the ToU), or perhaps not even any part of the ToU.

WP:Terms of use is clearly Wikipedia policy, stating so itself (since 2009), and being categorized as such, and in a policy navigation box. Denying that this is policy, would be creating policy by fiat, and be a constitutional crisis for Wikipedia (i.e. ToU don't apply here). The principle was not needed to decide the case, so there is no need to even appear to be denying that WP:Terms of use can be considered by ArbCom.

The thread at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Proposed_decision#No_Wikipedia_Policy_on_Paid_Editing.3F discusses this at great length. It says everything that needs to be said IMHO. But do note that IMHO 3 arbs expressed some level of agreement or sympathy with my position in that thread. I'll inform all non-arb participants of that thread, listed above, about this request but don't really think they need to expand upon what they've already said.

I'm sorry to repeat myself from the talk page thread, but I just don't understand how anybody can say that WP:Terms of use is not currently a Wikipedia policy.
I also find it disturbing that folks will say that there is no consensus for the policy when the largest RfC in history was conducted less than a year ago with 80% of the respondents supporting the change to the ToU. The fact that it was conducted, as required by the ToU, on meta rather than en Wikipedia, strikes me at best as a technicality.
Now I don't understand the distinction being put forward between accepting WP:Terms of use as policy, but saying that ArbCom does not have a mandate to enforce it.
As I understand it ArbCom has the power to enforce any persistent violation of policy. This is supported by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Enforcement
"In cases where it is clear that a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy), especially if they are doing so intentionally and persistently, that user may be temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing by an administrator. In cases where the general dispute resolution procedure has been ineffective, the Arbitration Committee has the power to deal with highly disruptive or sensitive situations."
Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies, just a small correction, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies does list the TOU as policy:

"Policies

These are all official policies of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikimedia wikis

These policies, in addition to the terms of use, apply to all Wikimedia wikis." (my italics)

Carrite, I just can't imagine somebody seriously writing "the community has reaffirmed again and again that there is no prohibition of paid editing per se, the WMF's unilateral tweaking of so-called "Terms of Use" notwithstanding."

The "WMF's unilateral tweaking" was the largest RFC in history [1]. 1103 users (79.4%) supported the change to the TOU and only 286 against it. That's 4 supports for every 1 against. Folks who say that there is no community support for the TOU either haven't paid attention or want to exclude a large number of the members of our community. If anyone - arbs or otherwise - want to change the outcome so that the TOU is no longer policy, the TOU describe how they can do that. It certainly hasn't been done yet. There's no requirement that another RFC has to be run so that policy can be enforced. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fluffernutter

The Wikimedia Terms of Use are English Wikipedia policy. That is made clear in a number of places, including the Terms of Use themselves, [a 1] the English Wikipedia page that redirects to the Terms of Use,[a 2] and our own conflict of interest guideline.[a 3] The Wikimedia Terms of use prohibit undisclosed paid editing, in very exacting terms. The Terms of Use also spell out exactly how a community would go about opting out of that section of the Terms of Use; none of these steps have been followed - or even begun, as far as I know - by the English Wikipedia. That means that, by the terms that we are all agreeing to by using this site, the ToU's paid editing policy is our paid editing policy. Now, perhaps this somehow slipped through without anyone in the community noticing the extremely long and involved discussion that led to the adoption of the current Terms of Use. Perhaps the community would like to opt out of the Terms of Use using the provision the ToU provide. However, the community has not opted out of them, which means that, at least for the moment, they are our policy, unless and until the community locally opts out of them in the manner laid out by the ToU.

Now, does all of this mean Arbcom has to be the enforcer of All Policies Ever, Including Paid Editing, All the Time? No. But it does mean that Arbcom passed a remedy which is literally false: "[paid editing] is not prohibited by site policies." Perhaps Arbcom meant "disclosed paid editing is not prohibited", a true statement (which would be odd, in a case centered around accusations of undisclosed paid editing, but hey, it could happen); in that case, the statement needs to be clarified so that it is no longer ambiguous. It doesn't appear, looking at the Arb responses thus far, that that is the case, however. At least some Arbs appear to literally believe the Terms of Use don't apply on the English Wikipedia, which is...rather a problem. If this is what Arbcom meant, then I would hope that they would read the documentation they missed and correct their finding.

All that said, however, it looks like this clarification request is pretty likely to go nowhere, whether because the Arbs aren't familiar with local and/or global policy or just because they are reluctant to modify a finding they passed. That could be a problem going forward; it could not be. It depends on whether Arbcom actually believes this policy doesn't exist and intends to base future decisions on that, or whether it just wants us all to go away and stop talking about this finding so it can hear itself think. I'm hoping it's the latter, and I hope that once this furor dies down, Arbcom will quietly avoid handling future paid editing issues as if there were no policy governing them.

