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 L235 (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 31 May 2015 (→‎Motion (Infoboxes): enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[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
Amendment request: Infoboxes Motion (orig. case) 9 May 2015
Amendment request: Scientology none (orig. case) 20 May 2015
Amendment request: Acupuncture none (orig. case) 25 May 2015
Amendment request: GoodDay none (orig. case) 29 May 2015

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

Amendment request: Infoboxes

Initiated by Gerda Arendt at 17:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create. (#4)
  2. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.(#6)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request



Information about amendment request
  • Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create. (#4)
  • To be worded.
  • All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.(#6)
  • Is a good idea but had no consequences.

Statement by Gerda Arendt

About two years after the infoboxes case I look back. Reminder: It was requested because - after {{infobox opera}} was introduced - too many infoboxes were reverted, for example Rigoletto. I counted 59 cases before and during the case. Most of them have an infobox now, including Götterdämmerung, The Rite of Spring and Handel. The project is at peace. Missa Dona nobis pacem.

I am quite happy with the restriction of two comments per discussion because it saves me time. However, I think that it should be more evenly observed by all participants in discussions, not only me.

I believe that the restriction of adding infoboxes to only "articles I create" supports the ownership of articles and should be dropped. I promise to not add an infobox where I believe it is not wanted, - actually that's what I always did.

I wish that the clause about "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" would be observed more. Look at current discussions such as Talk:Beethoven#Infobox, subtract what contradicts this clause and see how little is left. (Did you know that even Beethoven had an infobox, until 26 December 2014?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven was closed in favour of an infobox. It pleases me how similar it looks to the one proposed in the workshop of the case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Viva-Verdi. We got the sad news only yesterday. As far as I know he didn't engage in infobox disputes, but silently amended all of Verdi's operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: regarding "better ... than she previously did": would you please say more precisely where you think I did something wrong? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a case, my first meeting with arbcom. I didn't even understand the terms, thinking "motion" meant setting something in motion. I promoted the new template, which is by now accepted. I said "A way to determinate if a new infobox is to be kept permanently needs to be found, a consensus respectful of the principal contributors, but also looking at usefulness for readers and site consistency." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: I leave it to the arbitrators to see that your diffs don't show what you claim, and find the attribute "senseless" for debates surprising. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you present for a 'related "senseless debate"' shows a sensible debate. - I think to alleviate all "remedies" of the case (which wasn't looking at facts of 2013 and is outdated even more in 2015) would make a lot of sense, but I didn't dare to ask that much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Nielsen example shows that I am able to evaluate when not to mention the topic, even without a restriction. It also showed a learning process of others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: The current restriction does not allow me to add an infobox to an article which I expanded significantly (for example Polish Requiem), only to those which I turned from red to blue (or made a redirect an article). It also doesn't allow me to add an infobox to an opera, while I could help to continue doing what Viva-Verdi did. All works by Verdi have an infobox, several by Wagner including Götterdämmerung (remember my question: "If there are only 10 readers who profit from the structured information about this article in the infobox, would you deprive them of it?" - still on the talk), Don Giovanni, Carmen, but there are hundreds more missing one. - I have added infoboxes to all "my" articles since the case (including three FAs), - none of them was reverted or questioned. - I believe that infoboxes are good for our readers, and that will not change. - I know by now to avoid certain biographies by certain authors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim: "Gerda manages to cause much alarm and despondency on the subject to other editors", please let me understand better by providing one example of me causing such alarm. (I will look up "depondency".) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: Please give me one example of what you mean by a general "forcing infoboxes into articles". - Admitted: I am proud to speak up for good-faith edits of new editors who have no idea that they enter a minefield. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: I have no list of "infoboxes targeted", only a (incomplete) list of infoboxes that have been reverted. That list began as part of the evidence for the arb case, it had 59 entries then. As of today, 15 of those have no infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I know you as a man of compromise, remembering that you offered an "identibox" for L'Arianna and a version accepted by the Main editor for Chopin. I think Carmen looks more attractive and more informative, and the discussion was sensible. Michael Tippett was nominated for TFA and appeared without ever mentioning the topic infobox. - Your reflections in the Signpost make sense to me. - Could you perhaps word rules or recommendations to be observed by all participants in infobox discussions? Such as only one revert, then discuss. I really enjoy "only two comments". (I asked others before, a former arbitrator, a lawyer and a participant in the case). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: I removed myself from what you call the infobox-arena for one year. That year was over on 11 September 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: My behaviour was to insert infoboxes in opera articles too soon after they were made available by project opera, which led to reverts and sometimes longish discussions. What changed is that now the operatic infoboxes are mostly accepted by the project. - I have not inserted an infobox in a TFA, not even suggested one for a FA before being featured. I have not suggested one for articles of authors where I knew they don't want one. (I sometimes made mistakes in that respect, but am willing to learn.) I have collaborated in DYK with Nikkimaria and Smerus, the other parties in the case, with whom I shared one of the better debates about an opera infobox, literary, short and amusing. (I don't know if the arbitrators noticed that.) - I do question when editors new to the problem of infoboxes for classical composers and other biographies are reverted without explanation. I also was shocked in disbelief that editors improving an article to FA threw out an infobox that had served readers for eight years. I am sorry if by doing so I hurt people, - it was not intended.

I am on a voluntary 1RR and should know by now to avoid articles of Main editors who dislike infoboxes, therefore nobody needs to be afraid of me. Regarding infoboxes (and I mean just at-a-glance orientation about a subject's position in place and time), I have a simple belief: if they help a few people, why not? They help me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: You decline what? A rewording of the restriction to not reflect ownership? (That is all I asked to have amended.) Additional question: What behaviour precisely do you think I need to reform? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back from a few days off, singing Salve Regina, I thank RexxS for wording better than I could the things I have not done. I have not ever added an infobox where I thought it was contentious, but sometimes made mistakes in that respect. I think I improved my evaluation.

