Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noetica (talk | contribs) at 04:12, 20 March 2014 (→‎Statement by {other user}: User:Noetica's statement in support of "an un-diffed log"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 19 March 2014
Amendment request: Doncram none (orig. case) 18 March 2014
Amendment request: Cirt and Jayen466 none (orig. case) 9 March 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!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation

Initiated by NE Ent at 01:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Discretionary_sanctions

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

Statement by NE Ent

Back in December Arbcom '13 declined an appeal of a warning issued under the existing discretionary sanctions, and my read on the situation is that the committee really doesn't anyone wasting time arguing about whether an editor being notified was actually guilty of misconduct (a reasonable position). In a recent ANI thread SMcCandlish indicated that an arbcom page linking to an accusation that he felt unable to defend himself against was interfering with his ability to contribute to the encyclopedia. Sandstein stated during the December filing "I recommend that the appeal is declined because warnings or notifications are, in my view, not in any meaningful sense subject to appeal or revocation. Their purpose is not to restrict their recipient in any way, but to inform them about future possible sanctions, as required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings." Therefore, to satisfy both SMcCandlish's desire to be free of the badge o' shame and Sandstein's point there be a record of notification, I renotified the four editors with the most neutral statement I could come up with [1] and substituted those notification in the log [2].

Sandstein however objected to this awesome solution on the AC clerk's board [3], so it appears that is not the notification which is important but his notification with its finding of fault. So I'm asking the committee to simply decide whether the finding of fault must remain on the case page, or whether a simple drama free neutral notification would do.

Note: if you review the case there's a minor conflict between myself and Neotarf because I screwed up and totally forgot a prior discussion we had had, which is why I put his prior notification back here [4]

Statement by Johuniq

Please re-think this issue because the claim that "it's just a warning" are totally incorrect. A simple solution is available—issue a motion that the original warnings are vacated and are replaced with something new—something which does not declare that the recipients are guilty of a wikicrime. A simple "reminder of the importance of civility" in the motion would be sufficient.

There were exhausting discussions regarding titles, and one editor argued and argued and argued in multiple locations regarding the outcome of the discussions. That editor was not alone in believing that the original decision was flawed and so was encouraged to continue beyond human endurance. Despite the opposition, there was a clear consensus for the previous decision (and a larger consensus that the outcome should not be further challenged because any decision was better than indefinite arguing). The dispute was extremely problematic, but it continued on an on because it was "civil".

As part of the battle, an AE request was brought against an editor: Apteva, 22 January 2013.

A counter-claim followed: Noetica, 27 January 2013.

It was decided that the second claim should be closed with standard warnings issued to four editors: diff + diff + diff + diff. An extremely problematic log of the issue was then made here. The last puts the four editors who were defending the consensus decision in the same public stocks as an indeffed user.

The "warning" is unduly pompous and includes the following text:

against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia
If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic ... blocks ...

The warning strongly implies that each of the four editors had failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, and asserts as fact that each had misconducted themselves. That is not a reasonable interpretation of the saga. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

In December 2013, the Committee declined an appeal against these warnings, which I made in February 2013 per current procedure (WP:AC/DS#Warnings) using the then-current version of the standard warnings template. Yesterday, an arbitration clerk, Callanecc, restored as a clerk action the version of the case page that contains these warnings in the form I logged them, after they had been variously changed or removed by NE Ent and Neotarf, as can be seen in the page history. Likewise, a few days ago, an uninvolved administrator closed a, shall we say, slightly overblown ANI thread containing complaints against the same warnings with a finding that they violated no policies. This matter has therefore been discussed (to death) in all possible fora, including earlier ANI threads and ARCA requests, and has been conclusively addressed by the competent functionaries. Continuing to make complaints about these warnings is, in my view, therefore pointless and bordering on disruptive.

In my view, the log entries in the current version correctly reflect the warnings as they were made at the time they were issued. Should the Committee now prefer that the log entries be changed in some way, they are of course free to instruct the clerks to make whatever changes they consider appropriate.

In addition, it is not clear to me what business of NE Ent's (who is neither an administrator nor an arbitration clerk) it is to make any alterations to arbitration logs created by administrators. The same goes, of course, for Neotarf, who has also been editing the case page to remove logs of the warnings at issue. I recommend that the Committee restricts NE Ent and Neotarf from changing arbitration case pages, or that it adopts a general rule of procedure that restricts all but clerks and uninvolved administrators from creating or changing log entries.  Sandstein  11:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: I don't particularly oppose NE Ent's approach, in the abstract. That's why, in view of the repeated changes to the log page, I only asked the clerks to determine how the log entries should read, which they did. I think this places the responsibility for the format of the entries on the Committee and its clerks, rather than on me. What I do object to is the unruly and confrontative manner in which these warnings are contested by some of their recipients, that is, by dragging the issue from forum to forum for more than a year, in a strident and accusatory manner, with unilateral changes to log entries by involved parties and random passersby, generous doses of bad faith and allegations of misconduct on my part, and never taking no for an answer. I am disinclined to take complaints made in this manner seriously, and I think the Committee should be similarly reluctant to – if you don't want to set the precedent that even if the Committee declines an appeal, all one has to do is to make enough noise until they get their way.