  1. ^ "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page." (emphasis mine)
  2. ^ "This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations."
  3. ^ "Wikimedia's Terms of Use state that 'you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.'
@Seraphimblade: I can only speak for myself, but it is not at all uncommon for me to come across new editors (especially at AfC) who are very, very clearly paid editors but who are not disclosing it. To make up a situation by way of example, if someone is creating a page called ABC Widgets, and they have the username JohnUniqueName, and clicking the article's external link to ABCWidgets.com shows that "John UniqueName" is their PR manager...it would beggar belief for that to be a coincidence. Now, if ABC Widgets is pure G11 fluff ("ABC widgets is the bestest widget producer in Countryistan, call us at 555-555-5555 for low, low prices!"), their status as paid/unpaid is irrelevant, because either way, they're spamming. But if the article is more borderline ("ABC widgets is a widget producer in Countryistan. It has won the Golden Widget award from Widgets 'R Us three years running and is considered the premiere widget producer in Countryistan"), it becomes very relevant whether this is a good-faith editor who's here to help build the encyclopedia, or someone who's here to promote ABC Widgets. It is not necessary to out JohnUniqueName publicly to deal with this; in most cases a quiet, non-specific word with them ("Hey, so our ToU require people editing for pay to disclose, please give that a read and see if it applies to you") will do, and in cases where it doesn't, a blocking admin need only use "undisclosed paid editing" or the like as a block summary (I would add "and forward the evidence to Arbcom for review", but you guys appear loathe to get anywhere near any of this lest you get stuck with yet another job). tl;dr: It's not at all uncommon to come across cases where this distinguishing between paid/neutral is relevant if you spend any amount of time in new-page-related areas; please don't tie our hands by retaining a finding saying that we aren't allowed to do anything about them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: You're looking in the wrong place for the ToU -> enwp policy confirmation. If you read past the beginning, down to this section of the ToU, particularly the end of the "Paid contributions without disclosure" subsection, you'll see it quite explicitly: "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page." (emphasis mine). The enwp community may opt out of the ToU's paid editing policy, but it has chosen not to (or has been unable to get consensus to do so, perhaps), which means the global version is our version, and you're (we're) accepting those terms by contributing here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bilby

When the Terms of Use were changed last year to include a requirement for paid editors to disclose their relationship with clients, this became the English Wikipedia's policy. Since being enacted seven months ago, the various projects have had the opportunity to create alternative policies which would override the ToU. Commons has done so, but to date the community here has not agreed to an alternative. Accordingly, it is incorrect to say that the English Wikipedia does not have a policy in regard to paid editing.

The fix is an easy one - strike the principle, (as it had no particular bearing on the findings), or just strike the first sentence, which would leave us with:

"The Committee [has] a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy."

The principle would then be accurate, it would not in any way change the findings, and the principle could then be easily reapplied to future cases. I'm not concerned as to whether or not the committee chooses to enforce the disclosure requirements, but this would bring the principle in line with the current situation on WP. - Bilby (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade, the community was involved in creating the policy, as it has been expressed in the Terms of Use. Along with the policy are explanations of how it should be applied, clarifying the example you give [2]. The en.wp community can, if we choose, create an alternative policy, but until we do we have the one that was created via the broader Wikimedia community process. I agree that there are questions about how to apply it, but those are separate as to whether or not the policy holds.
At any rate, I'm surprised that this is an issue - as far as I'm aware, the disclosure requirements did not come into effect until after Wikifone edited the articles, so a change seems unlikely to have a bearing on the decision. It does suggest some confusion on the part of ArbCom about the current situation with paid editing, so I echo Smallbone's concern about the principal being applied again, but hopefully that won't be a concern. - Bilby (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies - I agree that enforcement is a problem, and I'm not asking ArbCom to try and enforce the policy. My concern is only that the current principal is incorrect - whether or not ArbCom chooses to enforce the policy, the statement that there is no policy prohibiting paid editing is in error. If it isn't going to be reused that's probably not a big concern, but the worry is that the principal may be reused in future cases, or people may take it as written. - Bilby (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

The most elegant solution is to strike the principle, as there is neither a related finding of fact nor a related remedy. This leaves the committee free to formulate something more developed if and when a related case arises. Andreas JN466 17:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Harry Mitchell

The principle is correct as written. Even if ToU enforcement were ArbCom's job (it's not, the WMF employs lawyers for that), there is no clear enforcement mechanism and it's not ArbCom's job to come up with one. The effects of paid editing, on the other hand, (disclosed or otherwise) are very much within ArbCom's remit because there have long been clear policies which enjoy community consensus and specify enforcement mechanisms (for example, we routinely block people for POV pushing or advertising).

