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 Euryalus (talk | contribs) at 07:32, 2 January 2015 (→‎Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Arbitrator views and discussion: decline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: American politics/Arzel: 1RR none (orig. case) 30 December 2014
Amendment request: Eastern Europe none (orig. case) 27 December 2014
Amendment request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) none none 26 December 2014
Amendment request: Infoboxes none (orig. case) 20 December 2014
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Climate change (WP:ARBCC)|Clarification request: Climate change (WP:ARBCC)]] none (orig. case) 24 December 2014

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

Clarification request: American politics/Arzel: 1RR

Initiated by - MrX at 17:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Link to relevant decision Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Proposed_decision#Arzel: 1RR

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

Statement by MrX

I'm seeking clarification of the 1RR restriction place on Arzel. Specifically, please expand on what is meant by "any specific edit". It is ambiguous, and as far as I can tell, has been interpreted to mean "the exact same content".

Note: I'm not seeking to have any pending AE decision overturned, as that is water under the bridge.

See this request for arbitration enforcement for further background: WP:AE#Arzel. Thank you.

@Seraphimblade: Please see two lines up ^. I'm not asking for the AE decision to be overturned. I'm requesting that Arbcom clarify the restriction in the linked decision. What does "any specific edit" mean? - MrX 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: The definition of specific does not have the same meaning as "exactly the same" or "identical" (words, punctuation and formatting), the latter of which seems to be the standard that has been adopted here.

In other words, "specific" is vague. Do you mean "identical"?- MrX 03:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I'm "involved" only as an admin active at WP:AE where I and the two other named admins have expressed the view that the enforcement request made by MrX is not actionable. I don't see anything in the decision that particularly requires explanation for the purpose of enforcing it, so far.  Sandstein  19:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Discussed and pretty much settled at AE[4] - I do not know why this second bite at the apple is being made here. See especially Whether the diffs presented would have violated the more common restriction is debatable but unlikely; they certainly don't show a violation of the remedy as written [5] (from User:HJ Mitchell) Collect (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJM: I suspect the fact that all the uninvolved admins who commented on the topic previously appeared to be in agreement may be a good indication of where this issue now raised in a new venue might be headed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Harry Mitchell

@Collect: Note that I closed the AE request as redundant to this one, as opposed to this one being opened because the filer didn't get their way at AE. I think the request is a genuine attempt to gain clarification. I'm not sure clarification is needed, since three experienced AE admins reached the same conclusion, but that's an answer to a different question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arzel

MrX's primary argument seems to be that the first edit constituted a revert because I returned the article (section) to a previous state. My argument against was that it is beyond the scope to expect an editor to go far back through history to ensure than an edit did not return to a previous state. MrX stated that the removal of an entire section would clearly constitute such an edit because it was clear that it would (I would have to disagree somewhat because articles can change significantly over many months and years.)

Also, if we take the opposite view such logic is simply not logical or enforceable. If I had added a section which had previously been removed the same logic would apply. However, how would one know that such a section had been removed prior without extensive examination of the history to look for such an edit. It would be a far more difficult assumption that something added had been removed at some point in the distant past, something I think even MrX would agree.

I looked back a reasonable amount of time (past month) to see if that had been recently added or modified. It had not. Perhaps there may be some needed clarification, but MrX's approach is not, in my opinion, reasonable. I was abiding by the spirit of the agreement even if MrX would claim that I broke some technicality (I disagree). Thankfully it would appear that the admin's agree. Arzel (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gaijin42

There is GAMEing going on here, but I don't think its on the part of Azrel.thre is no ambiguity about the "exact edit" certainly if he was making multiple reverts touching the same content one would think it would count. However, there is an entirely different issue here. If the content in question was stable for a significant period of time then I would also characterize the first deletion as an "edit" and not a "revert". while technically this does remove someone's previous work, such would be true of any removal of any content anywhere, and certainly we do not count the first removal edit as a revert for the purpose of 3RR generally. I think to be counted as a revert the content must have been the subject of recent insertion/editing (hours, days, a week at the most, unless there are extenuating circumstances like a long running dispute) Note that this characterization is opposite of the one I made at AE, because I was not aware that the content in questino had been stable in the article for some time.

While I no longer think this is a violation of 1RR, I would say removing content, and then removing it again when reverted is somewhat in the spirit of edit warring though, and it would be better to have gone directly to discussion or an RFC (which has now been done) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade MrX I think the ambiguity is "does the first diff count as a revert", since at some point in the past it was put into the article by (multiple?) someones . (Original version put into article March 11, 2013 [6]). while that removal does not revert the entire article to a prior state, it does revert that particular section to a prior state (its lack of existence). Personally I think removing content put into the article almost two years ago does not meet the common understanding of "revert", but I do see the wiki-lawyer argument as being one that deserves clarification. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Just in case anyone is unaware, there is a concerted campaign to add negative material about Breitbart, in order to undermine its credibility as a source for the GamerGate controversy. I'm not sure which "side" is pro-Breitbart, and which is anti, but this is essentially an extension of the GamerGate battleground.

A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 02:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

American politics/Arzel: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • It looks like there was already reasonable agreement among the administrators who reviewed this request. I certainly don't see any reason to overturn their decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • MrX, could you specify what's unclear to you about it? Arzel is prohibited from making more than one revert of a specific edit per week. I'm not sure how to simplify it more than that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It need not be absolutely identical, but it need be the same edit. If it's the same edit with a few cosmetic changes, it would be, for all intents and purposes, the same specific edit. As far as consideration as a revert, it's long been community practice that, while any edit could technically be construed as a revert (after all, you're undoing or changing something that someone else did at some point in the past), a "revert" is in practice construed as a wholesale or partial reversal of a recent edit that's clearly intended to reverse such an edit. Normal editing of an article is not considered a revert. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Eastern Europe

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 19:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Eastern Europe arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Presumptive discretionary sanction of 1 November 2014 by John Vandenberg
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request

For the reasons detailed below, I ask that the Committee

  • sanction John Vandenberg for misuse of discretionary sanctions and failure to communicate, and
  • remove his presumptive discretionary sanction against me, by way of appeal as provided by WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications.

Statement by Sandstein

As set out in a request for clarification on 1 November 2014, John Vandenberg issued me earlier that day with, confusingly, an "alert", "notification" or "warning" supposedly per WP:AC/DS for alleged misconduct on my part in the Eastern Europe topic area, and logged this on the WP:ARBEE case page in the section "Log of blocks and bans". The request for clarification concluded on 10 December 2014 with most arbitrators agreeing with AGK, who noted that as an alert per WP:AC/DS this action would have been inadmissible and that John Vandenberg needs to decide whether his action was meant as an alert or as a discretionary sanction, in which case he would need to issue a "hand-written caution". Despite my repeated requests ([7], [8]) to do so, John Vandenberg has responded only with evasive one-liners ([9], [10]) before ceasing to edit altogether. A further clarification, promised in his last edit on 10 December 2014 for "tomorrow", has not been forthcoming.

