Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 79

---

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 19:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected:

WP:ARBAB

Link to relevant decision

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

There is edit-warring in progress at Crisis pregnancy center. My question is whether the article is subject to Discretionary sanctions under the WP:ARBAB decision because a major objective of these centers is to discourage abortion, and whether the edit-warriors can reasonably be alerted of the discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The wording on the ruling makes it pretty clear that yes, it is. CPCs are related to abortion even narrowly construed. 4.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages† articles related to abortion, broadly construed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

• EvergreenFir is correct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• What he said, this is pretty obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed with my colleagues. AGK [•] 12:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Crisis pregnancy centers are inextricably linked to the abortion issue, and are absolutely covered under the corresponding sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• I also agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• What they said. LFaraone 18:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by Ponjuseme (talk) at 23:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

Privatemusings arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle Sockpuppetry

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Privatemusings (diff of notification of this thread on Privatemusings' talk page)

Information about amendment request

• [1]
• In the principle of sock-puppetry, I suggest that a complete prevention of alternate accounts from editing in "discussions internal to the project" is vague and outdated. This is due to a large portion of editing being taken out of the article namespace and into other places. As well, in regard to disclosed socks, this would prevent connected I request that this principle be amended to only prevent !voting in areas that are heavily influenced by !votes and unrelated to content/conduct issues, such at requests for adminship, requests for bureaucrat, ArbCom elections, policy debates, and others like that, as well as prevention of !voting in any way whatsoever where a main or a sock has already !voted, such as in RfCs, AfDs, and others. In regards to undisclosed socks, this would also entail a complete interaction ban between the sock and the main account, as well as a ban from the sock and the main account participating in any discussions together. This would not change any other requirements for alternate accounts.

In this case, Privatemusings made problematic BLP edits, and used multiple sockpuppets in order to influence discussions in which he was involved. The principle relating to sockpuppetry explicitly stated that "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates."

1. This is exceedingly vague, and could prevent anything from banal talk page discussions, to directly influencing RFAs about the sock puppeteer.

1. Editing project pages is a vital part of Wikipedia, for example, take the case of a person who wants to edit Wikipedia, but already has an account directly linked with them. If they were to participate in any discussions based on content with that account, this may draw negative attention (such as if a devoutly religious person wanted to edit and take positions in areas that conflicts with their publicly professed religious beliefs, and would lead to them being ostracized if connected with their real life persona). In regards to asking why they couldn't just edit just the article space, this hypothetical person might sometimes want to comment on an RfC relating to an article they were editing, or join, for example, the WP:PORN project and discuss pornography related articles, in which that editing may not be highly regarded by that user's religious peers. They might also want to AfD certain topics relating to their religion that they don't feel are notable, but would be pressured otherwise to not AfD.

1. This was a principle made in 2008, 6 years ago, when many things considered "internal to the project" we see today didn't exist or weren't considered in this principle. For example, the PROD process is in article space, but is it internal to the project even though it is visible to anyone looking at the page?

This is a specific, unambiguous case of a user who misused alternate accounts, and the principle made appears to be overly broad.

The view that people should use only one account in meta-discussion is a principle widely endorsed by the community and is not, I think, reliant on this case or the arbitration committee more generally. The guidance on alternate accounts is reasonably clear and the majority of dispute over what is and is not permitted is, frankly, generated by wikilawyering sockpuppeteers. I fail to see anything requiring change here, especially since the initiator is a rather obvious sockpuppet.

I have some idea who the sockmaster might be, and they are currently blocked and I think banned. Nothing to see here... Guy (Help!) 19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

• If there is a desire to change policy, I think it would be better raised on the relevant policy or guidelines talkpage, rather than in discussion of a principle from a 7-year-old case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • On the substance, although this isn't an issue for us, for what it's worth I generally agree with GorillaWarfare's comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that this discussion should take place on the talkpage of the policy in question. I also feel that the policy is too vague. I feel that, for example, a legitimate sockpuppet used for privacy reasons should be allowed to edit deletion discussions in the sock's area of focus, of course assuming no overlap with other accounts operated by the same user. The current policy only specifies "internal discussions", and the argument could be made in either direction for whether deletion discussions qualify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• This may have come from an arb case, but the encyclopedia was different 7 years ago. The right place to make such changes are at the talk page of the relevant policy, as NYB says. Worm^TT(talk) 10:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues and propose to speedily close this request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed as well. The proper place to discuss a policy change is at the Village Pump or the appropriate talk page. The proper way to do it, until and unless a change is made, is to discuss it using one's primary account. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• The principle in question has been subsumed into community policy. Arguments to clarify it would be best made on the policy page. AGK [•] 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed, this is not the right venue for proposing this particular change, and it is doubtful there is any merit to re-evaluating a seven year old case's language when it is n't particularly relevant anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by KonveyorBelt at 19:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy

Link to relevant decision

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy#Tarc_restricted

1) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned,[40][41] Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions.

Passed 6 to 2, with 1 abstention at 10:27 am, 12 October 2014, Sunday (29 days ago) (UTC−7)

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

• Konveyor Belt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tarc notified: [2]

Tarc created a thread about Gamergate here: [3]. Immediately others called for him to be blocked, based on the ruling above. So the request is thus: Does the "normal exceptions" in the remedy above include commenting and posting on subjects that Tarc is directly involved in? KonveyorBelt 19:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Note User:TParis has taken it upon himself to state Tarc will not edit admin noticeboards hereafter: [4]. KonveyorBelt 19:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: If Tarc asks the guy to open an ANI or he tells him what to put, is that a PROXYING violation? KonveyorBelt 17:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "normal exceptions" covered situations such as being invoked by another party ANI, or if I was in need of admin assistance for a situation in which I was already involved. An example of the former would be this filing by a Gamergate SPA, in which I was obliged to defend myself. The latter is a case involving Gamergate controversy; I have been involved there for months, and we have an intractable situation where editors are blatantly abusing Template:POV, and we as regular editors cannot solve it by edit-warring, and discussion has gone on for over a month.

I'd find it hard to imaging that y'all sought to prohibit me from seeking redress for situations where I am extensively involved....my understanding was that you wanted me out of admin board-related discussions in which I had no prior hand in to avoid animosity and entanglement and such. Pursuant to that, I declined an invitation (User talk:Tarc#Notice) to participate in a Gamergate AN thread...even though I'm involved in the topic in general, that particular tangent did not involve me. I also decided to stay away from the Gender gap case, even though I had some early involvement in that. Hell, ANI is off the watchlist entirely.

If y'all want to prohibit even the filing of ANI reports when assistance is necessary, then that's your call I guess, but like I said, I honestly did not see that interpretation of the finding at the time. As far as the current ANI goes, obviously I disagree with TParis' restrictive interpretation of the Arbcom finding, but I will refrain from posting further there while this is being discussed here. The important thing is that the subject matter of the filing itself was allowed to continue. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TParis:, it's a fine line, here; I don't agree with the finding that my initiating an ANI discussion violates the Arbcom ruling, but at the same time I do not fault you for hatting the Tutleary-fueled hysterics in the middle and allowing the topic itself to continue.

I do need a clarification here though, as it seems obvious that there are differing interpretations as to what Arbcom said. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, despite that Arbcom talk page thread that meandered nowhere, you never actually clarified anything...until now, apparently. Remember what we're talking about here; a ban from something that had NOTHING TO DO with the actual Arbcom case, so it kinda follows that when something follows from nothing, there will be a distinct lack of clarity on the parameters. If this is what you wish to declare going forward, whatever, but to suggest that your intent was clear beforehand is divorced from reality. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, there was never any need to respond to any of this off-topic stuff. Just a distraction. Tarc (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
DHeyward, being of the "pro-Gamergate" mindset, as evidenced by posts like this where he evokes the "social justice warrior" slur, is making a bad-faith attempt to remove an editor with an opposing point-of-view from the topic area. His opinion on this matter is thus not objective in the slightest, and should be ignored. I do not "test boundaries"; I posited to ANI as I believed I was allowed to do, as explained above. The article is being held hostage by editors using a POV tag against its the express intent. Tarc (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC) This is the piling-on by pro-Gamergaters, the same as they did in the ANI thread with the absurd calls for "block indef", the same drums they are beating at Arbcom right now trying to force a case upon you. The calls for a topic ban from Gamergate are beyond farcical; GG has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hayward, I hatted it because the suggestions of a GG topic ban by you and Tuletary are so far out of left-field as to be farcical and has nothing to do with what we're talking about here; it isn't even on the table. Arbcom wrote a very muddled ban from "admin noticeboards" except for "normal exceptions"; I sincerely felt that asking for help in a topic I was directly involved in was an exception. If it isn't, fine, we'll all know now going forward. But as evidenced from the ANI thread in question, there is quite a bit of agreement with my point-of-view; several editors wholly unconnected to Gamergate have tried to remove the abused POV tag and ran into the same edit-warring roadblock that I did. My participation in Gamergate has not been disruptive, and you have provided no proof to the contrary. But again, we're not even here to discuss GG itself. This is an absurd distraction, initiated by you. I have nothing else to say on this, if an Arb has a specific question for me, I ask to be pinged; otherwise, this is off my watchlist. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to retract that "no more to say" line; it seems that overnight I was vindicated, as far as the specific Gamergate matter goes, Not there was much merit to begin with, but Hayward & Tuletary's catcalls for a GG topic ban have now been rendered moot (this moot not that moot), as the matter I brought to ANI was seen as a problem to remedy and not something that "just creates drama", to quote DH.

