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: Race and intelligence	none	(orig. case)	12 April 2018
Clarification request: Civility in infobox discussions	Motion	(orig. case)	2 May 2018
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel_articles_3	none	(orig. case)	4 May 2018

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: Race and intelligence

Initiated by Ferahgo the Assassin at 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

Note: I am making this request as per the recommendation I received from the Arbitration Committee Mailing List, after having contacted the list with this question. I will repost the relevant bits of the question I emailed them below, with personally identifying information redacted.

I was recently included as a party on a Clarification Request that was declined and closed without my participation. The clarification request concerned the scope of the Race and Intelligence topic ban, which also applies to me. (The current version of my editing restrictions can be found here) My understanding of my topic ban is that I am prohibited from editing articles related to "the race and intelligence topic, broadly construed".

What is covered under "broadly construed"? I am concerned about whether editing pages related to the "heritability of psychological traits” is considered to be a violation, or even the “psychometrics of intelligence” on its own. My understanding since my restrictions were given was that I was only prohibited from editing topics concerning both “race” and “intelligence”.

I should mention that my real-life circumstances have changed considerably since my restrictions were given. I'm now in my second year of the Ph.D program in behavior genetics at a prestigious university. My research specifically involves the heritability of intelligence, which so far has been very well received by my peers. (I sent the mailing list a link to an award I’ve received for my research.) The vast majority of research in my field has nothing to do with race, and most researchers do not want to touch the topic with a ten-foot pole.

It seems arbitrary to prohibit me from editing anything that has to do with the heritability of psychological traits, particularly when doing so would close off major potential improvements that I could bring to the encyclopedia to topics in my area of expertise. I am also currently finishing up a research project on mental chronometry that I plan to present at an upcoming conference, and was hoping that I could finally get around to making major improvements to the mental chronometry article with what I've learned over the course of this research and its background.

Can you please clarify the extent to which my topic ban covers the area in which I am developing professional expertise, and the rationale for which topics are covered?

@ Brad:

I did not think it was worth including & notifying anyone else, since this was intended just to be a request for clarification of what my own topic ban was intended to cover. But here is a brief history of my situation, if it’s helpful:

1. Original topic ban from R&I in October 2010, for violation of WP:SHARE policy, documented here.

2. This was followed by a 1-year site ban, in May 2012, for violation of WP:SHARE, documented here.

3. Suspension of this ban in March 2014 is documented further down, here. My request for appealing the site ban occurred via email, originally sent to the committee on March 6, 2014. In this appeal, I mention that Occam and I no longer share an IP address—and haven’t since (and still don’t).

4. My ban was lifted under the condition that in addition to the topic ban, I was restricted only to articles about “paleontology of birds and dinosaurs” and associated talk and process pages. I appealed this specific restriction in September 2016, and this was rescinded as documented here. Which leaves me under the original topic ban and the two-way interaction ban, as documented in the most recent link.

@ Euryalus:

Appealing my topic ban wasn't my intention in submitting this request, but if Arbcom thinks lifting the ban is the best solution, then I'm happy to have that considered. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, if Arbcom decides that my topic ban applies to articles about the heritability of intelligence in general, then I'd like to request for my topic ban to be lifted. I know there are plenty of other articles to work on, but I have a unique ability to improve articles about the topic that I'm getting my Ph.D in. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Capitals00:

With all due respect, if people want to scrutinize my edits that are 8 years old, it might be good to look at the whole discussion in context before drawing a conclusion. That being said, I think it’s fair to say that my explanation for these edits is simply that they were 8 years ago. My current hope is only that I be permitted to improve articles like Polygenic score and Gene-environment correlation, which are directly related to my research. If you want to see how I can contribute to topics outside this subject, I invite you to look at Specimens of Archaeopteryx and (longer ago) The Origin of Birds (a GA). Grad school has (quite predictably and, I hope, understandably) limited my time and energy for reading on topics outside of my field.

As for the comments about short leash, six month trial period, etc, I have no problem with these suggestions. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no current plans to edit anything about Richard Lynn, his books or his research. Anything I do edit will be fully compliant with both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policy, regardless of whether my topic ban is lifted or not. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Again, there isn’t any specific article related to race and intelligence that I’m aiming to edit. My preference is to edit articles on topics I’ve researched or am researching currently. I would start with Mental chronometry, Gene-environment correlation, and Polygenic score. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@MastCell: Well, any time we do genetic studies, we have to worry about population stratification. I’m happy to go into more detail about my research privately to Arbcom. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the new input, everyone. As a very busy grad student without much time to read outside of my research area anymore, I hope that "reasonably active" might be charitably interpreted if we revisit the question in half a year or so. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

@Newyorkbrad:

• Race and intelligence case: Findings of fact 3.5: Ferahgo: counselled, topic-banned and blocked
• Race and intelligence case: Findings of fact 3.6: Ferahgo and Occam are topic banned
• Race and intelligence case: Remedies 2.1: Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam site-banned
• Race and intelligence case: Modified by motion 2: (Ferahgo the Assassin's site-ban suspended)

I believe that covers everything to date. Links to original discussions are in each section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• On the clarification request, since Ferahgo the Assassin claims to now have some professional expertise on the subject of the "heritability of psychological traits", I personally see no problem with her editing in that subject area, very narrowly construed, as long as she doesn't touch on anything whatsoever regarding race, and assuming that her editing is based on citing suitable neutral reliable sources, and not on her own personal knowledge, which cannot be verified, or opinions, which are disallowed as WP:OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• On lifting the ban, I think that would be OK, as long as FtA was made aware that she was on a very short leash, and that the topic ban would be restored at the first sign of a problem in her editing. I think the question that would need to be answered is: in that circumstance (i.e. topic ban lifted, problematic editing, topic ban restored) would FtA's site ban be restored as well, considering the conditions under which the site ban was lifted? [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Capitals00

I am not supporting that topic ban should be lifted because Ferahgo the Assassin has made just 400 edits on main articles since 2014 and I maintain that it doesn't matter how long ago the topic ban was imposed because I would like to see how FTA can really contribute in topics outside this subject.

