Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miniapolis (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 12 December 2016 (→‎Motion: Darkfrog24: Enacting motion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 Motion (orig. case) 30 October 2016
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation Motion (orig. case) 5 November 2016
Amendment request: WP:ARBPIA3 none (orig. case) 23 November 2016
Clarification request: Fæ Motion (orig. case) 27 November 2016
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Shrike at 08:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Shrike

According to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 any edit done by new account in the area could be reverted according to ARBCOM decision.Recently I stumbled in two cases:

  1. AFD created by a new account Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force_(3rd_nomination) (talk)
  2. Article Issa Amro (talk)

What should be done in such case?Should they be speedy deleted according to G5 or there are some other procedure?

@Ryk72:@BU Rob13:Your proposition is good as it clarifies that talk pages could be edited but it still didn't answer my concern about new article creation and AFDs.--Shrike (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: @BU Rob13: According to this clarification [1] the sanction is not only about articles but about edits too and I think its good practice because it should stop socks to disrupt the area.The wording should be changed accordingly to be conclusive about every Wiki space(article,talk,new pages and etc)--Shrike (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis:,@DeltaQuad: I think its wrong to allow those users to create articles.The original motion was enacted because of sock puppetry.It will give socks a possibility to use this venue to participate in Wikipedia although there were banned--Shrike (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

The provisions of 500/30 allow, but do not require, edits by users who do not meet the threshold to be reverted or removed. If the edit in question benefits the encyclopaedia (I haven't looked to see if the listed ones do or not) then it seems silly to revert for the sake of reverting. At most a friendly note on the user's talk page informing/reminding them about the 500/30 restriction seems most appropriate.

For any AfD I think following the guidance at Wikipedia:Speedy Keep point 4 is best: If subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's [...] status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BU Rob13

As it stands now, non-extendedconfirmed accounts are prohibited from editing "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". While we're here talking about this remedy, can you amend that to exclude talk pages? It's clear the committee didn't intend to bar IP editors from making talk page requests in this topic area, but that's technically what it's done. In a topic area like this, it's only a matter of time before some "clever" wikilawyer tries to make that argument.

I will not comment on the substance of the original issue here other than to say that, as always, common sense should be exercised everywhere on the project. ~ Rob13Talk 06:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ryk72: Respectfully, I disagree with restricting this to just articles. I've seen extremely personal and contentious edit wars break out over the color of a heading on an Israeli-Palestinian conflict related navbox. I think this restriction should extend to templates, categories, modules, etc. Additionally, your proposed change significantly weakens the remedy from an actual prohibition on editing to mere eligibility for 500/30 protection (something that is already allowed via the usual protection policy). If the intent is just to rule out the weird talk page edge case (and perhaps project space, while we're at it), I'd suggest the following amended remedy instead.
All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. This remedy does not apply to talk pages or the Wikipedia namespace.
~ Rob13Talk 12:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shrike: Yes, my issue is a complete tack-on, since it doesn't make much sense to handle two concurrent ARCA requests for the same remedy. I don't have too much of an opinion about your issue, but if it's determined an amendment needs to be made to correct something about that issue, it would have to be on top of my proposed one. ~ Rob13Talk 12:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DeltaQuad: I don't know that the remedy is as confusing as you believe it is. I read "may enforce" as a statement of what tools may be used by administrators to enforce the remedy rather than a statement that administrators may choose to ignore the remedy at their discretion. The statement is a bit antiquated, as we now have extendedconfirmed protection as the obvious tool to enforce the remedy, but I suppose reverts are always appropriate and blocks would also be appropriate if an editor continuously hopped to new pages in blatant disregard of the remedy. ~ Rob13Talk 14:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doug Weller: Obviously, I can't speak for the Committee in terms of how they want that to be enforced, but I can speak as an administrator who has been protecting many pages related to this remedy. I don't think remedy #1 of this case is relevant here, and as written, remedy #6 in WP:ARBPIA doesn't apply either. In the past, the Committee has worded discretionary sanction remedies to specify any edit in a topic area is covered. See here. Perhaps such a rewording would be sensible here? I certainly have noticed that this conflict tends to find its way onto pages I'd struggle to confidently place within the topic area. ~ Rob13Talk 19:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: Given the statement that the ban is not optional, applying it to talk pages prevents non-extendedconfirmed editors from filing edit requests. Is this the committee's intention? ~ Rob13Talk 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72

Suggest amending to:

2) All articles pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, excluding pages in the Wikipedia and *Talk namespaces, are eligible for extended confirmed protection. Editors may request this at WP:RFPP or from any uninvolved Administrator.

or similar. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Thank you for your kind reply. I accept and agree with your comments about namespaces other than mainspace. My intent was to cover only the namespaces containing content which appears in the encyclopedia itself, and (as you rightly point out) this does include more than just articles. Share your concerns about limiting access to Talk pages. I have amended my statement above.
I maintain, however, that the remedy is better phrased as a restriction on pages (with a process for technical implemention) than a restriction on editors - a topic ban, without notice, of all new editors isn't a practical solution, nor is it warranted. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: Thank you for your question. I don't think that either the AfD or the new article creation are sufficiently innately disruptive as to require restriction. The AfD closed with no consensus; so it doesn't seem like a disruptive nomination. The article subject, on a cursory inspection, appears notable; so it doesn't seem like a disruptive creation. We also have well developed processes (and enough eyes) on deletions & creations which deal with disruption well. I do think that the best way to implement the intent of this remedy is for any editor to be able to request ECP on a page in this topic space (as defined above), without having to demonstrate disruption of that page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Note that the question of whether the 500/30 rule applies to talk pages was addressed here before, see the second I/P case here. (That's the page version before the case was archived but I cannot locate the archive.) The response then was that talk pages are included. However, it would not be a disaster if talk pages were excluded. On the other hand, it would definitely be a bad idea to just change "pages" to "articles", as pages like categories, templates, AfD discussions, etc, need defending just as much as articles do. BU_Rob13's suggestion is good.

Regarding Shrike's questions, I think that new articles created by non-500/30 users should be speedy-deletable, unless substantial improvements have meanwhile been made by a permitted editor. Similarly for AfDs.

Either way, dear arbitrators, please don't leave these matters for the community to sort out. Please make a decision so we can get on with writing articles. Zerotalk 13:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

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 don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I believe this came up at ANI, and it was a bit of a strange case, with the HumanRightsUnderstanding account coming out of nowhere (and disappearing back into that void). In both cases I'm with Thryduulf, which means that, in essence, I completely trust the community in taking care of these issues on their own merits. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of this remedy has confused me for a while now. We say that under 500/30 edits are prohibited, but then say that prohibition may be enforced. It sounds like a very confusing signal. I've been asked quite a few times at other offwiki venues how this is supposed to be enforced including thoughts on the mass page protection of the entire area. I don't think we are being fair to throw the work to the community in this case and say figure out how it's supposed to be enforced, when we can't even be clear on how it should be enforced. What exactly that means the committee should modify or change this to...I have no idea at this time. It's worth the discussion though to me. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I've just run into an odd problem at Ancient maritime history. Maybe I should be asking for a clarification. The article isn't obviously related to the PIA area, but the edit is. A new editor changed "The Phoenicians were an ancient civilization centered in the north of ancient Canaan, with its heartland along the coast of modern-day Lebanon, Syria and northern Israel." to say "northern Palestine". I reverted him a while ago as the coast of northern Israel isn't part of the Palestinian territories and, because his only other edits, in 2010 and 2015 were similar, changing Israel to Palestine, gave him a DS alert. Just now he's reverted me saying "Palestinian boarders never changed prior to occupation, while zionist/Israeli boarders expand by annexation and are an unreliable reference". So is he allowed to make such edits, and if he is, how is that different from editing a page clearly within the area covered by the DS? Doug Weller talk 19:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shrike: Although User:Callanecc stated that "500/30 applies to all edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (not just articles)." the wording is still "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters." Doug Weller talk 19:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BU Rob13: Yes, rewording to make it clear that "any edit in a topic area is covered" is a good idea, as I'm pretty sure that's what we meant. As I see the 500/30 as akin to a topic ban, I'm not convinced that talk pages should be excluded. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the wording issue DQ raised, I've always read that as an acknowledgment of the reality that enforcement is never 100%, either because things slip by or because someone makes a deliberate choice to let an otherwise constructive edit slide. Of course, I don't know that last year's arbs actually meant to parse that finely. (This wasn't the part of the text that was updated earlier this year.) Last time this came up I think the general consensus was to use common sense on talk pages and in areas where editing can't be managed by technical means - ie don't throw away a new editor's new article if it's otherwise good, or revert an otherwise useful comment, but don't feel obliged to keep crap or put up with POV-pushing. If there's a preference for spelling that out in a motion, though, I'm on board with Rob's idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Opabinia regalis: If we honestly do not expect full enforcement, should we not just make it clear that anything that doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia is (delete|rollback|remove|block|protection|nth option)able instead of a complete prohibition that we don't want enforced? That seems to be more in the spirit of discretionary sanctions and allows it to be enforceable. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know, doesn't every rule work that way? ;) The only cases where we can actually aspire to complete enforcement are policies of legal significance, and even then stuff slips by. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The may allows admins to use the tool they think is best for the job. The ban itself is not optional --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the purpose is best served by including talk pages in the ban, as previously. But for edge cases, Thryduulf's comment seems exactly right. With respect to may, the comment just above by Guerillero says all that needs to be said. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Doug Weller's suggestion to reword the remedy to read "any edit" is reasonable. I am hesitant to extend this protection to include talk pages, however—I think prohibiting new editors from even discussing or suggesting edits to a very broad swath of articles is too extreme. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (v0.1)

Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
  1. Editors who do not meet the criteria may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
  2. Editors who do not meet the criteria may make limited use of the Draft: namespace and their userspace to prepare encyclopedic material. They may not create new articles in the topic area; however, they may submit drafts to the Articles for Creation process. If an article is created by an editor who does not meet the criteria, and the article is not otherwise a candidate for deletion, it should be moved to the Draft: namespace or to the editor's userspace. Under no circumstances should this exception be used to store advocacy material, material violating any Wikipedia policy, or other content with no realistic prospect of mainspace use.
Support
  1. In the absence of objections to this formulation over the last couple of days. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This works for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. this is better than what I wrote a year ago --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 08:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Somewhat reluctant support. I'd still like to see a way to apply this (without ECP) to any edit, not just any article. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
Clerk note: There are 11 active arbitrators, so 6 support or oppose votes is a majority. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since we've hit the one-month mark on this, here's a bone to chew on. On #1, I think Rob has a good point that a venue for edit requests is reasonable provided that any disruption can be squelched without too much trouble. However, I can't quite convince myself to extend the exception to Wikipedia space - we don't need more socks at AfD or ANI. On #2, I think we'd all rather that new editors not create new articles on the subject, but we have no way to inform them not to if the new article is among their first edits in the area, and once it's written it hardly seems reasonable to delete it if it's not otherwise deletable. (This is also a recurring problem with G5 in general.) I could go the other way on this.
I haven't included the issue of "any edit" vs "any page"; I'm not convinced there's much added value there. Those edits changing "Israel" to "Palestine" and vice versa in unrelated articles are silly, but they mostly get reverted anyway AFAICT; I'm not sure spreading this prohibition so widely across the encyclopedia, to articles where the local editors may have never heard of this ARBPIA3 stuff, is enough of a net benefit. I wouldn't mind if an edit filter could catch some of the common patterns though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does "editors who do not meet the criterion" mean "editors who do not have extended confirmed user access" ? DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To a close approximation. We could probably just say EC and tell whoever asks for clarification about whether it applies to editors who've requested the EC right be removed, or alts of EC editors, to find something less lame to do with their time ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on it being article space only. Given all pages should be protected it does seem a bit moot really...as they can't edit them anyway..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a particular point in saying non-extended confirmed vs. IP, Accounts < 30/500...it just sounds better the way it is, but that's nitpicking.
@Opabinia regalis: I like this clarification as it provides an enforcement venue on how to handle what falls through. My one concern though is dumping in the Draft space. 1) It still allows the article to be published as is, what we are prohibiting in the first place 2) AFC doesn't receive very much attention. So giving the false hope that it will one day be created amongst months and months of backlogs I feel isn't appropriate. Could we leave it just to the userspace allowing any other content contributor to pick it up and run with it under CC-BY-SA 3? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: I don't think I understand point 1, sorry - there's not much difference between draft and user space for this purpose, except that drafts are slightly more convenient. Neither one is indexed, so I don't think there's any difference in terms of "publishing" between a draft and a userspace page. On point 2, I think that's how AfC often works anyway - someone can poach a draft and move it to mainspace without going through the Official Process if they want to. But you're right that it may be easier to specify that an eligible account has to move the page to mainspace, regardless of process.
@Shrike: The problem is that we have no way to actually tell a new user that they can't write new articles on this topic until they've already done it, at which point the work is done and we might as well judge it on its merits. So it makes sense to give some guidance on how to do that. If piles of socks start writing terrible articles and pestering people to accept them, then we can reevaluate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation

Initiated by Darkfrog24 at 04:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment and clarification are requested
  1. Accusation of gaslighting by Darkfrog24
  2. Block of Darkfrog24
  3. Topic ban of Darkfrog24
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Accusation of gaslighting by Darkfrog24
  • Reject/repudiate
  • Block of Darkfrog24
  • Unblock
  • Topic ban of Darkfrog24
  • Revisit

≠=== Statement by Darkfrog24 === I request that discussion, if any, of SMcCandlish's misconduct take place in a separate thread.

Part I: Gaslighting

EDIT: SMcCandlish has alleged that I brought up this specific accusation as some kind of trick. I did not. You guys made it clear last time that you did not consider it your job to weigh in on every individual accusation, but I figured no one would mind if I asked you to do so on just one. I picked this accusation in particular for the reasons I gave below and because it is important to me personally, regardless of what role it did or did not play in the rest of this. It has done me considerable harm, and I don't mean to my hobbies or on-Wiki reputation. I mean harm. I'll say more if you ask me to, but I'd rather not. To address the issue of whether I thought the admins believed it, of course I did: They acted on it. It's one thing for SMcCandlish to say something extreme on some talk page and quite another for that statement to be officially endorsed and punishment meted out. The idea that anyone thinks I would do something that evil has been eating me alive. This didn't happen last winter. It started last winter and has been happening every day. If my hands are still touching the stick, it's because I'm trying to block the blows.

I'd worked with him for five and a half years at that point and did not at that time think he was a bad person. Is it that hard to believe I was worried about him?


This is first because it is necessary.

Is it Wikipedia's position that I tried to gaslight SMcCandlish?

Gaslighting is the attempt to convince someone that they're crazy using systematic psychological harassment and torture.

Here are the accusation and links cited: [2] [3] [4]. Last summer, he was acting weird, like something bad had happened off-Wiki. I asked another editor to go easy on him. I asked him (on his talk page, not in front of everyone) if he was okay. I dropped the matter immediately after reading his reply. That is not gaslighting; that is what people should do.

Why this accusation

  • It's extremely serious. Gaslighting isn't just misconduct. It's real-world evil. You'd have to almost not be human.
  • It's similar to the other accusations in that, for it to be true, I would have had to have meant the exact opposite of what I said and my accuser offered no proof of this.
  • Kindness is cruelty because it came from me? This is wrong on every level.

Why this is worth ArbCom's time

In addition to the harm this has done me personally, Wikipedia is bleeding talent and the #1 reason people give for leaving is the toxic environment. The idea that editors can be punished for being nice to someone on the other side of the aisle is the second worst thing I've seen on Wikipedia. We're supposed to be a community.

If you do think that I actually did this, say so.

Part II: Block

Other activity

I come bearing zero attempts at block evasion and, per instructions at Meta-Wiki, months of meaningful contributions to other parts of project Wiki.

I have translated much of Category:Euryarchaeota into Spanish and added new content to most articles, with corresponding updates to Wikidata. Any content disputes were resolved through discussion.

As a result, I was sponsored for autoverificado status, unsolicited. (not the same as autoconfirmation)

I've also worked at Idea Lab, participating in the June anti-harassment drive and other projects. [ I have been thanked].

Solution

I had a different text ready, but a recent conversation gave me some highly useful perspective.

Clarify: 1) I was blocked for volume, not for "talking about other users." The reason I can't figure out why you think my February post to Thryduulf violates WP:BANEX is because you don't. 2) You consider asking about how topic bans work, which I did several times, and attempting to renegotiate my topic ban, which I did once to be the same thing or at least to draw from the same well, the way some employers combine sick and vacation days but others consider them separate. Is that it?

Here's the problem, though: I was targeted by a complaint with excessive volume. "10,000 words" is not hyperbole. I did not even get to finish reading it before I was sanctioned, and when I did, I found it was heavily falsified. I don't think anyone here believes "Accusers get as much time as they want to write statements as long as they want and say whatever they want and if the accused can't handle that in days, into the trash with them" is okay. That invites abuse. There's got to be a non-disruptive place between my actions and not being allowed to climb out from under the bus.

