Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions | 10 May 2024 | 0/4/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: BLP special enforcement | Motion | none | 23 February 2014 |
| Clarification request: Ryulong | Motion | (orig. case) | 17 February 2014 |
| Clarification request: Infoboxes | none | none | 8 February 2014 |
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!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Clarification request: BLP special enforcement
Initiated by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? at 10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- this display of infinite wisdom
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notified)
Statement by Harry Mitchell
I would like clarification of the above linked decision, in which five arbitrators, demonstrating their apparently infinite wisdom, declined a case regarding Kevin Gorman's application of an active arbitration remedy, BLP special enforcement. Specifically, I would like ArbCom to clarify:
- Whether all the sensible arbs are on holiday, and how future such holidays affect case requests;
- whether it finds Kevin Gorman's invocation of BLP special enforcement acceptable;
- if not, why it saw no need for even so much as an admonishment of Kevin Gorman;
- why it felt that a novel interpretation of one of its own remedies did not merit even a motion, much less a case; and
- how your failure to act regarding the invocation of an active arbitration remedy affects future enforcement of that remedy,
- specifically whether admins are entitled to make up policy as they go and expect their actions to enjoy the protections afforded to arbitration enforcement actions.
On Kevin Gorman
I've seen a lot of absurd decisions in my time, but Kevin's warning to Eric Corbett, citing the BLP special enforcement remedy, is the single most ludicrous interpretation of an arbitration remedy by an admin I've ever seen; similarly, ArbCom's abdication of responsibility for the actions taken in the enforcement of its remedies by refusing to accept the case is possibly the single worst decision I have ever seen from that body. Both titles have no end of competition. Although Kevin has since admitted that he erred, I do not feel that he fully understands what a monumental lapse in judgement his actions were (for the record, I made some stupid decisions when I was a baby admin, but none of them to do with arbitration remedies) and so a desysop or at least formal, severe admonishment is necessary. By refusing to promptly acknowledge his error, and by repeatedly insulting and attempting to denigrate the subject of his action, Kevin failed to adhere to the policy on admin accountability—a policy which, unfortunately, only ArbCom has the power to enforce—and arguably brought the entire admin corps into disrepute.
On BLP special enforcement
Leaving the admin accountability issue as an entirely separate matter (perhaps this should be treated as two clarification requests arising from the same demonstration of infinite wisdom?), Kevin explicitly invoked BLP special enforcement, an arbitration remedy, which puts disputes over the propriety of such action squarely and unambiguously within ArbCom's remit; the only explanation I can think of for your failure to accept a case so obviously within your remit is that the five of you have taken leave of your senses. BLP special enforcement is an active arbitration remedy, so allowing novel interpretations to pass without so much as a bat of an eyelid is bound to lead to creep by encouraging other admins to make similar novel interpretations to shoehorn their actions into the protection of arbitration remedies. I note also that it is in contrast to the actions of your more sensible colleagues at the discretionary sanctions review, where arbitrators have made a conscious effort to prevent such creep and to narrow the gulf between the admin corps and the community as a whole. ArbCom needs to clarify its position, not give one message in one forum and a contradictory message in another, and most of all, it needs to clarify the bounds of admin discretion on BLP special enforcement as sane arbs are trying to do with discretionary sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Carcharoth: I'm not upset (though that's the wrong word) about Kevin's actions, but unfortunately about yours and your colleagues'. Regardless of the merits of Kevin's actions and his fate, we can't have admins just making things up as they go and using arbitration remedies to protect their actions. Your answers to my questions are, of course, the answers I hoped I'd hear, but without a motion or similar, what's to stop another admin doing the same thing in a fe moths' time? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Roger et al, would you consider adding a clause like "admins are expected to exercise care and judgement in the enforcements of arbitration remedies" or word to that effect? Personally, I'd like to see ArbCom expressly state that shoddy enforcement in general will not be taken lightly rather than just noting that Kevin's interpretation in particular was shoddy. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Writ Keeper
In brief: what Harry said (though maybe not quite as emphatic?)
At length: well, I'm not going to rewrite this whole thing, so I'll just copy and paste my comment from last time: The...thing, which is one that I really do wish Arbcom would take on, is the fact that Kevin invoked BLP, and particularly the AE sanctions around BLP, to make his sanctions on Eric "stick". For my part, I can't see any plausible way that Eric's original comments are in any way a BLP violation, as he said nothing about the subject of the thread. The (mis)use of BLP and AE sanctions to make one admin's actions stick and exempt them from the usual processes of review is cynical, misguided, and (to me) deeply arrogant, and I think that, if nothing else, it alone warrants some kind of response from Arbcom. Admin authority is enough as it is; apparently calculated maneuvers to further increase one admin's authority without cause needs something.
I understand the desire to make a sensitive topic go away, but I don't think this angle of it is a good one to go uncommented. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Alanscottwalker
It is hardly mystifying why BLP was invoked. BLP covers controversial, unsourced statements about recently dead people. The admin evidently thought in a conversation that prominently involved thinly veiled referrals to a recently dead person, that the statement was in that vein (controversial and unsourced), others disagree that it was in referral to the recently dead - but the objected to comment actually invoked an action (placing a mental health template) that the recently dead was explicitly said to have taken. So, a discretionary warning was issued, and as far as tools are concerned, it went no further. A problem with discretion is that others will see it differently, and even if "wrong" to others that does not mean a warning was not in discretion. As for the subsequent incivility of the admin, multiple users have rightly admonished the Admin, but a clarification request won't clarify that the admin was incivil and that he and all admins should not repeat such incivility. If this committee wants to own the admonishment or defer to a lower level of dispute resolution, like an RfC/U or RfC on BLP discretionary warning, well and good, but as it has already essentially done the later, then what more is there to do.
- Leaky Caldron is making a category error, along with his accusation of bad faith. The only post that could be said to be critical of the dead was the one objected to. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever this commitee does, it cannot endorse the illogical notion that a statement that an edit violates a policy is an impermissable insult. Otherwise, we can never discuss breaches of policy. Criticisms of edits (no matter how much a person invests themselves in them) is the way the Pedia developes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Roger Davies:; @LFaraone:; @Salvio giuliano:; @GorillaWarfare:; @Carcharoth:: To avoid having to open another clarification request per Nuclear Warfare's comment - what do you mean, here? BLPBAN links to BLP which contains WP:BDP, so recently dead people are covered by its terms - but are you saying you are amending it to give BLPBAN a new meaning? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- @AGK: You made the rather dramatic and as far as your statement went utterly vague and unsupported claim that "real damage could be done to the project if last week's decision stands." So, the case has been "reopened" to pass an "admonishment", which because of the way that reopening has turned out literally no one respects, nor will ever respect -- now, that's damage to the project. So, in the future, you should consider the wisdom of the ancients: 'let sleeping dogs lie.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by NE Ent
I wasn't overly concerned with the decline.
Neither you, Simon, nor the fifty thousand, nor the Romans, nor the Jews, nor Judas, nor the twelve, nor the priests, nor the scribes, nor doomed Jerusalem itself understand what power is, understand what glory is, understand at all.
Tim Rice, Jesus Christ Superstar lyric.
The simple fact of the matter is that, following Kevin's misjudgement, and more so the bobbing and weaving non-apology apologies which followed, he has painted a huge wiki-target on his back, and if he ever tried to pull another stunt like that again, the reaction from the community would be rapid and extreme, regardless of what the committee did or failed to do.
And I had decided to sit this one out -- until I saw the first arb comment.
Give the committee Scope and responsibilities explicitly states it's the committee's duty to "To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons." (emphasis mine), Carcharoth's explanation "there was no desire to end up with formal proceedings taking place arising from the mishandling of a sensitive topic." is inadequate. You could have easily directed Kevin and all editors wishing to submit evidence to do by email and hold discussion off-wiki. Concurrent with your claim of "admonishment in all but name" is an arbcom clerk arguing [1] 'it's important to announce motions ... and cases being closed as they change or introduce arbitration policy or restrictions on editors or pages. However declined cases and requests for clarification and amendment don't. ' (emphasis mine). Being listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Members isn't like being listed at Wikipedia:Editing Restrictions "following discussion at a community noticeboard." Ya'll volunteered and campaigned for this -- so do your job already. NE Ent 14:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by EdChem
I'd like to thank Harry Mitchell for raising this clarification. I was appalled by the Committee's handling of the request and see that there are unresolved issues which it is the Committee's, as well as the community's, best interests to handle. These include:
- the claim that secret evidence provided to the Committee justifies Kevin's actions – obviously you cannot (and will not) reveal private communication but you can (and should) tell us whether it influenced your decisions and whether there are facts not publicly known which are significant in evaluating this request.
- the block on Giano – yes, he was edit warring, but he was asked by arbitrator NuclearWarfare not to revert again, responded (so he clearly knew of the request and that he had been reverted again) and as requested did not revert, instead retitling the thread on his talk page but was still blocked by arbitrator Seraphimblade shortly afterwards. Blocks are supposed to be preventative. Giano had not acted to revert after NW's request, and indeed had responded to it. His response clearly communicated his irritation but did not indicate any intention to revert again, nor did his actions – certainly he had time to revert again and knew his change had been undone, but this he did not do. NW would have been acting within administrator discretion by imposing a block as preventative, but given the subsequent events I feel that Serpahimblade's actions in usurping NW's discretion and imposing a block after Giano did not respond with a revert feel much more punitive than preventative. What was going on here, and has there been discussion amongst the Committee of one arbitrator overruling the discretion of another in their respective exercises of administrator discretion?
- Addendum: I had forgotten that NW is actually a former-arbitrator rather than a current one, which significantly reduces my concern over Seraphimblade's decision and eliminates the inter-arbitrator conflict issue. I am adding this rather than just editing my comment in case it has been read, it seemed more appropriate to acknowledge my mistake. EdChem (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Kevin Gorman's comments subsequent to the case decline are quoted here "After two ANI's without action taken, and an RFAR as well, I think it's reasonable that I request you be productive and truthful here or elsewise go elsewhere" – to me, these torpedo any suggestion that Kevin really does believe that he has been admonished in all but name. Kevin sees an RfAr declined "without action taken", as do I and many others, I suspect. You can state that you do not endorse his actions, but that is how it looks in that you declined to take action, just as happened with Philippe and in pretending that FPaS did not clearly breach INVOLVED by reverting to a preferred version before fully protecting.
- This request does not only reflect on the actions of Kevin and on the freedom of administrators to act as they please and without serious restraint (especially against editors like Eric and Giano), but it also reflects on the Committee that took this decision and it discourages editors who feel issues of fairness are important. Eric has left over this, a valued content contributor. Kevin asserts that Eric does more harm in chasing away editors but I vehemently disagree, I for one am far more discouraged by admins treating editors poorly and ArbCom acting poorly and I become disillusioned and quietly depart for some months over issues like this. You should act to protect the integrity of the community, and if not for that reason, at least to protect your own reputations.
