Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 104

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100←Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105Archive 106→Archive 110
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130


Clarification request: NadirAli unblock conditions (July 2018)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Ivanvector at 16:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Nadirali unblocked

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Ivanvector

I'm requesting clarification of NadirAli's unblock conditions, which included a topic ban which was later suspended and then presumably rescinded as part of the suspension motion. The first bullet of the unblock conditions describes the topic ban and also the remedies for enforcement of the topic ban. The second bullet specifies that NadirAli may not edit from an alternate account nor "anonymously" (which I have taken to mean editing while logged out) but does not separately specify enforcement remedies. I have two questions:

  1. Are the enforcement provisions given with the first bullet meant to apply only to violations of the topic ban or to violations of the entire set of unblock conditions?
  2. Is the suspension of the topic ban meant to apply specifically exclusively to the topic ban, or to all of the unblock conditions as a whole? i.e. do any of the unblock conditions remain in effect?

Thanks for your time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NadirAli

Statement by RaviC

I appreciate that Ivanvector has brought this to Arbcom for clarification. As per the standards of blocking policy for sockpuppetry, the sockmaster with his socks is indeffed for repeated offences. An indefinite block is completely justified in this case since this is not the first time that NadirAli is guilty of sock puppetry, but many many times.[1]

Furthermore, we must not forget that NadirAli evaded his siteban, topic ban, one-account restriction and image upload ban throughout these 10 years. --RaviC (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

NadirAli unblock conditions: Clerk notes

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

NadirAli unblock conditions: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I obviously wasn't on the committee then, but I read it as only the topic ban being lifted, not the single account restriction, and that he is specifically prohibited from editing while logged out. If he didn't violate the topic ban suspension conditions for that one-year period, then the topic ban is no longer in effect. If he's socking, he gets treated like we'd treat anyone else with a repeated history of sockpuppetry. Katietalk 00:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Katie. ~ Rob13Talk 00:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Katie summed it up perfectly. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I was on the committee at the time, indeed I believe I enacted the unblock, and I too agree with Katie. The single account restriction is still in force, the topic ban is not. WormTT(talk) 09:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    RaviC, you make a strong argument for a site ban, but I'm not comfortable with a siteban by motion as many of the members of the current committee were not on the committee for the original case. Were there a subsequent case, we may well agree with you, but there are places to deal with each of the behaviours, from AE to SPI to ANI. If you still strongly feel that the site ban should be put in place, why not suggest it at AN with your explanation. There's no reason that the community cannot pass a ban based on past behaviour. WormTT(talk) 08:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Magioladitis 1 & 2 (August 2018)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Magioladitis at 00:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Magioladitis arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Magioladitis 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

  • [diff of notification Username]
  • [diff of notification Username]

Statement by Magioladitis

I would like a clarification in a series of things that concern my restrictions.

  1. I would like a clarification whether if I am allowed to add/remove/modify errors on WP:CHECKWIKI project. With or without determining the nature of the Error in question.
  2. Moreover, in case 1 there is a remaining task of encouraging the community to determine which edits are cosmetic and which are not. This affects WP:CHECKWIKI project directly since it contains 100+ errors which are defined as "cosmetic" or "not cosmetic" I would like to know if Arbom has any plan of how to determine whether the 14 CHECKWIKI errors that have uknown status should be marked with yes or no. Is there ant way that the community will be informed about the problem and of what are the posisble ways to solve it?
  3. I also would like to know if my restrictions also apply to discussions on WP:CHECKWIKI project and not only about policies. Am I allowed to participate in discussions to detrmine which errors can be added to the project?
  4. One more thing: Does the new watclist system affect the discussion held on these two cases? It turns that a watchlist system similar to what I was describing has finally been implemented making the "flooding watchlist" argument weaker. Will this affect my restrictions on automatic editing in a positive way for me?

Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Callanecc:

Question 1: List of errors in CHECKWIKI project was always determined by the people paritipaing in the project. 99% of the times it was me and Bgwhite. Some errors are requested from people outside Engish Wikipedia.
Question 2: I am asking whether the Arbcom will take any action to initiate this discussion in the community.I think the spirit of the decision is that this matter has to be discussed further. Moreover, during and after my cases there were changes in various places reagarding this policy which shows exactly tat my cae was the result of this discussion happening in various places but not in a centralised way and in some places it was left incomplete. In my understanding, ArbCom has to "encourage the community" i.e. to address to the community. Is there any plan of how and where to do it? I won't pariticape in the discussion since it is forbidden to me. As I have written somewhere else "this is the fordibben discussion happening". My concern is that discussion happens independently of whether I participate or not. I have trust to the community and I don't understand what is the exact problem of addressing to the community to help etermining if some edits follow a cerain policy or not.
Question 3: So I take that I can participate in a discussion whether an error falls under the scope of CHECKWIKI (a project that I was one of the co-founders in the English Wikipedia) as long as I do not discuss if this is about COSMETICBOT. This is fine because CHECKWIKI is not directly connected to this. We, the members of the project, can make the list of errors based on our own discussion as in other Wikiprojects.
Question 4: I will ask for relaxation of my restrictions in a different discussion I guess. The important is whether the watchlists system is now in a better shape. Again, "flooding watchlists" was never directly connected to COSMETICBOT. It was a different argument by people that they do not want minor changesto happen in pages inside their watchlists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
On Q2 "That's not the Arbitration Committee's role" How in general does the ArbCom inform about their decisions? Can a member of the ArbCom do that indivivualy? ArbCom recognised that there is a problem in the area and this super important because we had similar cases to me case in the past! So, how does the ArbCom, and the community in extend, plan to address the issue. As I said, I don't want part of the discussion. But since ArbCom clearly wants to encourage the community to act, what are the steps that has taken in that direction? The importance of the discussion it's celar since one part of it was even covered in the Singpost but still I have not seen any clear address to the community via the Village Pump for intance. I may had the same question for other Arbom decisions but since I have followed only the ones concerning my case, I openly wonder how ArbCom works for such things! It's an honst question because the remedies were not only about restrictions and such but also encouragements to the community to do better! -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
On Q2 again: I am not asking permission to partiipate in a discussion that is not happening. I ask clarification of how the ArbCom will contact the community and explain that it concluded that a discussion on that matter might be useful. The article on Singpost Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-06-09/Arbitration report that was named after my name, is the only way to contact the community? I think the the title shows the importance of the role I have played in the discussion of rewriting the policies in a better way and it does not help the community to actually help to the "Checkwiki project's list of errors". Should we at least add a wikilink from there to the CHECKWIKI project? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I cannot speak for ArbCom, but I can voice my opinion as part of the community. ArbCom can, as part of the decision of an arbitration case, urge the community to do something, and we, as the community, should certainly give significant weight to their opinion, since we elected them and they have (presumably) spent a considerable amount of time examining evidence and negotiating with each other in reaching their decision. But ArbCom cannot do anything substantive as a committee to force the community to take the actions they recommended. That is simply not within their power.
Now, if an individual member of ArbCom, or an outgoing arbitrator, wants to take up the banner and help move the community towards taking a step recommended by ArbCom, that's a different matter, that's the action of an individual as an editor of Wikipedia, and not an official action of an arbitrator.
In short, I don't believe that there's anything ArbCom can do as a committee to get the community to deal any further with the CHECKWIKI issue, even if they wanted to, outside of, perhaps, reminding the community that the issue is there to be dealt with -- if that, indeed, is what the Committee actually thinks. I believe M. will simply have to wait for someone to start the ball rolling, since their sanction does not allow them to start or engage in such a discussion, even here, except as permitted by WP:BANEX.

Statement by Username

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Magioladitis 1 & 2: Clerk notes

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

Magioladitis 1 & 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @Magioladitis: I need some background for question 1: why would you remove something from the list without determining if it is or is not a problem? Also, which part of your restrictions are you concerned that your question #1 might breach?
Question 2: you are not permitted to participate in any discussion regarding COSMETICBOT or it's impact so your question is inappropriate as it is not covered by WP:BANEX.
Question 3: see above, you can not participate in any discussion regarding COSMETICBOT or it's impact regardless of the location of the discussion. That is, you cannot be involved in a discussion about whether a change is a cosmetic change or not. The only exception is that you can ask a specific question to clarify whether a bot task you wish to undertake is permitted at the bot noticeboard or in a bot request for approval)
Question 4: no, not in the short term. Any change is up to the community, and you (given it will be about COSMETICBOT) are not permitted to initiate or participate in it. If and when that discussion concludes with a change to the policy, you can appeal noting that change if you wish. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Q1: As long as you don't get involved in any discussions which have to do with COSMETICBOT, I don't think it would technically be a breach of the restrictions from the arbitration cases.
Q2: That's not the Arbitration Committee's role, and you are not permitted to initiate or participate in a such a discussion. Therefore, I very strongly counsel you to drop it.
Q3: Yes, doing so would not be a breach of the restrictions imposed in the arbitration cases. You should however be cautious that the issues which lead to the restrictions being imposed (bludgeoning and gaming) doesn't reoccur as that will likely lead to new sanctions.
Also, make sure that you reply in your own section. I've moved your reply up there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: BLP issues on British politics articles (August 2018)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by RebeccaSaid at 12:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by RebeccaSaid

Please can you provide clarification around the scope of the Topic Ban issued to Philip Cross, 26 July 2018?

On 2 August Philip Cross edited the article of Colin Jordan and on 3 August he edited the article of /Andrew Faulds.

Both of these articles would appear to fall within the reach of “post-1978 British politics, broadly construed”.

On 5 August User Kal Holmann raised the potential breach of the TB here: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Philip_Cross

Notwithstanding the issue of self-reverting, which Cross did only after the potential breach was raised, there’s an interesting point being made around the wording of the actual Topic Ban.

Looking at the standard policy I read “a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". “ Topic ban

However, it would appear that the Topic Ban of Philip Cross is being interpreted differently -

"I would close this as not actionable. The wording of the remedy is in relevant part: "Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics". This is more restrictive than a usual topic ban per WP:TBAN: while a usual topic ban covers both pages related to the topic and edits related to the topic, the unusual wording of the remedy ("banned from edits relating to ...") indicates that this ban is intended to cover only edits related to the topic. The normal wording would have been something like "banned from anything related to ...". In this case, the edits as such were not related to politics, and the remedy was therefore not violated." Sandstein 06:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you kindly confirm then, which of these interpretations is accurate? Thank you. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thank you for clarifying Rob. It was pretty obvious to me that's what was meant. Apologies for bothering you with it. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Philip Cross: Throw as much shade as you like Mr Cross, but it's quite simple. The 2 examples I cited were British political figures who remained active beyond 1978 and, therefore, fall within the scope of your TB. You've been around long enough to know what the boundaries are. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Philip Cross

Earlier today, I edited the article on John Strachey who died in 1963. The article also links to Harold Wilson who left the House of Commons in 1983 (died 1995), Manny Shinwell (1884–1986) a Labour peer and Peter Doig who left the Commons in 1979. These edits are thus marginally in the post-1978 era, and it is possible I could be successfully challenged. A little earlier today, I worked on an article about Jon Kimche, who knew George Orwell in the 1930s, but decided to revert because the article contains a mention of Michael Foot during the second world war when he was a journalist. Possibly I should do the same at Anthony Crosland (died 1977) because Roy Jenkins is mentioned and the article cites a book which includes the term 'New Labour' in the title. I edited David Mamet yesterday after searching for references to 'antisemitism'. It cites an interview with Mamet conducted in New York in 2011 which mentions his general claims about A/S in the UK and also includes a mention of Harold Pinter who was certainly a writer on politics post-1978. Should I revert? There are other recent edits of mine, such as to Dennis Potter, which should be counted as well. The article includes Potter's comments about the Australian-American Rupert Murdoch, who has had an influence on British politics since 1978 as elsewhere, and surely also falls under the "broadly construed" element. Philip Cross (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by KalHolmann

Today's exchange between inactive ArbCom member User:BU Rob13 and uninvolved admin User:Sandstein emphasizes the need for formal clarification of this point by the Arbitration Committee.

"The remedy as written," Sandstein comments, "appears to contradict itself. While it links to WP:TBAN, which defines a standard topic ban that includes both topic-related edits and other edits to topic-related pages, the clause 'edits relating to' has, as I read it, a limiting effect such that only topic-related edits are prohibited, not other edits to topic-related pages. To avoid such uncertainty, I recommend that future remedies are worded to only make reference to WP:TBAN without additional clauses, e.g., '... is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from British politics'. Based on the current wording, I myself would take no action here, although of course other admins are free to interpret the remedy differently and take action."

