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 Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) at 16:17, 12 September 2015 (→‎GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion: d.). 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
Very brief and neutral name describing the topic of the dispute   15 May 2024 0/0/0
[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
Amendment request: GoodDay none (orig. case) 11 September 2015
Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man none (orig. case) 4 August 2015
Clarification request: Abortion none (orig. case) 23 August 2015
Clarification request: Pseudoscience none (orig. case) 8 September 2015

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

Amendment request: GoodDay

Initiated by GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
GoodDay arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by GoodDay

May I please have my diacritics ban lifted. I believe there's no longer a reason for it to exist, as it appears that the topic itself has been settled by the general community, in favour of dios usage. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics. I merely wish the restriction removed, because it's a restriction. I wish for my slate to be clean. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response - If WP:HOCKEY has chosen to abolish the diacritics compromise & thus have chosen to include diacritics on North American hockey articles (including NHL team articles rosters), then I've no choice but to abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Resolute

If you believe the community has settled in favour of using diacritics, when is your position on our old compromise within WP:HOCKEY? Resolute 18:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

GoodDay: Clerk notes

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

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @GoodDay: What has changed since your last appeal was declined in July? Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline. I'm sorry I just don't believe that, given how tendentiously you clung to the idea of getting even smaller exemptions last time. That request was open from 29 May to 3 July (36 days), yet 70 days later you're back here again asking for exactly the same thing - to me that shows that actually you still haven't let go. When you have a couple of years or more of editing cleanly in other areas, with no pushing boundaries and no appeals or amendment requests related to the restriction, then we might be convinced you really have moved on. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man

Initiated by Nyttend at 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Nyttend

As noted at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, the second remedy is rather confusing. Did you mean to say that Kww may not get the editfilter right unless he re-passes RFA, or did you not mean to address such a situation? I'm not marked Kww as a party because this isn't related to his post-case behavior: it's just a confusing element of the decision, and an authoritative interpretation would be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note after reading Salvio's comment — my only concern is that we get an unambiguous statement from Arbcom, because everyone loses when there's an ambiguous decision. I don't really know either editor and don't have an opinion on what Arbcom should decide here (so no point in asking my opinion); I just hope you'll decide something in place of the current wording, so that we all know what you were intending in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dragons flight

Due to his apparent lack of due care and competence in previously implementing edit filters, I am opposed to any process that would allow Kww to regain the EFM right without a community review. See my previous comments: [1][2]. My understanding of remedy #2 while it was being drafted is that a desysopped Kww would be required to pass RFA before getting EFM restored, and I don't see any reason to weaken that. If this case hadn't been coming to RFAr already, I would have opened a separate community discussion about revoking Kww's EFM right. In practical terms, I assume it will be years (if ever) before Kww passes an RFA, but I don't think there ought to be a path that allows Kww to regain EFM any sooner than that (and I'm not sure he should be an EFM even if he passes RFA). Keep in mind that EFM capabilities are in some ways more powerful than the normal admin toolkit. Dragons flight (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: It has never been clear to me that you really understood my criticisms / concerns, which is part of the problem. However, I don't want to have an argument with you about this. Should you actually want additional feedback on this issue (either now or some time in the future), I would suggest that you ask for other people at WT:EF to give you their opinions of your previous filters. Dragons flight (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

I already understood the restriction to be much as Salvio phrased it. I deeply resent Dragon flight's portraying our different opinions as to the weight that should be placed on false positives as a competence issue: I could just as reasonably claim that his insistence on consuming resources looking for rare corner cases was a competence issue. Neither one is: it's a difference in opinion as to where a reasonable balance between execution efficiency and false triggers lies.—Kww(talk) 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Salvidrim

Since we're really getting down-and-dirty with the specifics of wording, I don't feel too bad about chiming in: in Salvio's proposed wording underneath (visibly inspired by an earlier post of mine), the removal of EFM is described first as a "restriction" that would automatically expire, and later as a "remedy" than can be appealed. The wording should probably brought in line with either term (restriction or remedy) for consistency? I really feel pedant pointing this out though. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis Schonken

This may be understood in the current comment by Arbs (although I see no reference to it) but a non-admin desiring "edit filter manager user right" has to go through some procedure as described at Wikipedia:Edit filter#User right, second and third paragraph (starting with "The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should only be requested by and given to highly trusted users, and only when there is a clear, demonstrated need for it...")