John Vandenberg has violated the conduct rules that apply to admins in two respects:

  • John Vandenberg's issuing the alert, notification or warning to me was frivolous and disruptive. There are no grounds for either a discretionary sanction or any other admin action against me. To the extent I can discern any relationship between his actions and any actions by me at all, the one action by me to which John Vandenberg expressed an objection was a normal admin action, to wit, deleting a page created by a sock of a banned user, Russavia, as directed by WP:CSD#G5. Even if this deletion could have been deemed objectionable (there was an earlier AfD, but in my view it was no bar to speedy deletion because that discussion didn't know about the ban evasion), John Vandenberg would have been out of line by responding to it with discretionary sanctions, meant to address misconduct arising from disputes about topics related to Eastern Europe, rather than with a civil query and a discussion among admin colleagues, and possibly with the community at deletion review or elsewhere, which would have been the expected way to settle good faith disagreements among admins about the merits of contested admin actions. Instead, he chose a course of action either intended to or at any rate having the effect of furthering the block-evading activity of a banned user's sockpuppets, by inappropriately stifling normal admin action intended to counteract such activity by way of the "chilling effect" of discretionary sanctions.
  • Moreover, John Vandenberg violated the admin policy's requirement that "administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Additionally, WP:AC/DS specifies that admins "must not ... repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions". John Vandenberg failed these expectations by failing to respond to my repeated queries – made necessary by the conclusion of the clarification request – about whether his action was intended as a sanction or as an alert, and to my repeated queries about the specific reasons why the sanction (if it is one) was imposed. His lack of response has so far prevented me from properly appealing the presumptive sanction. Per WP:AC/DS, admins failing to meet the expectations set out in that procedure "may be subject to any remedy the committee consider appropriate, including desysopping".

For these reasons, I ask the Committee to sanction John Vandenberg to the extent necessary to prevent further misuse of the discretionary sanctions procedure. I also ask the Committee to strike John Vandenberg's warning from the enforcement log – either as an out-of-place and superfluous alert, or as a groundless sanction, which is hereby appealed in case it is a sanction. Finally, I ask the Committee to clarify that discretionary sanctions are not to be used in lieu of discussion among admins about whether good-faith admin actions are appropriate or not.

In consideration of the already long time elapsed solely because of John Vandenberg's confusing and dilatory conduct, I ask that this request not be suspended or declined on account of his apparent absence from Wikipedia. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Sorry, but I don't see how the matter would die a natural death, as you put it. The way I see it, I'm still subject to what is logged as a discretionary sanction that was, in my view, imposed for invalid reasons and in a disruptive manner for what I consider doing my normal admin duties, which it is impeding by its existence. I don't think that I'm being unreasonable by asking for it to be reviewed exactly as provided for by the procedure you helped write. But if you see another way to resolve this problem, I'm open to any advice.  Sandstein  07:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: Thank you for removing whatever that was; I appreciate it. I remain of the view that John Vandenberg has, including by his lack of required communication in this matter, failed to meet the expectations in administrators as described in the discretionary sanctions procedure, in a manner that merits an action or statement by the Committee or its members. Otherwise, others may conclude that such an – at best – cavalier application of the procedure is in fact permissible or expected conduct, which I think would not be beneficial, including for the Committee's appeals workload.  Sandstein  09:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that several editors have commented to the effect that they consider (at least some some) admin actions by me to be uncollegial. This concerns me, but their comments are not specific enough for me to understand which actions they take issue with and why. I'd like to be able to understand and address their concerns, and would appreciate it if they could explain them in more detail, and with reference to specific actions by me, on my talk page. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hawkeye7

First, let me state how sick and tired I am of good content being deleted and destroyed by gnomes under spurious speedy deletion criteria. The procedure is clear; if the deletion is contested there should be a proper deletion review. Once this has been done, if the result is for the article to be kept, then the article cannot be speedily deleted per WP:G5. WP:SPEEDY lists seven criteria, and this is not one of them. Maintaining otherwise by refiling this is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND at its worst. John Vandenberg, a former Arb, is one of the most polite and patient admins we have. Absence from Wikipedia at this time of year is both normal and acceptable. In this hemisphere, the Christmas/New Year period falls in our Summer holidays and many firms shut down for two or three weeks.

Because Sandstein has:

  1. Failed to respond promptly and civilly to queries about Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed;
  2. Shown an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality by filing this absurd request;
  3. Not showing any inclination to participate in reasoned dispute resolution (or just let the stupid matter drop);
  4. Continued to pursue a vendetta when told to knock it off;
  5. Has shown overwhelming hubris and arrogance in performance of admin duties; and above all
  6. Failed to demonstrate a substantial record of content creation which raises issues of WP:NOTHERE.

I therefore recommend that WP:BOOMERANG is in order and that Sandstein be admonished. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Psychonaut

Irrespective of whether Sandstein's deletion of the page was appropriate, it seems absurd to invoke or apply WP:ARBEE here. Discretionary sanctions are normally meted out to those whose strong personal views relating to a given subject area lead them to disrupt the corresponding articles and discussion pages. In my observation Sandstein has demonstrated no such personal attachment to the topic of Eastern Europe, nor am I aware of any history of his disrupting pages in this area. If his actions relating to Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? were mistaken, or even intentionally disruptive, this could and should have been dealt with through other measures. As John Vendenberg has so far failed to provide the required clarification for his WP:ARBEE warning, I think it would be appropriate for the Committee to strike or overturn it, without prejudice to his pursuing a discussion or remedy in some other venue. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Josve05a

  • On 11 May 2014 an editor raised the issue of the non-existence of an article on WP. Sandstein, the deleting admin, stated that it needed to be undeleted at WP:DRV.
  • On 1 November 2014 I independently started a deletion review. At the deletion review I raised issues relating to the notability and suitability of the article, and also re-assessed Sandstein's initial AfD closure
  • Sandstein made comments which insinuated I was proxying for banned editors.
  • Immediately after this, Sandstein gave me a discretionary sanctions warning. The lack of warning to any other editor made me feel that he was using his position as an administrator to intimidate me because I started the DRV and because I was a little critical of his initial deletion. I simply followed Sandstein's own advice to another editor to take the issue to DRV. This is not grounds for giving a baseless discretionary sanctions warning; Nick agreed and rescinded the warning given by Sandstein.
  • After another editor pulled the "racism" card in the DRV discussion, I asked Sandstein if he thought it was acceptable. He didn't do anything about it, and essentially claimed that the editor doesn't have a history of battleground disruption, when they do.

It is clearly evident that Sandstein is himself abusing the threat of discretionary sanctions as a tool to intimidate other editors. I agree with Hawkeye7 that WP:BOOMERANG has a place here. If Sandstein were to WP:DROPTHESTICK, things might be different, but at this point, that boomerang should be used given his continued battleground behavior at this very request and his very clearly demonstrated intimidation of other editors — I am certain is not an isolated case.

If Sandstein is willing to walk away from the carcass, this request should be closed off with the discretionary sanctions warning in place. If he is unwilling to do so I think an upgrade of the discretionary sanctions to a topic ban from the Eastern Europe topic area is in order, to give him time off from the entire topic area and to enable to re-assess his disruptive and intimidating behavior.