There is no need to prove paid editing, and encouraging attempts to do so is to encourage precisely the sort of opposition research that the likes of Phil Sandifer, WillBeback, Racepacket, and others were banned for. There's a reason we ban people for that sort of thing, and we shouldn't be encouraging it—it's entirely possible to push a POV without being paid and to be paid and write neutrally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: Bad editing is very easy to prove and is dealt with quickly (that's what I do on Wikipedia when I'm not bogged down in explaining what I do to people who, meaning no disrespect to them, spend very little time on the front line and so don't realise just how academic this issue is); all it takes is diffs and analysis. Bad motives are impossible to prove with on-wiki evidence, and require digging through people's personal and professional lives, which is one of the few things that gets an almost automatic siteban. Yes, it's entirely possible that somebody who is only here to promote a company does it because they're paid to, but while you're all sat round discussing whether or not they're paid and should have disclosed it, I've blocked them for advertising and have moved on to the next one and the one after that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

1) Amend your dicta that was unneeded for the case. 2) The TOU is a basis for all kinds of policy on Wikipedia. 3) It's silly for the committee to claim it cannot enforce things without confession, it does it all the time (eg notthere, sockpuppets, etc., etc, etc.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJMitchell's claim of "no clear enforcement mechanism" is plainly untrue, there are only a very few enforcement mechanisms on wikipedia, for all breaches of site norms. There is no need to "prove" any breach (which is what the committee's, "not a court" principal means), there is only the need to have consensus that a duck appears to be a duck. As for whether paid COI runs the unacceptable risk of skewing coverage and making the pedia less reliable, consensus already is that it does (see the guideline), and that consensus is the only one that conforms to the reliable sources on COI and common sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJMitchell: So? Policy sets out norms. Be neutral, use RS, don't OR are non-self executing norms - but exist for people who don't know what they are doing in writing an encyclopedia. Anti-COI, is just a prophylactic subset, for people unfamiliar with dealing with their own COI. As for evidence that always varies from case to case, suspicious activities and suspicious statements, confession not required. COI rules are not about motive, they are about the appearance of relationship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller: What policy are you being asked to impose? Your just being asked to cut back on things unneeded for your decision.Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: When you pressed save just now and every other time, you agree to the Terms of Service in WP:TOU. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC) @DeltaQuad: It's the agreement we both made when we pressed save and it sets out obligations between us, and every other community member. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC) @DeltaQuad::It guides you and me in using this site that is Us - (aka, the community) and it sets out responsibilities that are the way we are to act to the other users and readers - it is meant to be a benefit to others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad:: I'm not sure what you are asking or arguing but WP:CONEXCEPT would be another manifestation of the relevant consensus in addition to the fact that we all in the community agree to the terms set out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad:: Well. It would be prudent for arbcom not to make statements that are over-broad and unneeded, and so you should go along with the motion, as you suggest, this is a poor place to 'have it out'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by site policy. "By using this site you agree to the Terms of Use" -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies:: It's what we all in the community consent to by using this site. There cannot be a more universal consensus than that. (The page you link to says that the Terms of Use apply to the English Wikipedia site - as does almost every page on English Wikipedia). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies:: No one is asking the comitee to declare anything. The purpose of this is in fact to get you to not to declare the principle under discussion. However, because it just took you that many words to qualify the needless and infilicitous principle, the commitee should either qualify or strike. Strike would be simplest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) coldacid

Reading through everything out of interest, there seems nothing out of place, incorrect, or policy-setting with the clause under consideration. With all due respect to the request initiator, the proposed rephrasing would not magically change the status quo, either, but it would at a minimum result in an error by omission with regard to the committee's responsibilities and powers. I would suggest that the committee decline the request, and if Smallbones really feels the need for ArbCom to have the power and responsiblity of enforcing ToU, that they use the usual channels for changing enwiki policy. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Fluffernutter's comment, perhaps the principle should be revised as follows?

6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for disclosed paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with undisclosed paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy.

This would help clarify that paid editing isn't banned on Wikipedia, but that undisclosed paid editing can lead to ArbCom actions and remedies. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Konveyor Belt (uninvolved)

While the TOU are site wide policy, I believe the "site policies" referred to in the decision were local policies, which, unless something has very drastically changed lately, do not disallow paid editing, undisclosed or otherwise. If that is the case, then the principle is fine as written.