@PumpkinSky: I am delighted to see your signature again! - You missed a lot in the two years you were absent. Nikkimaria who reverted the most in 2013, doesn't do that any more in 2015. She learned. The number of noticed conflicts is also declining (more than 60 in 2013, more than 30 in 2014, only 8 so far in 2015), another step in the right direction. Of the 8, only 6 are still reverted, by Jerome Kohl, Tim riley, SchroCat, Smerus, Sagaciousphil and Opus33, who all acted in good faith, I assume.

Look at Carl Nielsen to see an article with no infobox conflict and admirable collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: a nice movement, I thank four people for supporting something amusing, "If after six months Gerda Arendt has not blocked under this motion", - I don't plan to block ;) - I don't feel I should change anything in the motion, would someone else do it, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olive

Gerda is an incredibly prolific and expert editor who is not just liked but loved by many even those who at times disagree with her. She has deliberately used a restriction, that of making only two comments, to improve herself and her editing. This is ideal editor behaviour. Why not expand her abilities to edit. I don't see any reasons why she should not be given the chance to edit in a more expansive way; she's earned it, seems to me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

      • AGK could you clarify? Why does Gerda's response merit a decline? She is asking for clarification. You declined in a very general way without specifying anything and with out any evidence that Gerda has not edited per her restrictions. I believe all editors want to trust the admins and arbitrators who control the sanctions. We can only do that if those in control very specifically outline the concerns, so we can see that there is good reason to limit another editor's editing, and that the restrictions aren't the result of grudges or anger or positions which indicate non-neutrality in dealing with other people. I am not accusing anyone of this but with out clarification no one knows what the problem is or how to correct it. WP is not punishment based; it should be an environment were editors help each other even arbs. As a community we have to trust you, but trust takes time, patience, and fair dealing with the editors here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by OccultZone

Looking at her contributions, I would say that her editing scope is wide and her edits are very beneficial to en.wiki. and after so much experience that she earned, she would better know what to do with infoboxes than she previously did. Similar to Littleolive oil, I believe that she should be given chance to broaden her range. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt I was pointing to the case concerning infoboxes and that it lead to the imposition of restrictions on a number of editors. I just said that you must be knowing better about it, than you did previously. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and that's the plus point. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:50, 11 May (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken

It is my profound opinion Gerda Arendt shouldn't be left near any infobox (discussion), ever.

  • The current unnecessary content forking (note: content forking, not POV forking) of BWV 243 and BWV 243a rooted in Gerda Arendt's prejudice regarding infoboxes: "243a ... 243 ... I "strike" by not adding to articles without infobox ;)" (diff 1)
  • "Farming" tensions regarding infoboxes (diff 2)
  • Beethoven infobox:
    • Treating infobox discussions as "votes" (diff 3)
    • Typical indirect statement of argument, a technique rarely beneficial for the quality of a debate: "... what would a reader say who never heard the name Beethoven before? Perhaps: ..." (diff 4) – a bit pretentious about "knowing" other people's preferences, instead of clarifying her own.

On the whole, whenever Gerda gets involved in an infobox debate this never has a soothing effect on tensions, drawing a consensus nearer, more often tensions are increased, by a deep rooted "I will not be convinced by anyone else's arguments – my prejudice rises above that" attitude.

I'm not really convinced by the quality of the content of infoboxes Gerda produces. I remember these often need adjustment (which often isn't conceded to unless after a lot of senseless debate and reverts, e.g. diff 5) It is my contention that Gerda would be involved a lot less in tensions regarding infoboxes when she would be able to produce higher quality infoboxes, which is however something difficult to prove by diffs.

Gerda didn't contribute to remedy 6 of the Infoboxes case: "The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion..." I don't say she should have, but asking here to alleviate some of the remedies of that case, while not exploring the more positive ones is, in my eyes, sanctimonious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ad diff 5: illustration of related "senseless debate" --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing "sensible" in starting a third talk page section about the infobox (diff 6), overriding active discussions (diff 6a, diff 6b) without actual content contribution to the issues being discussed. Illustrates "I will not be persuaded by anyone else's arguments – my prejudice rises above that". Confirms imho that Gerda Arendt should not be left near any infobox (discussion) in the best interest of Wikipedia's content: Gerda Arendt's self-realization of how she behaves in that field is zero. The remedies of the infobox ArbCom case proved ineffective to ameliorate that, so the best solution, again IMHO, would be to take her out of that particular arena entirely, at least for a year or so, and re-evaluate after such period whether the state of affairs regarding infoboxes has improved or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? By now Gerda Arendt should know not to promulgate publicity like that, and not to post flawed summaries anywhere. As a token regarding nature of intentions please remove my name (and any link to my user/talk page) there without delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re. I ping people whom I mention – tx, but better would have been not to mention me on that page at all, so I wouldn't have seen this nauseating interaction between the initiator and one of the active Arbs of this amendment request. After having been forced to see this... @Euryalus: maybe consider recusing yourself from the current request, the mentioned interaction display is far from enlightening. I don't see the need to treat this public amendment request anywhere else but here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This edit accepted Gerda Arendt's self-aggrandizement at face value (as if I would have been less motivated by such concerns, so no that's not how she "... arrived in conflict with Francis Schonken ..."). The out-of-proces presentation of so-called additional evidence triggered no concern whatsoever... There was also no "previous" in this interaction as to be exempted by "Previous routine ... interactions are not usually grounds for recusal", so I don't think there's much to be found in using ARBPOL as an excuse here. I'd like to be able to take active arbitrators serious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gerda Arendt: please stop creating diversions, this page is not the place to start deploying remedy 6 of the Infoboxes case, and even less under your conditions – I'm as much a man of compromise as the next guy, and my recommendations to you are clear: remove yourself from the infobox arena, completely, for at least a year. General recommendations regarding participants in infobox related issues can't even technically be treated here, per the initiator's selection of involved users. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re "...over on 11 September 2014" ... make that 6 September 2014 - oh, wait, that's around the time when the next round of this time-sink began. Removing Gerda Arendt from the arena apparently works to make treatment of infobox issues go back to normal. Maybe make it somewhat more than a year, starting today. And no returning to that arena before the arrogant "I will not be persuaded by anyone else's arguments – my prejudice rises above that" attitude has been given up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Short year indeed! – Please make it at least a real time year this time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. #Motion (Infoboxes) – this might actually work and I see no problem living by it when it passes. III) might be a bit more explicit that inappropriate WP:CANVASSING outside the actual discussion might be experienced as disruptive to a discussion too, speaking from experience that Gerda Arendt has had difficulty grasping this concept, and might thus endanger her parole without realising. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tim riley