Statement by Giano

This is more of a comment than a statement, as I have been a long term observer rather than a participant in this sad and very sorry saga. However, it seems to me that any alerts/sanctions directed towards Sandstein need to be left firmly in place. He has consistently proved to be antagonistic towards Eastern European editors and editors of such pages. His aggressive, overpowering and often bullying behaviour (for example towards Josve05a is far from conducive to a collegiate atmosphere and only seems to cause further trouble and resentment. Sandstein is far too keen on the block button and totally intransigent in what are obviously, personal views. I see no good reason for him bringing this request. Giano (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Rich Farmbrough

I have to agree with Giano that there is a long term pattern of combative rather than collegial administrative actions by Sandstein, though I would say this is far more widespread than simply EE matters. I would urge Sandstein to remember that this is a co-operative endeavour, not one in which some editors are corralled by others into "desired behaviour". I would also urge @Newyorkbrad: to disengage from his loathing (well known or otherwise) of Russavia: such feels are best left in Las Vegas.

A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Fæ

My world view aligns with Rich's. Things are going badly wrong when trusted users cannot act in a collegiate manner and even worse when their first reaction is to reach for a stick and then ask for a bigger stick when that fails. It is a pity that Arbcom has no official trout to fix on user pages for six months. Perhaps soft remedies might be a smart idea for 2015?

@Newyorkbrad: I had to raise an eyebrow at the idea that an Arbcom member would not automatically recuse and refrain from making any remark that might prejudice the outcome of a case when they have stated that they "loathe" a related party. We know Russavia can be supremely irritating, but this does not make him evil. Next time you are tempted to go after him, try dropping me or one of the established Commoners that work with him a friendly email; I'm sure you know most of us. It is likely to be a lot more effective when he has another silly poke at the bear. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I am actually minded to agree with part of Hawkeye's submission in this matter. Sandstein, I do not see what is to be achieved by this request, and I question why you are not letting this matter die the natural death for which it was on course. AGK [•] 23:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein, please just drop the stick. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would vacate the warning, although there is an argument that I should recuse because of my well-known (and increasing) loathing of Russavia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also would vacate the warning. The DS system is designed for editorial actions, not admin actions. We explicitly banned sanctions that would "require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or restrict their usage", which necessarily implies that concerns about uses of admin tools should be taken to the committee, not the DS system. T. Canens (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the warning several days ago, by way of implementing the result of the previous hearing of this dispute. AGK [•] 08:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please drop the stick. T Canens has sound reasoning, but as an additional note, I don't see any admin misconduct here. NativeForeigner Talk 10:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the warning should have been removed, but I don't see the need for sanctions. Now that AGK has removed the warning, I don't think there's anything more we need to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with GorillaWarfare. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also agreed with GorillaWarfare. I see nothing else that needs done here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ask the Clerks to archive this now,  Roger Davies talk 06:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Initiated by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) at 21:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29.27s_topic_ban_on_article_creation

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

Statement by Richard Arthur Norton

I am currently following Wikipedia rules on attributing source material and have been creating articles in my user space at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) as examples. I would like my restrictions on 1) creating new content in Wikipedia space lifted and 2) on adding images to dead people's profiles under fair use lifted.

I have gone over my earliest edits to attribute the source material used and rewrite blocks of text where the writing was insufficiently altered. I have not found any additional ones and no one has brought to me any further examples that need work. Any additional ones found in the future will be fixed right away. I would like to continue adding images to dead people's biographies under fair use. I will use the most current template and make sure it is filled-in as completely as possible.

@Wizardman: Your last edit at the CCI was removing the quote parameter from the reference saying "such a long quote is a fair use violation. especially for a one-sentence article." yet the source material was published in 1911 and is in the public domain. If you want to lobby for the removal of the quote parameter from references it is better to do it at the talk page of the template, than to remove them ad hoc under the guise of a fair use violation or a copyright violation. This is an issue that needs to be resolved globally. If you think snippets used as quotes should be one word, or one sentence, this should be argued at the talk page of the template. That is why the count is so high. That needs to be resolved at the Wikipedia level. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@All: It would take an additional 10 years to go over 10 years worth of edits. Why don't we run one of the bots designed to look for strings of text matching outside sources. I think Coren bot was one of them ... and run it against every article in Wikipedia. And rank them based on how much text appears in the article. It can ignore text in parenthesis and in the quote= function and ignore works published before 1923. A bot would be objective instead of the subjective way it is done now. One person decides that the quote= function from public domain sources is a copyright violation. One person was saying that the title of articles in Wikipedia represents a copyright violation and was truncating all the New York Times headlines down to the first sentence, and counting that as a violation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

Richard Norton is celebrating 10 years as a Wikipedian tomorrow. He stands as #124 on the Most Edits list with over 153,000 edits (he is a plain editor, not someone with a bot-inflated count). He is #96 on the new starts list, with more than 3,000 articles started. Of these, a very small fraction, mostly c. 2005-2007 were problematic — granted that a very small fraction of a huge number is significant. Regardless, he now understands copyright rules with respect to WP content. No one has complained of copyvio in his work of the past year or two... Richard has a huge backlog of new material to be moved to mainspace, the current system of proxy-editing his starts is not working. He will be under very close scrutiny for any future copyright violation, rest assured. The current restriction upon him (which was ill-advised in the first place) does nothing but fetter his work and should be ended. Carrite (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychonaut. The CCI case will never be completed. Their methodology does not scale and, as you mention, their backlog is massive and growing. In short summary: it only takes three demonstrated instances of copyvio to open a case. Once opened, a case can never be closed without each and every edit in the history of the subject of the inquiry being hand-checked. For a new contributor or a small-scale contributor, this is possible; for one of the most prolific contributors in the history of Wikipedia — as RAN is — it is not possible. CCI had fewer than a dozen really active volunteers at the time of the Norton case, these to handle every single case. It's an absolute waste of RAN's time as a content-writer to be hunting copy vio needles in haystacks (not to mention it's probably not going to happen, not to mention it would be a subject of a copyvio investigation policing the ancient edits made by himself...) Carrite (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are 46 unresolved cases older than the Norton case, which was launched in November 2011 — more than 3 years ago! There are 106 additional unresolved cases that have been launched since the Norton case was launched. Not only does CCI's investigative model not scale as it needs to for the Norton case, CCI is an absolutely inadequate, completely bogged down, massively and irretrievably understaffed institution. Mr. Norton's early editing will never, ever, ever be investigated and corrected by CCI. We can point at glossy pictures of "pillars" for newcomers to Wikipedia all we want, but the fact is: done is done, it's not gonna be undone, and the question is whether there is a problem going forward and are we willing to cut off our noses to spite our faces? RAN is not a threat to produce additional copyright violations and he has not been for a long time. He's not going to redo a decade's worth of editing because a minor fraction of his early editing was problematic. He's a content writer and he's writing content. The simple question is this: are we gonna improve the encyclopedia by using it or not? Carrite (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fram

As the one that brought the case against Richard Arthur Norton here in the first place, I have no objection against lifting the restriction on creation of new content (i.e. articles) in the mainspace. His user space articles seem to be copyright-violation free. I believe he still has a tendency to use quotes excessively (in footnotes), but that is less of a problem and doesn't need a restriction if it doesn't get a lot worse. As for the image restriction, I'm less convinced that there won't be problems with this, but have no recent evidence for this. Fram (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Psychonaut

Richard Arthur Norton is asking for his restriction to be lifted on the basis that he has fixed all his past copyright violations, and that no one has brought any further ones to his attention. However, at his CCI (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108) there remain literally tens of thousands of edits to thousands of articles yet to be checked. It's true that no further copyvios have been found there since 2013, but consider that no one has even been processing the CCI since that year. (Sadly, CCI has such a backlog that cases there often languish for months or years between edits.) We simply cannot take the lack of any recent discoveries in the CCI as evidence that they don't exist. In fact, I would wager that if processing were resumed, many further copyvios would be uncovered.

