Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- 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. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
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:
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions | 10 May 2024 | 0/4/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: The Rambling Man | Motion | (orig. case) | 25 July 2017 |
| Amendment request: Eastern Europe | none | (orig. case) | 26 August 2017 |
| Amendment request: Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015) | Motion | none | 9 September 2017 |
| Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 | none | (orig. case) | 15 September 2017 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
Amendment request: The Rambling Man
Initiated by Dweller at 14:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Dweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Replace "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors" with "The Rambling Man is prohibited from making personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians"
Statement by Dweller
Since the Arbcom case, TRM has been approached from time to time by editors and administrators who have warned him, taken him to AE or even blocked him over breaching remedy 4 of the case. It is my belief that at least some of these approaches have been 100% in good faith, nonetheless, some have undoubtedly been problematic and they are having an unfortunate impact.
It seems to me that the vague wording you applied is having an unintentional effect. It gives license to users to wave the banhammer at TRM for too wide a range of wording. Pretty much anything other than the meekest and mildest behaviour can be cast in these terms. For an example, please see this warning, which was definitely made in good faith but the community strongly disagreed with, and the filing editor himself has agreed was incorrect.
I agree with the comments on TRM's usertalk that we shouldn't expect him to behave better than others, including admins who feel free to use appalling language without of being warned or blocked. And the constant hauling over the coals must be very wearing.
The standard for behaviour on Wikipedia is WP:CIVIL and this policy applies to all, whether ArbCom targets or vested administrators. I'd suggest that you focus the problematic remedy on the policy language at Wikipedia:Civility#No_personal_attacks_or_harassment: "Editors are expected to avoid ." as far too much can be construed (especially by anyone with an axe to grind, which has happened) as "belittling" or "insulting".
It is worth noticing that "belittling and insulting" is dealt with in CIVIL. As is using foul and abusive language, which TRM doesn't do, but has received. It's right there, in the messy section that begins "It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not", and that half sentence is all you need to understand why it is everyone ignores it, including successive ArbComs who've danced around thorny CIVIL cases for years and years.
TRM is worn out by ArbCom processes and has little faith in you, but I am an undying optimist. I hope you will agree to consider and then agree to this request. I also hope I've not broken this insanely tricky template --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller specifically not. My point is that the language there includes matters that Wikipedia seems to tolerate, (ie "rudeness") from admins and in ArbCom cases over the years, or find difficult to define (ie "belittling"). I'm very happy for you guys to open a big case and work out how you're going to untangle years of neglect of CIVIL, but this is a simple suggestion that limits the remedy to "harrassment" and "insulting", which we understand well and police ish well. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Reply Opabinia regalis and GorillaWarfare. You say that the wording I suggest won't help with curbing the "annoying" behaviour of TRM, but I'd say that your current wording is equally unhelpful, but worse it has negatives on top, being unclear, too broad, and setting parameters easily gamed by those with an agenda. On the basis of do no harm, you might therefore be better off revoking the measure altogether.
- Those advocating pointing to CIVIL more generally should be aware that doing so takes us out of the frying pan and into the fire, as it takes the too broad parameters and makes them even broader! The terms that I'm objecting to here (and I'm getting some resonance from you and others) are included in CIVIL: they're right there, in the part that everyone, including Arbcom, traditionally totally ignores.
- Yes, the community needs to get to grips with CIVIL, but that has been the case since I first starting editing 12 years ago and I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. I will happily start an RfC but we all know how easy it is to keep an RfC on long-established policy on-track, focussed and with a useful outcome.
- If there's no Arbcomese that deals properly with the 'disruption' caused by TRM, don't legislate for it. Or take a closer look at it and find specific language. Or go for my suggestion. Don't leave it in a bad state... or make it worse.
- Oh, and of course, I support the Motion, as it is precisely what I suggested at the start of this, in your insanely tricky template, above, if you remove the reference to incivility, with it's wikilink to the broad CIVIL policy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare the answer to your question to The Wordsmith is in the whole of what I have written above these words. CIVIL is completely broken and has been through the entirety of my time on Wikipedia. I explain why above. I hope to do something about that, but a) it won't be fast and b) even I, the eternal optimistic, is pessimistic about the chances of success. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Opabinia regalis perhaps a good step then would be to just remove this remedy altogether. I think you're right, it doesn't lend itself to Arbcomese, it's not easy for good faith admins to interpret, it's easy for bad faith admins and editors to game, and perhaps, just perhaps, this small concession from ArbCom to TRM would see him respond in kind, as I think (my words not his, and apologies, TRM for putting words in your mouth) he feels thoroughly badly treated by ArbCom over a period of some years, which really hasn't helped things. TRM already knows, with or without this remedy, that significant 'bad behaviour' will lead to hefty further measures by ArbCom so perhaps you have little to lose and much to gain. Even TRM's greatest critic has to see what a tremendous asset he is to the community. In his early days, his perception by the community was such that he flew past RfA and RfB. That person isn't a changeling. What's changed is that bad blood in various areas has soured relationships. We're not so flush with editors that we can lose mediocre ones, let alone good ones. How about trying to turn this round? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- In a case where the Arbs want to point someone to WP:CIVIL, arbitrator Opabinia regalis is flagrantly breaching WP:CIVIL. If this doesn't tell you all you need to know about how useless and broken CIVIL is then nothing will. If you make this remedy point to CIVIL broadly, TRM could and would be blocked by an admin or hauled off to AE for making a comment like Opabinia's. Ridiculous. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Arbs, given that the problems you're trying to address are not about incivility, given that TRM is the frequent recipient of unpunished incivility and given that WP:CIVIL is a horrible mess, why mention it in your motion? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Arbcom. Please read SMcCandlish's words at least twice. It's about the wisest thing I've read on any Arbitration page, ever. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Recent contributions have suggested simply scrapping this clause, rather than replacing it. I'm persuaded. Suggested options are all flawed, although not as bad as the original. There seems to be consensus that things have improved and I think toning down the Arbcom rhetoric on this user can only help. Delete it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement by The Rambling Man
Yes, what Dweller said. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, one more thing. I'm happy to always comply with WP:CIVIL (as all editors are bound to do so), I'm not sure why that needs explicit statement. When admins are immune to any kind of admonishment when telling me "fuck you" or calling me "asshole" or calling me a liar across multiple venues on Wikipedia, it leaves me completely impotent to do anything. Even when requesting Arbcom's input on a previous IBAN, I was simply blocked without any kind of communication whatsoever, despite the original email about the issue being instigated by me. That's not "arbitration", it's "punishment". I am out of faith with this committee, I do believe they are avoiding the issues I've raised (some of which are still outstanding, e.g. including abuse of oversight), but all I'm asking for is a level playing field when it comes to discussion. Find a diff where I told someone they were an "asshole" or told them "fuck you" or told them they were a detriment to Wikpiedia or told them they were an "outright liar". I can give you diffs, from admins, directed at me, that have been accepted (or are under scrutiny) by Arbcom and the rest of the community. I know I'm an outcast, but a right to reply should be something that Arbcom works hard to preserve. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I warned Dweller that this would probably be a fool's errand, especially given how precious his time on Wikipedia is right now. It appears that Arbcom are using this appeal to actually make matters worse. The very fact that two members of the current "active" Arbcom have admitted to the edits I have apparently made as being "annoying" (rather than blockable) sums it all up perfectly. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Dweller I suggest you withdraw this, as it's clear that Arbcom aren't interested in making actual progress here, it's just being used as another opportunity to berate me. Which is both harmful and a waste of everyone's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's pretty clear this is now a waste of time, as with most dealings with Arbcom. Wrestling with a convoluted yet objective wording on how best to enable admins to block me is proving impossible, OR now suggests that I shouldn't question the competence of other editors, yet (ironically) I had to question the competence of an admin at ANI where there was near-unanimous support for his desysopping, but of course, that can't happen because Arbcom are the only people who can sanction such a decision. This committee is the weakest I have seen for a decade, that they need to file a case to find that an admin who ardently refuses to comply with WP:ADMINACCT is astonishing, the evidence is there, it's been there since April. This amendment is going south, and users like OR are simply using it as an opportunity to stab at me again and again, and provide no actual useful remedy. Bring on the Arbcom elections, I have so much to provide our editors. Any one for oversight? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Mkdw this is being closed because.... Arbs can't be bothered to contribute? Why do we have them? There have been a number of calls now to remove the restriction altogether yet no Arbs are bothered to even respond. What's the point of this process if even the Arbs themselves are shirking their position? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Mkdw this isn't good enough. There's been virtually no real input from the Arbs here, no actual effort made to look at all the proposals. Even in recent days there have been several calls to remove the restriction yet that has received no attention whatsoever from any Arb. Am I to believe therefore that this sanction is indefinite and cannot ever be overturned or modified simply because of the intransigence of the committee? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Gorilla Warfare a few folks have expressed concern that we'll try to further restrict TRM in this ARCA. I personally don't intend to do that (and it doesn't seem like other arbs really do either) apparently that is actually far from the truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis so you want The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence., does that mean I can't discuss the incompetence or general dereliction of duty of rogue admins or Arbs? Or do I have to take any discussion I wish to have about the behaviour of such rogue admins and Arbs to ANI each and every time? Could you please clarify that? It's very important because I have a lot to discuss about the current committee's inabilities (both collectively and individually, including abuse of position) and I don't want to be summarily blocked in case it's deemed an infringement of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Banedon
This was something I had doubts about during the case. After all, we're all bound by WP:CIVIL, so what's the point of "TRM is prohibited from ___"? It's already implicit in WP:CIVIL. Why not tie the clause to WP:CIVIL directly -
4) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is reminded that WP:CIVIL applies to all editors, under all circumstances.