@Carcharoth: I was very disappointed that you would instruct archiving of the Kevin and FPaS requests, both raised important questions which you chose to dodge. You wrote that "we all have better things to be doing"; I disagree. ArbCom should not view misuse of its own procedures to threaten an editor and then refusal to really engage with what he had done wrong and to offer a sincere apology by Kevin as unworthy of its attention. As for "admonishment in all but name", look at the subsequent comments by Kevin (he has not archived them, you'll have to look in his user page history) and the 'apology' he quoted from another user. I do agree though that declining a case "means things are obvious enough already that no further action is needed", but I suspect we disagree about what is obvious. To me, it is that this ArbCom is unwilling to say that Eric was mistreated and that Kevin deserves sanction. Worse, it says that poor behavior from administrators will continue to be tolerated. If you want the things that are obvious to be different, then the community will need to see actions, not words.
@Roger Davies: I am encouraged by your comments, they remind me a little of the election platform which persuaded me to vote for you. The two aspects that you would seek to address in a motion certainly do need to be addressed, and beyond that if possible.
@Salvio giuliano: Your comment at the case request indicated that Kevin's actions were problematic, and so you voted to decline a case, a decline that allowed Carcharoth to direct the request be archived. Your reasoning was supported by other arbitrators to take no action. If you really wanted a motion, you needed to act as Seraphimblade did in stating a motion was needed prior to decline and archiving. You could have objected during the four hours after Carcharoth issued the instruction (assuming you were active in that period). A motion now is better than nothing, but only arbitrators could propose a motion and none did; it certainly appears that there was a view that comments are enough, and they are not.
@AGK: You state that the reasoning at the case request from some arbitrators was unsound. Your reasoning that acting now might be capricious is equally unsound, though Kevin might see it that way. It would, in fact, be good for the Committee to openly declare that they had made an error in judgement and were acting to correct it. I would also prefer that you feel equally appalled by the poor actions of Kevin both in invoking special BLP protections and then accusing Eric of grave dancing as you are by your colleagues implications of your own insensitivity towards the deceased.
@Newyorkbrad: as probably the most respected arbitrator and one with a reputation for sensitivity towards issues, I was shocked and disappointed by your vote to decline the case. Your reasoning was unsound, there was much that the Committee could have done that would have been positive, and the focus on the request name was legalistic. Yes, the name was non-neutral, but was that really the only issue you saw as warranting comment? Before you comment here, please, stop and think carefully about what Kevin did to Eric and what that means for Kevin's judgement, for Eric, and for everyone watching who has taken a view following the events. Did Kevin's use of special BLP meet the Committee's expectations? Were his gravedancing comments and subsequent refusal to respond adequately consistent with expectations of administrator behavior? What does the Committee doing nothing signal to the community? How will declaring that there is secret evidence available only to ArbCom, coupled with ArbCom saying nothing and doing nothing, be seen? Does the project need more editors who see administrators acting as a privileged and unaccountable class? Yes, my questions reflect my view and sure, there are others worth asking. Please, answer some of them.
Just to conclude: I have a mental health condition. At times, my ability to edit is not good which is one reason for taking breaks. I disagree with Eric that I should stay away from Wikipedia and I think the community can do much better in supporting editors who have difficulties. That said, making a disclosure is also difficult as it reveals a weakness that can be exploited. Also, I agree with Eric that Wikipedia is not the place to get medical help; for that, I go to medical professionals. I can contribute here at times I cannot handle working full-time, and I do think Wikipedia is important. I am far far more likely to leave over poor treatment by administrators and ArbCom refusing to act in such cases than I am over robust (and even Eric's brand of sometimes over-the-top) discussion / debate. I am certain that I am not alone. ArbCom have mishandled the FPaS, Philippe, and now the Kevin Gorman case requests. You need to do better. You can start by fixing one mistake and prove that administrator mistreatment of editors is unacceptable – no matter who the editor is – and that the Committee will not reflexively support administrators invoking its procedures in unjustified (and worse, in unjustifiable) ways. EdChem (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Kevin Gorman
- EdChem's quote from Giano's talk is taken out of context. You can see most of section that EdChem's quote is from here. User:Ihardlythinkso used half-quotes from previous posts of mine to try to show that I was not being truthful. I replied pointing out that IHTS was taking half-quotes out of context and that my comments when taken in full were true. After IHTS continued using half-quotes from me, I asked him to stop or leave my talk page. I do not believe that asking someone to quote my comments in full indicates in any way that I don't realize my initial actions were inappropriate.
- I made large mistakes and would not handle the situation in anything approaching the same way again. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Participants please note that the RFAR has been reopened out of process, so there are currently two pages discussing this - here and here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- IHTS: you had plenty of time to respond to me pointing out that your comments were not accurate representations of what I said, given that I pointed that out almost immediately after your first post and left the thread intact for more than an hour. If you cannot figure out how to reply to someone asking you to stop misrepresenting what they've said in less than an hour, something is off. Almost every single statement you made contained direct misrepresentations of what I said, which you still continue to make. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Response to Kevin by Ihardlythinkso
Oh that is totally wrong, Kevin. The fact is I had no opportunity to address or discuss with you your complaint about quotations being misinterpreted because 1) Cullen328 zoomed into that thread from nowhere then and started criticizing me, causing deflection to the topic and delay in my ability to respond to you since I had him to respond to as well at that point (I'm only one person with one keyboard and one set of hands), and 2) even as quickly as I responded to Cullen [2] I found it was impossible to post a prepared response to you, since one minute after my response to Cullen you deleted the entire thread and gave editsum instructions to the world to delete any further posts of mine on your user Talk [3].
I can't believe the dodgy and manipulative way you handle things, Kevin, including your pat "no good will come from this" when you delete editors' valid concerns as a way to sweep away criticism and maintain your false posture of being "right". The fact that you have chosen to bicker with me dishonestly over irrelevancies when you have many more serious issues to deal with in this important RFAR shows a continued thin-skinned brittleness and lack of judgement on your part that demonstrates your unsuitability to hold the title of admin.
I would like to know from User:Cullen328 if he is one of the admins who adivsed you that spurred you to take action at Jimbo's Talk against Eric Corbett, since Cullen was both quick to defend you both at Jimbo's Talk and at Eric's Talk, and quick to get involved with me (chiding me to "move on" and "work on improving the encyclopedia" and "What is accomplished by continuing to question Kevin on this?") when attempting to followup with you at your Talk after the previous RFAR had been closed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Cullen, I made it clear to Kevin at the outset of the thread opened at his Talk, and to you in the same thread, that my focus was on the on-wiki part of "flood of comments I've received, both on and offwiki". There was only one admin who gave criticism that Kevin potentially took to heart, not the five admins he implied by listing in the previous RFAR. In spite of limiting my focus and making the limitation painfully clear, you choose to "not understand" even into this RFAR?! (That's amazing.) The one of the five (User:Writ Keeper) admins whom Kevin potentially took criticism to heart, detailed to Kevin how his reasoning was a misapplication of BLP [4]. In subsequent comments Kevin has still insisted that his BLP concerns were consistent with "the spirit of BLP/BDP and the WMF resolution on BLP" [5], so, I guess that leaves 0.5 admins out of the 5 admins Kevin listed at the previous RFAR. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Response to Ihardlythinkso by Cullen328
- I am not an administrator, and have never been one. I am proud to be an experienced editor on this project and hope that my peers consider me a productive one. I commented on Jimbo's talk page early in the disputed thread, before either Eric or Kevin got involved. My comment was in favor or kindness and compassion in the interaction between all editors. In no way, shape or form did I encourage Kevin to intervene. When the dispute between Kevin and Eric developed, I stepped back, though I did remind Eric that BLP applies also to those who have recently died. I have known both editors for several years. Eric gave me great help bringing an article I worked on to Good Article status. I have met Kevin at several Edit-a-thons, and encouraged his Wikipedia participation. I am not taking sides in the dispute, and wish both editors well. Kevin approached me on February 11 to discuss the matter off-wiki, through a Facebook private message, and I advised him to take it easy and not escalate matters. I was advising caution and restraint, gently criticizing some of what Kevin had done. When Ihardlythinkso came to Kevin's talk page and said that Kevin had been misleading when he said a "flood" of editors had offered critical advice to him on and off-wiki, I stepped forward to confirm that I had myself offered such advice off-wiki. Ihardlythinkso seemed to argue that any off-wiki advice was irrelevant. I simply responded that I thought it was relevant to the substance of Kevin's quoted words that I had offered Kevin off-wiki advice, and that pointing that out was both logical and fair, and that analyzing what a "flood" was in this context was not helpful. Ihardlythinkso was, shall we say, unpersuaded by my attempt at logic and reason. Others can read the exchange and judge for themselves. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Cas Liber
My piece I said here. I understand Kevin has now apologised but it was such a prolonged and destructive (and entirely avoidable) train-wreck of an interaction on his part that at minimum I think there has to be an official admonishment (sorry Kevin, but the whole episode really sucked). If this place acts on precedents etc. then there needs to be some sort of consistency and line drawn in the sand. Salvo or AGK, or whoever, just make a motion already. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Leaky Caldron
Between Kevin and Arbcom. the processes for regulating behaviour and adhering to policy have been brought into disrepute. Some clear, simple and definitive action is required to begin to restore confidence. In particular this applies to Arbcom 2014 who's multiple decisions last week in dealing dismissively with unacceptable behaviour by Admins. sets a worrying trend.
Leaving aside the added complexity of the quoted BLP special enforcement, Kevin's first and most serious lapse of judgement and a question he is still yet to answer, is why he thought Eric's comment in the original discussion was the appropriate target for Admin. action. It was the original post by an anonymous editor that violated WP:BDP. BDP affords BLP style protection where "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide.." That thread on the founder's page infringed BDP in that the person referred to was readily identifiable from immediately available resources here on WP and subsequently on the wider www. It takes less than 2 minutes and the attempt to disguise the identity of the deceased using a pseudonym was fatuous. Blaming Eric for a serious BLP/BDP violation while ignoring the same clear behaviour by the IP made no sense then and despite numerous attempts to justify it, will never make any sense. The fact that in some people's view Eric walks around with a large target on his back in no way justifies the action pursued by Kevin, and allegedly supported by other Admins and Arbcom. members off-wiki.
The allegations of tacit support by other functionaries must also be explained. Frankly it looks like a simple attempt to deflect blame and have not been satisfactorily explained despite repeated assurances by Kevin that he would do so.
Finally, the case request was declined was because there was no desire to end up with formal proceedings taking place arising from the mishandling of a sensitive topic.
is just plain unacceptable, as is Decline expeditiously. Every aspect of this situation is unfortunate, but it is undesirable to publicize it further, and there is little value we can add.