Gerda has most honourably drawn my attention to this page, knowing full well that devoted as I am to her in all other regards I strongly disapprove of her zealotry with regard to info-boxes, and that I will – as indeed I do – oppose any easing of the restraint on her in this respect. Even with the current restrictions Gerda manages to cause much alarm and despondency on the subject to other editors who hold equally conscientious views to the contrary. Tim riley talk 13:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on Gerda! See SchroCat's comments below. It's no good doing passive-aggressive on us at this stage. Tim riley talk 16:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SchroCat

I oppose any relaxation of the restrictions, given the disruption this editor still causes with IBs. For example, after three comments on the thread in the Talk: Laurence Olivier page, and a warning on 16 March 2015 from Cailil to advise that the "two comment limit, in discussions about Infoboxes, is a bright-line rule", and that any further breaches would face sanction. It was something of a surprise to see a fourth comment on 26 March 2015 in the same thread. It seems that this part of the restriction hasn't been adhered to, and the pattern of behaviour has not changed as much as has been claimed. I'll also add that following postings on IB-related matters to my talk page and directly to me by email, I have also had to ask Gerda not to post to my talk page any more. – SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ssilvers

I also oppose any relaxation of the restrictions for all the reasons mentioned by SchroCat. One can see from Gerda's statement above that she is actually proud of her role in forcing infoboxes into articles where (I would argue) they do not provide any value. I think Gerda is a nice person, but this infobox zealotry, as Tim riley calls it, is destructive to the project by sucking away the time of other editors that they would prefer to spend creating content and by increasing the stress level of every discussion on the subject without actually adding any useful analysis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SandyGeorgia

Francis Schonken gets it right (also agree with Tim Riley, Ssilvers and possibly for the first time ever, SchroCat). In fact, rather than relaxing any restriction, I for one would be a much happier editor if Gerda were restricted from using the thank button or the ping button or having anything to do with the ongoing "metadata" issues, so my watchlist could be uncluttered by her frequent and irritating "observations". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel empathy here for Brianboulton, one of our finest writers ... it is time we recognized the damage to content creation caused by the metadata fan(atic)s, and the ongoing underlying conflict that has been furthered by ... and enabled ... and allowed to be furthered by ... such a small group of adherents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

My initial outlook is similar to those above. Heck no. However, this is difficult because Gerda is otherwise a lovely person (at least in general on wikipedia) and it saddens me that an editor like Gerda should ever have to have sanctions imposed upon her though. My main concern isn't in general with her, she's not going about forcing infoboxes on every article and that's like that's all she does. It is actually a small percentage of what she does, even if enthusiastic. In fact in recent weeks I don't think I've seen her mention infoboxes. Even in the most difficult of situations, she's never aggressive, sarcastic, yes, but never aggressive. It's as Ssilvers says about the time wasting and stress that occurs from the discussions involving Gerda/Mabbett and Schro/Cass/Tim/myself etc when an article an infobox might be removed from an article during the FA promotion. I really think it needs to be avoided and a solution provided. I'm sure Mabbett thinks of me as an enemy now, but otherwise I've long supported the work he does on reducing the redundancy in infoboxes and simplification. I just simply disagree that an article must have an infobox for the sake of it and his approach to it. I'd support the removal of the restrictions if Gerda could agree to respect the decision of editors surrounding an infobox once a featured article is promoted, and to avoid adding infoboxes or being involved in disputes or stirring on related talk pages with any of the editors above. In general, she should be allowed to add infoboxes to her music articles or whatever she is doing, but should be advised to stay away from those time consuming long disputes. I'd support a trial run without restrictions if she can avoid being involved with infobox disputes with the group of editors I mentioned, and to delete that list she keeps of articles to be "targeted" with infoboxes as it's a potential area for conflict. If she can't agree to respect the decision of editors who put in the massive amount of work needed to promote articles then I oppose, but I'm always open to the possibility of somebody changing and always want to think the best about somebody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda, Yes I know the list was originally drawn up for the arb case, but you have been updating it. It does look to me like you're keeping tabs on what needs an infobox added, even if that's genuinely not the main purpose of the list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia Yes, that's the main reason I've been outspoken against infobox enforcement on here. I believe when promoting an article to FA that editors should decide on infobox or no infobox before being promoted and that view respected at a later date. If they put in that great effort needed to promote an article they should have the say on the infobox matter I believe. And it's not as if we oppose infoboxes everywhere, I encourage them in things like settlement articles, with a pin map, but in arts biographies I believe I share the same view with yourself and others that their use is very limited if not redundant. I believe arb should pass something banning the protest of them on TFA today and in general once an article is promoted, at least for a year of two anyway. When it's reached a point that several editors are put off actually contributing an FA or oppose even the showing of their great efforts on the main page on TFA day then it's clear that it's gone too far. With Gerda though, I don't see a general drive by her to frantically add infoboxes to every article under the sun, it tends to be music/arts featured articles, and those contributed by Tim, Brian, Cass, Schro and myself I see her speak out more on. I think that needs to be acknowledged here, and a solution to deal with that which is the heart of the issue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brianboulton