In general, I think it's up to the Committee to determine whether and how warnings, notifications and the like should be logged. To date, the Committee has not made any rule about this, but the generally observed practice is to log such actions in a format like "User:Foo warned/notified per AE thread, signature." If the Committee prefers a different format, I think that it should say so and require the use of this format for all log entries, rather than only in this one case. That's also because I consider, as I have said in the many previous proceedings, that particularly in SMcCandlish's case the warning was merited on account of his conduct. I issued it because of his overly aggressive and personalizing comment to the AE thread, in a manner specifically forbidden per WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded, such as: "His (and [name]'s WP:TAGTEAM) tendentious-to-death-and-beyond nonsense". The other commenting administrators agreed that a warning was appropriate. For these reasons, any accusation of misconduct that SMcCandlish believes to be implied by the warning and log entry at issue is, in his case at least, merited.

That said, Salvio giuliano, if you think that my work at WP:AE does more harm than good, I'm happy to quit it if you would like me to. I'm not interested in helping out where I'm not welcome to, and I really have no time for all of this.  Sandstein  16:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ohconfucius

I certainly don't enjoy wasting my time here, and I don't want to be accused of being disruptive. But I'm fed up with Sandstein's stonewalling and hiding behind the technicality that once a person cannot be "unwarned" once they have been warned, so I'll just thank Johuniq for summing it up so very nicely. Please Arbcom, don't conflate the warning with the unfair accusatory part that I would like to see withdrawn. -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

My preliminary reaction to this, if it's not gamed and distorted yet again, is: yes, this will go a long way to resolving the chief concerns we've been raising for well over a year now. I am the very one who proposed this solution to begin with (and kudos to NT Ent for getting this ball rolling). The recent ANI request about this generated simultaneous suggestions to take the ethical dispute with Wikipedia to the level of an RFARB case, and the behavioral issues with Sandstein to an RFC/U.

Yet, if Sandstein's falsely accusatory old ARBATC threats/warnings are removed entirely or at worst replaced with neutrally-worded ARBATC notices, like what NE Ent used, the #1 issue all four affected editors have raised is just instantly resolved, painlessly. Regardless of Sandstein's intent, his warning/accusation/threat text demonstrably is being interpreted (not just by the accused) as accusations without proof, i.e. personal attacks, in direct contravention of the very ARBATC discretionary sanction conditions ostensibly being warned about! The clearly reasonable, ethical thing to do is to remove problematic wording like this, no matter why it was put there or by whom.

This fix would not necessarily resolve every issue each of these editors may have with Sandstein (and they differ), but it resolves the very serious problem for ArbCom and for WP more broadly of WP:ARBATC's notification log being misused (inadvertently or not) for blatant character assassination instead of for ARBCOM's case-administration needs. It's wrong to allow a formal WP dispute resolution procedural page like that to be used as an admin dirtlist of accusations of "continue[d]" "misconduct" with no proof (and only against certain specially targeted editors – Sandstein himself doesn't log all editors he formally gives ARBATC warnings to, like these two, and clearly hardly anyone else ever bothers logging anyone there at all. It has set a very bad precedent and cost the project a ton and a half of good-faith, productive editorial contributions. For nothing helpful in any way. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: While what seems to be a proposal to only remove "continue to" could technically, maybe, sorta fix the wording issue, I think it's clear that it won't really fix the broader make-an-example-of-these-punks attitude issue, which still comes off as attacking. It would not be a resolution in spirit. The real, equitable solution is to just replace the warning/threatening character of the entire log entries with something totally neutral, as NE Ent used. I am fairly certain that a failure to treat us with neutrality will lead to one or another of the parties going the RFARB and RFC/U route, because Sandstein being in the wrong in multiple ways on his initial action is actually very easy to demonstrate. I've already done so, several times, in different places. Sandstein was not in a position to issue a "warning" (which automatically implies a finding of wrongdoing) because did not have the facts to determine any wrongdoing. He did not read the prior AN or RFC/U that led up to the AE request. I and others repeatedly pointed him to this evidence of the now-indef'ed user's previous and quite recent cases, and he refused to look at it or consider it, every time. He's bringing a Austrian court procedural rule about evidence admissibility from his lawyer day job, to an informal administrative role on a volunteer website. It's an un-wiki bureaucratic proceduralism that is worse than unhelpful here. Issuing his warning/threat without evidence of wrongdoing – willfully refusing the evidence – is still palpably a false accusation by Sandstein, just one less flagrantly worded. Retaining it here, after all these attempts at resolution, would be kind of like sanctioning civil PoV-pushing simply because it's polite and because you like the guy who's doing it. Also, he applied ARBATC logic about arguing over style/title matters, to a dispute at AE over editor behavior, despite the fact that the ArbCom has said many times that such restrictions, even direct interact bans, cannot be used to deny editors legitimate use of our dispute resolution processes. All discussions AT (and AN, ANI, etc.) are pre-"personalized" because they're about editing behavior, not content! — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Part of why I've remained silent for so long was an expectation that surely ArbCom would just see the light and fix this, quickly. Hasn't happened. "I'll try this week to write some motions to resolve these issues. AGK [•] 23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)" (at ARCA over a year ago).
@Carcharoth: Neotarf was active just yesterday and probably would want to comment here, and has been notified. Don't know what time zone they're in. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I think you're forgetting that at least for those of us who edit under our real names here, false accusations that appear to anyone but WP policy experts to be official condemnations by Wikipedia for wrongdoing have more than on-wiki potential consequences. For the others, I'm not sure you get to decide what their honor is worth. How would you feel if I ran an online newspaper and one of my journalists wrote a convincing-sounding but made-up article labeling you (even just under your WP username) a sadist who likes to kill kittens [or whatever], and I refused under some convoluted procedural rationale to remove the baseless accusation, and left it up for an entire year? And people told you were overreacting if you objected? :-) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 15:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio: I support NE Ent's solution (and originated it, as a possible last-ditch compromise), and have issues (noted just above) with the Roger Davies version, however well-intentioned. Your alternative, "we remove the diff of the warning from the log, leaving the rest (i.e. the date and the identity of the administrator who logged the alert)" is even more wholeheartedly supported by me, and I know for a fact from all previous discussions that it's the version all four of us have always asked for (meanwhile, only I have endorsed the NE Ent solution so far.) Given that you're suggesting our original request is actually feasible, to have this controversial accusatory material voided from the log entirely, and given that Sandstein has done everything he can to obstruct resolution of this problem for a year, I formally request removal of the diff of the warnings from the log. That will completely resolve this issue, without any further question, in the most equitable way. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein
The Arbs themselves have been seriously divided on appeal procedures for such warnings, including ARBCOM, AE and AN/ANI as suggested. Your insinuation of tendentiousness is without merit here; you have no reasonable basis for opposing our use of the suggested venues, nor that each one keeps passing the buck, due to the unclear guidance. And I've been largely just absent and content to be "retired". Other parties have mostly been reopening this dispute, and I end up getting notified about it by someone digging me up on Facebook or whatever. I agreed to try again this time because I see some hope, which I had totally lost, of this actually finally be resolved. Here, however, you now seem to be complaining at me over Neotarf frequently bringing the dispute back up, but Neotarf isn't an active party (yet?) at this ARCA request, which neither of us opened, but which was opened because of your own totally unnecessary Clerks Noticeboard request along related lines. That seems to be casting imprecise, off-topic, projective aspersions to be combative, which is pretty much exactly what your "warnings"/accusations against us were ostensibly for to begin with.