In light of this, I wonder if, rather than allowing him to start creating new pages again, it might not be a better use of Richard Arthur Norton's time to assist in the massive cleanup of the old ones. Keeping the restriction in place until such time as the CCI is completed might give him a greater impetus to clear the backlog.

I haven't been involved in this particular CCI but am pinging those who were most active in it (User:Sphilbrick, User:Hut 8.5, User:Moonriddengirl, User:Wizardman, User:MER-C, User:Amalthea, and User:Bilby) in case they want to weigh in. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: Except for the very smallest edits, this is not a "finding needles in a haystack" problem; it is a "shooting fish in a barrel" problem. On the first page of the CCI alone, 36% of the articles checked so far were found to contain copyvios. Richard Arthur Norton is uniquely qualified to identify his sources, since he's the one who found and copied from them in the first place. He could save us all a lot of time by actively marking and fixing the positive cases. No matter how understaffed CCI is, we can't simply throw up our hands and ignore the copyvios; ensuring that our articles are free content is one of our core principles. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wizardman

I'd be okay with lifting the restrictions had he been active in helping remove any copyright issues and helping out on his investigation. Instead, There have been next to no edits in 2014 on his CCI, sans a slew I just did. The fact that we have found more than a few just on the first page shows that this is something he has to work on. Yes, CCI is forever backlogged, but if he's not helping then I can't sympathize. Wizardman 22:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

As I have stated before, the original case against Richard Arthur Norton 1958- was soggy to say the least.

Richard quite correctly says, and others reflect, that the amount of work required to manually check every contribution he has ever made is enormous, and indeed there are more pressing cases such as Jagged, which introduced falsehoods as well as huge obvious copyvios, into Wikipedia and more widely, and have largely been abandoned (some of my more recent work on this can be seen on meta) - given the lack of decent tools, and those permitted to run them.

I can see no reason that we should perpetuate the sanctions against Richard Arthur Norton 1958- which were always punitive rather than preventive.

I wholeheartedly commend this amendment to the Committee.

A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

Statement by { other user }

Clerk notes

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

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting any further statements. Statements should focus on whether the concerns about Mr. Norton's editing that prompted us to impose the restriction have been addressed in his more recent editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to hear some more statements before making any decision (which may not happen before disappear off the committee), but in principle, I'd certainly have no issue with easing these restrictions to allow Richard to show he's able to work without causing issues especially if he has put right what's been pointed out. WormTT(talk) 11:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm amenable to applying the standard "parole" (i.e. we lift the sanction, but for the first year it may be reimposed by any uninvolved admin, in the event of further problems). Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to hear from those originally involved, but absent any serious and recent concerns, I'd be amenable to Salvio's suggestion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based upon Wizardman's statement, it looks like it's not yet time to look at removing these as the conditions for doing so haven't been fulfilled. For reference, though, once that is done, I would certainly be happy to support relaxing these restrictions, and don't in any way hope for them to be permanent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a little soon, in my book, to be loosening restrictions applied in 2013. I am likely to oppose the motion suggested above, at least for the time being: the issues identified in the original case, although diminishing, are not clearly gone. Decline. AGK [•] 23:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The restriction states, in part; "in order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him". Is any evidence available? Wizardman only speaks to 2014, but the restriction wa spassed in the first half of 2013. Courcelles 23:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The remedy provides that "in order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions." I see no such evidence submitted in this request. Decline. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per the evidence given by Wizardman --Guerillero | My Talk 17:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment I'm leaning towards decline given Wizardman's statement, but will wait a few days to see if any of the other CCI regulars involved who were pinged by Psychonaut have anything else to add. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courcelles' and Timotheus Canens' points are valid, and I don't see Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s comment above about using a bot to scan all of Wikipedia for copyvios to be terribly relevant. Is there evidence that you could provide of work on your part to the CCI? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as the condition cited above is not met - no particular evidence of "substantial work on RAN's part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions." I sympathise with the amount of time it would take to review every single past edit for copyright violations, but a) that is not the condition in the remedy, which only requires "substantial work," and b) presumably RAN knows where the likely copyvios are and can address them quicker than others might. The fact that there are other even older lists of copvios to be checked, or that the CCI backlog is very long, are not relevant to this specific remedy. Re bots - sounds great but it doesn't exist as far as I know, so it's not an immediately practical solution. Lastly I note Courcelles' question above - would happily reconsider if evidence was now provided of RAN's "substantial work" towards the CCI investigation from 2013 (or any other time). -- Euryalus (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Infoboxes

Initiated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 01:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 1.1 - Pigsonthewing and infoboxes
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Callanecc

I know it's another Infoboxes request, but bear with me, this one will (hopefully) be easy and uncontroversial.

There was an AE request filed which requested enforcement against Pigsonthewing requesting and discussing deletion of infoboxes at WP:TfD. The consensus among admins was there was an implication that the restriction applies to articles only however as this is not clear in the provision there would continue to be misunderstanding and possibly further AE requests closed without action being possible. So this request (as an uninvolved admin carrying out the close of the request) is for a motion with the following wording:

Remedy 1.1 of the Infoboxes arbitration case is amended to read:

Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes from articles.

@AGK: The original remedy has been interpreted as discussing the removal of an infobox template, as they are used in articles the interpretation as far as enforcement goes was the remedy applied to articles. If that is incorrect then enforcing admins have interpreted it outside it's intention so it needs to be clarified. Something like adding "in all namespaces, including {all discussions/requests for deletion} at WP:Templates for discussion and similar discussions at other venues" to the end of the remedy.
@Courcelles: I'd suggest dropping "to improve their functionality" as leaving it would require admins to decide whether an edit improved it or not (unless that was the attention). Other than that it sounds good to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis Schonken

Disagree with Callanecc's proposal. Here we see Pigsonthewing going in denial about an unresolved issue regarding infoboxes, removing the link to where the discussion of that issue was taking place: unnecessary & unhelpful – if it is qualified as "unhelpful" to try resolve an actual infoboxes issue the resulting impression remains that many months after the conclusion of the Infoboxes case at least some infoboxes proponents prefer to go largely in denial about the issues at hand.