I have removed a lot of WP:UNDUE content from Nations and intelligence dedicated to theories of Richard Lynn that are controversial and pseudoscientific. FTA's edits[2][3] related to Richard Lynn show that she probably thinks otherwise. I would like to hear some explanation of these edits and also how she will represent Richard Lynn or his researches whenever she will edit these articles. Capitals00 (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin: You still haven't answered my question. I asked how you "will represent Richard Lynn or his researches whenever" you will edit any articles that are related to him. I am waiting for your reply. What is your firm opinion about Lynn and his researches? Tell me which articles you would prefer to edit that are related to race and intelligence once your topic ban has been removed and how do you think you will improve those articles. Capitals00 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin: Your answer to the question regarding Richard Lynn and his researches seems satisfactory. I had also asked that "which articles you would prefer to edit that are related to race and intelligence once your topic ban has been removed and how do you think you will improve those articles". Waiting for your reply. Capitals00 (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I wrote Wikipedia:Broadly construed on April 6. Seems timely. Perhaps we can fix this by fleshing that out a bit? Guy (Help!) 17:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

Ordinarily, I'm of the opinion that an editor's real-life academic qualifications (or lack thereof) are irrelevant here. But since Ferahgo presents hers as a central component of her request, I think they're worth discussing.

Ferahgo writes: My research specifically involves the heritability of intelligence... The vast majority of research in my field has nothing to do with race, and most researchers do not want to touch the topic with a ten-foot pole. The realist cynic in me can't help noticing that this formulation leaves out a key detail: Ferahgo, does your research touch on race as it intersects with intelligence? MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

I'm not sure I like this. Not only because I'm not a big fan of "I have a unique ability to improve articles about the topic..." because that usually also comes with a unique agenda, but also because the sequence of events that I'm seeing here is disconcerting. Captain Occam returns to Wikipedia. Captain Occam edits in areas that are apparently intelligence related but not race related. Captain Occam gets indef blocked. Ferahgo the Assassin shows up requesting permission to edit in those very intelligence related areas that got the Captain indef blocked. Nope. Not an encouraging chain of events. --regentspark (comment) 08:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements or other input (although it's not clear just who should be notified of this request). Could Feragho the Assassin or someone else please provide more specific links to the prior discussions that led to the topic-ban and site-ban, to the extent they are visible on-wiki, and any other on-wiki material we should review? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Also awaiting any further input, and thought it worth clarifying if this is ultimately a request for amendment as well as clarification? If clarification only, then standard advice: topic bans can never be prescriptively defined, so if in doubt about whether an article is on the border of a ban, assume it is and find something else to edit. The examples referred to above are on the border of the ban; if you edit them I'd say there's a sanctions risk. However your request also has elements of an actual appeal against the ban, including for example your mention of the passage of time and your academic work. There's always a generic case for very old sanctions to be reconsidered, so it'd be worth clarifying if that's a part of this ARCA to make sure we consider all parts of the request. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Ferahgo; thanks for the reply - not sure if it's the best solution, just checking on whether its part of what's proposed (in which case it deserves consideration along with the clarification request). If this was just about clarification then I'd say construe the ban pretty broadly and stay away from those borderline topic areas - there's five million articles to work on, and plenty to do in other spaces. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Noting the comments in this section and by Beyond My Ken, what do people think about suspending the topic ban for (say) six months, with authority for reinstatement by any uninvolved admin if problems arise, but otherwise expiring completely by October if no problems occur? Views particularly welcome from other editors in the "race and intelligence" space, with whom Ferahgo the Assassin would presumably then work alongside. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This has been here awhile without progress, so views welcome on the following, particularly from @Alex Shih, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Newyorkbrad, RickinBaltimore, and Premeditated Chaos::

1. Interpretation of topic ban: There seems a rough consensus that articles relating to "heritability of psychological traits" and "psychometrics of intelligence" do fall within the topic ban, and that the best way to satisfy "broadly construed" is to edit in entirely unrelated fields. Absent contrary views, suggest we wrap this part up with that outcome.
2. Lifting the topic ban:Separately, there seems no consensus on whether to suspend or lift the topic ban entirely. Per Doug Weller, suggest it stay in place as something to revisit once Ferahgo the Assassin has demonstrated (say) six months of reasonably active and trouble-free editing elsewhere.

Comments welcome, including from the OP. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think this request and the previous one basically boil down to a clarification on whether this individual is topic banned from articles about "race and intelligence" (e.g. articles that have to do with both at the same time) or articles about "race or intelligence" (e.g. articles that have to do with race and also, separately, articles that have to do with intelligence). If the former, then editing articles about intelligence as the filing editor describes would generally not be an issue, so long as nothing in the article had anything to do whatsoever with race. Looking back on the case, I think the former was clearly the intent. It's worth noting that the former was the bounds of the topic area originally given for discretionary sanctions, and this topic ban was initially implemented as a discretionary sanction, so I actually don't see how the latter could be correct from a procedural perspective. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If we're clarifying that the topic ban is really broader than explicitly written, we should amend it to be clear. I'll propose a motion to that effect shortly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• My thoughts mirror Euryalus' genrally - from a clarification point of view, the edits described would be on the edge of the ban and depending on the content and context might well lead to a sanction. That said, looking back at the history, I would support lifting the topic ban which has been in place for 4 years, but I would be interested in hearing community views on that matter. Worm^TT(talk) 19:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• My opinion on the clarification aspect of this mirrors those above - I think the topics you indicate in your request are on the border of the topic ban. Whether they'd violate it would depend on the specific material, but it's risky considering that the general view on topic bans is that they should encourage an editor to work on something completely unrelated, not on something very close. On the appeal aspect - well, I realize that I'm hardly one to be looking down my nose at low activity given my own sluggish editing rate lately, but I do notice that the low number of edits since the 2016 appeal makes it a bit difficult to judge the success of that decision. Still, I'd be willing to consider a suspension given the age of the sanctions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Following up here, it looks like the consensus view is that these edits do violate the topic ban, and that suspending it would be considered after more activity in other areas. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Studies in the "psychometrics of intelligence" often discuss the intersection of race and intelligence, so I would say that is within your topic ban. You mention mental chronometry and again that is an area where people like Arthur Jensen, to quote our R&I article, "have argued that reaction time is independent of culture and that the existence of race differences in average reaction time is evidence that the cause of racial IQ gaps is partially genetic instead of entirely cultural." As for inheritance of psychological traits, intelligence can be defined as a psychological trait and psychological traits are said to be influenced by genetics. But if you are going to stay well away psychological traits linked in any way to race and intelligence, then that might be ok. You probably know that would include for instance avoiding the topic of response time and race. If in doubt, either avoid it or ask. I'm not willing to consider a suspension at the moment, but I might after six months of active editing. I'm sure there are plenty of articles that you can contribute to without coming near to anything related to your topic ban. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Reviewing everything that has been presented here, I agree the edits requests are very, very close to crossing the line into the area where the topic ban currently is. I would reconsider a suspension of the ban in six months time, if there was a good faith effort to avoid the areas that led to the topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Based on what's been presented here and privately to us off-wiki, I agree that the intended edits fall within the topic ban. At this time, I'm not comfortable with a suspension; I prefer Doug's suggestion that this be re-visited after six months of productive editing elsewhere on the project. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that "heritability of psychological traits” & “psychometrics of intelligence” are in practice so closely related to the R&I topic that they are included in the ban. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with the consensus above that (1) the areas in question should be avoided under the topic-ban, and (2) we shouldn't suspend the topic-ban at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Civility in infobox discussions