Arbs, I apologize for the ANI filing misstep, as I thought that was permissible. I still think it SHOULD be permissible, but that's your call. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: I consider it to be a reasonable compromise. You avoid a block and your thread gets discussed. Works in your favor.--v/r - TP 21:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It strikes me as ridiculous that starting a dramatic new thread at AN/I and then commenting on it is a "normal exception" to a topic ban from posting to AN/I. A "normal exception" would be, logically, one having the ability to respond to a thread started about the topic-banned individual at the prohibited page. It is no surprise that the limits of ArbCom's lamentably fuzzy language are being probed after less than a month. Carrite (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless an admin thinks Tarc was pushing or testing his ban's limits not in good faith I suggest no action. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious Tarc sought to amp up the drama on a topic that already has plenty of drama. Any other editor could have raised this at ANI. This was not a productive or time-sensitive report. Indeed, if he had brought it to Jimbo's talk page, the block would have been immediate because it's clear there is no legitimate reason for Tarc to bring drama where drama is not necessary. The appropriate response is a topic ban for Tarc on Gamergate and related articles so that it is very clear he has no business bringing these content issues to a high level of drama. Gamergate is under general sanctions and violating ArbCom sanctions should meet the discretionary sanction threshold. A topic ban also frees up Tarc to continue with more productive areas outside the drama boards and avoids the stigma of punishment blocks. In short, a topic ban solves all the problems related to this. --DHeyward (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc - I am not from a "pro-GamerGate mindset" or whatever that means. Misogyny and Social Justice are terms coined from the various viewpoints related to GamerGate. I advocated a neutral presentation of both as that is the reality. There is no doubt that threats against women in gaming have occurred. There is also doubt that the presentation of women in games has been challenged. Neither viewpoint should be excluded. Your attempts to present one side, and then use ANI to promote a one sided view in violation of your noticeboard ban and the discretionary sanctions for the article should lead to a topic ban. It appears that this topic brings out behavior from you that is unacceptable and the fairest punishment is a topic ban as opposed to a site ban or timed block. Topic ban Tarc and this problem with this editor goes away. --DHeyward (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Tarc must have hatted after his comment about piling on. Note that I've never called for his banning and didn't participate in the arbcom request. I am not calling for a ban here. I don't believe I've edited the gamergate article but have sparingly commented on the talk page. Tarc is a disruptive force on that article and a simple topic ban (not a site ban or full arbcom case) will remove his disruptive influence. This isn't the first time Tarc has been disruptive in controversial areas and the expedient resolution is removing him from the discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc, to quote NYB in many discussions prior to this, "this is at least the third time now that your approach has been to visit the site of a fire in progress and throw gasoline on it."[5] I can't think of a better description of bring the NPOV tag to ANI. It just creates drama. A topic ban for every topic where you do this should be automatic. That's a lot more tolerant than a site ban. I'm sorry you have history that makes your actions appear farcical and baiting but it also makes these remedies appropriate. --DHeyward (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute @Gamaliel- I could be mistaken but ANI is not listed in the dispute resolution process. WP:DR lists the dispute resolution noticeboards and I'll quote section 4 "The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the place to raise disputes over content or conduct. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted by you at an appropriate forum – such as the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN).". The "Are you in the right place?" at ANI also provides other places. ANI is a high stakes/high drama arena needing immediate admin intervention and is often where WP:BOOMERANG is liberally applied to editors that have a history of using it inappropriately. Tarc brought a running 3 month dispute to ANI without any specific incident in direct conflict with his ArbCom sanction not to do that very same thing. The result was exactly what NYB was concerned about: he took the gamergate fire and threw ANI gasoline drama on it. The result of testing that boundary should be the minimum needed to stop it which is a topic ban as the article is under general sanctions as well as his particular arbcom sanction. He is not helping to resolve the dispute. --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, I assure you I have received no email nor do I read 8chan nor am I a gamer or anything else. Retract your false allegation uttered by a troll on a troll site. Otherwise, STFU with your personal attacks. I don't even edit the gamergate article. One chance to strike your lie. You're being trolled and you are reacting to it. --DHeyward (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, reposting is a BLP violation. The irony is that the source you use to falsely accuse me would not be acceptable for you in an article. It's defamatory and your continued flagrant disregard for BLP standards which includes editors is pathetic and transparent. You are the one who reads 8chan and apparently their newsletter. I do not. It's defamatory to attack me personally based one a troll post from a 3rd party site that I am completely unaware of. My name is what I protect and will do so from trolls and their proxies. I did not bring off-site campaigns here. I did not bring Tarc to ArbCom. His history speaks for itself. Your accusations, though are baseless and without merit and a gross BLP violation. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I am not alone in my thinking nor is unsubstantiated or baseless. [6] Jimbo called for a Tarc topic ban if he can't stay away. That's the remedy I proposed. You can remove your accusation at any time. --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty unambiguous. "Tarc is not allowed to edit administrator noticeboards." How he tried to get away with that explicit wording of ArbCom's restriction and I'll never know, but it's pretty obvious that he violated it--trying to get ArbCom to grant an exception for anything besides relating to the restriction itself is quite obvious of his conduct in the matter. His telling off of DHeyward is also pretty telling, labeling him as a 'Pro GG' and that his opinion should be 'ignored' when he's just another editor like any other. I suspect that even after I make this comment I'll be slurred as 'Pro GG' or some other term he's come up with. If this is how he acts with this topic, then yes, I do believe a topic ban would be necessary. But for the original complaint, it's obvious that he violated it willingly and fragrantly. Tutelary (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute:, read the next part of the line. You and Tarc deliberately took that line out of its context trying to construe it to mean something it doesn't. Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. It's not an exception to that criteria. Tutelary (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BANEX notes the following as a "normal exception" to a ban such as that which Tarc is involved: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". There is a legitimate dispute that Tarc is legitimately hoping to solve. Based on this, I would consider Tarc's invocation of normal exceptions to start that ANI thread to be good faith, and largely valid. As such, he should not be blocked, but if this is not what Arbcom had in mind when handing down the restriction, now would be the time to clarify it. Resolute 00:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Tutelary, I inadvertently missed the next line, but it is interesting to know that you believe you have telepathic skills that allows you to know what others are thinking. That being said, I do believe that if Tarc has the ability to respond to an AN/ANI about him/an issue he is deeply involved with, he should be able to start an AN/ANI for same. Mostly, he needs to stay off Jimbo's talk page and stay out of ANIs that don't really involve him. Resolute 17:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Tarc's restrictions to comment on whether or not he violated them in this case. But I think it is inappropriate for involved editors to attempt to use those restrictions to eliminate an editor they perceive as an adversary from an article unrelated to those restrictions. If Tarc's behavior on that article is problematic (and I believe that some of it may be problematic, just as I believe there may be problematic behavior there from the other editors), then the other editors should seek redress through the regular channels of ANI, RFC, etc. and not through an unrelated ArbCom sanction. Gamaliel (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a very clear and obvious violation. Tarc is not allowed to edit any administrative noticeboards aside from the normal exceptions. A normal exception would be if they were appealing the sanction or if someone else filed a complaint against Tarc. But this neither an appeal nor a response to a complaint against Tarc. In fact, Tarc initiated a complaint, something that they are not allowed to do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears to me that DHeyward doth protest too much. He is correct that the source wouldn't be acceptable in an article, but this isn't an article. The board is demonstrably organizing off-wiki campaigns to attack editors who disagree with their POV. DHeyward's POV on this issue is readily apparent, and there is, at the very least, the untoward appearance that by demanding Tarc be topic-banned, he is obliging a trolling campaign's efforts to silence their opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, I will redact my statements after you redact your wholly-unsupported and baseless statement that Tarc is a "disruptive force on the [Gamergate] article." The only thing Tarc has disrupted on that page is a concerted and months-long effort by fringe POV-pushers to insert BLP-violating false accusations and insinuations about a number of women in the video games industry, to downplay the clear consensus view of their movement as an anonymous band of misogynistic and nihilistic trolls, and to wrap themselves in a shield of disingenuous and nonsensical "but ethics" claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• This was discussed during the case. The point of the remedy is to remove Tarc from areas where he is not a positive influence. The normal exceptions apply to the topic ban, i.e. appealing or clarifying the topic ban. Other usage of administrative noticeboards is not currently available to Tarc. Worm^TT(talk) 08:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Worm; this was a rather clear-cut violation of the restriction. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, for the love of everything that's good and holy, everyone *please* stop sniping at each other. It's most definitely not helping. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with the above. If Tarc is the subject of an already-started thread or facing sanctions in one, he may defend himself, but opening a thread on an admin noticeboard is off limits. If it really is a serious incident, someone else will bring it up at one of the administrative noticeboards. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that opening a new ANI discussion is not within the scope of the exceptions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• This is not in doubt: the normal exceptions do not provide an excuse here, so the remedy was breached. AGK [•] 20:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by Fut.Perf. at 17:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. WP:AC/DS#Continuity

Just noticed this trivial clerical oversight in the wording of the current DS rules. In the "WP:AC/DS#Continuity" section, there is the the rule that old warnings are grandfathered in until "twelve months from the date of the passing of the motion authorising this procedure" – but nowhere on the page does it say when that date actually was (3 May 2014, apparently), nor is there an actual link to the decision anywhere, and it took me ages just now to dig that bloody link out [7]. Just add a reference to that date there, and a link to decision in the refs section at the bottom, because it will remain important for admins in figuring out the "alert" status of editors for the next half year to come.

Of course, if Arbcom pages weren't such a ridiculous jungle of bureaucracy, I could just go ahead and make this simple, uncontroversial clerical correction myself (heck, per IAR, I guess I'll just do it anyway [8]), but since on prior attempts arbitrators have ever so gracefully insisted on the untouchableness of their little home-made bureaucratic fiefdom [9], you asked for ridiculous procedure for procedure's sake, you get ridiculous procedure for procedure's sake. Have fun voting on this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Bravo. Brevity. Soul. Wit. --DHeyward (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Objection: Worm That Turned is violating the MoS with his support statement, and Seraphimblade's citation should be more precise. (In all seriousness, good catch.) --Pine^✉ 08:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• If this really were a ridiculous jungle of bureaucracy and an untouchable little home-made bureaucratic fiefdom, I would vote to deny this request on the ground that it has been improperly posted at the bottom rather than the top of the clarifications-and-amendments section. (Everyone knows that new requests go at the top rather than the bottom of the section, right?) But since the arbitration pages in reality are and always have been governed by the spirit of collaboration, good judgment, and above all common sense and proportionality in all things, I will instead say that I have no problem with this suggestion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Wot NYB sed. Worm^TT(talk) 08:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• I move that we initiate proceedings under Rule 34.1, subpart J-5, in order to convene a subcommittee to schedule an impact analysis for the proposed modification. (In all seriousness, though, good catch and thanks for fixing it.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Per Seraphimblade. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Per Seraphimblade. AGK [•] 20:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Make it so. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Good catch,  Roger Davies ^talk 16:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• If any other similar clerical fixes are noticed by Future Perfect at Sunrise or anyone else, please make corrections and leave a note either with the clerks or at a suitable arbitration talk page. No need to raise to the level of a full clarification as done here (though I appreciate the not-so-subtle point you were making). Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by Gaijin42 (talk) at 17:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control

Link to relevant decision

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

• Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

During the GC case I was topic banned from Gun Control. I am currently involved in editing King v. Burwell an upcoming supreme court case regarding Obamacare. One of the issues in the case is Commandeering (The limitations on the Federal government being able to force states to implement policies/laws). The Commandeering doctrine was most recently decided and expanded upon in Printz v. United States a SCOTUS gun control case dealing with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

The Commandeering article is currently very stubby, I would like to expand it, but doing so will likely require discussing/referencing Printz. Note that the concept of commandeering itself is not related to gun control, merely the most recent major SCOTUS discussion of commandeering happened to be in a gun control case. I can avoid discussing the direct gun control issues, but this still seems on the edge of my ban.

I would like to ask for clarification on where the line of my ban is drawn, and if referencing the generic precedents set in Printz is a violation of my ban. If I were to expand the Commandeering article, would citing/quoting Printz be a violation.

Clarifying Note : Due to the appeal restrictions placed on the case, I am ONLY asking for clarification, and not asking for a modification of the ban. (because I'm still within the initial 12 month "no appeal" period, and in any case do not want to risk resetting my clock) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Appeal_of_topic_bans

David FuchsRoger DaviesNativeForeigner I appreciate the opinions of the arbs. My (obviously self-interested) position was that it wasn't really a grey area, just a technicality, because the subject of commandeering is not really about gun control. An analogous situation would be someone who is topic banned from rape not being able to edit on the Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution or Miranda warning because Miranda_v._Arizona happened to be about a rape conviction. As to Roger's specific question, I obviously would not have a basis for accusing anyone of violating their ban, since doing so would be a violation of my own ban, but joking aside, no I don't think such an accusation would have merit, and such construction makes topic bans exceptionally broad. Especially in an area regarding law and government the interactions and tendrils between entities and events is immense. If commandeering is a grey area/violation, conceivably any interaction with any aspect of the government would be. Are the entirety of articles such as Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Diane Feinstein BLPs or the entire United States Congress and United States Constitution also off limits? They certainly fall into "the people and organizations associated with these issues" per the ban.