As you've been repeatedly informed, the parties whose names we're eliding were in fact already found at WP:AN to be tag-teaming, and tendentious, and pursuing anti-consensus, frivolous and obsessive WP:LAME disputes (i.e. nonsense), which is exactly what I said, and what you said I said. To this day you still pretend that the AN and RFC/U against the editor who filed the AE in question isn't relevant or isn't there; to the contrary, it collectively is the very evidence your accusations claimed did not exist for what the four of us were warning AE about with regard to that editor's WP:PARENT-shopping request there! You admitted to not having read that or any other relevant AN case: "I have not participated in, or even read, any AN thread related to this matter."[5] (smoking gun proof your warning/accusation was missing the facts and ignored the evidence).

Third, a number of editors, admins among them, have questioned your faith in this matter, not because of an assumption of bad faith but due to the WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE effect eventually wearing the assumption of good down, because of your insistence on your own infallibility here, relying on your tenure and standing as an admin to evade corrective action, including for AGF issues of your own. The one and only reason this has dragged out, that this project has lost so much productivity over your false accusations, and probably permanently lost a very good contributor, is that you just will not stop fighting every attempt to resolve this, even when I and others go out of our way to suggest a remedy that can be made without it even being a direct critical reflection on you. I bet that Salvio taking you up on your offer would lead to happier days for everyone, including you.

— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: I hope this gets resolved before you make up your mind on this ARCA request, if you participate in it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 23:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Noetica

[I speak independently, and it would be utterly unfair to visit consequences upon anyone else for the detailing or the tone in what follows.]

As noted on this page, I have retired from editing Wikipedia. I thank SMcCandlish for informing me by email of the present action.

For myself, I am indifferent to the outcome here, having from the start of this sordid and desperately mismanaged affair noted Sandstein's intransigence and systematic failures of insight. I understood immediately, and said explicitly enough, that the best response when he is involved is to withdraw to another environment where reason, balance, and natural justice prevail. That was easy for me, and I have left Wikipedia well behind. If vindication were needed for this stance, the evidence is right here on this page, or linked from it (astonishingly insensitive statements so far by Sandstein, Roger Davies, AGK, and Carcharoth).

No, I am here for the editors who innocently spoke up when I was taken to WP:AE by a vindictive and now indeffed editor (Apteva) who caused immense wastes of time for dozens of editors – aided by deeply involved ex-admin SarekOfVulcan. Those editors spoke up for me (when I withdrew from my own defence even, so biased was the WP:AE forum); and I feel a responsibility to speak plainly about the matter now, when it may help them.