As a non-administrator, I naturally defer to admins in their knowledge of Wikipedia procedures. However, Sandstein's reading seems contrary to the spirit of ArbCom's sanction against Philip Cross. Please resolve this. KalHolmann (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • @BU Rob13: I identified you as an inactive member of ArbCom because I suspect many editors are unaware of your recent change of status and might misconstrue any remarks you make as speaking on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. If you are still an official spokesman for ArbCom, I'd appreciate clarification of that point as well. KalHolmann (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13: Please accept my sincere wishes for a speedy and full recovery by your family member following emergency surgery to remove a cancerous tumor. The mutual animosity between you and me is personal and has nothing to do with your family. KalHolmann (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

As an admin working at AE, I appreciate the proposed motion because it clarifies the remedy. When evaluating an AE request, I generally try to apply the plain meaning of the text of the applicable remedy. If the text is unclear or appears contradictory, as in this case, I tend to not take action, so as to err on the side of caution. Other admins, of course, may want to proceed differently. Sandstein 07:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

BLP issues on British politics articles: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • There seems to be some confusion about what "inactive" arbitrator status means. All it means is that the arb has sent the clerks an email asking to be designated as inactive, and the effect is basically a presumed abstention on any new matters that comes up. The arbitrator can at any time be moved back to being active, either on all matters or selectively on just some. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues on British politics articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • We definitely did not intend the topic ban to be construed to not apply to some edits to pages about the topic area. All topic bans apply to such edits. We chose the wording of “all edits” rather than “all pages” to emphasize that even edits that cover the topic on pages that do not typically cover the topic are covered, which is the standard meaning of a topic ban. If we intended to place a restriction other than a topic ban, we would not have called it such. I think even the admins at AE occasionally need a reminder not to wikilawyer - a topic ban is a topic ban. If it helps, we can strike “all edits about” and just say Philip Cross is topic banned from the topic area. ~ Rob13Talk 15:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @KalHolmann: As a side note, is there a reason you choose to emphasize my inactivity as if it’s a slur? ~ Rob13Talk 15:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I remain a member of the Arbitration Committee. My current inactivity refers to the fact a family member was just released from the hospital following an emergency surgery to remove a cancerous tumor. I am not necessarily available as often as usual as a result. I would hope you don’t begrudge me that. ~ Rob13Talk 15:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I can’t speak for you, of course, but there is no animosity on my end. I don’t know I’ve ever seen anyone boldly declare they’re interested in a personalized conflict with someone on Wikipedia, but I’ll leave that bit alone. ~ Rob13Talk 15:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I certainly appreciate you bringing this to our attention. It was on my radar already, and I was probably going to propose this motion later today even in the absence of an ARCA. ~ Rob13Talk 18:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues on British politics articles: Motion

The "Philip Cross topic banned" remedy in the BLP issues on British politics articles case is modified to read as follows:

Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in May 2018.
For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Support
  1. This is also the current meaning of the sanction, but let's modify it just to make this "slap you in the face" obvious. ~ Rob13Talk 17:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. I would of thought this wouldn't have shown up at our doorstep like this...but surprises. I think this more clearly explains the intent of the original motion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. WormTT(talk) 15:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  7. Per Rob, and confirming as the other drafter that this was our intent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  8. Alex Shih (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  9. Katietalk 15:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Atsme topic ban appeal (August 2018)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Atsme at 18:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Indef topic ban;
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. T-ban decision by Bishonen
  2. DS remedy per DARCA case filed by MrX that resulted in Bishonen's independent action
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • T-ban decision by Bishonen
  • Repeal and remove from the log - as an involved administrator imposed it
  • Vexatious filing

Statement by Atsme

I am here to appeal my t-ban after taking some time off for introspection, and to analyze the many diffs MrX presented in his case against me. I published the results at User talk:Atsme/RVW. This has been a difficult case for me because I once held MrX in high regard; however, his accusation that I have an ideological blindspot is, in and of itself, evidence that he believes his own ideology is superior, and I consider that to be detrimental to the project. His case against me was devastating as my initial reaction shows but I have since learned from it.

I’m sure we can all agree that sanctions are not intended to prevent free and candid discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think civil disagreement while seeking consensus would be grounds for a sanction, or that suggesting consistency with MOS or using humor here and there to defuse tense situations would be grounds for sanctions. Articles with DS/1RR-consensus required restrictions naturally increase discussion, and one can expect lively debates because reverted editors tend to experience higher levels of frustration.

Administrators are expected to exercise good judgment, and respond flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. They should carefully analyze behavior without preference or bias, and determine if a remedy has been violated, or if the case and associated preliminary warnings were vexatious. Accused editors are customarily given an opportunity to defend themselves, but above all, they should not have to deal with intimidation, threats, or enforcement by an involved administrator. Unfortunately, none of the aforementioned received proper consideration in my case as the following diffs will demonstrate.

MrX

MrX presented a compilation of cherrypicked diffs taken out of context, grouped them with prepended aspersions, exaggerations and misrepresentations in his ARCA case against me. It is patterned behavior used to rid himself of opposition. (Note: I have many more diffs that establish the pattern if needed)

  • March 18, 2015 - "The rest of the initial statement by MrX appears to be fairly standard Wikipedia style mud slinging where some fairly innocuous diffs and somewhat irate statements are presented as if they were "teh [sic] worst thing ever!!!!". It's hyperbole meant to appeal to emotion and prejudice, rather than a well substantiated request.”
  • June 29, 2018 “….I'd be inclined to warn MrX about misrepresenting others contributions out of context, which is shockingly bad faith.”
  • Juy 9, 2018 - ‘’You have every right to challenge a close. You do not have any right to characterize good-faith disagreement on process as "wikilawyering”.’’

MrX was aware there was neither a smoking gun nor clear evidence of disruption worthy of a t-ban in my case.

  • Talk:AE June 27 2018, MrX stated: “In other words, there are not 20 smoking gun diffs, because the case doesn't involve edit warring or egregious personal attacks.”
  • EdJohnston: "If there are no smoking guns, I wonder if you have a case at all."
  • ARCA June 29 2018 “Not all MrX's diffs are impressive…..”

Disruptive behavior by MrX for comparison purposes

Bishonen - an involved administrator

The following will demonstrate that there was a lack of urgency for Bishonen to impose a t-ban which she inadvertently admits in her statement below. The ARCA case was only 12 hrs old, and her action against me was retaliatory and had a chilling effect, as it followed within 9 min after I posted the 1st phase of evidence in my defense which including diffs of incivility against her fellow admin.

  • "I should say that Am Pol is no rosegarden even if we disregard Atsme's input, and probably won't be one even if my ban is upheld."
  • "Atsme rather unexpectedly posted a full response,…."
  • "…it turned out she did after all have the heart to call for topic bans for MrX and Drmies, in a post that edit conflicted me."
  • ''I’m not going to argue with you, Alex, as to whether that reflects badly on me or not. So heated and polarized as discourse in the area is, I naturally expect criticism from some users."
  • July 31, 2015 - AN/I case I filed against 3 editors who were being highly disruptive at WP:AVDUCK. NOTE: there were no diffs presented by my accusers to support the aspersions cast against me
  • Aug 1, 2015 - Bishonen participated in the boomerang
  • Aug 1 2015 - her bias surfaced in a vehement manner
  • Aug 3, 2015- my response to her aspersions
  • Aug 3, 2015 - involved editor's 2nd alert on her TP
  • Aug 3 2015 She said: “Please note, Atsme, that my pinging you here isn't aimed at bringing you to my page;” <—undeniable bias, and not how admins are expected to behave
  • Aug 3, 2015 - my response to her ping
  • Aug 3, 2015 - she was disappointed the case was going nowhere, suggested another case targeting me, and that someone “uninvolved” should close the open AN/I case
  • Aug 4 2015 - I responded to another editor on her TP
  • Aug 4, 2015 - she told me not to post on her TP
  • Aug 4, 2015 - I agreed to honor her request, asked her to stop stalking me
  • Aug 5 2015 - ANI close by an uninvolved admin;
  • Aug 6 2015 - she shows up at my TP casting more aspersions, and I'm again forced to defend against her aggressive behavior
  • Aug 6 2015 she overturned the close in order to enforce her preference, and blocked me for 1 month when the only legitimate block on my log was a 36 hr 3RR back when I was a newbie.

Further evidence of Bishonen’s involvement

  • July 31 2015 - an editor added a Monty Python caption that I reverted, and a suspicious IP restored
  • Aug 1 2015 - Bishonen's snarky reference to that caption
  • Aug 1 2015 - ATG alerted her to my question on Alison's TP, Bish showed up and responded with sarcasm
  • Sept 20 2015 - Her reaction to ATG’s retirement a month later
  • March 5 2016 - ‘’(→‎Result concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: ...oppose... oppose... falls off the chair.)’’ Note: JPS has had numerous IDs.
  • March 5 2018 - concerns about threatening admin actions from joke alt accts.
  • May 8 2018 - Bishzilla puts little Giano in her pocket for safe-keeping.

Aug 2017, Bishonen appeared at AN3 for this one case while she was on a semi-break, and of course, it was the case I filed

  • Aug 5 2017- says she's on an indefinite semi-break…."
  • Aug 5 2017 - (burnout)
  • Aug 13 2017 - I filed for edit warring and disruption, mentioned potential sock activity
  • Aug 14 2017 - Bishonen appears from her semi-break for this one case: "I'm surprised to see Atsme suggesting that two experienced editors "may even be one in the same for all I know". Usually we only get that kind of silliness from new users, and it does you no favours, User:Atsme.”  <—showed her preference to those 2 editors and was biased toward me
  • NOTE: Of the 2 editors I filed against, one was CU blocked - different time, unrelated case; the other was investigated.
  • Aug 14 2017 - asked her to recuse
  • Aug 14 2017 - Her edit summary (→‎Based on history: I'm on semi-break, but if you continue to waste constructive editors' time and patience in the way you've been doing I'll take the time to topic ban you from American politics.) <--- Note: the article in question was a BLP not subject to AP2.
  • Aug 14 2017 - Admittedly, emotions got the best of me because she called my case frivolous and cast aspersions against me yet again.
  • Aug 14 2017 - unrelenting
  • Aug 14 2017 - warning to t-ban me from AP2 over a BLP that is not subject to AP2 DS
  • Aug 14 2017 - my response
  • Aug 14 2017 - she returned to my TP and posted yet another warning about BLP sanctions which actually have since been updated at that article to include "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour" as an added DS restriction, but no AP2 DS.

Floquenbeam, allow me to clarify. I intended for the diffs MrX used against me - which I published with an analysis at User talk:Atsme/RVW - to be used as a comparison to the diffs I included here. I hope the arbs will take the time necessary to compare the two behaviors before they decline this case, and at least help me understand why they believe my behavior was worthy of a t-ban as compared to his. Am I expected to adjust my behavior to be more like that of those not being t-banned? Bishonen also pointed out in her statement during my case that my t-ban would not stop the disruptive behavior at those articles - isn't that the purpose of a t-ban - to stop/prevent disruption to the project? If her action did not prevent disruption, why was I singled out by an involved admin? I think my evidence speaks volumes. It does not surprise me to see admins and editors I have a history with to show up here to defend those in their camp. All I asked is for the arbs to review the evidence, compare the two behaviors, confirm the involvement and explain to me why I was singled out. Is that too much to ask? Atsme📞📧 16:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, you have already demonstrated your inability to judge me without bias when you misinterpreted my adherence to NPOV in this diff and then said the hurtful things you said to me here when I asked for help. I'm sorry, but it's just not appropriate for you to sit in judgment of me when those 2 diffs alone demonstrate how you really feel. Atsme📞📧 17:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

Statement by Bishonen

As the banning admin, I think it's appropriate to leave the consideration of whether or not Atsme's topic ban should be lifted to the arbitrators. My rationale for placing the ban on 29 June 2018 can be seen here and here. At this time I only want to say I don't understand Atsme's claim that I'm an involved admin wrt her, and also don't understand her case (?) against MrX. She has been insisting I'm involved since at least 2015, but I've never understood it, and the diffs she posts above seem irrelevant, some of them wildly so. Bishonen appears from her semi-break? Bishonen said "Fuck" when Andy the Grump retired? Bishzilla puts little Giano in her pocket for safe-keeping [sic]? Seriously, what? See WP:INVOLVED. I can't find any diff in that list that suggests I'm involved wrt Atsme, let alone that my admin actions are "retaliatory" (?). I don't understand the diffs purporting to show bad behaviour by MrX, either. How do they make his filing of an ARCA case against Atsme inappropriate? OMG, I see he, too, has been guilty of "profanity" — though less gravely than me — he has said "bullshit".[8] What does any of it have to do with the price of tea in China? Bishonen | talk 19:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC).