However, in the interest of staying in good graces (or at least not getting in worse graces) I will probably avoid as advised, but would appreciate a further answer/comment as to the broadness of bans in general per my question just above. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I should probably make it clear that I was heavily involved in the ArbCom case that led to Gaijin42's topic ban, and my comments should perhaps be seen in that light, but I have to suggest that Gaijin42 has answered his own question - Printz v. United States clearly and unambiguously involves gun control issues, and if expansion of the Commandeering article requires citing Printz v. United States, I cannot see how he could make such a citation without violating the ban. One does not (or should not) merely cite things in articles, one cites them for a reason, and I cannot see how Printz v. United States could appropriately be cited without at least informing the readers what the case was about - the constitutionality or otherwise of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• I'd steer clear, if only to make sure no issues arise. It may be possible to edit it whilst staying clear, but I do not advise trying it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'd suggest steering clear too. A reasonable test for you is asking whether, if a topic-banned opponent in the gun control area, were to edit the same article you are thinking of editing, would you feel like you'd have a solid basis for accusing them of violating the topic ban? If so, avoid making the edit. (With grateful thanks to Alanyst for articulating so clearly the advice on which my comment here is based.)  Roger Davies ^talk 16:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with my colleagues above. We generally craft remedies broadly to avoid these sorts of grey areas where it can be argued bias is still possible; Roger's flipping exercise is the standard I usually hold as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• The proposed edit would violate the topic ban. It is good that you asked. If you are in doubt in the future, do please ask again, though it should be clearer now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• It's best to err on the side of caution, particularly when the topic ban in question is of the "broadly construed" variety. Staying away is wise here, although I agree with NativeForeigner that it's probably possible for you to edit it without breaching the ban. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} at 01:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Example arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Link to relevant decision

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

• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notified by Thryduulf here

I don't know how to structure this thing, so I'll just lay out a summary here: It has now been close to a year since an interaction ban was imposed between me and The Rambling Man. Likewise between Medeis and The Rambling Man. There have been several breaches of the IBAN as it's defined, but there has been no will to enforce it. So I would like to ask for either an immediate vacate of the IBAN, or at least a finite end to it, for example maybe on the anniversary of when it was imposed. My path almost never crosses TRM's, and when he takes verbal shots at us on the reference desk (which is where all this started in the first place), my usual approach is to ignore it. Medeis and TRM's situation is much touchier, as they both work at the "In The News" page, and several complaints have been lodged about that (with no action taken). So I can't give you any good advice on how to handle that case, that's up to you all. I would just like my own IBAN rescinded (both directions, of course) so that I don't feel like I have a sword hanging over my head. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

OR, at least amended so that I can report facts without fear of reprisal. That might be the better option, as I really have ZERO interest in directly interacting with that user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Lukeno94: The core problem is that the IBAN says not to refer to the other user either directly or indirectly. Are you arguing that the "indirectly" part no longer applies? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Lukeno94: If you look at his comments at the ref desk talk page ever since the IBAN took effect, you will see that he is repeating the same gripe he had about us prior to the ban, except just not naming names. So my question for you is, do I have to follow the "spirit" of the ban completely while he only has to follow it "to the letter"? Or do the same rules apply to all of us? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Lukeno94: Oh, and you may also observe that an IP-hopper has frequently tried to "help", such as the one that "informed" TRM that I was allegedly talking about him at ANI - after which TRM again repeated the same stuff he's been saying about us all year (and which is now out of date and unfair, but that's another story.)[10] It's not about "disliking" TRM. It's about wanting nothing to do with him, but he keeps insinuating himself into it anyway. So is that going to stop? Or is my only recourse to just ignore his violations? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Lukeno94: His response to your notification is a false claim that we're "trying to get him blocked."[11] I don't want him blocked. I just want him to stop talking about us - to stop violating the IBAN. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Lukeno94: "What is he supposed to do?" That's called the "look what you made me do" game. No one is forcing TRM to attack anyone at the ref desks, he's choosing to do so. Medeis and TRM obviously have issues at the ITN page. That's their problem. I don't work on that feature, and I don't interact with TRM, and I don't want to. But he continually refers to "us", his same old mantra from before the IBAN was imposed, that Medeis and I are a "team", which we ain't. So I want to know from you, if the actual wording of the IBAN is going to be enforced or not. So far, you're saying NOT. You're saying "What is he supposed to do but respond", while you're telling me what I'm "supposed to do" is not respond. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Lukeno94: And what I'm saying is that the IBAN prohibits him from talking about me, yet he has continued to do so all year. So, what is it going to take, to get him to stop talking about me? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Collect/Lukeno94: And he's been talking about both Medeis and me all this past year. I'd like to see an example of what you think an actual violation would look like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Seraphimblade: I've put in a divider of sorts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Considering that, 99% of the time the alleged "violations" have not been violations, I think this request should be declined as frivolous and WP:POINTy. ANI shut down the last three threads due to a lack of any actual violation, and the two users (BB and Medeis) constantly trying to push a case over the same tired old story. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Diffs for the closed threads: [12] (most recent one, filed by Bugs), [13] (filed by Medeis after their earlier request was archived without being closed) and [14] (which I believe is the last post from that earlier ANI request from Medeis). This forum shopping is becoming disruptive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Baseball Bugs: Given that half the time at least, TRM isn't referring to either of you at all, let alone indirectly, I am arguing that the two of you dislike TRM so much that you have become totally blinkered. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Baseball Bugs: What is TRM supposed to do, when Medeis constantly creates obviously bogus ANI threads, based around evidence that is long-since stale, and is often misrepresented or plain made up? Consensus is frequently at ANI that not only is TRM usually innocent of the charges, but that you two are also a negative influence on that area. If you are really that bothered by TRM, so much so that all you can see are monsters in the closet waiting to get you, go and work elsewhere on the project. There's plenty of other, far more important things, that you could do here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Baseball Bugs: No, what I'm saying is that all 3 of you should find different areas of the encyclopedia to edit, where there is no way that you can interact apart from on the odd occasion. ITN and the reference desks are a very minor part of the encyclopedia; there are far bigger and more vital areas that need input. And that also means that you can't misinterpret things as referring to you or Medeis when they aren't. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Collect: It's a figure of speech. Almost every single example presented at ANI has frequently been dismissed as not being a violation, and some of the evidence in the recent case has been stale for a year; which is also prior to the IBAN if I remember correctly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am bemused by the apparent claim that only "half the time" TRM was violating a clear and mutual IBan. Collect (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not arbcom: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community_sanctions:_The_Rambling_Man.2C_Baseball_Bugs.2C_and_Medeis NE Ent 01:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

• Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• The clarifications and amendments area is not for a threaded argument. Please move any comments you wish to a section of your own per the standard formatting. I'll give a brief period to do that, following which threaded discussions will be removed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• This request is particularly chaotic, but, unless I'm mistaken, the iban was imposed by the community and not by ArbCom; if that's so, you should file a case rather than an admendment request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• While I dislike playing the savage bureaucrat, I will not read unformatted requests. Like it or not, arbitration is one of very few areas on the project where WP:NOTBURO carries little weight. The format is prescribed because it makes it easy for us to understand your argument, so please use it. Procedural decline. AGK [•] 00:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by User:Rich Farmbrough at 19:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Cases affected

• Ayn Rand arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Monty Hall problem arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Longevity arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Cold fusion 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Tree shaping arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Gibraltar arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Ayn Rand: Remedy 13
2. Monty Hall problem: Remedy 5
3. Longevity: Remedy 1
4. Cold fusion 2: (Remedy 10)
5. Tree shaping: Remedy 5
6. Gibraltar: Remedy 9

• Ayn Rand: Discretionary sanctions
• Strike the remedy

This remedy is stale. The only actions in the 3 years are a warning for disruption in 2013 (which could have been made anyway), and, in January, a 1 month topic ban of a dynamic IP account.

There was a severe edit war on Ayn Rand in October 2013. That's recent enough that I think this restriction is still needed as a reminder and as an enforcement tool for sysops in the area.--v/r - TP 22:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

An IP was subject of an AE block in January, 2014 per the outcome of this WP:AN3 case. The IP is block evasion by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pc1985/Archive. Ayn Rand continues to be controversial so I recommend keeping the discretionary sanctions. Until April 2014 there was still a 1RR/week restriction in effect per the DS, but it was lifted. At present there should not be any continuing need for a 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• Monty Hall problem: Discretionary sanctions
• Strike the remedy

These stale discretionary sanctions have never been used, indeed all the time based sanctions are long expired.

Although this remedy has not been "used" in the limited sense that no editors have been sanctioned under its provisions (as far as I know), the log of notifications shows an instance this year where, in my opinion, the fact of the article being under this sort of probationary status has been used to good effect.

That said, apart from heading off conduct so egregious that it might be sanctionable sooner or later even without provision for special discretion, I am not sure this remedy, or anything else within the committee's remit as generally understood, can do much to improve a situation that continues to see episodes of unproductive discussion. Standards of conduct and decorum are well and good, but do not prevent dancing round and round in circles without improving this formerly featured article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• Longevity: Discretionary sanctions
• Strike the remedy

These stale discretionary sanctions have never been used.

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

Not evident why discretionary sanctions were threatened years ago. Please strike.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Cold fusion 2: Discretionary sanctions
• Remedy already superseded: however we should update table on {{Ds/topics}}

Note that this remedy was never invoked.

There has been continued disruptive editing, but I agree with User:Gaijin42 that this can rolled up under pseudoscience, as long as it is clear that the intent is only to roll it up, not to strike the remedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems like it would be covered by the pseudoscience case. So sure, nuke this one to clean up some record keeping, but it doesn't really change the editing environment for the article/topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This topic area was subject to enough disruption to require a full case resulting in its own specific sanctions years after the pseudoscience ruling had been put into effect. This was partly because a number of editors were of the opinion that cold fusion does not fall within the scope of pseudoscience (and the argument on that meta-topic was interminable.) If the current, specific ruling that Cold Fusion is subject to discretionary sanctions goes away, I think that a very clear, citeable statement by Arbcom that this topic is subject to sanctions under the pseudoscience umbrella would be necessary to avoid a repeat of this history. --Noren (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough is mistaken that this remedy was never invoked, see for example [15] and [16]. It was made more difficult to find these invocations because the name of the case has been retroactively changed and the logging of enforcement has been moved to merge with the older pseudoscience case.--Noren (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Per a 15 Nov 2012 Arbcom motion, enforcement of Cold Fusion remedies is consolidated with Pseudoscience. This tells admins that problematic editing of Cold Fusion can be processed as though it were an WP:ARBPS violation. It's fine that enforcement was redirected to another case, but if Cold Fusion is dropped then we will be back to square one whenever CF problems occur. So I agree with Noren's advice about this and would oppose removing the Cold Fusion remedy. To understand what the 2012 motion was trying to do you should read the comments by User:T. Canens at the bottom of the discussion section, below the votes. It seems that cold fusion and homeopathy were both rolled into pseudoscience. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• Tree shaping: Discretionary sanctions
• Strike remedy.

Note that this remedy was never invoked apart form two warnings in 2011.

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

• Gibraltar: Discretionary sanctions
• Strike the remedy

This remedy is stale, no action has been taken since 2011.

I issued a 0RR restriction on Operation Flavius for an editor in February this year. I did this under the WP:TROUBLES case, but I could equally have used the DS authorised for the Gibraltar topic area instead (the article is about a military action against IRA members on Gibraltar). Obviously if DS had been repealed for Gibraltar then I could still have issued this sanction under The Troubles. I don't remember at this distance whether the focus of this editor was Gibraltar or The Troubles though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The proliferation of areas under discretionary sanctions (in addition to other forms of sanction) makes editing Wikipedia both more complex and trouble prone for all editors, but especially new editors. It makes sense to remove obsolete sanctions, and obsolete notices (indeed I removed obsolete notices from 56 of the 136 articles listed under "Community probation" only the other day).

None of these areas seem to have been significantly troubled since the case, and certainly not in a way where DS would be required to resolve them.

I would hope that none of these requested amendments would be controversial, but if one or more are I would welcome as an alternative, suspension of those sanctions for a year, with a view to striking them.

@Timotheus Canens: I certainly never implied that Pseudo-science sanction should have an exemption for cold fusion. I would be interested to know where you got such an idea. In this case we simply do not need any special note about it, its standing is simply as part of pseudo-science.

I have left a message on the main article talk pages for these topic areas (Talk:Ayn Rand, Talk:Monty Hall problem, Talk:Longevity, Talk:Tree shaping and Talk:Gibraltar) advising editors there of this amendment request and asking for any comments about the proposal to be left here. I haven't left messages on any deeper pages (e.g. Talk:History of Gibraltar) as I don't know how to define the set of which pages have the DS template on that are relevant to these cases, and I'd be here all day if I tried to do that manually. Anyone else is of course free to do so.

I suggest waiting a few days to allow for any such comments before actioning (or not) these amendments. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If the cold fusion topic area is removed from the scope of the pseudoscience DS authorisation, then this should be explicitly noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions as well as on the Cold Fusion 2 case page. I also note that the pseudoscience DS are authorised for "articles" rather than "pages", arbitrators may wish to consider amending that similarly to the motion last month.