Initiated by GoldenRing at 22:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Civility in infobox discussions arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification Sandstein]
• [diff of notification SchroCat]
• [diff of notification Cassianto]

Statement by GoldenRing

This case introduced infobox probation, which restricts an editor subject to it from making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. A recent AE request has been closed with a sanction imposed on Cassianto because he commented three times in an infobox discussion on Mary Shelley (diff, diff, diff) and twice in an infobox discussion on Stanley Kubrick (diff, diff, diff).

Whether this closure is correct turns on whether "more than one comment in discussing the inclusion of exclusion of an infobox" means more than one comment in such a discussion, or more than one comment which directly addresses the inclusion or exclusion of such an infobox. I and another admin (Sandstein) have taken the former interpretation, but others have taken the latter and it does seem there is some ambiguity in the wording. It would therefore be useful if the committee could clarify what is the intent of this wording.

Statement by Sandstein

I interpreted the sanction the same way as GoldenRing above and Euryalus below. In this regard, it seems clear enough to me. Sandstein 05:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat

As I stated at the AE request, this restriction really is poorly phrased. As it was written and voted on, Cassianto is "indefinitely restricted from ... making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article".

The comments made on Shelley and Kubrick are not about "discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article", and so bringing measures against him for a supposed breach is a very poor step.

Now, if the aim of the committee was to make sure Cassianto made no more than one comment in an IB discussion, then the restriction is poorly phrased and should be ditched or re-written to actually say what you meant it to mean. Given the restriction wording is so imprecise, and given Cassianto has not breached that wording, I struggle to see how action can be taken against. Bad law leads to bad decisions, and that is just as true when it is an ArbCom restriction. - SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@ power~enwiki: while it may have been what the restriction was "supposed to address", it is atrociously written, if that is the case. When I first read the proposal, my first thought was as I have outlined: that it doesn't stop multiple comments, if those comments are not about the IB. It's nonsense to hang a man on such a spuriously phrased diktat, and if ArbCom can't hold their hands up and say 'yes, we screwed up on that, let's fix it' (and Euryalus' comments suggest at least one member can't), then I see nothing but the restrictions being twisted however someone wants it, rather than addressing the problem.

@Euryalus: Well done on finally realising that one of the problems with IB discussions is the "reopening recently closed infobox debates": something that has been raised time after time, and something I emailed a couple of Arbs about directly, and they agreed it was a problem. What ArbCom did is to almost completely ignore the pushing, the ongoing grief time after time on the same articles (by the same individuals, many of whom were pushing for a pound of Cassianto's flesh here and at the case). It's something that is completely obvious to anyone who has looked at a couple of the threads and archives. It's a shame this simple step wasn't undertaken by ArbCom, because—as we've seen on a couple of articles already—it doesn't matter what ArbCom decided, there is still the ongoing ignoral of any consensus by users as long as the question is raised again and again and again (and yes, often with the use of IPs and sock puppets). And when people like Cass get frustrated at the ongoing pushing, it's the lazy and easy way to crucify him, rather than look at the root problem of the pushers. To be entirely honest, all the ArbCom decision has done, is to hand the pro-IB brigade an easier way to badger and push people to overstep a nebulous line and allow any of the more heavy-handed admins to put another notch on their block stick.

I suggest that you, and your colleagues, gather the strength to say that you messed up on the wording here ("indefinitely restricted from ... making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article" is crap and means two things – and you can't just say 'we didn't mean that, so we'll just hang anyone out to dry we don't like'. You should have done something like: "indefinitely restricted from ... making more than one comment in a discussion about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article".)

Now I have pointed out one of the many errors in the original decision (there are others that I am sure I'll have to point out at later clarifications), and given you better wording, it's time for you to put your collective heads together, to lift the sanction on Cassianto, and implement the new wording, which is more than sufficient. I have no doubt that ArbCom will try and slither out of what is quite clear and obvious, but hope—while not springing eternal—does still flicker that you can do the right thing at last. – SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Euryalus: "endlessly reopening infobox discussions" isn't a content issue, any more than behaviour within those discussions is a content issue. The behaviour of constant disruptive re-opening of discussions on the same topic and ignoring a stated consensus is squarely within the behaviour side of things, which is something ArbCom should have looked into. Otherwise you're giving carte blanche to the status quo of users pushing over and over in order to push editors over the rather nebulous line of "acceptable" behaviour. ArbCom have enabled and supported such bad behaviour by putting all the onus into punishing people using rude words out of sheer frustration, rather than POV pushing while (just about) remaining within what someone else decides is "civil". - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Euryalus: I'll also add that this could have easily been headed off; the two pages where Cassianto didn't breach the restrictions as they are currently written are heavily watched (and it's fairly obvious that Cassianto's edits are "tracked" by a few people too) - yet when the "discussions" were initiated again and again, no admin, let alone Arb, thought to promptly step in and quieten it? Not even the issue of the friendly (read intimidating, we are waiting to block you) DS alerts to the 'new' editors? How many of the stalkers, admins and members of ArbCom thought of stepping in to threaten advise the POV pushers on those pages that they were being problematic? Or were the IB warriors and Cassianto-haters just sitting back, with their supply of popcorn at the ready, waiting for the moment when frustration at the endless pushing from socks and logged out editors reaches boiling point? And people wonder why I get cynical about this place and the behaviour of those who should know better. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Euryalus and Worm That Turned: An RfC was attempted on this - See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Infobox RFC, particularly "Discussion intervals", which was rejected by four opposes to one. The RfC is now moribund and awaiting closure. So we are still left with the ongoing disruption of POV pushers who are able to keep banging the drum time after time in a disruptive manner, while ArbCom wrings its collective hands and says "there's nothing we can do about the disruptive behaviour in opening a thread, but we'll create a shit-storm for anyone we deem gets frustrated about having to deal with the disruption over and over again.