Statement by Floquenbeam

The stuff about Bishonen seems silly enough that I won't comment on it. Sorry, Bish. (well, ok, one comment: pocketing Giano?! what the?!) But I do want to point out - not as a rhetorical gambit, not as a gotcha, but as a real, honest observation/complaint - that all of the diffs regarding Mr.X, an editor with whom she frequently crossed swords in the AP topic area, have nothing to do with an "appeal". This portion of her appeal here should be considered a violation of her topic ban, clearly attacking an AP opponent when she's topic banned from AP, superficially masquerading as an appeal. We need to stop people from doing this. An appeal should be an appeal, not a free, sanction-immune opportunity to attack an opponent in an area she is otherwise topic banned from. I realize that a sanction will be characterized by her as "punishment for appealing", but having to deal with that kind of spin should not prevent someone from clearly and strongly discouraging this kind of games-playing. I suggest allowing her to remove this request, and give her time to create one that has a greater than 2% chance of succeeding, and that does not attempt to attack MrX. If she says she wants to remove this, I won't mind if my comment here goes down the memory hole too; I would hope MrX and Bish wouldn't mind either, tho I can't speak for them. Of course, I have a feeling the Arb bureaucracy won't like a simple removal, or others will start to comment soon and make the suggestion moot, but it's worth suggesting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

It's been a long time since Bishonen called an editor "you little shit" but I'd like to address whether Bishonen issues bans inconsiderately, with an example from during a dispute between two editors about calling a person a climate change denier (a subtopic that Bishonen had once edited). 11:16 Bishonen sent a DS/alert to Editor#2. 15:48 Editor#2 reverted to restore some tags. 15:50 Editor#2 on the talk page asked the person who inserted the tags whether it's okay. 16:35 Bishonen banned Editor#2 "for persistent disruptive editing on Myron Ebell and its talkpage" with "... no input on talk" (which was incorrect). So for this one post-alert edit Editor#2 got indefinitely banned not just from Myron Ebell but from climate change broadly construed. I hope administrators see this as confirmation that Bishonen bypasses usual procedures too quickly. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Responding only to SarekOfVulcan's comment: what I said is verifiable and I see nothing worth adding. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I think Peter left a bit of history out of his banned-for-one-edit narrative above: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell&offset=20161110160000&action=history&tagfilter= --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, I believe that it's too late for a withdrawal at this point. 22 hours ago was the time for second thoughts. This would be an attempt to avoid scrutiny. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

If Peter Gulutzan believes that Bishonen has a history of misapplying their authority as an admin, then Peter Gulutzan should file a desysop request at Requests for Arbitration. If they don't have the evidence to support such a request, then their coming here with (half-a-)story intended to besmirch Bishonen's reputation should be removed from this amendment request as totally irrelevant. As Floquenbeam points out above, this is not, and should not be, a free-fire zone for past disputes which have no connection to the current matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

Hopefully the clerks will clear up some of this off-topic nonsense regarding Peter Gulutzan.

Whatever the nature of Atsme's appeal, it should be declined. The topic-ban was imposed exactly as the committee intended discretionary sanctions to be imposed. Attempting to continue a disagreement with MrX demonstrates the motivation for those sanctions, an appeal based on continuing that argument should never be successful in this forum. I'd recommend no action against anyone for any TBAN violations in this thread so far. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: - there's been plenty of scrutiny. A withdrawal merely saves everyone some time and dignity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

An appeal based solely upon attacking both the original filer and the implementing admin rarely succeeds for good reason. I don’t see any acceptance of behavioral problems for any of the numerous diffs. We need some reason to believe a change in behavior will occur. (Involved as I’m certain I was a part of some of the discussions related to the diffs.) O3000 (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG

Decline per Floq's commentary.A host of irrelevant diffs about Bish's activities and some other points, that leads to an impression of her utilising this board to sanction MrX.∯WBGconverse 05:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by K.e.coffman

Statement by Drmies

Well, it really starts with a non sequitur: "his [Mr. X's] accusation that I have an ideological blindspot is, in and of itself, evidence that he believes his own ideology is superior"--no, it is not. That does not follow at all, and it signals that there is an attitude that falsely claims that all positions, all opinions are equally worthwhile just because someone holds them.

I had a look at some of the Bishonen diffs, which are meant to prove that Bishonen is partial--it led me to Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, where Atsme claims a somewhat humorous caption, which reasonable follows another Pythonesque caption, is "gibberish" (and "vandalism" in a subsequent IP edit, followed by a request for oversight--oversight of what, Bishonen rightly asks, and somehow this comment on Bishonen's part is "snarky" and grounds for the INVOLVED accusation. No. The committee should decline this appeal, which is little more than NOTTHEM. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • BTW I encourage the honorable arbs to be a bit more clear in why they decline, for the benefit of Atsme and the community. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Atsme, I'm obviously not sitting here as a judge, so let's get that out of the way. You're trying to argue that I can't have an opinion on your appeal because I have an opinion on how you edited in that area, but that makes no sense at all. And since I think you're misreading my comments (I think you usually do--maybe I'm too cryptic?), when I criticize, as I have, "Trump editors", I kinda do mean "all Trump editors". I didn't say "pro-Trump editors". The whole area is still a mess, but I think it is a tiny bit less of a mess now. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

In my opinion the topic ban appeal should be declined. Atsme has been an extremely disruptive force on Wikipedia in this topic area for nearly two years (by far the most disruptive regular Wikipedian I have seen in my 11 years here), and in my opinion the topic ban itself was very late in coming. and not broad enough. (In my opinion the topic ban should have been American politics, broadly construed.) Trying to implicate Bishonen is ridiculous; Bishonen has a very long history of clarity, integrity, and neutrality even when she is in disagreement; in fact, she has defended Atsme against others when the situation merited it. Softlavender (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(Note: The "Indef topic ban" link at the top of this appeal is somewhat misleading, because it only mentions "Atsme is topic banned from making any edits relating to Donald Trump, broadly construed"; but the actual topic ban is, as it should rightfully be, "from post-1932 American politics, broadly construed" [9].) -- Softlavender (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mandruss

All I can say is that the following reasoning is bizarre: "Editors/admins X, Y, and Z have a history of opposing my behavior, so they are clearly biased against me and their opinions about me should be disqualified." (I think my paraphrasing is accurate enough.) In other words, the only people qualified to speak on this matter should be those who are unsure of their positions about it, or haven't shown any interest until now. That kind of argument alone is enough to push me off any fence I may have been on. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Atsme topic ban appeal: Clerk notes

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

Atsme topic ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

I'm inclined to say that the appeal cannot be withdrawn at this point, considering the amount of discussion that's occurred, but I'm open to considering it if other arbitrators feel differently. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I would be willing to allow the withdraw of this appeal, with the caveat that Atsme will not be allowed to appeal in anyway shape or form, this topic ban for 6 months. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Also agree to allow a withdrawal with Rick's caveat as well as the fact that review of the substance of the ban at WP:AE/WP:AN is now off-the-table. Essentially, a withdrawn appeal at this point is functionally the same as a declined appeal. We should absolutely not force an editor to be dragged through the rest of the appeal process if they prefer to withdraw from it, but there shouldn't be benefits to withdrawing other than that. ~ Rob13Talk 20:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I can support withdrawal with those caveats. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (August 2018)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Davidbena at 04:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] arbitration case ([[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|t]]) ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Evidence|ev]] /[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Evidence| t]]) ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Workshop|w]] /[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Workshop| t]]) ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Proposed decision|pd]] /[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Proposed decision| t]])
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Banning policy; Second paragraph: "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, or by administrators (in certain topic areas)."


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Wikipedia:Banning policy; Second paragraph: "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, or by administrators (in certain topic areas)."
  • Suggested amendment to clause: "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus after an unequal number of non-involved administrators (acting as judges) have read the deliberations made by an equal number of advocates and prosecutors - either for or against disciplinary actions being taken, or by the Arbitration Committee, or by administrators (in certain topic areas)."


Statement by Davidbena

It is my view that when incidents are brought before the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for a decision, due to the overwhelming number of incidents, that some minor incidents may occasionally be brought, haphazardly, before the board without prior consideration or thorough inspection of the edit history of the person in question against whom the complaint is made. By the nature of the Administrators' noticeboard's set-up and arrangement (based on current standing-laws governing its conduct), arriving at a fair and equitable (impartial) decision/verdict by means of "community consensus" may, in fact, be sometimes compromised if, let's say, those editors attracted to the site and who comment on the particular case are either inexperienced, or display toxic tendencies towards their fellow-editors because of their preconceived notions about that editor. Wherefore, the best way to handle incidents brought before the Administrators' noticeboard is to have an equal number of advocates and prosecutors (arguing for and against the editor), while the administrators rendering the verdict will be made-up of an unequal number of three or five, and their decision - based on the arguments heard from the advocates and the prosecutors - made by a majority vote of 2 to 1 (in the case of there being only 3 administrators). In this manner, we can avoid miscalculation of an editor's behavior or intent. Of course, this will require setting up a team of editors who will agree to work in the capacity of advocates (working to highlight the editor's good qualities), and another team who works solely as prosecutors (looking for the editor's bad qualities). Perhaps Wikipedia can compile a list of willing editors who will take in these roles, and when they are summoned to respond to a specific incident, will be given 48-hours to respond.

Statement by Bishonen

Statement by Someguy1221

Statement by power~enwiki

I greatly dislike this trend of appeals at ARCA claiming that site policies as a whole are wrong, rather than claiming that a specific sanction was too harsh. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I have to ask what jurisdiction that Davidbena feels that ArbCom -- an entity whose purpose is essentially to adjudicate behavioral problems -- has over the structure and practices of a community page such as AN/I. It seems to me that the very most the Committee can do would be to "strongly suggest that the community discuss changes in AN/I", or something to that effect, and that it cannot, on its own authority, force the community to change AN/I, or even to force the discussion they might think is appropriate. If I am correct in my apprehension of the limits of ArbCom's remit, then it would seem best for the Committee to reject this request for "clarification and amendment" (which is not actually a request for clarification or amendment, but, at best, should be the subject of an RfC, and, at worst, is simply an attempt to avoid a community sanction) entirely, as outside of its authority to consider. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Or, since his comment was posted while I was writing the one above, "per Newyorkbrad". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • @Davidbena: We are unable to identify which decision of the Arbitration Committee you are seeking to clarify or amend. If there is an incident you are seeking to open a case for, see WP:ARC. If you are seeking clarification or amendment of an Arbitration Committee ruling, please link to that decision at your earliest convenience. Otherwise, the Committee or the clerks may close this request expeditiously. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • We certainly do not and cannot touch this. Frankly I think it's a terrible idea, unworkable and one that would not help deal with the problems we face with problematic editors. Doug Weller talk 05:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (August 2018)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Huldra at 21:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Huldra

Are edits in user space also bound by WP:ARBPIA3? RebeccaSaid is/was working on an article in her user space, User:RebeccaSaid/Eva Bartlett, Shrike blanked the page, with the edit line "WP:ARBPIA3 new users aren't allowed to edit articles relating to the conflict". I undid it, which one of us is correct? Please clarify, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz: you write "there ain't much point in creating a draft if you can not mainspace it, requiring a proxy editor" ....that of course presumes that you finish with the draft within 500 edits, or less. Some people might do that, but I know for myself that I typically work on drafts much longer than that. Eg., I have had literally thousands and thousands of edits since I started eg User:Huldra/Jisr al Majami or User:Huldra/Maqam Sitt Sukayna (and none of them ready for mainspace yet, IMO), Huldra (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Icewhiz: That is an interesting question, where I dont know the answer. I honestly didn't think Eva Bartlett was part of WP:ARBPIA. (Hey, I virtually live in the ARBPIA area on WP, and I had never even heard of her work on Palestine.) Well, live and learn. Huldra (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree, this can be closed (actually, I wasn't aware that it was still open ...) Huldra (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

@Alex Shih: The usual practice in the area revert the violation in sight and discuss it with users after the violation is removed and that what I did but I understand where you comments coming from and in similar cases I will take more lax approach next time. --Shrike (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RebeccaSaid

Not that this is actually relevant here - but I'll clarify what I was actually doing, why I was doing it and how this situation arose.