And, off topic for this request but while I'm here, I asked for clarification of a BASC decision the other day at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Cookiecutteramaru's topic ban (where the BASC decision page told me to ask), but this appears to have slipped under the radar. Thryduulf (talk)

This request is such a mess that I don't even know where to put my comment... This entire request should be thrown out as out of process. This combines a huge variety of unrelated cases, effectively massing a herd of buffalo, making examination of each individual specimen impractical. For example, I don't think the Gibraltar remedies should be altered or softened at all. What does that have to do with the Monty Hall case? Just toss this entire request and let the proposer start over, one at a time, if there is an actual need for such alterations (which I doubt). Carrite (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the premise of this amendment request is fundamentally flawed. Remedies don't necessarily lose value because they're not actively invoked. That's all that has been researched below by Beeblebrox, whether they were actively invoked. I'm not too familiar with any of the ArbCom cases touched by this list of amendment proposals. I'm more familiar with e.g. the two Prem Rawat Arbcom cases: my experience there is that one doesn't have to invoke a remedy explicitly to demonstrate its value. Example, undoing this edit part of my edit summary read "...read templates on top of the talk page too, please", referring to the sensitivity of the topic in general, without naming any ArbCom case or remedy in particular.

I'm convinced that toning down the remedies has no advantage: when editors behave reasonably with the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind such remedies are not bothering anyone either.

At least a possibility to re-instate remedies easily if this proves necessesary needs to be built in in the amendment proposal.

Further I want to remark to ArbCom members you'd be sanctioning one of Rich Farmbrough's "mass" operations here, specifically what should still be a red flag, see #Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary.

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

• I remember (some in more detail than others) the arbitration cases that led to discretionary sanctions being authorized in these areas. Basically, we authorize DS in a topic-area where there has been disruptive editing by several (not just one or two) editors in a topic-area, and there is a likelihood of continued disruptive editing in the future. I accept, without having checked, Rich's statement that these topic-areas have not been edited disruptively for some time. The question then is, is that likely to continue if we lift the DS. In some areas it probably is, if the specific editors who were editing problematically have moved on (and no one has replaced them in that regard), or if the real-world cause of editing disputes on an article has disappeared (although I don't think that would apply here). I would certainly be open to lifting DS on a topic-area if the active editors in the topic-area told us that they thought DS was no longer necessary and was dampening the editing environment. I'm not as sure whether we want to adopt a presumption of "if DS were authorized awhile ago and the topic is calm now, we will lift the DS based on the passage of time as a housekeeping matter." I ask my colleagues who were active in the DS review a couple of months ago if this issue was discussed then and in any event what their thoughts are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• The relevant principle was briefly discussed here and then added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Authorisation, which now reads [w]hen it becomes apparent that discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary for a particular area of conflict, only the committee may rescind the authorisation of them, either at the request of any editor at ARCA or of its own initiative. I'd say this is the case here and would support a motion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Generally speaking, if disruptive behavior has settled down in an area and is not likely to resume, I'm in favor of removing discretionary sanctions from them. There are some areas that will probably always remain "hot" and there's little likelihood of that happening, but in these, it looks like things have cooled off quite a lot. We could always leave open the possibility of restoring sanctions by motion if significant disruption resumes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• I also agree that it is not desirable to have sanctions in place when there have been no recent problems and would likely support motions to remove them from these areas once we have confirmed Rich's findings. (Not saying I don't believe him, it's just best practice to double-check such things). Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Based on Beeblebrox's #Analysis, I would support a motion to de-authorise discretionary sanctions for these topic areas. AGK [•] 20:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would also support such a motion. Thank you Beeblebrox for that analysis. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Pseudoscience and fringe science except cold fusion" as a discretionary sanctions area makes little sense, so I'm opposed to carving out a special exemption for CF. I'm open to a motion lifting the remainder per Beeblebrox's analysis. T. Canens (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• I concur with my colleagues. Unless someone else beats to me, I'll draft a motion wrapping up he various loose ends on this tomorrow. Thanks to Rich Farmbrough for bringing this to us. And it's good to see the obsolescence provision in the new DS procedure been used properly.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As per above, Thryduulf has posted about this request on the talkpages of the lead articles in the various topic-areas, to give the editors and admins active in the topics notice that this is being considered. (I thank him for doing so.) We might just want to wait a few more days before voting on a motion to see if we get any further input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

---

I am adding this section for point-by-point analysis of each request, this should help inform how we proceed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ayn Rand

Arb enforcement actions

3 users blocked in 2009, 1 in 2013, 1 January of this year

Article placed under 1RR from October 2013 to April this year

Recent article history

On the main article on Rand herself: minor editorial conflicts continue, nothing recent beyond what one would expect in an article on such a polarizing figure, nothing particularly nasty on talk page, seems fairly civil

The articles on objectivism and her novels seem fairly quiet

• Monty Hall Problem

Arb enforcement actions

1 user blocked in 2011, 1IP used by that same user blocked in 2012

Recent article history

minor editorial disputes continue, there was a recent discussion the talk page last month that turned more personal than it should have, but the article itself is not experiencing serious disruption.

• Longevity

Arb enforcement actions

Numerous warnings handed out right after the case closed n 2011, one user blocked for violating their topic ban, DS appears to have never been invoked

Recent article history

Main article appears free of conflict. No substantive discussion on talk page between announcement of DS in 2011 and a note directing users to this request a few days ago

Checked several related articles, some subject to simple vandalism, no serious editorial disputes

• Cold fusion 2

Arb enforcement actions

Numerous blocks in 2011, all of the same user who was subsequently community banned that same year

Please note this sanction was already Superseded by motion, 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC). See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. So the discussion is not whether we should vacate the original sanction but rather whether it should be removed from the umbrella of the pseudoscience DS.

However, there do not appear to be any notes in the enforcement logs that directly relate to cold fusion.

Recent article history

Talk page is quite active (47 archives!) but discussion is mostly civil and the article itself is fairly stable and free of major editorial disputes

• Tree shaping

Arb enforcement actions

Three warnings in 2011, no blocks or bans

Recent article history

Pleasantly surprised to see that several users subject to now-expired individual sanctions in the original case having civil, collaborative discussions on talk page, no serious disruption of article content for some time.

• Gibraltar

Arb enforcement actions

Several warnings and individual sanctions applied in 2010-2011, all long since expired

no logged blocks or bans

Note that this is one of the decisions whose wording was modified by the committee last month, though that should not have any impact on the matter in front of us today

Recent article history

Main article and talk page appear free of prolonged, tendentious disputes, nothing beyond what one would expect for any article on a country

The entire history of an oft-disputed territory, broadly construed is an awful lot of material. Checked a sample of related pages and found no significant disruption of content.

Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Following a request to amend several prior decisions to terminate discretionary sanctions provisions that may no longer be necessary,

1. Remedy 14 of the Ayn Rand case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Longevity case is rescinded;
4. The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
5. Remedy 5 of the Tree shaping case is rescinded;
6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded;
7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
8. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
9. A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

   I've copyedited the motion to bring in the Homeopathy case, which is in the same position as Cold Fusion 2 and aded a change in wording for the Pseudoscience remedy ("articles" to "pages") for consistency with everything else. I also made a small change to the preamble. Thanks to Tim for pointing these out. Please revert if you disagree.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

2. And thanks for adding point #8, i think that's a fine idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks. It's #9 now, with Brad's changes.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Let's get rid of this cruft, it's no longer necessary to prevent disruption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
5. I have taken the liberty of adding the second sentence of #7, and a new #8 (old #8 becomes #9). Any arbitrator can revert if these changes aren't desired, but if there is consensus for them, I think this is easier than adding another motion. I also made a minor copyedit to #4, and copyedited the introductory clause so it will be independently comprehensible when the motion is posted to the noticeboards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
6. AGK [•] 06:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Worm^TT(talk) 08:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
10. LFaraone 23:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
11. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

---

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 02:56, 21 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Case affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Finding 4

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SmackBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Information about amendment request

• Finding 4
• Vacate this finding.

Finding 4 cites "letter and spirit of bot policy" (without, of course, quoting the policy) and gives four alleged examples, apparently supported by links.

1. running high-speed tasks without sufficient approval ([17]),
2. running high-volume tasks without sufficient approval ([18])
3. running bot tasks from a non-bot account ([19]),
4. running unapproved bot tasks ([20]).

Taking these in order:

1. There is no bot policy that says that high speed manual tasks need approval. In fact current WP:BOTPOL specifically says Note that merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.
2. There is no bot policy that says that high volume manual tasks need approval. That would be absurd. People like the late lamented User:JimCubb who did such sterling work on the WP:Listas problem, our spelling fixers, like John of Reading, our stub-sorters like PamD, these are all working within policy, as indeed was I. The diff supposedly supporting this is just the opinion of CBM.
3. It is not the case that a task that is permitted automatically is prohibited manually. CBM has often stated that this is policy, but I have never seen this piece of folklore anywhere else than in this case and in comments by CBM.
4. It is a generally accepted principle that bots using AWB may perform "general fixes" at the same time. These are built-in to AWB and are carefully selected by the developers to be non-controversial and robust. One admin took exception to one of these fixes against consensus, and repeatedly blocked the bot. You can even see CBM confirming that he his happy with all the "general fixes" except the WP:IDONTLIKEIT change.

One line summary

Three of the four examples are clearly within policy. The fourth is within standard usage, and even so I went to great lengths to oblige CBM.

I have attempted to keep this short, so may have omitted something you think important. Please feel free to ask any questions, and I will do my best to answer them. I am happy to answer questions of opinion or fact, or even motivation.

Worm That Turned I have specifically focussed this requested amendment on facts, rather than opinion. The fact is that, whether there were issues with my editing or not, a matter I am quite happy to discuss, this finding blatantly misrepresents the Bot Policy of the time.

There is plenty more to damn this finding, for example the most recent evidence cited for 1) was 18 months old, for 3) was 2 1/2 years old, and for 4) was 2 years old.

Even if this related to, say civility, or copyvio, these would have been out-dated. For BOTPOL, it is far more so, the culture changed between 2009/2010 and 2012, and in response so did the behaviour of bot operators, my tools were re-built from the ground up to address or remove concerns that had been expressed. Moreover I adhered ever more strictly to the BOTPOL, possibly excessively so, for example BRFAs like[this one] were not needed under the exception that allows bots to edit their own subpages, or their owner's sub-pages without BAG approval.

In summary, without even resorting to the broader context, the drafting of a finding like this shows a complete lack of knowledge of the appropriate parts of wiki-culture from 2009-12, a lack of relevance, due to the untimely nature of the so-called "supporting evidence", and a complete failure to read or understand WP:BOTPOL. Continuing to support it when these flaws have been pointed out would be morally bankrupt.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

From those Arbitrators who have already commented, I would like to hear one compelling reason that lies about a living person are more acceptable on arbitration pages than on articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

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

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

• Rich, you're a good editor. You have a lot to give to the encyclopedia. However, I've spent too much time looking over this case over the past 2 years as an arbitrator. Quite simply, I agree with the outcome at the time. Roger Davies, you and I sat down and discussed the topic ban at Wikimania and it seems that nothing has changed since then. I've read over your request and don't agree that this remedy should be vacated - your automated editing was causing significant issues at the time. I'm sorry to see that you still don't accept that. Good luck with your other endeavours, Rich - I hope they serve you well. Worm^TT(talk) 11:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Hi Rich. Dave has covered the ground here and it pretty much goes without saying that I concur. Best,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• The vacating of old findings or remedies is unlikely here at this time, per the above. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Per above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• There may come a time when this will be best for the project, and I will support then, but these restrictions are needed, per my colleagues. Oppose. AGK [•] 06:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Rich, insulting the committee's members with claims that we are libelling you is likely to hinder your case, because it demonstrates you have not reformed. AGK [•] 00:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be more willing to consider a specific request for a specific usecase, but especially as it stands these restrictions are necessary. NativeForeigner ^Talk 13:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by Xenophrenic (talk) at 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

Tea Party movement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 7.1 (topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed)
2. Remedy 7.2 (prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect anywhere on Wikipedia)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Collect (diff of notification of this thread on Collect's talk page)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Xenophrenic_topic-banned
• Request for the lifting of Arbitration remedies 7.1 and 7.2 as no longer necessary.