...that place is clear guidelines for long complaints, and I am in an excellent position to be part of that solution. I've worked out some strong ideas:

  • Reject without prejudice all accusations over a certain limit (the come-back-with-something-shorter rule).
  • Allow qualitatively different complaints to be filed consecutively. Instead of rolling eyes at accusers who file a second complaint if the first one fails, encourage it. Admins could spread the weight, and it would be much easier for sanctioned editors to figure out why they were sanctioned. From what I've seen at AE "You were guilty of WP:X but not WP:Y" is often what really happened, and saying so makes the accused less likely to suspect anything fishy.
  • Give the accused sufficient time to prepare a response, perhaps with a stay-off-the-page-in-question-in-the-meantime requirement (for all parties) and commit to reading the whole thing. EDIT: Since drafting this appeal, I've seen Bishonen and Sagerad work out something similar [5]. I'd say at least a day and a half per 500 words of complaint (mine took a month). Downside: This one is the most work.
  • Read only part of the complaint and tell the accused to respond to only that part. Dismiss the rest without prejudice. This is what I attempted. Frankly, I don't believe the admins did read the whole complaint, and one admitted that s/he had not. Upside: This is highly time- and effort-efficient.
  • More.

I wasn't ready for a complaint twenty times the limit, and I can believe the AE admins weren't either. Over this year, there's been a growing awareness at AE that the accused shouldn't be expected to respond on the spot. Those efforts should be supported.

Part III: Topic

The source of confusion here is that the AE admins issued the ban for the reasons Thryduulf gave in February, none of which are true and some of which can be easily disproven, but the Committee upheld it for a completely different reason, discussed over email last April. Again, it looks like the issue with my actions at project MOS is closer to volume than to content, and you would consider qualitatively similar participation acceptable so long as there were less of it, per SlimVirgin and my own voluntary offer back in January (NOTE: At the time, I thought "1RR" meant "one talk page post per day.")

I request that you state this. "Darkfrog24 is topic banned for [phrase as you prefer] and nothing else." I would like it if you explicitly rejected the other accusations: "Darkfrog did not call people names, battleground, falsify ENGVAR claims, push POV..." but that's what I want. What I need is up top.

Opabinia, that is the first time that anyone has said that to me. I am not and have never contested topic bans must be obeyed while in force. I've obeyed mine, and if you guys lift the block but not the ban I will continue to do so. But there should be some recourse for people who are targeted unfairly or whose accusers spam or abuse the system. If pushing someone under a moving bus is not considered disruptive, then trying to climb out shouldn't be either.
If you mean, "Sanctioned editors must only contest the accusations against them at the designated appeal date, no matter the circumstances," then say that, but say it. It should be added to WP:TBAN.
It is absolutely imperative that the committee officially endorse or reject the accusation of gaslighting. Whether or not I'm an evil person is not minutiae. I'll explain further if you need, but I'd rather not. Can you do me this favor?


The only words needed from you, SMcCandlish are "I'm very sorry for lying and I promise never to do it again." Or even just that last part. You may leave now. You will be notified of any proceedings regarding your misconduct.

If you want proof that SMcCandlish knowingly and deliberately lied at AE, I will provide it. However, that and his other misconduct should be handled in a separate thread and appropriate venue. I am not the first person he has targeted. Frankly, it bothers me a great deal that some individuals on Wikipedia seem to care more that I called him a liar than that he lied. He's called me a liar and worse things, with no proof at all, and no one batted an eye. (And yes his statement was just under 10,000 words. 1800+ in-thread and about a 7000 linked-in portion. Even if its contents had not been grossly fabricated, its length alone made responding in the normal time frame impossible.)

As to which way the interaction ban should go, well, I didn't Wikistalk through seven years of his user history and spend months writing an eighteen-page treatise full of fabrications about him. I didn't call him slurs. I didn't speculate about his job and make fun of what I thought it was. I defended his right to hold whatever belief he wanted so long as he stopped his hostile behavior toward people who don't share them. I did not mock and bait him while he was topic-banned. And I absolutely did not say that "Are you okay" was gaslighting if he was the one who said it. He's the one who shouldn't be allowed to talk to me. But yes, if he weren't allowed to talk to or about me, that would knock out a lot of the problem at WT:MOS. Take his creepy obsession with me and shut it down.

@Drmies: I will repeat to you my statement that I will continue to obey the topic ban while it is in force, but yes I will still seek to have it lifted either on schedule in February or at some earlier time of the committee's choosing. It is simply a matter of doing so in a way that has been established as nondisruptive—which is why the committee, community or both should establish procedures for dealing with very long complaints regardless of what else happens here. If you guys think I have to prove myself on some other part of the encyclopedia before going back to project MoS, well, I don't think that's necessary, but I'd still do it. (NOTE: I am under the impression that topic bans, including this one, are meant to be temporary.) About my ability to follow the topic ban, well, I have been reading AE threads from January through October to internalize patterns of what is and isn't allowed. I don't see why they can't just be written down at WP:TBAN, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish speculated that I was "[only] a community college professor" and talked about how CC profs are stupid or something. I can find this or any of the diffs if necessary, but I don't think this is the right venue.

Again, this should really be addressed in its own thread, but I worked with SMcCandlish for over five years, and this is a pattern with him: Accuse the other person of doing the thing that he's doing so they look stupid if they counter-accuse. Calling names, slurs against my mental health, ignoring sources. Only difference is I called him on it first this time.

Do not let SMcCandlish confuse the issue of whether I should be unblocked. What if anything should be done about his actions is a separate issue, and it it should be handled in the right way, with diffs and enough time to read any statements made against him.

Point a, but is there more?

I have a concern. I've agreed to Opabinia's point a), more than once, but it looks like you guys want me to agree to something else too. I have an idea of a few things it might be but I am concerned that if I ask you "Is it this?" I will end up making some big sacrifice only to have one of you say months or years from now "I never told Darkfrog24 they had to do that. They did it on their own." I've had people do that with me before. Maybe none of you have any intention of doing that and this is just a matter of hard communication, but that is why I do not want to voice any guesses about what is required of me, regardless of whether they'd be right.

Please state explicitly, "Darkfrog24, in addition to continuing to obey the topic ban and appealing it only through official, nondisruptive channels we want you to do/not do [action]" or "Darkfrog24, we do not generally require sanctioned editors to [do this] but we are asking/telling you to do it anyway. We feel that it is what is best for this specific case."

If it is that topic-banned editors are not allowed to talk about the topic ban or their accusers, even if they do not mention the banned topic itself, then you need to talk with this guy at WT:TBAN because not everyone's on the same page.

In light of GW's comment about interaction bans, I feel I must say that I haven't been calling SMcCandlish names or casting aspersions against his mental health as he claimed, but he's done both to me. He has repeatedly disregarded the instructions he was given at AE to stop initiating conversations with me in my userspace. When he declined my invitation to talk about his personal problems, I dropped the matter and left him alone. When he was topic-banned, I didn't mock or speak ill of him. Putting me in a position in which he could continue to abuse me and I would not be able to so much as contradict him or remove his comments from my userspace would be wrong.
I believe Robert's suggestion merits exploration. Again, I'm, well, not fine with Opabinia's stipulation, but I'm willing to do it, but we all have to get on the same page about what that means. If what you want from me is something other than what has already been said, then asking you to name it really doesn't seem like too much to ask.
I don't want to voice a guess, but I will. I'm interpreting this as "Yes, don't renegotiate the topic-ban constantly or even remotely often, but no, not not ever; use the official schedule only." If this is not correct, then kindly say so.
Opabinia, I actually feel your statement is progress. Take every time I said "guess" and replace it with "simple inference." I'm here asking if the inferences that I have drawn are correct or not before I expend large amounts of effort acting on them. I don't want to spend months and years trying to solve the wrong problem.
At this point I have to wonder, is whatever it is that you really want from me something that you're embarrassed or ashamed to say? Is it something you don't want to have to admit you ever asked for? Yes, "We want this editor to never appeal their sanctions" and "[removed by poster; see last line]," both sound ugly, but if either of them is what's going on here, or if, like with what looked like Spartaz's breaking the one-year rule on AE blocks, there is some other more benign explanation that merely happens to be tucked out of sight under a pile of archived precedents, frankly, it is cruel not to tell me why I'm being punished or what it would take to stop these daily beatings. Leaving me hanging is uglier.
I'm sure whatever it is seems really obvious to you, but remember that you've been steeped in arbitration regs day in and day out for years and I haven't. I'd never even heard the terms "discretionary sanctions" or "voluntary ban" or "broadly construed" until relatively recently, and it took months to piece them out. Wikipedia is a big, polyglot project with all kinds of people in it, and not everyone is going to think the same way. Sometimes you're going to have to spell it out.
EDIT: Wait a second. Would anyone feel more comfortable if you told me what's expected of me but not publicly? Is it something you don't want to blurt out in front of everyone?