The article of Eva Bartlett was deleted as it was created by FromNewsToEncyclopedia, block evading sock of M.A.Martin. This is what the article looked like at the point of deletion. Eva Bartlett. An attack page. The article was retrieved and then proposed for deletion again. AFD.

I started a practice/dummy article in a user space, in order to pull together some actual biographical information which is completely lacking from what is supposed to be a BLP. The intention being to post it at the AFD or within the Talk Page of the article for consideration. The article did not at that stage fall within the "Arab/Israeli conflict" scope. This is because the article subject is not notable for her work around Gaza - she has gained any notability she has for her more recent reporting on Syria, which is reflected in the article.

This morning I posted a brief statement here: ARE Cross & directly under the statement of Shrike, who, incidentally, I've never interacted with before. Within 30-40 minutes of me posting my statement, Shrike blanked my user space, concluded that the article of Eva Bartlett fell within the scope of the "Arab/Israeli conflict" (based on what I'd written, not what was actually within the article itself) and followed that with a veiled aspersion about me having had previous user accounts. Here's the sum of their Contributions to Wikipedia for the day.

To be frank, I am more concerned about the motivation behind this editors sudden interest in my edits, my account & the article of Eva Bartlett, than I am about whether I am "allowed" to edit something, or not. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller I didn't imply that I was being personally restricted if that's what you mean. In plain terms I was questioning whether the article fell within the scope of the "Arab/Israeli conflict" in it's present format, particularly as the main justification given was "Between 2007 and early 2013 Bartlett spent a cumulative three years living in Gaza and eight months in West Bank. During this period she volunteered with the International Solidarity Movement and documented her experiences on her InGaza blog. ", which isn't in the article. The article has been around for a while, nobody has made that distinction before and I felt that restricting the article on the basis of something that might go in the article, or might not, was jumping the gun.
Lessons learnt:
A. polish crystal ball to avoid wasting time trying to improve badly written, biased BLP's - as someone may come along and make a tenuous link to something you're not allowed to edit, and wipe out all your work.
B. Accept that random people will regularly cast veiled aspersions about previous accounts/sock accounts/multiple accounts without an iota of evidence or justification - because assuming good faith is unnecessary when dealing with someone new/inexperienced. Got it! --RebeccaSaid (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
As the article subject is only notable for her work in Syria, there's nothing within the body of the text that covers her actual work in Gaza, apart from mention of her blog (which doesn't even link to the blog, it links to a critical opinion piece - surprise, surprise!), it wasn't flagged up as falling within the scope until yesterday and other new users have edited it without issue - combined, I'd suggest that I would need a crystal ball to realize, at the time of writing, that they'd be a problem in the future. Rest assured, I won't waste any more time here, on what is obviously, a pointless exercise. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

Shrike is correct, as WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 clearly forbids editing to any page. There is a single carveout - talkspace for constructive suggestions. Carevout 2 is not an exception, but merely admin discretion on enforcement in article creation ... As to whether the rule should be modified - that's a different matter, but there ain't much point in creating a draft if you can not mainspace it, requiring a proxy editor.Icewhiz (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: - I suspect that an editor that reaches 500 edits mainly by editing to a draft in their user space will probably have their extended confirmed bit removed due to gaming. (Nothing wrong with draft space edits - to the contrary - generally a "good thing" to work in draft (either online or offline) - the issue is the EC bit).Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (clarification): Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (clarification): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Correct. You may not work on drafts or otherwise be involved in this topic area in userspace until you meet the requirements for the prohibition to no longer apply. The only exception is the Talk: namespace. ~ Rob13Talk 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • While entirely correct, I think Shrike's approach here could have been slightly less aggressive ideally; rather than issuing a alert at 08:52, requesting extended confirmed proteciton at 08:59 and blanked the user page at 09:00, I would allow some time for the new user to voluntarily revert themselves, if they would. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 #2 briefly describes that discretion should be exercised. Alex Shih (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @RebeccaSaid:, User:Shrike did not apply a restriction to you as you suggested on your talk page. That restriction is for all new editors and applies automatically. And as my colleagues have said about, that restriction applies everywhere except talk space. It's common for Administrators to take action involving editors they haven't been involved with before, I see nothing untoward about Shrike's actions. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @RebeccaSaid: the subject always fell within the sanction area. I don't think you needed a crystal ball to know that a rights activist covering Palestine would fall within ARBPIA. And sadly we have had a lot of socking within our most tendentious sanctions area. This edit[10] is another one, please don't make such edits until you achieve ECP. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (August 2018)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#General_Prohibition


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



Information about amendment request
  • First sentence to be changed to, "In order to edit any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict an editor must be registered and have more than 30 days tenure and have more than 500 edits"


Statement by Sir Joseph

This clause seems to continuously cause issues or concerns and it seems to me that rewriting this to specifically highlight in this manner makes it clearer as to who can and can't edit in this area.

Statement by Dweller

Worm That Turned, see my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#פֿינצטערניש, and those of my non-alter-ego, Doug Weller. I genuinely didn't understand the wording because the Oxford comma is confusing (actually, in my book, just darn wrong) and the wording is poorly drafted. Please bear in mind that we will often need to point this to newbies and people with passion on the topic. Both of those are reasons for crystal clarity. There's more discussion about this on my user talk. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Callanecc. Why is it that your wording below ("IP editors are prohibited as are registered accounts which do meet meet both criteria: 30 days or more; and 500 edits or more.") is so much clearer than an official ArbCom ruling and yet you resist changing it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero

I can see this suggestion is not going anywhere. However, there is a different sentence in the ARBPIA rulings that does cause confusion and it would be good to have clarification of its meaning. I refer to the sentence "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." that appears in the General 1RR restriction. Consider this sequence: (1) A inserts some text, (2) B removes it. Some time later, (3) C reinserts the text, (4) D removes it, and (5) C reinserts it again less than 24 hours after edit (4). In the plain meaning of the sentence, C can argue that they didn't violate the rule because the "original author" of the text is A and not them. I've seen this from experienced editors at least three times at AE and on multiple occasions that didn't get to AE. A different problem is that the English language does not usually use "author" to refer to someone who makes a deletion, so a sequence deletion, revert, deletion is not clearly covered. Without thinking about it very much, I propose that the sentence be modified as follows: "If an editor makes an edit that is reverted, that editor may not redo the edit within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." Zerotalk 09:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

To editor Callanecc: I never said the rule was being gamed. I believe that all or most of the appearances I have seen of this interpretation were made in good faith. I'm not surprised, either, because the wording is objectively misleading. Zerotalk 11:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbs, please see this current AE case for a fine example of how everyone is confused about the meaning of "original author". Zerotalk 09:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Please the AE case in my previous sentence. Practically nobody knows what this clause means. Please fix it! Zerotalk 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

I second Zero suggestion to make the original author clause more clear.-12:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

I was asked to comment here by two people. Zero0000 is quite correct that the text is a bit confusing, and it should be amended along the lines they suggest. The AE case cited is a good example of the confusion, though in my opinion, it's a clear-cut violation of the remedy. The problem is that the remedy is bad.

I consider the changing of the wording to be putting a band-aid on a cancer. The fact of the matter is that nobody understands the remedy passed by ArbCom, not the editors, not the admins, not even people who pushed for the remedy in the first place. See the current AE case where I demonstrate this.

The wording ("Option 2" here) should never have been implemented, and I said so at the time. I don't have any confidence that ArbCom will do the right thing, since they have already screwed up multiple times. I may say something more substantial in the future, but that's enough for now. I would prefer a new ARCA where the cancer itself is considered, not just the band-aid. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm not sure I agree. It's plain to me what the sentence means, you need to have evidence of experience to edit the topic as a registered user. That's been set at 500 edits and 30 days tenure. No matter how it is written, there will be someone who thinks it can be written better and I'm reluctant to support a motion for a change that doesn't change the meaning. WormTT(talk) 19:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    My frustration stems from the fact that this remedy has been wordsmithed twice already with very little change. WormTT(talk) 07:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There is clearly some uncertainty as Admins have expressed concern. User:Zero0000 has suggested "Registered accounts are only permitted if they have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits." I can't see any downside to the wording, but I might have missed something. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm strongly opposed to further changes of this remedy. It's already quite clear. The remedy says that the following three types of editors are prohibited from editing in the topic area:
    • IP editors
    • Accounts with less than 30 days tenure
    • Accounts with less than 500 edits
  • If you fall into one or more of those categories, the prohibition applies to you. The current wording is grammatically and logically correct for that meaning. It means what we want it to mean. I'm very open to changing remedies if it will increase clarity (see above), but that is not the case here. At some point, we have to stop refactoring this and rely on reading comprehension. I would be surprised if an administrator could not demonstrate those skills when pressed and after the repeated clarifications at this board, but if so, I would suggest that they avoid enforcement in this area. ~ Rob13Talk 08:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Because it isn't so much clearer, Dweller. It is identical. Why are you not now concerned about IP editors being modified by those two criteria in the sentence? They are equally set off from IP editors as in the current writing. ~ Rob13Talk 16:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A plain reading of the sentence is already clear, as is WP:ECP which is based on the ArbCom decision. I've no problem clarifying decisions (as this is), but I don't see a need to amend it. To be clear, IP editors are prohibited as are registered accounts which do meet meet both criteria: 30 days or more; and 500 edits or more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    • We're getting to the point that we'd be changing it just to change it. It's been clarified and amended so many times already that the original purpose behind the remedy is becoming clouded. When the intention, to prevent new and/or inexperienced (or not so new/inexperienced) users from editing in this contentious topic area, is considered along with the words on the screen then the meaning is much clearer. Any way we write the remedy it can be interpreted in different ways, that's language for you. To gain an understanding of a message, one must do more than just read words on a page, the intention and context must also be accessed. In ArbCom's situation, the way people do this is to read principles, findings of fact, arbitrator's comments on votes and clarification requests. We could add a footnote with the criteria written a different way but I don't see that as necessarily helpful given that it could (and likely will) lead to another interpretation. As I said above, there are other pages which have been created to further explain and "flesh out" the decision, for example WP:ECP, {{ARBPIA}} and {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It reads plain and clear to me as well. Oppose any change. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with my colleagues. There is no need to change the wording. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The very clearest version would actually be something like "Only registered editors with at least 500 edits and at least 30 days' tenure may edit articles in this topic area; other editors may not do so." (The negation of an "or" statement is an "and" statement; see De Morgan's Laws.) By the way, this is as good a time as any to mention again that I dislike the whole concept of a whole topic-area being under an extended-confirmed restriction, but I'll accept the word of those active in the area that the alternatives are worse still. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't say I object to changing the wording - there are many ways to say the same thing - but I don't believe the hypothesis that there is confusion about this that would actually be alleviated by changing the text. I do think there's a lot of motivated reasoning about this topic - as in, people naturally subconsciously gravitate toward whatever interpretation means they get to do what they want - but the problem isn't really in the wording. Opabinia externa (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

On the topic of Zero's suggestion

  • While we all pretty much agree with there being no need to change the wording of the general prohibition, I think Zero0000 brings up a good point regarding the use of the phrase "original author" in the general 1RR. I'm not worried about dropping "author", since for better or worse, Wikipedia defines those removing content as an author. I am concerned about "original", though. I think we intended that restriction to apply to the most recent editor who added the content to slow down or prevent edit wars. Is there an appetite for making that more clear? ~ Rob13Talk 17:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit 'meh' on the topic. If there's evidence of the restriction being gamed in the way Zero explained (which hasn't/can't be dealt with under the discretionary sanctions) I'd be more willing to do something. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we need to change it as we never meant it to mean the original editor who added the text, and that's what "author" means to a lot of people, including me. I'm happy with Zero's suggestion. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Like Callanecc, I'd be more interested if we see evidence of gaming. I don't want to go messing with it unless there's a problem. Katietalk 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with just closing this out. After reviewing the AE thread, I don't see much evidence of any legitimate confusion. One editor proposed a rather off-the-wall defense, and administrators at AE didn't accept it. As long as the wikilawyering isn't causing legitimate confusion, maybe we should just let this one rest. ~ Rob13Talk 05:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: The Rambling Man (September 2018)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by The Rambling Man at 16:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
The Rambling Man arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. The Rambling Man and George Ho interaction banned
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • The Rambling Man and George Ho interaction banned