My point is this: if and when (within a year or whatever) a non-admin Kww would request a lifting of remedy 2 of the ArbCom case, I don't see how this could automatically result in Kww getting the edit filter manager user right back. Or would the ArbCom plan on overriding the regular procedure by ArbCom decision? Any future decision to lift that sanction should imho be formulated thus that after lifting of the sanction (if and when this is granted, in a scenario where Kww would not be an admin at that time) the regular procedure for a non-admin to be granted the right should be followed.

Seeing the analysis here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Kww's edit filters I can imagine some reluctance by those allowed to grant the right to non-admins.

All this is a bit far ahead, and needs to be dealt with when it would occur in the future (if and when etc.), and by that time procedures might be completely different (especially when the community would take up on remedy 3 of the case), but I think it best this caveat is taken into the equasion now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Kww and The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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

Kww and The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Nyttend, you are quite right that the remedy, as currently worded, leaves a bit to be desired and gives the impression that, short of another successful RFA, Kww may not receive the edit filter manager bit back; as far as I'm concerned, that's not satisfctory and, for that, I propose we reword the relevant remedy to Kww's edit filter manager permission is revoked. If he regains the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire; in addition, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Kww has been desysopped, the only thing of relevance is how Kww may regain his EFM permission. The remedy is not brilliantly worded I agree, but the restriction it imposes is not ambiguous: He may not regain the bit while the restriction is in effect. The restriction automatically expires if he regains adminship at RfA, at which point he may regain the bit according to policy at that time (if there is no change between now and then he could assign it to himself if he desired). There is no restriction on when he can stand for adminship. I agree with Salvio that the restriction should be appealable at WP:ARCA 12 months after it's imposition (i.e. no sooner than August 2016). Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that the EFM restriction should be appealable after some reasonable period of time has passed, 12 months would be fine for that. I don't think we need an amendment for that, though, as any arbitration remedy can be appealed at ARCA after a reasonable period, and the Committee can at that time choose to accept the appeal and lift the restriction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be in favour of changing the wording of the decision, per Salvio giuliano's text above. At the time it was written (when it was unclear whether the desysop would pass or not) the current wording was arguably preferable; now that Kww has been desysopped it's overly convoluted and would benefit from being simplified. Yunshui 雲水 10:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of the loop guy here. I would much rather us not have our hands in restoring permissions and have a fresh RfA be the only route of removal of the restriction. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a hypothetical appeal to ARCA I would not be supporting any granting of the permission directly. I would consider giving permission to ask the community, taking into account the change in attitude and behaviour over the year and the level of scrutiny likely to be imparted at the relevant venue. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that is disingenuous. There isn't a good WP:RFP like place to have that discussion that is in view of the community. By giving the OK for a discussion to happen at a little watched part of project space we are basically flipping the switch ourselves. I would much rather not have the committee in these matters. If anyone has a better idea for a community-centered way of signaling that the restriction is no longer needed, I am all ears. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Currently that is indeed the case and I would not support it. However if the proposal to split the EFM permission that was raised during the case happens, or if something else changes between now and next August that makes requesting the EFM bit something other than a barely observed blip in a backwater then I might support (depending on Kww of course). Alternatively, we could just say that the restriction may be appealed at the later of (a) when such a community process exists and (b) 12 months have passed. Of course this is academic if Kww does not wish to regain the EFM bit in advance of a successful RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer the community to handle this, not us. Doug Weller (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The remedy was convoluted, I'm sorry for that, but the part of it was to create provisions with or without the desysop, given that usual policy is that admins may self-assign the flag. This could easily be reworded now to be clearer that the remedy expires if/when RFA is passed, but I will not support any appeal other than via RFA given the absence of any process with scruitiny to grant the EFM flag, and a belief that Arbcom should not be (re)granting permissions that have clear community processes to grant. This flag is a bit unusual, but we've given a clear community appeal here. (Had he not been desysopped, there would have been no community process of any rigor/scrutiny to regrant the flag) Courcelles (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that we revoked the permissions, but did not ban him from re-applying by the usual means for them, I think the remedy is probably clear enough as it is. Happy to support a remedy amendment to make the existing text even clearer, if somebody wishes to move one, but otherwise I am satisfied that this is all in order. AGK [•] 23:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've kept an eye on this but for absolute clarity I am of the same mind as AGK. NativeForeigner Talk 09:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with AGK. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Abortion

Initiated by Anythingyouwant at 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Previously known as User:Ferrylodge) (This began as a clarification request but an amendment request was added.)