As for the WMF policies taking precedence over local ones, sure they do, but as they are WMF policies, they are not for us to enforce. The WMF must do it themselves as it is their policy. And as they seem unwilling to do so except in egregious cases, the point is moot. KonveyorBelt 17:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

This request for amendment seems a transparent attempt to make "policy" by fiat. The fact is, the community has reaffirmed again and again that there is no prohibition of paid editing per se, the WMF's unilateral tweaking of so-called "Terms of Use" notwithstanding. A radical change of policy such as the banning of paid editing needs to come through a community RFC — and good luck with that. The statement on paid editing in the Wifione decision was well considered and accurate, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Wifione: Clerk notes

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

Wifione: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • No. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been looking through Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 17 and Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 18 and it's pretty clear that the community can't agree on this. I also thought that someone was going to raise a new RfC. Until the community can agree on a policy, I don't see how or why we should be imposing one, which is what this request would do. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dougweller:, I don't think we should impose anything. We should, however, simply strike principle six by motion, and thus make no statement on the matter at all. As we decided the case, it was wholly irrelevant to anything; so we have no need to try and rewrite or copyedit it, simply striking it solves all the problems. Courcelles 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I was looking more at the arguments than the request. Striking it would seem ok. Salvio, are you objecting to that? Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what I got:

    6) While undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by site policies, there is not a current mandate from either the community or the Wikimedia Foundation for the Committee to enforce of this policy. Further, the arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. This should not be interpreted as prohibiting the community from enforcing the site policies around undisclosed paid editing, or from creating a framework to allow the committee to do so. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with undisclosed paid editing POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy.

    How does that sound? --Guerillero | My Talk 06:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, insert that into the Wifione case... and what does it add? We didn't pass any FoF's related to paid editing, nor base any remedies off of such accusations. This isn't the place to hammer down the Committee's position on various kinds of paid editing and spend two weeks going around in circles. We sidestep all of this by simply looking at the final decision, finding the part that doesn't belong in the document, and excising it. Courcelles 07:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It addresses what was presented in evidence. We didn't pass any FoFs or remedies on it because we don't have the enforcement mandate, not because it was useless to the case. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Salvio giuliano: et al. Are you actually asserting that the TOU aren't policy? If you are, then are you also going to throw the BLP, NFCC, NOR, Global ban, Global CU, Global OS, Privacy, Access to nonpublic data and Arbitration policies out the window as well? They were applied to the English Wikipedia by the WMF/Jimmy without a local community consensus. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the statement as written is not incorrect, the only provisions in the TOU or local policies relate to a subset of paid editing (i.e. undisclosed paid editing) not paid editing as a whole. I therefore see neither need nor benefit in amending the remedy as written. It is however true that this principle does not directly impact the outcome of this case - it was included to reference why we were not making any findings regarding the allegations of paid editing that were repeatedly made against Wifione. So, while I would not oppose any motion to strike it from the case, I don't see doing so as an especially productive use of the Committee's time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fluffernutter: Leaving aside whether it actually matters whether someone is being paid (I really believe it doesn't - if the are improving the encyclopaedia we want them; if they are not currently improving the encyclopaedia work with them until they either are or it becomes clear they cannot or will not), we are not tying anybody's hands with this - "paid editing" is not prohibited by any policy, the subset "undisclosed editing" is prohibited but is not mentioned in this principle. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't add much to what I said at discussion at the case page (and am unsure why this request is here, does it really need said again?) We can't actually tell if someone is editing for pay unless they disclose it voluntarily, and if they disclose it voluntarily, it's not against the TOU. Checkuser doesn't let one peek into a person's bank account. So, at the end of the day, we can handle inappropriate editing (POV pushing, misuse of references, etc.), regardless of motive, but I don't see how we're supposed to figure out why someone was behaving that way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support striking this principle. The current wording isn't correct, but the principle itself is also not so necessary to the case so as to make me feel like we need to spend time crafting better wording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Salvio giuliano: If there's an issue with a principle (which I think there is, here—although I and others interpreted this to mean that there is not local policy about paid editing, the ToU is policy, and the principle currently suggests otherwise), we should fix it regardless of timing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree on the merits and I disagree on procedure. Arbitration cases – coming, as they often do, after years of heated disputes and, as they say, drama – need to put an end to the controversy they deal with. If we start tinkering with cases immediately after they close, that goal is negated. The time to raise issues concerning a proposed decision is before it is passed. Not after. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • We regularly tinker with cases after they close; that's the whole point of amendment requests. We've never spoken of any time restrictions around when amendment requests can be filed, and I disagree that we need some arbitrary time period before amending a case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to my fellow Arbitrators: Why, when we passed this at 12-0 is it now completely incorrect and irrelevant? Is it because it's now in the spotlight? Why not fix the issue instead of dumping it to bring it up again in the future? (I already understand Courcelles' objection and I've replied to it above) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DeltaQuad: I don't give a damn about the spotlight, but we goofed here, plain and simple. It happens, we need to fix it and move on. We can either fix it by striking the principle (we don't have to mention everything from evidence in a decision), or by making the exact change coldacid proposed above. But merely adding the word "disclosed" would make even less sense in the context of the case than striking it, as absolutely no one accused Wifione of being a disclosed paid editor. But at least that would make the principle into a statement that is actually true. Courcelles 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Courcelles, I agree with the majority of what you had to say there. I still wish a chance to modify the wording a bit though, even with Coldacid's proposal. I'm still thinking of exact wording though before I motion it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a separate point, how did this become site policy? We are looking at a two man change in Nov 2009, since when do two editors determine what is and isn't English Wikipedia policy? If it's the WMF's, then it should say it's WMF policy. If it's a global one, per the global RfC, then it should say global. Pointless argument, read down -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: Yes, I agree to them, in an legal agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation, not the English Wikipedia Community. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: We'll have to agree to disagree then I'm afraid. The first line of the overview in the ToU states "These Terms of Use tell you about our public services at the Wikimedia Foundation, our relationship to you as a user, and the rights and responsibilities that guide us both." It doesn't mention the community. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker and Fluffernutter: I see that my point is actually a pointless argument. My objection to this being site policy is the fact that the community can't come to an agreement about it. I feel (and yes, feel, so in legal/policy terms it has no application) that there should have been a provision indicating that a consensus, instead of a policy would be the determining guide. Because this is policy set down by the WMF, which yes we agree to by obligation of using this site, the English Wikipedia did not make it's own consensus like in the creation of normal ENWP policy. So while it is site policy, I feel there is a community "will", if you may, to not go with it, because the consensus (for or against) does not yet exist. But again, none of it matters in the grand scheme of things, because were looking at this as letter of the law (or policy, if that fancies you). I do understand that this is site policy, whether I regretfully say yes with every edit or happily say yes with every edit. Are we still disagreeing on the facts at this point? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: I'm saying, yes, this is site policy, and I've stricken my above paragraph. My comments above don't really matter in the grand scheme of this ARCA/Motion, so you can just ignore them, or if you really want we can continue on my talk. Was there anything besides whether or not this is site policy we were disagreeing on? I want to make sure i'm not skipping over anything. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: Over-broad, ok, I can see where that comment comes from the specific wording of whether it's policy or not. As for unneeded, I disagree, see my comments with Courcelles above. And I'm not saying this is a bad place to have talk about the motion. I said it was a bad place for me to place my objection to the way the ToU was written. I've stricken the relevant part from my oppose below. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if I accept that the TOU is policy, the TOU also explicitly prohibits invasion of privacy. I have yet to see an allegation of paid editing that did not include an invasion of privacy in some form or another. Furthermore, there are no enforcement provisions. The idea that it therefore falls to ArbCom to fashion an enforcement process out of whole cloth is bizarre.

