Jump to content

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 Renamed user 995577823Xyn (talk | contribs) at 14:42, 10 August 2016 (→‎Statement by We hope: followed to talk page for previous comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
127128

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
127128
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: GoodDay Motion (orig. case) 10 July 2016
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Debresser|Amendment request: Debresser]] none none 29 July 2016
Amendment request: Scientology none (orig. case) 3 August 2016
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Infoboxes|Amendment request: Infoboxes]] none (orig. case) 5 August 2016

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: GoodDay

Intitated by GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by GoodDay

Howdy. It's been over 4 years, since I was banned from editing around or mentioning diacritics on Wikipedia. I'm requesting that the ban be over-turned. GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As in my previous requests, I again promise 'not' to be disruptive in that area. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Arbitrator - A clean slate would be good. Mostly though, I want to work on the Ice hockey articles in that area. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Arbitrator - I wish to concentrate on fully implimenting WP:HOCKEY's wanting to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based ice hockey articles. As for the question of what's changed since my last requests? I'm feeling stigmatized by this near half-decade ban. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Arbitrators - how to handle diacritics in ice hockey articles, is what I'm getting at. GoodDay (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kelapstick - Exceptions are made in North American based hockey articles, concerning French Canadians. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kelapstick - I wouldn't go 'round the Salming article, which is a player article. But, I would un-diacriticize Salming in any NHL-based team, tournament, or any other non-player articles, like Toronto Maple Leafs (for example). GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keeping an eye on things here :) GoodDay (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DQ - in my opening statement, I wrote that "it's been over 4 years since I was banned from editing around or mentioning diacritics...". How is that a misleading statement? GoodDay (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steven Crossin

Meh, it's been four years. I'd say lift the ban - ArbCom can always reinstate it if need be. I would pre-emptively disagree with people that state he needs to give detailed reasoning on why the ban should be lifted, I'd think after 4 years, a promise to behave is all that's really required, and he's done so. Steven Crossin 13:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HighKing

I agree with Steven. GoodDay has kept his nose clean for 4 years (wow .. that's a long time!) and I also think that asking for detailed reasoning at this stage would be unreasonable. His actions and good behaviour on this issue speak for themselves. -- HighKing++ 22:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some of the comments below from our Arbitration people, I'm worried and concerned that the prevailing reasoning being provided for not lifting the ban suggests that an editor should only request an unban if they declare that they've no intention of editing in the subject area in question again. Yet I've seen other requests where an editor makes a declaration along the lines that they don't intend to rush back to the topic only to be told that there's then no need to lift the bad. Should we not AGF once the editor declares they intend to mend their ways (and have shown efforts to do so) and that they intend to abide by policy? Am I missing something? -- HighKing++ 13:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

The last clarification request makes it clear that you were not staying clear of the topic area then - for example GorillaWarfare said "this does strike me as a frantic attempt to participate in the topic area without technically being in breach of a ban, which frankly makes me think the ban was a good decision." so saying now you've kept your nose clean for 4 years is a bit disingenuous. Being patient is a lot more than remaining civil.

In my then capacity as an arbitrator I said then, "I've commented previously that you (GoodDay) should completely stay away the topic area you were restricted from, and I'm going to reiterate that advice now – let it go.". Coming back here 7 months later is not letting it go, so I would repeat my advice and add that when I say "let it go" I mean you should essentially forget that the topic exists and have absolutely nothing to do with it for at least a year - preferably two. I recommend to the current Committee that this appeal be declined and that adding a minimum time of 1 year before the next appeal should be considered. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful comment by Newyorkbrad

I see no acute need to modify the restriction, but I recognize this is a grave decision. If the sanction is lifted, I hope that GoodDay will be circumflex in his editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

I agree with Steven and support lifting the restriction on a provisional basis. If issues resurface after being allowed back to editing diacritics-related articles, then the topic ban can be reinstated at any time. I dislike the idea of permanent editing restrictions - they carry a stigma that lasts for as long as they are in place. These sanctions appear to have outlived their usefulness, so let's end them. Kurtis (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my earlier statement; I think keeping the topic ban in place is necessary for the time being. The whole point of sanctions is to prevent people from becoming a disruptive influence in areas where they've been shown to have difficulty in separating their emotions from their editing. GoodDay appears hell-bent on enforcing his own preferences relating to diacritics, and I can't really envision this as being anything but counterproductive. Keeping the topic ban in place for the time being will help to prevent unnecessary bad blood from arising in the short-term. Kurtis (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my retraction. GorillaWarfare (or Molly, whichever she prefers to be called) has swayed me back to my original point, which you can see in the first stanza of crossed-out words above. It sounds like there might be some issues, but if they do arise, we can always reapply the sanctions. Let's give GoodDay a chance and see how this works out. Kurtis (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

In an earlier request for amendment, GoodDay stated "I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics." However with the latest statement indicating a desire to return to editing hockey player names, I believe this would result in a lot of wasted time arguing a matter that the English Wikipedia community as a whole has not managed to reach agreement upon. Thus I do not believe a removal of the topic ban would be beneficial to Wikipedia at this time. isaacl (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Wikiproject notice for the compromise position on modified letters that had once been used by WikiProject Ice Hockey, and the amendment request from July 2015 for a discussion of the background of this compromise (in particular, the statement from Resolute). isaacl (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a way forward, perhaps the topic ban can be modified to permit discussion of modified letters on talk pages, while leaving the prohibition on editing article pages in place. User:Resolute had previously suggested a restriction of one comment per sub-section of a debate, and only in response to questions directed specifically to GoodDay. I suggest extending this to also allow a single comment in any RfC, poll, or other discussion where an opinion on the use of modified letters is specifically being requested from the community at large. This would prevent GoodDay from interjecting non-sequitur commentary on modified letters into other discussions, as has happened in the past. isaacl (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: the whole issue of modified letters is an unresolved one in the broader community; the last time a Request for Comment discussion was held, the expressed views were nearly equally divided between those who feel that usage should follow what a majority of English-language sources use, and those who feel that any source that does not use the original spelling with modified Latin letters is, by definition, not a reliable source with respect to the subject's name. In these discussions, the compromise position on modified letters of the ice hockey project has been challenged. Ice hockey project members have responded that once English Wikipedia reaches a consensus on how to manage names with modified letters, the ice hockey project will be happy to follow suit; until then, though, the compromise stops the project from wasting time discussing the matter. At this point in time, though, it's unclear that the compromise position continues to have support, but without anyone changing spelling in articles, there has been no need to debate it. A resumption in removing or adding modified letters may retrigger a long discussion, which is an ineffective use of time since no definitive conclusion can be reached until the community as a whole provides guidance. Thus I do not believe a change to the current state of affairs would benefit Wikipedia.

If any relaxation of the topic ban in article mainspace is entertained, I strongly suggest that a condition be attached: if an edit is contested, GoodDay must revert the change and all similar changes made to other articles. This discussion thread on GoodDay's talk page illustrates the usual approach taken: numerous edits are made in alignment with GoodDay's point of view, and when objections are raised, GoodDay says that others are free to revert if they wish. This imposes a burden on other editors to restore the status quo, which is a disruptive behaviour, as described in one of the principles in GoodDay's arbitration case. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: the key concern is that it is primarily an overall pattern of behaviour that adds up to a great deal of wasted time, rather than any one isolated interaction. GoodDay usually does not edit war, and no one can be compelled to participate in discussion to reach a consensus if they do not wish. Although it is generally uncollegial to fail to revert a sequence of similar changes upon request, and disappointing for someone to engage in making a type of change across multiple articles without any desire to follow up with discussion, it is difficult to make either of these a hard-and-fast rule as there are too many exceptional cases. Thus it is unlikely an administrator will take any action without a new arbitration case to evaluate the pattern of behaviour, or without a specific remedy specified as a consequence of the previous arbitration case. I feel that having a condition in place to revert contested edits will help guide GoodDay to more productive interactions with other editors. Increasing the cost of making test edits counter to consensus will reduce the temptation to make them (particularly en masse). isaacl (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Given that GoodDay already has exhibited the pattern of behaviour I described since returning to editing, including during this discussion, I'm not sure the best approach is to loosen restrictions with the expectation that if it happens one more time, there will be a different set of consequences. I have no interest in seeing GoodDay blocked; I would much prefer that the editor be channeled towards productive pursuits. isaacl (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ice hockey): three broad discussions about the diacritics issue, the last one initiated less than a month ago. Doesn't seem like an area where the dust has settled.

Without prejudice what this means for this ARCA request: The OP's opinions in this matter may be as valuable as any other's (so that they should be allowed to edit in the area), or, alternatively, not a good idea to let the OP re-enter an arena where new surges of tension would not come unexpectedly? Maybe a transition period with no diacritics-related page moves without WP:RM and/or no diacritic-related WP:ENGVAR-like edits to articles without prior talk page agreement? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Kelapstick@Opabinia regalis@ The Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey page says:

  • All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question).
  • All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey).
  • All non-North American hockey pages should have diacritics applied (where required).

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey) says (apropos of article names):

  • All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question).
  • All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey).
  • All non-North American hockey pages should have diacritics applied (where required).

These look identical to me.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Statement/Clarification by Calton

User:HighKing wrote, "I agree with Steven. GoodDay has kept his nose clean for 4 years"

It's been two years, not four. From GoodDay's block log:

  • 08:14, May 21, 2014 Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) unblocked GoodDay (talk | contribs) (Unbanned by Arbitration Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay&diff=609493697&oldid=609438782)
  • 15:54, April 23, 2014 Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) changed block settings for GoodDay (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) (enable talkpage editing to allow for appeal, as one year from ban has elapsed)
  • 06:25, May 6, 2013 Richwales (talk | contribs) changed block settings for GoodDay (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Banned by the arbitration committee - [2]; adding talk page to existing block)
  • 01:16, April 22, 2013 Spartaz (talk | contribs) blocked GoodDay (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Banned by the arbitration committee - [3])

--Calton | Talk 15:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Miesianiacal

I am of two minds on this: One is that GoodDay has managed to, so far, not cause major disruption on any British Isles-related articles since his ban against editing anything related to that topic was lifted. He has veered back there once or twice, but, appears to back down relatively quickly from conflict, knowing that acting in the opposite way will result in another topic ban or worse. However, the other mind says to me GoodDay still craves the drama of conflict to spice up the seemingly endless hours he spends on Wikipedia. This thriving on discord was noted before, during the discussion at ArbCom on amending restrictions against him, and, based on both recent and older personal experience, I hold the opinion that his craving has not been entirely satiated. That falls in line with his history of being difficult to reform and would suggest the more restrictions on GoodDay the better.