Case or decision affected
Abortion arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Anythingyouwant

According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed." The reason I ask now for clarification is because today I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard."[3] Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know. Am I supposed to avoid these types of pages altogether, or are these types of pages not included in the ban, or does it depend upon which parts of these pages I edit? I have made lots and lots and lots of edits to this type of page over the past four years without saying anything remotely related to the A-word.

I assume that this topic ban is a lifetime ban given the reaction of ArbCom members to my May 2014 request for amendment, and given my firm position on the matter, and therefore whatever response you give to my present request for clarification will presumably be part of this lifetime ban.

Not relevant to the clarification request. (Hatted with clerks-l authorization.) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed by an arbitration clerk. Please do not modify or continue it.

In case you want to know, my firm position on the matter is that I have no intention of faking contrition. Your committee's allegation that I "manipulated sources to present a POV contra sourcing guidelines" remains utter bullshit; I did nothing wrong with regard to Black's Law Dictionary aside from quoting an earlier edition that I did not realize had later been revised, and I made no objection whatsoever to the editor who installed the revised definition (other than earning that editor's explicit thanks by correcting an error of his). Let me be 100% clear about how very far I am from contrition: if this proceeding had involved real names (and thus real reputations), I would have sued every last one of ArbCom's members for slander (that's just a historical fact rather than a threat of any kind).

ArbCom ignored my objections against violations of your own length-limitations on evidence, and ignored my stated intent to not violate those rules myself.[4][5][6] I stand by virtually everything I said on November 22, 2011 shortly after you voted to topic ban me. If you allow my lack of contrition to affect your answer to the present request for clarification, that will not be surprising, but it would be unfair. The only mistake I regret is not being sufficiently careful about editing an article talk page in 2011 three weeks after I edited a policy page; I should have been more cautious about any appearance of impropriety, even though I was completely up front and honest at the policy page, and even though the change to the policy page was innocuous as of the time I mentioned it at the abortion talk page (an admin had edited my policy change during the three-week interim). I only edited the policy page based on prior advice from an ArbCom member that, "This is Wikipedia, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals." I had no idea that the policy change would be relevant weeks later at the article, nor did I understand the policy change as advancing my position; it was just meant to promote procedural fairness. I should have asked an admin for explicit guidance about it at the time.

For years prior to the 2011 ban, your committee subjected me to endless harassment at Arbitration Enforcement, and all of those endless frivolous complaints at AE were denied, see for example these diffs: [7],[8],[9],[10][11], etc. When these messed-up accusations came during the ArbCom case, I was worn out from endless bogus complaints, and perhaps I should have responded fully to the bogus accusations that exceeded the evidence limits, in view of your committee's apparent disregard of those limits. I remain deeply disappointed by this whole matter. I sincerely try my best to follow the rules here, and will follow any decision you make now regardless of whether I agree with it. That's all I have to say at this time relative to the present clarification request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @User:Bishonen, thanks for referring me to WP:TBAN which I had not been referred to and had not read before. According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed." It would have been very easy for them to say "topic area" or "edits" instead of "pages", and easy for them to wlink to WP:TBAN. If you are correct (which you very well may be), I'd like ArbCom to confirm it. Thanks. I don't know if clarification requests are affected by an editor's level of contrition, and so explaining that level was the purpose of the rest of my initial comment here. According to plain English, a page is either abortion-related or it isn't, and, if it is, then plain English seemingly dictates that I may not edit it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, how about waiting until things get out of hand? I sincerely want to know whether, as Bishonen suggests, I am perfectly free to edit abortion-related pages as long as my edits are not about abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my replies to the comments of others have been hidden. You guys are too much! Perhaps you will allow a reply to Thryduulf....Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)The comments have been moved out of the little hidden box.[reply]