The Arbitration Committee imposed upon me a topic ban and a one-way interaction ban on 5 September 2013, with instructions that I may appeal to ArbCom after 6 months. Now that 14 months have passed, I am requesting that the bans be lifted as no longer necessary, and an undue burden. The "Finding of Fact" about me indicates the Arbs perceived some problems with my Talk page interaction with other Wikipedia editors. I "personalized" the discussions by stubbornly demanding that editors substantiate certain negative personal comments about me, even to the point of "edit warring over comments that negatively portray" me, and "thereby further increasing tension" as I repeatedly deleted those comments and replaced them with {{rpa}} templates. I agree that my conduct was substandard. I have since grown thicker skin and changed the way I respond to those situations -- with the best response often being for me to just ignore it and get back to collaborative editing. I apologize to the Arbs, the clerks and the community for their wasted time and energy due to my part in this matter, and extend my assurance that I won't repeat that conduct. With regard to User:Collect, I "engaged in unnecessary mockery" of his use of Cheers by responding with Where everybody knows your name. I've ceased that response as well, but more to the larger point, I have and will continue to refrain from unnecessary mockery of editors. And Collect: Please accept my apology.

In addition to being no longer necessary, these two remedies are becoming increasingly burdensome. I frequently find myself having to play Six Broadly Construed Degrees of Separation whenever I see the words 'Tea' and 'Party' somewhere in an article I wish to edit or discuss. (Example: while typing a question to Newyorkbrad in response to his comment, I discovered he was talking about a lawsuit drafted by a Tea Party activist, so I had to hold my tongue, lest someone twist that into a topic ban violation.) See this discussion for an example of how reasonable people can completely disagree on what is "related to" the Tea Party; there are 1000s of articles linked to Tea Party. It is cumbersome to "not interact with" an editor after they revert your edits and open a Request for Comment(RfC) on those very edits, while still trying to communicate on the Talk page. More examples upon request.

I'm up against the word-limit now, but if there are any reservations about lifting the sanctions, I can strengthen my request by providing details on:

• (Good behavior) -how every editor sanctioned in this ArbCom case 14 months ago, except me (and Snowded), has since received additional Blocks, Bans, ArbCom sanctions, or violated existing sanctions
• (Topic relevance) -how the FoF evidence for me described an editor-interaction problem not specifically related to the TPm "topic" or subject matter, unlike many of the other FoFs describing problems related to topic content, sources and POV

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I'll leave you with these wise words on I-BANs, with which I happen to agree. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

First - this is a draconian solution for what appears to be a common problem. Thus it won't work. Second, the idea of a "1 way ban" has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other.

• Response to Collect: Either I was unclear, or you have misunderstood. I make no complaint against you here; I have no issue with you here. To the contrary, for more than 14 months there has been only productive discourse whenever you and I have crossed paths at noticeboards and Talk pages. I only provided diffs to the Infobox RfC example above to illustrate the contortions I must go through in order to respond to your direct interaction with me while "not interacting with you". It would be so much easier to just converse normally with you, rather than talk past you while pretending you aren't part of the discussion, as I try to convey my thoughts to you within the constraints of a one-way I-Ban. Given that I am already constrained by Wikipedia's policies on civility and collaboration, and you now have my assurance I won't transgress again, and you can rest assured that repeated transgression will likely result in doubly swift and harsh penalties, what utility do you see in maintaining the I-Ban?

• Response to Thargor Orlando: Thank you, um... I think? I agree with you on your two points: my edits weren't "problematic the way other editors' edits were", and you'll find no evidence that I've "continued that behavior". I agree, and that is why I am now asking to have the sanctions lifted. I must strongly disagree, however, with your assertion that I have not kept away from Tea Party-related articles. Looking at the 5 diffs you provided, the first three articles have no mention of the Tea Party at all. The remaining two articles do briefly mention the Tea Party in sections near the end of the articles, unbeknownst to me, but the subjects of those articles are the farthest thing from "related to" the Tea Party. And there was no obvious indication that I should search for TP references buried in those two biographies while I was rapidly making minor tweaks to infobox templates in a batch of biographies. Had I known that the words "Tea Party" existed in those two articles, I most certainly would have requested clarification here, as I have in the past. Your examples perfectly highlight my point that reasonable people can disagree on what is "related to" Tea Party articles, and the burden such a topic ban imposes.

• Thargor Orlando, why must it be either/or? I believe ArbCom wanted both (to keep me away from Tea Party content and that I demonstrate non-disruptive interaction), and I have conducted myself accordingly. I still frequent contentious subject matter involving politics, religion, war, conspiracy — all the hot spots — but without incident over 14 months. I also feel I have exercised an abundance of caution in avoiding TPm-related content. I can't count how many articles and discussions I've avoided because of the topic ban, and I've even refrained from pestering the Committee with what could have been almost daily clarification requests, opting instead simply to edit elsewhere. Even in this specific case, where the Arbiter who authored the topic ban (who better knows its intent?) gave me the green light to continue editing an article containing "Tea Party" text, I opted to take onboard the advice of others and ceased editing that article. I believe I've taken proper care in complying with the intent and spirit of the topic ban, your two examples containing Tea Party text notwithstanding.

• @Seraphimblade: If it will grease the wheels in this process, and satisfy Collect, I can return here in 49 days and resubmit my request to have the I-Ban lifted. I admit I still do not understand the reasoning behind the requested delay, but at this point ... whatever works to bring closure to the matter.

I would be fully unaffected by this amendment, as I have no sanctions extant under the Tea Party Movement case. My appeal to Jimbo has met with absolutely no response, but we are well past the six month mark making this amendment request totally moot. The one way interaction ban should be carefully weighed - I have not interacted with Xenophrenic at any point, and would just as soon have him continued to be constrained. Collect (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am, moreover, aghast that the common use in infoboxes to include degrees received is what his major complaint appears to be. There was, in fact, a discussion on the template page, as I trust he is aware, and he appeared to be in full accord with the solution, so I do not know what his issue with me is here. Collect (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note to people who note my belief that 1 way bans should be of specified duration - I still hold that view. I do not understand why my position here that the single 1 way ban should not be abrogated at this point is of any dispute, though I would think that making it for a specified period as MastCell notes would not be amiss. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic I would suggest that a "date certain" to end the iban is in accord with my consistent positions on such bans, and think perhaps setting it at 1 January 2015 would not be unduly burdensome. I further note that I have never had any "enemies list" to stalk or make derogatory comments about on Wikipedia, though I will grant some of your older posts did vex me a tad. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC) {Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

My position has always been that 1 way Ibans should have a defined term, at least to the best of my recollection, and the charge of "hypocrisy" is painful. The case presented, however, seeks two distinct and basically unrelated changes to the ArbCom sanctions, thus separating the two seemed to me to be rational. Setting a time certain is rational, but tying it to this request is quite imperfect. One should note that I have, as far as I can tell, been civil to Xenophrenic, and have not made any edits with any intent other than benefitting the project. This would leave the sole issue the actual TPm topic ban, for which I proffer no opinion. Nor did I proffer evidence against any editor in the TPm case, and the "findings" against me were drafted by an Arbitrator using diffs not presented by anyone other than the single arbitrator. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I brought up the initial clarification before, so I'm commenting to note that, while I haven't had any further encounters with Xenophrenic since then, others certainly have and probably didn't notice that he was under sanction, given that even in the last few months he has edits to sanction-related articles like Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now [21], Efforts to impeach Barack Obama [22], United States House of Representatives v. Obama [23], Van Jones [24], and Alan Grayson [25] (and this is using a fairly narrow standard of "broadly construed." If the topic ban is about keeping him from engaging in incivility on these pages, I'm unaware of any evidence that he's continued that behavior. If the topic ban, however, was to keep him away from Tea Party-related articles, he has very clearly not done so. I have no interest in stalking his edits to keep him in line, but the result of this appeal should really be about the intent of the topic ban, especially as his edits, at first glance, do not appear to be problematic the way other editors' edits were. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic:, and that's all my point is: if the idea is to keep you away from Tea Party-related articles, and you're not taking the proper care in making sure you're doing so, then this amendment should be denied. If the point was to demonstrate that you can actually be civil and not disruptive with those you disagree with on contentious articles, then I agree with you. It's all about what ArbCom was trying to accomplish. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Collect has previously been very vocal and consistent in his belief that one-way interaction bans are unfair and useless:

• "One-way interaction bans have never made a great deal of sense, and continue to make little sense. I rather believe I have said this in the past... but the fact remains - one way bans are an open invitation to see Game theory at work. All one way bans should simply be made mutual by motion." (edit summary: "one way bans have never worked").
• "as noted frequently (including just above on this noticeboard) - such bans (one-way interaction bans) do not work."
• "the idea of a '1 way ban' has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other."
• (Basically a reiteration of the preceding comment)
• "One way interaction bans are problematic at best... I commend editors to read the ArbCom discussions thereon, and see how poorly the 'one way bans' work in general."

In light of Collect's vehement opposition to one-way interaction bans, I find his support for continuing such a ban here puzzling. I'm not sure it has any bearing on whether Xenophrenic's interaction ban should be lifted (it probably should, on a trial basis and on the basis of good behavior, particularly as the 1-way ban allows Collect to revert him with impunity). It's more that, having now spent more than 8 years on Wikipedia, my patience with hypocrisy is pretty much depleted and I find it difficult to ignore. MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

MastCell, I think there are plenty of examples of hypocrisy by all of us, myself included, that can be brought up whenever one of us is trying to push our individual agendas in these administrative forums by pushing for the sanctions to be lifted on an editor whose edits we approve of or to poison the well against an editor whose perceived bias we disapprove of. Part of the Wiki-gameplaying which makes WP such a pleasant place to be a part of. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• @Collect: if I'm understanding you correctly, you would object to the IBAN being lifted at this time, but would not object to ending it as of 1 January? I'm not clear on what difference having it run for an extra month and a half would make? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would grant this petition. AGK [•] 20:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm okay with both the t-ban and the i-ban going. Perhaps the way forward is that both are suspended immediately and if there are no problem with either by the end of the year, they both expire on 31st December. If there's enthusaism for this, I'll propose a suitably convoluted motion,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Per above colleagues. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think lifting both bans makes sense. I have no strong opinion on when or exactly how the bans are lifted, but I don't see much point in saying that we will lift them, and then imposing some odd time limit or suspension/expiration plan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• I also thinkwe can lift these. I'll propose a motion shortly if nobody else beats me too it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed:

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
2. LFaraone 02:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. And thanks for doing the motion, real life caught up with me yesterday... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
8. T. Canens (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
9. Worm^TT(talk) 08:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

---

---

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

WP:AC/DS

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

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notification)
• 41.223.50.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)

Today, John Vandenberg, an administrator, alerted me about the discretionary sanctions applying to the Eastern Europe topic area, and logged this as a "notification" on the case page, which he later changed to a "warning". Judging by an earlier comment, he did so to register his disapproval of my speedy deletion of an article created by a sock of a banned user. After I removed the alert after having read it, it was immediately reinstated by an anonymous user, 41.223.50.67.

Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts the purpose of such alerts is to advise an editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. I am and have been active as an administrator by issuing discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and am therefore perfectly aware of the existence of these sanctions, as John Vandenberg confirmed he knew. The alert therefore served no procedure-based purpose. This also applies to the unneeded logging on the case page: Unlike earlier notifications, alerts are not logged on a case page because they can be searched for with an edit filter. John Vandenberg knew this because he used the correct alert template as provided for in WP:AC/DS.

It therefore appears that John Vandenberg used the alert procedure and the log entry not to actually inform me about discretionary sanctions, but that he misused the alerts procedure to mark his disapproval of a deletion I made and to deter me from making further admin actions in this area with which he disagrees. That is disruptive because this is not the purpose of alerts, and it is not how admins are expected to communicate with each other about disagreements concerning each other's actions. It is also disruptive because it has had the effect, whether intended or not, to create the incorrect impression in another administrator that I am disqualified from acting as an admin in this topic area because I received this alert.

To the extent the now-"warning" is meant as a sanction in and of itself, it is meritless and disruptive: The speedy deletion I made was compliant with WP:CSD#G5, and does not conflict with the prior AfD because the ban evasion issue was not considered there. Any concerns about this deletion should have been discussed at deletion review.

Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts, "any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned". Nobody other than the Arbitration Committee is authorized to issue such sanctions. I therefore ask the Committee to clarify that alerts should not be used for any other than their intended purpose, and to take such actions (e.g., issuing a warning) as it deems appropriate to ensure that John Vandenberg will not continue to issue alerts disruptively. By way of appeal of discretionary sanctions, I also ask the Committee to remove the "warning" from the log as being without merit.