    But, if there is to be a process, it needs to be constructed with the fully informed consent of the community and must not sneaked in like via the back door. In essence, the community needs to agree to each aspect of the following question:

    "Do you consent to ArbCom, on the strength of an anonymous email denouncing you, launching a secret and amateur investigation into your private life - to pry into your location, ryour job title and your employer - then to discuss that investigation at length with others on secret mailing lists, and the perhaps site-ban you with no means of appeal?"

    Finally, I cannot begin to understand why people are so very keen for ArbCom to create a secret Star Chamber process to tackle paid editing, and then act as judge, jury and executioner when perfectly good and highly transparent processes are already available to deal with POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, battlefield conduct and so forth.  Roger Davies talk 15:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Alanscottwalker. The TOU is the legal agreement between the WMF and each individual editor. Think of it as n x individual "contracts". [The http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies WMF policy page] does not list it as a policy.  Roger Davies talk 09:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alanscottwaker. Whatever the truth of that, it's not ArbCom's job to declare policy. In fact, we are specifically prohibited by ArbPol (itself ratified with 87% support) from doing so. But much more to the point, this principle refers to the Wifione case and, also per ArbPol, sets no precedent. In the context of the case, the allegations of paid editing refer to articles which the editor stopped editing in 2013, at least six months before the 16 June 2014 TOU amendment concerning paid editing came into effect. Simply put, the TOU stuff is irrelevant.  Roger Davies talk 13:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (Paid editing principle in Wifione case stricken)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Principle 6 on paid editing is stricken from the Wifione case.