  • @User:Thryduulf, since you now suggest arbitration enforcement action against me regarding this matter, is there anything I can do at this point to avoid such action? I have carefully avoided abortion-related articles like fetus and pre-natal development and feticide and the like for four years just to be careful. But I understand from Bishonen's comment below that it's fine for me to edit pages like those as long as I don't bring up abortion. I would like ArbCom to confirm that now, because I do not want to land at arbitration enforcement for editing articles like those.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Thryduulf said "you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit." That is painfully obvious. Am I allowed to edit fetus and pre-natal development and feticide if my edits are not about abortion? That seems to be what Bishonen was saying about Political positions of Jeb Bush.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Thryduulf, you seriously want to respond to this request for clarification by essentially saying: "We won't tell you whether you can make non-abortion edits to articles like Political positions of Jeb Bush and feticide and pre-natal development except to say that you shouldn't if you're unsure"? Sheesh. Let me put it this way: only a nutcase would think that a non-abortion edit to any of those articles violates my topic ban, and so I intend to feel free to make such edits unless you advise otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:DGG, you object to a long quotation that I put in a footnote. Not to worry! I now understand from WP:TBAN that I shouldn't have made the edit at all. Finding out about that was the main purpose for me coming here, and now I know. I sincerely apologize for this inadvertent error, and it will not happen again. Before coming here I did not realize that I am totally free to make non-abortion edits to articles like feticide, but barred from making abortion edits to articles like Political positions of Jeb Bush. Now I know, and can therefore comply more fully and completely with your [expletive deleted] topic ban. Incidentally, I'm a big fan of long quotes in footnotes; see, e.g., the footnotes in the lead of Carly Fiorina. YMMV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Bishonen, it seems to me that Pre-natal development and Political positions of Jeb Bush are both abortion-related to some extent. But both also have lots of material that is not abortion-related, and I have come here with the express purpose of finding out whether I can edit the latter. So far, arbitrators say "don't edit it if you're unsure". Well, I am sure that a reasonable person reading my topic ban and WP:TBAN would say that a non-abortion edit to either article is okay. Is it wise for me to use a "reasonable person" standard? I think so. The Bush article has a whole section titled "Abortion" but the fetus article does not, so why do you think I'm completely banned from the latter but not the former?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Seraphimblade, User:Doug Weller, User:Bishonen, per your comments, I will construe my topic ban as pertaining to "any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion" unless the consensus of arbitrators changes. That was the language in the sanction that this committee imposed on me eight years ago, and is apparently what you wish the most recent topic ban said too.[12] As always, you folks meet my expectations. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Guy Macon, you have posed this question for me to answer: "You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know whether an edit in a section labeled 'Abortion' with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban?" No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban. I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it. Anything else?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Guy Macon I see that you have revised your question: "You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still didn't know when you opened this discussion whether an edit in a section labeled 'Abortion' with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban?" I think you know perfectly well that the answer to that revised question is also no. The reason why I opened this discussion is because I knew at that time that the matter might raise an issue. I hope you ask better questions of other people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Everyone, I have restored the section in question to exactly how it was before I touched it yesterday.[13] Some one edited the section since then, and so I explained and apologized to them.[14] I don't see what more I can do about it. Ever since 2007, you people have assumed the worst possible faith on my part. There was never any possible way I ever could have gotten out from under. It doesn't matter how many years go by without blocks and without the slightest violation of the topic ban, and of course not one word that I say matters because I am presumed to be a venal liar. So sanction me all you want for making a possible mistake and immediately coming here for clarificaton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:DGG I didn't ask for any guidance here about whether it's generally wise or unwise to include long quotations or short quotations or no quotations within footnotes, and I intend to keep on editing articles outside the scope of this topic-ban just as I have always done because I do not consider anything in this proceeding to be a warning not to do so. My own opinion is that extended quotations from reliable sources (within footnotes) are often fine at Wikipedia when they neutrally provide useful information to readers about a subject. The mere fact that a Wikipedia article might discuss one subject using an extended quotation and another subject without using an extended quotation is no ground for objection, IMHO. I chose to add a long quotation from Bush that supplemented other material in the section; the site I used was very easy for anyone to access by themselves, but it's very often convenient to provide quotations and other information in a Wikipedia article even though readers could instead access it via other websites. I write such footnotes all the time, and I just want to make it clear that I do not understand anything in this proceeding as a warning to stop.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:GorillaWarfare, I said above: "According to plain English, a page is either abortion-related or it isn't, and, if it is, then plain English seemingly dictates that I may not edit it." That's why it was unclear to me what the rules were regarding the Political positions of Jeb Bush. If that's an "abortion-related page" then the plain language of the topic ban indicates that I can't edit it in any way. If it's not an "abortion-related page" then the plain language of the topic ban indicates that I can edit it like any other article. So now I've come here and been told that Political positions of Jeb Bush is an abortion-related page if I make abortion-related edits to it, but is not an abortion-related page if my edits are not abortion-related, and furthermore articles like fetus are abortion-related even if my edits have nothing to do with abortion. None of this was apparent from the plain language of the topic ban, and so now it is apparent which is why I came here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:GorillaWarfare, I have not requested an amendment here, as indicated by the heading I chose. Frankly, I do not anticipate that an amendment will ever be granted (given the information that has been hidden above), and so I don't plan on ever asking for one. Yes, I agree that my ban (as clarified here) extends also to pages and sections of pages that relate to abortion. And a question for you: do you want the topic ban to extend to pages that say or imply nothing about abortion, like pre-natal development? Another arb said below that it does extend to all pregnancy-related articles, which seems kind of weird given that the topic-ban could have easily said so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @@GorillaWarfare: Given the stuff that's hidden above, will it be futile for me to ever request that this topic-ban be lifted?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GorillaWarfare: Thanks for the reply. I am only human, and I cannot promise to never make innocent mistakes such as when I cited a dictionary definition that I did not realize had been revised, and such as when I obeyed ArbCom limits on evidence even though the accusations were 100% beyond those limits. I am never going to admit to ArbCom's accusation that I "manipulated" a reliable source. I already explained that I would be more careful about editing Wikipedia policy, but will never agree with the ArbCom accusation that I had some nefarious intent, and have explained why I did what I did. These were the only two items that ArbCom cited against me in 2011 as far as I recall. I cannot even recall the details from 2007 anymore, but I note that every single one of the AE actions against me from 2007 to 2011 (that I linked in the hidden section above) resulted in no action against me, and very probably should have resulted in action against those who made unpersuasive accusations. So please remove the topic ban, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GorillaWarfare: I don't know whether you are considering my request (bolded just above) to remove the topic ban, or not. I don't know whether a reply to that request will be forthcoming, or not. Please let me know. Not only am I willing to avoid the behaviors that led to the restriction, but actually the many exonerations at Arbitration Enforcement from 2007 to 2011 (linked in the hidden section above) prove that willingness. So does the lack of blocks since 2009. Although I am willing to avoid "the behaviors that led to the restriction", I cannot guarantee that I will be successful in avoiding garden-variety unintentional errors that are made all the time by Wikipedia editors. I just made an error like that today.[15] I apologize for making them, including using the outdated definition from a dictionary that was cited against me by ArbCom in 2011. But if you're waiting for me to confess to an intentional manipulaton of sources, then that wait will have no end; the error was completely unintentional, other editors make errors like it all the time (as did the editor who revised this particular outdated definition that I inserted), those errors get corrected through a collaborative editorial process, and then everyone hopefully moves on. In the future, if a particular article prompts me to edit a policy, then I won't later cite the revised part of the policy at the same article even if years and decades have gone by, without first consulting with an admin to make sure that it's okay (this was the other specific charge that ArbCom made against me in 2011).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bishonen