If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to violate WP:CIVIL, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does violate WP:CIVIL, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
Banedon (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support OR's wording, which I think is extremely well worded. If someone is opposing that wording I'd like to know why. Banedon (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement by BU Rob13
I have no comment on this request, just a question that I think the Committee must answer before proceeding. Public policy works well when it tries to achieve a clearly defined goal. The same applies to ArbCom remedies. What is the goal you're trying to achieve here? In particular, is it compliance with WP:CIVIL or something beyond that? I think you'll have a much easier time crafting an appropriate remedy once you answer that. ~ Rob13Talk 06:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Based on Opabinia regalis' comment, I have to add that the Committee should consider what remedies administrators can effectively enforce and whether an alternative venue is appropriate (such as ARCA) for enforcing a remedy that goes unenforced by the community. User_talk:The_Rambling_Man#Your_ArbCom_restriction is relevant, especially the comment claiming the remedy wasn't intended to be enforced against anything other than "personal attacks" and "aggressive and harshly personal comments". Whether or not this was your intent, that's how admins are enforcing it. The few that are interpreting the remedy as OR intended it to be interpreted are severely pressured to change their thinking. ~ Rob13Talk 18:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Statement by The Wordsmith
I absolutely endorse this request. After the last incident for which TRM was blocked, people began to understand that the restriction itself was too vague and open to interpretation, both by TRM and by others. I advised TRM that he should consider it to mean that he shouldn't discuss "the suspected motives or competence of other editors", and he hasn't been blocked for it since then. However, the proposed wording here is also fine with me.
Vague notions such as insulting or belittling have been misinterpreted multiple times, both unintentionally and (I suspect) intentionally at times by some with longstanding grudges against TRM. Directly tying it to NPA and WP:HARASSMENT at least gives us solid definitions to work with that have lots of precedent. It also makes it clear that he is not being held to a higher standard than the people who interact with him, which would probably reduce the likelihood of another incident like previous occurrences of admins personally attacking him with impunity, then him being blocked when he responds in kind. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Arbs: I believe the new motion is actually worse and would be more heavily abused. As it is, TRM can defend himself when making the occasional mildly snarky comment because it is not insulting or belittling to a specific editor. Including wholesale incivility would strip him of that defense, and would mean that his blunt and to-the-point comments that he doesn't dress up in flowery prose could (and will, by those with a grudge) be construed as mild incivility. This is an insane standard that we would never hold anybody else to. If we did then everybody in this thread, including the entire Arbitration Committee, would be indeffed by now. The WordsmithTalk to me 12:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: By linking it to WP:CIVIL, you're (intentionally or not) making a statement that the things in WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL are sanctionable for TRM. This includes things like "rudeness (often mistaken for bluntness)" and judgmental edit summaries/talk page posts (which aren't necessarily directed at an identifiable editor). All established editors sometimes get mildly snarky, especially in edit summaries and talk pages. This is a standard that has not ever been enforced among the general population during my tenure on Wikipedia, so to attempt to broaden the sanction (again, knowingly or otherwise) to include these things, when it was asked that the sanction be narrowed, is unreasonable. The WordsmithTalk to me 08:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Davey2010
I've disagreed with the wording for a very long time - As noted above it's way too vague so it essentially means he can be reported for absolutely anything even for comments that are in no way personal attacks or belittling, The current wording also gives those with a grudge against TRM an excuse to drag him at Arbcom and constantly block him for no reason at all so I fully agree with the proposed wording. –Davey2010Talk 13:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC) (Updated 11:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC))
Statement by EdChem
I am grateful to Dweller for beginning this request. This remedy has been misapplied at times and been needs clarification. What it does not need is to be expanded by reference to WP:CIVIL so that TRM is at the mercy of the most trigger-happy ultra-uptight admin whose idea of incivility is way out of line with community values and common sense, all protected by the power of AE to prevent the timely reversal of an over-the-top decision.
TRM has a history of unhelpful and pointed posts, certainly at DYK. I believe these have markedly reduced since the decision, and keeping the limitation on the problematic behaviour, as the original form of the motion did, was appropriate. Turning it into a broader-than-present wording not only ignores what Dweller is requesting, it is difficult to see as anything but deliberately punishing TRM for the request having been made.
Oshwah made a mistake in the recent warning, and had the character to recognise when the views of others disagreed and offered an apology. Some admins, who decide to police TRM with all the subtlety and nuance of a certain recently-former White House Communications Director, are not helping TRM or WP, and ArbCom further empowering them would be to the manifest detriment of WP and TRM. TRM is like a work colleague many of us have encountered, who can be brusque, direct, and blunt, who many wish would curb his words, but who is also usually right. His behaviour has improved and that should be recognised and appreciated. He was previously pushing towards a ban, his problematic comments are much reduced, please, ArbCom, please don't take an action the rest of us will regret.
Inconsistent views and actions on civility are a major problem on WP, and we all know it. Coming up with a policy that make sense is beyond ArbCom's remit and beyond the community's ability, sadly. But, knowing it is dysfunctional and that the present restriction is not working, changing the restriction to point to that known dysfunction would be irresponsible. It makes further conflict inevitable, wastes everyone's time, and generates ill-will. EdChem (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
PS: Addressing a couple of specific comments...
@Doug Weller: of course TRM and every other editor is bound by the civility policy, and he is required to stay within the general bounds by which we are all constrained. However, naming WP:CIVIL in a modification would bind TRM (or any editor in a similar circumstance) to the standards of the most uptight and block-happy admin, backed by AE unquestionability. That is not asking that he comply with the civility policy, it's painting a target on him and making him wear a cap with a flashing sign that reads "shoot on the slightest deviation from hyper-civility, for protection from consequences ring 1-800-Arb-Com". If you believe you must remind TRM of WP:CIVIL, please please please restrict it to comments on the motion and not within the motion itself, because in the comments its a reminder and in the motion it goes from OR's stick to more like a semi-automatic machine gun.
@Opabinia regalis: I am one of the editors who has received snarky comments from TRM, and one who has commented critically to him at times. If approached as an intelligent colleague and taken seriously, a useful discussion can be had and civil disagreement is possible. Approaching him with snark is unwise, as it will likely be returned with interest. I have to agree that TRM can be, and has been, really goddamn annoying... but in this request, you have no one saying that has become worse, and me (at least) saying there has been substantial improvement. If you respond with a broadening of the restriction, how should that be interpreted?
Subsequent comments in reply to specific questions from Arbitrators Doug Weller and Opabinia regalis
Doug, I appreciate the follow-up question and have been wondering about how to reply, especially in light of further comments from OR. My reply here is meant for you both (and anyone else interested, obviously) as I have formed a hypothesis that I hope explains our divergent viewpoints. Feel free to correct me, obviously, if this does not resonate for either of you. Some comments, and particularly those from OR, appear to reflect the situation as it was at the end of the case. OR says that: TRM makes frequent comments that are, to varying degrees, barbed, snide, condescending, and self-righteous, and while no individual post reaches the level of a clearly blockable "personal attack", the comments are collectively really goddamn annoying.
As someone who has criticised TRM at times, I can only agree that this has been a problem, but one that has decreased significantly. This request was started by Dweller addressing overly zealous / aggressive policing of TRM nearly two weeks ago, and yet no one has made a comment arguing about continued comments from TRM such as OR has described as being a problem.
The case was closed nearly 10 months ago and the Enforcement log shows a warning on December 1, 2016 which was struck as a misunderstanding, and a 3 day block on December 14, 2016, which was overturned as hasty and involved and a warning substituted. An AE block for a month was imposed on March 5, 2017, and reduced to a week on appeal as having a justified basis but as being overly harsh. The AE admin fully protected TRM's talk page, an action overturned within two hours and criticised as overzealous enforcement. Discussions occurred at AN, Bishonen's user talk page, and an extensive WP:A/R/CA discussion. Despite the activity, we are talking about a grand total of one justified sanction and a week's block. It's also worth noting AE requests closed as "No action required", "Complete waste of time", and as "Utter nonsense and a waste of time". TRM's block log shows a recent (unlogged) block for an iBAN violation, unrelated to the topic here. To me, all this shows, when coupled with warnings like the recent one from Oshwah, shows over-eager administrator actions and harassment of TRM by editors seeking to weaponise the ArbCom sanctions. My hypothesis, though, is that OR and some others are seeing the situation as it was at the end of the case, with suggestions from Dweller and others of problematic behaviour being predictions rather than observations, and comments from editors like me as to TRM's improved behaviour as being inconsistent with your existing perceptions. OR, TRM's self-regulation has improved, and your comment that I am behaving like a child is both unjustified and offensive.
