Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

Original announcement

Ouch, Remedy #5 really cuts into my "Infoboxes should be limited to mostly politicians & sports figures articles" argument :( GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it's necessary to have both the probation and the normal discretionary sanctions at once. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

They argued that one was more for a person, the other for an article. - I hope we'll never need any, one or the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The probation is a discretionary sanction. It is just a predefined one. I think that is better, because as I said on the PD talk page, we already have defined procedures for how to deal with DS. I also agree with Gerda about hoping we won't need either in practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume the purpose of the Committee's decision was not to encourage editors who have recently been formally warned regrding their behaviour in an infobox case...to immediately go and do something like this? WP:POINT, much? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow that is a dickish move. Maybe Volvlogia should also be placed on Infobox probation aswell ? .... Just a suggestion. –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No need for probation. I'll let things simmer, won't happen again like that. Scout's honor. --Volvlogia (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's up there with this delayed reversion of Cass's edit that came only hours after the case closed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• @GoldenRing: you missed the "original announcement" link ;) ansh666 18:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Remedy #4 requires somebody to kick the ball off, so I've created a first-stage RfC at the Village Pump. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Just yesterday someone said "...decision of whether to include an infobox should rely on the judgement of the article's main authors..." (diff not included, lest I be accused of canvassing). In the light of this outcome, what should be the response to that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This case changed nothing related to that. The response has always been (and likely will always be) WP:OWN. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• ...and how about the comment "Infoboxes are not compulsory, articles are written for people to read, the lead provides a summary if an infobox conveys all that is necessary then the article seems somewhat redundant."? Do not both of my examples fall foul of "editors are reminded... not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Outside of any context, that would appear to be a violation of the "editors are reminded..." warning iff it is a comment made in a discussion about a single infobox. However without the surrounding context it is impossible to know for sure. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It is indeed in the discussion of a single specific artcile's infobox, on the talk page of that article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
      • OK so it's potentially against the reminder, but it's still not possible to be certain without the full context. You're currently skriting close to the spirit of both WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:ASPERSIONS - either provide the full context or drop the matter. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
        • "infoboxes are not compulsory, articles are written for people to read, the lead provides a summary if an infobox conveys all that is necessary then the article seems somewhat redundant." is a perfectly reasonable argument to not have an infobox on an article where an infobox is just duplicating information already present and clear in prose. That the same argument can be applied to many many articles does not make it 'general about infoboxes' it just means the same problem that some editors have with infoboxs is widespread. Its an incredibly badly worded 'reminder'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
        • What part of "diff not included, lest I be accused of canvassing" are you having trouble understanding? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
          • The bit where you provide context so it can be looked at without your cherry-picked selection. Either pony up a diff or accept you wont get a straight answer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Ah I see its good old Talk:Buckingham_Palace where the context is provided that numerous people have *already* made specific note that the information in the infobox in that article is already in the article, the infobox is ugly and adds nothing, and the quoted statement is *directly* below your own post where you want to include an infobox claiming it has info that is not in the lede. So, less an editor wanting to "turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" and more editor "responding to the discussion already in progress". (The 'articles are written for people to read' is probably a direct response to your machine readable argument.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

An arbitration decision cannot constrain community policy-making or guideline-writing, and this one does not purport to. Comments in the RfC cannot violate the decision by their content, though they should be civil, free of personal attacks, etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If anybody isn't certain about the Arb ruling? that's what WP:ARCA is for :) GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction notice

Can I ask under what basis a notice of discretionary sanctions can and should be dropped on people? This seems to be egariously awful and comes across as little more than bullying. If it is a valid use of the notice (although deeply chilling and little more tha a way of shutting down any interaction relating to IBs), should this revocation also lead to a similar notice? Should any change to the status of an IB lead to this? - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