I believe the WP:TBAN policy makes it clear what a topic ban is and what it applies to: "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Italics in original. In other words it's fine for you to edit most of the article Jeb Bush, but not fine to edit any part of it broadly related to abortion, such as the sentence you inadvertently inserted (in a section called "Abortion", yet). I don't see that there's any doubt about that, and that's what you request clarification of, in your first six sentences. The rest of your text above seems to be about something else — not really about clarification at all. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Anythingyouwant, you seem to have read my policy quote quite selectively, since you think I said your topic ban doesn't cover pages such as fetus and pre-natal development and feticide and the like. Of course it covers them. In their entirety. It seems you focused so hard on the words "as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" that you actually missed the first part, "a topic ban covers all pages… broadly related to the topic". Fetus, Pre-natal development and Feticide are "pages broadly related to the topic", as you know, since you yourself refer to them as "abortion-related articles". Please read all the green words carefully and in their context, and avoid tunnel vision.
  • @L235, it seem obvious that you shouldn't have collapsed Anythingyouwant's replies to me and Boris with the other stuff. Those replies were relevant to the clarification request. I'm tempted to move them out of the box myself, or send bold superclerk Bishzilla to do it, because I'm pretty sure you simply made a mistake. The responses weren't indented (as IMO they ought to have been), which perhaps caused you to miss that they weren't part of Anythingyouwant's original irrelevant text. Please fix. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Editors under sanction are allowed to show their displeasure and let off some steam, but this isn't the place. Suggest this be closed as unactionable before things get out of hand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Guy Macon