Arbcom was not (re-)elected to abrogate responsibility because matters are "sensitive" and "unfortunate" and while some matters might be "undesirable to publicize further", you need to be careful that you are not open to the accusation of just brushing unpalatable matters under the carpet. Leaky Caldron 11:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker:. Well I have no idea what a "category" error is and I have made no bad faith accusations. I have pointed out that the original post enabled the family and friends of the unnamed victim to be readily identified, an action which could lead to implications for them and therefore a breach of the WP:BDP extension to WP:BLP. The sort of implication I'm thinking of is unwanted attention, possible contact from the media, etc. Unless they had provided express consent for that discussion to take place on the founder's page they might have every reason to distressed. I would be. To be clear, our words here do not need to express hostility to cause an adverse implication on close friends and family. Simply raising the subject, even in an indirect fashion, may cause distress if (a) the subject is identifiable and (b) the subject matter contains details that refer to events that the friends and family would prefer not to be discussed here. We don't know, we must assume that distress would be caused. Maybe why Eric was appalled by it? Leaky Caldron 15:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment by 188.30.20.92
@Carcharoth. Let's look at the comments of the arbs who voted to decline the case.
- For NewYorkBrad the whole thing was "unfortunate".
- For David Fuchs Kevin deserved a "trout-slapping".
- For you the actions of several "were not ideal" but it was best to move on.
- For Salvio, Kevin had made a personal attack and doubled down on it. That, for Salvio, amounted to "conduct unbecoming".
You inform us that it should be obvious to anyone reading those comments that Kevin will be desysopped if he pulls a stunt like that again. What! Whatever you're drinking, I want one.
The message you sent to the community, and especially to the admins, was not that Kevin would be desyssoped; it was this: We reaffirm that you are free to make personal attacks on editors and to subsequently double-down on those attacks. In the extremely unlikely event that you are brought to account for such an attack, we might say that it was unfortunate, we might make hilarious jokes about trout-slapping, but under no circumstances will take any action against you, nor make any official, on-record criticism of your attack.
And all this stuff about Kevin being a hapless newbie admin is nonsense. He picked a fight against Eric Corbett on Jimbo's talk page. He knew exactly what he was doing. In fact, given his fantastic interpretation of BLP, it's difficult not to believe that he thought he'd found a loophole which would allow him to deal once and for all with the editor he habitually refers to as Malleus, and was looking for an opportunity to exploit it.
188.30.20.92 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Resolute. It's true that had Kevin picked on a low profile editor, or an ip, it's unlikely he would have ended up here. That doesn't excuse his behaviour. This is about cavalier admin action, and arbcom's distaste for addressing it. It doesn't have much to do with Eric. 94.116.160.101 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC) (aka 188.30.20.92)
- @Resolute: I don't want to get dragged in to the Eric saga. Eric is one editor. The real issue here is that Kevin could do what he did and very nearly get away with it. It's not about Kevin vs Eric. It's about ArbCom failing yet again to get a grip on the loose cannon admins. They're a minority, but they're a significant minority. They're the ones who damage the project. They're the ones who drive away editors. Even if Kevin does finally get a slapped wrist, the take-away for the admins is that even if you go bezerk on Jimbo’s talk page, ArbCom will still do its best to look the other way. Anyway, as this is probably not the venue for you and I to discuss this, I probably won't respond further here. 94.116.160.101 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment by NuclearWarfare
The BLP policy is quite explicit about whether it should apply to the recently deceased:
Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. In the absence of confirmation of death, anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless listed at oldest people.
Now, it is true that WP:BLPBAN is a rather useless policy. Regardless if the remedy is repealed or not, I would, in some circumstances, be OK with blocking and wheel warring with another administrator who overturned my action with regards to a biography of a living person. But if we are going to have it, there is no good reason to use this one hard case to make a bad divergent exception from the status quo. Review the whole policy, yes, but don't make this piecemeal change. NW (Talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Snark from Resolute
I think 188.30.20.92 inadvertently hit on Kevin's biggest mistake. He ended up in a fight with Eric. That never ends well because of the number of enablers and hangers-on Eric has. As Roger's motion on the case page shows, even several members of Arbcom will act to enable Eric's behaviour and placate him any time he runs off in a huff. Resolute 20:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Kevin did not act in a vacuum, 188. Eric's own behaviour was dramatically poor in this, and he has a far longer history of similarly poor behaviour. But it looks like ArbCom has chosen to not only continue it's head-in-the-sand routine on that front, but to double down and reward an editor who pulled a WP:DIVA act. In my view, both should be sanctioned/admonished, or neither should. What is happening right now is Arbcrom, led by Roger Davies, playing favourites to the detriment of this project. Resolute 21:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, 188. The takeaway, as these motions are currently framed, is that you can do what ever you want if you have enough friends. You can drop as many vulgar personal attacks as you want and pull a ragequit Diva routine - and ArbCom will not only turn a blind eye to your behaviour, it will go out of its way to soothe your ego. Can't wait to see this happen again the next time Eric pretends to quit because he didn't get his way. Resolute 21:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment from Tryptofish
I think that Gorilla Warfare's comment at 01:26, 24 February 2014, about declining the case, gets it exactly right. I feel like some of you on the Committee are letting yourselves second-guess yourselves too much. It sounds like you are getting so wrapped up in parsing the boundary between BLP and BDP that you are losing sight of the fact that wanting to see a dead editor spoken of with sensitivity is not exactly a high crime. I'm not defending everything that Kevin did, please understand, but as cases of administrative overstep go, this is a borderline one. Unfortunately for Kevin, his minor oversteps stepped into the buzzsaw of those who are looking for an administrator to make an example of. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Question from Beyond My Ken
Regarding Motion #3 - shouldn't any re-evaluation of WP:BLPBAN come from the community, and not ArbCom, or have I misunderstood the extent of the committee's remit? BMK (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- I recused on the case request, and I probably should here as well. --Rschen7754 20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Harry, I appreciate you are upset at what Kevin Gorman did, but the reason the case request was declined was because there was no desire to end up with formal proceedings taking place arising from the mishandling of a sensitive topic. This is the sort of thing where what would normally be done is taking someone to one side and privately admonishing them. This has in effect happened. Kevin has been left in no doubt, by comments made on-wiki and elsewhere, that if he pulls a stunt like this again (in particular, the misuse of BLP special enforcement), he will be desysopped. That should have been obvious to anyone reading the comments made by the arbitrators who declined the case request. It was an admonishment in all but name. To specifically answer your questions: No, Kevin Gorman's invocation of BLP special enforcement was not acceptable. No, admins are not entitled to make up policy as they go and expect their actions to enjoy the protections afforded to arbitration enforcement actions. Does this warrant a formal motion, admonishment or case? In some cases, yes. In this case, no. Declining a case does not mean that the committee is endorsing the actions that were taken. It means things are obvious enough already that no further action is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- @BMK - all three motions neglect to specify that such a review would be done in concert with the community. The point I made here (before your comment above) was intended to make clear that community consultation is implicit. The current discretionary sanctions review are being carried out in consultation with the community. If community members have strong views on the current BLPBAN provisions, they can start a discussion right now (at the appropriate talk page, providing a courtesy link from here to the discussion) without waiting for the committee to start a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Simply put, the community does not expect the committee to toss seemingly straightforward cases which fall squarely within its scope. In this instance, the issues embrace four of the five prime areas of committee responsibility. While the tragic event which triggered this dispute requires handling with sensitivity and circumspection, that is not alone a good reason for sweeping the whole thing hurriedly under the carpet. It is well within the committee's ability, for instance, to put restrictions in place, reinforced by robust sanctions if ignored, to enable a case to proceed without visiting inappropriate areas. That said, the essential facts do not seem to be in dispute and the committee can discharge its obligations to the community in full by handling this by motion. As a minimum, the motion must clarify the BLP issues raised and also comment on the actions of the administrator at the eye of the storm. Roger Davies talk 22:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- NOTE: I shall be proposing motions shortly both here and on the case request itself, Roger Davies talk 14:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've long thought we should substitute standard discretionary sanctions for WP:BLPBAN, which is a relic of the past and which, technically, only applies to mainspace (although I believe that the remedy in question has also been invoked – correctly, in my opinion – with regard to edits made elsewhere, such as WP:ANI, cf. teleological interpretation), whereas WP:BLP applies everywhere. This, however, can be done by motion, if there's any appetite for it. I also still support an admonishment for Kevin and believe we should have admonished him before declining the case request. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- @EdChem: had I seen my colleague's instruction to the clerks, I'd have acted (either by striking my decline vote or by proposing a motion), but it all happened while I was asleep and by the time I woke up the request had already been archived. I probably should have proposed a motion myself earlier, but didn't get the chance, because quite frankly, sometimes, life gets in the way. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- @T. Canens: yes, I was thinking something along the lines of "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all edits concerning living people across all namespaces"... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is a potentially cataclysmic unintended consequence of that. It would mean that users editing under their own names would be able to claim BLP protection and DS enforcement for anything detrimental said about them anywhere on wiki that wasn't supported by RS. While I agree that WP:BLPBAN needs updating, we need to move carefully on this to avoid paralysing the encyclopedia. Roger Davies talk 11:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Whoa, you're right. I hadn't thought about that. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is a potentially cataclysmic unintended consequence of that. It would mean that users editing under their own names would be able to claim BLP protection and DS enforcement for anything detrimental said about them anywhere on wiki that wasn't supported by RS. While I agree that WP:BLPBAN needs updating, we need to move carefully on this to avoid paralysing the encyclopedia. Roger Davies talk 11:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- @T. Canens: yes, I was thinking something along the lines of "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all edits concerning living people across all namespaces"... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- @EdChem: had I seen my colleague's instruction to the clerks, I'd have acted (either by striking my decline vote or by proposing a motion), but it all happened while I was asleep and by the time I woke up the request had already been archived. I probably should have proposed a motion myself earlier, but didn't get the chance, because quite frankly, sometimes, life gets in the way. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- While I cannot claim to be "sensible", I was an "arb on holiday" during the original RFAR. I disagree with the committee's decision to decline the case request, and agree action ought to have been taken against Kevin Gorman.
A couple of arbitrators deployed a shocking piece of casuistry which wormed its way into the rationale for a number of other decline votes: that we should not act due to the nature of the incident giving rise to the dispute. The case could have been easily handled without further exposing the original incident. Moreover, these arbitrators were implying, deliberately or unthinkingly, that the rest of us who would have acted on the request demonstrated a lack of respect for the victim. This appalled me. Those particular arbitrators know who they are, so I will merely say that this line of the committee's thinking at the RFAR was completely unsound. The other major line of thinking was that Kevin's action was a one-off mistake unlikely to be repeated. This ignores the danger posed to the project when an administrator illegitimately claims special enforcement protection for a wrong action. The committee cannot overlook such a breach of policy, even if the administrator himself promises it was a one-off mistake.