In 2011 Gerda was a co-nominator, with me and Tim riley, in the successful FAC nomination of Messiah. It was a great collaboration, based on mutual respect and with never a moment's controvery over infoboxes. Her disruptive obsession with these boxes developed later, and led to these restriction being put in place. She was at the time, I believe, treated more leniently than her co-offenders, because of the excellent work she had otherwise done for the encyclopaedia, and I thought this consideration might temper her future behaviour. Unfortunately I was wrong. I hate to say it, but she is the main reason why I no longer write opera or music articles for Wikipedia, and why I oppose the appearance of my music FAC noms at TFA – I just can't deal with the likely hassle. Until she shows some practical recognition that her actions have hurt people, the restrictions should remain or be tightened. Relaxing them now would in my view be giving her licence to create more trouble. I am deeply sorry to have to write this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Montanabw

It's time for the restrictions to go. Gerda has shown a clear ability to work within them and in fact has often commented that some of them she has found to be useful (1RR, for example). That said, it is still time to lift the restrictions. One reason is that editors under restrictions are often subject to a game of "gotcha" by other editors and thus these restrictions get to the point where they generate more heat than light. Another reason is that - to those who somehow worry about Gerda - it's clear that she's managed to work within them and has expressed willingness to avoid the circumstances that gave rise to the situation in the first place. Third, In the real world, people get off "probation" automatically within a set time, only on wiki is it an apparent life sentence unless one begs forgiveness. I think it's time to drop the stick, drop the restrictions and see how things go. Frankly, I think Gerda has gone above and beyond. So I support Gerda's request. Montanabw(talk) 19:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know, what strikes me here is the incivility of Gerda's "opponents" in response to her sincere statements that she "gets it' about who and what to avoid. If there ever was a case for "you get your restrictions lifted when you understand the issue," this is it. Gerda gets it! Probation and parole is ended, Gerda has paid her debt to the wiki, now let it go. God knows that Francis Schonken and some of the others here will be lying in wait to say "GOTCHA!" if she is not being honest. The vitriol here needs to end and I do wonder if the members of arbcom are reading some of the baiting and bad faith commentary that's here. AGF, for heaven's sake! Montanabw(talk) 06:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

I find AGK's approach to this request problematic. No evidence has been brought forward illustrating any behaviour by Gerda since the infobox case closed on 11 September 2013 that a disinterested viewer would find fault with. There are no diffs of behaviour that would cause concern anywhere above. Unless of course you find Francis Shonken's desperate attempt to discredit her by pointing to her "support infobox" comment anything more than a smear. Just look at the comments preceding Gerda's there: "Support Infobox"; "Oppose infobox"; "Support Infobox" - why shouldn't Gerda express her opinion in that debate the same as anyone else? In fact there were another 12 editors who wrote "Support" or "Oppose" as they made their contributions to that debate. How can Schonken seriously criticise Gerda's comment there? Does he think the Arbs don't follow diffs, because anybody who does can see that Gerda has behaved perfectly reasonably on that page.

So with no evidence of problems, AGK decides to require Gerda to prove a negative by asking her to supply evidence that she has "reformed". Reformed from what? The only finding of fact in the case was

  • "Gerda Arendt has added infoboxes to many articles systematically, and without prior discussion, including articles where she knew or should have known that adding an infobox would be controversial." (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda_Arendt)

So Anthony:

  • Has Gerda added any more infoboxes sytematically? No.
  • Has she added them without prior discussion? No.
  • Has she added them to articles where she knew or should have known that adding an infobox would be controversial? No

You need to understand that restrictions designed to calm down a situation in 2013 are now well past their sell-by date. I'm not interested in your concept of "re-litigation"; I'm only interested in seeing restrictions that no longer serve any purpose lifted from an editor whose value to the encyclopedia is beyond doubt. I just hope the other arbitrators will actually read the prior case, look at the evidence presented and not be fooled by unsubstantiated attacks. --RexxS (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: I'm pleased that you're looking for ways forward and I would encourage other Arbs to consider your suggestion. The finding of fact in the original decision was wholly concerned with Gerda adding infoboxes, perhaps too enthusiastically. If Gerda were on some form of parole (hardened criminal that she is!), I wonder if we could persuade an uninvolved administrator to act as a sounding-board for her: so that if she were to be in any doubt, she could ask them if they thought an addition might be considered controversial, or whether prior talk page discussion would be better - or even when not raising the issue at all would be the best option. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PumpkinSky

Really AGK? Are you serious? Per Rexx. Not only is Gerda one of the nicest most helpful editors ever, but you let the real problem child off in the original case--NikkiMaria. Get a dose of reality and lift these appalling sanctions. PumpkinSky talk 20:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

First I do have to acknowledge Thryduulf. True integrity can be hard to come by, and it should be revered.