Statement by The Rambling Man

No need for a ban when we don't interact, haven't interacted, one of us is mainly retired, and there's not one iota of evidence that any threat to Wikipedia or any undue incivility will occur. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Worm That Turned no, as I stated clearly, this is just to clear the slate, neither of us have interacted, least of all negatively, for as long as I can recall. This isn’t supposed to be a big deal but thanks to Arbcom bureaucracy it’s no doubt going to become a complete timesink. What is the benefit to keeping this IBAN in place please? I see that reading your post you see these bans as being punitive. If you other George or I were to step out of line, (something which has not happened s for a year or more?) I’m sure we’d both be sanctioned. This IBAN is just an Arbcom device with no current real purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, well, given the statement made by the other party, I suggest this request is now moot and should be speedy closed (although it should be clarified explicitly that the last interaction occurred more than a year ago). Cheers, and thanks for the personal attacks on the way out the door. At least we got a contribution from one of the sleeping Arbs! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Worm That Turned no, it's fine. You've made about the same number of contributions to improving this encyclopedia in a year as I have in the last four days, but you're still charged with enforcing the punitive bans despite that. It's fine. I've already made a request of Arbcom that the other punitive increase in ban length without appeal be allowed to be discussed on Wikipedia, I hope you'll contribute then with such enthusiasm. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by George Ho

I'm not retired as TRM asserted, though I have spent less time and energy on this project than I used to. Also, I see no point on appealing the IBAN, considering that he and I were blocked last year for IBAN violation. Since then, I've not interacted with him at all and have no plans to do so at the moment. Furthermore, considering the way he interacts with other editors who are not his friends, not to mention two other AE blocks last year, and another IBAN slapped on him last year, I found myself compelled to leave the IBAN intact for now. George Ho (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Username

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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

The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recuse. ~ Rob13Talk 16:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: I generally believe that interaction bans are an extension of "it's a big encyclopedia, get on with something else", and once placed I like to see a good reason to remove them - people sometimes do not get along and if they need an enforceable remedy to keep the peace, then so be it. As such, I'm not prepared to accept "we don't interact" as a reason as, quite simply, that's the point. Can you tell me, has anything changed? Is there an area you'd like to be editing but cannot due to this interaction ban? Do you have any other good reason for it to be removed? I'd also like to hear from George Ho as to whether he'd like it removed. WormTT(talk) 17:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
    Well, I can understand wanting to clear the slate, as being under sanctions is not something I'd enjoy. However, as I hoped to make clear, I personally consider interaction bans one of the least stigmatised restrictions upon editing and as such am generally reluctant to remove them without good reason. I can think of situations where I'm happy to lift, but they generally include both editors wanting it lifted and having a plan going forward. For the time being, I'll wait for George Ho and other input. WormTT(talk) 18:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
    I'm generally about by email TRM and often watching, feel free to poke me if you think I'm asleep! WormTT(talk) 18:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (September 2018)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by David Tornheim at 23:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by David Tornheim

I’m sure it’s not a bad faith edit on Kingofaces43’s part; however, without having the courtesy of notifying me, Kingofaces has prominently mentioned me at this WP:AE discussion.

My question to ArbCom is this: Under the terms of my topic ban in this area, am I allowed to respond to King’s statements regarding me?

King has also prominently mentioned me with regard to my TBAN at this open WP:AN/I discussion. Am I allowed to respond there or somewhere else? Is there an appropriate venue? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to all the arbs that have weighed in. I appreciate the feedback. I support the close. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

I don't think much else needs to be said aside from that this filing or following the AE case is a violation of David's GMO topic ban. That's in part why they weren't pinged or alerted, which considering their topic ban, could have been considered pointy, grave-dancing, baiting, etc. if I had done so. The case also wasn't particularly relevant to David (no new sanctions being imposed on them) aside from me saying here's an example of pretty parallel behavior that got people topic-banned in the topic. People aren't always familiar with the GMO aspersions principle and the history of it, so examples of past issues with it at AE are helpful for admins who haven't followed the topic.

Either way, the topic ban was supposed to keep David out of this topic. I'm not sure why he thinks it would be ok to comment in an AE case on GMOs. If anything, it feels in similar territory as this AE case by another topic-banned editor with the take home message being that topic-banned editors should know better than to involve themselves in GMO DS issues unless it's to appeal their topic ban. We had problems at ANI with David violating their topic ban recently as well as concerns in this ANI thread of vexatious use of admin boards to proxy battleground behavior from the GMO topic. I chose to ignore it at that time after removing their initial topic-ban violation, but if this behavior continues and an admin doesn't call David out for that, it seems like a pretty straightforward subject to bring to AE. This venue's not really needed for that though, so I'm not sure what arbs could say here other than steer clear of the topic if anything. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

It seems to me that if anyone proposes any kind of sanctions or other actions against David, anywhere, David has every right to respond, anywhere – but that's not what's going on here. Pointing to a past case involving him does not require a response from him; the past case stands unless there is a successful appeal. And there certainly is the appearance that he has been following editors against whom he has a grudge following his GMO topic ban: link. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Hijiri88

I'm frankly shocked that nothing has been done witht David since his first (one-month) block for TBAN violation. He hasn't apparently made any attempt to improve his behaviour, and has been blatantly hounding Jytdog, recently showing up at ANI for the first time in sixteen months for the sole purpose of undermining him in two separate threads. This is obviously revenge for the whole GMO mess, even though Jyt, who was already banned himself in the original case, had nothing to do with David's banning -- that didn't stop him from dancing on Jyt's metaphorical grave during the AE thread that led to his own TBAN, and it doesn't seem to be stopping him now. He has barely contributed anything to the mainspace in at least a year, and seems much more interested in picking fights. (Note that so-called "kombucha" does not appear to fall under GMO, even broadly, so neither Jyt nor David violated a TBAN simply by making edits related to it; my contention is that, by continuing to go after Jytdog as he has been, David is engaging in the same disruption that led to his TBAN, in clear retalliation for the GMO incident several years ago).

Obviously, ARCA is not the best place for me to be bringing this up, as I don't think it quite rises to the level of an ArbCom site ban at this point, but I do think the IDHT regarding his own TBAN, followed by a swift and long block, followed be storming away from the project for the better part of a year, followed by ... [11] (and probably more than a few others), followed by hounding Jytdog, combined with his barely making any noteworthy contributions to the mainspace during this time, I think this probably does rise to the level of some kind of community sanction, perhaps an indef block.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

No comment on the request for clarification, and I have never been involved in the whole GMO stuff, but as Hijiri and Tryptofish hint above, it may be time to consider a one-way IBan of Davod Tornheim towards Jytdog and Kingofaces (and possibly others who are as yet unmentioned here). Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions (September 2018)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Tryptofish at 20:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

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

Statement by Tryptofish

I would like to ask the Committee how one should understand the following question:

When Discretionary Sanctions are in effect, are editors expected to be on "good behavior" to a greater degree than is expected in general?

I'm asking this question based on several recent experiences at WP:AE (it doesn't matter which ones). It appears to me that enforcing administrators have become reluctant to get involved in some complaints, when the complaint is not a clear-cut and obvious one. In particular, I have been seeing administrator comments along the lines of "we expect a certain amount of nastiness in topic areas that are highly disputed, so we should just let that go." I realize of course that this is always a case-by-case sort of thing. I suspect that some of this grows out of a concern about backlash against an administrative decision, some out of the fact that there aren't very many admins working at AE, some out of the difficulty of working through tl;dr statements, and some out of the good-faith and very reasonable desire not to sanction someone for simply getting a little hot under the collar.

But I've also long believed (perhaps mistakenly) that part of the idea behind DS is that the Committee has determined that the topic area has become such a problem that there is a need to decisively clamp down on disruptive behavior, and that editors who are properly "aware" are expected not to test the boundaries of acceptable conduct. But I think I've been hearing from some AE admins that they regard conduct that has been chronic and disruptive, way beyond the typical hot under the collar situation, but that is the kind of thing that leads to a wall-of-text at WP:ANI, as suboptimal but acceptable when DS are in effect. So how should admins at AE understand the intention of DS in that regard? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Worm, thanks (I think!), but I'll leave that for another conversation.
Rob, to some degree, I think your answer (just keeping it real here) is a cop-out. OK, don't tell admins how to enforce it, but ArbCom can still say what DS means. How should enforcing admins understand it? Of course, my asking this is intended to put ArbCom on the record for whatever you collectively decide to say, even if you decide to say pretty much nothing. I actually do "patrol" (or, more accurately, watchlist) the topic areas that interest me (which would make me involved if I were an admin), and I do bring what I am sure are valid concerns to AE. If ArbCom just wants to say that it's entirely up to the enforcing admins, then so be it, but I don't think that's in the community's best interest. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Mkdw, thanks, that's very helpful. As a follow-up, I'm particularly interested in where you say This says to me that general community norms are meant to be preserved as much as possible, but when an editor departs from these norms to any degree, there is far less leniency granted. I see that sentence as being at the heart of what I am asking. It sounds to me like, as far as what I called "good behavior" goes, the basic concept of what that is, is the same with or without DS, but when DS are present, it is expected that there will be "far less leniency" for deviations from proper conduct. Is that correct? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Reading the new comments from Katie and Worm, I think it's a useful distinction that you both make: better-than-average is not required, but worse-than-average behavior is a problem. That makes sense to me, and also makes me see a way to make my original question more focused:
When Discretionary Sanctions are in effect, to what degree is worse-than-average conduct acceptable? Putting it another way, should AE admins expect aware editors in DS areas not to test the lower limits of what is regarded as acceptable conduct? Worse-than-average behavior is a problem – but does that mean that it is also sanctionable at AE, as opposed to being a problem that we just have to live with?
--Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
DGG, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that DS sanctions should only be applied for disruptive conduct that is worse than what leads to sanctions in the absence of DS. That does not sound to me like what the other Arbs have said, and it leaves me a bit confused. Do I misunderstand? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Rick and Doug, I agree with both of you, and if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that DS come into play when aware editors in a difficult topic area engage in "below-average" incivility, and the goal is to get that up to something near "average" or mainstream community norms, but not necessarily "above-average" as in a genteel tea party. If that's the take-home message from this discussion, then that's what I've been looking for. In other words, aware editors in DS areas should be expected at AE to be staying above the mere lower limits of acceptable behavior, even though they don't have to be paragons. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been giving thought to where Mkdw and Katie asked for pointers to where editors have expressed concern about whether AE is working well enough. I've been loath to use specific cases lest this become a relitigation of them. But I can point to a discussion at WT:AE that I started fairly recently, that is worth a look: [12]. It comes out of an AP2 case, but I suggest looking at it more broadly than that. You will see me and other editors expressing concerns that troublesome users are not getting sanctioned enough, and most interestingly AE admins talking about how difficult it is to work at AE: Acting decisively is one thing; going out on a limb and getting it cut from behind you is another. I think some reassurance that AE admins are supposed to get things up to "normal" – as opposed to just keeping them above rock-bottom – could be beneficial. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Editors can find the definition etc. of Discretionary Sanctions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Pine

Do we know of any research that shows what effects the Arbcom authorization of Discretionary Sanctions has, if any, both positive and negative? Research of this nature could shed some light on whether modifications or clarifications, such as Tryptofish mentions, would be good. The scope of my question is broader than Tryptofish's question, but there is some overlap. I'm not proposing modifications or clarifications, or opposing modifications or clarifications, but I think that a review of research would be beneficial before deciding what next steps to take. --Pine✉ 19:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

This is a good clarification question being posed. I have a bit of a followup related to the interplay of DS and ArbCom. When behavior X is a major disruptive issue in the topic, arbs can pass motions as a finding of fact saying it has caused disruption while allowing general DS in the topic or even passing principles or DS specifically saying such behavior is not appropriate instead.

