Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Argentine History	none	(orig. case)	18 January 2014
Amendment request: Climate change	none	(orig. case)	13 January 2014
Amendment request: Infoboxes	none	(orig. case)	5 January 2014

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification request: Argentine History

Initiated by MarshalN20 | ^Talk at 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Argentine History arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Casting Aspersions

MarshalN20 editing behavior

Cambalachero editing behavior

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

• MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Cambalachero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)
• Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)

Statement by MarshalN20

Original Request (too long!)

This request for the Argentine History case is primarily a clarification petition, but may end up with additional amendments to the case depending on how the solution to the problem can be achieved optimally (I will provide an amendment suggestion). Background: The findings of the Argentine History case placed my editing behavior as having exhibited "tendentious editing and battleground conduct." Due to this, I was topic banned indefinitely with the possibility of appeal after one year. The Problem: The convoluted nature of the case permitted the escape of an inappropriate story that continuously accuses me of having added "fascist sources" to Latin American articles. This was never proven, and the findings do not mention anything about it. Thus, this "Black Legend" goes contrary to the "casting aspersions" principle mentioned in the case's resolution. Neotarf: Several users have been spreading this story around (the usual suspects), but the most vociferous one has been User:Neotarf. On December 5, Neotarf accuses me of being a fascist (see [1]). On January 1, Neotarf uses The Signpost to again repeat his accusations ([2]). As it stands, it is a direct personal attack accusing me of bullying and adding fascist sources. Previously, on December 4, Neotarf had commented on The Signpost about the case, and basically noted that the information he presented was a "general idea of the topic" (see [3]). In other words, Neotarf is spreading around an opinion of the case, purposefully casting aspersions on me as an editor. This situation is unacceptable. It is particularly harmful to my editing in Wikipedia, specially related to my nomination of featured articles (such as the recent Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive4). Therefore, I again return to the arbitration committee in search of protection from harm. The Request: A clarification is needed that (A) emphasizes the Committee's ruling is related to dispute among editors and not about article content per se and (B) addresses the aspersions of the aforementioned "Black Legend" as it relates to MarshalN20. I would appreciate a mention that no evidence was ever provided to justify claims that MarshalN20 ever included sources in articles, and that MarshalN20's disruptions occurred in article talk pages. Neotarf's 1 January 2014 writing ([4]) in The Signpost, as concerning the Argentine History case, needs to be either reworded or deleted. An amendment is needed that provides a more stern remedy for "casting aspersions" (as related to unwanted accusations of political affiliation). The current "casting aspersions" principle does not adequately address the problem because it cannot be properly enforced. Thanks in advance for the help. Please take my proposals for solution as recommendations (not demands). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Note: I haven't directly mentioned Cambalachero in my post because I don't know his opinion of this matter as it concerns him.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to Roger

---Response to Roger--- Thanks Roger. Yes, here are the direct quotes... From 5 December 2013 ([5]): "After 3 years of conflict over the insertion of non-mainstream sources written by Fascists into Argentine history topics" "It would not seem reasonable that someone who is being hounded by POV pushers, to the point where they have had to request an interaction ban, should be excluded from meta-discussions about their restrictions." From 1 January 2014 ([6]): "The case asserted that Argentine history articles were being systematically skewed by the use of sources sympathetic to 'Nacionalismos'." "The case ended with topic bans for the individuals adding this material." "They were ganging up to bully him." Notes: The "Fascist sources" accusation is neither supported in the "principles" nor "findings of fact" in the Argentine History case. The case's resolution only commented on the reliability of a single source and the importance of "consensus building". Therefore, the "Fascist sources" accusation is casting aspersions. Hounding and bullying accusations are false, and spreading those accusations again cast aspersions. The IBAN was placed due to "ongoing acrimony between the parties" (per Kirill). T. Cannens also wrote, "continued acrimonious interactions despite the topic ban means that interaction bans are necessary." I didn't add sources. In War of the Triple Alliance, I misbehaved during a move request (on the talk page). In Juan Manuel de Rosas, my only major article contribution was the writing of the lead (or "lede" as some like to call it); again, most of my actions there were on the article's talk page. Hence, any other statement made about my actions is false. I haven't "systematically skewed" anything. Such an accusation is absolutely terrible (falling into academic dishonesty). Neotarf and others get away with this kind of mudslinging by claiming that their "general idea of the topic" is correct based on the Arbitration Committee's decision. A clarification on the ruling, perhaps directly addressing this "Black Legend", would be helpful (so that any further aspersion casting can be dealt with at AN/I). Alternatively, a remedy for "casting aspersions" could be amended into the case in order for any further aspersion casting can be reviewed at the Arbitration Enforcement page (which is more focused on arbitration-related matters than AN/I). If none of my recommendations are adequate, I would also appreciate suggestions on how to handle this matter (for instance, should I simply take this directly to AN/I the next time it happens?). It's truly bothersome to keep having my reputation besmirched throughout Wikipedia. The IBAN was certainly a great help in stopping the source, but the false accusations continue being spread by users with apparent ties to the involved parties. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to Astynax