These were the two major lines of thinking in last week's RFAR; both appear unsound, and ideally the decision would be overturned. However, the moment for action may now have passed, and the good we could do may be outweighed by the drama/confusion overturning the decision to decline might generate. Also, if we overturn last week's decision, Kevin Gorman could accuse us of acting capriciously (with some justification). As none of this changes the fact that real damage could be done to the project if last week's decision stands, I am nonetheless willing to open a case. AGK [•] 00:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Carcharoth (talk · contribs)'s statement that declining a case does not constitute approval of the actions at issue per se, however it certainly does give that appearance. I feel that at a minimum an admonishment was warranted in this circumstance; enforcement actions were taken by an administrator incorrectly in the name of the Committee. I apologise to the community for not being an active participant in the discussion of the case, as I believe a more correct action could have been taken then. We do have the opportunity to fix this now, however, in a way that is appropriate given the sensitive nature of the incident. LFaraone 00:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think declining the case was the correct decision, and I would have voted accordingly had I been able to finish looking through it before the case was closed. I believe that Gorman was truly acting in an effort to protect the subject of the discussion, which I respect. He definitely stepped over the line when he tried to apply BLP special enforcement to the issue, and I am also convinced that he knows that. I don't think a formal admonishment is necessary to drill that in further, and I have no concerns that people will forget this issue should Gorman make a similar misstep in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The Clerks should not have been directed to remove the request as declined, as Salvio's decline vote, necessary to make acceptance mathematically impossible, was implicitly conditioned on a motion being proposed. (Maybe we should make "deal with by motion" a separate category of votes, to avoid future confusion.)
I agree that WP:BLPBAN could use updating, but if we are updating it to standard DS, what's the area of conflict? All BLPs? I'd welcome comments on whether BLPBAN should be updated and what the updated version should be.
I still think that a case is unnecessary, and I assume that, based on Roger's comment above and the original votes in the case request, that a majority of the committee not recused in this matter is still of this opinion. Under these circumstances, I think the best way forward is simply for us to propose and vote on the necessary motions in this request. T. Canens (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Motion 1 (Kevin Gorman)
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 4 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
- Proposed
Further to the current Request for Clarification, the committee notes that:
- WP:BLPBAN does not apply to recently deceased people;
- the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect;
- the provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be urgently reviewed by ArbCom and where necessary updated.
- Support
-
- See also the companion motion at the case request page, Roger Davies talk 17:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- LFaraone 17:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- (moving to oppose, per Seraphimblade and others - leaving original comments in place. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)) Noting in passing, FWIW, that Kevin did strike his formal warning. Roger is right that WP:BLPBAN does need to be urgently reviewed. I hope he will take the lead on this and ensure it is done in a timely manner, co-ordinating with the rest of the committee and the editorial community as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- As NW points out, WP:BLP is quite clear that it does apply, in some circumstances, to the recently deceased. I see no justification why we should single out this one aspect of the BLP policy and declare it to be unworthy of the protections afforded by the special enforcement provision. If we have to limit BLPBAN before the review takes place, I'd rather limit it to article space and discussions directly related thereto, consistent with the original case's concern about the impact of BLPs on their subjects. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- That is certainly another approach and I did consider it but went for the simpler option. BLPBAN is not the most used of our sanctions, and the circumstances under which the recently deceased are covered are limited, the change is probably academic. That said, if you want to put up an alternative motion, I'd probably support it. HJ Mitchell has suggested some additional text above, which could be usefully incorporated. On the whole though, this is probably all best left to be thrashed out in a thorough review. Roger Davies talk 00:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I perceive no need for us to "urgently review" the availability of special authority for administrators to deal with BLP policy violations, unless it is to consider reasons why the authority may have been underutilized over the years. The two recent instances in which this authority was misapplied were immediately recognized as outliers and widely criticized as such, and they no more impugn the general validity of BLP special sanctions authority than they do of the BLP policy itself. Any appropriate tweaks to the scope of the BLP policy, if desired, can be addressed through ordinary community discussion. (See also my comments on the motion in the Kevin Gorman case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- In a few weeks, NYB, it will be six years since the enforcement remedy was put in place. The community expects us to review our sanctions from time to time to ensure they're still needed and still fit for purpose. As this one is clearly being underused/misused/misunderstood, it could well need some updating. What's more, in the intervening six years, much has changed: for a start, we now have "Draft" namespace. Does WP:BLPBAN apply there? (Yes, it should as it's for articles in the making.) Should WP:BLPBAN apply also to the talk pages of articles within main namespace? (Less obvious, but worth considering.) For the existing remedy, does par. 2 apply only to the defined area in par. 1, or is it a separate broader restriction? Is there anything from the current in-depth review of WP:DSR which could usually improve WP:BLPBAN? In short, I suggest there is much to review, and no time to lose in doing so ;) Roger Davies talk 10:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- We can certainly discuss whether this sanction should be modified in some way at the appropriate time, either by us or even better in a community discussion. Although I understand the concept of including the special BLP enforcement authority created in Footnoted quotes in the ongoing discretionary sanctions review, I wouldn't want substantive discussion of BLP policy enforcement to be swallowed up in the largely procedural (albeit important) discussion of DS procedures. What I really oppose more than anything in this motion is that some urgency about reviewing the entire BLP special enforcement authority has been created by the isolated misuse of that authority in one or two instances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- In a few weeks, NYB, it will be six years since the enforcement remedy was put in place. The community expects us to review our sanctions from time to time to ensure they're still needed and still fit for purpose. As this one is clearly being underused/misused/misunderstood, it could well need some updating. What's more, in the intervening six years, much has changed: for a start, we now have "Draft" namespace. Does WP:BLPBAN apply there? (Yes, it should as it's for articles in the making.) Should WP:BLPBAN apply also to the talk pages of articles within main namespace? (Less obvious, but worth considering.) For the existing remedy, does par. 2 apply only to the defined area in par. 1, or is it a separate broader restriction? Is there anything from the current in-depth review of WP:DSR which could usually improve WP:BLPBAN? In short, I suggest there is much to review, and no time to lose in doing so ;) Roger Davies talk 10:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- The wording of BLPBAN is that "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy....". As the biographies of living persons policy does specify that under certain circumstances it can apply to the recently deceased, I think this would create an inconsistency. Admins enforcing in that manner would be following both the letter and spirit of BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Indented original support and moved to oppose. Seraphimblade (and others) are correct, though given the disagreement among arbs I still think a simpler motion 3 (proposed below) would be best. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- As NW points out, WP:BLP is quite clear that it does apply, in some circumstances, to the recently deceased. I see no justification why we should single out this one aspect of the BLP policy and declare it to be unworthy of the protections afforded by the special enforcement provision. If we have to limit BLPBAN before the review takes place, I'd rather limit it to article space and discussions directly related thereto, consistent with the original case's concern about the impact of BLPs on their subjects. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Abstain
-
- To add to the confusion, unlike Newyorkbrad I do agree with iii (it'd be convenient to tack BLPBAN onto the back of our DS review). ii is fine with me too. However, I don't comprehend point i of the motion. BLP covers many recently deceased people, including the subject of the original incident here. If BLP covers them, why are we saying BLPBAN does not? The inconsistency in i doesn't compel me to oppose, as BLPBAN is so underused, but I can't endorse this. AGK [•] 10:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comments by arbitrators
-
Motion 2 (Kevin Gorman)
- Proposed
By way of clarification:
- WP:BLPBAN applies only to articles within the main namespace; and
- Accordingly, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect.
The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be urgently reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.
- Support
-
- Different approach, but equal to #1, Roger Davies talk 10:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- AGK [•] 10:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Only choice. T. Canens (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Weak support; as Kevin removed the restriction himself I don't see the need to mention it here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BLPBAN makes clear that it applies to "articles", not all pages. Therefore, this clarification is in line with how the remedy is in fact worded. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- It is not at all clear to me that "WP:BLPBAN applies only to articles within the main namespace," or, for that matter, that it should apply only to articles within the main namespace. To be sure, this authority is not intended to limit legitimate discussion of contributors, sources, and so forth, and I imagine that its primary impact will and should be felt within the article space. However, for example, a few months ago I invoked the special sanctions authority to stop an editor from repeatedly inserting the false allegation that a BLP subject gave the order to destroy one of the World Trade Center buildings. When I did so, I meant that the editor had to stop making that assertion anywhere on Wikipedia, not that he had to stop doing it in the BLP itself but was free to continue making this defamatory claim in his userspace or on the noticeboards. In another context, I imposed a BLP restriction that prohibited an editor from (among other things) uploading files concerning a given individual, which I found were being used to harass that individual, and I think that was also within the scope of the authority. It is true that the actual remedy language from Footnoted quotes, referenced in the administrator instructions, refers to "articles," but that remedy was written at a time when topic-bans often used the phrase "article" rather than "page" and were later clarified to mean any page in Wikipedia (excluding special contexts such as appeals from the topic-ban itself). Most important, if we are going to have a review of the BLP special enforcement authority as both this motion and motion 1 suggest, I don't see why we want to prejudge the outcome of it with respect to this issue. Finally, as has been noted, Kevin Gorman struck the wording he purported to impose against Eric Corbett several days ago, and it was clear even before that that the consensus of uninvolved administrators had rejected it, so we don't need to clarify that it has no effect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, even if "article" has that very broad meaning the fact that the language has moved on so much that needs reflecting in the text. Apart from the ambiguity you highlight what about "article" means, the word "warning" has also become both charged and ambiguous. Your argument, it seems to me, strongly reinforces the opposite of what you say and that, in fact, this provision really does need urgently reviewing. Secondly, the warning needs to be formally withdrawn because KG's striking through of the warning has no effect. WP:BLPBAN does not recognise administrative discretion to withdraw warniongs or sanctions. What it says is: "Where an action has been reversed or modified, this should be clearly marked, and must be accompanied by evidence of explicit approval from the Committee, or of clear consensus from the community". This motion provides that explicit approval. Thirdly, it is unfair on our administrators, and on the community, to leave in place enforcement provisions that leave so much to individual interpretation. (I think this covers David's point as well). Finally, if it is meant to be applied much more broadly than just articles, it raises all sorts of interesting points. If it applies also to userspace, do the users have to prove that they are who they claim to be (for instance if I started editing as User:Reginald Davis) to be covered by the provisions or is mere assertion enough? And may editors seemingly editing under their real names claim BLP protection during AN discussions and insist everything not covered by RS is deleted? This one could keep us and the community busy for decades. Nope, it all needs sorting out. Roger Davies talk 16:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is not at all clear to me that "WP:BLPBAN applies only to articles within the main namespace," or, for that matter, that it should apply only to articles within the main namespace. To be sure, this authority is not intended to limit legitimate discussion of contributors, sources, and so forth, and I imagine that its primary impact will and should be felt within the article space. However, for example, a few months ago I invoked the special sanctions authority to stop an editor from repeatedly inserting the false allegation that a BLP subject gave the order to destroy one of the World Trade Center buildings. When I did so, I meant that the editor had to stop making that assertion anywhere on Wikipedia, not that he had to stop doing it in the BLP itself but was free to continue making this defamatory claim in his userspace or on the noticeboards. In another context, I imposed a BLP restriction that prohibited an editor from (among other things) uploading files concerning a given individual, which I found were being used to harass that individual, and I think that was also within the scope of the authority. It is true that the actual remedy language from Footnoted quotes, referenced in the administrator instructions, refers to "articles," but that remedy was written at a time when topic-bans often used the phrase "article" rather than "page" and were later clarified to mean any page in Wikipedia (excluding special contexts such as appeals from the topic-ban itself). Most important, if we are going to have a review of the BLP special enforcement authority as both this motion and motion 1 suggest, I don't see why we want to prejudge the outcome of it with respect to this issue. Finally, as has been noted, Kevin Gorman struck the wording he purported to impose against Eric Corbett several days ago, and it was clear even before that that the consensus of uninvolved administrators had rejected it, so we don't need to clarify that it has no effect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Abstain
-
- Not happy with the changes made to part (i). Proposing third alternative below. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comments by arbitrators
-
Motion 3 (Kevin Gorman)
- Proposed
By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman under WP:BLPBAN is rescinded. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.