If anything, an amendment to the Infoboxes case should imho further restrict PotW's actions regarding infoboxes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...I'd be in favour of a gordian solution: let's simply ban Andy from anything infobox-related across all namespaces" [11] is the one I like best. Failing a compromise on that, I suppose "...discard the invented interpretation that this restriction applies only to the mainspace..." [12] would do best. Courcelles' rewrite attempts appear to be going nowhere: they add complexity, and thus confusion, so, no more than fertilizer to future distraction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gerda Arendt

@Francis: "Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment." - We are not discussing here your bold change to a project page of a project of which you are not even a member, claiming that it is a "disadvantage" of infoboxes that a certain program extracting a PDF fails to render the image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend, who said that "Andy does nominate a lot of infoboxes for deletion or merging". This is true, and this is good for the project. Look for example at {{infobox hymn}} (specialised, old-fashioned, with camel-case parameter names and no room for an image), nominated to be merged to the more general flexible {{infobox musical composition}}. It seems desirable to have only few, well maintained infobox templates, - I use {{infobox person}} for all people. Thank you, Andy, for the unrewarded cleanup work in the field. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CT Cooper: You say: "What is in dispute is the way in which Andy goes about doing these things." I say: It is not, the dispute is if the restriction is worded precisely enough and nothing else. (Not if it's a good restriction, and not in which way Andy goes about things). In the example above, he didn't talk first to users - and how would you find out which editors use infobox hymn? Seems kind of not practical, on top of being unrelated to the question here. I was pleased about his initiative to merge, - I would have been to lazy to try it myself.

See also "honourable mention", and enjoy a happy and peaceful 2015! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: the phrase "testing his boundaries" was used related to an edit which was brought to arbitration enforcement: formatting a malformed infobox. Instead of a simple "thank you" for helping a new user who wanted an infobox but didn't know how to code it, the edit received attention on three noticeboards. I asked the candidates for arbitration about it, they said "no foul, play on". I add "playful" to my wishes for 2015 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched's question: no, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

If that was, or reasonably seems to be, the intention of the original wording, then the amendment should be made without cavil. And I would say that it clearly is the substantive intention. Any desire to extend the sanction should be the subject of a different process.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Thryduulf

Note I'm commenting here as an involved editor, not as an incoming arbitrator

I fully support this, as this matches how the restriction has been interpreted on multiple occasions at AE. Indeed, I would go further and explicitly add a second sentence "Pigsonthewing may nominate and discuss infobox templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion." to fully avoid any ambiguity. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Please can you give some evidence of Andy testing the boundaries? There have been several cases where people have tried to get Andy in trouble, but on every occasion the community as agreed that Andy has done nothing wrong and has not breached the restriction, which does not prohibit him discussing the changing of infoboxes that are on articles by consensus of other people. Gordian knot solutions are only suitable as a last resort when nothing else can work, but in this case there is a very simple amendment that can be made to achieve the same ends with no disruption going forward. It is completely inappropriate to penalise an editor when they are following the restrictions because other people are confused by it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: The interpreation that this applies only to article space has been the one made by the community every time it has been asked, and has been upheld every time its been before the committee. Doing nothing now only guarantees more disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

AGK although personally I agree with you -- as discussed on the linked AE thread -- this is clarification and amendment. Given the requesters have a good faith question about the scope of the sanction, a comment indicating your interpretation would be helpful. NE Ent 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Harry Mitchell

(Note: Andy is a personal friend of mine IRL so, although I have no strong feelings about infoboxes, I don't claim to be 'uninvolved'.)

This is silly. The locus of the dispute was around the addition of infoboxes to articles. The dispute was between Andy et al and members of the classical music project over whether or not articles in that project's scope should have infoboxes, and all other infobox-related disruption that led to the original arbitration case was spillover from the resulting interpersonal disputes. Essentially the project members adamantly refused to entertain the idea of infoboxes on their articles, Andy attempted to force the issue (resulting in edit wars and other disruption), the project members were very rude to Andy, Andy was equally charming in return and the whole thing deteriorated to a point where nothing could be achieved. The ban on adding/discussing infoboxes on articles was a proportionate (if grossly one-sided) remedy. Andy's participation at TfD was never part of the original dispute and his contributions regarding the technical implementation of infoboxes was never problematic. Indeed, the only disruption related to his participation at TfD has been the repeated misinterpretation (or indeed malinterpretation) of the remedy and its use as a stick to beat Andy for otherwise unproblematic edits.

The consensus at AE has at least twice been that Andy's participation at TfD is not within the scope of the remedy, so making this amendment would merely codify what is already practice and prevent further misguided enforcement requests—given the precedent, it is vanishingly unlikely that another AE thread would conclude that Andy's participation at TfD was a violation of the remedy, especially as that participation is not disruptive in and of itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: With Callan's caveat (removing "to improve their functionality", because it's better for all concerned not to leave things open to interpretation), I wholeheartedly endorse your proposed wording. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CT Cooper

I have been a part-observer/part-participant in the recent infobox controversies involving Eurovision related articles, an area in which I am active.

I presently accept, as does Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs) who raised the issue with him, that the remedy concerned does not cover his participation in TfDs. However, it is my view that editors should respond to restrictions by finding an entirely new area to edit, and not edit around them, regardless of whether it's permissible or not, as doing so often only causes further trouble. Recent events have only re-enforced this viewpoint in my eyes, as the behaviour of Andy at the TfDs and in related discussions was problematic and managed to cause a lot of completely avoidable infobox drama – one thing the remedy was supposed to put a stop to. I criticised him as an involved editor for some of his remarks (1, 2, 3), and he was admonished by an uninvolved administrator for a separate remark (4); an admonishment that Andy appears to have rejected (5). I'm not saying that all other editors in these discussions behaved perfectly, but this discussion is not about them.

As it stands, I will not support any amendment that endorses or otherwise encourages Andy to continue to edit in this area, but I will accept the proposed amendment as a simple clarification of the existing restrictions as they are currently interpreted. However, if the proposed amendment goes through and this behaviour from Andy continues, I believe it is only a matter of time before the Arbitration Committee will be asked to review this remedy again. CT Cooper · talk 18:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I disagree, the remedy is not clear at all. A person could reasonably interpret "adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes" as covering TfDs as such discussion do often result in the addition or removal of infoboxes. Arbitrators seem to be giving us a variety of different answers here on what the restriction is intended to cover, which in my view is evidence in itself that the remedy doesn't work as currently worded. CT Cooper · talk 18:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Many of the TfD nominations were justified; that is not in dispute as far as I'm concerned. What is in dispute is the way in which Andy goes about doing these things.