---Response to Roger--- Thanks, Astynax, for another good example of the "Black Legend". Regardless of what was argued in the case's evidence phase, and whatever it is that the arbitrators ultimately believed, the case's resolution at no point makes mention to "fascist sources". This is because the Arbitration Committee does not rule over article content (In fact, one of the case's principles encourages "consensus building" as the way to resolve content disputes). The problem is that users such as Astynax and Neotarf go around the encyclopedia claiming that the Arbitration Committee ruled on content. In fact, Neotarf explicitly claims this on the 1 January 2014 post at The Singpost: "The case asserted that Argentine history articles were being systematically skewed [...]". In the Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page, I remember very clearly that my arguments were in favor of maintaining the WP:NPOV and against relying solely on author John Lynch for such a controversial subject. But, please, let's not go back into that matter. My request here is not against Neotarf as a user (I am not requesting a punishment), but rather about the "Black Legend" being spread around by users such as Neotarf and Astynax. I want to know if any further accusations made by these or other users should be taken directly to AN/I or if the Arbitration Committee would like to clarify matters (or make amendments) that can provide more light on how to resolve this matter. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Note: I suppose that another part of the question here is the distinction between the "evidence phase" and the "final decision". Astynax below assures that what was placed in the "evidence phase" can be used in the Arbitration Committee's voice. I find this view strange, particularly as my understanding is that the "evidence phase" is where parties (involved and peripheral) could submit their position on the subject, whereas the "final decision" is what the Arbitration Committee ultimately had to say about the matter. Some kind of clarification is clearly needed either for me, for the others, or for everyone.--MarshalN20 | Talk 07:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification Questions:

1. Is the Arbitration Committee's voice in the "evidence phase" or in the "final decision"?
2. Should "casting aspersions" problems, related to this case, be taken to AN/I or Arbitration Enforcement?

These are all my clarification questions. Salvio was kind enough to provide his response to them ([7]):

"Our findings of fact are contained in the final decision and that's the only thing that it can be said to have been officially stated by arbcom. And if you think another person has been hurling groundless accusations at you, the best approach would be to talk to the other party and, failing that, to start an ANI thread."

I would like to know if the other arbitrators fully agree with Salvio, or if there might be a discrepancy of opinion?

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, according to the "final decision" presented by the Arbitration Committee, I was found to have engaged in "tendentious editing and battleground conduct". Nothing less, nothing more.

Your accusations of "intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content" are aspersions. I am tired of your (and your friends') constant attacks.

Please consider this a final warning.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Astynax