I suppose my conclusion would be: While we can assume good faith and recognize that it's entirely possible GoodDay won't return to old habits in the area of diacritics, lifting the ban will open that door for him again, returning to GoodDay the choice to go through it or not. And This is where I'll add that both the eagerness and the slightly misleading nature of GoodDay's request prompts me to raise an eyebrow in suspicion. Keeping the ban in place, however, ensures the door to disruption remains locked and, if GoodDay has managed to be a contributive editor with the ban in place, it can't hurt to leave it be. Though, modifications, such as those mentioned by isaacl, could be safe enough. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

GoodDay: Clerk notes

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

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • What has changed since July 2015, September 2015, and January 2016? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm mostly with Thryduulf and Guerillero. What's changed from the previous appeals and the comments arbitrators made then? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a breve comment OK, fine, NYB took all the good puns! @GoodDay: Do you want this restriction lifted because you want a "clean slate" or because you want to edit in the area? If the latter, what do you want to work on? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish to concentrate on fully implimenting WP:HOCKEY's wanting to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based ice hockey articles does not seem in line with what is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey). --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. And that subject was specifically part of the problem that prompted the original case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rich Farmbrough, the point I am making is GoodDay wishes to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based hockey articles, where:
        1. All player pages should have them as according to the languages of the player in question (I read this as all encompassing regardless of where the player is currently playing).
        2. There is an exception to removal from North American hockey pages, particularly around the names of French-Canadian players (who commonly have diacritics in their names).
      • Thus it looks like he wishes to have his topic ban removed, in order to go against what the standard practice is. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newyorkbrad: did you take a dash, or possibly a double dash, of something illegal in some states while going through your high school French books and playing around on Wikipedia? Drmies (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given GoodDay's statement that he intends to go around removing diacritics, I see no reason to lift the ban. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, the ban should stay. GoodDay has convinced me. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I have to agree with the above; the ban should stay. Normally I'm inclined to lift long-standing sanctions, and I would've supported an "I don't care about this anymore and just want a clean slate" type of request, but the stated intention to go back to the area that caused the trouble in the first place convinces me we should leave the ban as-is. You've done plenty of other good work and there's plenty of other things to work on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I don't think we should remove this ban. Opabinia said it well above; I'm inclined to lift such old sanctions, but that statement concerns me too much to do so here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Actually, after noodling on this for a bit, I'm inclined to lift the ban. If someone is subject to a topic ban and no longer wishes to edit in the area they're banned from, why would they even appeal it to begin with? I don't feel right declining an unban request because they wish to return to that area; if they didn't, they wouldn't appeal. Let's give GoodDay a chance in this area; if it doesn't go well, re-bans are cheap. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am of two minds on this, first I appreciate that GoodDay wishes to abide by the consensus of WP:HOCKEY and their article naming convention, and implement the agreed standard of a lack of diacritics in NA based hockey articles. I really don't see an issue with this, because it is making articles consistent within an article (as illustrated by the Toronto Maple Leafs example above, it currently is neither consistent, nor according to the agreed style guideline). On the other hand I agree with Opabinia's comment above, and can see this doing more harm than good. So at this time I am going to say no. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay: Motion

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The Committee resolves that remedy 1.1 (GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics) in the GoodDay arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) 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 GoodDay should GoodDay fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing concerning diacritics, broadly construed, or participating in any discussions about the same.

In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should GoodDay be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct related to diacritics, broadly construed. Such a reinstatement may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. 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 vacated.

Support
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. On thinking this over, I am going to very hesitantly support this, with the expectation that the topic ban will be promptly reimposed in the event of further problems. I do think people should have a chance to move past old sanctions. I would strongly encourage GoodDay to spend most of his time in other areas and not to worry too much about diacritics issues, because I feel like I'm still hearing a bee buzzing around in a bonnet here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaacl: I see what you mean, but I think that type of behavior is covered by the "participating in discussions" clause. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaacl: I understand the concern, but I don't think more rules is the best approach. If this motion passes, and then you see this kind of behavior, take it to AE; there's no need for a new case. I think it will be quite clear to the admins at AE, based on the comments made here by arbs and community members, that this is meant to be enforced strictly and without room for wikilawyering. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As we have a clear pathway to sanctions if there is a problem. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per OR and Casliber. Anything which resembles disruptiveness in this topic area should lead straight to a reinstatement of sanctions so I would caution GoodDay to act very carefully. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my comments above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per OR and GW. Keilana (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC) �[reply]
  5. I can't shake the feeling that Good Day is not going to be able to drop the stick when it comes to the proper times. They have demonstrated this with the ARCA requests repeating and with a misrepresentation of the situation. Like in 2015, they said "I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics. I merely wish the restriction removed, because it's a restriction. I wish for my slate to be clean. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)". The amount of appeals and time frames doesn't support that. Earlier in 2015, they also stated that "It's been nearly 3 years since I was restricted from diacritics & almost as long since I've breached my restriction.". They forgot to include/mention the ban that was only lifted a year earlier. In this request, they state it's been four years since the ban was lifted, not two as is. This makes me unable to trust them by their word. I therefore can not support this as is. A more gradual return to the area, like namespace restrictions might be possible, but I'd rather see some clear honesty and acknowledgement of history first. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain/Recuse
Discussion

Amendment request: Debresser

Initiated by Debresser at 13:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive195#Debresser
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. User_talk:Debresser#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
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
  • I request the sanction against me be revoked and the other two parties strongly warned against trying to game the system to push their POV

Statement by Debresser

Two editors with a strong POV in the Israeli-Palestine-conflict area have removed information they consider to reflect negatively on Mahmoud Abbas, and have made other edits to that article, in disregard of serious objections by me as well as uninvolved editors, refusing to participate in discussions, using ever alternating baseless arguments in an attempt to push their POV, filing a baseless 1RR report against me at WP:AE in an attempt to use that forum to remove my resistance to their edits, and making personal attacks or belittling me and other dissident opinions. The report was made after I had made a second revert after 26 hours,[4][5] [6]. The sanction of a three month topic ban was imposed by Lord Roem[7] in disregard of several editors supporting my point of view and joining my request for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against Nableezy (and now Nishidani), and of the fact that only one other admin had expressed an opinion and was clearly against any sanctions, so the sanction is not even supported by a majority of admins. Likewise I fail to understand why Nableezy and Nishidani have not been sanctioned, even though their behavior was clearly POV-inspired, attempting to game the system, stonewalling on talkpage and independent forums, and included repeated reverts as well. I think the sanction is imposed without there being a problem in my editing, without a consensus among admins that there should be a sanction, in disregard of procedure, and in disregard of the obvious attempt to use WP:AE to remove resistance and push a POV, as well as the behavioral problems of the reporting editor himself, Nableezy, and his most staunch supporter, Nishidani, with whom he edits in concert. The coming with unclean hands and the sanction being applied not evenhandedly, are reasons to revoke the sanction. I think that a revert, well after the 24 hours of 1RR was the only way to force Nableezy and Nishidani to break the stonewalling of Nableezy and Nishidani and their refusal to reply to legitimate concerns. Their previous and consequent edits and behavior support that conclusion. I would like to stress that I am an 8 year editor with over 90,000 edits, active in many areas over this project, see User:Debresser/My work on Wikipedia, and I always try to edit neutrally and keep in mind the good of this wonderful project that is Wikipedia, see User:Debresser/My rewards.

Editors supporting me at WP:AE: Drsmoo, Sir Joseph, Only in death

Second admin against sanctions: no evidence of violation, cmt.

Using ever changing arguments to push POV: First Sepsis II (who was recently permanently topic banned at WP:AE) used the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 argument against other editors. They when I made the same edit, with improvements, Nableezy tries to say sources are not reliable, which they are, or when good sources are readily available, see Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Unreliable_sources. They he tries to say it is recentism[8], and see Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#WP:RECENTISM). Then he sees an outside opinion that it is undue,[9] so he plays that card too.[10] If he thinks it is undue, he could have rewritten it in shorter form, but all he has done is remove the paragraph altogether. See also further, that suggestions for a shorter version have been made, but still he reverted. This clearly shows that Nableezy considers all means legitimate, only to remove this information.

Refusing to participate in discussion or rendering discussion ineffective: When uninvolved editor TransporterMan proposed a compromise on the talkpage,[11] I agreed,[12] but Nableezy rejected the compromise based on his personal vendetta against me.[13] I took this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and Nableezy sabotaged that discussion.[14] Nableezy completely ignored the discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard,[15], even though I posted it on the talkpage.[16] Recently Nishidani added a new paragraph,[17] and my objections on the talkpage in Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar have been completely stonewalled by Nableezy and Nishidani,(1) without any content or policy based reply to my objections based on lack of relevance and reliable sources, and in blatant disregard and falsification of the results of the discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard, which Nableezy opened, and where both independent editors who responded, agree with me that the source is not good for its purpose,[18][19] while Nableezy and Nishidani post long replies to smother all resistance.

(1) Especially telling of bad faith and gaming the system was the call by Nableezy to Nishidani to revert me after less than 4 hours of discussion and no outside opinions at a time he himself couldn't revert because of a previous revert.[20]

Proof Nableezy and Nishidani edit in concert: 1. [21] by Nishidani, which he then self-reverted to avoid a violation, followed by [22] by Nableezy. 2. Nishidani acted upon Nableezy's bad faith advice.[23] 3. The many talkpage discussions where I have seen them both and invariably support each other. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of repeated reverts: Nableezy after 1 day and 16 hours[24][25], Nableezy after 1 day and 15 hours[26][27]

Procedurally request ignored: I asked that Nishidani trim his post of 737 words in order that I could reply to it effectively.[28] That request was ignored, so an essential procedure has been violated and the resulting sanction should be void.

Example of insult and belittling comments by Nableezy: "Wtf are you babbling about?"

Example of insult and belittling comments by Nishidani: [29], [30], "That looks like a partisan rabbinical dismissal of Samaritan Israelitic origins, Dovid", What you or I think is irrelevant", "why in the fuck didn't you figure out the obvious in the first fucking place days ago? Messahge." ("Messahge" is "idiot" in Yiddish) Struck after Nishidani explained this was a typo and at most a Freudian slip.[31]

I thank Lord Roem for his patience on my request to reconsider sanction, and his willingness there to reconsider it after a month[32] or even to mitigate the sanction to a 0RR sanction.[33] I think there is no basis in the evidence presented at WP:AE to justify a sanction against me, and/or to not justify a sanction against Nableezy and/or Nishidani. In addition I attest to my good faith, and see no evidence of bad faith from my side at WP:AE. A sanction at WP:AE is a bad precedent, as recent comments have shown,[34][35] and I willingly take my changes here, as I did before at WP:AE when I (!) undid the withdraw by Nableezy, see the witdraw[36] and my undo.[37] At the same time, I hope that even if editors here will disagree with me, they will be willing to consider mitigating the sanction along the lines suggested by Lord Roem.