Support
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Utterly and completely irrelevant to the case as decided. Also, at best, a half-true statement. Courcelles 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am honestly shocked that so many of my colleagues do not think that the TOU are policy. I would like to point them to the list of policies that I outlined (above) that they enforce yet weren't created by EN Wikipedia. While my personal choice would be my proposed wording, I am in the minority and this is the next best thing. (I agree with Roger that sending Arbcom out on a paid editing exposition will end somewhere between The Big Muddy and a Star Chamber. I hope the community does not tempt fate and add this to our long list of responsibilities.) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Guerillero I see where you're coming from on proposed wording but the principle doesn't mention the TOU at all, it only talks about site policies, ie the policies of the English Wikipedia. Our own local policies refer to "site" meaning the English Wikipedia, and the TOU refers to individual wikis as "sites or Projects" so there's no conflict there. If we really wanted to labour the point I suppose we could add the word "local" before "site policies" but given that "site" has exactly the same meaning in the principle, the TOU and in our site policies, I really don't think it's necessary. And, on reflection, do you?  Roger Davies talk 01:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seems unnecessary to the case as a whole. While I'm firmly in the TOU=policy camp, I think the wording of the principle is actually legit (undisclosed paid editing is forbidden, paid editing is not), but it's clearly confusing and isn't important to the outcome of the case. Yunshui 雲水 15:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The principle is fine as is. Also, I do not really appreciate the fact that we are trying to amend a case so soon after it was closed; even assuming for the sake of the argument that the principle was incorrect, there was plenty of time to raise the issue before we finalised the close. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not for sweeping it under the rug and waiting for it to come up again. As several people talked about on the talkpage, we need to amend this, not strike it. The only thing I really ever viewed as an issue was the wording that said the ToU was not policy, and i'm still not 100% convinced that is right either. This needs time for discussion here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I was inactive on the case, so coming to it with fresh eyes, for whatever that's worth: I see absolutely nothing wrong with the principle, and I would dismiss this request. AGK [•] 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Even if we accept the rather tenuous "TOU is actually policy" argument, that really gives no idea as to what would be done here. If we're going to prohibit some types of paid editing, we need to hash out what is and is not acceptable in attempting to demonstrate someone is engaging in it, what exactly is prohibited (I presume we wouldn't prohibit a biology professor from updating taxonomies, for example), and how to balance the very real tension between this and the outing concerns that would inevitably pop up. That is, I think, a discussion that needs to happen, but it is something that needs to gain community consensus, not be imposed by us in a haphazard and ad hoc fashion as various things come to us. This is a perfect example of why ArbCom does not and should not make policy. Right now, there is no community mandate regarding paid editing, so the statement is accurate. That doesn't mean the community can't or shouldn't come up with policies around the issue, just that, to date, it hasn't happened. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I agree with Salvio that the principle is fine as it is, so I'm not going to support this. As removing it from the case doesn't impact the decision, striking it is pointless but ultimately harmless so I'm not going to oppose it either. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: GamerGate

Initiated by GoldenRing at 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
GamerGate arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. WP:ARBGG#Parties topic-banned by the community
  2. WP:ARBGG#ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • MarkBernstein - [3]
  • Gamaliel - [4]
Information about amendment request

Statement by GoldenRing

The effect of this amendment would be to add MarkBernstein to the list of editors whose TBANs imposed under the community general sanctions are converted to arbitration-imposed TBANs under the standard topic ban.

I believe it was an oversight of the committee not to do this in the first place. The reason that it happened is that most editors presenting evidence dropped sections concerning MarkBernstein when he was handed a community-imposed topic ban (eg [5], [6]). However, there is ample evidence available of personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground to add a separate finding of fact and support a separate remedy (eg [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]) if the committee thinks that a more appropriate approach.

The reason this has come up now is that Gamaliel has seen fit to remove MarkBernstein's topic ban. on the basis of private email discussions with him. This seems problematic for several reasons:

  • At the time the TBAN was lifted, MarkBernstein was blocked for violating it ([22]), the blocking admin being of the opinion that you have no intent to stick to separate yourself from the topic area and you will continue to skirt the edges of it and even outright violate it. In addition, your previously stated that you had no interest in continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, and almost every edit you've made since has been in some way related to GamerGate.
  • The violation for which he was blocked was clearly continuing his battleground mentality [23]
  • He has continued to make disruptive / battleground edits since the sanction was lifted ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]).
  • Over 70% of his edits since the TBAN was lifted have been GamerGate-related (31 of 42, though there is some doubt about a couple of YGM notifications; given the editors to whom they are directed, it seems likely)


The sequence of events has the appearance and effect (though I don't think the intention) of making an end-run around the arbitration case. By TBANning MarkBernstein before evidence was well-developed, waiting for the case to end and then removing the TBAN, the committee has effectively been prevented from considering evidence related to him. I think the right way to deal with this is for the committee to consider the evidence presented above and to consider making the amendments suggested.