Now when it comes to AE, editors can present such behavior and say ArbCom has said this isn't appropriate. Admins are free to say what degree of sanctions are needed or not, etc. However, when admins say they expect that level of behavior in DS topics or even say they don't think that behavior is a problem, isn't that contradicting ArbCom to a degree? Admins obviously have discretion with discretionary sanctions, but can that discretion contradict ArbCom findings that specific behavior is problem when it comes to these behavior issues Tryptofish is talking about? Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Minor4th

This might be a dumb question (sorry) but can someone point me to a clear definition of exactly what "discretionary sanctions" is or are? This is a very good clarification, Tryptofish. Thank you. Minor4th 00:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

I still haven't figured out how/why ArbCom doesn't handle arbitration enforcement - I wonder if doing so would result in better remedies during arbitration. 😉 Gotta wonder why we have this venue for clarification. We elect administrators to use the mop to keep the peace and do necessary janitorial chores around the project, which means that with our admin shortage, they're already overworked and pressed for time. We elect ArbCom to resolve the complex issues that could not be remedied by the community or individual admins, so why is arb enforcement left to the discretion of a single admin? The words of Opabinia regalis still reverberate regarding an issue brought to this noticeboard because it was too complex for AE: ..."too complex for AE" means "too complex for self-selected volunteers who aren't actually obliged to do fuck all", whereas "too complex for ARCA" means "too complex for the people who specifically volunteered for and were elected to deal with complex problems and are as obliged to do things as anybody can be in an internet hobby". We can thank our lucky stars that we have a good share of excellent admins and arbitrators and that complex matters don't have to be judged by a single admin who serves as both our judge & jury. I think arb remedies/DS should always be handled by a minimum of three admins, and the three should rotate every quarter. My apologies for being so critical, but the entire process just doesn't seem to be very efficient, and we're losing good editors as a result. Atsme✍🏻📧 02:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Discretionary sanctions: Clerk notes

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

Discretionary sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I see discretionary sanctions as providing more tools to administrators, but I don't think the Committee intended to comment on how those tools should be deployed simply by making them available. It's ultimately up to enforcing administrators to decide how to use the tools we've given them to enforce policy. It's worth noting that any administrator can sanction an editor under discretionary sanctions, and it can only be overturned by consensus. If you think something has gone unenforced routinely at AE despite being a violation of policy, as long as that view isn't too outlandish, you're welcome to patrol the area yourself and enforce our community norms of behavior. ~ Rob13Talk 03:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Except that Tryptofish doesn't actually hold the admin bit. Something he could always email me about ;) WormTT(talk) 10:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • My interpretation is that the answer is no with an obvious caveat. In looking back at the history of discretionary sanctions, the wording on expectations and the role of administrators has changed very little:
"To this end, administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum."
This says to me that general community norms are meant to be preserved as much as possible, but when an editor depart from these norms to any degree, there is far less leniency granted. Standard discretionary sanctions rely on the judgement of administrators because they are expected to evaluate a situation and determine when an editor is engaging in battleground conduct and disruptive behaviour. Intent and impact are crucial determining factors when assessing if an editor's actions have inflamed a contentious area. I cannot say I envy the job administrators that regularly patrol these areas, but AE and community consensus are both a support resource, and a check and balance to the process. Arbitration being the last resort. The Committee then has to make further decisions as to whether appropriate civility restrictions are required, or whether broad civility probation conditions should be introduced. I would be curious to hear from others at AE and the community if they feel there should be more strict expectations on behaviour in topic areas covered by standard discretionary sanctions. Mkdw talk 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I think there is a set tolerance for "bad" behaviour that defines community norms. Anything below those norms, or as you put it "worse than normal", the use of authorized discretionary sanctions should be considered to stabilize contentious topic areas. Mkdw talk 19:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: On principle, our conduct policies are supposed to be universally applied across the entire project. There is a much stronger policy-based argument on that point than there is on the argument claiming editors working in contentious areas are entitled to an easement of these policies. We have serious problems on Wikipedia about consistency as evidently seen by the treatment of newcomers versus experienced editors. Following 'best practice' would be to not perpetuate these systemic problems further into contentious areas that would conversely more likely benefit from structure and clear expectations. Mkdw talk 20:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think topic areas with discretionary sanctions necessarily require better than average behavior, if you will; it's more that worse than average behavior has been observed in those areas on a consistent basis in the past. Like Mkdw, I'd like to hear from others about the need and desire for higher behavioral expectations in these topic areas. Katietalk 11:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In my mind, Discretionary Sanctions are an additional set of tools in an admins belt, to make things easier for the community, They're applied in contentious and evocative areas, where the norms of community behaviour can become forgotten - and rather than have escalating complaints over and over, a single uninvolved admin can use their judgement to do things that the community would normally have to do as a whole. Now, this is a very powerful set of tools, and shouldn't used without due consideration, so I understand that it may feel that behaviours get overlooked. So, no, I don't expect a higher standard in DS areas, but as Katie points out, there has been lower standards in the area in the past and so the area may need to be brought in line with the rest of the encyclopedia. WormTT(talk) 11:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The difference between DS and ordinary sanction sis the DSs require special procedures for their removal. To the extent that they require explicit consensus for removal, I think admins should be very cautious about using them. I suggest it would be counterproductive to apply them more freely than usual. I think this is essentially the same view my colleagues have given here DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be in agreement with my colleagues here. DS are put in place to bring behavior in certain contentious areas to the norm of Wikipedia. Areas that have a DS have those to ensure that standard is even across the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • We place these in areas where, among other things, we think that uncivil behavior might be more of a problem than in other areas without sanctions. It's also my experience that in some of these areas we get new editors who come in very aggressively. We want to stop that - not of course turn them into polite tea parties, that's too much to expect, but at least to reach normal (for Wikipedia) levels of civility. These can and do help. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Mkdw and Doug put it very well, in my opinion. Areas under DS areas have been observed to suffer from worse editor conduct than usual, so DS are introduced to provide tools to empower admins to stabilize them to get them to the same level of stability that the rest of the project has. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Casting aspersions (September 2018)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Obsidi at 12:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Multiple, including [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Obsidi

I have a question concerning the principles ArbCom has established concerning WP:Casting aspersions. As this isn't a policy or guideline, this seemed the best place to clarify such decisions. My question is, does this only apply when a specific editor is named or implied? Obviously given the context in which the words are stated, it may be clear who they are WP:Casting aspersions on, and in such a case that cannot be allowed. But the problem I see with not allowing people to discuss such misbehavior more generically is that it stifles discussion concerning generalized problems with Wikipedia's processes in general.

For instance, if I say "there are a lot of bullies on the noticeboards." Saying a specific person is being a bully repeatedly without bringing them to a noticeboard and providing evidence of that would be WP:Casting aspersions. But at the same time, there may in fact be a lot of bullies on the noticeboards and yet it may not rise to the level of seriousness where sanctions are justified (and so bringing them before an appropriate noticeboard and accusing them of that would be futile).

Additionally I may wish to discuss such a problem so we can devise a solution to "there being a lot of bullies on the noticeboards." But how can I do this if I cannot even discuss the very problems that I wish to fix?

For these reasons, I am of the opinion that WP:Casting aspersions was properly limited to named or where it could reasonably be inferred who the person was talking about. But in the context of a recent block, another editor disagreed [19]. This isn't about that specific block (or whether the block is appropriate, or the conditions for unblock). But just a question of what the rules are. In re-reading WP:Casting aspersions, I noticed that it was somewhat ambiguous on this topic and so I could hardly blame the other editor for coming to this conclusion. So I am asking for clarification.

@Beyond My Ken: I explicitly excluded Michael Hardy and questions concerning his block or unblock from the scope of the question presented for clarification. A few reasons for this, (1) I am aware that he has in the past explicitly named the editors he is talking about, and so his past behavior wouldn't entirely qualify for this exception, and (2) I'm sure that it will be handled appropriately by the unblocking admins. This is why he is not a party, although if he wished to provide comments to arbcom, I would seek to get those comments added. -Obsidi (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Responding to the members of ArbCom who have made comments so far. I agree. If someone were to say "based on incident X, people at the noticeboard are bullies." That would imply that the accusation of bulling behavior is by those involved in that incident. That could potentially be WP:Casting aspersions (depending on the exact context). I just wanted to clarify that either named editors or some other way to identify which editors they are talking about is required (in the example case, it would be the editors who were involved in that incident). -Obsidi (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

It may be that my connecting Michael Hardy's non-specific broadly generalized charges about "corruption", "bullies", "cliques" and "dishonesty" on the Noticeboards to WP:Casting aspersions will be a step too far for some, but I continue to think that it's close enough to the spirit of CA to justify the connection. It hardly matters, though, since the Fourth Pillar specifies that "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility," and it can hardly be said that Hardy making such wild accusations about unspecified parties is either civil or collegial. If there is corruption, bullying, cliquishness, and dishonesty, it needs to be dealt with, but the only way that can happen is by the presentation of specific evidence about specific editors. Hardy's steadfast refusal to do so seems to me to be in direct opposition to what the Fourth Pillar stands for, besides being disruptive and not at all the kind of behavior that I, at least, expect from an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not know until after I had posted the above, that in addition to making broad unsupported allegations of malfeasance, as described above, Michael Hardy also cast a few aspersions at specific people, including myself. [20]. Of course here, once again, he offered no evidence, no diffs, nothing but a bald statement that the "six dishonest cowardly bullies" were bad people of whom "[n]ot one of them is civil to anyone about anything." Hardy claims "That is not name calling. It is an accusation." and indeed it is, but one without supporting evidence, and for which he was indefinitely blocked. (This thread, diff is unavailable)
While the inquiry here was made on a general basis, I do not think it can be easily separated from the circumstances of Hardy's behavior which generated it. Here we see MH clearly casting aspersions to individuals, which, I think, only gives more weight to my suggestion that making broad allegations about the misbehavior of unspecified editors should fall under the same rubric. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
And, finally, just to point out the obvious, that calling AN/I and AN "the dramah boards" or similar run-of-the-mill complaints about the nature of the discussions there (which, to my mind, are vastly overstated) is a far cry from saying "a few clique leaders dominate certain things and sanctimoniously demand compliance with rules that they flout". That's incendiary language, and if not disallowed under CA, needs to be dealt with in some other manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, one more thing, Michael Hardy is at the very center of this issue -- why is he not a party here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mandruss

It would be unwise to apply CA to general statements about the Wikipedia editing population or some segment thereof, or even more generally about human nature and its effects on Wikipedia editing. Those discussions are important and meaningful, even occasionally useful. And I've never seen anybody apply CA to that type of comments, including quite a few I've made myself.

I think the essential difference is whether the comments arise from the whole of one's Wikipedia experience or from a specific situation. My exposure to the MH saga was limited, but my impression is that his remarks were more of the latter type, and CA applies. As for what BMK meant in the comment linked by the OP, BMK can (and, I expect, will) speak for himself. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

I agree that clarity is needed to help eliminate the inconsistencies in admin actions that may range from no action at all to indef t-bans or blocks, and everything else in between - all of which depends on who the admin and subject editor happen to be at the time. An occasional *sigh* at the end of a sentence may be misconstrued as belittling which is an aspersion whereas profanity shouted in anger may be excused. Is telling someone their comment is full of bologna an aspersion? Do insults count as aspersions - could a joke be thought of as an aspersion? Why are aspersions actionable and not outbursts of profanity? Perhaps examples should be provided as a gage to determine what is considered (1) intolerable aspersions that are blockable, (2) borderline aspersions that require a warning, and (3) not an aspersion. Having clarity and a gage to judge by may help to eliminate potential unwarranted actions or incidents where no action was taken because of uncertainty. It is clear that casting aspersions must be accompanied by diffs but more emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that the provided diffs must clearly support the claim, and it should apply to all editors & admins who participate at AE, AN, AN/I and wherever else aspersions may be an actionable behavioral issue. If the diffs are found to not support the allegations, then a boomerang is in order, and the latter really needs to be included in the clarification. I think it will help eliminate some of the cases we're seeing now that are based on casting aspersions. Atsme✍🏻📧 17:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Worm, you said below that "there's got to be some judgement involved in where the line is drawn." Yes, that is what this discussion is about. Keep in mind that the reason an issue elevated to arbitration in the first place was that individual admins and the community were unable to resolve the issue via other means of DR. By leaving the execution of vague and confusing arb remedies to the judgment of individual admins, in lieu of our panel of elected arbitrators, is problematic for multiple reasons. It was ArbCom who decided those cases and established those remedies; however, if the execution of such remedies reverts back to judgment calls by individual admins, why do we have ArbCom, and what purpose do these so-called remedies actually serve? Nothing was remedied, and we're losing admins and editors as a result. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to provide those stats? Atsme✍🏻📧 16:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

Like Atsme, I feel that there is a lot of undefined territory here. As I see it, a lot of the difficulty comes out of the community's lack of broad consensus as to what constitutes incivility (and of course there is a limit to how far ArbCom should get ahead of the community). It looks to me like the community has low tolerance for new or unregistered editors saying incivil stuff, but is willing to make way too many (in my opinion) excuses when an established and net-positive user says something incivil. I feel like I'm seeing much more anger in discussions than I would like to see. As for aspersions specifically, I would suggest that ArbCom look at it in terms of where a particular conduct does or does not disrupt editing.