Just so it's on record here, I did not go to Wales' talk page to crusade, as Spartaz puts it. I asked for someone to come and help us communicate. I used the word "translation." You guys think you're being clear. I think I'm being clear. Things still aren't meeting neatly. This is where someone else coming in could make a difference. I believed I was allowed to make this post because blocked editors are allowed to appeal to Wales and he is included in the request. Spartaz has told me on my talk page that I must not continue posting to Wales' talk page in this way, and I have done so.

Request for translation at J. Wales' talk page

...has produced some useful comments. @Ca2james::

"Relitigating" includes but is not limited to talking about how this person lied, or that process was bad/unfair and could be improved, or Darkfrog disagrees with the topic ban because X, Y, Z. That limitation does not preclude them from appealing their topic ban. Instead, it means that any appeal they make must not include a discussion of any other editor's behaviour or what happened when they were banned but must focus solely on their own behaviour.

Is that it? Please confirm two things: 1) This looks like it means I'd be forbidden from saying that SMcCandlish lied at AE in January but I would still be at liberty to say "It is not true that I made bogus claims, bit the new guy, etc." should I choose to do so so long as his name is not mentioned and no case is made regarding whether he was lying or innocently mistaken, etc. 2) I am or am not forbidden from participating in discussions of how the AE process could be improved? Please confirm. It all sounds plausible to me, but I need to hear it from you.

Response to issues raised by Ca2James.
You can say "That's not true" without saying "The person who said it is a liar." If Bill says "there was a black cat in the library on Monday," when video footage shows that there was no black cat in the library, then Bill might be lying but also might just be wrong, mistaken, got the day confused, etc. If it's been a while Bill might just have a memory issue. Saying "there was no black cat in the library on Monday" does not automatically amount to "Bill is a liar." The issue of whether there was a black cat in the library or not can be addressed without bringing Bill up at all.
I am asking Do you mean that I have to confess to infractions that I did not commit to get the sanctions removed? Or can I show up to AE on appeal day and say, "I promise to continue not biting new guys, continue not ignoring sources, continue not battlegrounding, continue not lying about ENGVAR etc. etc. Also I think the real issue was X for which I promise to do Y" and so on?
Why I'm asking for clarification No CaJames, that is not why I am asking for clarification. At first, I was asking for clarification to show that I was willing to take the sanction seriously and remain within its limits even though I didn't agree that it should be in place, willing to develop a better Wikipedia MO even though I didn't think my old one was that bad. We can always do better. I was submitting to authority and showing that I could be obedient. They yelled "Jump!" and I was asking "How high?" Later, I asked for clarification because I had been repeatedly punched in the face for breaking rules that I had not known existed. They're not written down, not at WP:TBAN, not anywhere. I keep hearing "Well just don't talk about or edit the subject you're banned from!" but I haven't. I keep getting sanctioned for other things. If it were that simple, this would have been over months ago. The way this feels to me was that I was told "Don't go into the park or even touch the fence!" and I got sanctioned for using the sidewalk on the other side of the street. A "Don't use that sidewalk either" would have saved everyone a lot of time. Let's just get all the expectations laid out now.
I am absolutely not gathering evidence against SMcCandlish. I do have some, but it's from the complaint that he made against me. After he posted it in January, I read it. Took a month. I did write up a full-length rebuttal, but I haven't looked at it in months. There are a couple of places where SMcCandlish couldn't have just made a mistake, where I can prove he knew the statement was false when he made it. That's what I mean when I say "I have proof." I did not go and wiki-stalk his user history looking for trouble like he did to me.
Regarding "every little thing." I realize you consider the issue of whether I made a falsified ENGVAR claim, bit the new guys, ignored sources and so on to be minutiae, but please remember that the enforcing admin TOLD me that this is why I was sanctioned. I would have dearly liked to have heard "This is stupid minutiae and a waste of everyone's time. Now let's focus on the real issue: That Darkfrog24 defends their position too aggressively, at too great a length, and too often" back when these accusations were first made. You have no idea how much.
I realize that in ArbCom's opinion, these individual complaints are not the matter, but they scald. As you can see above, I do realize that ArbCom has a separate reason for keeping the topic-ban in place. That section is the smallest because I really wasn't expecting for the ban to be lifted today anyway. This was mostly about gaslighting, the block, and plugging the hole in the AE system.
Regarding technicalities. I feel that "The complaint was so long that I didn't get to read it first" is more than a technicality. I'm trying to say, to paraphrase Salvio, some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, and the eventual sanction, an indefinite block, is excessive. I also think I have some good ideas for how to keep messes like this one from happening again.
Well at this point, Ca2James, I want SMcCandlish to leave me the heck alone. I've told him to stay away from me. Admins have told him to stay away from me.
I guess what I'm saying is I posted all those questions early on to show that I was diligent and involved and willing to put in the work. It took a couple months to figure out that what the admins actually wanted was low-maintenance. That's a perfectly common-sense expectation, but so is diligent and involved. I definitely have a better idea of what people want from sanctioned users now than I did back in January.
Thanks for the strikes on "collecting evidence" and your take on what the admins have been trying to say. I could do without the hostility, but whatever else happens, thanks for answering my question and trying to help us communicate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final clarification

It sounds like the motion is saying that I do not have to pretend that the accusations were true or in any way endorse them at my next appeal.

Would said appeal take place here or through the normal unblock system?

I point you toward section III above. Please confirm whether I have guessed the matter correctly. You do not agree with Thryduulf's list about the reasons for the original topic-ban. Rather you believe it is for the other reason outlined there, the volume of my participation in the debates over WP:LQ, not specific misconduct. (I have also been assuming from the beginning that I was not sanctioned based on what side of that debate I am on.) Please say either, "Yes, that is correct" or "No, that is not correct. In my/our view, you were topic-banned because of [reason]." I need to know what part of my Wikipedia MO to work on. Basically, establish the location of the goalposts, as of today. You can always change your mind later.

I would like the committee, either individually or as a body, to reject the accusation of gaslighting. It is extremely important. This is not about what SMcCandlish thought the word meant. It is about what the admins who acted on it thought I had done. This is about the meaning of the official sanction. I wasn't trying to either psychologically torture or belittle anyone. I was just being nice.

Statement by SMcCandlish

Not sure why I wasn't notified of this, since I'm accused in it, yet again; I ran across it while looking through ARCA stuff in prep for ArbCom voting.

In a user talk post concurrent with this ARCA, Darkfrog24 opens with a renewal of this user's pursuit of vengeance against me: "My own case is complicated. Short version: It started when I was targeted by a liar with a grudge" [6]. Nothing has changed, and this self-defeating ARCA is not "complicated" at all, but essentially identical to the last one, in April [7]. DarkFrog24 was instructed in no uncertain terms to stop beating the dead horse of her personalized campaign against me (Laser brain, [8], among other admonitions), and failure to do so was one of the main reasons the very narrow t-ban became a broader one, then a block, then an indef. The direct tie between abandoning this vendetta and perhaps being allowed to return to edit again was made clear, not just repeatedly at AE but also by admins at DF24's own talk page (multiple times, this is just the latest one, from June):

  • "[T]he time binding is around your own understanding of the restriction and willingness to drop the stick. Indefinite is not infinite unless you fail to work out how you can edit without touching on anything to do with your topic ban." (Spartaz [9].]
  • And later by someone else: "You've been told by admins to stop relitigating, and yet you keep relitigating (as with pretty much your entire reply, immediately above)." [10] (Elvey, October, from a series of posts that are clearly stated to be responses to Wikipedia e-mails DF24 had been sending to pursue involvement in the topic-ban issue and against other editors associated with it.)
  • See also: "[W]hat is argued here is that everyone else was wrong, and a wall of text about minutiae is offered as proof. As for the block, you are blocked until you 'understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it'; neither of these conditions are met, obviously." (Drmies, in April ARCA [11]).