Anythingyouwant, you don't have to agree with the decision to topic ban you -- in fact you can continue indefinitely maintaining that Arbcom was completely wrong -- but you do need to show two things. First, you have to agree to abide by the decision whether you agree with it or not. From your comments here, I believe that you have done that. Second, you need to have the ability to understand the topic ban well enough to abide by it. This is the part I am having trouble with. In this edit, you posted a comment under the section heading "Abortion" that contained a link to a page titled "Much of the Republican 2016 Field Has Actually Moved to the Right on Abortion" and a quote about defunding Planned Parenthood.

Despite the above edit being clearly about abortion, in your statement above you blatantly mischaracterized your edit with this description:

"I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard." Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know."

Seriously? You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know and still didn't know when you opened this discussion whether an edit in a section labeled "Abortion" with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban? Competence is required.

My recommendation is that this be brought to AE and and that AE impose a one-to-three-month block and a stern warning that the next time you post any edit about abortion the block will be far longer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Anythingyouwant's reply in his section ("No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban. I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it. Anything else?") I have rephrased the question above. Anythingyouwant needs to have the ability to tell that this edit was about abortion without having to ask. If an admin thinks he really had a doubt, then the only logical conclusion is that he lacks the competence required to abide by the topic ban and needs to be indefinitely blocked. If an an admin thinks he knew that the edit was a violation of his topic ban (this is what I believe) then a one-to-three-month block should suffice to convince him that we will not tolerate such behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

IMO AGK hits the right note here. Yes, a breach of the ban. But the guy did the right thing, owned up and asked what he should do next. What do you want him to do, self-report to AE? Everyone should take a deep breath, step back from the brink and move along. @Anythingyouwant: I'd advise that you don't do it again. GoldenRing (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Abortion: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • @Bishonen: I was directed to leave the first two paragraphs but hat everything else, so that's what I did, but I see I should've exercised a bit more discretion. I'll move the replies outside of the collapse in a second. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The policy as quoted by Bishonen is perfectly clear. Editing a section of an article called "abortion" for a reason not listed at WP:BANEX is a clear violation of a topic ban from abortion, doubly so given the content you edited was directly related to abortion. You are not appealing your topic ban, so there is nothing to do here and it should be closed quickly with no prejudice to raising anything at WP:AE about this matter. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Anythingyouwant: you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit. If you edit those articles in future you may be sanctioned at AE. I do not "suggest" you be sanctioned for this breach of your topic ban, I am simply saying that this clarification request does not prohibit anyone initiating a discussion if they so choose, nor should it prejudice the outcome if such a discussion is initiated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Anythingyouwant: I do not know how I could make it any clearer than what Bishonen has said - if it is related to abortion you cannot edit it, if it isn't you can. If you are not certain whether something is covered by your topic ban, assume it is - stay clear, do not test boundaries. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that BishoIen has expressed policy clearly, but apparently it isn't yet clear that you can not edit any part of an article related to abortion, or anything or section related to abortion in an article which doesn't focus on abortion. If you have any doubts, don't do it. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anythingyouwant: Nor was the material added in an altogether neutral manner. I think it was appropriate to add material showing his current view (the other material in the section was older); the three references you added were suitable (2 of them from sites generally considered liberal, one neutral) But you chose to add a long quotation from Bush that partially repeated other material in the section. (Other refs in the article do not have a quote in the ref, and the site you used was very easy for anyone to access by themselves, rather than being , for example a paid or print-only site.) DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
to clarify, I am saying that there is a purpose in our general position that topics bans should be being interpreted broadly--it is difficult to retain a truly neutral POV even in what one thinks to be unexceptional edits. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as articles like fetus, feticide, etc., those are far too close to the subject. Yes, edits of those articles would be violations of the topic ban. On Political positions of Jeb Bush, on the other hand, it would be alright for you to edit parts of the article that cover his positions on, say, taxes or foreign policy. It would not, however, be appropriate for you to edit any page in any manner related to abortion, including any political figure's political statements or positions on it, except under the exceptions as provided by WP:BANEX. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Seraphimblade --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was plainly a breach, though I respect the user for bringing it to our attention themselves on this occasion. For that reason I would be minded to excuse this one violation alone, on the understanding that our guidance here was perfectly clear and that it won't happen again. AGK [•] 23:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much exactly per AGK. Hopefully the scope of the TBAN is now more clear. Yunshui 雲水 09:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is quite clearly a breach; I am somewhat confused as to why this was not clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Anythingyouwant: I understand how you may have misunderstood that previously, but now that Bishonen has provided the "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." quote from WP:TBAN, do you agree that your ban extends also to pages and sections of pages that relate to abortion? If so, it seems that no explicit amendment would be necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if "amendment" was unclear—I meant that if you agree with what seems to be the general interpretation, amending your original topic ban to explicitly include this doesn't seem necessary. Regarding pre-natal development, there are edits you could make to that page that don't involve abortion (for example, the content of the fertilization section as it currently stands is fairly removed from the abortion topic). However, other edits to that page could very easily fall within the topic area. Generally your best bet is to steer clear of anything that could be interpreted to relate to abortion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think just about any restriction can be successfully appealed if the appellant is willing to avoid the behaviors that led to the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Pseudoscience