As I see it, saying that other editors are taking a position because they hold a particular belief should not be considered an aspersion. If I say "I think you feel strongly about X, and that's why you want to edit the page that way", although it's true that I am commenting on another editor's motivations, that's not something that we should disallow. It can be a necessary part of some discussions.

But if I say "I think you are incompetent, and that's why you made that edit", that is an aspersion and a personal attack. The difference is I'm not talking about the other editor's point of view, but about their personal characteristics.

And saying without clear evidence "I think you are editing that way because you are acting on behalf of X" is also an aspersion, and one with a history. The last case linked by the OP here was the GMO case: [21]. And this is a history that needs to be understood. Prior to the case, it had become common for editors to say things like "Editors are trying to sanitize this page because Wikipedia is full of shills acting on behalf of Monsanto". It became such a problem that it led to significant findings in that case. After the case, editors who were not already topic banned realized that they had better not say "shill" anymore, so they started dancing around it by saying things like "Editors are acting together to keep all criticism of Monsanto off this page". And here is the reason why that is still an aspersion, in a way that "Editors want to have more negative content about GMOs" is not. It goes beyond asserting that other editors have a particular POV, to where there is the implication, without evidence, of conduct that violates policy. We have policies against undeclared paid editing, and the aspersion is that some editors are violating those policies, above and beyond just having a POV. And it doesn't matter if the aspersion is framed in general instead of identifying a particular editor by name. It's still something that should be considered an aspersion, and it is something that can be highly disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Minor4th

It does seem as though aspersions are in the eye of the beholder. As such, there is wild inconsistency in enforcement, which leads to the problem of editors not really having proper notice of where there boundaries are. I think that most policies and guidelines on Wiki are interpreted and applied this way, however.Minor4th 00:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

@Newyorkbrad: In your example, it seems you only dealt with part of the analysis (perhaps because that is the direct issue). I'm sure you are aware, but 'no aspersions' is only part of the fuzzy 'code of conduct', if you will, see eg, WP:AGF. So, leaping to 'paid' should be avoided, especially when nothing even suggests paid is involved, and we are dealing with multiple people from multiple places/life experiences, who are bound to say things differently. Seems a better way if you want to explore it, would be to ask honest good faith questions (eg. non-accusatory), before assuming anything. Especially so, since 'you said others were paid', could itself fall into 'aspersion' territory. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Wikipedia:Casting aspersions: Clerk notes

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

Wikipedia:Casting aspersions: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I view the "casting aspersions" principle as a subset of "no personal attacks." It is a personal attack to accuse another editor of misbehavior, although we permit it as part of dispute resolution where (1) making the accusation will benefit the encyclopedia and the community because doing so is needed to solve a problem, and (2) there's reasonable evidence to support the accusation. If someone says "Editor X has done a bad thing" that is clearly directed at Editor X. If someone says "the editors in this discussion have done a bad thing" and only Editors X, Y, and Z participated in the discussion, then that is clearly directed at Editors X, Y, and Z. On the other hand, if someone says "everyone who contributes to ABC noticeboard has done a bad thing," that would seem to be more of a criticism of a wiki-process or an aspect of wiki-culture, rather than of specific editors. So there is a distinction to be drawn there, although it's not always clear where the line falls. (For those who appreciate off-line parallels in these discussions, this exact problem arises frequently in the context of defamation law, in which a statement must be "of and concerning the plaintiff" in order to be actionable.) If I may go a bit beyond the specific question, I would add that moderate language and the avoidance of excessive rhetoric will help make such criticism more palatable and useful. To choose an example not entirely at random, if one says that the Administrators' Noticeboard and its participants are "corrupt," that could mean anything from "many editors are taking bribes" (interpreting "corrupt" as in "a corrupt politician") to "this noticeboard often doesn't work properly" (interpreting "corrupt" as in "a corrupted file"). Since one of these two statements is a calumny and the other is a truism, such ambiguities should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Although I’ve offered a couple of general comments that I think are common sense, let’s not go further in discussing a specific editor unless a matter relating to that editor is brought here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think NYB is pretty much on the money, casting aspersions is a subset of no personal attacks. If it clear who the attack is aimed at, then it becomes a personal attack. So, if you say "it's clear this place is ruled by thugs" it's general. If you change that to "based on this incident, it's clear that this place is ruled by thugs", it becomes linked to those in the incident, and depending what happened in the incident it can be construed as a personal attack on those involved. I don't think there's anything to prescribe here, there's got to be some judgement involved in where the line is drawn. WormTT(talk) 10:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with NYB and when it comes to things that are almost entirely dependent on the context of case-by-case situation, in the future, a clarification should be based on a specific incident, or framed around the circumstances of an incident in question. Mkdw talk 16:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with those above that "casting aspersions" relates to WP:NPA. Clarification of existing policy is a matter for the community, not the Committee, so I won't comment on that further with the arb hat on. ~ Rob13Talk 05:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Michael Hardy (September 2018)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Beeblebrox at 20:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Michael Hardy arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Michael Hardy reminded


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • The committee should consider whether this warning had the desired effect and whether Michael Hardy should continue to be an administrator on this project.


Statement by Beeblebrox

The 2016 committee decided a “reminder” was a sufficient remedy in this case. That reminder has clearly failed to have the desired effect as disruption in this area has continued and taken much time and resources from the community. The remedy reminds Michael Hardy that “Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.” and the finding of fact upon wich this remedy was based, [22] reads, in part, that “(Michael Hardy) has perpetuated the dispute with his own actions. Hardy has assumed bad faith of the editors criticizing his behavior and failed to drop the stick.” If he was failing to drop the stick two years ago, and is still causing disruption in this exact same area even after a full arbitration case by now it must at least be failure to drop a limb or a tree trunk. Here is the recent AN thread [23] a village pump thread [24] and a recent thread at Jimbotalk [25]. Hardy’s talk page and block log also contain relevant material showing that this is part of the same issue as the previous full case.

I would suggest that this sort of behavior is unbecoming of an administrator, and for failing to heed this warning, Michael Hardy be removed as an administrator. I would stress that I am not alleging tool misuse but rather a clear, prolonged unwillingness or inability to abide by expected standards of admin behavior, as outlined in the committee’s previous decision. I believe the community has failed itself by not bringing this forward sooner, allowing the committee to sit on it’s hands and do nothing while all this disruption has gone on in project space.

(To be clear, I am automatically listed as a party due to filing this request but I have had no involvement whatsoever in the current dispute and cycle of blocking and unblocking. I am including those admins as parties here as I’m sure they will each have their own opinions to proffer)

To those who seem to think I wish to re-litigate the recent AN thread and the assosciated blocks: I do not. Whether he shoud have been blocked for his behavior was addressed by the community, and it seems, finally, to have made up its mind. What I am looking to do is assess whether Hardy should still be an admin, which is the exclusive purview of the committee and it has already ruled once on his behavior in this specific topic area and how it reflects on his continued membership in the admin corps. I might have done this sooner but I was camping for the last week and when I came back and saw the drama had continued but it still hadn’t been brought here as it should’ve been. Arbcom doesn’t go looking for cases and requests even if it is well aware of the issues, somebody has to bring it to them, and nobody else seemed like they were going to do it.

I may be pressing the word limit now, but in answers to “why now” I would again suggest that this is what should’ve been done to begin with, as there was already a full case on this exact issue. I was unavailable at the time the AN thread was closed and the unblocking occured and looking at the closde thread I was surprised to find that seemingly it hadn’t occured to anyone that this was already Arbcom’s problem since they issued a ruling on this editor’s behavior in this specific topic area previously, and also the issue of conduct unbecoming an admin is not an issue the community is equipped to deal with, only the committee is. His fitness as an editor is not the topic here, only how his behavior reflects on his staus as an admin, which he was explicitly warned about by this committee.

Statement by Michael Hardy

If I had not been completely blindsided by learning of the existence of the corruption, dishonesty, and bullying that is the dominant behavior of the Administrators' Noticeboards, I would have conducted myself differently in the recent events. However, there is no reason for me to recant or apologize for allegations of dishonesty, corruption, and bullying. And those are accusations, not "personal attacks". There are accusations against me on this present page, and no one is calling those "personal attacks" or "insults". That discrepancy is in itself dishonest. It is a fact that on Administrators' Noticeboards and like venues, there are unstated unadmitted pecking orders, and those who rank high in that unacknowledged system, and their sycophants and other supporters, have de-facto licenses to accuse others without being accused of "personal attacks" or "insults", while others who make accusations of the same kinds, myself obviously included, are accused of "personal attacks" and when making assertions that are factually correct or factually incorrect and that are in fact accusations. And that situation does not scratch the surface of the deep corruption in such forums. I don't even have any idea how to collect sycophants and it has never occurred to me to wish to do so, but as we see, some are masters of that art.

One thing I find disturbing that I have not yet commented on is an exchange with Alex Shih. I said that nobody had attempted to explain why allegations are not libelous, that say that the only reason why professors at respected universities use the standard terminology of their fields in public is to create a false impression of legitimacy. Alex Shih responded that many people had explained that to me. When asked for diffs, he linked to the very page on which many had refused to explain that, plus a page on which another user, Guy Macon, had asserted that meetings at which professors present their research findings to each other are "unquestionably highly lucrative", at best an implausible statement, and therefore those professors are dishonest. I can only wonder if Alex Shih was paying attention to what he wrote.

(I actually suspect Guy Macon of honesty, which his followers seem to lack, since he was willing to attempt to give some comprehensible reason for his position. But he has not found out that meetings at which professors present their research findings to each other are not the same thing as marketing fad diets to the public, nor that such meetings are a standard practice among academics.)

Possibly I will file an ArbCom case, but that may be too expensive. I will probably want to be advise in the matter by counsel who is thoroughly familiar ArbCom proceedings. This is an important matter. If I do that, I may or may not include some mention of the

I asked "NewYorkBrad" in an email if there is some rational grounds for confidence in the integrity and competence of the Arbitration Committee. Some time later he has not replied. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(refactored)@Black Kite: I made accusations against others and others made accusations against me. Mine were characterized as "personal attacks"; theirs were not. There is much hypocrisy and dishonesty there. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
(refactored)@MPants at work: When I object to dishonesty and bullying, that is called "throwing a fit", but I wonder who will say that this user is "throwing a fit" by making allegations against me. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: That is false. I asked each ARB a different set of questions. That particular question I addressed ONLY to Newyorkbrad, in response to his email, and he has not replied. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mkdw: For the record, he did _not_ reply to that question. He replied only to the earlier question that I sent to the other members. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Statement by JzG

Is this a "live case or controversy"? I thought it had finally died down? Guy (Help!) 21:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333

My thoughts are as follows:

  • Michael is a prolific and long-standing writer in the field of Mathematics and contributes hugely to the encyclopedia. A block on Michael prevents this work happening.
  • Michael has had difficulty expressing his viewpoint in conflicts in a manner that other people understand easily. This has led to multiple noticeboard threads.
  • Michael generally does not use the administrator tools.
  • A substantial amount of conflict has arisen, not least the original arbitration case, because of Michael's perceived "status" as an admin, and demonstrating hostility and incivility towards editors that would not be tolerated in any candidate running for RfA today. Therefore the community considers Michael's adminship to be unfair.
  • I believe the original blocks on Michael were within the bounds of administrator discretion. While blocking for civility should be a last resort, in this case I believe it could be considered appropriate to force an editing holiday on Michael in order that everybody else can stop talking about it and get back to working, and give us a net reduction in disruption.
  • I unblocked Michael because I saw consensus to do so from multiple administrators and wanted disruption to decrease and for people to stop watching his talk page for evidence of it.
  • A significant amount of disruption and drama would go away if people just left Michael alone.