I wholeheartedly support the idea of "an un-diffed log", so that Sandstein's mistake is removed as an embarrassment to the Project and a continuing slander on hard-working Wikipedians – or indeed, on those ex-Wikipedians whom Sandstein has casually swept from the Project in the interest of simplistic obedience to simplistic rules (his own, essentially) and a superficial appearance of good order. I may one day consider returning to offer my expertise: if Sandstein is removed as an admin, or shows recognition of his errors and apologises without reservation for his mistakes and removes himself from WP:AE work. (Other well-known admins could be named as culpable in connection with my brief brush with Sandstein's Star Chamber; but we all know how futile that would be, also. ☺)

Noetica (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • For the umpteen time, a review of DS is underway that will prevent this kind of situation arising in the future and help deal with the current situation. Constant sideshows are simply reducing my time to try to move the review on. In the interim, I suggest that Sandstein replaces, as a gesture of his commitment to resolving this swiftly, the current warnings with neutrally worded notifications, and updates the log accordingly. If anyone wants more than that, we would need to hear from them directly as we only hear such requests from the principals.  Roger Davies talk 08:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thoughts, I'd like to hear from SMcCandlish. There's no point in my making any suggestions to move this forwards if they are going to to be unacceptable to him.  Roger Davies talk 08:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gathering my thoughts on this a bit. All we need at this point from SMcCandlish is a brief statement setting out the issue and requesting a remedy. It does though seem to me that all this drama is about the underlined words "If you continue to misconduct yourself" as the rest of the complained about notice is in general terms. If my understanding is correct, I'll propose a motion shortly,  Roger Davies talk 12:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removing the diff(s) from the log works for me too as the simplest and less bureaucratic route forward. It seems that my colleagues are moving towards consensus here so, unless someone objects and wants a formal motion, we can probably implement this sometime later today.  Roger Davies talk 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Roger. I would also add that making disparaging comments on indefinitely blocked users is to be avoided if at all possible as they are unable to respond to comments made here. There is no principle of equivalence operating here. Someone being blocked indefinitely at some point after a notification doesn't tar others who were notified at the same time with the same brush. Rather, it may be an indication that the notifications worked to the extent that the users notified backed off, or were sensible enough not to engage in conduct to get themselves blocked - which is a good thing! Currently, what is most damaging the reputation of some of the users notified is their (by now) over-reaction to the notification, which will be remembered long after the original dispute has been forgotten. Roger, did you mean Neotarf, not SMcCandlish? Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updating my views here. I won't stand in the way of the changes being proposed by several arbitrators, but I took the time to look a bit deeper into this and what I see concerns me. The four editors concerned have reacted to this in different ways. Noetica retired, Ohconfucius largely got on with other editing and made mostly short statements when the issue arose. It is Neotarf and SMcCandlish who have protested loudest and at greatest length about this. I took a closer look at what SMcCandlish has said on this and I've been looking at some of what is mentioned in User:SMcCandlish/notes. I am extremely wary of sending the message here that modifying the notifications that were given by Sandstein will be seen as a green signal to return to the same tone and style of discussions that were evident before those notifications were given. I scanned down the list of SMcCandlish's edits in the past year, and came across this one (from October 2013). That edit (on the topic of capitalisation) displays the sort of battleground attitude that Wikipedia needs less of, not more, regardless of whether an editor is right or not (a lot of what is said there makes sense, and would be perfect in an essay, but the trenchant and aggressive tone used there should not be an acceptable form of discourse on Wikipedia). Even if Sandstein's original notification was not warranted, that edit alone indicates SMcCandlish's inability to control their feelings on this topic and that should be real cause for concern (arguably, that edit alone would have warranted some form of action at the time). I have also read the discussion here where SMcCandlish says they will "consider returning, if my dispute with a particular admin is resolved". My concern is that on returning to more active editing SMcCandlish will continue to display the sort of attitude displayed in that edit in October 2013, so I am considering proposing a motion to censure SMcCandlish for that edit and place them on notice about their future conduct in this topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to hear from the involved parties as well, but, from what I've read elsewhere, it appears that SMcCandlish does not object to NE Ent's solution. If that's the case, then said solution seems to be the best way forward, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarifying a bit my position, @Sandstein: I have probably already told you this, but I think that your approach to WP:AE is overly formalistic and bureaucratic and, speaking personally, I consider this a problem. This case is a good example of your approach; you warned a couple of editors who apparently have a problem with the way the warning was worded. Now, there are two possible solutions: a. we remove the diff of the warning from the log, leaving the rest (i.e. the date and the identity of the administrator who logged the alert) or b. we follow NE Ent's solution. Both solutions, in my opinion, solve the problem, in that the new notification (or the old now-"undiffed" one) meets the requirements of form for alerts and also satisfies these editors' request not to have what they reasonably perceive as an allegation of misbehaviour on an officially-looking Wikipedia page. Yet you oppose NE Ent's solution. Why? I mean, what's the concrete problem it would cause? As I said, this looks the best way forwards to me... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got to say I rather like Salvio's idea of having an un-diffed log for these cases... WormTT(talk) 14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Doncram

Initiated by SarekOfVulcan (talk) at 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Doncram arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 5
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request
  • Remedy 5
  • I would like to have the ban removed

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

During my last RFA, the interaction ban was a reason for at least one of the opposes. It has been in place for a year. I would like to establish that this ban is no longer necessary before running again, so I ask that it be removed so I can work on establishing a track record.