Regardless of that, we're still left with the very poor wording that has led to a situation where an editor has had sanctions applied to him for not breaching a restriction as it is currently written. Worm, You may think "one comment is all they get if they're under probation. Not "one comment on topic", just "one comment"", but if that's what you wanted, you should have voted for it and pointed out that the restriction as it is written is capable of more than one interpretation by an honest reader. What you and your colleagues voted on is certainly not what you want it to be. If you want to turn a blind eye to such an egregious error, that's all well and good, but it does make even more of a mockery if you can't collectively hold your hand up and accept responsibility for your errors. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Worm That Turned: As it's not just me who has pointed out just how crap the wording is, I struggle to parse that with your use of "perfectly clear" when describing it: particularly true given the people who have said it's poorly written (including Euryalus who said the y"agree re the need for a rewording" and GoldenRing who has said that "there is some ambiguity in the wording"). I guess you're still only seeing what you want to see, or maybe you just can't see that there may be ambiguity – although several others have said that while the intent may have been one way, the crap wording is not as clear as you may want it. I'm not sure why you see the need to class an honest interpretation that differs from yours as a "willful misinterpretation" [sic] – perhaps you need to remind yourself of WP:AGF, even if you can't bring yourself to admit that the committee have made an honest mistake with the wording that they would be well advised to examine more closely. Such sloppiness only aids in the making of poor administrative actions. – SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Katie, it's not a question of "elegance", it's a question of clarity, which is what several people have questioned. As for "you all know what we're saying", obviously not - and the confusion your wording generates is something you really should take a little more seriously. I wouldn't sanction a dog on the basis of this wording, and it's shame we are seeing the wilful application of blinkers by the people who are simply reapplying what they thought they read when they voted on it, rather than an appreciation that you may have voted in a phrase so badly worded it does the opposite of what you wanted. The committee may be embarrassed about voting in such poor wording (and if you're not, you should be) but doubling down by re-confirming that wording is laughable. – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• @SarekOfVulcan, Yes, we are having the discussion, because they mean two very different things. One misreading of the poorly written restriction has led to sanctions being levelled against an editor (and just imagine how you would feel if this supposedly august body were so slap-dash in their approach to passing something that had an effect on your volunteer time). Despite what the ostriches with their heads buried in the sand are trying to argue ('well, we meant something, and we don't really give a toss that we've fucked up, as it takes too much for us to acknowledge that we are only human and capable of making a mistake'), there is a problem with ArbCom refusing to face up to the responsibility of making a mistake. – SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Forgive me for saying so, BU Rob13, but I find your presence at this whole case to have been rather.... curious (for want of a better word). Considering you are quite pro-IB, and went so far as to put in a rather spurious oppose at FAC because of an IB discussion (after arguing to the n^th degree with two people who were named as parties in this case), then I'm really not sure why you did not recuse from this case, and from any subsequent discussions about it. I find your comment below ('feck it, let's string Cassianto up, regardless of the fact that the current mess is partly because we cocked up') rather distasteful, if I'm honest. I would be much happier if you did the decent thing and strike your comment and withdraw from further comment on someone who you have been in hot disagreement with on a subject where you are likely only to take one side. – SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• {{u|BU Rob13}, Given what I have said above, can you explain why you did not recuse? - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Cassianto

Incompetent, corrupt, malicious, and biased. The entire case summed up rather succinctly, I think. Cassianto^Talk 23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Euryalus, ArbCom didn't deal with the infobox issue as it was too difficult to deal with. Sanctions could've been imposed on both sides of the argument. Instead, they name a case with the word "infobox" in it - presumably to kid themselves that they are dealing with it - vote that the case isn't about me, and then impose sanctions on the very person the case is not about, whilst at the same time ignoring the title of the case by not dealing with it. Also, whatever happened to the DS alerts? They seem to have died a death too. Or maybe, like infoboxes, they are also in the "too difficult" box. Cassianto^Talk 08:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Banedon, well arn't you a charming individual. So not only do I receive sanctions for a case that has nothing to do with me, but if you had your way, I'd also receive sanctions in case I break sanctions in the future. Do you have anything constructive to say, or are you here just to troll? Cassianto^Talk 09:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, a "poorly written remedy and a willful misinterpretation" often go hand in glove. If you and your friends had taken more care over the wording, this situation wouldn't have occurred. Can you prove it was willful? If not, I'd care for you to assume good faith. The wording says: "making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article". I've looked at the diffs above and I can't seem to find where this has occurred? Maybe you could point them out? Or maybe, like the rest of your chums, you'll find it easier to ignore me, just as you all did with my emails I've been sending to the committee email address. Cassianto^Talk 19:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've reported this rubbish to AN. For Krakatoa Katie to say "you all know what we're saying" is subjective, dismissive bollocks. Cassianto^Talk 21:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

power~enwiki, how about "you are only allowed to make one comment in any one infobox discussion". Done. Simple. Precise. Intelligible. None of this smoke and mirror, licked finger in the air nonsense. Had the committee have answered me emails to them, rather than do what they usually do and take the easy option to ignore them - they seem to be quite good at taking the easy option - then this could all have been avoided. Cassianto^Talk 06:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm being ignored on email and here, I'll take the unuasual step to ping all of you, individually. Alex Shih, BU Rob13, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, KrakatoaKatie, Newyorkbrad, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned, in light of your eventual acknowledgement that the wording was below par, and this motion to now fix the ambiguaous wording, despite what you, KrakatoaKatie, rather pompously, assume to be easy enough for everyone to understand, I trust Sandstein's topic ban will now be lifted? As things stand now, not only would this whole new motion be counter productive, as I can't discuss infoboxes at all now, but the terrible way in which it was written - acknowledged by at least two of you over the last week or so - resulted in you all setting me up to fail. Secondly, my "offending" comments were not about "removal or adding" an infobox, but we're responses to other editors. For a committee that prides itself on fairness and impartiality, ignoring this, or allowing it to stand, would be wholly unfair and would only go some way in reinforcing people's perceptions that each and everyone one of you have been thoroughly dishonest. Cassianto^Talk 07:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller, don't bother, I'll do it:

2 April 2018 @ 09:55 "Now that the committee have managed to make the infobox situation even worse than it was before, maybe a representative from this joke of a committee can be so kind as to visit Stanley Kubrick and tell the troublesome (I doubt that I'm afforded "parliamentary privilege", so redact) person on the talk page, who's causing more trouble, to go away and do something else. SchroCat is introducing some very good arguments that are being disruptively ignored. It's also not fair on him having to wax lyrical with this person when it's ArbCom's incompetence to address the real problem that has caused all this."