- Support
-
- Proposing third alternative, since there is disagreement among arbitrators as to the scope of BLPBAN. Better to hash it out at a review than at these motions. I've not explicitly stated that the review will be in consultation with the community, as that should be implicit and obvious. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yep. Roger Davies talk 11:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Equal choice with M2, but I take Salvio's point below and would prefer we reword from "rescinded" to something like "overruled" or "invalidated" (as warnings cannot meaningfully be rescinded in this way). AGK [•] 14:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- On second thoughts, let's not start rescinding warnings: in the DS review we are currently saying that warnings/alerts can't be appealed. Rescinding Eric's warning now can only send a mixed message and we'll end up with more appeals of warnings/alerts. Let's just close this and review this remedy along with the other discretionary sanctions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Abstain
-
- Comments by arbitrators
-
Clarification request: Ryulong
Initiated by —Ryūlóng (琉竜) at 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Ryulong and IRC
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Ryulong
Lately, I have been the target of harassment by a slew of sockpuppets of editors who have been banned from this website, in some cases for years. Allegedly, these count as "users with whom [I am] in dispute". Is this correct? Considering how WP:SPI is chronically backlogged and as is evident banned users have all the free time in the world to continue their harassment campaigns, using the #wikipedia-en-spi channel or using IRC to contact an administrator who has been assisting me in on-site requests to notify them of new sockpuppets will solve these issues affecting the site as well as my ability to participate on this site without constant harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron (actually Wiki-star, with most of the previous investigation held under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zarbon and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zarbon because of Zarbon suffering harassment and impersonation) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813 (highly likely to be BuickCenturyDriver/Don't Feed the Zords [both same operator], cases previously Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver & Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Don't Feed the Zords).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Nug's posting here is irrelevant and retaliatory to the content dispute currently under discussion at Talk:Soviet Union, as has been most of his behavior to me since I re-entered the discussion on that page for the past week, including his attempts to WP:boomerang the thread I started at WP:ANI and his piling onto discussions started by banned users' sockpuppets. The thread he points to at ANI, after he repeatedly tried to derail it, had an administrator arrive and note that the behavior of the user I was reporting was problematic. Sending a message to N-HH to inform him of renewed discussion that he was once a party to is not canvassing, nor is suggesting to him the possible venues in which to raise our problems with Nug's behavior on the article. And no, the "alleged harassment" has not ended. The fact that one banned user has been harassing someone for 8 years and another has returned a year after his last socks were shut down shows that both individuals who have harassed me in the past several weeks will continue to do so once they find the technical means to evade the blocks put in place, as they seem to be adept at.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: At this point I don't know if enforcing the ban counts as harassment when it comes to one of the users (see all the edits between protections [also for some reason he's violating copyright now]) but if something can be done about that, then by all means help me figure that out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat snarky comment by Wehwalt
"Regardless of the original merits of this sanction, five years later it does not appear to be serving a legitimate purpose in preventing disruption."
I am delighted to see such a common-sense statement on ArbCom, though the barn door is long locked on vacancy. That being said, I support the request and motion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- I will add that perhaps it is about time that the community and ArbCom worked together to sunset remedies after, say, two years, unless ArbCom made a specific, fact-based finding that a longer period was necessary, and I don't mean boilerplate. That would include community and administrator imposed blocks and bans.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Callanecc
@Carcharoth: See User talk:Callanecc#174.236.68.115, WP:ANI#Recent behavior of ryulong, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813/Archive. And for the record, I also support the motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Nug
Ryulong's seems to have an apparent tendency to seek administrative intervention against perceived content opponents, for example this recent ANI thread titled "Nanshu's ad hominem attacks". I've lately come to his attention and this apparent attempt at canvasing here[6] concerns me as I am afraid IRC could be used as a back channel to agitate against his perceived opponents without their knowledge. The existing mechanism at ANI and SPI obviously work, it's transparent and the alleged harassment has ended. --Nug (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Helpful input from Cla68
Ryulong, did you ask for help from the Wikimedia Foundation with all the harassment you have been getting? They are usually really on the ball and eager to help en.wp editors, especially prolific content editors and/or administrators such as yourself, be free from bullying, intimidation, or harassing behavior. The WMF is especially responsive and appreciative of those volunteers that have spent large percentages of their lives helping improve this project. Haven't you been offered the free T-shirt recently, for example? If so, doesn't that mitigate all the harassment you have received over the years? Cla68 (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Recuse since I was involved in dealing with the harassment Ryulong is referring to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Given that five years have elapsed, I am open to modifying or vacating this remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Now that I've had a chance to review the original sanction I think we can and should just vacate it and will post a motion to that effect shortly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I do hope everyone involved in this discussion understands exactly what this sanction means. It doesn't actually prevent Ryulong from doing anything, it only says that he may be reported to ANI or AE if he is found to be asking for help on IRC. "May be reported" not "must be reported", not "will be blocked for" not "is ordered not to ever do" or anything else. And according to the enforcement logs on the case page this has not been a significant issue in the five years this rather toothless sanction has been in place. I just don't see how a sanction like this is helping anyone as all it says is something may happen, which would be true whether or not arbcom said so half a decade ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ryulong, before I vote on the motion below, can you provide more details about the recent harassment? If you want to e-mail the details, that is fine, but a pointer on-wiki or by e-mail to some recent SPI pages would help. I want to get a feel for how much of this sort of thing is going on and what potential there is for innocent editors to get caught up in an over-zealous sweep of the area if your proposed alternative to the SPI route is taken. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Wehwalt: A significant undertaking. Who will do the legwork? AGK [•] 23:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- So if this is a good idea, shouldn't Remedy 3(B) be removed too? "Ryulong is admonished ... [f]or contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." (emphasis mine). Seems like, at least in theory, voting to get rid of the enforcement mechanism without dealing with this remedy achieves exactly nothing; with or without the enforcement mechanism, people can still go to ANI or AE if he violates an un-rescinded remedy. To be clear, the Arbs supporting this motion so far all believe Ryulong should be allowed to request admin action on IRC or via email, correct? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Motion (Ryulong)
- For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
The following sanction is vacated with immediate effect.
3) Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page.
- Passed 11 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support
- As proposer. Regardless of the original merits of this sanction, five years later it does not appear to be serving a legitimate purpose in preventing disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Serves no useful purpose, Roger Davies talk 20:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- As above. AGK [•] 23:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Given the further details provided, am happy to support vacating this sanction. However, this doesn't give Ryulong (or any user) carte blanche to make repeated requests via IRC or other off-wiki communication methods in the absence of an on-wiki paper trail. Those administrators, SPI clerks and checkusers responding to his requests must still perform due diligence to ensure that the requests are genuine (i.e. that they are harassment and not a content dispute) and that innocent users are not swept up in this. Ryulong, if the harassment continues, I would encourage you to e-mail the functionaries mailing list to discuss other options. Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not currently useful to protect the project. LFaraone 00:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that this sanction is no longer necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Technically this is an enforcement provision, not a remedy. But I agree that it should be vacated. T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Although please file more complicated requests on wiki. NativeForeigner Talk 18:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, though with the caveats above, that complex requests or those which are not time-sensitive should preferentially be filed on-wiki, and that requests made offline must be logged and documented at least after the fact. For Floquenbeam's concern, an admonishment is not an enforceable remedy. Ryulong still should remember to be cautious in making IRC requests. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Albeit with a little more reluctance than my colleagues, and a note that behavior on IRC is still required to meet community norms. However, it can't possibly be true that "an admonishment is not an enforceable remedy" if the admonishment includes a directive not to do something; otherwise what is the point? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per the other supporters. Ryulong should still be cautious about how he proceeds in making allegations, both on- and off-wiki. But he should not be subject to harassment, either, or denied a means of dealing with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 11:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose
For now, mostly to get others' attention regarding my comments in the section above. I see we're at 8 supports, but I'd suggest not closing this out until Remedy 3(B) is dealt with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)(changed to support)
- Abstain
Motion (Ryulong 2)
During the original case Ryulong was admonished for excessive off-wiki requests of an inappropriate nature in remedy 3b, which reads in part:
(B) For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.
The admonishment is left in place as warning not to return to the excessive and/or inappropriate behavior of the past, but the final sentence "Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." is to be stricken.
- Support
- Sorry this got missed in the original motion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- With 1 passing, no harm in this. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's not exactly elegant to word this in a way that re-publishes an admonition based on behavior from five years ago, but meh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- LFaraone 02:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Roger Davies talk 07:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per Brad. T. Canens (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 11:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- AGK [•] 16:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ala Brad. NativeForeigner Talk 16:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
Clarification request: Infoboxes
Initiated by RexxS (talk) at 19:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Decision affected
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes #Use of infoboxes
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Statement by RexxS
I am dismayed at finding myself asking once again for clarification of the decision made last September in the Infoboxes case. I am again confronted by Dr. Blofeld taking what I believe to be an utterly inappropriate interpretation of one of your decisions:
- In this comment, he states
It's just everytime we have an article on the main page this "why doesn't it have an infobox" argument breaks out, when all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide and they're not compulsory.
I believe this to be entirely inaccurate as I cannot see that the Arbitrators would advance a policy of restricting content decisions to just those editors who self-identify as "the article writers". For comparison, the text of the finding of fact is:
The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
It is this finding of fact that I wish to see clarified, precisely to identify who were intended by the wording "the editors at each individual article".
Several editors had questioned on the Talk:Hattie Jacques page the absence of an infobox, and Dr. Blofeld is now using his interpretation of your decision to deny new editors any say in the decision concerning infoboxes. His comment was made immediately after that of MrDannyDoodah, who will now be left with the impression that his views cannot carry any weight on that talk page. I have asked Dr. Blofeld to reverse his opinion and make that clear, but he has declined to do so and insists that you would acknowledge his interpretation. Consequently I wish to settle this issue completely by an unambiguous statement from ArbCom on who may take part in a decision to add an infobox to an article. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Blofeld: I do not see how the words "all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide" are capable of any misinterpretation. The context is clear: your edit followed a few minutes after that of another editor who suggested that "... mainstream subjects, such as biographies of entertainers, use them to meet the needs of a wider audience." You were involved in a back-and-forth with that editor and attempted to shut down the discussion by telling him that "it's up to the article writers to decide". All your wriggling here bears no resemblance to what you wrote on that talk page. Anyone can read it and see for themselves that there's no hint of what you've written here. I have asked you to correct yourself and your response, once more, is to descend to invective. I should not have to put up with being called a "troublemaker" and accused of "crying to arb" when I've done no more than civilly raised an issue with you, and sought the clarification that we all should be entitled to.