@Beeblebrox - over the past year, I've adapted to a much less confrontational style of editing. I'd like to be able to prove that the ban isn't needed anymore, but the only way to do that is to try it and find out. I'm sure there are more than enough people out there who will be happy to alert you if I'm mistaken. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not asking for the ban to be removed so that I can interact with Doncram - just so that I can establish that I can avoid him without being forced to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Candleabracadabra - yes, I was asking for the ban to be removed, not to be changed to be one-sided. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth - That sounds like a good plan. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm_That_Turned - oh, there were definitely other issues at play there. This was the only one that I couldn't affect by just changing my behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doncram

No way, if it is up to me, unless it is part of a complete revocation of all restrictions against me, including a ban on my editing in NRHP area, and unless there is an explicit promise by SarekOfVulcan that he shall not follow and combat me, and that should be enforceable (i.e., in effect be a continuing interaction ban). The interaction ban was a result of arbitration begun by SarekOfVulcan, following long campaign of following my edits and combatting which dragged down my reputation, including multiple ANIs and AFDs and discussion at Jimbo Wales Talk page, and so on, and which I and some others perceived and still perceive as unjustified bullying, and the interaction ban was the only good outcome of the case. SarekOfVulcan has not communicated any meaningful apology for his actions, publicly or privately; his comnents in recent RFA were patheticly inadequate. I cannot see what he could say publicly or privately that would be adequate, either. --doncram 18:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Candleabracadabra

I think that Doncram has done an impressive job of abiding by very biting restrictions on his editing. I urge the Arb committee to lift these sanctions so he can return to making positive contributions. The restrictions have been a loss to Wikipedia and his fellow editors. I oppose a one-sided removal of restrictions. As Doncram has noted, the problems were in large part a result of Sarek's combative behavior. Sarek promises that he has learned form past mistakes. Doncram has been punished long enough. And the NRHP editing environment has gotten worse without his presence, enormously useful contributions, and assistance to fellow editors. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify per Sarek's response, if you can avoid engagement with Doncram his editing restrictions as well as the interaction ban should be removed. If you hadn't pursued the conflict with him the ban on his editing and the ban on your interacting him would BOTH not be in place. You are requesting to remove your interaction ban so you can further your political aspirations on Wiki without moving to assist him in having his full editing priviledges restored. The loss of his ability to work on NRHP subjects has been very bad for his fellow editors and for Wikipedia. You should work to resolve that issue if you want your restrictions lifted and think you can be an effective administrator. Doncram masde enormous contributions to an area you r involvement in the dispute got him banned from. I don't think you should be allowed to "move on" without helping to end the dispute and helping to restore this hugely constructive editor to good standing in the article area where he did SO MUCH good. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Sarek, I have to say you haven't give us much to go on here. You want to establish that the ban is not necessary so you can run for RFA again. You wanting to be an admin again is not a reason for the committee to do anything. In other words, I would want to see something a little more compelling that "it's been a year" to reassure that the problems of the past would not happen again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the interaction ban to be totally removed from both parties (as SoV is requesting) so that SoV can demonstrate that he is able to avoid commenting on Doncram, we need to assess whether the same applies to Doncram (whether Doncram can exercise sufficient self-control). If Doncram can demonstrate that they have reached a point where they can move forward as regards the interaction ban, then I would consider reducing this to both being informally 'bound over to hold the peace' with a full lifting a year later, otherwise I would only consider reducing this to a one-way interaction ban (with SoV informally agreeing not to interact with Doncram for another year - equivalent to being bound over to hold the peace). The difference is that breaches of an interaction ban can lead to a block. Breaches of an informal 'bound over to hold the peace' type arrangements would lead to re-imposition of the interaction ban (at WP:AE) rather than a block. The issue of Doncram's topic ban should be raised separately and filed by Doncram himself (if he wishes to do so) rather than raised by others (as above). Carcharoth (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Years ago, while discussing an IBAN proposal on ANI, someone (can't remember who) wrote this is an interaction ban, not an interaction blame, to emphasise that interaction bans do not necessarily presuppose misbehaviour on the part of either user, but rather they are imposed when two or more people have demonstrated that, for whatever reason, they are unable to interact in a productive fashion and their interactions usually result in a massive waste of time for everyone. For that reason, even if an interaction ban is lifted, it's generally a good idea for both parties to continue to avoid each other.

    Also, since interaction bans are reciprocal in nature and are meant to protect both editors from the negative effects their interactions usually have, they should be lifted only if a. both editors agree or b. there is a very important reason to do so. The desire to run for adminship, for me, is not reason enough to override Doncram's objection. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's annoying when you've written your thoughts down, only to have another arb edit conflict with you and say it better. Salvio. In summary, interaction bans are there to stop the disruption caused by two people interacting - there's so much history there that the interactions are never going to be productive. I really don't like one-way interaction bans for that reason, and agree to them only in exceptional circumstances. Having looked at the RfA in question, I don't believe the issue was the interaction ban, but rather how Sarek handled questions regarding the case. I do not see that lifting the interaction ban would be helpful, especially with Doncram's objection. WormTT(talk) 10:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above so far as the interaction ban removal is concerned; that being that if one party to the IBAN objects to lifting it, we would need very good cause to overrule that, and "I want to file an RfA" does not meet that burden. Sarek is not barred from filing an RfA by the sanction and could explain the ban in the candidate statement if so desired. Modification of any other sanction imposed as a discretionary sanction should go through the normal appeals process for DS. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Cirt and Jayen466

Initiated by — Cirt (talk) at 04:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Cirt and Jayen466 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 1
  2. Remedy 2
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Information about amendment request
  • Remedies: Remedy 1 and Remedy 2
  • Details of desired modification: Narrow exception to engage in quality improvement projects for pages previously brought to quality levels, listed at User:Cirt/Contributions.