@EdJohnston You suggest I should have posted at WP:AE first. I looked at the ways to appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications, where it says "The process has three possible stages". I exercised the first, writing Lord Roem on his talkpage, and when we reached an impasse there, I followed the third, posting here. Nowhere does it say that I have to use the second option of posting at WP:AE/WP:AN. The reason I didn't use it is because the sanction was made on WP:AE, and appeals are not usually made to the same place. I am perfectly willing to post at WP:AE again or at WP:ANI, just wanted to assure you that I followed the instructions in good faith. Debresser (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem Both Nableezy and Nishidani are respectable editors, and with both of them I have in the past reached worthy compromises on contested issues in the IP-conflict area. I am, frankly, at a loss to understand why they don't behave in the same respectable way on Mahmoud Abbas. Perhaps because the subject at hand is too close to them. I am sure we will return to working together amiably in the future. However, how we can establish a "pattern of collaborative editing" in order to reconsider the sanction after a month during the time I am topic banned, is something that is not completely clear to me. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis Confirmed. The main reason I decided not to post again at WP:AE is that at WP:AE only two admins reviewed the case. As a result, in spite of the fact that there was only one admin who thinks I should be temporarily topic banned, that was the decision reached at WP:AE. In addition, my request to admonish the filing editor for what I consider to be his problematic behavior wasn't reviewed at all. I hope that a larger group of admins from ArbCom reviewing this case will either reach another opinion and decision, or at least I will know that a serious consensus exists that I am on the wrong track. In addition I hope that they will take the time to review the behavior of the filing editor as well, per my request and per WP:BOOMERANG. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanda There was no escalation. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanda After reading the proposed explanation by Nishidani, I'd like to add that the edit he posted contains the following sentence: "I'm guessing that Debresser simply doesn't like this since it contradicts a rabbinical tradition". Apart from rejecting this type of accusation as coming close to religious persecution on Wikipedia, I can state as a fact that I am not aware of claimed rabbinic tradition, by which I want to make the point that this was a bad faith accusation. I'd like to request ArbCom to make a clear statement to the fact that editors on Wikipedia should not make assumptions based on professed religious adherence of editors. In addition, if this statement in any way affected LordRoem's opinion, I'd ask immediate annulment of the sanction on that basis alone. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare & @Opabinia regalis I see that both of you find I was incorrect in insisting on adding a less than reliable source. Regarding this issue I have a few things to say: 1. The quality of the sources was a question that was under discussion.[38][39] Another editor agrees with me that the source is fine,[40], especially since the same statement was since source to additional sources of high repute,[41] but nevertheless Nableezy and Nishidani insist that their point of view is the only correct one. That brings WP:TE to mind. 2. I provided better sources in the process.[42] 3. If the problem is my addition of a less than ideal source, then a warning to review WP:RS would be in order, not a topic ban. 4. Nableezy and Nishidani also edit warred to add a bad sources, which is still in the article, despite the opposition from two independent editors at the relevant noticeboard discussion. Why were my complaints about this ignored? Why aren't those editors topic banned as well? No society or community can apply rules other than evenhandedly. 5. I have shown a pattern of POV pushing and gaming the system by Nableezy and Nishidani. My actions should be seen on that background. As a result, I ask for leniency if I unintentionally wasn't careful enough regarding the reliability of a source. At the same time I repeat my request to address the problematic editing of those two editors. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Umm, despite Debresser's efforts to paint me as somebody who is a "POV editor" with ever changing arguments to keep negative material about people I dont even particularly like (Abbas), the two sections that he is using to attempt to claim my arguments morph are Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#WP:RECENTISM and Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Unreliable_sources are about two entirely different sections in the article and completely unrelated material. And one follows the other, but not in the order that he writes above. Yes, I had two different problems about two different edits that Debresser made, edits that Debresser edit-warred to restore in a BLP despite good faith BLP objections, despite specific policy requirements on restoring such material, requirements that Debresser has repeatedly ignored. Ill respond to the rest of that baseless screed if an arbitrator would like me to, but that is a decent example of the type of careless and occasionally reckless editing that Debresser has been engaging in. nableezy - 17:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

It took me 2 days and several hours of time extracting from Debresser, regarding just one edit proposal, based on a high RS source written by the foremost Samaritan authority on Samaritan history, an admission his 3 reverts of that source from the lead were wrong. By simple arithmetic, were I to take the same trouble to parse, analyse through the edit history record, what Debresser wildly claims above, we'd be here till kingdom come. He's a productive editor, with 90,000 contributions, double my own piddling 48,000. Like all of us, he has defects: his is to revert repeatedly on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds material closely sourced from books which, on every occasion, leap the WP:RS high bar, being written by authorities in their respective fields, and published under academic imprint. We have the respective talk pages of Mahmoud Abbas (here), and now Israelites (see here and here )to examine the difference in approach. If any close reader can find in Debresser's responses to numerous queries palmary instances of close reading, intimacy with the niceties of wiki policy, wide familiarity with sources and a lucid grasp of the academic pedigrees of authors, their standing in their fields, and endorses his apparent belief that the Bible is a more accurate source for ancient history than scholarship, then by all means, they should call me to order, and ask me to explain myself. I won't defend myself against Debresser's tirade, for obvious reasons. I have no belief he even reads my responses.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record Dovid, when you cite my edit summary above looks like a partisan rabbinical dismissal of Samaritan Israelitic origins, as an ’example of insult and belittling comments’ by myself, you missed the fact that I was alluding to a commonplace in the scholarly literature on Israelites and Samaritans., e.g. here p.176, here p.524; here pp.56-7; here p.420, to cite just 4 of a dozen examples. Our conflicts are of this type. I keep citing the scholarly literature, and you keep reacting to the personal implications you read into my edits, rather than to the academic hinterland whose dragoman I try to be. Operatively, it's not me you keep reverting over numerous pages, but the relevant scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on Amanda's request to Lord Roem. I cannot presume to know the latter's mind (I struggle to know my own, or what remains of it, more times than not). I would only add that the complaint was originally on Debresser's behavior at Mahmoud Abbas. The merits of this complaint that D removed high quality RS at sight, without any visible policy grounds, and couldn't produce them at the talk page, were being evaluated without any clear consensus. Out of the blue, on another page, Debresser suddenly repeated that pattern complained of at another article,Israelites. I.e. while the pattern asserted to exist in his editing Mahmoud Abbas was being analysed, he appeared to confirm it existed by repeating it on another page. I drew admins' attention to this new fact (new evidence supporting the complaint) here. Several hours later, Lord Roem closed the issue with his sanction. My presumption is that the second piece of evidence was read as confirming what, until that point, had only been a hypothesis of uncertain merits: a single-issue complaint became multiple.Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Just to comment that my above support linked to by Debresser should only be taken regarding the underlying content issue - I have no comment on the subsequent alleged behavioural issues (which I assume is what led to the sanction) although personally I think the area is ripe for a full case given the amount of POV-laden editing and BLP violations from multiple editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Nothing prevents the Committee from taking this if they want to. But in fact, User:Debresser has short-circuited the usual appeal route which is laid out at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. He had the option of appealing at WP:AE or WP:AN but has not done so. I'm unclear why the appeal is here. In the absence of any special reason being given, I suggest the Committee decline this request and ask him to use AE or AN for the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lord Roem

I don't have much to add that isn't already linked. If anyone has a specific question for me, please ping me. As the sanctioning admin I do think my short sanction on Debresser is appropriately proportionate. However, I don't see Debresser as helplessly disruptive and will happily lift the topic ban in a month or so if a good pattern of collaborative editing is established. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I was initially only concerned that Debresser appeared to be gaming the 1RR restriction on the page (21:14 13 July and 23:05 14 July). At that point, I thought a warning to be careful about 1RR would be the only thing required. What changed my mind were diffs like this (see edit summary) and the conversation here (where my initial perception was Debresser was stonewalling). This isn't one of the cases where there's something egregious; this is why I suggested during a convo on my talk page to change the sanction to a 0RR restriction instead of a full topic-ban. Debresser expressing willingness to undergo that, but didn't appear to recognize that his approach, thus far, was only disrupting the page.
If arbs think something different is appropriate, I'm not stuck to my position. There's other history in the AE request that gives more context to the situation that I recommend committee members go over. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser: Clerk notes

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @Lord Roem: By looking at the result section of the AE request, I see that your view seems to have progressively changed from no sanction to sanction over time. Could you briefly outline your thoughts/reasoning on the escalation over time to where the behavior became disruptive enough for further sanction? I'm not looking for anything detailed, just some diffs or sections that show things were continuing to escalate requiring enforcement.
  • @The Wordsmith: Your last comment on this Enforcement was 5 days before it's closure. Could I request your two cents on the new information and result?
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo Opabinia's point above, that Debresser is welcome to come to ARCA without first going to WP:AE or WP:AN. I am not convinced that the ~25 hour gap between edits was an attempt to game 1RR. However, the sanction placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure seems appropriate due to the re-adding of poor-quality sources (even after Debresser admitted they were of poor quality), as well as attempts to control the content of the article based on claims that his own edits reflected consensus despite lack of discussion. I think Lord Roem was right to place a fairly short sanction (three months, when DS authorizes bans of up to one year) given that these are not the most egregious violations we've seen, but I do think the short sanction is warranted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gotten behind on my ARCA reading, but I've caught up with this one now and I agree with GW. There was certainly edit-warring, even if not "gaming", and it was poorly sourced material in a contentious BLP. This is a pretty short sanction, and Lord Roem even mentioned willingness to lift it early if warranted, and IMO this is well within the norms of admin discretion in DS. Use the time to relax with some quieter articles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Scientology

Initiated by Sfarney at 20:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Sfarney


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
  • Cancel the Sfarney topic ban


Statement by Sfarney

Introduction

On June 1, 2016, I was Topic Banned from Scientology for one year on the authority of ARBSCI, Clause 5.1 (WP:SPA).[43][44] The Wordsmith imposed the ban. Though the ban cited ArbCom authority, Wordsmith agrees the foundation for that authority is incorrect. Additionally, Wordsmith concealed a personal conflict of interest on the topic and should not have administered the AE.

I respectfully ask this Committee to cancel or modify the topic ban.