MarshalN20 is mistaken that reliable, mainstream sources were not produced linking Nacionalismos and its apologists to Fascism during the arbitration case during the Evidence phase. The Signpost article thus seems to be on solid footing, and there are certainly other mainstream historians that could be cited in support of equating Nacionalismo and quasi-historical Nacionalismos accounts with Fascism. MarshalN20 joined Cambalachero/MBelgrano in defending edits based upon those sources. I am unsure what motivated MarshalN20 to lodge yet another request regarding this case, what this complaint has to do with his block, or what he is asking be clarified. If he has a complaint against the behavior of Neotarf, who did not participate in the arbcom case, surely this is not the place to lodge it. • Astynax ^talk 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to MarshalN20: You were sanctioned for specific behavior, which involved intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content. There is no requirement that such material be inserted into articles based upon demands for "consensus building". The case was accurately reported in the Signpost article, though you obviously still do not accept that you participated in such behavior or understand the reasoning behind your block. I personally find your charges of spreading a "Black Legend" to be a highly offensive and baseless breach of civility, but should you believe that I have been doing so, you were already very well-aware of where to report that sort of behavior, and that it is not here. So I am still left wondering what is the point of this request, even after your amendments? • Astynax ^talk 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to MarshalN20: Yes, you were sanctioned for that behavior, which basis arose specifically from intransigently pushing fringe, PoV content. I am certain that you are familiar with tendentious editing for which you were blocked, and that it encompasses the PoV-pushing of fringe content behavior which was part of the complaint against you. Again, this is not the proper place to lodge complaints against me and others, nor to re-air your position or attempt to circumvent. I'll bow out now, as it seems clear that you haven't accepted the reasons behind your block. • Astynax ^talk 19:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17

+1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• @MarshalN20 Please quote in your statement the actual words used that you are concerned about.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Climate change

Initiated by Darkness Shines (talk) at 20:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 1
2. Finding 2
3. Remedy 3

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [8] (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)

Information about amendment request

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested [9]
• Details of desired modification. I want it lifted.

Statement Darkness Shines

Sandstein has banned me from reverting on any article relating to climate change. Even if the edit is an obvious violation of BLP. His rationale for this sanction was to prevent further disruption, however as there was no further disruption from me then this sanction is not preventative. BLP policy is that "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" This sanction is a violation of our policy on BLP. Yes I edit warred, yes I was wrong, but banning an editor from removing blatant violations of BLP is ridiculous. A 1RR restriction would make more sense, if I were reverted by an editor then I would go to the article talk page to make a case.

I suppose I have to point out that Kaj Taj Mahal is a SPA whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to denigrate the BLP James Delingpole. Edits such as writing having no scientific or intellectual qualifications himself to make this accusation. Or calling him a mental-midget. Or violating NPOV and LABEL by adding a section title Anthropogenic climate change denial The sanction imposed on myself means the first diff I presented here could not be removed by me, which is a ridiculous state of affairs. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: The article protection was removed before I was sanctioned, and there were no reverts by myself on it. Please explain where this "continuing disruption" was? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Sandstein, please read what I have written. I said that if I am reverted then off to the talk page I go, how exactly could I do 1RR a day under that restriction? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies:, @Sandstein:, @Salvio giuliano:. At 13:28, 15 January 2014 editor IHaveAMastersDegree, added this to a BLP "Delingpole's conjecture became the basis for one of the most well-known global warming conspiracy thoeries and has been cited as an example of conspiracy theories in science that "target specific research can have serious consequences for public health and environmental policies""[10], the source does not mention Delingpole, I rasied this at 13:41, 15 January 2014 It was finally removed at 16:56, 15 January 2014, so that BLP violation sat in the article for an hour and a half, because had I removed that content it would be deemed a revert and I would be blocked. And if the next time the BLP vio is worse? Does it sit in an article for hours in the hope someone will come along to remove it? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

For three days this BLP violation has sat in an article. I am unable to remove it and am hoping someone will see my post on the talk page, thing is, Delingpole did not write the blog post the authors of that paper are referring to, it was a guest post. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: Say what? Every BLP violation I have pointed out has been agreed with by other editors that they were BLP violations. The diffs I presented prove the exact opposite of what you are saying. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, where have I said those violations were "outrageous name-calling and vandalism" I am pointing out obvious BLP violations, which I cannot rectify because of this sanction, are you really OK with BLP vios sitting in articles for days at a time? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

Please note that DarknessShines appealed his restriction to WP:AE this past week, where his appeal was reviewed and declined unanimously by 5 admins. Here's a link to the appeal, as I don't see one provided above. MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