Lastly, my apologies if this matter was considered by the committee when coming to a decision. If this is the case, I will happily withdraw the request. As it stands, I can see no indication on the workshop or PD pages that it was considered, and several indications from other editors that they considered it moot because of the indefinite topic ban. GoldenRing (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: To be clear, I named you as a party to this request solely as a courtesy, given your involvement, to invite exactly the sort of comment you have made. I had and have no intention that action would be taken against you regarding this and I do not intend it as an accusation of misconduct on your part. We obviously disagree in our assessment of Mark's editing, but if disagreement was misconduct then where would we be? GoldenRing (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: I don't think that one discussion at Gamaliel's TP, in which I made five edits (not counting the ARCA notification) rises to the level of disruptive chipping away. If the committee disagrees, I will gladly accept a TBAN; I'm not exactly in the habit of bringing these things and don't want to be. I decided to bring this to ARCA rather than AE because I don't think the request fits the pattern of AE, as it requires consideration of what happened around the case itself. GoldenRing (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

Good grief! GoldenRing, greatly aggrieved,
Grouses at my gallant jests, those galling goads
That Gawker, Guardian, and gazettes aplenty
All gave to Gamergate, and you. I admit:
I hold some strong opinions of Arbcom’s acts
Throughout this case. These I have expressed
Elsewhere quite clearly, and accurately I think;
Audiences, alerted, have predominately agreed.

Generous @Gamaliel patiently posits that
People who think me pernicious, perfidious,
And pretty much perfectly putrid would be
Glad to display my poor noggin on pikes
Or by preference at Kotaku In Action.
Anxiously, admins already anticipate
A trip to AE, where more words may be spent.
An admin convinced, we may head then to AN/I,
And wend back to Arbcom. Oh wondrous wiki!

O’er what? I have had some strong words
For your actions, and indeed some of you have had some for mine.
Jimbo writes that I caused all this stuff from the first,
And Gamaliel writes I am "widely unpopular"
Throughout Wikipedia. I think he means wildly;
He might not be wrong.

But this project’s not purely a contest for praise.
Policy prefers both firmness and speed
For protecting the blameless who’re prostitutes called,
Whose sex lives are subject to endless discussion
On the project’s talk pages.

   This Baranof did.
Off-wiki was Baranof smeared and belittled
Because these benighted he bravely defied.
He better deserved (and deserves) of you all.

Before I conclude, one brief issue I'd raise:
“Behavior” is common to children and beasts,
Not colleagues, and conflicting views, bringing heat,
Can better be handled with courteous care.
“Christian” names, to my ear, can sound rather familiar,
And I don’t recall that we’ve been introduced.
Adversaries adopt (in America) address
That’s more formal. I think Dr. Bernstein is fine.
I did attend Swarthmore: if perchance you’re a Friend
Or don’t like to use titles, my names, please, in full.



(Do you believe these japes should be consigned
To user space? Once read, I do not mind.)

Statement by Gamaliel

I have already discussed at length with numerous editors my reasoning and my belief that Mark Bernstein has satisfied my concerns regarding the problematic behavior which caused me to impose the topic ban.

I don't believe there is anything problematic with the way I handled the situation. I had extensive email discussions with Mark Bernstein regarding his behavior, how it would change, and what he would do if the sanction was lifted. This is routine. It would have been impossible to have that discussion on-wiki given the heated atmosphere here and the inevitable sniping that would occur. User:HJ Mitchell has topic banned one user from discussion of Mark Bernstein because he was following him around the encyclopedia criticizing him and trying to get him sanctioned, and likely more will follow.

I disagree that this has the effect of "making an end-run around the arbitration case". Off the top of my head, I believe I indefinitely topic banned five users, and I think most of those before the case had started. At least two of those bans became indefinite Arbcom sanctions, so clearly the case provided ample time and opportunity to consider the behavior of any user sanctioned by me. It would be bad form to retroactively sanction a user well after the case was closed. The discretionary sanctions can easily be applied to any ongoing behavior problems from any user editing these articles.

I find the evidence presented here does not warrant a retroactive sanction nor a discretionary one. As initially presented to me on my user talk page, they included the correction of another editor's typo as evidence of problematic behavior and the inaccurate claim that Mark Bernstein's discussion of anti-Semetic comments about him on Twitter was an attack on other Wikipedia editors labeling them anti-Semetic.

Mark Bernstein is widely unpopular on Wikipedia due to his blog posts and the press coverage they have received, and he is even more unpopular on the less savory parts of the internet, who desperately want him sanctioned so they can add Mark Bernstein to their collection of Gamergate trophies and parade his severed head on a pike through the boards of 8Chan. I believe this particular request is sincere and made in good faith, but we can't ignore the context of the request. In this sort of atmosphere, where so many editors are utterly convinced of Mark Bernstein's perfidy and menace, otherwise well-meaning editors are likely to view even the most innocuous statements by him in the worst possible light, as is happening in this request. Gamaliel (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I didn't interpret your post here as a request for action or an accusation against myself, but I do appreciate your clarification. Gamaliel (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I noticed the lengthy questioning of Gamaliel at his talk (permalink) and added my thoughts, including the suggestion that any evidence to show a topic ban would be warranted should be presented at WP:AE. As GoldenRing has instead chosen to involve Arbcom, my request is that some action be taken—if new evidence supports a topic ban against MarkBernstein, it should be imposed; otherwise, GoldenRing should be topic banned because the persistent chipping-away is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another statement from Harry Mitchell!