Prior to making this request, I discussed the issue with John Vandenberg, but we failed to reach an understanding, and he invited me to submit this matter to this forum for review.  Sandstein  16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand John Vandenberg's contention that I used admin tools while involved. I have never interacted with "Polandball" or related pages or users editorially, but only in an administrative capacity. Per WP:INVOLVED, such continued administrative activity does not speak to bias (even if others may not agree with the admin actions), but is instead merely part of an admin's job. John Vandenberg's casting of unfounded aspersions of misusing admin tools and of "battleground mentality" is also disruptive. As I said elsewhere, I did fail to take into consideration that my alerting the user who filed a DRV request concerning an AfD I closed might be perceived as an improperly adversarial action, even though an alert is not supposed to be one and I didn't oppose the restoration of the article proposed at DRV. I'll keep this in mind in a similar future situation. Nonetheless, because alerts may be issued by anyone, including involved users, the alert raises no question of involvement.

As concerns the "warning", either it is meant as a discretionary sanction for misconduct (as the warning by me he cites was) and in this case is appealed here as meritless and disruptive, or it is not and has therefore no place in a log under the new procedures.  Sandstein  18:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

John Vandenberg: Alerts are not admin actions because they neither require advanced permissions nor are they restricted to administrators. But neither are they editorial actions that speak to bias and would disqualify an admin that issues them, because they are intended to be neutral and informative in nature. Are you seriously contending that merely issuing an alert makes me involved and unable to act as an administrator, and on that basis you alerted and warned me? It should be obvious that this can't be the case, if only because by that logic your own warning would be inadmissible because it was preceded by your alert which would have disqualified you from acting further.

This episode indicates, to me, that this whole alerts system is unworkably cludgy and may need to be scrapped if even former arbitrators can't understand it, and that perhaps general clarification is needed that discretionary sanctions and alerts are, shall we we say, not the ideal way to respond to concerns about admin actions - such concerns are normally a matter for the Committee alone.  Sandstein  21:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

To my mind, Sandstein is obviously 'WP:INVOLVED' in the current DRV about Polandball, however not surprisingly he claims to be uninvolved. To quickly recap, he is the admin who deleted the article at DRV; when notified of the DRV, he decided to issue a DS alert to the person who initiated the DRV, and speedy delete another related article which had survived an AFD and was mentioned on the current DRV. When User:Nick undid the speedy deletion, Sandstein also demanded that Nick redelete it. IMO, this is fairly clear battleground mentality, only including the use of admin buttons for good measure. All quite unnecessary, as a sizable chunk of the community would participate in the DRV, so his voice there would be heard. It is very strange logic that Sandstein felt he had to alert user:Josve05a about discretionary sanctions, but objects to me feeling the same way about his own editing/admining in this topical area. He claims his alert to user:Josve05a was not an admin action (otherwise he would surely run afoul of 'WP:INVOLVED'), but then cant see he is participating as a normal contributor. Maybe he considers a DS alert to be a friendly chat, when he gives one to someone else ...

Anyway, the nature of this clarification is the use of alerts and the logging of them on case pages. Obviously some serious saber rattling would have quickly occurred had I sanctioned Sandstein, so I went with an alert only with a stern message with the hope he could see how others were viewing it. He didnt; he continued to post aggressively. When I found the right DS alert template and posted it, the edit filter notice reminded me to check if he had been notified any time in the last 12 months, and press Save again if I was sure it had not occurred. As I didnt find any prior notices (in edit filter log or on talk page archives), I proceeded to save the alert. I then went to the relevant arbcase to log it as is the usual procedure. I knew DS had been standardised earlier this year, and was pleasantly surprised by the edit filter logging, but it didnt occur to me that alerts would not be logged. The arbcase log for the EE case had all the signs of logging being part of the standard procedure.

Since Sandstein objected to the logging, I went and had a look at other cases and found quite a few examples of the log including notifications and warnings; I did offer to give Sandstein examples of such notices and warnings, but we are here now. Here are the ones that I've quickly found in arbcom case logs since April 2014.

• notice by user:JHunterJ - April
• warning by user:Callanecc - May 2014
• warning & alert - user:Tom Reedy - June 2014
• warning by .. Sandstein .. - July 2014
• alert by user:Drmies - August 2014
• caution by user:HJ Mitchell - September 2014
• warning by user:EdJohnston - September 2014

If it is no longer appropriate to log alerts/notices/warnings on the arbcom case, an edit filter should be added to ensure admins are aware of this change. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein, when you put a notice on user talk:Josve05a, were you doing that as an admin or as a normal user? If it was the "editor Sandstein" who popped that friendly note on user talk:Josve05a, and not the "admin Sandstein", can't you see that you've become INVOLVED? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein, so you issued a DS alert to user talk:Josve05a with your "editor Sandstein" hat on, and you want admins to be exempt from discretionary sanctions? Thanks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've nothing to add to the clarification and amendment section, but I will state, as I have repeatedly said, I'm really getting fed up watching good content be deleted and destroyed as a result of battleground mentality. It genuinely makes me sad watching material that people have put their heart and soul into, being deleted because it was written by this week's bogeyman. Nick (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise. The CSD-G5 criteria cannot be used on any page that has survived a deletion discussion (AfD). The CSD-G5 deletion by Sandstein was out of process. Please refer to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_that_have_survived_deletion_discussions for further information. Regards, Nick (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If the DS alert is going to be used without a sting it has to be used for everyone all the time. Its common for editors to know an article is under DS, but this isn't something one can assume. Of course, the use of the alert can been abused and can be seen as threatening. Use that is universal will over time render the warning as commonplace and standard, will de sting. Whether it was used in this instance as an implied threat, I don't know or care. Behind many of the actions I've seen against editors over the years are threats, some so complex as to be almost invisible. I know how that feels, so am not condoning anything that threatens but unless we deal with the surface level of an action and ignore assumption we will never get to supportive editing situations.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC))

• DS alerts may be placed by any editor.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC))

One of the goals of the recent reforms which turned "warnings" to "alerts" was to remove the stigma of the warning/alert. Apparently, that stigma is alive and well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Giving a "warning" is an administrative function. Its only purpose is administration of the website. No, a User does not have to have privileges to do much of administration on Wikipedia. The idea is anathema to the community, which expects good users to administer, even to requiring such at RfAdmin, moreover, the website would not function, if users did not step up. So no, giving a warning does not mean one is INVOLVED. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

John Vandenberg's actions in this case are wrong on so many levels at once it's hard to know where to start. About his technical misunderstanding of the nature of alerts and the non-logging of "warnings", I think all has been said. More importantly, his warning was wrong on its merits. As for the speedying of Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? (the only issue he actually mentioned in the warning), Sandstein was processing a valid G5 speedy; the fact that there had been an earlier "keep" AfD is obviously irrelevant as long as the facts justifying the speedy weren't known and discussed during the AfD. As for Sandstein's actions in the Polandball issue, which seems to be what John Vandenberg is really more concerned about, the claim that he was showing an inadmissable battleground attitude is utter nonsense when you look at his actual, very measured and balanced, comments in that DRV. Finally, the "warning", whether logged or not, was also out of process. A "warning" under DS means that I, an administrator, will hand out a block or topic ban to you, the person I am warning, if you repeat the behaviour I am warning you over. Does John Vandenberg seriously believe he would be entitled to block Sandstein if he did a G5 speedy like this again in the future? That beggars belief. Even if John Vandenberg had legitimate reasons to be concerned over Sandstein's actions, then his recourse would be not to impose "sanctions" on him, but to ask Arbcom to review Sandstein's actions; that, however, is not in any way inside the scope of what the DS are about, and therefore also doesn't belong in the DS logs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This request is eerily similar to this one made some time ago, where four editors were given "civility warnings" by Sandstein, apparently at random. The result of the clarification request was a delinking of the four names in the ARBATC case page. If any action other than delinking is recommended for the current situation, it would only be reasonable to revisit the other situation as well. —Neotarf (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps AGK needs to take a step back and reconsider what it is that is being said rather than apparently typing rash replies. I am sure it would not be difficult to demonstrate how involved they have been in this "DS" rewrite project (on or off wiki), and maybe that is why he is naturally inclined to be defensive of it (even bordering what people term as ownership mentality - eg "I have spent hours editing this....").

I recall he previously said in relation to this topic (but on a separate matter) 'I will not have it said that any issue relating to DS has been rashly dismissed, particularly after an exhausting, year-long consultation. I'm sorry to have to point out that you are not coming in at the eleventh hour, but a year and a half late.' But the simple fact is, there is genuine concern or criticism regarding how convoluted and time-consuming the DS system is to the vast majority of users, and even if it is now two years later, I am sorry to say his replies below do seem to me to rashly dismiss those concerns ([26][27]) and are not consistent with what is expected here.

It is so patently obvious that a number of editors, administrators, and for that matter, former arbitrators and current arbitrators have in fact needed to take quite a bit of time to go through this 'system', and that it is by no means 'simple', 'easy to use', or 'working' by extension. Now that this reality is finally noted, I would suggest at least the rest of Committee rectifies the issue. It would be good if that happened. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I too would repeat this comment by A Quest For Knowledge. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

• When I get back from a trip on Monday, I will wade into the technicalities here. For now, I will simply note that Russavia is surely laughing his ass off at the drama he is causing here without even trying. Let's all try not to give him more reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I spent the past half hour or so reading over the back-story to this request, and perhaps I am in the advanced stages of serving out my last term as an arbitrator, but I really wish I hadn't. Let's back up a step. "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality encyclopedia, in an environment of collaboration and community among the contributors." The entire administrative apparatus, including "discretionary sanctions" and the arbitration process and the other WP: pages where some of us spend too much of our wikitime, is ancillary to the objectives of Wikipedia that brought us all here. Debating the rules of these administrative processes should not become, in intent or in effect, an end in itself. Put differently, if the bickering about the rule-sets governing administrative processes on Wikipedia has become more complicated than some of the real-world rule-sets that I interpret every day as a litigation attorney, something is wrong. The dispute, or set of disputes, crystalized in this request is so many levels removed from the purpose and objectives of Wikipedia that it is sad. Beyond that, I will leave sorting out the fine points here to my colleagues who were more active in the DS recodification project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    • What? I do not think it fair to say that anyone in this request is requesting clarification with non-constructive motives. These editors have a legitimate need of a ruling here, and you cannot legitimately refuse to be understanding of that and still expect the project's administrators to do their job. AGK [•] 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• There is an alarming failure here to grasp the distinction between the two relevant procedural entities. Cautions or warnings are sanctions and need logged; alerts (previously known as notices) are not sanctions and carry no implicit accusation of guilt. These two used to be more or less the same thing. In the recent update of procedures, they were split off and it is wrong to interchange them. John Vandenberg needs to decide whether he wanted to caution and sanction Sandstein (it appears he did) or alert him. If it is the former, he should issue Sandstein with a hand-written caution (and delete the alert template, which he may not use for that purpose). If it is the latter, Sandstein is already aware per point II of the relevant procedure and he must not attempt to 're-alert' him. I accept JV's claim that he was not aware of the changes in procedure, but I would remind him and all administrators generally that, before engaging in this process, you must take five minutes to update yourself on these changes. If you do not, you can be sanctioned by the committee, and given that this process is hardly in its infancy you are likely to find the committee exercises this right.