@RexxS: In the case of Eurovision template there were already plans in motion to merge some redundant templates, but they weren't gong anywhere fast, so the effect of Andy's actions was a lot of unnecessary drama and the templates being panic merged in a poor fashion, which later had to be fixed by outside parties. I cannot speak about the details of other cases, but it is not true that Andy is the only person on the project which merges templates. As for this remedy being unrelated, well it clearly isn't that unrelated – the remedy was about infoboxes; this discussion is about infoboxes. Claims that they are unrelated hinge entirely on the current interpretation of the remedy, which given arbitrators' comments so far, may still be up for debate after all. CT Cooper · talk 17:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: No, the remedy is not clear that relates only to articles which is why this amendment has been proposed, and the merging/deletion of infoboxes inherently involves articles anyway. Actually, he has been admonished by an uninvolved admin at least once for incivility, which was name-calling, as was clearly indicated in my original statement. I took the courtesy of reading all prior statements before making my own, and I would appreciate it if other editors did the same. CT Cooper · talk 20:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Thank you for your input. If I had my way, this particular case would have never ended-up in front of ArbCom. On the Eurovision templates, I did attempt to informally mediate the situation by pointing out errors in the actions of both sides and noting that there was actually agreement that some templates needed to be merged; it was tragically only drama over how it was done that was getting in the way. Unfortunately however, the issue spiralled out of control very quickly, and so here we are. If the proposed amendment goes through or no further action is taken by ArbCom, I would welcome an uninvolved administrator to come in and mediate should Andy choose to continue to be involved in Eurovision templates. CT Cooper · talk 21:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: In my statement I have clearly stated that I accept the motion as proposed; said motion is not "trying to remove just Andy from template discussions". Yes other editors have not behaved well at times, that is undeniable, but Andy is the one that got himself subject to ArbCom sanctions and so this discussion is about him and him alone – I know some people are unhappy about that, but that is the reality of the situation. Actions against other editors are for another venue such as WP:ANI.

I have already presented clear evidence (I am the only person here to have actually presented diffs), which clearly shows problematic behaviour from Andy. My area of contact with Andy is limited to Eurovision templates, and there maybe kernels of truth that Andy has been unjustly criticised elsewhere, which is why I have no quarrel with some statements supportive of Andy, even if they present things from a different perspective from my own. What I take exception to it people appearing to turn-up to engage in cheer-leading and to simplistically declare that anyone who dares have a grievance against Andy is somehow on an template ownership driven witch-hunt, without taking the time to review what the grievances against Andy actually are, let alone reviewing the full facts of the matter before commenting.

I could present more evidence or elaborate in much more detail on why Andy's behaviour was at times unacceptable, but my main motive here is not to get Andy "punished" or further restricted. What I'm interested in ensuring that the sanctions are properly defined and that Andy refrains from further problematic behaviour so this doesn't need to come in front of ArbCom again. On the latter, I view coming to ArbCom as an absolute last resort and I've stated clearly that I'm open to options which are far more favourable to Andy. TfD discussions inherently involve adding and removing infoboxes from articles, and the remedy covered discussions on such matters, so yes they are related, though whether they are covered by the sanction or not is a matter for ArbCom to decide. I hope they do so soon. In the meantime, I will present more evidence if and when ArbCom requests it; I don't answer to anyone else on that subject. CT Cooper · talk 14:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: A think a complete re-wording is a good idea, and something along those lines is acceptable to me. However, as I alluded to in my opening statement, there needs to be a change of behaviour from Andy for this to be a workable resolution. CT Cooper · talk 15:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I think I was clear that I'm happy to accept the current interpretation (in fact, I said so in the second sentence of my statement), with my support for the motion being motivated by a desire to help set the current interpretation in stone. Any comments from me which stated the interpretation was up for debate again were in a response to some arbitrators appearing to want to review this, though I will let them speak for themselves on that. It remains my view that people should respond to restrictions by finding completely new areas to edit, rather than editing around them, though I accept that nobody is obliged to follow this advice and I have not at any point actively pushed for the current interpretation of the remedy to be altered. If in the future I reach the conclusion that stronger sanctions are needed, I will ask for new sanctions at an appropriate venue, not for re-interpretations of existing ones.

The merging of templates sometimes does involve removing existing templates from articles – such as when merging multiple templates together into a new one, as was carried out with Eurovision templates recently, but I won't quibble over such technicalities and a completely revised wording should resolve this. I agree that merging little used templates is generally a good thing, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that such activities are in themselves a problem. What is the problem is the way Andy sometimes goes about doing this, as highlighted in my evidence. Does that justify new sanctions at this point? Probably not, but if the problematic behaviour continues, that situation might change. Certainly I think lifting all the sanctions is out of the question at this point, at least until Andy proves he is ready for it. CT Cooper · talk 19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I disagree, as rightly or wrongly, it was ultimately Andy's behaviour that led to this coming back to ArbCom, starting with an enforcement request, which has now been followed by this request for clarification and amendment. Myself and other editors at WikiProject Eurovision didn't even know Andy was under an ArbCom restriction to start with, and it could have easily stayed that way. I'm afraid I'm not following the rest of your points, though I've been familiar with Andy's highly positive contributions in various areas for a good while, which if I'm honest, is one reason I was as actually quite shocked to find out that he did have such a long history with ArbCom. A happy New Year to you too! CT Cooper · talk 14:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AussieLegend

There really does need to be greater clarification regarding this, since much of the problem involves Andy's participation at TfDs, especially when he nominates and then sometimes re-nominates the same templates without attempting to involve himself in discussion with end users or maintainers of the template. Quite often we see "Redundant to....." as the rationale, when in fact this is not the case. An example is {{Infobox Ireland station}} which, along with {{Infobox NI station}}, Andy nominated last year. The result of the discussion was that Infobox Ireland station was kept and Infobox NI station was merged into it. Not satisfied with the result, as has happened before, Andy has now re-nominated Infobox Ireland station today. Forcing the community to go through the same process over and over until he achieves the desired result can be seen to be disruptive, and this is what forces people to file AE Requests, especially since deletion of an infobox can be interpreted as removing it from an article, even if it is replaced by another. If the restriction placed on Andy is only applicable to articles, then this needs to be set in stone. If this isn't done, then more AE Requests are likely to be filed as Andy does nominate a lot of infoboxes for deletion or merging. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: - Yes, reducing the number of templates can be beneficial but that's not always the case. For example, Andy has now nominated {{Infobox Rome episode}} for deletion (again). In the process, and regardless of the outcome of the TfD, he has removed code from the template that now opens the way for somebody to justifiably create two additional templates regardless of the TfD outcome. Andy has a narrow focus when it comes to templates and doesn't always look at the big picture. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: - The wording is an improvement, but I don't think it is enough. One of the things that I've been complaining about for some time is that Andy almost never (99.9% of the time) seems to engage in discussion with template maintainers or end users before nominating infoboxes for deletion or merging. The restriction would seem to encourage him not to engage in discussion which, to me at least, seems counterproductive. An example is the nomination for {{Infobox Australian road}}, which was specifically kept after extended discussion, including an RfC attended by members of the Highways and Australian Roads projects. If Andy had discussed this first, the TfD might not have happened. I feel Andy's restriction should require that he engage in discussion before nominating infoboxes. At the very least it should encourage such discussion but, as it stands, it encourages him to nominate and sort it out at TfD, which can be a combative venue, and Andy seems to be taking advantage of this based on his recent nominations. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Does replacing one infobox with another in an article qualify as "Andy testing the boundaries". There has been no consensus for this change. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or this. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I really don't appreciate your accusations of mud-slinging. It's been said here that Andy's restriction extends only to article space and here we have two edits in article space where he has effectively added an infobox. The restriction does not make it clear that changing is not part of the restriction. The change he made doesn't make sense when all of the related articles use a different infobox and his change removed content from display. He made that change specifically as a test. He could have easily created the example in his user space or at Template:Infobox Rome episode/testcases where there is a side by side comparison.