Statement by Cirt

  1. Hello, I'm asking the Arbitration Committee to consider a narrow modification to remedies (1) and (2) from the case Cirt and Jayen466.
  2. I'd like to be able to maintain and improve further in quality articles I'd previously helped bring to high levels of quality.
  3. In the interim since the closure of the case I've been placed under the mentorship of The Rambling Man and under this guidance, successfully taken a page approved by the Arbitration Committee, to Featured List quality. See: (Motion by Arbitration Committee) and (promotion of page to Featured List quality)
  4. In addition I've focused on quality improvement projects to bring articles to higher levels of quality -- this has resulted successfully in three (3) Featured Article promotions, seven (7) Featured Portal promotions, twenty (20) Good Article contributions, and one (1) Featured List.
  5. Specifically I'd ask the Committee to amend the case Cirt and Jayen466 by motion, so that I would be permitted to maintain articles I'd previously improved to high levels of quality, and embark on quality improvement projects for pages listed at User:Cirt/Contributions, to further improve them in quality to WP:GA or WP:FA.

Thanks for your consideration,

— Cirt (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I'd of course welcome a full lifting of the restrictions. But I'd also most appreciate this narrow exception so I could both maintain articles I'd brought to WP:FA in the past, and hopefully bring other articles I'd brought to WP:GA to higher levels of quality. I'll let the Committee consider either one of those options. And thanks very much to Lquilter and Carrite for your most kind comments about my content work and quality improvement efforts. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: Thank you for recognizing that it's been several years. I'd appreciate any lessening of restrictions at all, full or otherwise, that would result in my being allowed to expand my quality improvement projects to include past WP:GA and WP:FA contributions. — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: I certainly didn't mean for that statement to apply to my Featured Content contributions. I do feel badly that I had problems in those topics in the past. As for my Featured Content contributions -- I'm fortunate that my quality improvement projects that I've successfully helped improve to Featured quality are all due to collaborative cooperation and feedback from multiple contributors at multiple stages of review. — Cirt (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Thank you for mentioning my WP:FA quality improvement effort on the film about freedom of speech and censorship, Fuck (film) -- I found it most interesting that after all that discussion, the WP:TFA-day, itself, went by with more of a whimper than a bang, and didn't cause much controversy on the day of the Featuring of the article itself. My goals if the restrictions were removed would be to further improve in quality pages I'd previously already worked on at User:Cirt/Contributions. These include several non-controversial articles, such as the articles I'd previously raised to WP:GA quality: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) -- I'd like to improve those to WP:FA quality. — Cirt (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: You mentioned Fuck (film) -- so if you haven't noticed from my user talk page post about it, I'm currently working on a quality improvement project for the article on the book, Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. Both the film and the book deal with the history of the word as related to freedom of speech and censorship. So it's kind of the second WP:FA-level quality improvement drive for me along a theme of freedom of speech and censorship related to the word. And second FA-level quality improvement drive on a book about freedom of speech -- as a follow-up to Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. Thanks for your interest in my quality improvement projects, — Cirt (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: Thank you for this specific request. Examples of specific articles I'd like to work on, that I can't now because of the restrictions, fall into two categories: (1) Articles I helped bring to WP:FA that fall within the topic of new religious movements, and (2) Articles I helped bring to WP:GA that I'd like to be permitted to improve to WP:FA. A specific example of the former includes 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack -- I noticed a bot left a note on the talk page back in 2011 that there were now dead-links in the article -- this has remained unaddressed by the community in the years since then. Specific examples of the latter include: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) -- I'd like to improve these to WP:FA quality. Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) are all novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard that I took to WP:GA quality. Hopefully by working on further quality improvement on these articles, I can demonstrate to the community that I am capable of NPOV high-level quality improvement within the topic. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: Thank you for this specific request. (1) WP:GAs I'd like to work on include the following: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) (novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). If the Committee wishes to expand this further, I would be more than honored in their trust in my motivation to perform quality improvement projects to bring additional WP:GAs from User:Cirt/Contributions to WP:FA. (2) Per your request, I've notified Jayen466 (diff). — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Yes I nominated Fuck (film) to WP:TFAR. But I thought I mostly left others to speak on those issues at the TFAR discussion itself. I certainly was not trying to raise a "degree of controversy" from the featuring of the article on the Main Page -- I was merely trying to have a discussion and let the community decide whether the article should be featured on the Main Page. The community had that discussion. The community decided, per the assessment of the close at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film), by a final tally of 52-25, to feature the article on the Main Page. I am actually quite glad that no significant controversy of any kind arose from the featuring of this article on the Main Page. And I would have been glad that a dialog was stimulated about freedom of speech and censorship related to the documentary and its discussion of this taboo word. Please, Carcharoth, don't penalize me for my high-quality Featured Article work, outside the topic ban on another topic, bringing an article to FA on a subject of freedom of speech. I tried to comport myself with civility during the discussion which resulted in a majority of the Wikipedia community deciding for featuring the article on the Main Page. I don't think I should be penalized for utilizing community processes at multiple stages of review, including GA Review, Peer Review, FAC, and yes, WP:TFAR as well. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Thank you for those quality improvement suggestions, improving the "core" or "vital" type pages of freedom of speech and censorship would indeed be most ambitious tasks. I don't think I've ever tried before to embark on a quality improvement project for a "core" or "vital" page on Wikipedia. I personally enjoy working on more focused topical articles, that way I know that in the course of my research, it is actually possible for me to read literally all of the secondary source coverage about a particular topic. That's what I did for my most successful WP:FA drive for Fuck (film), it's what I did for Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, and it's what I've tried to do in the process of research for my most recent WP:GA quality improvement project on freedom of speech and censorship, at Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth. Carcharoth, specific films and books as opposed to the general main "core" articles on a topic also have a defined beginning, middle, and end, so it's comforting to know that once my research is completed into certain articles they will be a near complete representation of scholarship on those topics. I certainly hope my WP:FA contributions on freedom of speech could help serve as models for quality improvement for other articles on the topic. — Cirt (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Maybe we should ask David Fuchs to improve the article Video game to FA status instead of Super Columbine Massacre RPG!. Personally I commend David Fuchs for all of his WP:FA quality contributions. If you look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, it doesn't look like David Fuchs has contributed FAs on "core" or "vital" articles like Video game, itself. I think this is for similar reasons as I described, above. That is, it's easier to read the majority of secondary source coverage about a niche topic rather than a wider topic, and then be assured that a quality improvement project on that article covers the majority of all of the secondary source coverage on that topic. I'm grateful for the Wikipedians at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations that have improved core vital articles on Wikipedia, but also quite thankful for those at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations that have improved to FA status more niche articles as well. — Cirt (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: I understand your concern that you feel the request was problematic. In response to other Arbitrators' comments, I stated specifically that WP:GAs I'd like to work on include the following: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) (novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). Hopefully the more specific request makes things less problematic to consider. — Cirt (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: I understand your concern that you feel the request was problematic. In response to other Arbitrators' comments, I stated specifically that WP:GAs I'd like to work on include the following: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) (novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). Hopefully the more specific request makes things less problematic to consider. — Cirt (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lquilter