While admins are allowed to extend editing restrictions to include a ban on removing BLP violations and vandalism, it is excessive for Sandstein to have both removed the exemption and subjected DS to a 0RR. A block for edit-warring given the contentious nature of the BLP claim, simply removing the exemption, or even a 1RR with no exemption for removing BLP violations and vandalism would have all been better geared towards addressing the cause of the problem without needlessly barring constructive editing in the topic area. Going straight to a 0RR with no exemptions is unduly severe.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Salvio, it is not reasonable at all. It is completely overkill to give someone an indefinite 0RR with no exemptions in a topic area for a single BLP dispute over a single article when there are no prior sanctions within the topic area.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kaj Taj Mahal

His behaviour at Talk:James Delingpole was rather disheartening, and precludes me from supporting any relaxation of sanctions. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with whose behaviours you are talking about (perhaps you could inform me), but my reservations about Darkness Shines' sanction-lifting comes from the template fiasco, for which he was admonished for here. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to add one more thing, I think this baseless SPI request is somewhat indicative of his maturity level. This sort of ad hominem targeting lowers my confidence in his ability to edit these types of sensitive articles without provoking a conflict. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: I have many varied purposes on Wikipedia. Just one of my aims isn't to denigrate, but to improve the accuracy and neutrality on the James Delingpole article. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Please note the talk page discussions on "section titles" at that page [11] and at the corresponding BLP/N discussion[12] wherein I fear that some of the disputants complaining most loudly about DS seem to evince essentially the same behaviour as they dislike in him. I suggest that the equivalent sanction actually be extended to each of those editors de novo by motion as a result in order to calm down what appears to be a relatively toxic atmosphere in that corner of the Wiki-world. My sole connection here is suggesting a neutral and clear section title, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I recommend that this appeal is declined, for the reasons it was declined at WP:AE. I refer to my comments there. This additional appeal is forum shopping.

I did not impose a one-revert restriction, as now suggested by the appellant, because such a restriction would be insufficiently preventative. Even at the rate of one revert per day, edit wars can still be carried out. Especially in the case of particularly argumentative and wiki-litigious editors, I prefer imposing sanctions that are as simple as possible and contain as few loopholes, exceptions and caveats as possible.

The conduct of Kaj Taj Mahal has been the subject of a separate, now-closed AE request, and does not concern this appeal.  Sandstein  09:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

@Newyorkbrad: Darkness Shines has already shown that he can't exercise the sort of judgment your proposal would require (which is why the sanction Sandstein imposed didn't give him room for it). Moreover it's not necessary: if Mr Shines perceives an egregious BLP violation, he can bring it to the attention of other editors and it will be dealt with in short order. This has already worked: [13], followed by [14]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• One of the things one can seen in DS's posts above is the intention to deal with BLP issues that are not "outrageous name-calling and vandalism". This is the point: he cannot effectively make the kind of judgment that would be required to cope with a less stringent restriction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The point is, they're not "outrageous name-calling and vandalism". You seem not to understand the less stringent restriction that might be considered for you. That's one of the reasons the more stringent one was imposed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Decline Darkness Shines The purpose of your restriction is to prevent disruption. I find this diff persuasive.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Darkness Shines For information, the words I used were "to prevent disruption" not "continuing disruption". It is a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to prevent disruption in topic areas that are very prone to it.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Darkness Shines is an editor I've found to be often right; the problem is that he's sometimes right in the wrong way and, so, ends up sanctioned. In this case, speaking personally, I'd have imposed a slightly different sanction (one allowing for one single revert for obvious BLP violations), but, when adjudicating appeals, we are not supposed to substitute our own judgement to that of the imposing administrator. We can only determine whether the use he made of the power we delegated to him was reasonable and, in my opinion, it was. So, for that reason, decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @TDA, considering that a. this is not the first time Darkness Shines has been placed under a revert restriction and b. the disruptive edits which led to the imposition of this sanction concerned material which DS wrongly considered a BLP-violation, I disagree with you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Darkness Shines should not be reverting legitimately disputable material, even if it is his personal opinion that the material is violative or problematic. However, I find a sanction that prohibits the reverting of even outrageous name-calling and vandalism to be troublesome, except in truly exceptional circumstances, and wonder if the sanction might be rethought to that extent. Criticism of this appeal as forum-shopping is unfounded as the administrator who closed the AE thread specifically told Darkness Shines that he had the right to bring this here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• I think Salvio sums this up well. I would probably have put forth a different sanction, similar to the one he describes, but that's not the question. Climate change is under discretionary sanctions, the sanction imposed might well be more excessive than I would have imposed, but the logic behind it is reasonable. I'd decline this request. Worm^TT(talk) 11:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Decline; the sanction is well within admin discretion under the circumstances. T. Canens (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Infoboxes