You want Andy to search around for all the people who edit your templates or use them before being allowed to start a discussion at Templates for Discussion? No, it's simply common courtesy to discuss use of a template with the end users first. Andy avoids that at all costs. He doesn't have to "search around for all the people", it's usually just a matter of going to the template's talk page to identify the end user project and opening a discussion on the project's talk page. Andy is so inconsiderate that he won't even leave a simple note, leaving others to do it for him.[13] He refuses to even add |type=infobox to TfD notices because the option is not available in Twinkle,[14] which regularly upsets other users.[15] Andy selectively forgets that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort and it's that attitude that has resulted in an extremely long block log and sanctions. His negative interactions with so many editors necessitates making the wording of those sanctions very clear because not everyone can find the long discussions that lead to those sanctions. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

Andy is well-known for his technical abilities, especially related to templates such as infoboxes. It is therefore not unexpected that he should be regularly involved with clean-up of the vast proliferation of templates that perform near-identical functions. This request was sparked off by Andy asking that {{Infobox Ireland disused station}} (used 314 times) and {{Infobox Ireland station}} (used 187 times) be merged into {{Infobox station}} (used 16,002 times) as it is easier to maintain and use one template than three. In this case the generic template can specify the country and could have the date when the station stopped being used. It is perfectly reasonable to have these sort of debates and that is the purpose of TfD. Look at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 29 #Template:Infobox Ireland station and see if you think asking for a debate is unreasonable.

What is unacceptable here is some editors' attempts to stifle debate by using an unrelated ArbCom decision to remove an "opponent" from nominating templates that they OWN. Andy does nominate a lot of templates for merge and deletion, but that's is not disruptive, per se - for heaven's sake there are thousands of templates that are only used in a handful of articles where a more generic and widely-used template is already available. Andy is one of the few people who is willing to spend time rationalising this sort of proliferation and - inconvenient as it may be to the OWNers - he performs a valuable job in this field. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CT Cooper: You accept that other editors have caused problems yet you are trying to remove just Andy from template discussions. So what if "there were already plans in motion to merge some redundant templates"? you can't be the sole arbiter of who participates in those discussions and Andy is not only entitled to do so, but is a useful catalyst in moving forward such discussions. If templates were merged in a poor fashion, the answer is to FIXIT, not blame the person who pointed out the problem. As Humphrey Appleby would say 'to be bold' is one of those irregular verbs: "I edit boldly; you edit problematically; he/she edits disruptively". As for unrelated - yes TfD is utterly unrelated to adding or removing infoxes from articles. If you want to make a case for sanctions concerning TfD, then file a case; you'll need diffs, of course, not this sort of "guilt by mud-slinging" that some have been engaged in here.

@ArbCom: Here's yet another confirming instance that your faulty decision last year has done nothing but paint a target on some of the participants: you sanction someone for one thing and it's open season on them every time they get into a disagreement with other editors. Isn't it time you realised you screwed up by taking sides in a content dispute? or do you intend to repeat the same mistakes again and again? --RexxS (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CT Cooper: Andy's track record at TfD shows that he is concerned with merging little-used templates into more generic ones. In most cases this is a good thing. The effect of a successful merge is normally that one template becomes a redirect to the other. This clearly does not result in the removal or addition of a template to any article. It was never an issue at the Infobox RfArb case that there was a problem with Andy replacing one infobox with another - and we've even had this argument at Clarification and it was clearly agreed that this was not part of his restriction. So no, asking for a template to be merged into another really, really doesn't have any relationship to the sanctions imposed on Andy and I worry that you're asking for an already answered question to be re-litigated.

@Courcelles: Yes, it would require a lot more wordsmithing because "prohibited from ... discussions concerning whether an infobox should be added [to] or removed from ... [a] group of articles" would include project pages (is that your intention?) as well as directly contradicting "allowed ... to nominate infobox templates for discussion at templates for discussion. since the former is one of the things that people discuss at TfD. Even though Andy has never, to my knowledge, suggested at TfD that a template should be removed (he is always looking to merge them into more common ones), your wording would prevent him from taking part in debating one of his nominations as soon as someone suggested deleting the template. I seriously hope that wasn't your intention, either. --RexxS (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: No. Replacing one infobox with another is definitely not part of Andy's restrictions and that question has already been asked and answered in the negative as part of a previous Clarification Request. We already know it's not testing any boundaries and your suggestion amounts to mud-slinging at Andy in the hope that some of it sticks. Do your homework before trying to extend sanctions by the back-door. Replacing {{Infobox Rome episode}} by {{Infobox television episode}} is an utterly sensible improvement to an article - do you advocate a template for each and every television series in existence? He doesn't need your permission before editing; and suggesting that editors have to seek consensus before making an uncontroversial edit is just the usual trick of OWNers who don't want outsiders messing with their precious articles. "Engage in discussion with template maintainers or end users before nominating infoboxes for deletion or merging" over my dead body: you just want to put obstacles in the way of any editor who dares to edit your articles. You want Andy to search around for all the people who edit your templates or use them before being allowed to start a discussion at Templates for Discussion? ridiculous. You also need to understand what is meant by "Templates for Discussion": it's the place where templates are discussed. You want to have that discussion on the pages of a WikiProject, rather than on the pages where we are meant to discuss templates. TfD is the correct venue because it brings together members of Wikiprojects and other editors who may have a different view to have the discussion. That's healthy, and requiring a pre-discussion on the pages of what may be a moribund Wikiproject is not a sensible option. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

The arbcom decision was clear that it related to articles. Andy is doing helpful wikignoming with his TfDs and this is simply a witchhunt. His efforts are beneficial to the project as he largely is finding long-abandoned templates or those with few transclusions. He defends his actions and is remaining remarkably civil in his responses (which are at times a bit pointed, but he's yet to resort to name-calling; something that cannot be said about other editors who oppose him). There is an OWNership problem here and a serious lack of goodwill. This needs to be closed with a clarification that only articles are subject to this sanction, and frankly, given Andy's use to the project (I asked him to repair infobox horseracing personality not long ago), I think it is time his restrictions are lifted altogether. If the project wants to avoid drama, then avoid setting people up as scapegoats. Montanabw(talk) 18:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the people crying "off with his head" to be quite troubling. Per WP:BAIT, I think Andy has been remarkably civil. And per WP:BOOMERANG, I strongly suggest that people in glass houses of ownership and rude, incivil behavior (Francis and DePiep, for example) should not be throwing stones! Montanabw(talk) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fæ

I have known Andy for a few years, and neatly cooperated on a couple of projects without making a big hooha; however I only know of this request due to preparing my own amendment for a different matter. CT Cooper above raises a reasonable point of distance, however if there is a problem with working collegiately then this does not need Arbcom's authority to resolve, the conventional civility and dispute resolution procedures are sufficient.