More generally, we have an existing remedy which has had unintended effects, we have an editor whose actions have improved but is also clearly being monitored closely, we have one valid action under the remedy (the non-iBAN) part, we have an undisputed community request for the unintended effects to be addressed and advising the proposal will be gamed, and we have arbitrators concerned that the behaviour that was seen as problematic is unaddressed by either form. The obvious approach to me would be to draft an entirely new remedy with a focus on sequences of comments amounting to snark or whatever and not creating the opportunities for the most conservative view on civility / whatever to prevail. Perhaps something like:
Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.
- If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.
- If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
is amended to read
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has, at times, made individual comments or series of comments which belittle or insult other editors, and such actions are inconsistent with collaboration and are prohibited. The Rambling Man is reminded that he is expected to conform to the same standards of behaviour as all other editors, and advised to disengage and either let a matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve, rather than to engage in prohibited behaviour. Speculations on the motivations of editors or reflections on general competence of editors or administrators can easily become insulting and are generally inadvisable; The Rambling Man is reminded that comments which focus on edits rather than editors are often a wiser choice.
- If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in belittling or insulting editing, especially with comments that amount to personal attacks or harassment (in either single edits or across a series of edits), he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. As the first block under this provision occurred under the original form of this remedy, the next three blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the previous text shall remain in force. At the time of passing of this motion, the block counter relating to this remedy stands at 1.
Obviously, the views of Dweller and The Rambling Man are important on how this version might be seen as well as the views of Arbitrators. My idea was to add OR's concerns about series of edits, but also to codify that the standards applying to TRM are the same as for everyone else (to discourage action that would never be taken against another editor) and to offer some constructive advice. EdChem (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: This post of yours begins by directing it to myself and The Wordsmith, it concludes that "everybody" (not TRM specifically, but everybody) should "act like grownups," and it has the edit summary "re edchem + wordsmith". I think interpreting your "everybody act like grownups" comment on childish behaviour as including (inter alia) The Wordsmith and myself is a reasonable reading, and whatever your intent, I don't think it reads as a comment only on TRM. In fact, if it was meant to imply childish behaviour from some of those who have made some of the spurious AE filings against him, then I would have to agree that TRM has been being treated poorly and provoked, which is another reason the gaming of this restriction requires action.
I'm glad to see that you liked part of my summary and agree that those sorts of comments from TRM or anyone else tend to be unhelpful. Part of my point, though, was that these types of comments have been much reduced at DYK and ERRORS and ITN/C. You reference the WT:ACN discussion from late May / early June, but that was hardly representative of his more general editing. Please bear in mind that ArbCom had just banned him from discussing Bishonen, who he sees as an exemplar of the abusive admin problem on WP. (For the record, I have considerable respect for Bishonen and though I agree with TRM that there are some abusive admins and getting things done about poor admins is exceptionally difficult, I don't agree with him that Bishonen is a major problem.) ArbCom's handling of the subsequent discussion was not good, in my view, and I was certainly not convinced by the arguments made. That TRM has a poor opinion of ArbCom and expressed it is not news, nor is it really surprising that he vented in that circumstance. I cannot say that everything he said was justified / appropriate, but equally I think it is unfair if ArbCom takes that discussion as typical of his recent posts in areas where his behaviour has previously been contentious. Surely if there was a pile of recent diffs fitting the pattern you describe, theywould have been posted at AE or here by someone. Instead, you have a request to address a problem with the remedy you crafted where no one has yet posted disagreement with the basic request Dweller has made. Despite this, and even following the recent comment from GorillaWarfare, I am concerned that either nothing will be done or that any change made will be equally vulnerable to being weaponised by those wanting to see TRM banned from Wikipedia. In my suggestion, I tried to provide framing to clarify what the remedy is meant to address. There are surely other options to craft something that is clear in intent, constrains the problematic comments (which I believe have been much reduced), and doesn't require more of TRM than is the common behavioural standards to which we all (hopefully) endeavour to abide. EdChem (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Guerillero
@Callanecc: Aren't reminders unenforceable by sysops? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Black Kite
I am a bit concerned by Opabinia's alternative motion. TRM does a lot of work at places like ERRORS and DYK where (by the very nature of those pages) such work involves pointing out errors and - sometimes, although it's better than it used to be - complete nonsense that is either on, or due to appear on, the Main Page. It is not a stretch to think that at some point an editor whose contributions are being criticised may stretch that to "hey, you're commenting on my competence, you're not allowed to do that". People do - naturally - often react poorly to their work being criticised, however valid those criticisms might be. Surely any restriction needs to be focused on attacks on editors, not edits. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish
Support, though fix the grammar, e.g. to "engaging in personal attacks against or harassment of other Wikipedians". "Making ... harassment" isn't idiomatic in English, nor is "attacks ... of" [in this sense]. "And" and "or" are not synonyms; using "and" here gives the unintended meaning "both of those things at once, not just one of them".
I thought the original "insulting and/or belittling" wording of the remedy was too vague and gameable from day one. I say this as someone who supported some kind of action in the original case, having been on the receiving end of TRM's historical incivility more than once. However, the remedies do appear to be punitive and unfair in actual practice at this point. And TRM's behavior has actually been markedly remedied anyway. It's not the intent of decisions like this to be permanent scarlet letters, or shackles; they're to address a problem until it's addressed. If there's a concern the proposed change is too narrow, include "incivility toward"; CIVIL, NPA, and HARASS are all policies that apply to all of us anyway. The community knows what they mean, and that their application in a remedy means "you've transgressed in this direction before, have some strikes against you, and thus will be held to a high standard henceforth". But the community (or its admin subset) is not going to consistently interpret ArbCom-invented, undefined standards like those in the original remedy.
"Insulting and/or belittling" is just radically subjective. Many people feel insulted any time someone contradicts them and points out logic holes in their arguments. Many feel belittled when their real-world credentials are not considered equivalent to reliable sources. I feel insulted and belittled every single time an OWNish or TAGTEAMy editor in a content dispute suggests my viewpoint should be discounted because I'm not a regular editor of that article. The average liberal feels insulted and belittled every time a conservative dismisses their viewpoint as liberal bias, and vice versa, even when it clearly is.
A remedy that effectively makes someone defenseless against verbal attacks will inspire more of them, inevitably. A remedy for one editor being verbally combative that empowers many more editors to be verbally combative toward that one, because he's trussed up, is no remedy for anything, but a baby-with-the-bathwater worsening of the original situation.
Finally, please keep in mind that having WP:HOTHEAD tendencies (I would know) isn't in and of itself a WP:COMPETENCE failure; it's a habitual set of responses that can be moderated, just like other habits that are unhelpful at WP (carelessness with facts, officiousness, hyperbole and histrionics, forgetting to punctuate, sarcasm and faux-civility, etc.). TRM is already showing this self-moderation.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- My peanut gallery perspective on the alternative proposal is it's better than the extant remedy, though it still has the flaw of also being made-up ArbCom-ese. At least the bit about assuming motives is one that's been used before, and the one about reflections on competence isn't as vague as "insulting and/or belittling". Neither of these are very hard to abide by, though it takes some practice (and helping others do it with regard to both is, entirely coincidentally, the exact subject of the WP:HOTHEADS essay I wrote.)
That said, I've reviewed the recentish background since the original case, and I see a) TRM showing contrition and reasonableness, thereby getting a three-way IBAN lifted unanimously at ANI; b) a way-calmer approach in general with other editors by and large; c) lots of productivity, despite d) frequent unaddressed verbal attacks/harassment against him; e) an attempt to drag him into a case about someone else (the old-time admin returning from a CBAN, I forget the name), and f) an extremely mysterious dispute which the community response so far indicates raises more concerns about ArbCom than about either party. Even if that last really does involve some kind of horrendous flamewar between the two editors and it's so crude no one should ever look at it, that's an isolated personality dispute, and isn't a "TRM is disrupting WP" matter. The fact that he's so vocally pissed off at ArbCom about this fiasco maybe has a bit of a "mooning the jury" quixotic element to it, but everyone has limits, and this ire is very localized, seeming to have no effect on his encyclopedia work.
I have to question the idea of any of these remedies remaining. What exactly are they preventing? He's already been desysopped, and subject to a hell of a public pillorying, so what's the point? TRM has clearly received the message, in his everyday activity here; ANI supported easing restrictions on him; and he's only being hotheaded about what he perceives as his treatment in this venue and by people connected to it as members or enforcers. I've been in an eerily similar boat, many years ago, including getting no recourse from the focused hostility of a clique of "Judge Dredd" AE admins, but a pile of additional sanctions for things no one else would have been sanctioned for, just because I'd ever gotten one; until a third party intervened and filed a motion on my (and some others') behalf a year+ after it all started, with barely any relief emerging from that. So, I sympathize very directly and more than I came here ever expecting to (while, like TRM in his case, conceding my own fault in and growth since mine). I have to wonder: why is this stonewall pattern repeating, pretty much down to the last detail? I'm sure the ArbCom work is challenging, including trying to deal with the mistakes of previous ArbComs, but repeating one of them as if following a playbook doesn't seem like a good plan.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Mr Ernie
This relatively simple issue has been open for quite a while now. It does not seem like Arbcom will be able to provide a workable update, so I suggest to simply abolish the sanction per WP:TNT. Numerous others have pointed out the problems with it. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- There has not really been any substantive comments from Arbs regarding this issue for quite some time now. I'm respectfully asking the Arbs to please come together to resolve this issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- User:Mkdw Why not close this by removing the restriction? Many other editors have described the problems with it - just get rid of it. If issues arise later, than can be dealt with. A close with no action doesn't really help anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- User:Mkdw Thanks for the response. So we're going to keep an unclear and relatively unenforceable (most arbs already commented that the sanction should be covered by the normal CIVIL or NPA policies) sanction that makes it easy to bait a productive editor? Personally, I can't understand why - but that's why they pay you guys the big bucks. Maybe just propose the deletion via WP:TNT and see what happens. At least this way we'll get a clear picture of which arbs in particular prefer to keep TRM under a sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- User:Mkdw Why not close this by removing the restriction? Many other editors have described the problems with it - just get rid of it. If issues arise later, than can be dealt with. A close with no action doesn't really help anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
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.