Initiated by --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Case affected : Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Pigsonthewing and infoboxes

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Andy

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Andy notified

Information about amendment request

• "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."

Statement by Gerda Arendt

As already stated while the case was open, this puts Andy in the position not being able to add infoboxes to articles which he creates. A proposal to change that, Include infoboxes in new articles which they create, was then supported by ColonelHenry, Johnbod, Crisco 1492, Montanabw, improved wording requested by Philosopher, Mackensen and SchroCat. The proposal was opposed by Giano and Folantin, and was discussed.

Today we saw one of Andy's articles as lead DYK on the Main page: Magistrate of Brussels. I ask to add a clause that ends the restriction on his newly created articles: he is in no conflict with any other user, responsible for the content of an article he creates, and is not in conflict with the interests of Wikipedia adding an infobox for a painting, a street or a military person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that I enjoyed amicable discussion and collaboration on an infobox template, {{infobox Bach composition}}, resulting in a good compromise (pictured), shown on more than 100 classical music articles (example), by Nikkimaria, Andy, RexxS and myself?

Assume good faith, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Mabbett

I wasn't aware of Gerda's plans to make this request, but I thank her for it and endorse it (I had intended to make such a request at a later date). I wish to include infoboxes in articles I create, and there appears to be no cogent reason why I should not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Penwhale

If the restriction was to be removed from articles he recently created (which should be classified both by (a) article age and (b) number of edits by other editors), then I would also recommend that he be allowed to defend his reasoning to include said infoboxes at the appropriate places. Without this, editors could unilaterally remove boxes from Andy's recently-created articles and he would not be able to do a thing about it. I doubt it will come up often, but I at this point don't see harm also granting him this capability. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I like your ideas, save for the first one - I would amend it so that if specific article(s) have/has few or no other contributors, he would be given a bit more leeway with the infoboxes in such article(s). Call it the someone's got to keep an eye on it clause. I also would support a revision count instead or in addition to the article age (since creation) for definition of such articles.- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

If the committee is going to allow an exemption for articles Andy has recently created, please could they define what they mean by "recently". Doing so would remove the potential for much argument that could very easily lead to more work at AE and/or another amendment/clarification request down the line. I also endorse Penwhales's comments about discussion.

As your starter for 10, how about:

• Andy may add infoboxes to articles created in the past 3 calendar months where he is unambiguously the creator and/or only significant author.
• He may participate in any discussion, started by any other user, about infoboxes on individual articles meeting the above criteria.
• He may initiate a discussion about the undiscussed removal of an infobox from an article meeting the above criteria but he may not reinstate the infobox without consensus, except he may:
  • revert obvious vandalism that removed the infobox (e.g. page or section blanking)
  • revert or fix obvious error that unintentionally stopped an infobox from apearing. He may discuss an infobox with an editor to the extent required to understand their intent.
  • revert the removal of an infobox on one of these articles if the removing editor has not offered an explanation after 1 week and no other user has commented in support of the removal.
• Any user apparently stalking Andy's edits or otherwise systematically removing infoboxes added by Andy may be blocked by an uninvolved adminstrator for up to a week (first offence) or up to a year (third and subsequent offences) following consensus at WP:AE. Andy may initiate and/or comment in any such AE discussion.

Hopefully something like that should be acceptable to all parties and leave no significant grey areas. Thryduulf (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: I plucked the time period out the air, but it seems a recent definition of "recent" to me for this context. I intend that the time period is a rolling one of three months from $current_day not three months from the date an ammendment is past.