Speaking as an editor "haunted" and occasionally gibed by a past Arbcom case, I can well believe the views expressed here that the prior case involving Andy may be used inappropriately. This does not benefit the encyclopedia in the long run, and as Arbcom has often stated, normal collegiate resolution processes with any action within the capability of administrators should be preferred and exhausted before resorting to the supreme device of the Arbcom stick. --Fæ (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

IMO the editors who were restricted well over a year ago here have more than followed their sanctions. Andy has avoided the article end of adding and removing infoboxes, and has still remained dedicated to improving the project through his technical skills. It appears to me that even though Arbcom (of that day) did not place the all so common "broadly construed" to its remedy, the bulk of disruption comes from those looking for a thread with which to create a noose. While the continual drag ya back to AE/ARCA is entertaining from a soap opera point of view, it seems to me that the elephant in the room is: Remove the restrictions, and you remove the drama mongers out looking for a lynching party. — Ched :  ?  17:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. Many if not most arb cases contain a clause stating that after a certain amount of time (often 12 months/1 year) editors are able to appeal their restrictions. I wasn't able to find that provision in the infobox case, can someone tell me why that is? The facts are plain that it was those who favored the inclusion of an infobox who were sanctioned, those who opposed them were "reminded and/or admonished" - and that's fine, evidence/findings etc. I get that. I know that as a 3rd party that I can't request the lifting of restrictions - but I am wondering ... just how long does the committee intend to impose restrictions on those who favor having infoboxes in articles? Just wondering. — Ched :  ?  12:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The purpose of restrictions is to reduce disruption. It doesn't much matter whether the disruption is on articles or talk pages, or wherever. If his contributions in non-article space have not been disruptive, there may be benefit in formalising a narrower scope of the restriction.  Roger Davies talk 20:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My recollection was that we crafted the remedy to stop the infobox wars. Those were mainly around adding and removing infoboxes from articles, and that's where Andy needed to be taken away from. I personally supported allowing him to stay in policy debates on the topic, though that didn't pass. I'd certanly support such a change. WormTT(talk) 11:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Roger says, arbcom restrictions are meant to stop drama, not breathe new life into it. Considering Andy's recent attempts at testing the boundaries of his restriction and the community's uncertainty as to where exactly these boundaries lie, I'd be in favour of a gordian solution: let's simply ban Andy from anything infobox-related across all namespaces. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The restriction is fine as written. Decline. AGK [•] 23:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The restriction is not fine as written, as evidenced by the fact that it's the second time in less than two months that we have been requested to clarify its scope. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is evidence that people are struggling to grasp the restriction, not that it warrants amendment. It is unreasonable to agree that a sentence as simple as the one in question is ambiguous.

        @NE Ent: My advice is to discard the invented interpretation that this restriction applies only to the mainspace; I don't see where this has come from or why it was arrived at. As I said, the restriction is fine as written. Any confusion about it is difficult to sympathise with in this case, given the remedy's clarity. AGK [•] 13:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • In case this is still active on 1 January, I'll note here for the record that I am recused as an arbitrator for this case. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about something like "Pigsonthewing is prohibited from adding an infobox to any article, or participating in discussions concerning whether an infobox should be added or removed from either a specific article or group of articles. He is explicitly allowed to edit infobox templates to improve their functionality, and to nominate infobox templates for discussion at templates for discussion." Needs some wordsmithing, but I've never liked the wording of the initial restriction, and while I don't think Andy has gamed it, the wording has still led to drama. Some more explicit language would be good, even though it leaves the line of what Andy may and may not do the same. (I think enough time has passed to allow an exception for putting infoboxes in articles he has recently created himself, but that might be beyond the scope of this request.) Courcelles 23:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RexxS: Perhaps "participating in discussions related to whether an article or group of articles should include an infobox". The locus of dispute here was binary, whether an article should or should not have an infobox; not whether it should use "template:infobox foo" or "template:infobox bar". Courcelles 19:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me --Guerillero | My Talk 17:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Courcelles' suggestion, though I think Callanecc has a good point that "to improve their functionality" should be dropped. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Climate change (WP:ARBCC)

Initiated by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) at 13:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of any users involved or directly affected

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy

The question
As you know, WP:ARBCC (and the new DS system that enforces it) applies to the broadly construed topic of climate change. Does that encompass the article Scientific consensus?

My request/opinion
I would like to see you answer "YES", and an admin or clerk paste the notification template on the article talk page.

Supporting article history

  • Dec 4 2004 (William M. Connolley 11:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I don't know if it helps, but if you look at the very early history of this page you'll see it was essentially created by Ed Poor to hold a quote from Michael Crichton that attacked global warming.
  • July 18, 2005 OK, now that the Climate wars have quieted down a bit following the Arbcom decision, I've taken a look at the rewrites. -Vsmith 15:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What prompts the motion
Originally I wrote something about the users and editing that has been happening recently, but after completing it I decided to redact it. After all, I'm not seeking AE against anyone at this time. If anyone asks, I can just add it back. It should also be obvious that well-funded PR firms are paid to undercut belief in the notion of "scientific consensus" as part of various industries' fight against regulations, fees, and taxes. The fossil fuel industry is joined in that regard by tobacco, big pharma, and many others. There are plenty of RSs for that too, if needed.

Conclusion
If you agree, then please have a clerk post the DS notice on the article talk page.
Thanks for your attention, Happy Holidays
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callanecc

@NewsAndEventsGuy: The discretionary sanctions would apply to any edit was what broadly construed to be related to climate change, so not every edit on the page would be covered, though the two edits you linked (2004 & 2005) would be covered. Edits regarding tobacco and big pharma very likely wouldn't be covered, but edits regarding fossil fuel probably would. So the short answer is yes and no, and it depends on the edit. For example, an edit to Al Gore regarding his military service wouldn't be covered by the ARBCC discretionary sanctions but an edit to the Environmentalism section very likely would be. Whether it's worth adding the DS template to Talk:Scientific consensus, I don't think it matters two much, the template doesn't need to be there for someone to be sanctioned, nor for them to be alerted about the discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by J. Johnson

I would point out that Scientific consensus and the editing and issues there are directly connected with Draft:IPCC consensus, which has parallel issues and authorship. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Climate change (WP:ARBCC): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Essentially as stated by Callanecc. In the case here, the entire article isn't related to climate change, but portions of it could be. If the edit is in a portion of the article not related, it is fine, if it is related, that particular edit falls under discretionary sanctions. As to templating, normally, an article talk page should not be templated unless all or almost all of the article would fall under DS, as almost any article could have a portion related to various areas under DS. The example of Al Gore is a good one. We wouldn't template the article on Gore himself because part of the article could relate to climate change, since edits could be made to most of the article in regards to his political career, life, etc., that would have nothing to do with climate change. A template on An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, would be appropriate, as that entire article would fall under the climate change DS. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't think of anything to add beyond what Callanecc and Seraphimblade have already said. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with the above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur. WormTT(talk) 11:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What they said. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The test to be applied to the article on Scientific consensus is, as stated above, quite clear. Please proceed accordingly. AGK [•] 23:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Seraphimblade nails how this one should be handled. Courcelles 23:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also agree with the above. T. Canens (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same view as the above, FWIW. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=640621757"