  • OK - way back when I requested that Arbcom look at the iBox issues - what followed was, to say the least, laughable. Not only were ALL the sanctions handed out to only one side - but in Gerda's case ... without ANY prior notification. Not only had she never been blocked - but she had never even been warned!! I do understand that I/we did not provide "evidence" against the oh so holy "anti-box" group; but rather the "pro" group simply defended their actions. Well - there's no use crying over spilled milk I suppose. So here we are a couple years later. Things seem to be working out on an article to article basis .. and Gerda asks for some common sense. Low and behold - read the above from the "anti" group. I read somewhere that someone actually found fault because Gerda used the "Thank" function ... REALLY??? Just wow. What a sad and pathetic life some people must lead.
  • Oh well - I figured since I was the one that brought the original case, I should make some sort of statement. You Arbs do whatever it is you do - I honestly don't give a fuck. Pardon my french, but I can read above and below - and it's pretty easy to see where the good folks are .. and where the mean, nasty, vindictive, petty, self-righteous, arrogant, ... (ok, I'll stop) folks are. Have fun - look in the mirror - whatever. — Ched :  ?  03:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • addendum: It absolutely amazes me when the so called "upper echelon" of Wikipedia outright enable the cruel and suppressive behavior that we bear witness to above. But hey, as Kermit the Frog would say: "That's none of my business" — Ched :  ?  04:19, 23 May 2015 (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 case request or provide additional information.

Infoboxes: Clerk notes

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

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • recuse. I am not neutral with regards the infoboxes topic and was heavily involved in this case before I was an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gerda Arendt: apologies if I'm not reading this right, but the core request is to drop restrictions on you adding Infoboxes? Agree the current restriction encourages ownership by elevating article creators over other people. Noted that you agree not to add an Infobox where it is not wanted, presumably by a consensus of other editors in the relevant page. But not sure why you need the restriction lifted - if a consensus of other editors wants an infobox in an article, can't they simply add it themselves? Let me know if I've missed a key point, happy to consider further either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Support lifting the restriction on Infobox addition, on the basis outlined above - that Infoboxes will not be added to any article where a consensus of editors opposes that addition. I note in passing that consensus for or against Infoboxes might exist or be established for an individual article or a group of them, presumably via WikiProject discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Francis Schonken: ARBPOL appropriately provides for recusal under certain conditions, none of which apply in this instance. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsympathetic to the arguments that the restrictions are convoluted or unusual, and should therefore go. We generally don't allow re-litigation of the proposed decision. Consequently, the only argument I'd find compelling would be one demonstrating that the restrictions are no longer necessary to the smooth running of the project. I would therefore like to hear from Gerda as to how precisely their behaviour has reformed since the restrictions were imposed. AGK [•] 21:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline based on the response submitted by Gerda. AGK [•] 08:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fairly neutral on this issue --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is time for these to go, perhaps under a parole system for a quarter. Courcelles (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could support some sort of parole system, but wouldn't be fully comfortable lifting the restrictions without one. Yunshui 雲水 07:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (Infoboxes)

I) Remedy 3.2 of the Infoboxes case is suspended.

II) For a six-month period Gerda Arendt may not add or restore, except for the usual exemptions, an Infobox to any article she did not create, without first either a) obtaining a clear consensus to do so on the article talkpage, or b) her proposal on the article talk page attracting no comments for 72 hours.

III) During this six-month period, she must not, in the opinion of a consensus of administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, disrupt any discussion concerning infoboxes.

IV) Gerda Arendt may be blocked for violation of parts II and III. Any such block shall cause remedy 3.2 to be unsuspended; if this is done, the blocking administrator must make the committee aware.

V) If after six months Gerda Arendt has not been blocked under this motion, remedy 3.2 as well as this motion shall automatically lapse.

Enacted - --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Proposed, given the idea of a parole period seems to have some support, and trying to incorporate what I think is the sense of Euryalus' comment. This has been sitting here too long. Tinker as desired. Courcelles (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A little more restrictive than I might have preferred, but I can get behind this as an interim measure to help Gerda back to regular editing. Yunshui 雲水 08:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per Yunshui. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Doug Weller 11:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. This seems a reasonable way forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Gerda has show positive change since the case, though I do think that this less restrictive parole is needed to ease them back into the editing area. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse

Amendment request: Scientology

Initiated by Francis Schonken at 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Rick Alan Ross instructed and restricted:
"26) User:Rick Alan Ross is requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename; instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses; and restricted to one account only with his other named account, User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected to the main account."
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
"26) User:Rick Alan Ross is requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename; instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses; and restricted to one account only with his other named account, User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected to the main account."
First proposal: retracted, obsolete --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Second proposal
"Follow-up on Remedy 26: User:Rick A. Ross has contacted the Arbitration Committee and indentifies as Rick Ross (consultant). All other user accounts or editors claiming or pretending to be Rick Alan Ross will be blocked."

Statement by Francis Schonken

Subject was referred to Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) by OTRS. In order to proceed it should be best that the situation resulting from the 2009 Scientology case is cleared. See Talk:Rick Ross (consultant)#Discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Allen → Alan, sorry for the typo. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @173.72.57.223: re. what can be done:
    • contact the Arbitration Committee by email (if you haven't done so already)
    • login as User:Rick Alan Ross and edit with that account exclusively (instead of editing as IP 173.72.57.223)
  • @Yunshui and Guerillero: (and other arbitrators), some suggestions:
    • check the ArbCom mailbox whether such email arrived recently, or in a more distant past, and if so see what actions have been of should be given accordingly
    • explain to Rick Alan Ross why it is advantageous to comply with the ArbCom decision, or what can be done.