- As for the question of TFA, I've had an article that I took through FA on the main page and I sympathise with the stress of stewardship while it is there. But that is not sufficient to overturn the principle of encouraging readers to edit; and if numerous editors come to the talk page to ask about an infobox, then it ought to be a hint to you that there is some opinion in favour of an infobox and you need to recognise it and work with those editors to seek a broader consensus, rather than telling them that ArbCom has gifted the decision to your small group. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle: Is it your contention that only those who have edited an article should be allowed to comment on the talkpage? If not, what's your point? I do have some expertise in templates (my most recent diff) and I wrote a module to help import Wikidata into infoboxes. Should that be a disqualification from correcting misinformation on technical aspects? When you attempted to get another editor sanctioned by falsely claiming that they had caused another editor to stop editing, you should have expected to be called a liar. Tell me, just what have I done to deserve Blofeld calling me a "troublemaker"? --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Blofeld: That's your usual hyperbole. Unlike you, I am an editor in good standing with a clean block log. I have brought exactly two matters to ArbCom in my six years editing here. Both have centred on you because of your behaviour. Need I remind everyone that the previous concern occurred because you refused to engage in debate at the talk page and made this comment:
Neither of the article authors want an infobox. Take your infobox Nazism somewhere else
? You got away with that by blubbing to me that you didn't want to be blocked. I stepped back from that request as a gesture of goodwill to you and this is how you respond. On this occasion you have falsely stated that ArbCom has "decided it's up to the article writers to decide" on infoboxes. I challenged your assertion on your talk page but you chose to defend your indefensible statement. I have received further insults from you on that same page for taking the time to inform you that I was seeking clarification. You have had plenty of time to correct your blatant falsehood on Talk:Hattie Jacques, but have chosen not to. We are here for a second time because of your actions and solely because of them. You need to learn that when you screw up, you stop blaming everyone else and fix the problem you've caused yourself. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC) - @Bencherlite: When was the last time that an editor uninvolved with the infobox debates turned up at a TFA and suggested that the infobox be removed? It never happens. It is however commonplace for editors to ask why a TFA doesn't have an infobox. That should tell you something. Your proposal goes against the basic principles of wiki-editing which depends on discussion and consensus among as many contributors as possible. On the very day that an article gets its maximum exposure to other editors, you want to shut down discussion on the talk page? You'll have my opposition to that elitist idea for as long as I'm able to edit. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Cassianto: I like you too, and I've been an admirer of your prolific content work ever since we bumped into one another. It saddens me that you think I've tried to force an infobox onto Hattie Jacques. I hope that if you re-read my contributions on the talk page, you'll see that my aim throughout has been to encourage debate of the issue, because other quite independent editors had raised it. Those editors deserve to have an equal opportunity to express their views; and they deserve to have a chance to understand the issues as they apply to that article. That's why it's so important that Blofeld is not allowed to shut down debate by falsely claiming that ArbCom has given a small group the sole right to decide whether there's an infobox or not - speaking as if he were one of the principal authors of the article (he's not). I'm sorry that you may find it tiresome to debate the issue of whether an infobox is appropriate or not for an article that you have substantially written, but that debate is healthy as it involves more people in the article. Isn't it better to give some respect to those who are interested enough to ask - whether they be experienced editors like Giant Snowman, or newcomers like Simonfreeman or MrDannyDoodah or even IPs? We build articles and our editing community by encouraging debate, not shutting it down. At the heart of it, that's what's at stake here, and ArbCom needs to defend that, not give silent approval to those who want to ring-fence articles to the detriment of the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Blofeld: Of course you're shutting down discussion. It's plain for anyone to see who clicks on the revision of 21:26, 7 February 2014 that you had no interest in discussing the points that MrDannyDoodah raises - you had already mocked his "To be honest it makes the page look misleadingly incomplete" with your "one of the funniest statements I've read for quite some time on here"; and Danny's "it's a mistake to think that every user wants to read, or even skim, the full article, however much we would like them to ... perhaps with more scholarly subjects not using infoboxes, as presumably their target audience wouldn't need them, whilst mainstream subjects, such as biographies of entertainers, use them to meet the needs of a wider audience" drew your response of "all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide". Either you're being disingenuous or you really can't see how offensive it is to other good-faith editors to dismiss their views so thoughtlessly, particularly when you arrogantly claim the authority of ArbCom to tell others they don't get a say. And let's get this clear: are you "an editor in good standing with a clean block log"? Answer: No. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Bencherlite: So you think the editors who take articles to FA are paramount in making any decisions for the article. When you use words like "hassle" and "defend", you're already in a battlefield mentality and completely ignoring the possibility that other editors' opinions are worth considering. You're really advocating that Giant Snowman, Simonfreeman and MrDannyDoodah would be liable for sanctions if they asked why the article didn't have an infobox near TFA day. Are you going to tell all of them that they can't raise the issues precisely because some principal authors are saying "we've decided not to have one"? Ok, you want a Wikipedia hierarchy where some of the editors who write the best content are top of the pile and those below who gnome or add references or sort the technical issues out are second-class contributors. At least you're honest about your position and the rest of us know where we stand. --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Bencherlite: As you ask, I don't think that's an inappropriate comment and I am dismayed that you do. MrDannyDoodah is entitled to his opinion (for that is what it is) and whether I agree with it or not, I'll defend his ability to express that opinion. What a dull world you would have us live in where everybody's opinion had to be identical and differing views had to be repressed. If there's a problem with those you call "TFA authors" feeling obliged "to justify or defend their position", then a better solution would be to change the system where a small group of editors feel their own position is threatened whenever somebody suggests something different from the decisions they have made for the article. At some point that risks tipping over into ownership. Lasting solutions on Wikipedia work by involving more people, not less. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- @NativeForeigner: Yet another member of ArbCom taking sides on content disputes. The decision on this case was made last September and that's over five months ago. I'm sure you'd like it all to go away for another six months, but ArbCom failed to address the issues last time and of course those issues still exist. I made it clear in the case that it was impossible for anyone to even raise the question of infoboxes on some articles without being patronised, insulted or both. Yet ArbCom did nothing about that. Since then we have had more of the same: completely uninvolved editors have asked a question in good faith and been dismissed or fed a load of cock-and-bull stories about the owners of a featured article having the only say on decisions like that. And now we have Bencherlite suggesting that we enshrine a principle of first and second class editors, by trying to remove the ability of other editors to raise issues at the very time that an article has its maximum exposure to those editors. It's disgraceful elitism and has no place on our encyclopedia. You "smile" on such proposals; I'd spit on them. It's about time Arbitrators worked out what the principles are that this project is based on - they start with "anyone can edit" and you need a bloody good reason to move away from that. Such good reasons don't include some editors being fed up with answering reasonable questions. --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Carcharoth: You are saying that ArbCom is unable or unwilling to make clear what it intended by the phrase
"through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article"
when that is the verbatim text of an ArbCom Finding of Fact, and are suggesting that I seek from the community clarification of an ArbCom finding. Well, it's an interesting precedent to set and I'm astonished that you're comfortable with that course. It does however cast some light on the pure folly of basing an ArbCom decision on a Finding of Fact that even ArbCom doesn't understand. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Dr. Blofeld
Rexx has once again misinterpreted me and is looking for little more than support and to try to prove me wrong by bringing this here and wasting your time. I'm not mistaken in my interpretation, I believe the arbitrators have stated that consensus is to be reached by anybody interested in the article who may turn up at the talk page and want to discuss infoboxes, not just among those who've written the article. My message on the talk page about article writers deciding was how he mistook what I meant I think. Potentially several hundred people could comment on having an infobox issue to come to a true consensus, but my point in saying what I said was that in practice the decision to use an infobox really is typically and generally decided by discussion and consensus between a small group people who have written the article in question provided that nobody objects to it and I'm sure the arbitrators here would acknowledge this. However, should anybody turn up and make an issue of an infobox then I believe what was agreed here is that the editors who made the original agreement not to use an infobox must be open to new input and strive to gain a new consensus. It isn't practical to request dozens or even hundreds of editors to comment on one infobox in every article. The three of us as normal came to the decision not to use an infobox in Hattie Jacques, that was a consensus, just not wider consensus which seems is now needed. But this process every time one of our articles hits TFA has become disruptive and disrespectful to editors who bother to promote articles and have to deal with controversy over them. It's reached the point that we're being put off wanting to promote articles to FA and dreading the day a article hits the main page because it's inevitable that we'll again have to argue over them for hours. That's not right.