By design, anyone editing a topic that is covered under discretionary sanctions can be notified of discretionary sanctions in relation to it. The notice can be placed on anyone editing in the topic area, regardless of what their editing is. Its meant to prevent edit warring and so un-necessary future blocks - and to an extent, enable future blocks. It is designed precisely to be 'chilling' in that respect. As a practical issue, AE wont sanction anyone who has not been notified in advance of sanctions related to a topic, so its common to make sure as many people are aware of the potential for sanctions in advance. So when they do get taken to AE they cant say 'oh I didnt know about it'. Its not uncommon after an arbcom case is closed with DS in a topic, to see many many editors notified of the DS as they may not have been following/involved in the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Within hours of the case closing, Volvlogia added an infobox to Frank Matcham – an article where SchroCat and I had calmly and politely debated the infobox issue in 2013 – and Sagaciousphil reverted it with the edit summary (No consensus for this; please see talk page, thanks). So I'm the editor who put the DS alerts on both of their talk pages, under the impression that that was exactly what ArbCom intended. Now, my distaste for sanctioning productive editors is a matter of record, so I'm no fan of discretionary sanction, xyz probation, or arbitration enforcement, but ArbCom have got to be clear about this: is every editor who places a DS alert going to have to defend their action afterwards? If so, you might as well rescind your remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Standard discretionary sanctions right now, because no uninvolved editor is going to be cooperating with it. I can understand us not wanting alerts to be placed by editors "with unclean hands"; but those will be the only ones left willing to place DS alerts if this is taken to its logical conclusion. @Worm That Turned, KrakatoaKatie, RickinBaltimore, Premeditated Chaos, BU Rob13, Euryalus, Alex Shih, Callanecc, and Doug Weller: you're the ones who put us in this situation: what's your solution? --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts do not suggest wrongdoing. It says so right on the notice. You were perfectly correct to place those alerts given the history of both editors and the context of what happened at that article (though I'll note Volvlogia actually didn't need an alert, given they were a party to the case – they're automatically "aware"). If editors harass those placing alerts, that is itself grounds for sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Rexx was right to place a tag and no he shouldn't be harassed. No one should be harassed.

One problem is that in the past, DS tags have actually been used to harass, intimidate, and threaten so in many cases placing a tag carries with it an unpleasant tone. There's no way of knowing if an editor will feel harassed when a tag is placed since the threat comes out of the editor's history and could also depend on who places the tag. Nor do I think we should be threatening people with punishment because they feel intimidated. However, incivility is incivility no matter where we find it so the question is at what point do we warn and or curb incivility rather than punish-and Wikipedia is not punitive-for reacting badly. What I would like to see, and I have no technical ability to either know if this is possible or how to do it, is that anyone who edits an article under DS is automatically pinged. Failing that rather lofty idea just a note in the template with a little more explanation might make defensive editors feel better. I have also mentioned to editors that an article was under discretionary sanctions and been told the remark was chilling when that wasn't my intent. And one time I actually had the audacity to ask that an editor be made aware and warned of DS after unilateral removals of 7 or so sources. I was sanctioned for several month for my trouble. So yes, DS has lots of baggage. I'd add that giving single admins the power to apply DS sanctions was meant to lighten the load at AE but anytime one admin has that kind of discretionary power trouble can follow.

The remedy is to change the way DS is viewed. How can that happen?(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

Littleolive oil makes very good points here, although their edit summary mentioned odors, which I felt was inappropriate given that olive oil itself can give off quite a pong when it goes rancid. That aside, even leaving a sanctions notice for an administrator -- one would have thought administrators would be above feeling chilled or intimidated by anything? -- can result in all sorts of nonsense splattered across the ordinary editor's talkpage, so I think it is clear that something needs to be done to reassure people about the nature and intent of such notices. I apologize for not having any good ideas as to how to achieve that. MPS1992 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• O).... very very funny!!!(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

You know what I think about the style of arbcom messages, right? (If not, see here.) I received a DS notice, and when I wanted to copy it to my talk archive, I received the largest error message I encountered so far: if I really wanted to send a DS alert to Gerda Arendt? No, I just wanted to archive. Can that be fixed. - Then: will we receive any instructions as what kind of behaviour will/should result in the alert, or will every single one of the thousands who write an infobox every day be notified? - I predict requests for clarification. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You know what, Gerda, one of those notifications you received said that you had received it because you had commented on some case about infoboxes. So what do you do when you want not to receive such notifications -- well of course, you comment some more about cases about infoboxes, as you're doing right here! Welcome home, Gerda. MPS1992 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It's perhaps as well to note here, since I don't see any mention of it above, that the alert must not be posted on an individual more than once a year. If you try to post it, you get a big pink notice exhorting you to check the history for previous relevant alerts, and to be sure not to alert the person if they received one less than a year ago. The system, in other words, warns against using the alerts for pestering people. Gerda, since you received the standard DS alert for infoboxes from RexxS yesterday, you shouldn't be alerted again until March 28, 2019 at the earliest. If it nevertheless happens sooner, you should consider complaining. (I don't mean to imply that you were threatening her with pestering, MPS1992. Just, the one-year rule is probably not well known, since you only discover it when you actually try to post an alert.) Bishonen | talk 22:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC).