Note that my only stake in this is dealing with WP:BLP issues under WP:COI conditions (not my COI, the COI of Ross/173.72.57.223), without my current actions risking to be ultimately invalidated for a technical reason related to a past arbcom case. I think ArbCom can do something to avoid such risk. Some creativity may be needed, my creative proposal to amend the Scientology case is only one among several possibilities to iron this out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @AGK: re. "the subject must (...) edit the article non-pseudonymously" – the subject doesn't and mustn't edit the article per WP:COI. The subject writes his suggestions at the article talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JzG: I suppose the recent exchanges at Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) (e.g. the IP at one point suggesting assistance from Wikipedia's "legal department") have made the "WP:IAR → business as usual" approach somewhat untenable. Proceeding without the IP being authenticated seems a bit unwise in these circumstances. I think OTRS people have handled this exemplary, don't know what they could have done better. The problem of the IP not being authenticated is not something that should have made a difference handling this at OTRS. But the problem exists now, for the handling of which I support the approach suggested by Newyorkbrad. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 173.72.57.223

I was instructed by Matthew at the Wikipedia Support Team to go to my bio page and use the Talk Page to discuss problems there. My name is Rick Alan Ross and some years ago I may have entered the name Rick A. Ross on Wikipedia. I have never gone by the name Rick Allen Ross. I have no general interest in Wikipedia other than the bio about me at Wikipedia (Rick Ross consultant). My concern is that my bio has been used as a convenient propaganda platform for those who don't like my work to attack me. My bio is not NPOV and has a great deal of biased POV editing. That editing is often misleading, intentionally omits certain relevant historical facts and information and generally reflects the slanted POV of certain anonymous editors at Wikipedia. I have repeatedly complained about this matter to the Wikipedia Support Team. Again, Matthew recommended that I specifically explain this at my bio Talk Page. I have followed his directions and posted my points of concern with supporting references and sources at the Talk Page per Mathew's instuctions. Now I am somehow here. Excuse me, but I don't understand all the Wikipedia protocols and rules. Please explain what need to be done to resolve this and address my concerns.

Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Rick A. Ross

Statement by User:Rick Alan Ross

Statement by Mdann52

As the user involved with the OTRS ticket, let me clarify something here. As the original user has effectively outed themselves, from what I have seen, this appears to be genuine. They do not have access to either of the accounts, or the email addresses used to create them, and their passwords no longer work. I fail to see how this is an unreasonable amendment - they could always make a new account if needed. As they are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, we should, IMO, be a tad more cautious, and the seeming bad knowledge may well be genuine. Mdann52 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano, Roger Davies, and Courcelles: As you appear to have made comments before the above, you may wish to revisit this. Mdann52 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

A BLP subject wants to provide input into the content of the article about himself, which he thinks has issues of balance and weighting. (I agree that the article has issues, although this isn't the place to go into them; I am also less than certain that this article should exist at all.) He seeks to adhere to our guidance about COI editing, which urges article subjects to disclose their identity and confine themselves to the talkpage, but is being tripped up because he is not an experienced Wikipedian and does not understand the fine points of our decision in this case from six years ago. My impression is that Mdann52 is correct and that the editor does not have access to his vintage-2008 accounts, perhaps because he does not recall the passwords, perhaps for some other reason. My suggestion is that an arbitrator reach out to Rick Ross directly, confirm his identity (if not already done), and explain exactly what is required of him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I'm very familiar with the standard OTRS advice to BLP subjects - if memory serves, I assembled the boilerplate myself - and this request is precisely in line with it. I don't think we need to amend anything, we can just WP:IAR since it is obvious who is behind the IP and there is no attempt at deception (quite the opposite). Guy (Help!) 09:29, 27 May 2015 (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 case request or provide additional information.

Scientology: Clerk notes

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

Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Why does he need to edit as an IP instead of using his account? Yunshui 雲水 11:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that the 2009 decision was never fully implemented; User:Rick A. Ross, the alt account, has never been blocked and doesn't appear to have been redirected to his main account. Yunshui 雲水 11:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, in the absence of any reason for using an IP over an account. Yunshui 雲水 07:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not inclined to grant this request --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I see no reason to overturn the committee's 2009 decision that the subject must identify and edit the article non-pseudonymously. AGK [•] 19:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I don't see why Alan can't use either of his accounts to edit Wikipedia: neither appears to be blocked... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline The purpose of the restriction was/is to prevent random IP editors turning up and claiming to be Rick A. Rosss or whatever as there had been complaints about impersonation.  Roger Davies talk 18:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Roger. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, noting that he has now contacted the committee. Doug Weller (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline both for what my colleagues have said about the first request, and the second as I don't feel it's our job to publically confirm a user's identity, and there are already sufficient community policy to deal with impersonations. If this user can't access previous accounts, that that's something we can sort out with the user by email. A motion to amend can be made by an Arb if he needs a new account, and it is authorized by the committee. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology (second proposal): Arbitrator views and discussion

Amendment request: Acupuncture

Initiated by A1candidate at 00:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Acupuncture arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. A1candidate (talk · contribs) is restricted to WP:0RR on the acupuncture article. Additionally, A1candidate is restricted to WP:1RR on articles related to alternative medicine. Gaming these rules, engaging in Battleground behavior, WP:IDHT behavior, or focusing on contributors over content will result in this being extended to a complete topic ban. Sanctions will expire one year from today or (with administrative review) one year from the most recent 0RR or 1RR violation, whichever comes last.


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



Information about amendment request
  • A1candidate (talk · contribs) is restricted to WP:0RR on the acupuncture article. Additionally, A1candidate is restricted to WP:1RR on articles related to alternative medicine. Gaming these rules, engaging in Battleground behavior, WP:IDHT behavior, or focusing on contributors over content will result in this being extended to a complete topic ban. Sanctions will expire one year from today or (with administrative review) one year from the most recent 0RR or 1RR violation, whichever comes last.
  • Please consider repealing these sanctions


Statement by A1candidate

This is an unfair sanction. Despite my demonstrable attempts to closely follow the relevant behavioral guidelines during a content dispute, I am now placed under severe editing restrictions and more importantly, my perfect record has been stained with a permanent log over here. According to the guidelines of core behaviorial policies such as WP:AVOIDEDITWAR:

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting."