If anything I would ask the arb to look into a new clause which prevents editors discussing infobox issues while the article is on the main page and to encourage editors to try to come to a consensus afterwards if people are still concerned about the issue. I approached User talk:Floquenbeam to ask whether this was practical or not. Above all, arbitrators you decided that infoboxes are not compulsory, but in practice the way discussions end up, they end up eventually being forced and passed off as if they are indeed essential. I think this needs a revision and reassessment as, consensus or no consensus, they're treated as compulsory by editors who turn up on the talk pages in practice. The problem we're getting is that articles which wouldn't normally attract much attention over infoboxes are becoming war grounds for infobox disputes purely because editors have spotted them on the main page and this is immediately going to counteract any original consensus agreed on by the article writers which would have remained intact if the article wasn't featured and open to the scrutiny of thousands of people on the main page. Unless this case here can progress into something really constructive in terms of how to nip TFA infobox disputes in the bud then I'm afraid Rexx is wasting all of your time asking you to simply clarify as I know that generally you mean all editors have a right to discuss infoboxes, not just article writers, and he's simply misunderstood what I was getting at and has once again jumped the gun in running here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Rexx. You keep running and whining to arb everytime anybody disagrees with you. That's troublesome. This is the second time you've done this with me and again you've misunderstood the situation and are wasting the arbitrators valuable time. If you're not willing to engage in active discussion with other editors, don't comment. You misquoted me here and mistook it as an argument for why an infobox shouldn't be included rather than a general statement which stated that infoboxes are not compulsory and that the arb have stated that it is up to the article writers to decide by consensus. What I meant by that as explained above is article writers and anybody else who shows an interest in infoboxes in articles. I have a point though that if most of these articles weren't TFAs, the attention they've likely to attract over infoboxes is likely to be low. So I'm arguing that articles without infoboxes are becoming breeding grounds for disputes when they're featured on the main page and this has to stop as it's a drain on the editors involved. You're unlikely to get a true consensus on the day of the FA and it comes across as forcing editors to add an infobox just to avoid disputes. The fact that you repeatedly come to arb to back you up I think is troublesome and causes unnecessary heartache and I dare say that eventually the arbitrators are going to get fed up with you and ban you from infobox discussions. I personally would accept a ban on myself from infobox disputes if you're also banned from them and running here during one, and that the arb pass something which will advise against infobox disputes during a TFA. Frankly I don't care that much about infoboxes, it just concerns me that we keep going through the same process every time one of our articles hits the main page and I hate to see our time being wasted which is why I comment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@Rexx So if I screwed up, why is it you who is requesting arb to waste their time clarifying everything? You'd simply accept I was so obviously wrong (with what you thought I was trying to say) and move on wouldn't you? Your statement contradicts why you decided to come here. If it was I who screwed up why would you need to come here? You're the one I'm afraid who has taken what I said a little too literally and seriously. It isn't right to bring this here. I'm following the advice of Beeb and Vic on this and am walking away from this as I don't think it's worth my time. If anybody here would like me to respond to a question ping me and I'll respectfully respond, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@Montanbw The thing is I haven't overreacted or responded madly arguing against "nefarious infobox pushers". I simply quietly said that the arb decided that infoboxes are not compulsory and are to be decided upon by the people who write the articles as they're writing it. Rexx misinterpreted what I said and thought it necessary to come running here which I see an unnecessary and troublesome. If he'd simply accepted my argument and quietly thought "you're wrong" instead of causing a big song and dance about asking me to correct myself and coming here things would still be amicable. Even if he has the best of intentions the frequent infobox discussion everytime an article hits TFA does become wearisome for the contributors, and its time something was resolved to stop it happening every week or two.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@Montanbw You're right about that and it's what I've said above. In principle it is up to anybody to decide. But take your New Forest pony for instance. I'd imagine that it was your choice and anybody else who contributed to the article to use an infobox based on an understanding of what is typically used for such article and your preference to include one. The notion that the wider community are to decide the infobox issue on each and every article like this really isn't what happens in practice. If I, Schrod, Cass, Tim etc came along on the day of the TFA and started kicking up a fuss that the infobox looks ugly and arguing that it degrades the article as the article writer you'd surely stand your ground and object and argue that there was a consensus between you and whoever else wrote it to include one. You'd be miffed wouldn't you that editors who have absolutely nothing to do with the horses project snicking their nose in and trying to force a "new consensus" and try to prove that more people don't want the infobox than do. You'd surely be even more astounded if you found yourself swiftly in front of the arb over it wouldn't you? I personally have no problems with the infobox of course and don't think that, but I would never dream of coming along on your TFA and causing a fuss over it, even if I detested it. It is disrespectful to the editors who've bothered to write the article and their decision to use/not use an infobox. Obviously technically anybody can comment, but I do think people should be less forceful in their approach and at least be more accepting of what the people who've bothered to write the article and promote it to FA feel on the matter. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@Rexx, you keep saying that I "shut down the debate" but I did no such thing. I have no authority to "close" a debate and it wasn't as if what I said came anywhere near resembling it. I simply quietly said that the arb made the decision that infoboxes are not compulsory above all. I didn't say "thou must not ever inquire about the adding of an infobox, never mention it again, this conversation is final" sort of thing did I? That's why I found your demands on my talk page so preposterous. Even if you disagree with what I said in the exact wording, simply ignore it and continue to argue your point. As for me not being an editor in good standing, I'm sure even the people who are on good terms with you are shaking their heads at that one too. You're digging a hole for yourself and I can see you continuing to worry about infoboxes in the future to the point you're going to end up being banned from discussing them. I'm very disappointed in your overreaction over this, you seemed a thoroughly decent and reasonable fella in emails a while back. You've got to take a look at how you yourself reacted. If you'd simply said on the talk page "the arb didn't mean just the article writers and you know that, we have a right to discuss them" I'd not have battered an eyelid and things would still be amicable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Victoriaearle
I think the committee should ignore this request, otherwise this situation will go on and on. RexxS comments frequently about infoboxes, as shown in the following very few and selective diffs, none of which come from articles RexxS has edited to my knowledge (I could be wrong!): March 2013, March 2013, May 2013, August 2013, December 2013. Furthermore, in terms of not having to "put up with being called a "troublemaker"" - being called a liar wasn't much fun either, [7]. In my view, everyone who posted to any of the case pages (myself included), should take a long step back and ignore infoboxes for at least six months. There are plenty of other things to do here. Victoria (tk) 22:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Feedback from NE Ent
Obviously, there's no need for clarification as the committee already cited current policy Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use_of_infoboxes and does not make policy, so any new policy for mainpage / FA infoboxes should come from the community -- as requested by the committee in their findings Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Community_discussion_recommended. NE Ent 23:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've posted a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#infobox_suggestion. NE Ent 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by SchroCat
Another "clarification"? And on something that's not really an issue? This continuance of the infobox thing isn't helping anyone, and I can only support, cheer and echo Victoria's good advice above. I'm now so sick and tired of the infobox nonsense that, with apologies to @Bencherlite:, I'm not going to put any further articles up for TFA, as they end up being involved in the same old endlessly dreary arguments about the damned boxes: mostly about the general concept of boxes (the one-size-fits-all mantra), rather than whether a specific individual article needs a box. Sadly people seem to be unwilling to make the distinction between the general and the specific, and between the policy-led approach against the "I like them, so we need one" approach. - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw: Thankfully the site-wide consensus, as expressed by the MoS, differs from your personal opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw, There was no "snark" intended, and I'm sorry if you read it as such. I will correct a few errors you may seem to be labouring under, but firstly, could you please drop the overly-emotive language and try and assume at least some good faith? Calling editors whose opinion you disagree with "bullies"
is unlikely to help matters, and neither is describing someone's actions as "Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet behaviour"
, so perhaps we could deal with the issues, rather than drop into name calling? As to the substance of your comments.
"The consensus is hardly "site-wide"
As my point related to the MoS, I'm not sure why you think the MoS is not a reflection of the site-wide consensus of all editors? (rather than just "bullies")"person in good faith adds an infobox, another person throws a conniption fit"
I suggest you try reversing it too, just to see the opposing point of view. I've seen an editor accused of vandalism for the good faith removal of an IB that was inserted against a long-standing consensus: the conniption fits are happily shared around all-comers here."the debate SHOULD be about design and content, not whether infoboxes exist"
Why? The MoS is inherently flexible on the point of use ("The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article"), and reflects the fact that one-size-does-not-fit-all. Like the majority of people who are flexible in relation to IBs, I that sometimes they can be good, sometimes they can be essential. And sometimes they are an abomination. Our policy has flexibility in the approach, which is where the problems can arise—and it's not just about the design and content.
— SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Montanabw
OK, after noting for the record that I have had positive interactions with both RexxS and Blofeld, you are both good editors, and I really wish the two of you would just sit down, have a beer, and bury this hatchet, my thoughts: We're here again because are still anti-AGF behavior going on. If people would just live and let live, the guideline that the people who actually care about INDIVIDUAL articles (or, for that matter, individual SUBJECTS, such as opera or even TFAs) could decide by consensus would work. But, "teh dreaded infoboxen" issue is turning into a damn witchhunt. One person in good faith adds an infobox, another person throws a conniption fit about it and begins to accuse the pro-infoboxer of all sorts of nefarious motives. I have long held the view that any article that is part of a project that has gone to the trouble of creating an infobox really should consider using them as a default for consistency within the subject and the conveyance of needed data available at a glance; back in the Stone Age, my old set of World Book Encyclopedias had a standardized summary format box (predecessor to "teh infoboxen") in most of the major biographies or geography or science articles, and wiki is, at root, an encyclopedia. This issue is (in my view) mostly a graphic design element (though I get the metadata argument and think metadata is useful, though I know squat about programming it to happen), just like the wikipedia logo that's on every page on wiki. Not everyone is going to like every element, but the debate SHOULD be about design and content, not whether infoboxes exist. That train left a long time ago -- well over half of all wikipedia articles have infoboxes, an overwhelming majority in the sciences, and especially FA and GA-class articles. These dramas SHOULD be about what goes into an infobox, how the layout looks, etc., not whether they are included. Let's just ratchet down this Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet behavior. Montanabw(talk) 21:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@Schrocat, your snark above is precisely the problem. The consensus is hardly "site-wide," it is merely the people who showed up, mostly the bullies. Montanabw(talk) 04:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Schrocat, the truth is the truth, I am not "overly-emotive," I am merely descriptive of what is already there, including some of your own comments. It may be difficult to see your own actions mirrored back at you, but that is precisely what I think needs to be ratcheted down. Montanabw(talk) 20:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@Blofeld, I suspect "people who write the articles as they're writing it" is the rub, I believe that the actual arbcom decision was something more like "editors" - not specified as to whether these are just the lead editors or also the wikignomes and wikifairies. Hence why we are here Montanabw(talk) 04:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@Bencherlite, I like your proposal a). I think that the three day rule is probably something everyone could live with. I strongly dislike your c) as this would be a temptation for someone to nom a FA for TFA just to shut down such discussions. That said, raising an infobox discussion should be a talk page issue and not a TFA issue, so if it's raised at a TFA proposal, it should just be summarily dispatched back to the article and not be an issue for TFA in either direction. I am leaning against your b), for the same reasons as c); no harm in having a discussion about the issue, but it isn't relevant to TFA or not TFA. Montanabw(talk) 02:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
@Bencherlite, not sure you read my above clearly; I can see your argument for a 3-day moratorium on massive changes (though not discussion), it's the rest I have issues with. Montanabw(talk) 05:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld, you make a point about articles WITH infoboxes, but I think RexxS is correct that never in the history of WP TFA has someone come in and demanded an infobox in a "stable" (horse pun intended) article be removed. Again, infoboxes are the future, and those opposing them are drawing a Maginot Line that, like all anachronisms, will not be easily defended down the road... Montanabw(talk) 05:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Cassianto
How sad that we find ourselves here. I was a co-author for Hattie Jacques and I felt compelled to write here, although I have been very brief in the discussions on the talk page. TFA is a very bitter sweet experience for me owing to the same old infobox arguments which occur during, and in the days after TFA. Now, I like RexxS; I find him to be a very knowledgable and approachable fellow and he has helped me out on many, many occasions with my many technical issues. However, I am dismayed with his his attempts to force the infobox issue onto yet another article that chooses not to have one and then run off to the arbitrators when things don't go his way. This behaviour seems indicative of someone who is trying to force infoboxes onto an article that choose not to have one.