Now here we are again, with DF24 not asking to return to WP to work on something else, but dwelling entirely on the general topic of the topic ban, continued pursuit of a hounding effort against me that stems directly and entirely from that topic, and why everyone else is wrong. This editor is clearly not getting the point, on a long-term if not permanent basis, and equally clearly is just biding time restart the same fray. Both of these were the other major factors in the escalating series of sanctions against DF24, who pestered AE admins incessantly with an "I just don't understand" act and constant border-testing for weeks until indeffed, and resumed the same behavior when allowed to edit her user talk page again (cf. the threads I just cited from June and October).

I'm not going to respond to the litany of details in DF24's screed, just make three quick points that render the details moot:
I.  "Gaslighting" has multiple meanings, the most common of which is using clever language to try to pooh-pooh others' perceptions and experiences and make them seem irrational or overreactive perhaps even to the person to whom they belong. Anyone following liberal/Democrat/progressive online debates, for example, would be well-steeped in that meaning by now. DF24's attempt to suggest my choice of one particular word (for which she holds to a quite extreme definition) constitutes a personal attack is hyperbolic (note the hyperbole it's peppered with directly: "systematic psychological harassment and torture", "extremely serious", "real-world evil", etc., etc.). The broader meaning of gaslighting is regularly used in at least the American press, in the same sense that I obviously intended, e.g. in reference to the "post-truth" Trump campaign [12]. There are even entire articles about it: [13], [14].
II.   I did not submit 10,000 words of evidence at AE. I had a page of unsorted, uncompressed evidence I was preparing for an eventual ArbCom case to deal with DF24's disruptive behavior when the AE actions came up unexpectedly. I mentioned this page of diffs as something AE admins could look at if they wanted to, despite its state; they chose to do so, and it was sufficient for them. DF24's entire premise here is predicated on the twin false suppositions that a) AE admins may only look at officially submitted evidence and can't do their own diff-reading, and b) AE admins are categorically incapable of assessing the evidence on their own, as if their brains short-circuit when they see evidence that has any commentary by its provider.
III.   DF24 clearly does not understand at all the reasons for even the original topic ban, which had nothing to do with "volume". This has actually been explained to her before. Note also that since at least February 6, DF24 has conceded that the AE admins are telling her she's not getting it [15]. This ARCA is basically a combination of wikilawyering and victim theatre.

Also, most of DF24's post above is the user trying to appeal things that cannot be appealed until the twelve-month mark, in Feb. 2017. Only the indef was subject to a six-month review.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I just remembered that Thryduulf warned DF24, "There was some support for an interaction ban prohibiting you discussing SMcCandlish though, so I would think twice before doing so and make sure that you are not harassing them." [16]
I ask that this one-way i-ban now be imposed; that will provide me relief from DF24's vendetta, while also preventing a repeat of this sort of pointless request from DF24. A future one by the editor would necessarily have to focus on something else, like DF24's willingness to work on entirely unrelated activities at en.wiki, and acceptance of and movement beyond the t-ban, its topic, and anyone involved in it.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now this illustrates clearly why DF24 needs to be banned from interacting with me; this projective vendetta stuff is obviously never going to stop otherwise. (I'm assuming that DF24 will eventually return from the block, though the MoS t-ban being lifted seems unlikely.) Much of that anti-SMcCandlish rant doesn't even make sense. How could I be "speculating" about DF24's professional background if it's self-disclosed at User:Darkfrog24 and frequently mentioned in the user's own posts? Etc. Whatever. I don't have any further time to waste on this stuff. There's only one "creepy obsession" that needs to be "shut down" here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertinventor: I argued repeatedly myself that DF24 should not be blocked, for the same "can be productive elsewhere" rationale, but this is self-evidently no longer the case, and this became self-evident by around AE #2 of 3. This WP:GREATWRONGS campaign has become entirely tendentious for this editor. If she cannot even use her one clear, open shot at getting reinstated to good effect by avoiding relitigation, even after numerous warnings, it cannot be taken seriously that this behavior would not continue after reinstatement (at least not now; maybe after a long break the editor will drop this stuff and move on). The rest of your points I already addressed at the Jimbo talk page thread. TL;DR: I definitely do not agree to refrain from presenting evidence as needed if this comes up again, as it probably will in February. The "gaslighting" stuff is a red herring, a hand-wave to distract from the real issues with the editor's behavior; it had nothing to do with the t-ban, the block, or the indef. It doesn't matter whether DF24 was insinuating things about my mentality at all in her discussions with CurlyTurkey; what mattered was she was actively trying to recruit someone else among the MoS regulars to act as her proxy to "go after" me over MoS matters, in violation of her topic ban. Then squandered her ARCA hearing, which should have been about dropping the matter and moving on the productive, to instead burn it on seeking my head on a pike again. The funny thing is, I did not initiate a single one of those AE actions against her; my "sin" was that diffs I provided were solid enough evidence to act on. We have an article on that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Correction: There were four, not three, AEs ([17], [[18], [19], [20]) and I did initiate one of them (the second); this has gone on for so long and at such length that I'd forgotten. At any rate, the evidence I made available was in the first AE, a complaint lodged by someone else.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@IP commenter, re: "So let's get this straight" – You didn't get any of it straight.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, as unhelpful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DF24's bit above that goes "is whatever it is that you really want from me something that you're embarrassed or ashamed to say? Is it something you don't want to have to admit you ever asked for?", is a good example of what I mean by this editor's gaslighting, in the broad sense of trying to get party B to doubt their own perception, memory, intent, or other mental processes (in this case, also laced with appeal to emotion for the "benefit" of third parties in the discussion); it neatly fits the pattern I diffed in previous rounds. At any rate, DF24's question in "#Request for translation at J. Wales' talk page" above should probably be responded to before this is closed, as a way to shut down one avenue of this "I just don't understand" gaming.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Something I missed earlier: DF24 writes, "Admins have told [SMcCandlish] to stay away from me" (a claim she's repeated in several other places), but this is simply not true, and is a good example of the projection I was talking about. It is, rather, DF24 who has been repeatedly administratively admonished to drop the stick she's beating me to paste with and to stop picking it back up. What DF24 seems to be misremembering and hyperbolizing is an admin recommending me and others stop discussing something about punctuation at User talk:Darkfrog24 since DF24's topic ban also applied to her own talk page [21]; and we did as requested. The total extent of my interaction with DF24, outside ARCA, since then has been the following (and note what little resemblance this bears to DF24's claims above that I'm harassing her): A) A notice that I did something DF24 seemed to want [22], B) response to DF24's own direct question to me [23], and C) constructive suggestions related to two WP policy essays [24], [25]. All of these have been met with raw hostility [26], [27], [28], [29]. Since an admin suggested, after DF24's block, of which I was unaware at the time, that posting to DF24's user talk page would be more likely to produce negative than positive results [30], I have not done so other than to drop off a notice (item A above). It's one thing to not want to have extended conversations with someone about old issues, but punitive instant reversion of material that has nothing to do with that and was only about improving essay pages that openly invite all editorial input, followed by her verbal attacks in edit summaries, and then zero-evidence claims at ARCA of harassment, are not good signs but likely portents of future behavior if the rope is paid out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert Walker

My aim with this statement is to find a way forward to help Darkfrog24 to move on to become a productive wikipedia editor. First, full disclosure, I'm semi-involved. I have collaborated with Darkfrog24 with a proposal for the Inspire initiative on meta, I can vouch for them as an editor with a great deal of insight who did much to help shape the proposal. I feel that they have a lot to contribute to wikipedia and it is sad to see them blocked in this way. I want to help them to move on. Also I know from conversations with them via email that they also want to move on and put this behind them as much as the rest of you.

They feel that they have a lot they could contribute to wikipedia, including special interests in the topic areas of

  • Methanogenic archaea (they have been working on this in the Spanish wikipedia and here in wikipedia contributed the articles Hadesarchaea and Helicase, POLQ-like)
  • Game of Thrones

So how can this be moved forward? I understand that you are saying that they need to agree to certain conditions first, for the block to be removed but am not at all clear on what those are. Here is a suggestion as a starting point. Would this be agreeable to you if it is agreeable to them?

  • Ask them to agree not to take SMcCandlish back to this board for anything he has said prior to today's date
  • Ask SMcCandlish similarly to agree not to take them back to this board for anything said prior to today's date
  • With one exception. these past comments can be discussed in the appropriate venue in any future appeal against their topic ban, if that is necessary for a successful appeal.

Would such an agreement suffice for lifting the block? If not, can you suggest what conditions would be sufficient? Please be specific, about what exactly you would require of Darkfrog24. I'd also appreciate being told what the reasoning is for those requirements.