Gamaliel was within his rights to lift the topic ban. I wasn't privy to his conversations with Mark, but in my own email conversations I found Mark to be much more reasonable than he had been made out to be. We were able to reach a gentlemen's agreement that Mark would avoid personally directed comments and I commuted his block to time served, as is my prerogative as the blocking admin. Any fresh misconduct should be brought to AE with dated diffs and a concise explanation of the problem they show.

Meanwhile, BLPs in the topic area are still subject to drive-by attacks from autoconfirmed accounts, so litigating over minor squabbles on talk pages seems to miss the point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strongjam

It seems like an inordinate amount of attention is being paid to MarkBernstein's editing. As Bernstien's editing hasn't been disruptive since the TBAN has been lifted there isn't any need for Committee action. — Strongjam (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by coldacid

Good grief. There may be nothing actionable in this ARCA request, but I'd be hard pressed to see anything but bad attitude out of Mr Bernstein's current behaviour on Wikipedia with regard to GG issues, even in this very ARCA request with his mocking poetry[38]. It's probably not necessary to point this out, but this doesn't seem to be the kind of behaviour that should be expected or encouraged of Wikipedia editors. I say trout MarkBernstein, warn GoldenRing, and just forget that this request ever happened. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

In response to Harry Mitchell's statement, I suggest that BLPs in this topic-area be placed on pending changes. This was done for a handful of them when I suggested it on the workshop during the case, but it sounds like it needs to be expanded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse GorillaWarfare's decision to address clarification-and-amendment requests in haiku. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher

As someone who has been very critical of Mark's action in the past, I think he's improved his behavior sufficiently for a topic ban to be unnecessary for the time being. While obviously a strongly opinionated person, he is no longer making unfounded attacks on other editors, and is instead taking the much more applaudable and rap battle-esque approach of rebutting their arguments in verse. I am now firmly of the opinion that all statements to Arbcom by involved parties should be written in verse, for the sake of fostering Wikilove, dispute resolution etc. So if we could have a motion declaring that, that would be great.Bosstopher (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

Just wanted to make the observation that looking at the sanctions log, at 2014 GG block log, not all topic bans issued were indefinite and some were just for a period of a week or a few months. Not all editors who were topic ban were included in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate which clearly identified those editors whose topic bans were commuted into the standard topic ban. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

But then, just today, MarkBernstein does something to deserve this final warning. How many final warnings are there? Please at least log all these as previous sanctions so at least new admins know what they are dealing with. --DHeyward (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

GamerGate: Clerk notes

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

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • AS I see it, Gamaliel's topic ban of MarkBernstein was converted into a discretionary sanction. Admins have the right to revoke a DS they have imposed at their own discretion. So, without fresh cause for a topic ban, I see nothing to do here. Courcelles (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty well agreed with Courcelles. One means of appealing a discretionary sanction is to convince the sanctioning administrator that it's no longer necessary. In this case, that was Gamaliel's decision to make, and Gamaliel saw fit to lift the ban. Should Mark engage in new misconduct in the topic area, anyone can request enforcement and any uninvolved admin could reinstate the ban as a DS. If he doesn't engage in future misconduct, well then the ban really isn't necessary any more after all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Courcelles and Seraphimblade. I'll just add that DS may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator, either by direct request or via a request for intervention at WP:AE. This page, ie WP:ARCA , is not the proper venue for WP:AE requests.  Roger Davies talk 11:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A learned New Yorker named Brad,

      Thought unadorned plain prose too bad

      for use at ARCA

      though haiku are starker

      than sonnets or limericks. It's sad!

      An inventive young man from Japan

      wrote haiku-style

      limericks.

       Roger Davies talk 13:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. AGK [•] 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Courcelles, Seraphimblade and Roger. Procedurally speaking the topic ban was correctly lifted, and as there are explicitly no requests here for us to consider any action against Gamaliel that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. If anyone thinks that MarkBernstein should be topic banned for conduct subsequent to the lifting of the topic ban then they should present the evidence for this at WP:AE. As we have not considered any evidence relating to MarkBernstein's behaviour here, this request should not be considered to limit what evidence AE can take into account if presented there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Thryduulf et al. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf puts it very nicely; I've nothing to add to that. Yunshui 雲水 14:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (See Courcelles et al. 2015) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a topic ban,
File a request at AE,
ArbCom need not act. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=647974455"