The infobox debate is as old as the hills and to have it discussed everytime an infoboxless article appears on TFA is a pain in the backside. I am not completely opposed to them; they can be helpful on political, geographical, sporting and film articles, but I find them utterly useless on Classical music and theatrical biographies as well as art and architecture pages. I am sick to the back teeth of the same old arguments after TFA. I really can't be bothered to spend my many months writing FAs, frequently at my own expense, only to have people who haven't had any prior interest in the article to come along and force an infobox on them after TFA. CassiantoTalk 11:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Bencherlite
As TFA coordinator, I get very worried whenever I see writers of FAs say that they do not want their articles to appear on the main page for whatever reason. Some dislike dealing with the vandalism. Some dislike dealing with the low-quality edits (inaccurate content, bad grammar, poor style, unreferenced nonsense and trivia) that goes with the territory of being "Today's featured flypaper article". And now we see users, new and not so new, think that TFA day is a great time to mention adding an infobox to an article. While there is no rule that prevents this from happening, it is hardly tactful timing and it appears to be adding a new worry for some editors. Perhaps to avoid this, I should refuse to schedule any FA that does not have an infobox (to avoid unfortunate discussions about adding one) as well as any FA that does have an infobox (to avoid unfortunate discussions about removing it). Only half-joking on this point...
Now, helping bring an article to featured status does not absolve you from having to discuss infoboxes if someone raises the issue (and, frankly, for all that some arbs might wish that particular editors dropped the subject for six months, even if that wish came true the problem still won't go away). But I do think that issues such as infobox discussions should not be allowed to impair the TFA experience. Infoboxes can of course be discussed before, during and after the whole FA nomination process, but a time-out zone for TFA would help remove one area of particular tension.
Someone can probably find links or diffs to prove me right or wrong, but I have a recollection that someone was previously topic-banned from adding infoboxes / raising infobox issues on articles that were, or were about to be, at TFA. What I would like to suggest is this:
- There is a moratorium on all discussions about adding or removing infoboxes on any article that is (a) Today's Featured Artice (including the three days immediately following when it is still linked from the main page); (b) scheduled to be Today's Featured Article; or (c) under discussion at WP:Today's featured article/requests.
- Any uninvolved editor may summarily close any discussion started in breach of this.
- Enforcement in whatever the usual way is for such things.
This idea would not make everyone happy but it may be an interim solution of sorts. For the avoidance of doubt, I am neither in the pro-infobox nor the anti-infobox camp, although I am probably not alone in belonging to the are-these-boxes-really-worth-so-much-time-one-way-or-the-other camp. BencherliteTalk 23:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw: I've found the link I was thinking of [8] although it was a community decision not an Arbcom one, and was for all edits to TFAs not just infoboxes. NB the decision was to ban the individual from all articles nominated or scheduled as TFA, not just the TFA - if FA writers are inhibited from having their articles at TFA because of boredom with repeated infobox discussions precipitated solely by the article appearing at TFA, the moratorium has to cover the run-up to TFA day, not just TFA day. Anyway, if Arbcom says that this proposal is not within their remit, it can be discussed elsewhere later. BencherliteTalk 13:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
@Rexxs: "It is however commonplace for editors to ask why a TFA doesn't have an infobox. That should tell you something." Yes, it tells me that when certain writers of FAs feel that they cannot put up with the additional discussion of infoboxes on top of all the other crap that having an article at TFA brings, they're probably justified in feeling that way since even you say that these discussions are "commonplace". I'm not asking for all FAs to be immune from infobox-related discussions for all time - just that in the period running up to TFA day editors should be spared the hassle of having to defend the decision not to have an infobox. Dennis Brown said in the topic ban discussion I mentioned "The debate over info boxes is a valid debate, but it is a matter of timing. ... And I tend to be in favor of infoboxes in general, but not in favor of choosing the worst possible time to make a stand on them." Similarly Franamax said "I can imagine how demoralizing it must be for an editor who has sweated and slaved to get every detail right for FAC, it goes to the main page, then someone shows up simply because they feel the need to make a point. Yes, we are encouraged to be bold and try to improve articles. No, that is not the right place to do it." Those commments were made in 2012, and here we are in 2014 with TFA authors still feeling demoralized because other editors use TFA day to raise an issue that is obviously not going to result in the principal authors saying "Of course! Why didn't we think of it earlier? Let's add one straightaway!" BencherliteTalk 22:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
@RexxS: Please stop putting words in my mouth or misrepresenting my attitude - I am trying to look after TFA authors during the TFA experience, not say that their views are unchallengeable for all time. And I'm not saying that editors raising the question should be sanctioned simply for raising a question when (hypothetically for these purposes) there is consensus not to allow such questions to be raised during TFA, merely that such discussions should be stopped until the article is off the main page. This latest issue arose because some TFA authors had to respond to comments such as "To be honest it makes the page look misleadingly incomplete to not have one there, giving people the initial impression that the whole article may not be that complete" (Talk:Hattie Jacques). That is not an appropriate way to discuss the issue, particularly not when having an article at TFA brings enough stresses anyway. That is "hassle" - or perhaps you think it's an appropriate comment? That is an approach of some (not all) on the pro-infobox side that requires TFA authors to justify or defend their position. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could show me the last time that an infobox discussion at a TFA led to the uncontroversial addition of an infobox. This whole infobox issue is poisoning some FA authors' attitudes to TFA, and that's why I made my suggestion, because TFA is my area of especial concern – otherwise I would simply have stayed away from the whole bloody issue. I do not want to have any more unwilling participants at TFA – I have enough of those already... ;-) BencherliteTalk 11:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Passing comment by Wnt
Note: I have no idea what the present dispute is
It amazes me how different policy becomes whenever it's inside a little black border. WP:LINKSPAM is so out of control that people routinely delete lists of unused references from the See Also sections of half-written articles, yet we have infoboxes like Template:The Beatles that spam 200 links to each of 200 articles, so people on Google can't look up what two songs have in common without getting 200 spam hits from Wikipedia that link both articles. Or for BLP -- if I wrote in the lede section of Stop Islamization of America that those people had something to do with the Srebrenica massacre purely on account of their condemnation of Islam, I'd be lucky not to get blocked. But put it over in the black box under an icon (the only illustration in that article) that has no particular relevance to their group, and you're golden. ArbCom and other admins should look for ways to have a more consistent policy, inside and outside the box. Wnt (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
I have just read this request, and I have to wonder whether I've read the same page as the arbitrators who have commented on it? RexxS asked the committee for a very simple clarification of one of its decisions about which there has been a disagreement. If the committee is not prepared to clarify the meaning of its decisions it should close this page and personally deal with the fallout from its ambiguous wording.
Personally I think giving clarification when asked for in good faith is a core part of being arbitrator in the exactly same way, and for exactly the same reasons, that giving clarification and explanation of your actions when requested in good faith is a core requirement of being an administrator.
So, to cut to the chase, which of the following statements is the intended meaning of the word "editors" in the sentence: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."
- The editor or editors who started the article
- The editor or editors who have put the most work into the article
- All editors who have made significant contributions to the article
- All editors who have made significant contributions to this or other similar articles
- All editors who have contributed to the article
- All interested editors
Each of A-F is a reasonable interpretation of a statement made by one or more people who have commented here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you by Gerda
Thank you, Dr. Blofeld, for your beautiful addition to my latest infobox, and thank you, arbitrators, for clarification of the questions just above, as soon as possible. I still hope that in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, all interested editors may speak up at all times, but if that needs to be restricted, please precisely so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- @LFaraone: I didn't bring the case up at the election, I asked only one specific question about one diff, to see for whom I could vote. The majority of the candidates who dared to look (including you) looked at it my way. The two editors who helped each other in that uncontroversial Planyavsky case, Andy and I, were restricted, the discussions go on. I fail to see how the difference between two version of an Indian actress can cause so much heated emotion, - I came to the topic late and regard myself as cool, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
More praise to Dr. Blofeld for this preserving edit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Clapping also for Brianboulton (for an identibox in a TFA) and Voceditenore (for an infobox in an opera), da capo! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by {other user}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- I think NE Ent hit the nail on the head with his statement. What I am seeing here is that this is a disagreement about the meaning of something Blofeld said, not about what the committee said. That being the case I see no need to clarify the committee's previous stated position. I also strongly agree with the portion of Victoria's statement pertaining to walking away. I wasn't involved in the original case but this petty bickering reflects poorly on everyone involved and the project would be better served if they personally avoided both discussions of infoboxes and one another. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wnt, you may have a point about the policies involved, but arbcom does not make and cannot make or alter content policies. Only the community may do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing for us to do here, because we may not make policy. However, I'd like to invite all editors involved to voluntarily step away from the topic of infoboxes, regardless of their opinion on the matter, for six months. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Briefly commenting here to point out that whether or not Wnt's comments are valid they are nothing to do with this case and the dispute in question. This case and this dispute was/is about infoboxes (there is a help page, a MoS page, and WikiProject page, but bizarrely no WP namespace page on infoboxes). These are different from the boxes Wnt is referring to, which are navboxes, which can be footers or sidebars. They perform completely different functions and shouldn't be confused. Will try and return to the substance of this request in a few days time. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- To answer Thryduulf and User:RexxS, you should be asking those questions of the community of editors that cares enough about infoboxes to determine community policy on them. That discussion should not take place at the Manual of Style talk page (infoboxes combine elements of content and style, but the decision whether to have them or not is presumably a content issue, not a style issue - though maybe it is deep down an aesthetic style issue of how to present the information and whether to present it in this style or not). It should also not take place at the Help talk page, as help pages are meant to help with technical matters of how to do something, not whether to do something. It should also not take place at the WikiProject talk page, as WikiProjects are just meant to co-ordinate, not to set policy. I have no idea why Wikipedia:Infobox redirects to the WikiProject page. The rather bizarre conclusion (was this discrepancy not noted in the arbitration case?) is that there is no current policy or standalone guideline page on infoboxes (existing examples are Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Categorization, which are a policy and guideline separate from the related style guidelines). The suggested community discussions should be aimed at looking at existing practices and best practices (probably already documented on the three existing pages: help, WikiProject and MoS) and coming up with a policy or standalone guideline on infoboxes that has widespread consensus (hint: not just the views of those active in the case). If you need ArbCom to pass another motion to tell you that (again), you are missing the point. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd smile upon such a proposal such as the one put forth by Bencherlite, but I'm not sure that falls under the direct remit of the committee and it's not something I'd be willing to propose. I wish people would just step back from the issue, for six months at minimum. NativeForeigner Talk 02:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- @RexxS: My core argument is will those both for and against infoboxes please take a step back, cool off, and approach this all in a civil manner rather than attempting to bring up the issue as much as possible in every available venue. To be honest, I don't give a damm if an article has an infobox or not, and in my naivety thought perhaps Bencherlite's proposal would help to disengage the area, but judging by your response I find it unlikely. In any case, there is little more to be said regarding this request for clarification that would be productive. NativeForeigner Talk 16:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Further community discussion along some of the lines opened above would be welcome, but no action is needed on the clarification request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- The finding of fact is a reflection of community policy, not an establishment of new policy. The continuance of requests here in this matter is discouraging; I concur with NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) on all points. I admit to having not reviewed the case before Gerda brought it up during WP:ACE2013, however since then it has become my go-to case for when I'm explaining what ArbCom handles to a non-Wikipedian. LFaraone 00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that what's needed here is a clarification of the policy itself, not the finding of fact. I'd encourage the community to discuss this further, but the issue does not fall within the Committee's remit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)