Before we put it to bed I wonder if I can be permitted to say something about the gaslighting charge as well - again not in an attempt to change decisions, but rather as a way to try to promote mutual understanding here. I think it may be due to a difference in use of language. As someone from the UK, just reading the diff (I haven't asked them what they meant), I found your reactions to it bewildering. To me "slightly more than his baseline" means such things as a bad week at work, domestic issues, financial troubles or the like.

With that background the rest of the diff[31] reads to me just like them asking other editors to go easy on SMcCandlish because they may be going through a rough time at present. It suggests nothing at all about mental impairment, never mind the far more serious charge of gaslighting which SMcCandlish made in January [32]. I can't see anything in that diff, or the other diffs he supplied that remotely suggests gaslighting, when read in context. As I read it (as a reader from the UK), it is rather an attempt by Darkfrog24 to evoke sympathy towards SMcCandlish with other editors. I am sure that their only objective here since then has been to clear their own name in the records of what would seem to be a serious charge against them that hasn't been cleared. But it hasn't worked well, and it is best for both sides, I think, if the past is treated as the past and both sides begin with a fresh slate.

The aim of this post is to find a way forward that you can both agree to. It is not an attempt to influence the debate, and neither has Darkfrog24 asked me to do so. I am aware of wikipedia guidelines on WP:CANVAS. I believe that this post is in accord with those guidelines. If this post is thought to infringe them in any way, I will of course remove it.


@Opabinia regalis: - Just to say I don't understand what your conditions are either. What you gave as a condition of removing the block (if I understand right) is:
  • a) agree that your future participation on the English Wikipedia will be contingent on staying away from the MOS and style issues, and ceasing to endlessly re-argue the circumstances of your topic ban
On the face of it, that would seem that you are requesting @Darkfrog24: to agree to never appeal against their topic ban using the process set out in their topic ban notice[33]:

"... may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016).... You may appeal this sanction using the process described here."

That seems an unlikely interpretation, that you want to take away their ability to appeal sanctions in the same way as anyone else. So what are the requirements you wish to impose? Please be specific. From my experience I know @Darkfrog24: is keen to follow due process and has often advised me on such matters when working on our proposal for the Inspire initiative on meta. They are especially careful about such things. If you set out exactly what is required, and answer any of their questions in case it is unclear what is intended, then it would help greatly. Robert Walker (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of mutual understanding

@Opabinia regalis: and @Drmies: and other admins, perhaps I can help draw attention to some aspects of Darkfrog24's situation? By far the most serious accusation leading to their indef topic ban is the charge of gaslighting . @SMcClandish: writes there: [34]

"DF24 ... has repeatedly cast WP:ASPERSIONS about my mental health, ... Also, a long string of dishonesty allegations (increasing after ban) ... Can prove this habit of incivility and gaslighting is much broader, but would need length-limit"

SMcClandish has just said on Jimmy Wales's talk page that he meant it in the second sense in this online urban dictionary[35]

"A more psychological definition of gaslighting is "an increasing frequency of systematically withholding factual information from, and/or providing false information to, the victim - having the gradual effect of making them anxious, confused, and less able to trust their own memory and perception."

So Darkfrog24 has to clear their name of this charge somehow. There is nothing for them to apologize for since it's clear from the diffs that they never did any gaslighting. If SMcClandish doesn't retract the charge, can I suggest that perhaps some impartial editor or admin could investigate the matter and establish if it ever happened or not? Everything they said about lying and gaslighting, as I read it, is mainly in the interests of clearing this mark from their records, since without doing that, a future topic ban appeal would seem to be impossible. Robert Walker (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, can I ask for clarification?

Posting this after your new motion. If I understand you right, there has been no suggestion that they have done anything against the actual terms of either of the topic bans since their first topic ban on quotation marks was instated. So, to get the block lifted, it seems that they have to agree to something to do with personal conduct.

The indef block statement says they are blocked until they agree to stop relitigating it, but doesn't say in detail what that involves. The topic ban statements don't mention personal conduct. It is good to know that the ARE action is not an endorsement of every claim made by the filer. Do they have to appeal any of the charges made during the TBan discussion to appeal the block? The indef statement also suggests that they don't understand the terms of the TBan.

I think it would help a lot if you could draft out a more detailed statement for them to agree to which lays out

  • What they can and can't discuss in a future ARCA block appeal, and in particular, clarification of what would count as future relitigation.
  • Is there anything in the original TBan terms that they seem not to have understood in your view?
  • What they need to agree to, for the block to be lifted.

Statement by Spartaz

This has clearly run its course and DF is now taking his crusade to Jimbo's talk page. They have also been warned about propagating their feud with SMMcCandlish on their talk while unblocked but blown off the warning. This has gone far enough I think. Can a Clark or Arb reinstate the block or would it be OK for me to do that? Spartaz Humbug!

  • @Drmies: unblocking arb please review if block should be reinstated. Spartaz Humbug! 07:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: time to get out of the tub. You be all wrinkly now. 13:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ca2james

As I was mentioned above and since this is still open, here's my take.

Let me start by saying that I'm confused by Darkfrog24's first question to me above: This looks like it means I'd be forbidden from saying that SMcCandlish lied at AE in January but I would still be at liberty to say "It is not true that I made bogus claims, bit the new guy, etc." should I choose to do so so long as his name is not mentioned and no case is made regarding whether he was lying or innocently mistaken, etc. This statement appears to me to completely miss the point that the circumstances of the topic ban must not be relitigated, or mentioned, or brought up on a talk page. To answer the question: as far as I understand it, no, Darkfrog24 would not be at liberty to say that, or to talk about SMcCandlish's behaviour without mentioning his name.

That question and Darkfrog's post on Jimbo's talk page both suggest to me that one of the reasons Darkfrog24 is continually asking for clarification is because they're hoping that someone will tell them that they can do whatever it is that they want to do; ie that they're looking for loopholes by picking out this or that part of the guidelines/sanctions/advice to follow. As an example of something they want to do, Darkfrog24 has stated that they're gathering evidence wanting to be able to post evidence against SMcCandlish [36]. Since I expect that the evidence involves the MOS, I think that talking about collecting wanting to collect and present it might be a violation of their MOS topic ban. Both the question above and this post I diffed indicate that Darkfrog24 is trying to find a way within the sanctions to collect and present this evidence.

It has also occurred to me that Darkfrog24 is treating an appeal on Wikipedia as if it were a court appeal in the US, where the sentence (or sanction, on Wikipedia) can be thrown out on a technicality, making it worth arguing every little point to get the sanction overturned. On Wikipedia, my understanding is that an editor is sanctioned because they were found to be disruptive; sanctioning removes that editor from the situation and allows other editors to get to work. My understanding is that an appeal has one goal: to show that the sanctioned editor will no longer be disruptive in the area. Ca2james (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC) (edited 21:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Wow, Darkfrog24, that's a lot of words in reply to my statement, most of which you've said before and some of which is yet another relitigation of the circumstances of your topic ban. I have read everything related to your case - all the AEs, ARCAs, Talk pages, etc, and all the diffs associated with them - and I stand by my above assessment, although of course I accept that I could be mistaken. No one is asking you to confess to infractions that [you] did not commit to get the sanctions removed. The point I think you seem to be missing is that the behavioural issues for which you were sanctioned - a battleground mentality, personalizing disputes, not letting things go, etc - were shown by the statements and diffs from the cases, and it's my understanding that in a successful topic ban appeal you'll need to show that you're not going to behave those ways, not that you won't do those specific things. Therefore, it's my understanding that a successful topic ban appeal isn't going to involve you rebutting or refuting each and every statement in the topic ban case (ie it won't involve relitigating your topic ban). My understanding of a successful block appeal is that you'd say or show that you would abide by the topic ban.
I do see that my words were not precise, above, about what you're wanting to do against SMcCandlish. I've fixed that. Ca2james (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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

Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Darkfrog, we are running out of ways to tell you this. Your choices at this point are a) agree that your future participation on the English Wikipedia will be contingent on staying away from the MOS and style issues, and ceasing to endlessly re-argue the circumstances of your topic ban, or b) find a different hobby better suited to your interests. A decision to topic-ban you means that an admin found that you were being disruptive in your editing on that topic, and no more. "Wikipedia" has no position on the specific motivations underlying that disruption, and there's no reason to think the admins involved ever did either; the fact of the matter is that you have demonstrated in abundance your ability to argue minutia to exhaustion, and the pattern of arguing minutia to exhaustion is itself disruptive. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'm starting to see why this keeps recurring: you seem unable or unwilling to draw simple inferences from what you're told, so every attempt to restate the same thing in slightly different words gets a reaction of "I've never heard of that before! No one has ever said that! Do you expect me to just guess what you want?" You say you agree to the conditions, and I certainly believe you intend to follow your understanding of them, but show no evidence that your understanding has moved any closer to that of the rest of the community. In fact, as Salvio and Drmies point out, it seems to be the opposite. Sorry, time to decline this and reblock. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of this, my vote is to reinstate the block. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Darkfrog's behavior convinces me that the block needs to be reinstated. Doug Weller talk 21:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where to begin? It's not even clear what is being asked. "Accusation of gaslighting by Darkfrog24"--that's ambiguous already, but we're talking about the accusation that this and other comments by DF are considered gaslighting by SMcCandlish, no? Well, I don't know about gaslighting, but if the claim by DF is that that comment is somehow the normal way in which folks in a collaborative project should interact, well, that claim is just absolutely wrong. And what else is there? Is ArbCom supposed to rule that SMcCandlish is indeed a liar? No, we are not going there. I was happy to unblock DF for this request, possibly against my better judgment given past requests, and I have no desire to see DF blocked again, but I don't know what else we can do EXCEPT for to offer Opabinia regalis's item a, again. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • After this and this, I think we're done here. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spartaz, we are discussing this in our top-secret hot tub-equipped location. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with OR --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems an obvious inability to drop the stick. The block needs to be reinstated. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opabinia said it well. This appeal certainly does not make me want to revisit the topic ban; if we did, I think it would have to be to broaden its scope or consider an interaction ban with SMcCandlish. However, I agree with my colleagues that at this point I think it's time to reinstate the block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Darkfrog24

In the past year, Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been subject to a series of Arbitration Enforcement actions under the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Article Titles and Capitalisation case. In January 2016, Darkfrog24 was topic-banned from from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted, following an AE request. In February this topic ban was broadened to encompass the Manual of Style and related topics following another AE request. Later that month, she was blocked indefinitely "until they either understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it" after a third AE request. She was unblocked to participate in an appeal to ARCA in April 2016, which was declined by the Arbitration Committee. The block was lifted again in November 2016 to permit the present ARCA appeal.

The Committee notes that Darkfrog24 disputes some elements of the original AE filings. We emphasize that imposing an AE sanction requires only that a reviewing admin finds sufficient disruption to warrant action and is not an endorsement of every individual claim that may be made by the filer. After review of the current appeal, we find that there is no evidence in favor of lifting or modifying the topic ban, and the disruptive behavior, in the form of repeated relitigation of the circumstances of the topic ban, has continued. The appeal is declined and the block will be reinstated. She may appeal again in three months (one year from the original indefinite block). She is very strongly advised to focus that appeal on her future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of her topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas.

Enacted - Miniapolis 21:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. That's enough. This has gone on too long and is counterproductive. I think we would have given a longer appeal timer, but the "one year of AE protection" thing makes one year after the block a convenient time to review. To be very clear on this point, if nothing has changed in February then the answer won't either. The bees have to exit the bonnet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarification, yes, I intended this to mean appeal back to arbcom.
    SMcCandlish, I noticed your posts regarding the word "gaslighting", and frankly: your good options here involve a) saying "I now realize some people find this term upsetting and I'm going to use a different word next time to describe the behavior I mean", or b) saying nothing. A bad option is c) continuing to double down. And please just take that as advice to think about. In your head. Not out loud. Especially not here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller talk 05:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. kelapstick(bainuu) 08:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (late, but as this hasn't been closed yet I figured I'd add this for the record) GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (late transferring comments) Would have preferred six months and a condition that the appeal be preapproved as something half legitimate, and not this mess again. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
Clerk note: There are 11 active arbitrators, so 6 support or oppose votes is a majority. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: WP:ARBPIA3

Initiated by Huldra at 23:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. 1RR restriction


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


Information about amendment request
  • General 1RR restriction
  • A strengthening of the 1RR rule for articles under ARBPIA: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period.


Statement by Huldra

In the Azzam Pasha quotation, Editor1 makes an addition, Editor2 removes it, Editor1 then makes the very same addition a few hours later (which Editor3 removes), and Editor1 argues they did not break 1RR as "the first edit was an edit, not a revert".

  • If Editor1 is correct, then I would like the 1RR rule amended, so that such disruptive behaviour is disallowed.
  • (If Editor1 is wrong, and they did indeed break the 1RR, then I withdraw this request)
I have edited as if that 2nd addition was a violation, but then I have possibly been too "conservative". (But I edit virtually only articles under ARBPIA sanctions, so better safe than sorry..)
I agree completely with User:BU Rob13: If Editor1 view is correct, then "Deference is automatically given to the position that is not the status quo, contrary to all our usual processes." I would like to add: "...and contrary to common sense."
It seems to me that people here agree that this *is* a problem, but that we cannot amend it without amending the 1RR rule for everybody. (Which seems to be a large task?)
But if we added a sentence to the ARBPIA3, like the one in Template:2016 US Election AE: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."
…then Editor1 could not have made that 2nd addition: problem solved.
What I find untenable is the present situation, where if one editor want to change anything, then it takes two editors to keep the status quo. To me, this is counterintuitive, Huldra (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72 - 2

I believe that the issue raised is not only limited to ARBPIA3, but is more generally applicable. I respectfully invite the committee to make general comment on "first mover advantage" in revert wars (described more fully at WP:WINWAR#Intermediate tactics and gambits), particularly as applied to contentious topic spaces; and on if & how this should be addressed. I also respectfully invite the committee to examine the impact & effectiveness of the combination "1RR/consensus" restrictions applied to multiple articles in the ARBAP2 topic space. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BU Rob13

This is definitely a "bug" when it comes to all types of revert rules. Deference is automatically given to the position that is not the status quo, contrary to all our usual processes. The solution is to accompany all 1RR restrictions with the "Consensus required" restriction, as noted by Doug below. This has worked well on certain American politics articles this past election cycle, and it wholly addresses the issue here. This should be looked at in a context beyond just ARBPIA3. A motion amending all previous cases that currently have active 1RR restrictions to include the "Consensus required" restriction would be ideal. ~ Rob13Talk 19:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Opabinia regalis: It's an issue every time 1RR is applied for a new change. While editors may not have brought it here before, that doesn't mean the issue hasn't been encountered. ARCA isn't exactly the most welcoming or well-known venue when one encounters an issue. It would be akin to past motions made to update old cases to use standard discretionary sanctions, etc. Given that this would be a potentially large undertaking and that this would be a perfect opportunity to see if some old active restrictions are still necessary, I'd recommend leaving this decision to the incoming Arbitration Committee in 2017. ~ Rob13Talk 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EdJohnston: Personally, I think the "consensus required" restriction is still a bright-line. It's essentially a modification to 1RR. It states that if you make an edit and it is reverted, you must get consensus before re-adding it. Could you clarify what you see as the difference between pairing that with regular 1RR and adding a 1RR exemption that states original edits count toward the rule? ~ Rob13Talk 07:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Providing the wording of the "consensus required" restriction for reference, as listed at Talk:Hillary Clinton: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Note that it applies only to editors reinstating an edit that moved away from the status quo after it was reverted. ~ Rob13Talk 20:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Changing the definition of the 1RR rule could have wide-ranging effects. User:GorillaWarfare has recommended a community discussion. Another option is to encourage the admins who issue page-level restrictions under discretionary sanctions to try out different restrictions and see what the results are. Note that the proposed improvements to the 1RR rule by User:Huldra (above) and the one described by User:BU Rob13 to add 'consensus required' are quite different. While Huldra's rule is simple enough to be automated, BU Rob13's rule that requires consensus could make deciding a 1RR complaint more of a judgment call. Thanks to Template:2016 US Election AE we are gradually accumulating some experience with the 'discussion required' rule, the one favored by Doug Weller and BU Rob13 though some analysis would be required to see what the actual effects are. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

The proposal makes sense, since the status quo should get the advantage in a dispute between two editors. However, I'll mention one thing about the wording that doesn't seem to have been noted: it would allow one editor to do multiple reverts in the same article within 24 hours provided they were to different parts of the article. So this proposed wording is in one way less restrictive than before. However, on balance it would still be an improvement. Zerotalk 12:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