Summary of events

  1. Decided May 26: I filed an AE against Prioryman. Dennis Brown administered and filed a boomerang advisement against me.[45]
  2. Decided June 1: Prioryman filed an AE against me. Wordsmith presided and sanctioned me under Remedy 5.1, ARBSCI, banning me from Scientology for a year.[46]
  3. Decided June 6: I appealed the ban on ANI; the foundation for the ban was canceled but the ban remains.[47]

Reasons to modify sanction

1. Wordsmith agreed my account is not an SPA and struck that language from the ban.[48][49] When that justification was removed, ArbCom authority was removed, but Wordsmith maintains the topic ban.[50]

2. Sanction was based on evidence that later proved false -- the ban was significantly based on nonpublic information.

A significant portion of the ban rationale rests on nonpublic evidence that I have privately communicated to the Arbitration Committee, and consulted an Arb confidentially with the evidence before doing anything. In fact I had forgotten about Remedy 5.1; the Arbitrator I asked for advice suggested doing that ...[51]

Later, Wordsmith admitted the nonpublic evidence was not true.[52]

3. Wordsmith's ban was a do-over sanction. In the May 26 AE against Prioryman, Wordsmith wrote, "This request seems ripe for a Boomerang … at a minimum an admonishment to the filing editor."[53] Dennis Brown refused to admonish me and filed only an advisement. That action drew an effective line -- the conduct at issue was addressed by admin sanction.[54]

A week later (June 1), Wordsmith reached into the same timespan for evidence and imposed the topic ban, modifying the sanction imposed by Brown. Brown protested that his advisement was already in place.

Some of this is a little bit old. If this had happened after I gave my warning the other day, I would topic ban or block on the spot, but I did give a fairly detailed warning less than a week ago, so behavior since then is my primary focus. Not sure that to do here, would like to hear what other admins think.[55]

Thus, Wordsmith's sanction contradicts Modification by Administrators,[56] but Brown agreed to the modification because: "I trust The Wordsmith when they say they have private information that amply justified the action."[57]

When Wordsmith later admitted the "information" was false, the modification policy implicitly required Wordsmith to notify Brown of the error, and either drop the topic ban or seek permission again to modify Brown's sanction. But Wordsmith did not, and the anomaly was transformed from error to deceit.

4. Wordsmith had personal interest (not Wikipedia interest) in the ban. Editor Prioryman brought the complaint to AE and canvassed Wordsmith to preside.[58] Prioryman is the name-changed admin ChrisO,[59], involved and sanctioned in the ARBSCI.[60][61] An arbitrator selected by one party in a dispute is not appropriate or neutral, and selection of Wordsmith was not random. Wordsmith is personally and deeply involved with Scientology as a leader/organizer of the anti-Scientology group, Project Chanology.

Wordsmith provides the evidence on Wikipedia pages:

  • Wordsmith lists Project Chanology among the half-dozen pages he has edited significantly.[62]
  • Wordsmith was well-informed on the various Chanology events as they were happening and about to happen.[63]
  • Wordsmith pondered his COI in a private to-do list -- he is aware of his COI problem.[64]
  • The Wordsmith is/was the owner and sysop of the Boston Anonymous forums, a medium where Chanology is/was organized.

POSSIBLE COI DISCLOSURE: I own the Boston Anonymous forums and am a sysop, crat, checkuser and oversight on their wiki. Take anything I have to say with a grain of salt, and always verify for yourselves. Firestorm Talk 16:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[65]

The word "crat" commonly means "bureaucrat", i.e., a manager, ruler.[66][67] The statement is signed by Firestorm, who was later renamed Wordsmith.[68] See also the header:[69]

The virulent partisanship of Anonymous/Chanology is told in the group's 2008 founding manifesto video, which promised to destroy and "systematically dismantle" the Church of Scientology.[70] See transcript.[71]

An owner/leader/organizer of a group sworn to promote or destroy the subject cannot neutrally administer the article(s) or involved editors. It is a clear COI. When I suggested Wordsmith had a COI, Wordsmith evasively denied he has a COI because he is "not a Scientologist":

Firstly personal experience is not relevant to WP:INVOLVED, but I will state for the record that I am not a Scientologist, have never been a Scientologist, and none of my family or close friends are Scientologists. I merely take an active interest in their history, policies and doctrine to consider myself a subject-matter expert, which is why I made that comment on the first AE.[72]

The statement changes from evasion to deceit with these words: "I merely take an active interest ..." In addition to owner/leader/manager/crat of the Chanology forum, Wordsmith was apparently theorist and ideologue of Chanology:

It is safe to say that I'm probably the most well-versed Wikipedian on the topic of Scientology, moreso than most actual Scientologists.[73]

5. Supplementary info: Another editor has submitted a letter to ArbCom with supplementary evidence on this and related matters. I have forwarded that letter to ArbCom as well to ensure it is linked to this case.

Conclusion

I respectfully ask for the Arb who recommended the ban[74] to recuse from this appeal.

As shown above, the ban was imposed without reason, authority, or justification. It was based on a false issue and false evidence, and administered by an admin who had a significant hidden COI on the topic. I ask for the ban to be cancelled.

Subsequent comment

  • This appeal shows that the sanction violates points 1, 2, and 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators, a text of which I was not previously aware. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 21:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "community" in the community appeal did not see the improper COI and involvement of Wordsmith. Conferring discretionary powers presumes impartial judgment. The information above impugns that impartiality and shows that discretion was compromised.
  • The community also did not know that Prioryman was ChrisO sanctioned in the original ARBSCI for abuse of admin trust on the same topic.
  • Process: the community did not understand that the ban was imposed out of process.
  • Process: The text Appeals and modifications lists three levels of appeal. It does not say that the levels are mutually exclusive, as Thomson argued, and it does not say that level 2 obviates 3, as Brown suggests. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 22:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A caring reader will find a remarkable contrast between the evidence I have provided and Wordsmith's current statement of involvement in Chanology.
    Wordsmith then: "I own the Boston Anonymous forums and am a sysop, crat, checkuser and oversight on their wiki."[75]
    Wordsmith now: "I will acknowledge that I was involved with a local group affiliated with Project Chanology, a minor capacity running their internal wiki ... my role so minor that I had forgotten about it." (below)
    The arbitrators will decide whether that meets Wikipedia's standard of admin integrity. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 05:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing the comments from Salvio: To consider abuse of discretion, one must consider the circumstances and the conduct for which the ban was imposed. But none of that has been discussed here, so how could anyone be "satisfied" that discretion was not abused? That satisfaction must rest on the discretion and integrity of the admin imposing the ban, and as you are shown here in Wordsmith's own words, that integrity is well worth questioning. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 18:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Salvio: On 17 May 2016, less than two weeks before sanctioning me with a topic ban, Wordsmith deleted a private page named "COI".[76] I cannot recover the contents of that page, but maybe you can, and maybe you will find it relevant to the credibility of Wordsmith's claims of forgetting about the year he spent owning and operating the Chanology forum. Wordsmith linked to that page in 2010 and 2011 comments about Scientology edits and issues, so it was on his mind at that time.[77][78]
  • Wordsmith has a history of shoot-from-the-hip accusing other editors of being "OSA" (Church of Scientology employees), then apologizing and backing down.[79][80] Such he did with me (see "nonpublic information" above), apparently GLEANED from an anti-Scientology chat page comment that appeared about the same time that he filed his nonpublic evidence with Arb. (Search for "I wonder if the editor") Are these random accusations consistent with proper demeanor for an admin? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 20:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let us never forget that this whole incident stems from my requirement that a Scientology article follow standard Wikipedia editing and sourcing practice, as I have required in multiple other articles on multiple other topics. That is all that I have ever demanded. For this I am sanctioned by the partisans. I have shown irrefutably that Wordsmith is among the partisans, and that his representation of his role in Wikipedia and the world at large is not completely truthful. No one can say that I have broken any of the canons of Wikipedia except that I refused to accept canvassed consensus to violate Wikipedia policies. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 22:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The web page says "The arbcom-l mailing list ... can also be used by any user as a means of contacting the Committee privately". But the autoresponse states, "The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list". One of these statements may be in error, and hopefully it is the latter. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 00:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 11 August 2009‎, Wikipedia Commons User:Thrawn was renamed to User:The Wordsmith.[81]
  • Wordsmith does not deny that he is the same person in all cases cited, but calls my facts, "character assassination". Truly, he has worked to portray an honest admin. And just as truly, full disclosure of all relevant facts would "assassinate" that character. To all those who judge these matters, please take note: The statements of fact are specific, exact, and denotative. The denials are general, vague, and connotative.
  • And now Wordsmith canvasses the same WP:TEAM to argue his case. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to DamOTclese: Though no one has ever stated a cause for topic banning me (without later retracting that statement), the apparent reason is that I argued against consensus when that consensus violated Wiki policy. Recently, I have learned that that "consensus" was subject to off-Wiki canvassing by someone with the user name "DamOTclese".[82] (archived at [83] in case of deletion)
  • Reply to Wordsmith: "intent to harass at the very least, and attempted WP:OUTING"? That is a clever spin -> aspersion, but really it is out-to-lunch. I cannot control what others put on my talk page, but under the ban, my comments are regulated. So if others want to discuss forbidden subjects with me, such as this proceeding, I must use private email. For the logical, the simplicity of the syllogism is this:
    • If I knew Laval, I would not need to ask his email.
    • But I do ask his email, hence I do not know him.
    • Since I do not know Laval, I cannot trust him, and I could not commit to him one of the dreaded sins of which you accuse me.
  • Hence, Wordsmith, your aspersions are utterly without foundation. I have provided solid proof of your improper conduct as an admin and your improper entanglements. In rebuttal, you have nothing but vague dismissals and fragile speculation of me.
    • You have prima face evidence of editor DamOTclese canvassing off-Wiki for "consensus" against me -- Have you acted on it?
    • You have solid evidence provided elsewhere of editor Feoffer being a true WP:SPA in violation of wp:ARBSCI.[84] -- Have you acted on that?
    • You undoubtably know that Prioryman is the same person as ChrisO,[85] an admin severely sanctioned with de-sysop at the ARBCI[86][87] and has now returned to his old tricks, citing improper sources for outrageous statements, cherrypicking, attacking other editors, and so on -- even in your presence. List of samples here,[88]
  • But you, Wordsmith, take no action on any of those situations -- possibly because as you have stated elsewhere, you share their personal opinions of the Scientology,[89] which are quite well defined along a certain vector.[90] Instead, you canvass that band of brothers to your assistance here, as though they were all upstanding Wikipedia citizens. And in your view, perhaps they are. 05:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC) (updated with references for Prioryman statements 15:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC))
  • Update: According to a message I have just received, additional evidence has just been sent to Salvio showing that -- contrary to The Wordsmith's representations here -- The Wordsmith was involved in a leading role in Chanology demonstrations just a few years ago. Hopefully, Salvio will share that evidence with the other Arbs. I have not personally seen the evidence. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 18:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Prioryman: Prioryman asks me to address my own conduct. Prioryman's first item is the ban on the Rick Ross topic. That was a specific BLP error which will not be repeated. I have honored that ban to the fullest. This current issue should not be a redo of that incident, and Prioryman errs in attempt to make it so.
  • Apart from the first, the offenses cited in the AE[91] are correct Wikipedia edits, as explained in the rebuttal below.
    1. 18:05, 20 May 2016‎ Hijacks a GA review request and turns it into a rant against the article's content (see [92]) I reviewed the GA nomination strictly according to the rules as I understood them and as they are written, requiring that I had "[n]ot ... made significant contributions to the article prior to the review." I understood that since all my edits to the article had been reverted, I was fully qualified to review the article, which I did candidly, impartially, and according to the rules of Wikipedia. The phrase "Significant contributions" (in the rules)[93] is not synonymous with "significant edits" on the blanking page.[94] I still hold that given all the flaws in the article enumerated below, it is not a candidate for GA.
    2. 16:26, 11 April 2016 One of several deletions of sourced content with a bogus rationale. (False claim of implication of living people - none are named) Names are not required by WP:BLP when the target is obvious. Wikipedia is could legally be considered a single work. An accusation of criminal conduct against Scientology is an accusation against the officials, and Wikipedia sports a List of Scientology officials. The list is small and finite, and WP:BLPGROUP is clear: "When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." This article did/does not. I removed text that failed to meet WP:BLP. We cannot use cherry-picked quotes, primary sources, or blogs. In this case, the article parroted speculation in the Ortega blog to accuse Scientology of intimidating people with death threats in present time policy. No secondary RS supports the accusation. The deleted material also contained a WP:cherrypicking quote from a primary source in support. This violates WP:REDFLAG which requires multiple solid secondary sources for challenged statements. Removing the material was proper.
    3. 22:17, 11 April 2016 As above. (False claim of implication of living people - none are named) Erroneous link in the AE. The edit of that date[95] cited the Ortega blog for an interview of some person by a Food & Drug officer. The Ortega blog spun the interviewee's statements into a government "report" of criminal conduct, and so did Wikipedia article. The blog then speculates about church policy, and the article echoes that speculation as Encyclopedic Truth. I removed it as an improper source (primary, blog, no secondary source). Then the article cites to another primary source, The Auditor, alleging it to contain a published order to kill a list of people. Again, a primary source without secondary and I removed it. Leave that work for Scientology's RS critics, who are many. If multiple secondary sources don't cover it, neither do we. WP:REDFLAG states:

      Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[12] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
      (x) surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
      (x) challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
      (x) reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
      (x) claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.​

      ​ Because of multiple secondary sources don't cover it, it probably is misunderstood by the editor or simply not true. Feoffer added an image that he took from some German blog with unknown authenticity. I had it removed with an ANI request under the WP:COPYVIO rule because I could not persuade the TEAM that the authenticity could not be verified and was a real problem.
    4. 22:17, 11 April 2016 As above. (Rejects quotation from primary source) This edit does not involve a quote from a primary source.
    5. 17:58, 26 April 2016 As above. (Rejects quotations from primary sources) We cannot use primary sources to make outrageous claims. WP:REDFLAG. The text removed includes the exceptional claim that Hubbard preached murder as a form of therapy and bases the claim on primary sources (recorded lectures). The editors even cherrypicked words and phrases to construct a statement contrary to the recording (on the blog) that they were supposedly transcribing. The article included a link to an anonymous post on Wikileaks as though it were a WP:RS. The text continued to cite another primary source to make it appear that advising people to commit suicide was church doctrine. Removing this material was a proper Wikipedia edit.
    6. 07:19, 8 April 2016 As above. One of several personal attacks against a source's author in an apparent attempt to undermine its credibility (see Dead agenting) Ortega's blog is not an RS by our rules. In the RSN,[96] Nick-D, PermStrump, and Grayfell agreed that Ortega's blog was not a proper source for these claims.
    7. 10:01, 17 April 2016 As above
    8. 07:19, 8 April 2016 As above
    9. 18:17, 25 April 2016 Refuses to discuss alternative wording with other editors There is no point discussing "alternate wording" for statements that are not properly sourced.
  • Most of the complaints at the AE were that I objected to the Ortega blog as an RS. But Ortega's blog was later removed from the article. Because I was right?
  • This is the complete list of complaints on which I was banned by Wordsmith. Consensus editing should not be a process of hanging the dissenters until only the ayes remain. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 00:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to GorillaWarfare: Thank you for the explanation. Given Wordsmith's substantially incorrect statement to you (in contrast to the facts) and your limited statement in response, I strike the request for you to recuse and welcome your participation. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 00:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

There are a number of factual errors and misrepresentations above. However, I will acknowledge that I was involved with a local group affiliated with Project Chanology, in a minor capacity running their internal wiki (as I was the only one familiar with MediaWiki software) for a few months from 2008 to 2009. I must commend Sfarney, as he keeps better track of my own past than I do. The site (and indeed, the entire movement) had been defunct for years. I hadn't mentioned it because it was so long ago and my role so minor that I had forgotten about it. Does minor participation in an activist group 7-8 years ago open up issues of WP:INVOLVED? I'll leave that to the Arbitrators to decide, and will respect that decision.

However, I do still believe that my topic ban was based on sound judgment and not bias. Consensus at AE and again at the noticeboard agreed with it. Sfarney's hostility and poor behavior in both instances further reinforced that belief. I stand by my sanction, and I do believe that the community has already heard this appeal and upheld it on the merits. I don't see what another bite at the apple is gong to achieve, but I welcome input. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sfarney: Your aspersions are without merit. The diffs you link are from before I was an Administrator, and there was in fact a rather large sock farm manipulating article content at the time. The user subpage you mentioned contains nothing of interest that I haven't already acknowledged, and I deleted it at the same time as a number of other subpages. I hadn't used it in years, and it contained some personal information that I did not want publicly available. Further, I do not visit or use WhyWeProtest, and had no idea it was still running. That thread had no bearing on events onwiki. I also find the depths to which you are plumbing my years-old editing history in a poor attempt at "opposition research" to be highly disturbing, and I think it telling that all you have been able to dig up is a few diffs of mildly rude comments from 2009 before I was an admin (and when the wiki was a very different place, and WP:ARBSCI and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo found that there actually were Scientologists attempting to manipulate content) combined with casting some unfounded aspersions. Your increasingly-desperate attempts to link me to some bizarre conspiracy is extremely troubling, to say the least, and you seem to be justifying the sanction further with every edit. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Prioryman Damotclese Feoffer because the same allegations of collusion have been made against them as well. @Arbs: I would like to direct your attention to this discussion on Sfarney's talkpage, which seems to indicate intent to harass at the very least, and attempted WP:OUTING at the worse. The fact that Sfarney seems to be plumbing the depths of ancient history from 2009-2010, both here and on Commons, in an attempt to "dig up dirt" on me demonstrates that my record is squeaky clean and these conspiracy theories are becoming more and more unhinged. If they had anything showing bias, they wouldn't have to go back 7 years to find it. I have been subject to these aspersions being cast since the beginning of this SNAFU, and I would appreciate if Arbcom would issue an injunction instructing Sfarney and Laval to stop this attempted character assassination. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Prioryman

Sfarney is doing an excellent imitation of a squid, blowing out clouds of black ink to hide the real issue at hand here: did the evidence of misconduct in the original AE request merit a topic ban? He doesn't address his own conduct above in any way other than to deny that anyone has ever found fault with it ("No one can say that I have broken any of the canons of Wikipedia"), which is obviously ludicrous in the light of the multiple critical threads he has attracted on his talk page regarding a variety of topics and his previous topic ban from Rick Alan Ross. If the topic ban was justified - and it clearly was - then everything else is moot and mere tendentious wikilawyering of the kind which those who have interacted with him have sadly become accustomed to. Prioryman (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

I don't expect to comment further unless this account is pinged by an arb. I doubt it will be needed.

This is all moot. The community upheld the ban, any cause of action has to be about that WP:AN confirmation, where the community essentially took possession of the ban. Unless you can show fault in that discussion, there is nothing to talk about. Speaking as someone who tried DESPERATELY to not topic ban you, who choose an admonition the first time you were brought to AE, and has watched you implode since then, I suggest simply waiting the ban out. The community upheld the ban. That the process was sloppy doesn't really matter, we aren't a bureaucracy. Farmer Brown (talk) (aka:Dennis Brown) 21:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ian.thomson

I have to bring up Robert McClenon's statement given here that "continuing to appeal is vexatious litigation." Yes, editors should be allowed to appeal bans but the community is also allowed to affirm those bans and should not have to continually answer "yes, one year is still one year" every few weeks in a different spot each time. Standard discretionary sanctions have been allowed since 2012, the ban was converted to that, and uninvolved community consensus affirms that ban. To try to appeal on a technicality that has already been ironed over is nothing but Wiki-lawyering. Honestly, at this point, the only room I'm seeing between modifying the ban (which I can't see happening) and blocking Sfarney is Sfarney withdrawing this ASAP. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DamOTclese

I'm not sure why I keep getting dragged in to comment on this difficult editor, this should be a no-brainer. When Wikipedia has problem Scientology editors, one either (1) Topic bans the editor/sock or (2) blocks their IP addresses. When there is extensive WP:IDHT and WP:NH and the same issues which have repeatedly been resolved keep getting dredged-up over and over again, we have procedures for a final resolution to the problem editors which do that, and in editor Sfarney's case, a topic ban is the obvious solution, and any appeal should be dismissed.

At the same time we must not discourage volunteer editors from donating their time and effort to Wikipedia to improve articles, so editors and admins need to work hard to convince problem editors that they must stop being problems while also asking them to "move on" and find more productive use of their volunteer time. Editor time has value, we don't want to lose editors that contribute beneficially!

Also editors and admins who look at problem editors' behavior also need to understand Scientology's history and contentious behavior to some degree inasmuch as if they want to expend some time understanding the motivations of Scientology-based problem editors, looking up "Dev-T" (Develop Traffic) and Scientology's written procedures on "Outproducing" sources of factual, informative, testable, falsifiable information on Scientology -- which Wikipedia certainly is -- helps understand some of the WP:IDHT and WP:NH behavior.