@Folantin: if you want to accuse Andy of sockpuppetry you should make a formal presentation of the evidence at WP:SPI. If you don't, you should withdrawn the insinuations you've made here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

An SPI case was submitted. It was closed without action by clerk Reaper Eternal who was "not convinced" by the behavioural evidence presented and concluded "There's no real evidence to support sock puppetry" The case has now been archived to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pigsonthewing/Archive. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent and EatsShootsAndLeaves: I agree absolutely about the disservice WP:OWN does to the encyclopaedia. However, if you read the case pages you will see that last year's committee approved principles and findings of fact that endorsed WP:OWNership of articles by those opposed to infoboxes, despite repeated comments by myself and others (RexxS and Gerda Arendt included) on the talk pages about how bad this would be. So officially now any author can legitimately object to an infobox on "their" article on the grounds of "I don't like it". Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Nikkimaria

• 80% of the articles created by Andy since the case closed, including the one with which Gerda opened this request, have infoboxes—most added by either editors who supported Andy during the case or a Birmingham public library IP, and then developed by Andy. Indeed, this pattern holds true also for a number of articles not created by Andy.
• In an earlier clarification request, the committee concluded that "acting on behalf of a restricted user to breach a restriction...is not permitted". In the discussions that resulted in this remedy, a number of arbs stated that Andy "does need to take time away from infoboxes". Neither seems to have been heeded.

Under such conditions, and given that the subject has consistently regarded "authorial choice" in excluding a box from an article one creates as "ownership"....why is this request here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@WTT: I would be (pleasantly) surprised to see Andy support that statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

Since late September 2013 (i.e. just after the ArbCom sanctions passed), a Birmingham IP 80.249.48.109 (talk · contribs) has taken a sudden interest in infoboxes. Funnily enough, this has tended to occur around the same time Andy Mabbett has contributed to many of the same articles.--Folantin (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is socking, meat puppetry or something else, but there are more than enough WP:DUCK grounds for suspicion here. According to Nikkimaria,several of these IPs have been behaving in the same way [15][16][17]. All Birmingham educational addresses. According to his own Wikipedia user page, Andy Mabbett lives in Birmingham and works in education.

Examples: The only users to edit the Birmingham Union workhouse article are Pigsonthewing and an anonymous infobox-adding IP: [18]. Almost exactly the same thing happens with Sir Richard Ranulph FitzHerbert, 9th Baronet [19]: the only edit the IP makes is to add an infobox, while all other edits to the article (barring a minor fix) are by Andy Mabbett. On Denville Hall, the only edit [20] an anonymous IP makes to the page is to add an infobox right among a bunch of edits by Pigsonthewing [21]. An IP manages to produce a fully formatted infobox in its sixth ever edit to Wikipedia [22], again right in the middle of a bunch of Andy Mabbett's contributions to the same article.

This is well beyond coincidence. --Folantin (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

More evidence collected here [23]. I could request an SPI but I don't think it's necessary per the duck test. The behavioural evidence that these IPs and Pigsonthewing are connected goes well beyond reasonable doubt. --Folantin (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Update I've now gone ahead and asked for an SPI per Arbitrator Beeblebrox's request. The evidence is here [24]. --Folantin (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

It is exactly this sort of adversity by innuendo that make editors like Folantin so poisonous to the collaborative environment we should be striving to create on Wikipedia. There are 1 million people in Birmingham city and 2 million people in the surrounding urban area, including both Andy and myself. I live as close to the city centre as Andy does and have far more links with education than he does now, or ever had. Why not accuse me of being the IPs? A look at the geolocation for the IPs that Folantin lists shows that they are mainly school addresses. Here's the homepage for Birmingham Grid for Learning: http://www.bgfl.org/ - see for yourself that it's part of the National Grid for Learning (which connects schools to the internet) and you can quickly click through from the homepage to the directory of schools, http://services.bgfl.org/cfpages/schools/default.cfm where you'll find that Birmingham has hundreds of schools connected to BGfL. Is Folantin now claiming that Andy is getting into schools and using their computers to edit Wikipedia pages? I'm afraid that it's far more likely that there are many Wikipedia editors in Birmingham schools who may add infoboxes, considering the majority of articles on the English Wikipedia have one (at least 2.4 million out of 4.4 million). I suppose the next step will be Folantin blaming Andy for all of those as well? --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: It's far more likely that I'd boldly add an infobox to the article using the {{Infobox controversy}} template, only to be reverted with the edit summary "rv,fmt". Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