WP:ARBPIA3: Clerk notes

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

WP:ARBPIA3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This seems reasonable, although if a broader change is going to be made to WP:1RR that should be a community discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be exposing my ignorance here, but I interpret "1RR" as "Editor 1" here does - have (some) people in the area been treating it differently? The proposed change seems reasonable, except that we then end up with two subtly different types of restriction in effect in different areas: one where each individual can revert only once, and one in which each edit can be reverted only once. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Huldra: Thanks for the clarification. @BU Rob13: That would sort out the consistency issue, at the cost of introducing a change in a lot of areas where one isn't expected, for the sake of fixing something that hasn't been brought to us as a problem in those areas. I'll have to look later at where else 1RR is in use as an arb remedy at the moment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kinda spitballing here, but how about a formulation along the lines of "WP:BRD is required in this topic area"? That has the benefit of stopping one step earlier than 1RR - Editor1 would be obliged to give up or start a discussion, rather than restoring the material - and uses an already-common editing pattern, which avoids the confusion of slightly differing 1RR variants floating around. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What OR said. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sanctions are meant to prevent disruption and edit wars so I can see the concern. I think normally we do interpret 1RR as Editor 1 does, although I'd like to see a community discussion on that. One way to deal with the problem now would be to add the bit about "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." although that's not problem free. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the person who did the leg work for last years trim of DS, putting together the research to to omnibus motions is tiring --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We definitely need a community RfC before we can go changing the definition of 1RR. I also took a brief look at what 1RR restrictions were enforced this past year, and it seems that all would have either benefited or had no affect from the consensus required bit. In 6 areas, there could be an argument that 1RR should be rescinded with only one enforcement. Considering the use of 1RR DS enforcement is low outside AmPol & Macedonia (India Pakistan and PIA lagging a little further behind), I think a case by case application of it would be better than trying to omnibus, and remember this for future decisions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice research, that is definitely not the pattern I was expecting to find! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never been happy with 1RR (or 3RR) because no matter how one specifies the details, it will give one side or another an automatic advantage. They are both the typical sort of WP rough-and-ready rules that only have the virtue of being a standard, abandoning than any attempt to meet the circumstances. A plain reliance on WP:BRD is probably wiser.It's no fairer, but it's simpler. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Fæ

Initiated by Fæ at 11:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Fæ 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 Fæ

An earlier version of this query was emailed to the Arbcom list on 25 November, I have raised it here as requested by the committee.

Dear Arbcom,

I have been interpreting the remaining restrictions on my account[1], in particular "editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed" as applying to BLP articles in the article namespace, and excluding the LGBT+ studies discussion group, being part of the Wikipedia/Wikipedia Talk namespace, which I have contributed to several times in the past few years (as an example to the LGBT studies guidelines), or other LGBT+ related discussions in talk namespace which may refer to biographies but are not edits in main/article namespace. In addition I have created the BDP for Ramchandra Siras, being notable for the legal case Siras fought in India against his being penalised as a result of being homosexual, and continued my Commons projects almost all of which are post AD 1000 works.

Is my interpretation okay? I ask as a result of the request on 25 November, to help another contributor by setting up a proposed change to the article for the writer Milo Yiannopoulos, controversial for their anti-trans statements. Though contributing on analysing reliable sources using my LexisNexis research access, I neither made the proposal to change the article text, nor am I in any dispute with anyone, nor do I intend to edit the article. My objective was to help with the process for gaining a consensus and no more than that.[2][3] It has only occurred to me on reflection that being involved in the details, may be an issue in the context of the outstanding Arbcom restrictions from March 2013.

If I am astray and should be avoiding these discussions, in addition to not editing BLPs relating to sexuality, please do advise. My apologies if I have misunderstood how the restrictions were intended to work. As a precaution I'll avoid making any further comment on-wiki for the above proposal on the presumption that it may be an issue. I regret doing anything that may be perceived as going close to the boundaries of the Arbcom restriction, as I am planning on making a more properly thought out amendment request in a few months time, with the intention of giving more freedom to engage on Wikipedia with the results of positive content projects I am directly involved with, like m:Grants:Project/Rapid/LGBT/Wiki Loves Pride Featured Picture drive 2016, and would not want a thoughtless mistake to blot my copybook with the Committee before then.

Links
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Remedies
  2. [37]
  3. Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos#Off-page_discussion

Thank you, Fæ (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @GorillaWarfare: I would be happy to see the restrictions lifted as suggested. This was my aim for an amendment request in a few months time. --Fæ (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72 - 3

Respected Arbs,
I am the editor who made the request for assistance in setting up an RfC or similar structured discussion as referred to by Fæ, above. I was not aware of the restrictions when I made the request, and have only become aware of them as a result of this clarification request; I would not have made the request had I been so aware. I wish to express my appreciation of & gratitude for Fæ's assistance, and for their calm and reasoned input into the discussion which provoked my request.
Should the committee decide that the creation of the article Talk page discussion is within the scope of the restrictions, I would implore them to take no further action regarding it; I firmly believe that the action was taken entirely in good faith, and with intent to improve the encyclopedia.
Separate to the question of Fæ's action in light of the restrictions, I would, however, express my grave concerns with the use of WikiProjects to hold "off-page discussions" on the content of individual articles. This is firmly outside the goals and scope of this, or any other WikiProject, and intersects poorly with WP:CANVASS, WP:TAGTEAM/WP:GANG. I request the committee to confirm that such discussions should take place on the Talk pages of the articles involved; augmented by discussion at the various noticeboards (NPOVN, RSN, BLPN, etc), as required.
Thanks in advance for your consideration on this matter. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re Fæ)

Fæ's restriction currently reads: "Fæ is topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed.". I encourage the Committee to revise that to one of the following options to clarify the intent:

  1. Fæ is topic banned from editing BLP articles and draft articles relating to sexuality, broadly construed. This restriction does not apply to talk pages or to automated edits made in accordance with other remedies.
  2. Fæ is topic banned from editing (i) BLP articles and draft articles relating to sexuality, broadly construed, and (ii) talk pages of articles and draft articles covered by (i). This restriction does not apply to automated edits made in accordance with other remedies.
  3. Fæ is topic banned from editing regarding BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed. This applies in all namespaces but excludes automated edits made in accordance with other remedies.

I do not (at present) have a preference between the options. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other restrictions, "Fæ is topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed." and it's loosening amendment "Notwithstanding the existing restrictions on his editing, Fæ is permitted to edit regarding images of sexuality in ancient and medieval times, up to A.D. 1000. This permission may be withdrawn at any time by further motion of this Committee." and those relating to automated editing, all seem (to me at least) to clearly apply in all namespaces and I don't think clarification of those is needed, but appending the sentence "This restriction applies to all namespaces." would I think be sufficient if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: et al, if you do go down the route of a parole then it is still worth clarifying the restrictions so that we don't all end up back here if the parole is not successful for any reason (even though this seems unlikely). Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WereSpielChequers

Dear Arbcom, several years have passed since any edits that this topic ban was based on. Does this topic ban serve any ongoing purpose? I rather think Wikipedia would benefit if you simply removed the restrictions on Fæ. ϢereSpielChequers 20:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spartaz

First a disclosure. Fae and I do not get on. Anyone with any long standing knowledge of our interactions can attest to that.

That said, the behaviour sanctioned was a wiki aeon ago. These restrictions no longer serve a purpose and doubt fae would even want to repeat the behaviours that cost him dear now. Policy on blp is much clearer and easier to enforce these days. There is no harm in lifting fae's restrictions.

Statement by whoever

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.

Fæ: Clerk notes

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

Fæ: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Thank you Fæ for bringing this here. I agree with your interpretation of the restriction (and Thryduulf's option 1): that "editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed" is restricting you from editing articles, but not from participating in the LGBT studies WikiProject, participating in discussions/RfCs about BLPs relating to sexuality, suggesting edits, etc. I also agree that this restriction is unclear, so we should clarify it one way or another. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the discussion below about lifting the restrictions, I would be fine with that, though I'd like to hear from Fæ just to check that this is something he wants before we go and propose anything. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with GW here. On Ryk's question, I don't think that's pertinent to the substance of the request, nor is it within our remit to tell people which talk pages to use. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piling on. I agree with GW and with Or's point about which talk pages to use. I do know that in practice Wikiproject pages are often used to discuss articles in the same way noticeboards are used. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even more pilling on to GW's statement. That said, are considering dumping the second unblock restriction and modifying the first? Or what exactly is in play here? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to lift the restrictions as a parole --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with Guerillero. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to lift the restrictions for a trial as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wlling also. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Fae

Remedy 5: Fæ banned (March 2013) in which Fae was unblocked with the conditions that he was topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed as well as topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Fæ fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in these areas, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

Support
  1. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. kelapstick(bainuu) 07:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
  1. On the motion only. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
Clerk note: There are 9 active arbitrators (not counting 2 who are recused), so 5 support votes or oppose votes are a majority. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=754472709"