We need Sfarney to stay working on Wikipedia while at the same time we need him or her to stop wasting other editor's valuable time. We need to be polite and professional when imposing topic bans (after being polite and professional addressing editor's proposed text updates and issues) and if that does not work, we need account bans and/or IP bans, that's how we resolve things. If Sfarney does not understand why he was topic banned, that is a failing with other editors and admins not being able to convey why. That he's appealing his topic ban seems to indicate that we have failed to impart such understanding.

Don't remove the topic ban yet please, don't ban Sfarney. We need all the editors we can get here. Damotclese (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Salvio, where precisely would be the bar? Because I am willing to lay money down that if an (otherwise perfectly respectable) admin was found to have been a scientologist and sanctioned someone in the scientology topic area, this would have been considered 'involved' and overturned within 5 minutes. I will paraphrase (slightly) my comment from the ANI: "I have a few books on cars. That wouldnt disqualify me from closing contentious discussions on cars. If I owned a series of extremely hard to get and in-depth documents (primary and secondary) on morris minors, declared I was the most knowledgeable wikipedian about morris minors AND had previously declared another editor was correct in their morris minor edits - I should not be closing any dispute (in my capacity as an administrator) related to said morris minors." If Sfarney is correct in his evidence of Wordsmith's previous associations with anti-scientology groups, I am not actually sure what would actually satisfy you regarding 'involved' in an off-wiki sense. Can you honestly say if the POV's were reversed, we would be here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Scientology: Clerk notes

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

Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Uphold --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of comments. First, a person appealing a sanction before us may argue that the original sanction was flawed, even if upheld at AE or AN, because ArbCom retains final jurisdiction over all actions taken on our behalf. However, the standard ArbCom has historically used when reviewing appeals has been that of abuse of discretion. Therefore, the relevant question is, was The Wordsmith's imposition of a topic ban an abuse of discretion? At first glance, it does not appear that was the case. The fact that he based his topic ban on remedy 5.1 rather than on remedy 4 (authorising DS for the topic area) has no bearing on the validity of the sanction itself, because, assuming there was evidence of sufficient misconduct to justify the imposition of a discretionary sanction in the first place, then such a mistake should be considered a mere clerical error, which can be rectified without any formalities. On review of the original thread and of the discussion following sfarney's appeal, I am satistied that there is enough evidence of misconduct to justify the imposition of a topic ban.

    The question then becomes whether The Wordsmith was involved. Again, historically, when involvement has been argued on the basis of off-wiki conduct, the bar has ben set rather high, for various reasons, including a desire to prevent both opposition research and a chilling effect on admins. In this case, in my opinion, that high bar is far from reached.

    For all these reasons, as far as I'm concerned, this appeal should be rejected. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noting that the "supplementary info" Sfarney said was sent by email to arbcom does not seem to have arrived, although it would have to be very compelling indeed to change my opinion based on the public evidence already posted here. Sfarney, could you resend ASAP so we can wrap this up? Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold - having read the evidence above and that submitted privately, I agree with Salvio here. The ban should be upheld. I also do not believe that The Wordsmith shuld be considered involved. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold Exactly per Doug. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a few other ARCAs and a case request for me to get through so it may take me some time before I can go through this in detail, but I'd like to quickly address this part of Sfarney's section, which was brought to my attention earlier today: I respectfully ask for the Arb who recommended the ban[97] to recuse from this appeal. I clarified earlier with The Wordsmith that he was referring to me in the linked comment, and I think also that there is some miscommunication surrounding that conversation. Wordsmith contacted me in May with concerns about Sfarney, and sent a few links. The conversation continued as follows (posted with Wordsmith's permission):
IRC log
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 
31/05/16 10:58<[Wordsmith]> I'm not sure if that's conclusive enough for an indef, or if a regular admin should even be doing that rather than an Arbblock
31/05/16 10:59<[Wordsmith]> The editor's contribs show extensive pro-Scientology POV pushing
31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> The easiest option is probably to TBAN per r an indef, or if a regular admin should even be doing that rather than an Arbblock │10:59 <[Wordsmith]> The editor's contribs show extensive pro-Sc
31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> whoa
31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> bad paste
31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> TBAN per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas
31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> Assuming he fits those criteria
31/05/16 11:02<GorillaWarfare> But you could also send your evidence to ArbCom and we could look into a block/ban
31/05/16 11:02<[Wordsmith]> He's made some contributions to chemistry, but the bulk are Scientology-related
31/05/16 11:04<[Wordsmith]> I'm more than willing to ban under that SPA remedy and DS, I just won't mention the connection. I'll send the evidence to Arbcom, and if he appeals I'll put it on hold pending examinatin of private evidence
31/05/16 11:06<GorillaWarfare> Sounds good
31/05/16 11:06<[Wordsmith]> Thanks for the advice
31/05/16 11:07<GorillaWarfare> No problem :)
Given that my only involvement was to show Wordsmith the remedy in the Scientology case that authorized future sanctions, and say he could use it assuming [Sfarney] fits those criteria, I'm not seeing a need to recuse here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Infoboxes

Initiated by John Cline at 17:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Editorial process
  2. Consensus
  3. Use of infoboxes
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request



Information about amendment request
  • Without modification, clause one currently reads:

    Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary ...

    The wording wrongfully implies that discussion is a required component of consensus building. Policy does not support such a notion where, at Wikipedia:Consensus, normal editing is said io be the "usual" manner of consensus building across Wikipedia. It also says: "when editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus [my emphasis]." I request the wording of this clause be changed, so as not to circumvent policy, but to compliment it instead. Perhaps, for example:

    Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is usually done through normal editing and, at times, through the additional use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary ...

  • Without modification, clause two currently reads:

    Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. ...

    Implications are again that consensus can not be achieved except through discussion. Consider the following example, where consensus through editing is also shown:

    Wikipedia works by building consensus through normal editing and, at times, through the additional use of polite discussion. ...

Statement by John Cline

I recently participated in an RFC that relates to this case. It held that consensus can not exist for a matter unless there had been a discussion on the matter itself. Although consensus through editing was clearly in place, upheld by longstanding assent, those dependent on the premise cited the Arbcom rulings from this case as grounds to stand fast; and do continue.

Failing to mention consensus through editing, in the clauses I've shown, is an oversight of consequence! It has given some editors a false empowerment of misinformation, and undermined its own charge of resolving the infobox dispute by instead, strengthening disagreement within already fractured ranks.

The modifications requested here are easy to do and self evidently more policy compliant. I do not see where reason could lie for wanting to exclude mention of our foremost manner of consensus building and hope the requested measures to amend can be realized by minimally intrusive means. Therefore, I have not named anyone "party" as nothing about it involves user conduct, I will, however, notify each of the editors involved in the RFC I mentioned, in case they are interested enough to opine. My thanks to the Committee for considering this request.--John Cline (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum
To correct the inclusion of an unintentional synthesis, the modification requested for clause three has been changed from saying "on the article's talk page" to instead say, "on associated talk pages". With good reason, WP:CONACHIEVE is deliberate in its choice of words and this request endeavors to remain faithful with policy regarding suggested modifications.--John Cline (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point of Order
Please be considerate of the process and apportion your voice in succinct terms that focus on this Arbcom request. Intentionally withhold inclusions of superfluous excess and extraneous clutter. Currently, the overwhelming majority of expended effort has been spent on the latter while the request itself has seen barely a mention. Please be proactive in reversing this trend and consider redacting any out of scope commentary your statements may contain. Above all else, do comment on the specific elements of this request which are starving for your regards.--John Cline (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttals
@Littleolive oil: - I am fairly certain that I have not misunderstood policy, or spoken of it beyond the context of its intent. I did not commingle policy on consensus with policy on dispute resolution; just because discussion overlaps the two, the links I've provided are policy links on consensus building measures; I'll display them in long form for you here.
  1. Can consensus exist through editing alone, without discussion? Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing says it can; "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."
  2. Is discussion, in the context of this proposal, a dispute resolution measure or a continuation of consensus building? Wikipedia:Consensus#Through discussion says: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion." Wikipedia:Consensus#Achieving consensus says: "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus."
  3. Have I ever said, in this request, or anywhere else, that a reverse application of "consensus through editing" could achieve consensus for not doing a thing because it had not sooner been done? No I have not! I have said consensus can exist without discussion, never that consensus can exist without editing.--John Cline (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo Collect - your entire statement is a shining example of collegial discourse; perhaps the finest hour discussion has seen. Your assessment of this request was thoughtful and thorough; your conclusions: prudent, kind, and correct.
In considering your statement, I realized I had forgotten to perform some important "before measures". For example: I hadn't considered the scope of the problem perceived. If I had, I might not have filed this request.
Aesthetics aside, you have shown this: a remedy with nothing to gain. I acquiesce to the reason in all you have said, substance and sentiment alike. And, to the extent possible, set aside the assertions I formerly made; enjoining your call for an expeditious close of this request.--John Cline (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sfarney

  • @GRuban: You wrote: I don't like the assumption that any kind of consensus can be established by inaction and silence. Please clarify. Are you saying that no kinds of consensus can be established by silence? Or that some kinds of consensus cannot be established by silence? If the latter, I agree. If the former, permit me to gesture to the process on the majority of scientific and technical articles, monitored by perhaps scores of people who quickly scan daily changes and nod silently (or mentally) to each change, silently consenting. To require explicit consent would be burdensome and counterproductive. If the tools do not currently provide, I suggest a simple tool would scan the Encyclopedia and provide a list of pages that are monitored by less than a quorum of editors -- maybe 5 or some magic number. Operation Stepchild.
    Articles with a full quorum of monitors are presumed to have a chorus of implicit consent to changes. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 22:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

It is acknowledged that in certain small walled-gardens in Wikipedia, infoboxes are contentious, even though they are accepted as an expected element in most areas. WP:ARBINFOBOX arose because of the intractable disputes that occurred in those areas. The current guidance at WP:INFOBOXUSE and the consequent ArbCom findings reflect that contention over infoboxes. While it is perfectly reasonable to see consensus established by normal editing in the absence of prior consensus, it is also reasonable to expect that discussion should take place in order to change any existing consensus that has been explicitly established. In other words, you need a fresh debate to overturn the outcome of a previous debate. This is the same sort of expectation as at the hatnote you see at MOS pages: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."

Nevertheless, this request is not about the means of establishing consensus through editing; it is an attempt to justify a claim of consensus through not editing, and the addition of hidden comments to articles to enforce that fallacious consensus.

We can all see value in having a hidden comment that says something like "Before adding an infobox, please consider the discussions at [LINK TO PRIOR DEBATE]". It gives a new editor notice that an existing consensus is in place on the article and directs them to the issues already discussed. Such a notice also complies with the guidance at Help:Hidden text #Inappropriate uses for hidden text.