Everyone can check my most recent contributions at the acupuncture page in order to verify that I had followed this guideline very closely. First and foremost, I made only a single (neccessary) revert to prevent a source from being distorted. Then, I sensed that temporary page protection may soon be necessary to avoid a potential edit war, so I quickly approached two administrators and asked them for the appropriate page protection [1][2] (as suggested by WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). Next, I backed off from the article immediately and stopped making any further edits. I also started an RfC on the talk page to discuss the controversial content with other editors [3].

After posting an RfC to resolve the content dispute, I voluntarily restricted myself to talk page discussions only and made no further changes to the article.

I took a short break from Wikipedia, came back, and found myself under a range of discretionary sanctions lasting for a year.

This is completely unfair and I am therefore appealing the sanctions per this guideline

I dispute the validity of these sanctions and I urge the Committee to lift them.

A1candidate 00:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

Take note of the parallel discussion at ANI. It might well have proceeded to a topic ban if Adjwilley had not imposed lesser restrictions.—Kww(talk) 00:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho 2

Just saw this and wanted to note [4] I had both unarchived and removed the resolved tag to that ANI. It is currently active. I did so because I felt that the above sanctions were not placed to resolve the situation being discussed at ANI nor did they resolve the the situation being discussed at ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

1RR, not gaming the rules, refraining from battleground behavior, refraining from WP:IDHT behavior, and keeping the focus on content rather than contributors all are good practice for everyone. This leaves us with the WP:0RR at Acupuncture. On that point User:Bishonen's observation here is persuasive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adjwilley

As I mentioned here the sanctions were not in response to the most recent events at acupuncture described above by A1candidate. The timing was more due to me finally finding a few hours to sit down and go through the history of multiple editors on the page. A1candidate is obviously very stressed right now which I believe is affecting their judgement, and I would feel bad extending this to a topic ban just because of that. I believe they have a good knowledge of the sources and could still contribute at the acupuncture talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

A1candidate shows a worrying lack of self-awareness and self-criticism, and this request underscores that. The restriction was placed by an uninvolved admin (who, it should be noticed, had just been canvassed by A1candidate to protect the article at his preferred version) in a good faith attempt to allow A1candidate to continue contributing to an article where he clearly has strong feelings, but where his editing behaviour has been widely identified as highly problematic. An identical restriction has been placed on user:QuackGuru, an equally energetic partisan with the opposite POV.

Importantly, both the restricted editors are the current most active editors of the article itself, resulting in instability and see-sawing between opposing points of view, which is ridiculous in a mature article. The consensus seems to be that "jaw jaw is better than edit war edit war", to paraphrase a well known authority on conflict, and (importantly) this restriction still allows both parties to contribute on Talk, making specific proposals for article improvement. That seems to me to be an approach at least worth trying.

When A1candidate's recent request for arbitration was declined, a view was expressed that this might well end up at arbitration in the longer term. I believe that the restriction is a solid attempt to prevent exactly that drama. If this works, it will give us an additional proven tool to manage contentious topics.

The only obvious alternative to this restriction for this user at this time, would probably be a topic ban. I think the restriction represents a creative attempt to resolve the issue without recourse to such draconian measures, so I believe that we should at least try this and see how it goes. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: You may not be familiar with Minchin's Law: by definition, alternative medicine either has not been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. The name for alternative medicine that has been proven to work, is "medicine". Wikipedia is and always has been unashamedly reality-based. And note that exactly the same sanction has been applied to another prolific and disruptive editor, who has a diametrically opposed POV - even though there is general agreement that his edits are in line with policy, where A1candidate's are very often not. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olive

With respect, I'd like to ask that the arbs be held accountable for the proposals they are making. In this case an indefinite topic ban, one of the severest judgements that can be handed down is being proposed without explanation. Such a judgement overrides the admin Adjwilley who had the situation in hand, and seems to be the response to A1 an editor who dared to ask that the sanctions against him be reevaluated. A simple decline and warning, as this is in the hands of a competent admin, seems fairer to A1 candidate, and respectful to the capabilities of the admin. The message to those in the community who are looking for a place to go if they feel something is unfair is, if you approach the arbs you risk draconian punishment without recourse or explanation. and can expect to skip the escalating-in-between sanctions as the last and worse is applied. Editors deserve explanation and fairness and they need a place to go where they can trust those in command. This is the second instance I've felt concern about an arbitration situation; I don't want to be here, but I am concerned that indef sanctions are being handed out like lollipops with about as much explanation. Disclaimer: I have very little experience with acupuncture in RL, and left the Acupuncture article after a few comments because the environment was poisonous.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Cla68

A1 editor, you gave it a good try to NPOV that article a little, but realize that you're up against an entrenched anti-alternative medicine bias in Wikipedia, one that extends to its administration, as you're finding out the hard way. These guys are experts into maneuvering you into a position of making it look like you're a fanatic with an agenda and they aren't. I suggest finding more productive things to do with your time than editing WP or else going out and recruiting about 10-20 other people who have a more open-minded and fair attitude towards acupuncture and bring them back to edit the article with you. Good luck. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2015 (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 case request or provide additional information.