30 April 2018 @ 08:38

"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Kubrick&diff=838905735&oldid=834215524

Where are any one of you with your box of stupid DS alerts? Or was that just a flash in the pan? Maybe, seeing as the case was about me all along, and nothing to do with infoboxes or the behaviour of other editors, none of you can be arsed anymore as I'm no longer around? Job done guys and girls, well done. You've played a blinder and really sorted this problem out."

So, why no response or explaination for your dishonesty? Cassianto^Talk 09:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

BU Rob13, sorry to have to remind you, but this case, apparantly, was never about me. It was about civility on all sides. That is why this case, you, your colleagues, and the sanctions are all dishonest. Cassianto^Talk 19:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, those at AN were there to grind axes and not to preside over the committee's sloppy writing. More dishonesty. Cassianto^Talk 19:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

BU Rob13, incorrect. I was the only one to walk away with sanctions, one of which was not to delete infoboxes. Kindly, you allowed me to retain the right to add them, presumably, because the committee are biased when it comes to boxes. How about the disruption of continually starting sections on the talk pages, every few months, by people who delete hidden notices not to add infoboxes prior to consensus forming? How about the fraudulent way in which this case was filed? What makes you think Volvoglia gives a shiny shit about your silly "admonishment"? What about the harassment of content creators who regularly have to kowtow to a bunch of unknowns who have never even so much as fixed a punctuation error on the article they seem to care so much about? None of that was addressed. If I were to start section after section, RfC after RfC, in order to get my own way to delete a box on an article that had one, I would've been here in next to no time. I think you need to face the fact that your case has achieved nothing at all and has only aided more confusion for the future. Cassianto^Talk 19:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TRM

I think this point of clarification sums up the futility and stupidity of the original ruling. The Committee seem quite incapable of pulling together unambiguous sanctions, and this has been the case for quite some time (i.e. many ex-committees managed to foul up sanction wordings too). I wonder if we should lodge a case against Arbcom for rendering such hopeless and badly-phrased sanctions. Perhaps some training in how to write such proposals would be a good idea (I have considerable experience of this, should Arbcom wish to solicit my advice). Write down, in bullet form if it makes it easier, precisely what this sanction means. Leave no room for ambiguity. Essentially Arbcom are writing laws, or at least diktats here, and they should be bullet-proof. Go back to the drawing board and relate to the five pillars, don't create a stupid "one comment only" ruling which is absurd and unhelpful to just about everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

The "One comment" rule is utterly stupid and should never have been added in the first place

We're basically saying "You cannot add, delete, restore or collapse infoboxes and you also cannot discuss it either"

It's one thing banning someone from infoboxes but it's another to also ban them from so much as discussing it either,

Delete the pointless rule, Untopic ban Cass and close this case. –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Moxy

Perhaps best the wording is modified...dumbed-down if you will. Or a qualifier added. The current wording is lawyerish in nature and maybe confusing to some. Most will understand it's one comment per talk section about inclusion or exclusion. But there may be some that see it as one comment about the info box. ...and thus are free to post again about some other topic (for example claiming shock puppetry during the discussion). I am sure we all agree the spirt of the ruling is to suppress this type of behavior .... not leave the door wide open to posts about personal actions or behavior patterns.--Moxy (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon

Maybe add an extra sentence at the end: "...making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. This includes the entire thread and all subthreads, even if they are not directly related to infoboxes."

Having said that I interpret Cassianto's statement above as implying that he will reoffend, in which case it might be time to change the sanction to something harsher. Banedon (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If Arbcom likes this remedy, Arbcom could just fix the ambiguity. If there are more ambiguities that surface later, Arbcom could fix those too, until there are none left. I personally don't see what we are discussing. Arbcom has already made it clear what the intended meaning is. Amend it appropriately and we can move on. Banedon (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

I have to wonder at what point Sandstein's contributions to AE are no longer useful. As seen many times before, Sandstein is quick on the trigger with a (usually) harsh sentence, without waiting for input from other admins. I thought best practice was to wait for input, especially with editors with as many valued contributions as Cassianto. It appears that Sandstein regularly receives so many questions about his AE actions that he had to create a FAQ. Surely this isn't the best we can do. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: You say If the discussion is about inclusion or exclusion of an infobox, then they only get one comment. but that is NOT what the restriction states. The restriction states more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion... (emphasis mine). To have the restriction mean what you says it mean it should read more than one comment in a discussion about.... As it currently stands, as long as Cassianto is not "discussing" the inclusion or exclusion, which the diffs prove he was not, then there is no need for sanctions. I don't get the rush to enforce unclear or confusing restrictions, instead of simply improving or clarifying the restrictions. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Since some of the arbs do seem to agree the wording was a bit unclear, I expect the sanction from the old restriction will be lifted shortly? Also I do not think including the word “substantially” in the proposed motion would help. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

I agree with TRM that "infobox probation" is needlessly complicated; particularly compared to the alternative of a straight TBAN from infoboxes. While I found the wording of "one comment" fairly clear, apparently others did not; I have no suggestions as to how to improve that wording.

The problem of Cassianto over-reacting to (potentially bad-faith) new users discussing infoboxes was EXACTLY what the recent case was supposed to address; regardless of the exact wording of "infobox probation", imposing a topic ban under Discretionary Sanctions is a reasonable action here.

The ability for admins to make unilateral actions is the very essence of discretionary sanction as currently written; I'd advise those editors upset with that to suggest replacements for the wholesale replacement of DS, rather than making (IMO spurious) complaints about the specific action here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Eric Corbett

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Ernie that Sandstein's involvement in these discretionary sanctions is a negative and unduly harsh one, and in this particular case I find his interpretation of what is certainly a poorly worded sanction to be completely without merit. Mixing trigger-happy administrators and incompetently worded sanctions is a recipe for disaster. I too have suffered from this kind of stupidity, enabled by the infamous "broadly construed" catch all. What the hell is that supposed to mean? How broadly? Eric Corbett 09:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Coretheapple

The wording was clear, but if you want to change it? Sure, go ahead. This is just the beginning. There will be more of this wikilawyering and hair-splitting going forward because Arbcom failed to act effectively by issuing a ban though it was more than warranted, and showed compassion in the face of contempt.. So get used to it. Whatever you decide will be tested further. Nothing ever will be clear. Coretheapple (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

We do need an Rfc on the infobox matter. Be willing to begin one, if anybody can suggest a location & the wording of the Rfc question. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that the wording of the Arbcom decision is being clarified. Would it not be allowable to return to AN & see if the community would agree to lifting Cassianto's current t-ban? GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr rnddude

Oh, how I loathe these proceedings. Y'all can work this out amongst yourselves, I'm here to correct some bad grammar (morphology?).

making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. If the discussion is about inclusion or exclusion of an infobox, then they only get one comment. That bolded bit should read in a discussion about if your intent was to restrict comments "in discussions" rather than comments "discussing".