P.S., Gerda, you apparently got the big pink notice when you "tried to alert" your own archive. (Copying it as text from your talk might have been better.) You can just ignore the warning and press "Publish" again. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC).

(ec) I still wonder why I received that big pink thing when I tried to copy to my own. The program should notice that I am I. I am unafraid of arbcom messages. DYK that I even made a DYK about it, my reaction to the first arbcase closure, I mean? ... that the hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear? - I keep singing, more to come tomorrow.

ps: yes, I managed, doing exactly what you (and the notice) recommended, - but still think it's no great programming. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good as it helps avoid an editor getting more than one alert a year, minimising pestering as much as programming can do. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I said nothing against "one per year", but the program should distinguish archiving, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It might be possible for the programming not to display the warning if user:Example is the editor and the page being edited is user talk:Example or a subpage of that (e.g. user talk:Example/Archive). However, this will require the input of people with far greater technical expertise than me and the template talk page is probably a better place for discussing it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit filter should no longer fire for subpages in userspace. T. Canens (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've said this in the past, but I continue to think that it would be helpful to revise the notices to make it clearer that simply giving the notice does not imply wrongdoing. No matter how many times some editors say otherwise, it is a fact that the templates look like a warning. They just do, and that is counter-productive. And this has been a perennial issue. Among multiple previous discussions of revising the templates is Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 19#Please fix the wording of Template:Ds/alert. I'd really like to see some of the ideas from that previous discussion implemented. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the clerk archiving of the thread containing my suggestions and the most recent discussion, I think the message is pretty clear, Tryptofish, and it feels to me like it can be summarised in two words, the second of which is "off"... perhaps supplemented with a comment indicating a disinclination to produce fecal matter. I'd like to be wrong, but actions speak loudly and the present ones persuade me.  :( EdChem (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Like so many discussions that, for whatever reason, didn't spark enough participants, the conversation kind of faded out... Well, let's try again. isaacl (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to Template:Ds/alert

Currently, the text at the start of {{Ds/alert}} is as follows:

• This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
• The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding (topic), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision can be read [here].

I propose changing it to the following:

• This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that any of your contributions to date have been problematic.
• You have recently edited a page related to (topic). Be aware that the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for all pages related to this topic. For more details, [see the Committee's decision].

isaacl (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Isaacl and Tryptofish: This proposed wording would certainly be an improvement on what we have. Will ask around to see if there's any objection to changing it. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

My apologies to the original proposer in the previous conversation; I forgot to incorporate the other suggestions made. Here is a revised proposal (with some additional copy edits by me), covering the rest of the text in the box:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that any of your contributions to date have been problematic.

You have recently edited a page related to (topic). Be aware that the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for all pages related to this topic. For more details, [see the Committee's decision].

To minimize disruption, uninvolved administrators are authorized, on their own discretion, to impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks.

Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. No other action on your part is necessary. Please don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

isaacl (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Euryalus for the positive response. And I'm fine with what Isaacl proposes. I agree that these changes would be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If the notices were delivered by bot, as I suggested earlier, the notices could also be further tweaked to something like:

Hi <NAME>, I am ArbComDeliveryBot and I am an automated account tasked to deliver you this standard message to notify you and other editors about an important administrative ruling relating to the topic of (topic).

You recently made [url this edit] to the (page) article, which falls within a topic area where the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions. Please note that this notification does not imply that this contribution or any others that you have made to date have been problematic. This automated notification is meant to advise you that the topic has seen disruptive editing in the past and can be contentious, and to make you aware of the extra measures that have been put in place as a consequence. For more details on why this decision has been taken, [see the Committee's decision].

In short, however, in order to minimize further disruption, uninvolved administrators are authorized, on their own discretion, to impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks.

Before continuing to edit this topic, you are encouraged to please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. No other action on your part is necessary. If you see disruptive or problematic editing that is not being resolved through talk page discussion, you may formally request that an uninvolved administrators decide whether an action under the discretionary sanctions regime is warranted. Please be aware that this process is for addressing behavioural problems and not for resolving content disputes.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask at the help desk or using an template:admin help notice on your user talk page. ~~~~

It's a bit longer, but also friendlier (I think) and assumes a bot triggered by an edit to the article or talk page that fits some agreed criterion. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@EdChem: One issue with bot delivery is that one edit could trigger two, three, four messages going out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

True, NeilN, though presumably the bot could either produce a list of cases where it was triggered but didn't know which alert to use for user input, or combine them into a single notice. Also, what triggers the bot would need careful consideration as I agree with the points below that a single edit to a BLP by a newish editor fixing a typo is hardly a good reason for triggering a DS notification. EdChem (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Other than the introduction, I think the same message can be used by a bot or a person, with the addition of a parameter for the URL of the edit. Regarding the text, I'm of the school that brevity = wit, so personally I'd suggest some trimming (for example, I would omit "This automated message is meant...", and "In short, however, in order..."). Generally speaking, a shorter message has a better chance of getting its key points across. isaacl (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe call a spade a spade?