The Rambling Man: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Pending comments from TRM and other arbs, but I think this change is a good idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Dweller's points are well noted, and I cannot see anything that I disagree with in that regard. Indeed belittling and insulting should be covered under the standard NPA policy and I take no exception to rewording as per Callanecc's suggestion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm also happy with Callanecc's suggestion. As I understand it, this would mean that he is prohibited from making any edit covered at Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Dweller: I agree broadly with Opabinia regalis's comments and think that if we are going to remind TRM that incivility is prohibited that that still means that he is prohibited from making any edit covered at Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility. I can't see why we should water that down. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- @EdChem: I take your point. But I can't support Callanecc's motion as it stands. Have you a suggestion that meets the concerns below? Doug Weller talk 16:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Dweller: I agree broadly with Opabinia regalis's comments and think that if we are going to remind TRM that incivility is prohibited that that still means that he is prohibited from making any edit covered at Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility. I can't see why we should water that down. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- The issue of WP:CIVIL must be decided by the community should they desire changes or modifications to close any gap that may exist between the wording and community accepted norms and practices. In terms of the ArbCom remedy regarding TRM, I believe it exceeds the expectations of the policy and enforces a more strict code of conduct on TRM than intended. CIVIL has been brought up several times in the statements above. It may be worth including in any adjustment (since it already covers harassment and NPA), while ensuring the wording avoids any compounding restrictions. Mkdw talk 15:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Only inconsequential aspects of the situation were discussed at WT:ACN. I am not surprised that anyone's review of that discussion would be unsatisfying. A conclusion (albeit not resolution) occurred only thru the private dialogue between the parties involved, and not public disclosure or discussion.
- The inequities some editors experience on Wikipedia are certainly apparent and can be unfair. The systems we have in place for handling disputes often fail with respect to consistency. The inherent problems of a policy or community to follow through on enforcement are not going to be resolved in a remedy against one editor. It only creates an argument for more rigidity rather than leniency. The "same standards of behaviour as all other editors" is an impossible qualitative requirement or criteria to assess. It will create the same problems with discretionary interpretation as occurred with the wording "belittle". I don't want ArbCom creating new codes of conduct on an editor-by-editor basis. Mkdw talk 19:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: There's no consensus to even modify the language with respect to easing it; there is even less of a chance of a committee consensus towards outright removal. Mkdw talk 18:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: It is certainly not what I was hoping for either. I already put forward a proposal that was a compromise between the original request and comments made by the community and committee. It did not gain any traction. There is no point on putting forward yet another proposal that will obviously fail. I would even suggest it would gain even less support than the other failed proposals. This conversation has been going on for months and removal was eliminated from consideration early on as some deemed it a step backwards and worse than the status quo. Additionally, there's much more support to simply withdraw the request despite it being without progress. Mkdw talk 19:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm proposing the request be closed because no progress is being made -- something observed by multiple editors including yourself. If people want to keep it open, I'm not opposed to that either. There is no consensus even among participants. The issue of consensus is not currently being blocked by quorum. The idea of removing the remedy altogether is a step in the opposition direction from the views of the opposing side. It's not surprising it was met by little or no discussion. I would expect a comment proposing the remedy be strengthened and made more ambiguous would also not receive a meaningful dialogue. The point should be to find a compromise where both sides give -- not fail to compromise and then propose something even further a part. Mkdw talk 20:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for being so late to the party here, but Dweller's proposal (and thus Callanecc's motion) doesn't quite work for me. I understand the problem with the current wording; arbcom remedies aren't meant to be sticks to beat their subjects with (and the original source of the "insulting and/or belittling" wording didn't have great success either). It is true that warnings and blocks have a way of becoming self-reinforcing - "He's been blocked so often, he must be really awful!" - and that cycle is both unpleasant and difficult to break. But the specific proposed change doesn't quite cover the problem at hand IMO. For one thing, personal attacks and harassment are already prohibited, for everyone. Yes, people differ in what they think falls in those categories, and enforcement varies even for clear-cut cases, but it seems like that particular rewording would just be creating the same situation this is trying to avoid - singling TRM out for extra-special enforcement. More substantively, the specific problem with TRM's behavior hasn't really been about personal attacks or harassment, and thus making that change significantly affects the scope of the remedy. The problem is that TRM makes frequent comments that are, to varying degrees, barbed, snide, condescending, and self-righteous, and while no individual post reaches the level of a clearly blockable "personal attack", the comments are collectively really goddamn annoying. In short TRM violates FidoNet Rule 1, "Thou shalt not excessively annoy others", and the fact that others around him are violating Rule 2, "Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed", only partially mitigates the issue. Unfortunately I don't know how to write "be less annoying" in arbcomese. I believe the underlying problem is a bad case of Someone is wrong on the Internet! - but arbcom has not historically been very effective with that issue. "Every time you make a snarky comment, any editor may respond in full by posting beneath it one (1) image of a hissing cat"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- TRM, if you read my post and what you got out of it was "ha! she said I wasn't doing anything blockable!" then I do not know what to tell you. I normally try to avoid comparing editors' behavior to that of children, but I can't think of a better analogy - you are behaving like the stereotypical bratty little brother who plays the "I'm not touching yoooou!" game in the back seat of the family minivan, with his hand an inch from his sister's face, and when she finally loses it and smacks him, he moans and whines - "Help, help, she hit me! I think my finger's broken! Moooooom! She hit me! ...What do you mean, 'Don't bother her and you won't get hit'? Are you saying it's worse to bother someone than to hit them? She was violent! This is child abuse! Why aren't you punishing her??? Mooooooooooooooom!" (The copyright police will come after me if I link it, but Google the "I'm not touching you!" scene from Lilo and Stitch for a good example of this game.) The TRM case last year was filed in early September, so we're coming up on a full year of attempts to prompt some kind of effective introspection or self-regulation. I don't know what happened to the guy who did some honest self-reflection and posted this request two years ago, but more of that would go a long way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- EdChem and Wordsmith, I'm not quite sure what you mean... in my view the defect in the motion, regardless of whether it mentions WP:CIVIL or not, is that it requires an admin to assert that individual examples of this annoying behavior are uncivil/a personal attack/harassment in order to implement a sanction, which is worse because it could appear to set a broader precedent when the problem is really quite specific. The best solution is for TRM to self-regulate his own behavior, or maybe commit to immediate withdrawal from any conversation when someone he trusts tells him to quit. What I think would work isn't actually something arbcom can do - that is, firm message discipline on the part of those who interact with him. When he says something snarky, just ignore him. Don't post "please remember to be WP:CIVIL!", don't put warnings on his talk page, don't take him to AE, don't even save the diff in your offline "Misbehavior by my wiki-enemies" folder. You thought you heard a funny noise in the distance, but it turned out it was nothing, so you just carried on your conversation with the other people in the discussion. And if he says something useful and reasonable, even if it's negative or critical, just respond as you would to anyone else making the same point. In other words, everybody act like grownups. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- GW, I don't know about that - I'd much rather just be ignored than get the escalating WP:ALLCAPSBLUELINK, talk page template, AE filing treatment.