  On the complaint of JV about Sandstein, my position is that it cannot be heard in this venue. With the procedural confusion clarified (not that there should have been any in the first place), I suggest JV take this complaint up, perhaps with a handful of other administrators, directly with Sandstein. Neither party appears to have made an adequate effort to resolve this together, despite, as administrators, being obliged to do so. Should those attempts prove futile, a proper case request should then be filed. AGK [•] 12:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• I essentially agree with AGK. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• I also agree with AGK. T. Canens (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• As do I. Worm^TT(talk) 08:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• And I. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• I do as well but it's frustrating the amount of time I had to spend, back several months ago, to get a solid grasp of how this system works. Brad makes a point: the system is quite complicated, and has become a bit of a self-contained beast. While I was able to pick it up, I'm afraid it would simply be incredibly daunting for any new user to navigate. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• AGK summarises things well but makes one key mis-step. He asks that: "I would remind him and all administrators generally that, before engaging in this process, you must take five minutes to update yourself on these changes." The response by NativeForeigner and NYB show that the estimate of 'five minutes' to update oneself on these changes is a woeful underestimate. What is needed here is some feedback from newer admins on how easy it is to understand the system as it currently stands. It is also incredibly important that ordinary editors, especially those potentially facing sanctions, find the system easy to use. If the system fails that test, then it will be unfit for purpose. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Carcharoth: DS is easy to understand, because we put months of effort into writing polished, clear documentation for it. NYB and NF are not good test cases: while voting earlier this year, they had to get to grips with both the new system and the changes made from the old system. Current administrators merely need to read and follow WP:AC/DS.

  More to the point, the new system is working. Let us leave it at that. AGK [•] 06:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there's much useful left to add at this point. I'll ask the clerks to archive it,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by Hawkeye7 (talk) at 09:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

Civility enforcement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 1

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Self, no confirmation needed

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Hawkeye7 desysopped

As of December 2014, I have contributed to 39 Featured Articles, a featured list, 75 A class articles, 178 Good Articles, and 163 DYK articles. I have been active as a MILHIST administrator, being re-elected to a fourth term in September 2014. In this capacity I have assessed articles, closed A class reviews, and written articles and reviews for the MILHIST newsletter. I assist at DYK with reviews and assembly of the prep areas. I have also written and maintained the MilHistBot and FACBot used by the featured article and MILHIST A-class article processes, and for updating the MILHIST announcements page. I was runner up in the WikiCup in 2013.

I have been involved with GLAM work with the Australian War Memorial and the Australian Paralympic Committee. I was instructor in four Wikimedia Australia workshops, and an accredited Wikimedia media representative at the Paralympic Games in London in 2012, where I filed stories and interviews for Wikinews, and worked on keeping the Paralympic articles up to the minute. Since then I have continued expanding the Paralympic articles, particularly relating to wheelchair basketball and rugby, and the games in Sochi in 2014. I attended Wikimania in Hong Kong in 2013 on a scholarship from the Wikimedia Foundation. I also ran, albeit unsuccessfully, for the post of president of our Australian chapter.

In all of these activities, the loss of my admin tool set has been keenly felt. It is embarrassing to have to file constant requests for admin assistance, and painful to watch DYK run late because I cannot reset the queues. I am not seeking to have my admin status returned; merely to be restored to being a editor in good standing with the community by having the verdict against me vacated. Per WP:CLOUD: exceptions may exist in some cases, for example reinstatement may be by Arbcom appeal or perhaps consensus was reached to leave the matter a particular way at the time. This often happens in cases where passage of time is needed to decide what is fair, where demanding reaffirmation could actually be seen as unfair or impractical. ArbCom retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.

An earlier request in 2012 so I could be a candidate in the ArbCom election that year was dismissed without prejudice to refiling at a later date, on the grounds that ArbCom was fully engaged in that year's elections. I was hoping that the community might adopt proposed measures to supplement or replace the RfA process. Chances of reform have now dimmed, but I chose to wait until after a recent case had close before refiling. ArbCom have criticised me for being a poor politician, but I have always tried to do the right thing, and I hope that the Committee will consider this request.

@Thryduulf I am asking for the verdict against me to be vacated. The last sentence differs from the conventional wording, "may regain the tools via a request for adminship". In my case, ArbCom retained the right to overturn the RfA verdict. It also precludes the use of an alternate mechanism in the event of reform of the RfA process.

@Newyorkbrad Thanks for your comments. You will be sorely missed when you leave ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade The admonishment was part of the Racepacket case. A conflict between an editor (LauraHale) who was a close friend of mine, and one called Racepacket spiralled out of control, with Racepacket harassing her, and attempting to contact her employer about her Wikipedia editing. This resulted in an RfC/U, and then an ArbCom case. My part was quite minor. The Olympics Project decided to rename one of the articles she was editing, and had up for GA review. Racepacket jumped in, and the GA bot became confused, resulting in multiple copies of the review being generated. The tools were needed to fix this problem, so I stepped in. When Racepacket interfered, I blocked him for 48 hours while I repaired the articles. It was very wrong of me to do this. Another admin (Ironholds) reviewed my block, found that it was improper because I was WP:INVOLVED, and switched the block to a more reasonable one of a week. When the case went to ArbCom, my bad block was again reviewed, and I was rightly admonished by the Committee. There was only one admonishment. Ironically, while the case was ongoing, ArbCom put a stay on my content work, so I only did admin work for a time. ArbCom criticised me for issuing very few blocks, so I became more involved in this area. Racepacket's one year ban was subsequently extended after he made comments about me on another Wiki, which ArbCom did not choose to share with me. Every now and then one of his socks shows up, and I file another SPI.Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade The second case, which happened a year later, involved the editor now known as Eric Corbett. I had never had any interaction with him before, and knew nothing of him. When I came in, he had been blocked by one admin, and then promptly unblocked by another. He then said this, and I blocked him. The case went to ArbCom, which defined wheel-warring as "undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator". At the time I believed that I had not done this, but ArbCom ruled otherwise. The one week block was not overturned. During an appeal for admin assistance I said that Eric seems to be a koala (an Australian military term meaning a protected species). This was considered an egregious personal attack, but I had not meant it that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade I would prefer never to block anyone again. Ever. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano You seem to have forgotten that you wheel warred by lifting my block without any attempt at discussion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano Citation required. Point me to the section that says that ArbCom clerks are above the law, and I will give you one of my signed golden apologies. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs I have not been in any trouble for three years, but that means little because the case continues. I find it very difficult to believe that the remedy ArbCom adopted was the best possible under the circumstances. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf I found some more:

• MONGO 2 (January 2008)
• Tango 2 (October 2009)
• Herostratus 2 (June 2010)
• Jéské Couriano 2 (August 2011)
• PumpkinSky (October 2012)
• MONGO 3 (November 2012)
• Piotrus 2 (May 2013)

• There were two successful ones, both in May 2011, neither of whom had been desysopped for cause:

• SarekOfVulcan (May 2011)
• HJ Mitchell (May 2011)

When ArbCom votes to desysop, it does so with the expectation that the admin may leave immediately after their desyop. Up to 2010, 13 out of 29, or nearly half, did so. (This is not counting 13 more who were also blocked.) Since 2010 though, only one has done so; another 11 chose to stay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@ GorillaWarfare: (1) I am not going to run for ArbCom. (2) The remedy specifies only RfA, so if another mechanism is put in place, it is not available to me. (3) ArbCom retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time So the clause about RfA can be removed by a vote by ArbCom. Therefore, the result of any RfA would be subject to ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth The practice of desysopped admins leaving was brought up by Jclemens in 2011, so there was an assumption (well-founded) that desysopped admins will leave. It has now dropped to 1 in 12, which is about the same as editors leaving after being rejected by RfA. The Arbs would have that figure in mind when making any decision about desyopping. (Some of the desysopped admins have since left, but it is not possible to tell whether or to what extent their desysopping entered into the decision.) Another change since 2010 has been the interpretation of WP:CLOUD by the bureaucrats, which is now less literal and more expansive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox I was asking for permission to not have to use RfA, which is broken, and I felt that ArbCom's handling of the case, which has gone on for another three years, was a compelling reason. Are saying that any alternative to RfA is precluded? Are you saying that RfA is the only indicator of the trust of the community and that desysopped admins should either face RfA or leave? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent That's a good reason, but he could have and should have asked me to lift the block instead of "undoing each others' administrative actions without ... discussion with the initiating administrator". Salvio's comment was directed at me; it was not a ban or a restriction on Eric, who was perfectly entitled to do what he did, which was to go on editing as usual. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The relevant remedy reads, in full, "Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time."

Given the last sentence, I don't understand what is being asked of the committee? It seems clear to me that ArbCom has declared that it has no objection to the community giving Hawkeye7 admin status following a request at RFA whenever they (the community) feel he can be trusted with the tools - there is no need to get the committee's permission to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I'm not reading the power of veto in that sentence that you are, particularly as the "conventional wording" post-dates your case. RFA reform has been in discussion for a long time, but serious proposals for the way forward being an alternative process first emerged long after your case so the intent of the restriction is clearly only to distinguish between requesting adminship from the arbitration committee and requesting it from the community (or from Jimbo).

In any case I don't see the need for this to be vacated - at most replacing the final sentence with the now standard wording or "Hawkeye7 may regain the tools following a successful request for adminship at RFA or alternative community-sanctioned process". However, I think all that is actually needed is a clarification from the Committee that the wording used here means the same thing as the standard wording.

To avoid the issue arising again in future, it may be worth the committee explicitly stating (by motion?) that if the community sanctions an alternative process or processes to the current RFA (whether a direct replacement or not) then any editor who has been desysopped by the Committee with instruction/allowance to reapply at RFA or by "request for adminship" may use such any alternative process (they would be entitled to use if they had never held the tools in the first place) without explicit permission from the Committee. I would strongly encourage them to use better wording than that though! Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: I am not aware of any such list, but I've looked through all the closed nominations from 2014, and this year there have been three former administrators who stood at RFA. All of them resigned under a cloud rather than being actively desysopped, and all three were unsuccessful:

• SarekOfVulcan 3 (resigned March 2013, self-nominated at RFA January 2014)
• Piotrus 3 (resigned November 2009, nominated by Malik Shabazz and Cirt in February 2014)
• Mkativerata 2 (resigned February 2012, self-nominated August 2014)

It's now 2am, so I haven't looked at 2013 or earlier and probably wont get time to do so for a day or two. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7:

Are [you] [Beeblebrox] saying that any alternative to RfA is precluded? Are you saying that RfA is the only indicator of the trust of the community and that desysopped admins should either face RfA or leave?

I think it is clear what is meant here:

• If you want to be an administrator again on the English Wikipedia you must ask the community.
• You can ask the community at any time.
• You can ask the community by way of an RFA
• If or when an alternative or replacement process for RFA exists, you may use that process to ask the community to grant you adminship
• Arbcom will not overrule the wish of the community expressed at RFA (or other community process)
• Arbcom will not grant you adminship without you having asked the community at RFA (or other community process)
• Arbcom will not vacate their original ruling, because it was accurate at the time and does not prevent you asking the community for adminship at any time.
• Editors who have been desysopped by the arbitration committee have the following options available to them:
  1. Appeal to Jimbo
  2. Appeal to the committee (iff there has been a mistake or new evidence arises)
  3. Ask the community for adminship at RFA (or other community process)
  4. Continue to improve the project as a normal editor
  5. Leave the project

  Option 4 is, for editors who have not also been banned, always the preferred outcome in the short term. Longer term, options 3 and 4 are equally desirable.

Speaking personally, I'm starting to perceive your attitude as expressing a lack of trust in the community because they might not agree with you that your desysopping was a great injustice and the project needs you back as an administrator. It also feels like you are trying to use your adminship as an ultimatum - resysop me or I will leave and never come back, and see how much worse off the project will be without me. None of which are traits I look favourably on in admin candidates. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've worked with Hawkeye at MilHist and DYK and I have the utmost respect for his work. He has made some mistakes in the past, and I won't dispute that the events leading up to the desysop were—shall we say—not his finest hour, but I thought at the time (and, now that I know Hawkeye better, have no doubt) that the 'personal attack' was a misguided attempt at humour with no malice intended. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then (as near as makes almost no difference, three years' worth—half a lifetime on Wikipedia). I believe Hawkeye has redeemed himself, and has amply demonstrated his trustworthiness. If we had a suitable process for (re-)appointing administrators, Hawkeye would be an admin again. But the standards at RfA have little, if anything, to do with what would make a good admins and more to do with extracting a pound of flesh from candidates in retribution for perceived wrongs by the candidate, RfA, Wikipedia, The System™, or something else.