Out of curiosity, does anyone randomly hand these out? People say it's not a warning but does anyone really believe that? If I see someone making gnoming or other uncontentious edits I'm not going to slap a DS notice on their talk page. However if I see someone being disruptive or making content changes that I know other editors will find contentious (justified or not) then they get a DS notice "warning" them that "[t]his means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks." I don't think my practice is that unusual. After all, all of BLP is covered by discretionary sanctions but how many BLP-DS notices are given every day? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, there was this from a few days ago, that led to the discussion that has been archived... EdChem (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Any editor regularly adding or removing infoboxes in areas where there have been previous disputes (e.g., actors, music composers) is probably going to make a contentious edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Given how unexpectedly contentious infobox discussions become, I'd probably recommend giving a warning to anyone who participates in one, if only to make them aware that they have options if things turn hostile. Discretionary sanctions work best when people actually know they exist and know where to go to make reports, if necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the hairsplitting disagreements that give rise to difficult cases, there can be edits that are right on the line between trivial gnoming and substantive edits. If we are serious about saying that the alert does not imply wrongdoing, then we have to assume that the alert will be given to editors who have done nothing wrong. I've given alerts to editors who have made non-contentious edits, but where those edits, taken in context, seem likely to lead later to edits where the alert matters. And I've also given alerts to editors who really are on the brink of ending up at AE. If I simply give the alert, I almost always get a defensive response, interpreting the alert as a thinly veiled threat. I've gotten into the habit of giving the alert, but adding some text at the end of the edit, outside of the alert itself, in which I tell the editor in my own words that it's a formality and does not mean that I think they did anything wrong. I don't like doing that, because it feels like I am undercutting the official language. Technically, I'm not violating the instructions that the alert language must not be altered, but I feel like I am violating the spirit of it. If the changes proposed above are implemented, that problem should go away. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What Tryptofish said. Also, it's not violating the instructions just to leave a note after the template. I normally do it in two edits though to make sure it gets caught by the filter (which I think is part of the instructions for technical reasons, but could be wrong.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm still going back to my BLP example. I bet we get thousands of different anon, new, and vested editors every day making edits on BLPs. How many of them get a BLP-DS notice? Probably a lot less than 1%. Why? Partly because there's non-DS warnings we can give if they're disruptive but mostly because the ones who quietly edit away don't need to be bothered with this "information". An experiment: Go to recent changes and watch all the BLP edits. Would you give a BLP-DS alert to all those editors? If not, who would you give an alert to and why? I may be wrong, but I'm thinking it probably would be to editors who need a warning. Other areas are more specialized (e.g., 9/11, Shakespeare) so editors editing in those areas would likely get an alert much quicker but decisions like WP:ARBIPA cover hundreds of thousands of articles and I highly doubt we're going to notify every editor in that area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No argument from me there. (I mostly do alerts about GMOs, where there is actually text that the community has declared cannot be changed without a lot of prior agreement, and there is 1RR, so it's not like BLPs.) There certainly is no reason to require that every account that ever touches a page must get an alert (alert a bot, anyone?). But I've seen cases where an editor (usually an inexperienced one) has done nothing wrong, but is edging into territory where things could be bad, and where after getting the alert they do the right things and we avoid a problem. So I guess an editor can sort of "need" a warning without absolutely needing it yet. (And don't get me started about class projects getting into DS areas.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with everything you've said here. I think it comes down to how editors define "warning". For some, it's strictly "hey, don't do that". For me, it's that or "hey, I've looked at your edits and you want to be careful here". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Good, thanks. As I see it, the changes discussed just above clarify that difference in definition, as "you want to be careful". And then, if they fail to "don't do that", they have already been advised that that's a big problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

E-mail from Captain Occam

I received an unsolicited e-mail from Captain Occam using Wikipedia's e-mail facility. I have directed him not to e-mail me again, and that I would bring it to ArbCom if he did. His response in another e-mail to me was "Ha ha ha, really? ... Please go ahead. I'd say it's about time ArbCom took a look at your behavior."