I don't have any strong opinions on what to happen next, but this is simply the current state of affairs as I see it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm

Michael Hardy was indefinitely blocked for, essentially, repeatedly complaining about a group of editors who responded to a complaint he made here, and refusing to drop the stick about it. For reasons I explained in my assessment here and here, the treatment MH received was very unfair and problematic, so much so that I apologized to him on behalf of AN. Myself and a group of other admins eventually negotiated an unblock in which Michael agreed to not bring it up anymore. We let him have the last word, and he appears to have moved on since then, with no further issues. I have no idea why someone would try to rehash this all now, days after the situation had been reasonably resolved. There was no significant offense here, just some very human righteous indignation.

  • Just want to re-emphasize a point that Ritchie made above, which is absolutely true: A significant amount of disruption and drama would go away if people just left Michael alone. (Swarm ♠ talk) 23:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • As for whether any of this is desysop-level misconduct in general, I think such sentiments are foolish. MH brought something to AN that nobody but he cared about. That was the big offense. For some reason, a bunch of people were unduly rude and dismissive about it, and while he should have just moved on and let it go like he was told to, we need to recognize the fact that he wasn't in the wrong for feeling mistreated or bullied. That's not a behavioral issue on his part. That was a situation that was provoked in the original AN thread. (Swarm ♠ talk) 23:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat

Beeblebrox, I’m only passing through, having seen the link elsewhere, so I can’t comment on the situation here, but I think I’m right in saying that little will happen without diffs to show the behaviour you outline. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

This seems like picking at a fresh scab, Beeb. I'd have waited to see what happens now that the recent troubles appear to have died down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Paul August

No. Michael Hardy validly complained about AN/ANI, refused to stop complaining about AN/ANI, and was blocked by AN/ANI. Perhaps instead AN/ANI ought to be "reminded". Paul August ☎ 22:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I've decided to add some slightly more thoughtful comments: There are a relatively small group of editors who spend a lot of time at AN/ANI. They know each other, often respect, and like each other. They are well-meaning and do a lot of good work there. But—and there are no better words for it—they operate as a clique, and often indulge in groupthink. And often, in fact, their cliqueish group-think is correct. But ... not always. And woe-betide the editor who disagrees, who refuses to Kowtow, who gets on their bad side, for they are soon got rid of. None of this is surprising, what would be surprising is if things were any other way, for this is simply human nature at work. This is a problem for Wikipedia, and I do not know what the solution is. But at least part of the solution needs to be some serious self-reflection by the participants at AN/ANI. Paul August ☎ 20:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Dave

I absolutely agree Micheal should be desysopped for their behaviour but the drama's died down and they've finally dropped the stick so in my eyes the best course of action would be to leave them be and if they start again then Arb is (or should be) the first port of call. I just don't see the point in rehashing it all out again. –Davey2010Talk 22:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

This is a model of poor AN behavior, and it is so because of the ad hominem of which Michael Hardy was the victim, in the form of 'Because it is you, Michael Hardy . . .'. So, it is AN that is in need of reminding that WP:CIV explicitly seeks to prevent bringing up the past in such a manner ("it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user"). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Per policy, it is irrelevant and off-topic to a blanking discussion whether Michael Hardy is/was bad, -- policy does not contain a 'Michael Hardy is/was bad' factor. The only thing that matters, by policy, is, "may cause harm to some person or organisation". So, by policy, it is not correct, nor justifiable, nor even just, to respond, 'you are bad, Micheal Hardy'; nor, 'you were bad, Micheal Hardy'. The faulty AN ad hominem, remains the proper focus of where correction and reminding is needed, and not just for MH's sake, for anyone who has the possible misfortune of going to Admin boards, and for the general purpose of DR and Admin process, it is the needed focus. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

Yes, Michael should have been desysopped during the period of chaos that resulted from his persistent personal attacks on other editors (his actions were clearly not in keeping with anyone who holds advanced permissions), but this seems like a strange time to be bringing a case now, when everything has died down and Michael has promised not to repeat his actions. Obviously, if such editing were to reoccur, a desysopping would be a slam dunk, but I'd like to think that we'd give someone a chance to show they can carry on with their (obviously positive) editing without such an issue happening again. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Shih

Out of the blue, Michael Hardy blanked the AfD ([26]) that hasn't been edited since 2016 (the one that initiated the arbitration case in 2016), and re-litigated their argument from two years ago at M. A. Bruhn's talk page ([27]) who hasn't edited since December 2016, and also left a similar message to Orangemike ([28]), who started the AfD in question two years ago. The behaviours of some editors at the noticeboard was certainly hostile and troubling, but to completely ignore how the thread originated, the conduct of Michael Hardy, and the context of this entire situation is also not correct I think. In conclusion, the point that the issue would have gone away if people simply left Michael Hardy alone is not entirely correct when considering the subsequent development.
While the AfD question has been resolved, what I think the points Beeblebrox are raising is that 1) The original remedies has proven to be inadequate, and should be updated with motion 2) Similar to the Andrevan case request, the fact there weren't misuse of tools is irrelevant as that is not the only aspect of adminship covered by the requirements of accountability. The fact that a case wasn't brought forward should not be a justification that there were no merits for a case, rather the lack of editors who are capable of bringing such a case, involving many bizarre and unusual aspects, correctly. While the timing has indeed passed and nothing can really be done anymore, the fact that ADMINACCT and some arbitration remedies are so inconsistently or selectively enforced (like in this case), and avoiding to tackle the core of a problem that would more than likely to re-surface, are not some of the principles that should be upheld. While regular editors should walk away from the timesink, this is the kind of job that Arbcom needs to do. Alex Shih (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

Since the fuss, MH has edited 38 articles and one DYK and has made no mention of the excitement that I can see. Picking at the scab is most undesirable. There has been no suggestion that admin tools have been misused so removing them would be pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

As one who was trying to de-escalate the latest fracas, I simply want to offer my opinion that Ritchie333's statement is an accurate and fair account of what happened, and his opinion that "A significant amount of disruption and drama would go away if people just left Michael alone" is sound. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

I think "staleness" can matter in some cases. The crucial distinction that I think exists here is that Michael Hardy is not accused of any misuse of the admin tools, nor is there any substantial cause for concern that he will abuse them going forward. This is, rather, just a "conduct unbecoming" case (and having looked at what happened, Michael Hardy is not the only one whose conduct was not the greatest). If Michael (and everyone else) really will drop the matter, then it's over with and nothing further is needed. If he doesn't intend to do that, desysopping won't prevent him from raising it again anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants

I was one of the parties in the case referenced. I'm of the opinion that the way MH was handled most recently was the best way to do it: When he throws a fit about something, block him until he agrees to stop throwing a fit about it, then unblock him so he can continue editing. This is, IMHO, an editor who's behavior needs managing, but who contributes quite usefully to the project. So let's just handle the behavior and let him keep contributing. Note that my value judgement of the behavior would read very differently, but since we're not here to teach adulting lessons, we should focus on what helps the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by David Tornheim

I commend Michael Hardy for speaking the truth about the double-standards and other serious long-standing problems at Wikipedia at Jimbo's page, even if he goes overboard with hyperbole. The numerous attempts to silence him (via multiple A/N and ArbCom filings, warnings, and blocks) for raising legitimate concerns is sickening: It confirms exactly what he has been saying about bullying--bullying to silence him. His accusers can run circles around him with filings like this taunting him and and provoking him into restating his concerns about being bullied, but somehow that is okay.

He did, in fact, promise to stop talking about these problems--something he should never have been required to do. I see the opening of this ArbCom amendment as an open invitation for him to restate his concerns about the double-standards.

I agree with those who have stated that there are problems on "both sides". If we can agree on that, we might get somewhere.

What we need is more uniform application of civility rules, which I did see with a recent revert and block by Boing!_said_Zebedee.

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Michael Hardy: Clerk notes

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

Michael Hardy: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • There have obviously been issues but like several of those commenting, I’m not sure why we are seeing this request at this moment. Excessive rhetoric and unnecessary drama were belatedly deescalated: why stir them again now? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I don’t get it either. Michael has resumed normal activities for him and relative peace, AFAICT, once again reigns throughout his corner of the encyclopedia. He hasn’t edited in a couple of days. Why the need to bring a case action at this particular moment? Katietalk 00:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to decline at this time. As Brad and Katie have pointed out, the storm has subsided and the drama has ended for the time being. If it starts again, sure, but since it hasn't since the unblock, what's the point of this? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm conflicted on this request. On one hand, I don't think anything has changed in the past week regarding whether Michael's conduct was compatible with adminship (without comment on whether it was or not). I don't want to set precedent that a case must be filed immediately or else administrative misconduct goes stale. On the other hand, why kick off drama again when it's just been quelled? Either way, ARCA is not the place to handle this. We would need a full case if we are seriously considering desysopping as a potential remedy (and we would have to be to justify a case at this late hour). Decline to take action at ARCA without prejudice against a case request. ~ Rob13Talk 03:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The community is getting better and better at handling behaviours, Arbcom is becoming more and more redundant. So, as Michael has stated that he's going to move on or raise an Arb case, I think we're at the point that things have calmed down - which is what Wikipedian's normally want, to get on and beaver away. Per Rob, I don't want to discourage people from raising cases (or taking action) or imply that misconduct can go stale, but when a solution is put forward by the community (in this case an unblock with an agreement that he moves on), it should be given a chance to work. Also, procedurally, I wouldn't be happy removing tools by motion based on recent behaviour, there are too many factors over the period which would need to be looked at, as well as the possibility of alternative solutions, and that would need a full case. So, I'm a decline at the moment, without prejudice to a full case, or return if anything changes. WormTT(talk) 08:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Michael Hardy: you asked each ARB that question individual by email. More than one of us responded, myself included. WormTT(talk) 19:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I am of two minds here. On one hand, Michael's actions were one that I would not want to see an admin take in the least. On the other, Michael has seemed to walk away from the edge and moved on, thankfully. If a desysop truly is warranted, a case request should be made for that. Since the drama itself seems to have mellowed out, for now I decline. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline per others. For the record, Newyorkbrad did reply to Michael Hardy's email despite the claim he did not respond. Mkdw talk 18:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Michael Hardy: Please follow the instructions on the edit notice and post within your own section. Since you have raised and discussed the contents of the emails here, you are waiving their confidentiality. In the email you sent to every Arbitrator, you question the "honesty and general legitimacy of the Arbitration Committee", effectively the integrity of the Committee. Newyorkbrad responded to your email, as did others. For you to claim that Newyorkbrad did responded to your email about the integrity and competence, when in fact they had, but simply not to the last message in the discussion, is dubious and misleading. Considering your email inquired about our "credit ratings" and "tax returns", I may only assume that if you had responded back to Newyorkbrad, another response was not required, either as asked and answered, or that your requests were so inappropriate that deny applied. Mkdw talk 02:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Michael Hardy: I read your comment. There are instructions at the top of the page, in the edit notice, I moved four of your other comments (on two separate occasions), and I informed you directly to reply in the correct place. You are either not reading things, which defeats the entire purpose of a discussion, or you are intentionally doing it, which also defeats the purpose of having a discussion. In either case, we are at an absolute majority to decline the ARCA and no further good will come from reviving discuss about an incident already past, or an issue that requires a full case reques. The ARCA should be closed at the earliest convenience. Mkdw talk 04:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline, largely per Ritchie. People might consider, where possible, leaving Michael alone so he can get on with his content work. Michael might consider, where appropriate, toning down the hyperbole. Either way, not much mileage to be had from this discussion. If there's a view a desysop is warranted, it'd need a case request. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline, belated agreement with the above. I share Paul August's view that the dramaboards did themselves no particular credit here, but on the other hand, Michael Hardy's behavior has been poor in a strange and hard-to-follow way throughout this whole dustup, from the abrupt blanking to these latest emails flying around. I would say "everyone needs to chill out", except that that had pretty much already happened by the time this request came about, so... chill out more. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline Doug Weller talk 05:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_104&oldid=1131471504"