Although I understand the reluctance to get back to reinstating removed admin rights, ArbCom does have the ultimate ability (ArbCom giveth, ArbCom taketh away, blessed be the name of ArbCom!) to do so, and I would echo Anthony's comments that devolving such authority to the community (while in principle an idea I heartily support) while the community has no functional process to make such decisions would be unwise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

An analogy comes to mind that, to me, nicely addresses the jurisdictional/constitutional argument against this request: for ever other remedy, ArbCom retains the sole jurisdiction to vacate the remedy. ArbCom is not in the habit of posting appeals by editors it has site-banned on ANI, nor does it tell editors topic-banned by arbitration remedy to appeal to the community, so why would it insist that an admin desysopped by remedy go through RfA (which, as a side issue, is a broken process that is the greatest act of masochism on Wikipedia)? It seems out of sync with all other arbitration remedies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hawkeye is crystal clear that he is not asking the Committee to restore his admin bit. Why then is almost the entire response from the Committee discussing Committee re-sysopping? Of course if the Committee were to take such action it would be welcome, no doubt, but perhaps it is better to focus first on the question of restoring the more intangible but more important "good standing". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

Hawkeye7 demonstrated quite clearly at the recent GGTF ArbCom case that he has not moved on and is still carrying his grudges around with him. It would be a grave mistake for him to be re-sysopped without undergoing an RfA. Eric Corbett 18:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Procedures_and_roles states "The clerks' functions include the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages." Obviously an editor has to be unblocked if the committee desires they participate on case page; Salvio's unblock statement made it clear the purpose was not to allow the individual to return to editing the rest of the project. NE Ent 21:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The record of Salvio's unblock is clear [28]; he unblocked Eric at 10:51, 22 December 2011, "Clerk note: I've just unblocked you for the limited purpose of responding to this request.", Eric replied he would not participate and requested a reblock, which 28 bytes did at 18:08, 22 December 2011. Eric made no edits outside his talk page during that period. [29] NE Ent 12:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

• Hi @Hawkeye7: That is indeed a stellar body of work. It is true that we still have jurisdiction over the case but, even at that time, the committee was moving away from reinstating sysop privileges (something it had once regularly done) and leaving it to the community to make the call. There is no bar to you going to RFA and this is touched on in the remedy discussion. ArbCom has been seeking for some time to return peripheral responsibilities (which it has had foisted on it as part of a delegation of God-King powers) and, regretfully, this is one which I would be very reluctant to resurrect.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • As far I can see, the last time ArbCom resysopped someone was in 2009. Since then, the updated Arbitration policy has been ratified, giving ArbCom authority in its own right and incidentally superseding our earlier authority as a delegation of Jimmy's powers (which includes the power to sysop). In the process, the policy limited ArbCom's jurisdiction to removing sysop privileges.

    However, we do have the authority, as part of our ongoing jurisdiction over cases, to restore the tools when we withdrew them because a fatal error in an earlier decision. We have never been down this route because truly fatal errors are rare and because we are not in the business of re-writing history for the dozens of former admins who were desysopped by us or resigned under a cloud.

    The sysop/desysop process has three components: (a) community consensus, which determines who may receive the tools but not who may lose them; (b) ArbCom, whose decisions determine when an admin loses the tools but not who may gain them; and (c) the bureaucrats who independently and after due diligence execute the sysop/desysop process and we have no authority (apart from a vague term in the "Management of websites" section of the Terms of Use) to compel them.

    What ArbCom certainly does have the jurisdiction to do - always assuming that sufficient cogent arguments and persuasive examples would be provided to convince arbitrators to accept - is hear a case about serious conduct issues arising at RFA, the resulting toxicity/dysfuntionality of the RFA environment, and the consequent misapplication of policy/guidelines there. In such a situation, ArbCom could issue temporary injunctions, mandate a binding RFC to resolve the issues, or impose procedures to ensure that RFA is policy-compliant, and issue injunctions in the interim.

    In other words, while ArbCom cannot resysop desysopped individual admins by fiat, it can do something within the framework of a case.

     Roger Davies ^talk 13:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Awaiting further statements. My preliminary reaction to this request differs from Roger's in that I would be open to restoring adminship to an administrator we had previously desysopped where circumstances warranted, consistent with decisions this Committee has made on occasions in the past. ¶ In this instance, I cast the sole vote in opposition to desysopping Hawkeye7 in the original case in February 2012 (see, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision#Hawkeye7 desysopped). My view at that time was that while Hawkeye7 had significantly mishandled the incident that led to the case, there were mitigating factors, one of which was that the matter would likely never have come before this Committee at all if it had not happened to involve a particular editor, and another of which was that I saw little likelihood of repetition of the incident. ¶ If Hawkeye7's description above of his contributions since February 2012 is a fair one, which I have no reason to doubt but on while I will await community input, I believe that more than two and one-half years away from adminship would be a sufficient sanction for the misconduct we found, and I would be inclined to vote to grant this request. ¶ That being said, based on evolution in this Committee's practices in recent years, I anticipate that this approach might not receive majority support from my colleagues. In that event, I hope that the community would be open to a new request from Hawkeye7 at RfA (particularly if he agrees in such request to avoid controversial blocks). In addition, if the community were to create a new or revised approach to selecting administrators in addition to or in lieu of RfA, nothing in our prior decision would bar Hawkeye7 from applying and being considered under such approach. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • For crystal clarity:
    • (1) No one is disputing that Hawkeye7 is eligible to file a new RfA at any time if he chooses to, and that if he passes the RfA, he will be an administrator again without any action required by this Committee. In the past, on occasion we have imposed "do not resysop without ArbCom's permission" only in a couple of cases where heavy non-public information was involved in a desysopping. This is not in that category and we specifically did not make that statement here.
    • (2) No one is disputing that if the community creates a new avenue for selecting administrators, in addition to or in lieu of RfA, then Hawkeye7 is eliglble to apply for that avenue without ArbCom's permission either beforehand or afterwards. The wording of the remedy adopted several years ago, long before the current discussion about potentially replacing or supplementing RfA, was not at all intended to lock in the then- or now-current RfA system. If anyone thinks there is genuine as opposed to theoretical doubt about this point even after this thread, we can pass a motion, but I think it would be the height of bureaucracy.
    • (3) When I initially read Hawkeye7's amendment request here, I took his statements about how he could use admin tools again, has contributed well in the past three years, and didn't think RfA was really open to him as a request that we restore his adminship. If that is not what he meant, I think the clarification we have provided has achieved the purpose of his request. I remain open to considering terminating the sanction and restoring his adminship by Committee motion if he were to make that request, but the point is moot if it is not what he is or was requesting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Like Newyorkbrad I actually believe the committee should, in some cases, move to restore an administrator's status. That said, although I have never interacted with him directly, my one memory of seeing Hawkeye on the encyclopedia outside the original case gave me a dim impression of him. On balance, I am undecided about this appeal. Although I disagree with the shift towards non-motion adminship restoration, I am also not minded to grant the petition for this particular user. I will continue considering and will read further statements with interest. AGK [•] 20:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thryduulf says, "serious proposals for the way forward being an alternative process" – RFA is unfit for purpose, as the entire project accepts, and it is therefore an unsuitable recipient of the committee's delegation of powers. AGK [•] 20:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Close with no further action. AGK [•] 13:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be minded to at least consider such a request. As AGK says, we all well know the current incarnation of modern RfA has its issues, to put it mildly. However, I would want to see the request, rather than say "I've done great things on articles and it's been a while since the issue," directly and specifically address the issues that led to both the initial admonishment and later desysop, and explain how Hawkeye7 intends to ensure that a third such incident will never happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• The FOF was accurate and the consequent remedy was appropriate. In light of this, I think we should not vacate the relevant part of our decision. And, although I agree that the RFA system is broken and that it's far too difficult for good users to become administrators, I recognise that the principle so far has always been that the community grants the tools and ArbCom may review their use. ArbCom's remit is very limited and does not include the power to interfere in how the community appoints administrators, even if we were to consider it dysfunctional.

  I can see us regranting adminiship when we made a mistake, or when new evidence comes to light which should have been taken into consideration but wasn't or other, similar, and exceptional cases. This, in my opinion, is not one of them and I don't see why we should treat Hawkeye any differently from any other editor who wished to become a sysop simply because he already was one before being desysopped for cause. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I most definitely did not wheel war and I'll thank you for removing your unfounded accusation. Being one of the case clerks, I unblocked Eric for the sole purpose of allowing him to participate in the arbitration case about him, as was (and is) customary. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Salvio on this matter. I don't see the original FoF and remedy to be incorrect. As such, Hawkeye can reapply for adminship via an RfA at any time, but I don't see where it's acceptable for us to return it by fiat at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm a bit confused as to why you're asking for the verdict to be vacated. You said above that you're not looking to have your admin status returned. You also say that ArbCom has the right to overturn the result of your potential RfA, but I don't agree that that's included anywhere in the remedy. The only reasons you seem to mention are so you can stand for election to the Arbitration Committee, or pursue re-adminship, neither of which is prevented in the remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Newyorkbrad that 'more than two and one-half years away from adminship would be a sufficient sanction for the misconduct'. I also agree with Hawkeye7 when he says 'I find it very difficult to believe that the remedy ArbCom adopted was the best possible under the circumstances.' It would be better for ArbCom to recognise that a new RFA is difficult to near-impossible for desysopped admins, and to leave open a pathway for reinstatement of tools in some cases. However, given the resistance to that expressed by arbitrators here, what I would suggest Hawkeye7 do is the following: (i) make a list of all the times when the tools would have helped you in your routine activities around Wikipedia; (ii) At some suitable point, make a request for adminship and point to that list (if necessary, pledging not to use the blocking component of the tools); (iii) if the request for adminship fails or narrowly fails, then continue to make a list of the times when it would have helped you to have the tools, and continue to make your case to the community and/or ArbCom that someone needs to reform things so that we aren't in the silly position where routine use of the non-controversial components of the admin toolset are denied to long-term contributors who are clearly here to work on building the encyclopedia. (The same applies to any other editor who might struggle to pass RFA, but clearly would benefit from being able to use parts of the toolset). Incidentally, does anyone here know when the last time was that a desysopped admin made a request at RFA (both successful and unsuccessful)? Or even a complete list of such cases. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Thryduulf and Hawkeye7 for the examples. There are some other examples I am aware of where an administrator resigned the tools under a cloud (to be complete, those examples should be included as well) and didn't manage a successful return through RFA (the example I remember because I participated in the second RfA is Sam Blacketer 2). I agree entirely with what Newyorkbrad said in his 15:07, 9 December 2014 comments. Hawkeye7 is wrong to say that there is an assumption that desysopped admins will leave. The default should be that they stay and carry on building the encyclopedia (as Hawkeye7 has done), regain their good standing through their own efforts (as Hawkeye7 has done, IMO), and at some future point submit an RfA again if they wish to do so (this appears to be the sticking point). That is how it should work in theory. I think it can work in practice as well. RfA is not so broken that it rejects those who demonstrate a clear need for the tools and allow enough time to pass. I didn't participate as an arbitrator in the case where Hawkeye7 was desysopped (I wasn't on the committee), but I would likely participate in and support a future RfA if Hawkeye7 chose to file one, purely on the basis that granting the tools should not be such a big deal. The admin tools should be able to be taken away easily and returned easily, not built up to be something difficult to obtain and difficult to take away. Finally, if such an RfA passed, ArbCom would not be able to step in and overturn the result without justifying such an action (and from what I've seen, there would be nothing to justify such an action). ArbCom have not retained jurisdiction in this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• I don't agree that RfA is not fit for purpose - RfA is a place where you have to show the community that you're good enough to be an admin. There may well be better processes, but we don't have them yet - and RfA keeps the right people out and lets most of the right people through. Secondly, I do not approve of Arbcom reinstating the tools. The community absolutely needs a proper voice in such matters, and RfA is the right place to go. I would be willing to support a "statement" that sufficient time has passed that Hawkeye7 should be allowed to run through an RfA (which is not required, but may help), but I would not support vacating the Arbcom remedy. Worm^TT(talk) 12:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• If Hawkeye wishes to be an admin again, he will need to ask the community to trust him again, and the way to do that is through RFA. I don't see a compelling case here to vacate the remedy, which on no way stops him from filing an RFA whenever he wishes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• I certainly (might, pending review) support this user's RfA, but I'm not in favor of vacating the remedy. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)