Oh, I see I'm not the only one who noticed that issue. I very much back what Mr Ernie is saying (about enforcement, I have no comment on Sandstein). Mr rnddude (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. Guys, the proposed reword is even worse then what was there before. where that discussion is substantially - what qualifies as substantial? is it one comment in a discussion? five comments? >50% of all comments? Call this advice, but heed it: Don't add more qualifiers to sanctions. Write the most concise, and least subjectively interpret-able sanction possible. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Honestly? We're trying to distinguish between "discussing" and "a discussion"? This is not a useful debate to have. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

Just a note that I have closed the appeal at AN of the sanction in question as declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Civility in infobox discussions: Clerk notes

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

• Recuse obviously. GoldenRing (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions: Arbitrator views and discussion

• The aim of the restriction is to prevent those on "infobox probation" from endlessly re-engaging in the debate and helping turn it into a slugging match. So yes, the restriction has been breached in this case - Cassianto should have commented once in these discussions, at whatever length, and then left it to others to carry it forward. Separately, is this a good and popular sanction as written? No - but the alternatives of outright blocks or bans were worse and there were no other very useful proposals on the table. Worth noting that while the case had remedies for individual editor conduct re infobox discussions, regrettably it didn't have anything on what to do when editors breach the second sentence of WP:CCC by reopening recently closed infobox debates, as we're seeing on some of these pages. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, agree re the need for a rewording. The aim is to prevent more than one contribution to any infobox discussion. No need to parse the content of comments: those with the restriction should post once in the entire discussion (comprising the thread and any subthreads), share their views on anything and everything they think relevant, then leave it alone. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Agree. I imagine the simplest remedy for infobox warfare would be: a) a rigid civility standard in infobox discussions, enforced by blocks, and b) a ban on relitigating consensus for or against any article's infobox for a period of (say) twelve months after the previous discussion closed. That'd bring the current nonsense to an end, but the first would also cost Wikipedia some excellent content contributors and the second is outside Arbcom's authority. So we're left with this current somewhat tortured outcome. As always, alternative proposals welcome, and if they're any good let's put them in place of what we have. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Arbcom didn't impose a ban on endlessly reopening infobox discussions because it's a content issue and Arbcom isn't authorised to decide it. It's my personal view that the community should impose exactly that restriction, to stop the current pointless nonsense of new editors wearing everyone out by proposing exactly the same infobox inclusion or removal as the person two weeks before them. If someone proposed this restriction in an RfC I reckon there'd be strong support. It's a major missing piece in resolving the infobox conflict - it just needs the community to get it under way. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I absolutely concur with everything Euryalus is saying. Arbcom can't restrict discussion of content, that's a content decision. We have recommended time and again that an RfC happens, and the idea of stopping repeated discussions of infoboxes is definitely something that the community could enforce and an RfC could decide. Arbcom has a different remit, and what we can do is to move individuals away from the discussion.
  On the subject of moving individuals away from the discussion, one comment is all they get if they're under probation. Not "one comment on topic", just "one comment". Both of the examples given were more than one. Worm^TT(talk) 15:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

  @SchroCat:, I disagree, I believe it's perfectly clear what the wording says, making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. If the discussion is about inclusion or exclusion of an infobox, then they only get one comment. They don't get to refute other people's arguments, make comments about the contributors, or whatever else they may want to do in that discussion, they get one comment to state their view and they're done. I'm always willing to hold my hands up and say that my writing of decisions is sub-par, and I'm especially aware as I wrote the first draft of the probation - but there's a difference between a poorly written remedy and a willful misinterpretation. However, we're at a clarification page, and I believe Euryalus and I have clarified. Worm^TT(talk) 18:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Worm and Euryalus. Maybe the language could have been more elegant, but you all know what we're saying – one comment, period. Not one per subsection, not one per paragraph. Just one. I greatly prefer this remedy over blocks and outright topic bans. And as Euryalus said, if there are alternatives, propose them. I'm open to ideas. Katie^talk 19:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• With regards to lifting the topic ban now: the community has already declined to reverse the sanction at AN. I see no reason to go against the community now and lift it just because we've decided to clarify the wording for the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions: Motion

Remedy 1.1 of the Civility in infobox discussions case is amended to replace dot point 3: *making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. with the following: * making more than one comment in a discussion, where that discussion is substantially about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Support

1. Proposing a slightly modified version of SchroCat's alternative wording, to clarify that the "one comment" restriction is per discussion and is regardless of the content of the comment. Also noting here for clarity that the one-comment-per-discussion restriction would cover subthreads of the same discussion as well as substantive rewordings of that single comment if made in a subsequent edit. Put more simply, when an infobox-related discussion is under way, those on infobox probation should comment once, in one edit and in one place, and then move away from the discussion and leave it to others to resolve. Other views welcome, as always. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Good and clear clarification, I hope. Worm^TT(talk) 17:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
3. I think that this was our original intent; it seems to me that the original wording was clear enough, but since it has been questioned, I support the change to make it even less ambiguous. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
6. I am not generally a fan of this particular type of restriction and hope it will seldom have to be imposed, but I certainly prefer it to outright blocks or bans where they can be avoided. The revised wording is consistent with what was intended in the decision, so I'll support the motion. But, per Alex's vote comment below, I'd support changing "substantially" to "primarily." Alternatively, if a discussion is partly about infoboxes and partly about something else (say, a GA or FA review of an article), I'd support an interpretation that allows one comment about the infobox but doesn't restrict comments about other aspects. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
7. I'm not sure how it should be worded, but I'd support the version Nyb suggests. @Newyorkbrad:, can you come up with a suitable wording? Doug Weller talk 15:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
8. Our intent was very clear during the case. We wanted people to stop being toxic in infobox discussions, and the sniping by Cassianto in the provided diffs certainly doesn't accomplish that. That behavior alone would be worth discretionary sanctions whether or not a specific restriction on number of comments was in place, since such snide and unproductive remarks contribute heavily to the overall issues in this topic area. For those reasons, I don't see our clarification here as affecting Cassianto's topic ban, which is warranted under discretionary sanctions. We can clarify this if it will reduce future issues, but if Cassianto continues to push the boundaries of his specific restrictions, he should expect to face escalating discretionary sanctions consistent with his behavior. (I prefer "primarily", as an aside.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This motion will pass, so I would like to morally oppose for two reasons: 1) The addition of "substantial" is going to be subjective, which was also noted by Mr rnddude 2) The revised wording also does not really cover the tendency of re-litigating Infobox discussions by persistently opening new threads without addressing any previous opposing arguments (opening a new thread can be "discussing", but is it a "discussion"?). My concluding thoughts is that any amendment at this stage is not going to be ideal, but if it is going to provide more clarity for administrators working at AE to impose necessary sanctions, then I suppose it is the only option. Alex Shih (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