• I don't care much about infoboxes one way on the other. Carly Foulkes has one cause the other model articles did, Charley Morgan doesn't.
• I've prior contact / interaction with Gerda / Nikkimaria /POTW : all are clearly positive contributors to the encylopedia; this case made me sad more than anything else.
• It says here; I've got 2000 WP:ANI edits, 1000 WP:WQA, 700 WP:AN and around 250 WP:AC (group). (I was an editor, of sorts, for a couple years before a watchlist notice requesters WQA volunteers led to WP:DR participation.) Since I read more than I comment on, the numbers probably underestimate the number of conflicts observed.
• One of the most common threads I see underlying conflict is the "ownership" concept. It's toxic and the antithesis of Wikipedia should be. You've all seen these hundreds or thousands of times, but I'm going to repeat it: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone
• Although Arbcom is not GovCom, decisions made are influential in community discussion and thinking.
• As much as I'd like Andy to be able to add infoboxes -- especially if it could do so without annoying Nikkimaria -- the encyclopedia as a whole is more important to me, and therefore I urge ya'll not to pass any remedies based on nebulous "ownership" criteria. In the long run, as it opens the door for more "that's mine" spats, it is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia.
• Alternative modifications, such as allowing allowing single insertions, with 0rr if another editor removes the box, and perhaps a limit of a single talk page argument for the addition of the box, would prevent the benefit of allowing Andy to add boxes to articles he provides the initial writing off without ensconcing the "ownership" concept in the decision. NE Ent 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox bradjoke
|name = Brad
|diff = [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&diff=590705223&oldid=590704935]
|context= arbcom amendment request
|self-reference = yes
|type = irony, dramatic; wry; sardonic
|based in truth=yes
|funny = disputed
}}

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves

For the life of me, I cannot understand what the kerfluffle is. All articles should have infoboxes. Really. They're a quick, immediately visible summary of the subject. We don't get to determine whether it has one or not based on who created it, or has the most edits - that would be WP:OWN. This is one thing NOT WORTH FIGHTING ABOUT ES&L 09:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Before proceeding further, we should wait for a response from Andy (Pigsonthewing) as to whether he wants this amendment request to be made or not, and if he does, he should then make a statement and Gerda should step back and let matters proceed from there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Now that Andy has 'taken over' this request that was initially made by Gerda, my inclination would be to deny the amendment request. The reason is that both this proposed amendment, and the remedy that was passed for Gerda, are taking the wrong approach. Whether an article does or does not have an infobox should not depend on the initial author or creator. It is the article topic and content that should determine whether it has an infobox (well-thought out infoboxes are, by design, intended to be applied to an easily definable and finite series of articles - as opposed to an overly broad and open-ended category). If it is an article that fits within a defined series (e.g. planets, chemical elements, and so on), then there should be no problem. If it is a disputed area (e.g. people - not all articles on people are amenable to being presented in infobox form) then there should be a discussion. If there is any doubt, leave it off and/or raise the matter on the talk page for discussion.

    On a wider point, what those who participated in the infobox case should be doing is preparing the ground for a discussion to help address ways to include the data contained in infoboxes in ways that do not force articles to have infoboxes, and to address the wider question of why when 'boxes' in general were first created, infoboxes gravitated to the top right-hand corner, and other boxes (e.g. navboxes and succession boxes) gravitated to the bottom of articles (series boxes ended up in-between). If categories were displayed at the top of articles, they would get argued over a lot more. It is the location of infoboxes in 'prime territory' right up front that causes much of the dissension IMO. Find some way of resolving that tension and people might argue less over them. Also tackle the issue of 'narrow' vs 'broad' infoboxes. But all these issues can only be addressed if the wider community actually has those discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Carcharoth - this should be coming from Andy, not you Gerda. Worm^TT(talk) 11:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  I'd certainly support Andy being allowed to add infoboxes to articles he has created, though as Beeblebrox suggests, if others remove it, he will be topic banned from the subsequent discussion.