- EdChem, I don't really understand part of your post; I don't see how my previous two paragraphs could be interpreted as calling you childish. Maybe I'm missing something. The person acting like a child is TRM. Anyway, I don't think your hypothesis is correct; as you know, TRM's most recent interaction with arbcom was not the end of his case in October 2016, but was just a couple of months ago. That said, your suggested wording
Speculations on the motivations of editors or reflections on general competence of editors or administrators
is a pretty good summary of where the problem lies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)- I realize that it's difficult to get a full picture of this spring's incident involving TRM, because aspects of it were private, but it was certainly not merely for making allegations of admin abuse. To be frank, the behavior that prompted that decision burned up a significant amount of my personal stockpile of patience with TRM, and I think I'd been on the more sympathetic side beforehand. I have a lot of sympathy for Dweller's position - I've certainly had the experience of enjoying the presence of "difficult" editors and wondering why so many other people seemed unable to leave them alone. I suggest a briefer variation on EdChem's wording - just replace the first paragraph of the remedy with "TRM is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors and administrators or reflections on their general competence". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Opabinia regalis said it well above. The intention when drafting that remedy was not to repeat the civility policy, but rather to try to address a pattern of snide, unhelpful remarks that The Rambling Man had been making. These remarks generally fell short of what most admins would consider uncivil, but when repeatedly made against the same users were creating a very difficult environment to work in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith: Could you explain more how the motion below would be "worse and would be more heavily abused," and is an "insane standard that we would never hold anybody else to"? "incivility, personal attacks and harassment are prohibited" is a statement of fact—this is a reminder of what is already reflected in policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith: My interpretation of that kind of wording has always been that it's a reminder not to do something that everyone on Wikipedia is similarly prohibited from doing—hence why I'm often unwilling to support those kinds of restrictions, since we shouldn't have to repeat what's already in policy and what the sanctioned party almost certainly knows about by now if we find ourselves needing to remind them. I guess perhaps the motion could link to Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking for incivility, though per my previous comment I don't see the benefit in reminding/warning TRM of something he's already well aware of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: I disagree with you on your suggestion that the thing to do in situations like this is to just ignore TRM (or anyone who makes a habit of making remarks like the ones that ended in this sanction). That just creates a hostile environment where everyone "in the know" about the issue is bothered but tries to ignore the person who's making jabs, and people who aren't just wonder why the hell this kind of thing is accepted on Wikipedia. It's still an unpleasant environment for anyone to work in. "Just ignore him" is great advice when applied to a barking dog looking for attention, but I think that in this case it's a bit insulting both to TRM and to the folks he engages with to suggest applying that kind of psychology. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- As a general remark, a few folks have expressed concern that we'll try to further restrict TRM in this ARCA. I personally don't intend to do that (and it doesn't seem like other arbs really do either)—we're not really looking at evidence that the restriction isn't working, rather that the restriction is not being applied or that it is being misunderstood. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith: Could you explain more how the motion below would be "worse and would be more heavily abused," and is an "insane standard that we would never hold anybody else to"? "incivility, personal attacks and harassment are prohibited" is a statement of fact—this is a reminder of what is already reflected in policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man: Motion
Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.
is amended to read
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is reminded that incivility, personal attacks and harassment are prohibited.
Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the previous text shall remain in force. This motion does not reset the block counter imposed in the remedy.
For clarity the whole wording of the current remedy is collapsed here.
|
|---|
|
- For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
- Support
- The above proposal is still way better than the current the wording. There is a stalemate between the sides and I don't necessarily think there is wording that may address the concerns on either side completely. In the absence of such, pointing to policies and taking away "insulting" and "belittle" will be a step (however small) in the right direction. Mkdw talk 16:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Time to get moving on this. The wording (I) proposed makes the remedy clearer and more enforceable. The rest of the motion (which I've now added above for reference) gives a clear enforcement provision. The proposed change includes "reminder" purely to make it clear that all editors are also prohibited from this conduct, not just TRM. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Not really the intent of the original remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Abstain/Recuse
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comments
- I'll leave this as written for a bit to garner some more comments, in particular from The Rambling Man and Dweller. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- For everyone, the bit about personal attacks and harassment could probably go but it might be worth having it there for clarity? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Callanecc: Are we considering downgrading the prohibition to a reminder? I'm not sure that's a good idea. I liked the wording of your second attempt much better. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- The rest of remedy is the authorisation for sanctions, this sentence just defines what "prohibited conduct" is in the context of the remedy. My reason for using "reminded" is that the purpose of this remedy is as an authorisation for admins to make AE actions (rather than normal admin actions) rather than as an extra prohibition on certain conduct. Every editor is prohibited from being incivil, making personal attacks and harassing others so saying that TRM is specific prohibited seems inaccurate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- I was puzzled by that also. I think it should specifically say prohibited, or there's an opportunity for further quibbling. In general direct wording is better; in this case, the history indicates direct wording is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- My thinking here DGG is that everyone is prohibited from doing this. The rest of the motion, which I haven't quoted in the motion above, makes it clear that it isn't a "reminder" but it instead a motion to give a clear method of enforcement (that is, under AE protection rather than normal admin actions). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Callanecc: Are we considering downgrading the prohibition to a reminder? I'm not sure that's a good idea. I liked the wording of your second attempt much better. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Dweller: "It is worth noticing that "belittling and insulting" is dealt with in CIVIL"; if it necessary that TRM be reminded that they must adhere to our policies prohibiting harassment and personal attacks, then civility is a well reasoned inclusion and something you already argued was covered by another applicable policy. The separate issues of equitable enforcement and the very issues with the policy itself are well beyond the scope of ARCA. Those issues will need to be raised and addressed either against the individual editors violating CIVIL or through RFC policy change respectively. Mkdw talk 16:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Guerillero and Callanecc: It is my understanding that "reminders" are non-enforceable provisions. I supported the changes with it being, in my eyes, a significant reduction in the force behind the previous remedy. Mkdw talk 21:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Guerillero and Mkdw: Generally yes they are unenforceable, however this first sentence just defines "prohibited conduct", the rest of the remedy (in the collapse box) gives the provision for enforcement. However I wouldn't mind changing it to TRM is prohibited from [what's there]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man: Alternative motion
Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.
is amended to read
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.
- For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted -Kostas20142 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support
- Sorry, I said last week that I meant to post this as an alternative, and I forgot to actually do the paperwork. I think this is more specific about the nature of the problem and its scope, and doesn't carry the risks associated with the various policy links. As I said above, I think this has the potential to cause problems from overgeneralization, where it is really a very specific and idiosyncratic behavior we're dealing with here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Clearer. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is stronger than the proposal above, but ultimately it would remove the insulting or belittling ambiguity issue. Mkdw talk 21:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is a much stronger sanction than its previous wording. However this proposal does clear up the wording and does more specifically target the problematic behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is better than the existing wording and the first proposal. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- kelapstick(bainuu) 11:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have my hesitations, but this should work. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain/recuse
- Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comments
- I've removed "and administrators" as "editors" includes everyone who can edit (IPs and admins). I wonder whether this is going to broaden the restriction rather than define it more precisely? @Dweller and The Rambling Man:. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing my bad paperwork :) No objections to your edit - you're right that it's an unnecessary distinction. I'm not sure about broader or narrower; my feeling is that the original wording was never quite right as a description of TRM's particular brand of problem behavior, and this description is a much closer fit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delayed reaction here, but on Callanecc's post above, I still don't think this is "much stronger" than the existing sanction. The new version allows TRM to insult and belittle people all he likes about their ugly haircut or whatever - or at least the resulting block will just be a garden-variety one, not a special mark-of-AE one. He just can't do those things specifically about someone's competence. (It's very difficult to question someone's competence in a way that isn't insulting or belittling, and experience has demonstrated that TRM does not have that skill.) TRM, my opinion is still the same as when Dweller asked about this proposal awhile back - your best approach would be to spend much less of your wiki-time on criticizing people. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Close
Unfortunately, it seems like this is at a standstill. Several editors have called for it to be closed, so motion to close. Mkdw talk 14:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Amendment request: Eastern Europe
Initiated by Aquillion at 06:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Aquillion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Requesting removal of full-protection on Mass killings under Communist regimes
Statement by Aquillion
Mass killings under Communist regimes has been fully-protected for the past six years following an WP:AE request here. Putting aside the fact that full protection for content disputes is intended for a "cooling down" period and that indefinite full protection is not, I think, actually an available option for dealing with content disputes, most of the comments there (where there was relatively little discussion for such a drastic step) seem to support full protection for the period of one year - it has now been six. Nearly everyone involved in the dispute has long ago moved on, and while it's reasonable to assume that the topic and article will still be controversial, our dispute-resolution mechanisms have improved dramatically since 2011 - it seems silly to suggest that this article, alone, is so controversial that it needs to remain fully protected until the end of time. Anyway, I'm requesting that the restrictions on this article, including full protection, be removed. --Aquillion (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, as an additional (and possibly more important) point, I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions and placing some sort of limit on the length a page can be full-protected under WP:AE without explicit authorization from ArbCom - while an admin's authority in executing WP:AE is necessarily broad, I don't believe that protecting a page for six years as a means of resolving a content dispute was intended to be something one administrator could decide to do on their own, even there. If it is intended to be an available option, we need to update WP:PP to say so; but I find it hard to believe there would be consensus for that. --Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- In response to some of the people who argued against this (a position that genuinely startled me; I feel that this article fell through the cracks and that the idea of leaving a page full-protected for six years over a content dispute is genuinely and flatly indefensible), I'll reiterate what I said above. I don't believe that eternal full-protection is or was ever intended to be a method to resolve disputes; requiring constant re-assessment of consensus for every edit on a controversial article, in perpetuity, goes beyond what administrators are chosen for. Obviously it can be used as a temporary method to resolve disruptive disputes, but most of the people involved in the original dispute have long since moved on, and no one, I think, has shown that the dispute is currently ongoing or that removing protection is likely to result in significant disruption (and if it does, the page can always be locked again. And as contentious as this page is, we have since dealt with and resolved far more contentious articles and far more serious arguments without resorting to eternal protection - which part of the reason why I found the six-year-long protection on this article so startling. Why this page and not Donald Trump, or Climate Change, or Black Lives Matter or Gamergate Controversy or Falun Gong or Israel and its numerous sub-pages? If we have managed to resolve disputes on those pages without resorting to such a drastic measure, why do people think we can't do it here? Yes, the freely-editable nature of Wikipedia can sometimes be a pain to deal with, but I don't feel that permanently forcing all edits to go through administrator consensus-assessment is a viable answer to disputes.