However, this request goes much further than that. It has been the practice by the infobox-haters to mark their articles with a hidden comment along the lines of "please do not add an infobox: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical infoboxes", breaching Help:Hidden text and WP:CONLOCAL. John Cline wants to engineer a situation where an editor can use a hidden comment to forbid others from adding an infobox, despite there being no previous discusion whatsoever. The infobox-haters want the ability to revert any addition of an infobox without giving reason other than the spurious claim that because the article doesn't have an infobox, there must be an implicit consensus that it shouldn't have one. That would be as nonsensical as saying "The article doesn't have an image, or it doesn't have a navbox, therefore there is an existing consensus against including those elements."

ArbCom should be supporting the right of uninvolved editors to make edits that do not breach policy; they should condemn the practice of a small group of editors of forbidding others to make particular edits without any prior debate; and they should make it clear to that small group that a complete absence of debate really is a complete absence of consensus. --RexxS (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: It is ownership, not stewardship. The difference is explained at Wikipedia:Ownership of content #Ownership and stewardship: "a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not indicate an "ownership" problem, if it is supported by an edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit." When an editor removed the hidden comment ("per WP:HIDDEN"), he should not be reverted with a pointer to WP:HIDDEN: "Providing information to assist other editors in preventing a common mistake" implying that adding an infobox is a common mistake. That is discourteous and a clear example of an ownership mentality if the editor in question actually believes that. The relevant section of WP:HIDDEN guides against "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing policy against that edit." There is no existing policy against adding an infobox to an article - most emphatically when there has been no prior debate about the issue, as in this case. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRuban

Without focusing on infoboxes specifically, I don't like the assumption that any kind of consensus can be established by inaction and silence. There are two possibilities: either, yes, most people editing the article are in agreement that we shouldn't have an X, or, most people editing the article haven't really thought about it, and might be perfectly fine with having an X. We can't know without discussing. --GRuban (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfarney: No, I'm afraid silence is just that, we can't assume everyone who has an article on their watchlist agrees with every edit. It's more than likely they just didn't look. That is all that is needed to make an edit, that no one objects, but it is not enough to assume that anyone actually noticed. --GRuban (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WhatamIdoing

  • It would doubtless be instructive for ArbCom members to read the RFC discussion that prompted this proposal before considering these technically accurate, but possibly loaded, proposals. This might unfortunately get interpreted as "This hidden HTML comment has been on the page for years, so there is currently consensus for it".
  • Back in the ArbCom case, I encouraged the then-members to explicitly and directly address the question of hidden HTML comments in articles that directed editors of an article to respect the preferences of a small group of editors. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re Infoboxes)

I was not involved in this situation, indeed I was unaware of it until seeing this request to arbcom, but having reviewed the RfC I have to endorse what RexxS says. Some members of the classical music project believes that infoboxes are an incredibly Bad Thing and should be kept as far away from "their" articles as possible, and some will argue tooth and nail to keep "their" articles without them. This WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour was permitted in the first Infoboxes case, over the objections of everyone who could foresee the problems it would bring, and no committee since has had the courage to admit that it was the wrong decision. This affair regarding hidden comments is an attempt to expand the reach of the OWNERSHIP by saying "you must get the permission of the Classical Music project to add an infobox here.", regardless of the wishes of the editors at the article or of any other relevant Wikiprojects. I recall at least one article where the author supported the addition of an infobox by someone else, and had to persuade the Classical Music project editors that their project was not the primary one for this article before consensus was even considered relevant. Alas I'm unable to find the article in question at the moment, but will provide a link when I do. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfarney: There is a page, special:unwatchedpages, that lists pages with no and very few people watching it, although only administrators can see this (for hopefully obvious security reasons). Also, there is a link on the history page for an article that lists the number of people watching that page. For example Gustav Holst appears on 134 watchlists and 30 of the people who have it on their watchlist visited recent edits. Certainly this first number is not reported precisely to non-adminstrators below a certain threshold (I forget what the value is), again as a defence against spamming and malicious editing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse user:SMcCandlish's suggestion of discretionary sanctions for the topic of infoboxes, explicitly including discussions about them generally and discussions about their inclusion or otherwise on a specific article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I strongly support something like this, but explicitly focused on visible content edits (i.e., hidden HTML comments do not count, but a long-standing presence of an infobox does, and so does long-standing removal of one that was there before, but simple absence of one is meaningless – Wikipedians add content and features, not studiously avoid adding anything that was not already present, or WP would have no content at all). I also further request that discretionary sanctions be enabled for infobox-related discussions (per normal Template:Ds/alert, etc., process). WP:ARBINFOBOX has been utterly ineffective at curtailing "infobox warrior" behavior, and the civility levels have again fallen through the floor. The very locus of the original case, the classical music wikiproject, remains the topical source of most ibox-related disputation, and it proceeds as if ARBINFOBOX never happened. I was about to lodge a pair of WP:AE enforcement requests (not regarding any parties to the original ARBINFOBOX case), diffing a consistent pattern of aspersion-casting, personal attacks, and tendentious battlegrounding in a tagteam manner, but find that I apparently cannot, because DS doesn't apply to ARBINFOBOX yet, so there is seemingly no action for AE to take or basis for any action. I'm not sure there's any recourse at all other than the usual WP:ANI drama, which rarely seems to result in action. (I'm skeptical that it would because the community itself is divided on infoboxes – though in about an 80:20 ratio in favor, at this point – so it's apt to devolve to one "party platform" against another instead of looking at user behavior). This really has to stop; it's been going on for years, and is marked by WP:GREATWRONGS-style campaigning by a handful of editors who oppose infoboxes with a passion, but cannot actually defend their position logically or with policy, only ad hominem verbal abuse and WP:FAITACCOMPLI behavior. Maybe they're ultimately right that WP should not have infoboxes, but the ends do not justify the means. (And there are opponents of infoboxes who do not exhibit these problems at all; it's an individual editor behavior issue, not a "wiki-political faction" matter.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to SchroCat: It may well be that proponents of infoboxes sometimes present fallacious arguments and engage in civility lapses; that doesn't give their opposition license to double-up on it to outdo them in a contest of who can the be most disruptive. I observe a large number of ibox-related discussions, and participate directly in quite a few of them. Over the last year or so, I note only a single pair of editors, almost always appearing together to post back-to-back (see if you can guess whom I mean) who are consistently relying on a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT plus unfiltered, personalized hostility. They happen to be against infoboxes (at least in some topical areas; I don't monitor their edits in particular, across different topics), while in the original case it may have been the other way around. Two wrongs don't make a right, and none of this would be happening (for very long) if DS had been authorized the first time around. It's a consistent behavioral problem that will be addressed one way or another, and it doesn't matter what side of the great wrong/right they're on. But perhaps I'm blind, and SchroCat is right in suggesting that the pro-infobox crowd are equally uncivil; if so, that's double the reason to impose WP:AC/DS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thryduulf's DS scope suggestions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur completely with RexxS's policy analysis of OWN, STEWARDSHIP, and HIDDEN, and would further cite WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:STONEWALL, WP:PROJPAGE, and WP:MERCILESS, as well as the aforementioned FAITACCOMPLI. No wikiproject or other gaggle of editors is ever in a position to assert or imply exclusive scope over an article or other content, and then try to stake claims that policy doesn't actually entitle them to, e.g. with "thou shalt not"-style HTML comments that attempt to limit others' editorial rights [entitlements, privileges, however you like to conceptualize what we do]. There's a huge difference between using an HTML comment to refer to policies or to previous consensus discussions, versus to issue commandments with no basis but the preference of some project or of one or a few editors who believe themselves "WP:VESTED" at a particular article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Montanabw's comments: A strong admonishment to not engage in WP:JERK behavior (if I may summarize), and application of DS, are essentially the same thing, except that the latter can be enforced without coming back to ArbCom again. It should be handleable by admins without invoking further drama/process. Agree that an RfC should not be mandatory in every case; we do not need some spacial "legislation" here, and standard WP operating procedure is fine, though I don't object to Montanabw's RfC-specific wording suggestion. Gist: RfCs are used when regular discussion fails to resolve a matter. Also agree that the discussions all tend to be essentially the same, but that's par for the course on a lot of editing matters (see WP:RM, every single day for a dozen different sorts of examples of this phenomenon). When people get tired enough of it – when the community is willing to decide whether or not infoboxes should become a standard feature by default or usually be avoided – then there'll be a big site-wide Village Pump RfC on it, or consensus will just quietly shift, but we don't seem to be there yet. When we are, I would expect some guidance to evolve similar to WP:NAVBOX, with criteria for when to include an i-box and when not, and what should [not] be in it, etc. The Sinatra compromise could be part of such a model, used as an example. What's not acceptable is unilaterally nuking the long-standing Cary Grant infobox on the bogus excuse that was offered for doing so, then editwarring to retain the deletion after multiple editors have objected to the removal (still unresolved last I looked). This "my way or the highway" filibustering behavior needs to put to bed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SchroCat

  • I speak as an editor who is not a member of the classical music project (or any project, given that);
  • There is way too much misleading hyperbole in many of the comments going on ("small walled-gardens"? "infobox-haters"? The obvious accusations of OWNERSHIP - all utter balls: try WP:STEWARDSHIP from those willing to update articles and who safeguard it from vandalism and sub-standard edits, unlike the passing ships of the IB warriors)
  • Much of the misleading hyperbole posted above, may or may not have a grain of true, but if it is, it can be equally applied to both 'sides'. (e.g. "it's been going on for years, and is marked by WP:GREATWRONGS-style campaigning by a handful of editors who hate infoboxes with a passion, but cannot actually defend their position logically or with policy, only ad hominem verbal abuse and WP:FAITACCOMPLI behavior." Spin that round and you'd have exactly the same level of validity in the accusation.)
  • Whereas those who have a more open mind to the inclusion or exclusion of an IB tend not to spend their time sytematically removing IBs, the same cannot be said of those with a less flexible approach do go round adding them in great numbers. This is particularly true of the the hard line of tracking and targetting the articles where the use of the IB has been previously considered.
  • There are 5 million plus articles .en, most of which are in desparate need of work: I am not sure why the same group of people are frequently attending the same articles to force the issue of formatting on the top right-hand corner of articles.

- SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no wish to discuss anything further here with the comments from non-Arbs, particularly given the snide and ill-judged comments of one or two, who bring the luggage of previous and unconnected disputes with them. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis, I am glad you have said that. "I'm not enthusiastic about the idea that the fact of a status quo can be explicitly cited as "consensus" without any actual discussion in support" can equally be applied to a redundant IB that has stood for some time. If there was no "actual discussion" to add a box that is unnecessary, that goes counter to many claims I have seen in many IB discussions and we can happily ignore claims to the contrary.
In terms of any hidden wording, this can simply be tweaked to say "There is no consensus to include an IB on this article..." which is a true reflection of the situation, given what you say. – SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

This situation arises in the context of the law of unintended consequences. Here, the issue was removal of a hidden text comment that had reflected a prior position of a group within the Classical music wikiproject that ultimately resulted in WP:ARBINFOBOX. The comment should have been removed years ago when the decision was handed down, as, to oversimplify, the ArbCom decision clearly held that the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of the classical music projects was, essentially, irrelevant, and that every single article had to make an infobox decision on a case by case basis. So, as RexxS said, while a hidden comment that notes a prior consensus and links to the discussion may be well-advised so as to not waylay an innocent drive-by editor who makes an infobox addition (or removal), to have a general statement of a project "consensus" is clearly contrary to the ArbCom decision.

But, the larger issue is now, in every case where the infobox question is raised, we essentially are having the same argument, over and over again. Even though we are asked to discuss the merits for individual articles on individual merits, the bottom line is that the issues really are almost the same for every article within any given genre, and at the end of the day, it is the same core group of people (I am among that group) with the same basic ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT arguments (each well-reasoned with links), and I haven't seen a new argument anywhere on either side in over two years. It is most unlikely that anyone is going to change their mind.

The problem is that both sides are getting fatigued, and as a result, some people have let their manners slip and are becoming uncivil and at times engaging in personal attacks. While I personally am of the opinion that the incivility problem lies more on one side than the other, I also think that finger-pointing isn't going to help matters here. I only raise it to avoid the false equivalency of the "you are all at fault so I'm just going to give everyone detention and not bother to sort things out" approach that usually settles nothing. Here, as at each article, we need to focus on the issue and not the personalities.

The vast majority of infobox disputes occur in the classical music articles, with a few at an occasional literary article or the occasional movie star biography (notably the Frank Sinatra and Catherine Zeta-Jones FACs). Most often, the dispute begins by someone who posts at talk that they want to add an infobox, or a drive-by editor simply is bold and adds one. Less often, the dispute arises over removal of an infobox, often one that has been there for many years (as in the two actor articles noted here).

Although SMcCandlish suggests discretionary sanctions, I think this can be handled more gently: Enforce existing policy, particularly WP:NPA. The decision can be amended to strongly admonish all users to avoid any personalized comments, to have no personal attacks, and notably to avoid casting aspersions on any other editor. Accusations of any sort of nefarious motives or actions are likewise not helpful; most of us simply have strongly and sincerely held positions on the issue.

The approach of using RfC to conduct these debates might be helpful to bring in non-involved parties, but it would be unwieldy to mandate it in all infobox disputes, as some are not very contentious. Perhaps the decision could be amended along these lines:

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but if we can all just keep it professional, it would go a long way. Each side will win a few and lose a few; occasionally (as at Sinatra) a compromise will be achieved. Maybe someday we will figure out a solution that's a win-win for everyone. And if it works, we can all hire out to go negotiate peace in the Middle East. Montanabw(talk) 17:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olive

I'd suggest that Consensus as described by John Cline here is taken out of context and perhaps misunderstood. The context for "Consensus" is for, if and when normal editing fails, and is further followed by a description of dispute resolution. The reverse is not true, that is, normal editing is a consensus situation and I don't see anything in our policies and guidelines that suggests that it is. We cannot write policy here and I believe the changes suggested would allow editors to argue that any past edit has a consensus, certainly not true in any kind of editing situation.

Do we need some kind of community wide agreement on info boxes that will remedy the same old back and forth I have been watching and involved with in a peripheral way. Yes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Gerda

I said a lot in the RfC already and try to be brief and simple. I think to talk about hidden messages, and if something undiscussed can be a consensus, is curing symptoms. The basic disease is that - for reasons I didn't find in four years - the addition of an infobox is not regarded as the attempt to cater also to certain users (who are sometimes called idiots), but as an attack. (Look at the discussion just on the Holst page to learn more eloquent descriptions such as "the Info-box Panzers".) Many comments on the Holst talk and elsewhere read as if an infobox would take away from the article, while I think it just adds structured information, for those readers who may want it. Compare Drei Chöre, Op. 6. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope: both you and SchroCat link piped to a list which I began during the infoboxes arbcase: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox. It lists articles where infoboxes where reverted, because that is what the case was about (or rather: should have been about). Once started, I kept updating it when I noticed new cases. - A list of "infoboxes added" (but not article names, too many) is a bit higher on the same page: follow the link to an infobox template and click on "What links here", for example for opera. - You say that not every infobox is welcome, yes, sure, then it is amicably discussed and reverted, and I will try to avoid a repeat. It could be so easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Smerus said - and the above link said already: I am a member of QAI. I am also a member of projects Classical music and Opera, where we had a good conversation recently. Smerus will also be able to confirm that I didn't come up with infoboxes for his opera articles, - if I know the preferences of an author I respect them. - Smerus and I have been seen as antagonists in the Infoboxes case, - plain wrong. We share enthusiasm for classical music and collaborate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
back to the request: Voceditenore (who is on vacation this month, so can't speak herself)) said in the discussion on the talk of Opera: "... there is no need for anyone to ask permission to add infoboxes anywhere on Wikipedia ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further down, some members of QAI were mentioned. One member created todays featured article which was then improved to FA status by SchroCat and Tim riley. Another member was named Wikipedian of the Year. Membership has nothing to do with this clarification request ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As SchroCat wrote: the hidden massage could be changed to "There is no consensus to include an IB on this article..." which he called a true reflection of the situation". I agree, but then think we could just drop the message, and leave the process to normal editing, in good faith and without edit war. Adding an infobox to an article that had none is a bold edit, which can be accepted or reverted with the question to discuss. Removing an infobox from an article that had one for a long time is just the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

A few notes:

First is that the Arbitration Committee specifically can neither make nor alter Wikipedia policies. To that end, the statements which appear to delimit WP:CONSENSUS made by the committee should not have been stated as they were, and, in fact, do not make changes to WP:CONSENSUS.

Second is that "solutions in search of a problem" including all "Gordian Knot solutions" are intrinsically a bad idea, and the committee should avoid using them at all, and likely should abrogate all such prior decisions sua sponte.

Third is that once again the issue of whether precedent has any value for the Arbitration Committee is again raised. The committee ought well either adopt some sort of "stare decisis" system, or state that prior decisions have no effect on current decisions. The current "decision by Limbo" system fails.

I note also that, contrary to the "official rules", a great deal of the prior discussion here deals with making claims about motives and behaviour of individual editors, which, as far as I can tell, will help no discussions about "Infoboxen" at all. (vide asides about "infobox haters" etc.) In sad point of fact, no case has been presented here for re-opening the original decision as such.

To that end, the committee should simply state that the principles adopted in any case which refer to any policy do not replace any stated policy, and do not in any way amend any such policy. Collect (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by We hope

I think the issue needs to be reconsidered as the previous case really didn't provide any permanent solutions. The restrictions imposed previously are no longer in effect, but the problem continues. A discussion about an infobox for Gustav Holst spilled over to my talk page recently, where I stated my beliefs.

I don't see a group of editors going through Wikipedia removing infoboxes because they don't like them or starting discussions at talk pages of articles they don't normally edit for removal of the article infobox. However, I have seen people adding them without a thought for prior consensus, old discussions about it being revived and some editors of articles need to discuss the issue over and over again. I also don't see those who don't care for infoboxes keeping an organized list of articles where infoboxes have been added, but there is one for those which have been removed.

Everyone isn't pleased to see the infobox; the continuance of discussion on top of discussion at certain articles is disruptive because no one can do much that's productive; time is being taken up by the need to discuss the subject of whether article X should or should not have an infobox. As long as infoboxes are optional, those who elect not to include them in articles should not be repeatedly involved in defending their choice. We hope (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support statement & suggestion by Laser brain. The running discussion about the late, lamented infobox at Josephine Butler is a good example of how protracted these discussions can be. The first post in the "Infobox" section was 18 May when it was removed. The last posts about it were yesterday, 9 August. The article has been extensively improved and is now at Peer Review; it's likely to go to FAC thereafter. If Josephine Butler becomes a FA, given the history of these discussions, it will not be the end of them. We hope (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And once more, the infobox issue has followed me to my talk page. We hope (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tim riley

The comment by We hope, above, seems to me very much to the point. The present brouhaha arises because a group of editors, mostly known for insisting on info-boxes in all articles, have descended en masse on featured (and other) articles in which few of them, if any, have shown any previous interest. They demand a box. Full stop. Those, like me, who think boxes are excellent for some articles but not all, cannot I believe be similarly charged with invading established articles to which we do not contribute, demanding the removal of i-bs. My view is that where there is a discernible status quo and general practice – for or against an i-b – it should not be overturned without consensus. Tim riley talk 16:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smerus

This amendment request is headed 'infoboxes'. But the proposals of John Cline (save for the third) do not mention infoboxes. All three proposals simply seek to demote the priority of polite discussion in the editing process. I infer that John Cline feels that polite discussion is somehow out of place or of secondary importance when infoboxes are an issue. I cannot concur. Polite discussion should be at the heart of all editing issues where there is principled disagreement. --Smerus (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as regards transparency: I am a member of WP:Classical Music and WP:Opera. Messrs. Arendt, McCandlish and Montanabw are members of WP:QAI. I can't speak for other editors here.--Smerus (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Laser brain

@Opabinia regalis: Every time someone decides to turn an article into a proxy battleground for the infobox war, the real losers are content contributors. The hapless editors of the page have their watchlist constantly lit up, and good editors have to stop building content to go argue about something. From my perspective, if Wikipedia loses out on any well-written content because of this dispute (and people on both sides produce excellent content), then we have an opportunity to do something to prevent disruption. The community has already proven unable to handle this situation, which is why infoboxes have been before ArbCom. I would encourage an amendment allowing discretionary sanctions for this conflict area. That way if someone behaves badly in this domain, other editors can file a report at AE and it can be dealt with. --Laser brain (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes: Clerk notes

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

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I am pretty behind on ARCA, but on looking this one over I noticed that the original request appears to be about whether hidden text can be used to advise editors about infobox use on an article when the matter has never been discussed for that specific article. A great deal of the text in the comments that follow is more about infobox use in general, which seems to be the actual (continued) area of dispute. I'm still thinking if there's anything useful we can do here, but on a first look, I'm not enthusiastic about the idea that the fact of a status quo can be explicitly cited as "consensus" without any actual discussion in support, even in something as minor as a hidden text comment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=733853737"