• @Mr rnddude: thanks for the additional comment. I suppose it's possible to wikilawyer almost anything, so application of this or any other wording will require a degree of "plain English" interpretation. There's always a balance between wording that is clear and simple but leaves loopholes, and wording that is wildly lengthy and tries to cover every possible creative interpretation. In this specific case not everyone seems to agree that there was actually a need for clarification, but to the extent there was it's hopefully addressed in the above. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Mr Ernie: The sanction was appealed to AN, and that discussion closed around a day ago. It doesn't look like the participants in that discussion had difficulty interpreting the remedy wording, but if you disagree please discuss with the closing admin. Arbcom is unlikely to unilaterally overrule a legitimate community appeal process, and nor should it. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Cassianto: for the sake of transparency and because it might help others understand the context of our failure to reply to your emails, may we copy them here? Of course I'll understand if you don't want others to see them. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Cassianto: Correct, and your conduct is a part of the whole – the only part that continued after the case was over, to my knowledge. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You are restricted from adding infoboxes, actually. We went based off of the evidence presented. Very little evidence was presented of systematic wrongdoing since the previous case by those other than you, but nevertheless, we put in place discretionary sanctions so anyone else behaving disruptively can be sanctioned appropriately. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel_articles_3

Initiated by Shrike at 10:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel_articles_3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Shrike

Does Iran-Israeli conflict (and particulary Iranian nuclear program)are part of the I/P conflict? The question was risen because of Project Amad and though it was protected by blue lock by Courcelles [[4]] some of the admins argued(while others agreed with me Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mhhossein) that because Iran is not Arab country the discretionary sanctions doesn't apply. In my view it does apply: This short lived article have exactly the same problem as the I/P:(I don't ask to sanction anyone of course)

• Newly created account jumping to the article [5] with not bad knowledge of wikimarkup [6]
• Editing by the users the edit Arbpia articles and exactly by the same partisan lines.For example [7] and [8] it also evident from AE[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mhhossein] case that was filed.
• Edit warring 07:27, 2 May 2018‎ ,#13:27, 2 May 2018‎ .

In my view the conflict with Iran exist only because the I/P conflict exist had this conflict wouldn't exist the Israel-Iranian conflict wouldn't exist also [9]. Anyhow I wish ask for amendment one way or another. A note:Its not an appeal on AE case its just a clarification if Iran-Israel conflict is under the relevant area--Shrike (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mhhossein

It's a new game by Shrike-Icewhiz. Unlike what Shrike said, five admins commented in this absurd nomination and only one of them thought Project Amad could fall within ARBPIA. Most of non-admin users disagreed with him, too, and I don't know why he's trying to pretend "others agreed with him". --Mhhossein ^talk 18:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

In the past, Iran's support for Hezbollah has sometimes meant Iran-Israel relations fall under ARBPIA. I agree with the AE consensus that Project Amad is not under the General Prohibition. However, it may be reasonable for the committee to expand ARBPIA to include the Israel-Iran conflict. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TheGracefulSlick

I think you just need to pack your bags on this one, Shrike. Several editors were clear at the AE case. This is just a roundabout to get Project Amad under ARBPIA restrictions; by proposing the conflict is ARBPIA sanctionable, sub-topics like Project Amad would have to be included for it to be universal. It does not work that way, however, and needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis or, better yet, with a bit of common sense.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Attack Ramon

The page is protected from editing by new users, with a claim that it is subject to WP:ARBPIA3:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACourcelles&type=revision&diff=839619136&oldid=839618769
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_Amad&type=revision&diff=839130707&oldid=839126480

looks like even the sys-admins can't make up their minds if ARBPIA applies or not ?!?

Statement by Icewhiz

I request you take this - and clarify either way whether Iran-Israel conflict(s) are under ARBPIA or not. We currently have ARBCOM templates and extended-confirmed protection on many articles that are "pure" Iran/Israel conflict articles. The recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mhhossein was on a recently placed page that was protected 500/30 due to ARBPIA by one admin (Courcelles), and the first admin (Masem) reaction at AE was that this was a clear ARBPIA violation. It would add a great deal of clarity if the scope was clearly set out in WP:ARBPIA - as was done for the Syrian Civil War. The present situation where this isn't spelled out - leads to a wide grey zone where enforcement isn't clear, a-priori, to editors. Having this spelled out clearly in WP:ARBPIA will clearly delineate the scope of the sanction.

In terms of whether to include Iran/Israel conflicts (which do not involve Arabs/Palestinians - e.g. I would assume 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping would be in scope to being part of the 1982 Israel/Lebanon war and February 2018 Israel–Syria incident due to Syria being a side) - there are merits either way -

• Against - Iran is not an Arab country.
• For - Iran, since 1979 (and particularly since 1988), has aligned with the Palestinian cause and other groups (e.g. Hezbollah in Lebanon) and has been involved in conflict with Israel via proxies and directly.

I'll add that editor conduct issues (and the editor pool) - tends to be similar for Iran/Israel content to the rest of ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Words? What about Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, Stuxnet, Flame (malware) - not to speak of recent (widely covered) CRYSTALBALLING of a possible outright shooting war[10][11][12].Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012

Very interesting request.

Everybody is aware that Iranians are not Arabs and even less Palestinians and that way it is difficult to argue that Project Amad falls under WP:ARBPIA, which deals with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On the other way, regarding what happens in practice on wikipedia on the internet and IRL (ie in the media): every article here, every publication on the internet and every statement from a public personnality that could affect positively or negatively Israel, will immediately be the topic of a war on words from advocacy groups.