- The arguments some people are making below seems to be that first, eternal full protection is not burdensome, and second, that this topic is so inherently contentious that the page must remain locked forever. For those who argue that indefinite full protection is not burdensome because edits can be done via edit-requests, I strongly disagree - protection by its nature discourages new and casual users (who are unlikely to understand or be able to navigate to a draft or to know how the edit-protection system works), slows editing to a crawl for even relatively uncontroversial edits, wastes the time and energy of administrators, and generally discourages people from focusing on the protected page. And looking at the page's history, I feel it shows the damage full protection has done - the history here does not reflect the amount of improvement you would expect a page on a high-profile topic to show over the course of six years. For these reasons and more, full protection is an extreme and draconian measure taken only to shut down ongoing disruption; I don't feel that anyone can credibly argue that there is any ongoing disruption facing this page six years on. Some content disputes, yes, but well below the level that would require even the most basic steps in dispute resolution. "Some people are making bad deletion arguments" isn't the kind of thing that calls for indefinite application of one of the most draconian measures ArbCom has in its toolkit. -Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde
I was briefly involved on that page post-protection, and I found that trying to build talk page consensus without the ability to edit the article was enormously difficult even for a minor point. The page does not meet our current standards for neutrality and due weight. There are good sources on the topic, that need to be accurately represented, rather than the hotchpotch that exists at the moment; but there is no realistic way to fix this. It's been long enough that I think Arbcom should consider lifting the protection. If the very idea is making some people go "Oh, heck no" then keep some restrictions to prevent the previous problems from recurring; a 1RR restriction + EC protection should do the trick. Vanamonde (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: How is the difficulty of obtaining consensus a sign that anything is working? Few to none of the participants in that discussion were from the bad old days; they were newer folks, like myself, seeking to improve a page. We have no evidence, really, that the folks who disrupted the page the previous time will do so again; we have evidence that there are people who wish to make constructive edits who are being hindered by the protection. Continuing the protection can almost be read as "the page as it stands is better than any version likely to occur after unprotection"; and ARBCOM is supposed to confine itself to behavior, is it not? As I said above, we could easily place restrictions to prevent edit warring; or even, as Iridescent suggests, place the page on probation, so to speak, and reprotect it if needed. Vanamonde (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: Yes, the current restriction does a good job of preventing editors who want the page, if it exists at all, to read "mass killings under communism are a hoax perpetrated by capitalist regimes to undermine the fatherland" or some such crap. Such folks will never reach any consensus under the current system, and that's a good thing. BUT there are others (such as myself) who believe that (for instance) if a source has been disputed by others of similar weight, then Wikipedia should present the debate, rather than one of the sources in WIkipedia's voice. I raised these concerns with respect to a single lead paragraph on the talk page; it took me about 40 talk page posts, over the course of a month, to get that edit through. Long enough that I abandoned my efforts on that page, and began editing in places where the effort:outcome ratio was more acceptable. Editor time and effort is our most precious resource. We need a more efficient way to improve the page, unless there is evidence that that will lead to previous disruption continuing. Do we have such evidence? Most of the protagonists of that previous case are no longer active. Others have topic-related restrictions. Is there evidence of disruptive posting on the talk? Only by newbies, who can be dealt with through EC protection. Is there evidence of socking on related pages? Not that I am aware of; but nonetheless preventable through EC protection. Edit-warring can be dealt with through 1RR. Draconian measures may once have been necessary; I see no evidence that they are any longer. Vanamonde (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Nug
Keep the status quo. Looking at the page history[1], the current mechanism appears to be working, the article is being improved. If Vanamonde finds it difficult to build talk page consensus under the current mechanism, then it certainly won't get easier to build consensus if the restrictions are removed. --Nug (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Iridescent
I'm uninvolved but wearily familiar with the Digwuren case, and would argue squarely in favor of keeping the status quo; if anything, this enforced take-it-to-the-talk-page is a remedy Wikipedia should be using more often, not less. If trying to build talk page consensus without the ability to edit the article was enormously difficult
, that's a sign that the remedy is working. If the protection is lifted, it needs to be on the understanding that the moment the usual suspects on both sides re-start edit-warring, either the protection will be re-imposed or that edit-warring will be dealt with by means of long-term blocks. ‑ Iridescent 08:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: The issue with this page (and others targeted by the EEML) is the presence of numerous editors on both sides who are certain that the status quo is so egregiously wrong that they feel duty bound to change it; if people have convincing evidence that the status quo version of the page is Just Plain Wrong they should have no problem persuading other editors of this; if they can't persuade other editors of this it's a likely sign that the problem they intend to fix isn't as problematic as they think. This is one of the pages that triggered the most important sentence of WP:DIGWUREN (and arguably the most significant ruling in Arbcom's history with regards to the limit of AGF and the interaction of content disputes and user conduct issues), "In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia", and there's a reason this group of pages were the battleground on which that particular decisive battle for the future course of Wikipedia's governance was fought. Bluntly, if the editors can't get on with each other enough to cobble together consensus for changes, we don't want them editing these pages. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- @RhinoMind You mean, like the enormous FAQ section at the top of the talk page that explains in details what the issues are, why the page is protected, and that edits to that article need to be discussed on the talk page, or the massive pink-and-red box that pops up when you try to edit the page explaining the process one needs to go through to agree proposed changes? I'm not sure how much clearer we could make this. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
I don't have an opinion about the specific page mentioned, but I do want to comment on the suggestion to "look at [...] placing some sort of limit on the length a page can be full-protected under WP:AE without explicit authorization from ArbCom".
AE blocks are limited in duration to 1 year, but occasionally situation warranting an indefinite block crop up at AE. Wheat happens in these cases is that an indefinite block is placed, but the restrictions on modifying an AE action last only for one year, meaning a single admin may unblock on their own countenance after that point. If there is a problem with long protections resulting from an AE action that are not being reduced or removed due to bureaucracy despite their being a rough consensus that protection is no longer required, then a similar 1-year limit to AE protections would seem to be the simplest resolution. I do not know whether this is actually a problem, I have not looked, but the comments above this one suggest that if the problem does exist this article is not an example of it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- @RhinoMind and Iridescent: only administrators get an edit button on full-protected pages. The "big pink box" is visible to non-administrators by clicking the "view source" button - but that is not likely to be intuitive. The box probably needs to be updated though - "Editors who violate this editing restriction may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or other discretionary sanctions per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions." links to the original remedy superceded by standard discretionary sanctions in October 2011 and the case renamed in 2012. The current remedy is just an authorisation and contains no details, unlike the old one, the details being at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This is a matter for the article talk page though, where I will post shortly. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Collect
Keep the status quo. The article used to be a regular battleground, and the fact is that "competing articles" of worse quality were the result of the compromises made. The concept that the prior discussions are now invalid is, I fear, quite the wrong way to go. Also note that some of the prior battlers are now looking here to find a means of deleting this article while not deleting Anti-communist mass killings and other articles which are far weaker than this one. A clear case where SQA is the best result. And allowing the editors who propose on the talk page that we simply delete the article without revisiting the prior discussions here would basically make a mockery of the past solution. Note that both "quick order deletion discussions" in 2010 resulted in clear Keep results. Collect (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by RhinoMind
Lockings are of course undesirable, but I do not feel experienced enough with this procedure to have any meaningful opinion on how it should be administered. But ...
- I suggest that Full protections/lockings are accompanied by a tag on the article-front (not TalkPage) that explains that there is some kind of dispute. Otherwise lockings would just enforce acceptance of articles that aren't acceptable and readers would assume that everything is ok, which isn't true.
- Also, I suggest that some information on the TalkPage is included, so editors are informed on how to engage with the article during a locking. ie. they present concrete proposals for editorial changes on the TalkPage, complete with proper reliable sources and all, and after a discussion a consensus (of reason and argumentation, not feeling!) might be reached with time. If so, administrators can then install the editorial changes in the locked article. RhinoMind (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: No. That is the short answer. You are not considering my #1 entry. The links you posted might perhaps do it in relation to my #2, although I don't understand how you got to your link number two where the edit-procedure is loosely explained. For me there isn't any Edit-button to click in the first place. RhinoMind (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by AmateurEditor
I support removal of full protection, but then I opposed it being imposed at the time. I also support replacing it with Extended confirmed protection and 1RR for now, as suggested by Vanamonde93. I disagree with Aquillion that the disruptive editors have moved on to other things (some of them have just changed their usernames), but I don't see that as a reason to retain full protection. Full protection of the article may actually be shielding them from consequences by freeing them from having to disrupt progress on the article via reverts and edits to the article. Allowing editing may help expose those editors by giving them enough rope to hang themselves. Alternatively, it would allow them to edit productively if they chose to do so. If anything, the full protection has given disruptive editors effective veto power through the imposed edit-consensus process and some of the good-faith editors have moved on. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnston
I'm one of the admins who was active at AE back in 2011 when the decision was taken to apply indefinite protection to Mass killings under Communist regimes. The filer of this ARCA, User:Aquillion, has not stated that they tried any other of the prior steps suggested under WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications before filing here:
- ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision or
- request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN")
The administrator who closed the AE and applied the full protection is User:Timotheus Canens has been recently active, and should be easy to consult. The concept that it is shocking to keep an article protected this long probably reflects unawareness of the nastiness of some of the areas that are still under discretionary sanctions. In my opinion the Mass killings article easily falls under the 'gigantic waste of time for everyone' category though some well-intentioned content editors who were very diplomatic might be able to rescue it. In part the trouble is that some people consider this an artificial topic. We have other articles on mass deaths whose existence as an article is not questioned. For example, the article on World War II casualties is about a real topic and few people would criticize the title.