  • I didn't follow this original issue, but came upon it while working with Cirt on intellectual freedom issues over the last few months. A few comments:

One, I'm not sure why the original order seems so unbalanced: Cirt's alleged misdeeds seem relatively minor, and characterized more by sloppiness than ill-will. But they got two perpetual bans on content editing -- one very, very broad! all political-related bio articles -- AND status change (de-sysopping). The other editor's alleged misdeeds I personally find more troublesome, and there was very little remedy attached -- just a warning. Both users appropriately were restricted from interacting with each other.

Two, the original order is overbroad -- the restrictions on Cirt are not time-limited, and they're really broad.

Whatever the reasoning behind the original order, I suggest that in light of the time passed, and its breadth, that it should be reconsidered. Cirt is, in my experience, an exemplary editor, who has contributed a lot to Wikipedia content. From conceiving of the Intellectual freedom portal, bringing it to fruition, advancing it to "Featured" status -- and doing the same with a lot of content in that section, Cirt has been an awesome (in the sense of inspiring awe, rather than in the Bill-and-Ted sense) contributor to Wikipedia.

Cirt just asks for a minor modification. I have no idea why. The content restrictions should be completely lifted, since they should have been time-limited in the first place. The desysopping is already time limited, because it can be re-added with a request. User interaction orders could reasonably be perpetual, and I express no opinion about the ones at issue here.

Lquilter (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS: An Arb asked for an example of articles Cirt can't work on. Marjorie Heins, a First Amendment lawyer and scholar, is one such example. I came to this discussion because in seeking additional eyes on the Marjorie Heins article, I was told by Cirt that he couldn't work on that article because of the content restriction. So that's my perspective -- Cirt is doing really good work on the First Amendment / free expression sections, but can't work on the biographies in that section. In looking at the original remedies, it seemed obvious that (a) the remedy was really broad -- over-broad in my view; and (b) it should have been time-limited to begin with. --Lquilter (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

I urge that the editing restrictions against Cirt be totally lifted. I think the original action against him was a vendetta, that the matter was decided wrongly, and the resulting punishment mindbogglingly draconian. Cirt has lost tools and done his time in the penalty box, time to return him to valuable content work. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement The Devil's Advocate