(Note: the text of the second e-mail is quoted here without the permission of Captain Occam, since the e-mail was unsolicited, and he was instructed not to contact me again. I'm willing to forward it to whomever wishes to see it.)

His first unsolicited e-mail was about an edit I made to Race and intelligence, a subject that he is topic banned from. Is the fact that he used the Wikipedia e-mail facility to contact me a violation of his topic ban? If so, then I believe he should be blocked, have his TPA removed, and his access to e-mail cut off. In fact, my real opinion is that he should have his ban reinstated, since he should never have been unbanned in the first place.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Original case remedies here
• Amendments by motion here
• I;m not certain where his unbanning discussion is. Private e-mail?
• Captain Occam's sanctions are at WP:Editing restrictions:

Captain Occam is topic-banned from the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. He is subject to a two-way interaction ban with Mathsci (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log). If he behaves disruptively in any discussion, any uninvolved administrator may ban him from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the R&I case page.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I am under any obligation to inform Captain Occam about this complaint, but in fairness: User:Captain Occam. I would caution Captain Occam, however, to read WP:BANEX very closely so that he does not violate his topic ban in any response he should make here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Thanks for your question. The Arbitration Committee is unable to give a formal response on this page. To seek enforcement of an arbitration sanction, WP:AE is just a click away; if any part of an arbitration decision is unclear, that's what WP:ARCA is for. Clerks have been giving a lot of leeway for unrelated discussion on this page, but this is really only designed for discussion about recent announcements by the Committee. This certainly shouldn't be used to seek sanctions or report problematic behavior. For the benefit of any observers (I know you're well versed in Wikipedia practice, BMK):

• For discussion of specific ArbCom announcements, this page is appropriate.
• For general discussion about the Arbitration Committee, see WT:AC.
• For enforcement of arbitration decisions delegated to administrators, see WP:AE.
• For clarification or amendment of arbitration decisions, see WP:ARCA.
• For assistance with the arbitration process or enforcement of standards of behavior on arbitration pages, see WP:AC/CN.
• To initiate dispute resolution where the prerequisites to arbitration have been fulfilled, see WP:ARC; otherwise, see WP:DR.
• For matters involving private information, see Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee.
• If any of the above is unclear, talk to a clerk or arbitrator or see WP:AC/CN.

In no event should editors expect a formal response from the Arbitration Committee, or from arbitrators acting in their official capacities, on this page. In this case, I suggest WP:AE if you believe the sanction is enforceable in this way, WP:ARCA if you are unsure, and email the Committee if you think the email implicates privacy interests. I know the system seems bureaucratic, but what would be way more bureaucratic is if many arbitrators gave many different (and conflicting) opinions here and ended up confusing everyone and being overruled by the full Committee – there are good reasons we have all this process. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I assume that I can't discuss the race and intelligence article here, but you and whoever else who reads this forum ought to be aware of the background of this situation. The background is these three edits that Beyond My Ken made directed against me a year ago, shortly after I was unbanned. [1] [2] [3] (Note that I am not, in fact, a creationist.) I find his overall attitude with respect to me--and other editors who've disagreed with him--very concerning, and that's what I e-mailed him about.

I don't personally think ArbCom needs to get involved here, but if they think they can do something to help Beyond My Ken to calm down about these types of issues, perhaps that would be helpful. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You e-mail out of nowhere to criticize my editing on a subject you're topic-banned from, and you wonder why I might need to "calm down". Please hear this loud and clear: do not contact me, do not e-mail me, do not ping me or thank me, when you mention my name do not do so in such a way as to send a mention to me. You're a massive discredit to Wikipedia and should never have been unbanned. I want to stay far, far away from me, you son of a bitch. Is that abundantly clear? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Like L235 said. This isn't the place for such a report. WP:AE is where you should go to. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you and to Kevin above, I had already been pondering if AE might be a better place to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's cut through this without more bureaucracy. @Captain Occam:, do not e-mail Beyond My Ken again, or I will block you indefinitely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but he also can just block me from sending him e-mail. If it's this important to him that he not receive e-mail from me, I'm not clear on why he didn't do that to begin with. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That's beyond the point. Alex Shih (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Question for the Committee

I have indeed opened a complaint about Captain Occam on AE, but ask the Committee to read thispost by me, and and this one by EdChem and comment on the questions asked there, specifically (1) whether any decision at AE on this matter is limited by standard enforcement protocols whick only allow a maximum one month block for a first violation of Captain Occam's topic ban; and (2) whether a change of venue to ARCA or AN is necessary if the admins at AE decide that re-instating Captain Occam's site ban is an appropriate response to his actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)