In terms of actual improvements carried out during the full protection, the history indicates there were at least 23 changes made (by admins) since 1 January 2013 in response to edit requests. For another opinion on what to do (if anything), see User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging#Mass killings under Communist regimes. TTAAC is one of the people who made content improvements to a draft that was kept open during the protection.
My opinion is that this article is hard to improve, not due to full protection, but due to the difficulty in finding agreement among editors. Lifting the protection would fix one problem but not the other. Instead of stasis and very slow progress, we might have constant thrashing at ANI and AE and some article bans being handed out to individuals. But then again I could be wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by T. Canens
The protection was placed following the AE thread Ed linked to because it was necessary to enforce the "consensus required" restriction previously placed on the page (by Sandstein). I see that some commenters seem to think - incorrectly - that the two are one and the same.
I don't have time to review the past several years' worth of history right now, so I express no view on whether Sandstein's restriction is still needed. However, as long as that restriction remains, I'm strongly opposed to lifting the full protection, which adds only minimal inconvenience over the restriction, and, based on previous experience, is essential to its consistent enforcement. T. Canens (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
I was the admin who some years back added a "consensus required" page restriction as a discretionary sanction to this article. I've not followed the article for a long time and I don't know whether the restriction is still required. I don't mind another admin or the ArbCom modifying or removing the restriction as they deem appropriate. I likewise don't have an opinion as to whether the page protection at issue here is (still) appropriate. In general terms, I find it preferable to sanction individual edit-warriors rather than to lock down a page for everybody, but I must assume that the editing conditions were at some time bad enough that T. Canens and I considered it necessary to impose page-level restrictions. Sandstein 12:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish
"Shine a light, and the roaches will run." Support removing the full protection and replacing it with extended confirmed protection and 1RR. Even one year is over-long for full protection. The solution to bad apples mucking up a page is to fish out the bad apples, not to make the page mostly unusable. It's already under DS, so dealing with long-term problematic editors in the topic will be comparatively easy and swift. The problem of the article being effectively frozen in a poor state and very difficult to improve is real. To the extent the topic may be artificial, that's a content matter and not an ArbCom issue. It is fixable by splitting (e.g. mass killings by the Soviet Union, by the PRC, etc., are certainly valid topics, since they proceeded from specific governments' policies, without any WP:SYNTH in play). No opinion on the bureaucracy questions about AE limits, auto-expirations, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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.
Eastern Europe: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion
- My first reaction to this request was that it shouldn't be necessary for any page on a wiki to be full-protected for more than six years. My second reaction, after reviewing the comments above and skimming the page history, is that this particular page may indeed be exceptional in which case we would presume that the AE admins are acting sensibly. It might be useful to have some input from other admins who have been active on the topic-area in general and this page in particular. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I had a pretty similar reaction to NYB. At first I figured I would definitely be supporting removing full protection from a page after multiple years. After reading some responses here, and seeing that the talk page of the article is fairly active and collaborative, it might actually be an exceptional case where this is a net benefit. I'd like to hear some more thoughts, but if we do try reducing the restriction on that page, I'd like to see it come with a condition where protection can easily be reapplied if the removal doesn't work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- My thought process for AE appeals which arrive at the Committee is pretty straight-forward. We (ArbCom) are at the end of the appeals process for AE sanctions, similar to case requests. Therefore, my considerations are twofold: (a) where processes followed in the application of the sanction and in any subsequent appeals and (b) was the sanction imposed a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. In this instance the answer to both questions is yes, so I !vote to decline this appeal request and recommend it that be taken to the admin who originally imposed the sanction or to WP:AE.
On the topic of having a limit to the amount of time page protections (and other sanctions on pages) can be placed I'm not convinced that's a good way forward. Firstly, blocks are more contentious and have a great affect on people than other sanctions and are, generally, more difficult to lift. Secondly, administrators aren't authorised to impose some page sanctions (such as, 1RR and 'consensus required') allowed by discretionary sanctions so having them expire after a year would mean that they expire (not that it changes to allow any admin to remove them). I'd also imagine that the imposing admin, AE admins and editors at AN would be very willing to amend/lift page restrictions which have been in place for long periods of time (especially when compared to blocks). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I also decline with the same concerns as my colleagues above. I agree with Callanecc that a time limit after which page protections expire is not generally a good idea and for the same reasons. Doug Weller talk 11:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Decline The original admins who implemented the full protection and consensus required restrictions have given statements. The point of discretionary sanctions is to provide the community with the tools to handle some of our most serious and controversial areas of editing. The full protection should be removed via discussion at WP:AE, rather than ArbCom stepping in. The actual protection was not implemented by the case, rather the implementation of discretionary sanctions. Specifically on that point, there's nothing for us to clarify or amend. Mkdw talk 21:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Decline , with the same general view as Callanecc about time length limits for protection. Some pages are going to be problems for longer periods than one year, and this is one of them. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Amendment request: Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015)
Initiated by SMcCandlish at 02:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- "Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs." (Same link; the material is short.)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- "Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs." (Same link; the material is short.)
- Amend, to require either: (a) moving of these items, along with the other log actions already moved, into the new DS log pages; or (b) simple removal of the entries if they are not desired in the new log pages. Preferably (b), since similar material does not appear to be routinely kept in the new log pages, only sanctions and page protections, and a few other things.
Statement by SMcCandlish
Leaving behind the notifications and warnings in the "Enforcement log" sections of old case pages, while moving sanctions and all other log actions out of them into the new log pages, has an intensely prejudicial effect against those whose usernames remain in the original case pages' log sections. It gives a strong false impression that: there was a dispute, then those specific users still listed there got warnings, and thus the dispute stopped, because those were the real and only troublemakers. The exact opposite is usually the truth, with most of these cases having a sadly "rich" history of far worse problems and sanctions (often from the case itself, plus years of follow-on disruption) that no one sees unless they go looking in the newer log pages, which the average editor doesn't even know about.
From the original decision's discussion I'll quote the following material about the logging of actual sanctions, because it applies far more strongly to pointless retention of high-profile logging of mere notices and warnings for years on end:
[I]f an editor who is not indefinitely blocked is still around in five+ years, there is a good chance the sanction isn't useful anymore, and if by chance it is, it could be re-imposed. Also, "may be blanked" should be replaced with "shall be blanked" ... The may language is too open-ended, it'll be blanked if someone (who?) feels like it? Courcelles 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Also:
... [The change] is long overdue and will help the committee, the clerks, and the broader community keep track of what areas are under active DS, where there are current problems, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
... [I]t will make it much easier to pick up problematic editors who move from one controversial topic to the next as they accumulate sanctions. HJ Mitchell
These goals are not served in any way by retaining misleading "scarlet letters" from 2 May 2014 and earlier on the case pages to unfairly target particular editors who were not actually subject to sanctions. "You will be maligned forever because of a random date boundary" is just utterly arbitrary, in the particular, vernacular sense that WP:Arbitration is never supposed to be.
I was previously informed (over a year ago) that these items had not been moved into the log pages (or just removed), simply because a clerk had not gotten around to it. Today, moving them was turned down [2] on the basis that the above-cited motion explicitly excludes that material from being moved. Thus this amendment request. We really are in "it'll be blanked if someone (who?) feels like it?" territory now, exactly as Courcelles warned.
Since DS alerts are only valid for a year, there's no point at all in retaining alert notices in the logs (on the case pages or the log pages) for longer, even if ArbCom wanted to retain actual warnings in the log (which is not presently done). From my talk page today:
The courtesy blanking of more than five-year-old DSLOGs already hides old bans from the search engine, even those that are still in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
So, let's just be really clear about this: People who are still being disruptive are getting a form of courtesy and good-faith relief that is denied to those who are not, for no reason but a meaningless dateline.
Some of the intent-and-effects issues that were not resolved in the original motion weren't resolved at that time simply because of a desire to avoid making decisions "on the hoof" or "too quickly". Two-and-a-half years is plenty long enough.
PS: I have not listed any of the "affected users" as parties, despite the instructions in the amendment request template, because that would be tedious, a long list, and likely have a canvassing effect – there would surely be unanimous agreement from them that they don't want to be scapegoated for life over wrist-slaps that happened years ago. [I have, however, linked the usernames of the admins and [ex-]arbs directly quoted, which should ping them when I save this.]
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
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.
Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015): Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015): Arbitrator views and discussion
- Given the age of the notifications currently left on case pages (more than 2 years old), I wouldn't have a problem with them just being removed and replaced with a link to the central log (as is in the case page template). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that having the case pages include three-year-old notifications, but omit current ones, creates an undue weight problem. This set-up has confused me in the past, and if it confuses me then I'm sure it confuses others who spend less time than I do on the arbitration pages. I don't have a strong view on the best fix so will defer to others on that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- the change seems reasonable DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88
Initiated by Hijiri88 at 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- [diff of notification Username]
- [diff of notification Username]
- Information about amendment request
- Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)
- 4)
Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
- Stricken on appeal.