This request should either be for a full lifting of the topic ban or identify specific topic areas where he wishes to resume editing. Any granting of the request as framed would be little different from granting Cirt the ability to resume editing in all the areas where his prior activities were a problem. If Arbs feel he can be trusted with those articles then they should presume he can be trusted with any articles in those topic areas. Should they feel he cannot be trusted with those articles then it should be a question of whether he can be trusted with some topic areas he is banned from or none.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • At first blush I'd agree with TDA that drawing a bunch of narrow exceptions seems like hairsplitting at this point; either the restrictions en bloc should be appealed or single, article-by-article exceptions granted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's my impression as well. It's been several years. If the restrictions are no longer needed for some articles they should no longer be needed at all and Cirt should be able to keep himself out of trouble. I'm not 100% convinced that is the case just yet but I don't think lots of little modifications to old sanctions is a route we want to go down at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting a sense of deja-vu here, I'm afraid. Five or six years ago, there were serious issues with your editing. You declared these fixed as a result of mentorship by Durova. While it is true that you did much featured work, it is also true that these included many articles on books and film which were critical of Scientology. In these, by your own admission and against policy, you placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices. If these now need work, it is probably better, for the foreseeable future at least, if that work were done by someone else. I cannot support this request.  Roger Davies talk 23:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Cirt, for providing the summary Brad requested. May I trouble you to produce a complete list of prohibited articles that you'd like to work on, with a short descriptor for each indicating which part of your restriction it's covered by? For example L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology); Typewriter in the Sky (Scientology; L Ron Hubbard novel); etc. Incidentally, have you yet notified Jayen466 (the other party to the case) about this request?  Roger Davies talk 18:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cirt, one of the things I look for in people coming off topic bans or site bans is an ability to work quietly and avoid areas that may be potentially controversial. In that vein, I noticed your comments relating to the request to feature Fuck (film) (one of the articles you worked on) on the Main Page (your TFAR request - after that rather heated discussion, this article ran on the main page on 1 March). If the restrictions were removed, would you actively seek out potentially controversial areas (and engage in discussions about the response to the article within Wikipedia and in external media), or would you make a conscious decision to edit quietly? Carcharoth (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cirt, I think you've misunderstood what I was getting at with my comment. When I talk about someone editing quietly, improving articles and putting them through review processes can be done relatively quietly. Nominating an article to appear as TFA is different again, and draws more attention to a topic, and attention of a different sort. What I'm saying is that I'm wary when I see an editor topic-banned in one area nominating their work on other articles at TFA and at the same time taking an interest in the degree of controversy that may arise from the featuring of those articles on the main page. It feels a bit too much like part of the motivation was to see what the reaction would be (I suspect the effects of filters and blocking software may have skewed any reaction). I would prefer to see an editor that was topic-banned finding a quiet area to edit in that they have a moderate interest in and can be dispassionate about, rather than returning to areas they are passionate about. Hence I would be reluctant to grant the request as it stands. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cirt, one way to stimulate a dialog about freedom of speech and censorship would be to work to get those two articles to featured article status. That is much harder than working on narrow, specific topics. But it also gives people a wider view of the topic area, rather than focusing the topic through a specific film or book (such as the one you mention: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties). Anyway, I'll leave it there, as the focus of this amendment request should be elsewhere (if you want to follow-up on my talk page, feel free). Hopefully we will have an update for you in a few days time. Carcharoth (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My gut instinct is to be hesitant about a removal of editing restrictions since, as Roger says, we've all been here before. Fool me once, etc, etc. The description of the scope of the proposed relaxation, while marketed as a limited relaxation, is not that far away from blanket removal; Cirt says he wants to "embark on quality improvement projects for pages listed at User:Cirt/Contributions", which is a very long list, containing many articles in subject areas that have previously been a source of problem and conflict. And, as David Fuchs says, it's probably better to either grant article-by-article exceptions, or just remove the restrictions.

    Remedy 2 (the BLP restriction) specifically says "if Cirt conforms his future editing to applicable policies and the principles set forth in this decision and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs, he may submit a request for amendment after one year from the date of this decision seeking a relaxation of this restriction". It's been 2 1/2 years. It's time to either relax it, or admit that suggesting how it could be relaxed was a mistake.

    After some thought, I believe I support revising Remedy 1 so that it only prohibits editing articles related to Scientology, and undoing Remedy 2. I would suggest instead something more tailored to the Finding of Fact, such as "Cirt is prohibited from placing undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs, and from following poor sourcing practices. If he is determined to be doing so at WP:AE, original Remedies 1 and 2 can be reimposed by any uninvolved admin." Or something to that effect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cirt, can you please give examples of specific articles you'd like to work on, that you can't now because of the restrictions? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The drama and trouble caused by a restriction tends to rise in proportion to the number of exceptions and clauses added to it, especially when they are added some time later. Also, I find the framing of this request unsatisfactory. What, for example, exactly are the articles "previously improved to high levels of quality"? That list, impressively long though it may be, is not iterated here. More worryingly still, "Pages listed at User:Cirt/Contributions" is a list with contents determined by the sanctioned editor himself. We cannot have a topic ban with a scope decided by its subject. I would deny this request. AGK [•] 00:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the history here, I would for the moment prefer to see Cirt request to edit one or a few specific articles with plans to improve them, and might be disposed toward granting such a request. I don't see the request for a complex modification as workable, though, and am not prepared at this time to support lifting the restriction wholesale. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=600405837"