Acupuncture: Clerk notes

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

Acupuncture: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Decline lifting the sanction, as I don't think the requirements for overruling an admin's call have been met. To be honest, I'm tempted to upgrade the restriction to a full-on topic ban... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find myself agreeing with Salvio. If I'd support doing anything, it would be imposing by motion a full indefinite topic ban covering the union of the Pseudoscience and Acupuncture DS authorizations. Courcelles (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline "I don't like being under sanctions" really isn't a valid reason for lifting said sanctions. Yunshui 雲水 07:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline while supporting a motion for a full indefinite topic ban. Doug Weller (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline I agree with salvio. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline overturning the sanctions, and like those above, I find myself questioning whether A1candidate should be participating in this topic area at all. But let's give the current sanctions a chance to work, it can always be made a full topic ban if they fail to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline' changing the sanctions. They're the only hope of avoiding a full topic ban. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline -- Euryalus (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: GoodDay

Initiated by GoodDay at 12:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
GoodDay arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Seeking to remove restriction on diacritics
  • Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
  • State the desired modification

Statement by GoodDay

It's been nearly 3 years since I was restricted from diacritics & almost as long since I've breached my restriction. It appears that I've shown the ability of restraint since that time. I'm requesting that my restriction on diacritics be lifted, as it's simply no longer required to keep me restricted from that area. GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be edit warring over article titles, content or infoboxes. Nor will I be filibustering over the issue at talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Courcelles - Would a 6-month probation be acceptable? Just to see if I can keep my temper under control concerning diacritics? As I understood it, I was restricted because of edit-spats, personal attacks & filibustering on talkpages. Not because of my opposition to diacritics usage. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Yunshui - My major interests is the North American-based ice hockey articles. There's some dios in them, which can be deleted or hidden. Those articles are under an agreed compromise at WP:HOCKEY. I'm aware of the Village Pump discussion, but see it as mostly a waste of time, as there's no consensus for either total usage or total banning of diacritics. Even if such a consensus were to emerge for either way, such a consensus would be difficult to impliment across thousands of articles. So again, I'd rather limit myself to ice hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain if it's relevant here. But, I have never committed sock-puppetry or evasion, in order to get around my restriction. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved TransporterMan

I'm only here because I saw the notice posted to Steven Zhang's talk page, which I stalk due to Steve's and my common interest in dispute resolution and the fact that he only occasionally comes around these days. I wasn't involved in the original case, nor have I had any prior dealings which were either so good or so bad with GoodDay that I can recall them.

I'm not necessarily opposing this, but I have to say that it seems suspicious to me. Why would any editor who doesn't have a bee in his/her bonnet about diacriticals care about whether or not s/he can edit or discuss diacriticals? In all my time here, I cannot recall ever caring about that issue, and though perhaps I'm just projecting my own apathy/lazy-editorism onto everyone else, I can't imagine anyone else caring about it enough to bother with this filing unless that bee is still buzzing around in their bonnet. (I do get it that a topic ban is kind of a black smudge on one's reputation and that one might want it removed for that reason alone. But not coming out and saying that kind of bespeaks some suspicion of its own if that's the reason.) If I were y'all, I think I'd want some additional explanation from GoodDay other than, "it's been a long time and I've been good," and perhaps a promise that even if the ban is lifted that s/he will continue to avoid doing the things that the ban covered so as to demonstrate and to continue to demonstrate that the Template loop detected: Template:Wiki (that's a B with a diacritical or, by extension, a diacritical bee) is defunct. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ghmyrtle

Prior to his site ban, GoodDay had been topic-banned - here - from contributing "from pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed." Since being released from his ban, GoodDay has returned to his old habits of contributing his opinions repeatedly and unconstructively on UK/Ireland matters - for example here and here - in exactly the same way as he always did. Having failed to learn any lessons as to his behaviour in relation to UK/Ireland matters, I think it is improbable, to say the least, that his behaviour will change in relation to the use of diacritics, were that topic ban to be lifted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

GoodDay's statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If there's an area in which there is an agreed compromise, any editor on Wikipedia can make any of the changes GoodDay says he's interested in. Why do we need someone who's been a significant problem in this area back again? I believe that the Committee should turn down this amendment request, as I see no value to the project in allowing it. BMK (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steven Zhang

@TransporterMan: (and GoodDay) - Thanks for the heads up on this one. I'm really in two minds here. As a former banned editor myself (back about 8 years ago now?) I agree that past actions shouldn't hang over one's head for all eternity, especially if it's clear one has changed their ways. After a period of time, one should almost always be given a second chance. That said, I do have concerns about an outright lifting of the ban - diacritics was the issue that got GoodDay in trouble back when I mentored him, leading to the GoodDay case where this topic ban was placed. He was later banned, and it has since been lifted. It's been some time since then, but I'd still be uncomfortable with an outright lifting of the ban.

I like the idea presented by Courcelles of a 0RR on diacritics, and I'm not sure he needs to provide a detailed explanation as to why he wants to be able to edit them - yes, this may come as a surprise, but with AGF and all, I think "I won't stuff up again" will suffice. If his edits are really uncontroversial, they'll stick, if not, someone will revert them. If he causes trouble, well, the Arbitration Committee can impose sanctions again, so I'd say lifting the ban on a 0RR condition would be the way to go, making it clear that if it is broken or trouble starts again, sanctions can be imposed, up to and including sitebans. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 06:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

I think after three years, it would be fair to give GoodDay a fresh chance. That being said, GoodDay - you still gravitate towards drama like a moth to flame, so I do think an interim restriction would still be necessary. Personally, I am not thinking of 0RR, but rather a talk page restriction of one comment per sub-section of a debate, responding only to comments directed at you specifically. Otherwise, you're playing a risky game. Chances are your passions will plant you right on a treadmill right off Wikipedia, since I can't see the community being terribly lenient if we ended up back at square one. Resolute 19:16, 30 May 2015 (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.

GoodDay: Clerk notes

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

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be willing to replace this with a strict 0RR for anything related to diacritics, but not an outright lifting of the sanction. Courcelles (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What prompted the sudden desire to edit diacritics? I'm genuinely curious, particularly in the light of the lengthy and heated discussion currently underway at the Village Pump. What diacritic-related changes were you considering?
I'm actually leaning slightly towards accepting this, almost certainly with Courcelles 0RR restriction or something similar, but I would like to get an idea of your intentions first. Yunshui 雲水 21:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After reading what Steven Zhang wrote, I agree with Yunshui, something like Courcelles' suggestion might work. Doug Weller 10:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=664910458"