  @Nikkimaria:, allowing Andy to add infoboxes to articles he creates and only those articles does give a clear sign that authorship has weight. I have seen no evidence that Andy is asking other users to put infoboxes on the articles he creates, nor that he has not heeded the topic ban in the short period since the case. Worm^TT(talk) 07:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Now that Andy has spoken up about this I think I would support allowing such an amendment, provided that it is made clear that this applies only to articles Andy has recently created. If others come along later and object to or remove said infobox, the TBAN would still apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Folantin: Thrydulff is quite right, either proffer your evidence at WP:SPI or do not make such accusations. "Put up or shut up" is pretty much standard procedure for accusations of socking, which can be extremely damaging to a user even if they have not actually done it. Please either show us the SPI case page with relevant evidence or strike your remarks. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be fairly easy to word an amendment so as to avoid the any wiki-lawyering about the definition of "recent". Something along the lines of "Pigsonthewing is permitted to add infoboxes to articles to which he is unambiguously the initial creator, provided that he does so with his first edit when initially creating the article, and at no time afterwards. If any other user should make any edit whatsoever related to that infobox the topic ban still applies. This exemption is valid only for articles created after this amendment has passed. If any user should appear to be using this exemption to harass Pigsonthewing by repeatedly removing infoboxes he has placed in articles, Pigsonthewing is instructed to email the arbitration committee rather than commenting on-wiki. If the matter appears to have merit it will be referred to Arbitration enforcement for review. If Pigsonthewing is found to have violated these conditions the exemption will be rescinded and the full topic ban considered still in force." That draws pretty clear lines around what the exemption is and what Andy's means of recourse is should someone decide to exploit it to harass. If he wants an infobox in an article he creates it has to be there from the get go. This can be done easily enough through drafting elsewhere and copying it when ready to go live. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have no objection to this amendment as applied to articles of which Andy Mabbett is clearly and unambiguously the creator. If there is room for doubt (e.g. the situation that arose last fall with an article that had been drafted in AfC space and that Andy published into mainspace), steer clear or ask first. I will add that although Gerda Arendt's raising an infobox-related issue may work out okay in this instance, in general she would be very well served to take the strong advice that she was given here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• In my opinion this request should be denied. In the past, when dealing with infoboxes, Andy's approach has often been problematic and, for that, he had to be removed from the playing field. I don't think it's wise to allow him back now, even in part and, on top of that, since, as Nikkimaria mentions, 80% of the articles created by Andy since the case closed have infoboxes, I also see no reason to relax the restriction, which might lead to wikilawyering and endless AE threads (examples may include: he created the article three months and a day ago, he was not the only significant author and so on). In my opinion, when a sanction becomes necessary, it's best for it to be plain, simple and clear. A sanction, in short, that does not allow for many exceptions of grey areas, which in this case, is a restriction preventing Andy from making any edits concerning infoboxes tout court. I'd also like to add that Gerda would do well to choose to stay away from this topic for a bit, because her behaviour since the case has closed has done nothing but convince me that the sanction we imposed on her should be changed to match Andy's. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• My thoughts on this mirror Salvio's. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• I also agree with Salvio's exposition,  Roger Davies ^talk 00:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• My heart tells me "per NYB". My head tells me "per Salvio". The actual effective difference between the two is small enough that I'll go with my heart this time. I suggest Andy be allowed to add infoboxes to articles he unambiguously has "created", but if that is opposed for any reason then the topic ban continues to apply. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make everyone on the project, pro-, con-, or indifferent, care one to two orders of magnitude less about infoboxes than they do now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Someday this dispute will drag on to the point that we wind up having the mainspace article [[English Wikipedia infobox controversy]]. On the talkpage, someone will open a thread about whether that article should have an infobox or not..... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Salvio. T. Canens (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)