And this is an important concern for wikipedia because it does affect the purpose of the project, which is to develop an encyclopaedia (1st pillar) complying with some values such as NPoV (2nd pillar) and in civility = pleasure to participate (4th pillar).

So there should not be doubt that everything touching Iran-Israel conflit should be added in the area of WP:ARBPIA restriction because it will be the target of exactly the same behavioural problems as all the articles direclty linked to ARBPIA.

But... It should as well be clear once for all that there is no symmetry in the disturbances. The equation is not "Iran =/? Palestinians" (as some against the introduction try to counter-argue), it is not "Iran-pov-pushing =/, Palestinian-pov-pushing" (as those for the introduction argue).
The only equation from wikipedia's point of view is: "Israeli-related entries =/? propaganda war"!

And that's something that should once for all be understood and accepted on wp: The problem IRL is very complex, dramatic and -as on each problem- it should be dealt with distance and NPoV. It is also highly controversial, polluted and biased. But the problem on wikipedia is the pov-pushing and the propaganda war majoritary lead by [some] pro-Israeli and Israeli contributors who take part to that propaganda war from Israel and for Israel. There is no any other problem.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Further readings:

• Nir Hasson, The right's latest weapon: 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia, Haaretz, 2010.
• Rachel Shabi, Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups, The Guardian, 2010.
• Hezki Ezra and Yoni Kempinski, First Ever: Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course, Aroutz Sheva
• CAMERA seeks 10 volunteers to submit info on wikipedia.
• Interview of Naftali Bennett.
• Benjamin Hartman, GA special feature / An online battle for Israel's legitimacy, Haaretz, 14 novembre 2008.
• Jeremy Gozlan, Wikipédia s’invite dans le système éducatif israélien, Tel-Avivre.com, 2014.

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I'll reiterate the basics of what I wrote previously in the Mhhossein AE request and extend them a bit:

While not an Arab country, Iran is a country in the Middle East which take a very strong stance opposing the existence of Israel, as, historically, have the Arab countries, and for this reason should be considered to be within the penumbra of ARBPIA, which we are instructed to take as "broadly interpreted." This is not to say that conflict between Israel and every other country in the world should be within its purview, but Iran shares enough characteristic with the Arab countries that are definitely part of the sanction regime that the inclusion of Iran is logical and reasonable.

It is to be noted that the same POV editors who are involved in Israel/Palestine and Israel/Arab disputes are also involved in those concerning Israel and Iran -- a strong indication that the same prejudices and biases are being played out, those which necessitated ARBPIA in the first place.

If this interpretation is not accepted, the problem of Israel/Iran editing is going to continue to be fester, while remaining outside the ability of admins to control it with discretionary sanctions. Inclusion is a simply solution, and does not violate the spirit of the original remedy -- indeed, it conforms to its purpose very well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In answer to Malik Shabazz: no, the relations between Israel and every other country should not come under ARBPIA, but the problem with Iran is that is shares with the Arab countries almost every aspect in its relations with Israel except being an Arab country. The purpose of ARBPIA was to control disputes between editors favoring the parties in that region, and Iran is so closely related that including it is not an unreasonable step. (The same kind of problem exists with ARBEE, in the question of just where "Eastern Europe" begins and ends.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's not in the least absurd. Discretionary sanctions aren't natural formations, they're man-made rules, and they can be defined in any way that's helpful to the community and the project. If ArbCom decides that Iran should fall into the penumbra of ARBPIA, then it does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

The question of the boundaries of the "Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed" is an important one, and it should be clarified. Uganda accepted an airplane from Israel hijacked by Palestinian terrorists in 1976; is every article about Uganda and Israel part of the conflict? West Germany was the host of the Olympics when Palestinian terrorists kidnapped and killed Israeli athletes; is every article about Germany and Israel part of the conflict? If Israel picks a fight with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, is that part of the conflict? Where does it end? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with Pluto2012 that nationalistic editing is a serious problem, it is hardly unique to the Middle East and more importantly, it is not the purpose of ARBPIA and ARBPIA3 to solve Wikipedia's problems with nationalistic editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, Beyond My Ken, that's an absurd assertion. An article unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict does not fall within the ken of ARBPIA based on its subject's similarity to the Arab-Israeli conflict, no matter how much you (and others) may wish that it did. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

The article AMAD Project is not about the Israel-Iran conflict. The only revelance of the topic to Israel is that the Israeli Prime Minister made a theatrical speech about it. Actually a great number of different world leaders have spoken about it. So the article which brought the question here does not exemplify the question.

Leaving that aside, it is reasonable to ask whether articles that really are about the Israel-Iran conflict should be included in ARBPIA. In fact all of the active conflict is included already because it involves Arabs as well, such as Israeli bombing of Iranian military assets in Syria and Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The only part of the conflict that is left out is the "war of words", which includes threats of extreme violence from both sides. If that is included too, it would be only a handful of articles so it hardly matters. Zero^talk 14:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I don't have a strong feeling either way on whether Iran-Israel should be included in ARBPIA. However, the way to answer the question is to look at the Iran-Israel articles and decide whether they should have the same protections. Then, if it is decided that they need the same protections, this should be implemented by an actual modification of the definition of the scope of ARBPIA so that the coverage of Iran-Israel is explicit. Zero^talk 01:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Palestine-Israel_articles_3: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel_articles_3: Arbitrator views and discussion

• With respect to whether the special rules for editing Israel-Palestine articles currently apply to articles about Israel and Iran, the answer is that they do not, unless a particular article also contain specific reference to the potential impact of Israel-Iranian disputes to the Israel-Palestine issue. With respect to the perhaps more interesting question of whether the Israel-Palestine rules should apply to Israel-Iran articles, my answer would be "only if there's a clear necessity to do so." The special rules that have evolved for the Israel-Palestine topic-area (like the ones for some of the American politics topic area) go well beyond even ordinary discretionary sanctions and represent a serious but necessary derogation from the usual "anyone can edit" model. Their application should not be unduly extended without a genuine showing of need. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Currently, the answer is no. All articles about the conflict between Israel and Iran are not necessarily covered under the sanctions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area. Some may be covered if they explicitly address Palestinian issues (e.g. articles that discuss Iran criticizing Israel for its actions toward Palestinians), but this would be a minority. As for whether they should be covered, I agree with NYB. We should heavily scrutinize any attempts to extend such harsh sanctions, so I would only be willing to consider that question in a full case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

---