Please do not comment here, but rather at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO_articles. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Tryptofish at 15:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

  • I've posted a general notification at the discussion at ANI: [16]. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I request that ArbCom make it explicit that the Discretionary Sanctions enacted in the Pseudoscience case apply to content (and accompanying conduct) concerning the health effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is essentially equivalent to the subset of GMO-related content that is also governed by WP:MEDRS. For typical content within this scope, please see the page on the Séralini affair and the page section on Genetically modified food controversies#Health.

The disputes in this content area go back at least to May 2013 (see Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 1#"Broad scientific consensus" and WP:POVFORK). It has recently erupted at a series of incompletely-resolved complaints at WP:EWN: 1, 2, and 3, and a drama-filled discussion at WP:ANI#Editor Jytdog's none neutral GMO edits. My request here grows out of a section of that ANI discussion: WP:ANI#Limited discretionary sanctions?.

I want to point out that it would not be unreasonable for the Committee to decide, instead, that a full case request is needed. The GMO controversy also includes scientific content about ecology and the environment that is not pseudoscience, as well as content about economic, business, political, and governmental issues that are outside of the scope. However, the most contentious disputes do center on fringe claims that GMOs are harmful to human health. I suggest that ArbCom should, for now, take a minimal or incremental approach, and see whether or not the community can make discretionary sanctions work. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Floq just pointed out, a full case request was made almost simultaneously with my request. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

If you all think that this can be shoehorned into the existing pseudoscience sanctions, that would help resolve the issue. If you can't, maybe we might need a full case, which, honestly, given what is pointed out above, might not be that bad, considering there are, evidently, other areas of concern regarding this topic as well. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

@Tryptofish:, @Looie496:, Clerks and Arbs: the sooner some combination of you decide what to do about a case request and a clarification request filed at almost the same time about the same issue, the less complicated things are going to get. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Looie496

I just went through the process of filing a full case request, without being aware of the existence of this clarification request. I will leave it to the arbitrators to decide which, if either, is the proper forum for handling the problem. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlbinoFerret

I dont think that just slapping on DS is the best way to go. A full Arbcom case will likely be more effective in breaking the back of this dispute. I also question adding the topic to pseudoscience as there is hard science involved and may allow for determinations and that in pseudoscience are acceptable because of the lack of hard science. It also may stigmatize the positions of some of the editors in this area. AlbinoFerret 16:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Pseudoscience: Clerk notes

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

Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'll be bold and unilaterally request that the editors posting here move their comments to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO_articles and, once they have done so, that the clerks simply delete this request. The other page tends to be more flexible, in that we can decide to open a case or pass a motion amending the pseudoscience case/authorising DS for this topic area. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=680698314"