- 4)
Statement by Hijiri88
I would like to appeal this topic ban. I have been on my best behaviour since the ban was put in place, and have never violated it. I deeply regret my actions, including edit-warring and threats, that led to the original decision, and believe I have sufficiently reformed and made amends. I have also been doing my best to create content proactively despite the fact that the TBAN covered most of the topics I have a sufficient knowledge to edit in.
I have written a fair few articles on classical Chinese literature (see here and especially here). The problem is that writing on these topics is much more difficult for me than writing on classical Japanese poetry, which I studied in college and have access to an abundance of materials on, and can even visit and take photos of relevant historical sites associated with the poets (not something I could do without at least a week's vacation and air fare for poets from China). Also, last year during Asian Month I worked very hard to get just five articles on Chinese poets out over the course of the month, but the previous year (not during Asian Month) I had comfortably created 13 decent articles on Japanese poets in a single day. (None of these articles had anything to do with the Arbitration case, nor did the vast majority of my earlier contributions to Japanese culture articles.) And even though my French is not what it used to be, I have access to sources and am generally aware of the topic area, so that I found it easier to write articles on Japanese topics for fr.wiki than articles on pretty much anything else on en.wiki.[3] One of them was even drafted in English.
I really love writing articles for Wikipedia, and I would really love to go back to editing articles in my main area of expertise. And I promise that I will not engage in the kind of behaviour that led to the 2015 Arbitration case again.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I'm required to notify the other parties -- am I? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Curly Turkey
"all pages relating to Japanese culture" was drastically overbroad from the beginning, and Catflap has since been indeffed. If this restriction ever was ever really preventative, it has long since ceased to be so, and now only prevents Hijiri from making his most useful contributions. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Nishidani
Hijiri's originally problem was excessive page argument, justified somewhat by the fact that many of the pages he (and I)edited were worked by ill-informed trolls - several of whom are no longer with us - who appeared incapable of understanding the cultures, something of which Hijiri cannot be accused. He is a very useful Asian-pages editor, with close attention for high quality sourcing, something somewhat rare. He has in the meantime given evidence that he is producing good work on the areas outside his ban. I see no reason why his ban should not be revoked. All that is needed is a reminder not to get caught up in arguments: make one's point, adduce sources, and exercise patience.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Schonken. Bring the diffs and make sure they are not stale. Secondly measure the putative NPA remarks at boards against the huge content contributions Hijiri makes(at Li He, for example, from 5kb to 50kb). I'm amazed that petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Francis. You have an impressive musical knowledge, and that is invaluable for Wikipedia. We are talking about an editor with an impressive knowledge of East Asian cultures and whether he should be allowed back to edit on those topics. Both of you have been characterized in the past as persistently disruptive. Hijiri knows I have taken him to task more than once some years ago for excessive pettifogging. I see no sign of that now. Once editors start to 'profile' others for the usual etiquette/disruptive behavioural problems, the encyclopedic construction of Wikipedia is needlessly compromised. The vice of these arbitration issues is to get so caught up in personal bickering, that what an editor actually does in contributing quality material to their areas of specialized competence is lost from view. One should never wear grudges, esp. over trivia. 3 editors with strong competence in the area of Japanese articles (all of whom have had tiffs with Hiji) think his return to them would be a net positive.
- The diffs you mention relate to a few brief comments Hijiri made in an extremely long thread where several reputable voices thought you disruptive. I have no opinion on it other than noting that what Hijiri stated was a variation on what several other editors were asserting. To pick him out for echoing what editors of high standing affirmed is not convincing.
- The second diff refers to his differences with John Carter. I have amicable relations with both Hijiri and John, and again will not take sides.
- Behaviour is problematical if there is a well-documented pattern: there is no such evidence for this (so far) regarding Hijiri's contributions for the last 9 months. Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Alex Shih
Since I have been active in WP:CHINA and WP:JAPAN, I am an admirer of the content creation by Hijiri88 in East Asian topics. It can be a very contentious field with only very few experienced editors dealing with users pushing for WP:NPOV agenda. I can understand the frustration that led to the problematic behaviour. My recent interactions with the editor have been mostly positive, with only small remnants of the excessive/emotional arguments that was the scope of the original ban. After two years of relatively constructive editing, I am very supportive of lifting at least the topic ban on pages relating to Japanese culture at this time. Alex ShihTalk 13:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Francis Schonken
I disagree Hijiri has been on their best behaviour in the last year. I recall receiving some insults (which I let go in an ignore PAs logic), possibly a late reaction to me closing one of the numerous Japan-related ANIs Hijiri was involved in. Will look up the diffs if needed, but have no time right now. If modified, the remedy should rather be broadened to various sorts of obstructive behaviour, and certainly not rescinded. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Opabinia (and others): was working on it. Let me first state clearly that as far as I'm concerned Hijiri doesn't deserve all that much editor time (including mine). The editor has created and contributed to time sinks ad libitum. I'd like that to stop. Which was the gist of my ANI thread close I alluded to above (and regarding which current arbitrator Drmies accused me at the time of not being severe enough against Hijiri and the editor with whom Hijiri was having a dispute then). After which Hijiri popped up at ANI again, and again, and again, absorbing quite a lot of editor time (their own and that of others, at ANI and elsewhere) that could have been spent much more productively elsewhere. So allow me to be as brief as possible.
- 12:33, 25 January 2017 — As far as I can recall Hijiri's last insult directed at me. Within the time frame of "the last year". Accuses me of gaming, which I take as an insult. Hope I'm permitted to take that as an insult, so I didn't respond to the PA. Re. "I'm amazed that petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction" — Indeed: I'm a prolific editor on Bach-related topics: the diff above is taken from a long ANI thread on a Bach-related topic, which an admin attempted (unsuccessfully) to close as a "morass", and to which Hijiri had contributed profusely with their "petty sensitivities", without any regard for evaluating editors for "what they actually do in encyclopedic construction", far beyond the point where their aspersions had already been rejected multiple times. So I no further reacted to Hijiri in that thread: would have been counterproductive. But illustrates how Hijiri has a knack of never stopping to amaze others how for them "petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction".
- Looking up the diff above I came across Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive944#Requested block of User:Hijiri88, which resulted in an IBAN involving Hijiri, decided 00:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC), which is also within the "last year" timeframe, and illustrating Hijiri not being on their best behaviour in that period. The previous point can, as far as I'm concerned, be ignored (I was just illustrating that my memory hadn't played a trick on me).
Here's what I propose: originally Hijiri couldn't appeal to an ArbCom remedy before a year had passed. Maybe amend that provision to read that Hijiri can not appeal an ArbCom remedy before having stayed out of trouble for the period of a year. "Staying out of trouble" being defined as: no new sanctions levied against them, whether they be community-imposed sanctions or ArbCom sanctions. Maybe apart from "staying out of trouble" defined thus, also a restriction on Hijiri initiating new ANI postings about editors with whom they're involved in a dispute. Something like an "automatic boomerang" every time Hijiri plays that trick might be considered. Note that that directly connects to what I wrote in the closure of the ANI thread I closed a long time ago (and which I mentioned in my OP). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Re. Nishidani's suggestion above that no evidence has been brought to this ARCA request regarding disruptive behaviour patterns by Hijiri for the last 9 months: true. I have no clue whether such evidence can be found or not. Seems extremely unlikely I would go looking for such evidence (see my "time sink" and "doesn't deserve all that much editor time" kind of comments above). Anyway, when there is none of such evidence brought to this ARCA, my suggestion above simply translates to Hijiri waiting another three months before filing a request to be liberated from Arbitration remedies. Could live with that, without further ado. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement by MjolnirPants
Every time I'm confronted with the fact that Hijiri is subject to a topic ban, I'm surprised anew. I've noted him to be a bit tenacious (note that's "tenacious", not "tendentious") on talk pages, but only in situations where another editor was (deliberately or not) engaging in behavior that might justifiably be called "infuriating". In all, I've found Hijiri to be a damned good editor. I've worked with Hijiri in the past, and even butted heads with Hijiri in the past, and never encountered any behavior which I would consider to be indicative of someone who might benefit from a TBAN. Furthermore, Hijiri clearly has a great grasp of Japanese language and culture (a minor interest of mine; I don't claim any great expertise, but I can certainly recognize expertise) and would be a great boon to those pages. In the interest of improving the project, the best thing we could do with this TBAN is end it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement SMcCandlish
Concur with the above. I encounter Hijiri88 regularly, and the editor is not at all disruptive or otherwise problematic on Asian culture topics or elsewhere, in my experience. What happened over Japanese poetry was a momentary blip, and even if some restriction were kept, it should be sharply narrowed to address the specifics of the case, not "Japanese culture" generally. I find it hard to credit that Hijiri88 would be disruptive in that topic area, going forward. The lesson appears to have been learned, and there's no evidence Hijiri88 is habitually intemperate or obsessive. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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.
Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I'm definitely willing to reconsider this restriction. I'd be leaning towards suspending the TBAN for 6-12 months (during which time it can be reinstated by any uninvolved admin) rather than removing it outright. However, I'd like the diffs of the comments mentioned by Francis Schonken before I make a final decision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with Callanecc. Francis, I would probably have been more persuaded if you'd just waited till you had the time to post with actual evidence. Now, the expectations have been set high. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)