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 03:34, 7 September 2015 (→‎Motion: Roscelese restricted: enact). 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
Use of single and primary sources in Sri Lankan Civil War articles   29 April 2024 0/0/0
[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
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality Motion (orig. case) 16 July 2015
Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man none (orig. case) 4 August 2015
Clarification request: Abortion none (orig. case) 23 August 2015
Clarification request: Collect and others none (orig. case) 28 August 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

Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality

Initiated by Callanecc at 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Christianity and Sexuality arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Callanecc

Following an AE request (I'll add a permalink when it's closed) could the Committee please clarify what the second part of dot point one in Roscelese's restriction ("and is required to discuss any content [emphasis added] reversions on the page's talk page") applies to.

My suggestion would be that the bit in brackets for the first clause could be made to apply to the second clause as well, or if WP:BANEX could be applied to the whole dot point?

Roscelese may wish to make request regarding exceptions for dot point 2, but I'll leave that up to her. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: That really depends, currently there is no mechanism other than a formal amendment for the arbitrator comments below to be taken into account (or even found and referred to) for any enforcement in the future. If the Committee doesn't have an appetite for a formal amendment by motion perhaps they could do it through this request by foot noting the remedy with a summary of the arb comments here (though that would probably need to be done by an arb rather than a clerk). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually given that not all of the arbs commenting have answered:
  • Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts?
  • Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)?
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to consider here (and something which has come up in the past) is that if the admins involved in the enforcement of the Committee's decision don't understand or need clarification to confirm their interpretation (whether the interpretation is correct or not) then the Committee should provide that clarification as clearly as possible. The comments here are equivalent to obiter dicta on the PD page and they disappear to the case talk page, that is, you'd look at the decision the Committee has passed when deciding whether to report/enforce not the case talk page. In this case the dot points are separate items and so don't necessarily rely on the conditions set in in each other, so in this case the questions being asked are valid and may very well come up again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Courcelles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roscelese

  • Obviously, I agree with the arbs who have commented here; if the user had provided some reason for removal (either in the edit summary or the talk page) I wouldn't have reverted with a simple "?" ("why did you do this?"), which seemed like a nicer thing to say than "rv vandalism" despite the lack of a summary, the fact that the text was cited to reliable sources, and the absence of other edits on the account. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

I don't see any reason to make material changes to the sanctions. The sanctions involved in my initial filing set minimum communication requirements. She breached; no one seriously argues otherwise. Claiming her breach was justified by WP:BANEX simply doesn't fly; BANEX requires that "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible explanatory edit summary or that you link to an explanation detailing the exemption". That's pretty much equivalent to the communication requirement that Roscelese didn't comply with; it would be rather silly to say she should provide an edit summary explaining why she didn't have to provide an edit summary. Perhaps the Committee might amend the second clause of the remedy to allow an appropriate edit summary in lieu of talk page comment when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations, but Roscolese didn't even make that minimal effort here. The more significant issue, as I saw it, was the violation of sanction 2, making an automated rollback-type edit without providing an edit summary; given that rollback-type edits are pretty much limited to situations which would fall under BANEX, it seems clear to me that no exception was indicated by the Committee's language. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Christianity and Sexuality: Clerk notes

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

Christianity and Sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Generally speaking, an unexplained removal of large chunks of an article, especially by a very new editor, is reasonably treated as a vandal or test edit. Roscelese was well within reason to do so here. I would see the meaning of "content revert" as the reversal of a content edit, which would exclude vandalism. Regardless, I'm not inclined to require Roscelese to start a talk page discussion every time she removes "HI JOE!!!!!!!!" type vandalism from a page. If, of course, that editor comes back and provides a reason they believe the material should be removed, that would then bring these restrictions into force should Roscelese revert it again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just re-read the restriction in question and was surprised to see that we did not explicitly say it did not apply to reverts of obvious vandalism/BLP violations; that said, I agree with Seraphimblade. It would be a waste of time to have Roscelese open a thread whenever she were to revert vandalism. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • i agree with both of my colleagues. Next time we must make this explicit. Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having thought about this more since my comment at AE, I think all that is needed for vandalism reverts is an edit summary that notes it is vandalism being reverted (which is good practice for everyone). I'd be happy to amend the wording of the restriction to make this clear if people think that would be worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Callanecc: to explicitly answer your two questions:
    • Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts? It is neither required nor prohibited.
    • Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)? An explanation is needed, but an edit summary noting the nature of the revert (i.e. that it is reverting indisputable vandalism or BLP violations) is sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to examine the full relevant sentence of the restriction being clarified:

    [Roscelese] is: indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page

    Given that reversions are expressly defined as excluding "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations", reverting simple vandalism is outwith the scope of the restriction. In my view no amendment is needed and the answer to the question seems fairly plain. AGK [•] 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's actually the second bullet point that clarification is being sought with regards:

      [Roscelese] is: indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;

      While that contains no exceptions on it's own, it unclear whether the exception in the first bullet is intended to apply only to the first restriction or to both restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it is, thanks Thryduulf. I think all of the above in any case have answered the question from that angle fairly exhaustively, so I still concur that no amendment is required. AGK [•] 03:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes it applies to both"; or "yes it applies to the first only"?. I read it as applying to both. There can be a need to revert vandalism immediately; there is not a need to revert without explanation. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read it as no discussion is required for reverting obvious vandalism, and Rosclese did nothing wrong here. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that Roscelese should not be required to start a talk page discussion for reverting obvious vandalism. An edit summary mentioning that this was vandalism wouldn't have been a bad choice, but I'm not terribly concerned by "?". If we need to modify restrictions so that this is more clear, so be it, but I think that the exception of obvious vandalism is implied. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think at this point we need input. Do @Callanecc, Roscelese, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: or anyone else feels that the clarifications are sufficient as they stand or whether we need to amend the wording? Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly surprised this is necessary, but suggest we add "except when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations" so that the sanction is clearer for anyone considering it at AE. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Euryalus:, that would have to be done by motion, but it is not a bad idea. I'm going to write one, hopefully this is noncontroversial, and we can get this out of here. Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motion proposed inline with my opinion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Motion: Roscelese restricted

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

Remedy 2 (Roscelese restricted) of the Christianity and Sexuality case is modified to read the following:
  • making more than one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
  • making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.
Enacted: L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Courcelles and I predicted this was going to be needed in the first place, so rolling it out. Please feel free to C/E as needed. Left the third part out as I see no reasonable case where it would need that exception. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With mild copy edit (revert if disagree). With the insight of a couple of months I think the original case restrictions were probably too strict, but the above motion has the virtue of addressing this specific ARCA request, and given the age of this request it's time to pass it and move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AGK [•] 10:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not sure this is necessary, but won't be harmful, so no objection. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As Seraphimblade. Doug Weller (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I agree with Euryalus that these restrictions could stand some loosening. Courcelles (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments by arbitrators

Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man

Initiated by Nyttend at 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Nyttend

As noted at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, the second remedy is rather confusing. Did you mean to say that Kww may not get the editfilter right unless he re-passes RFA, or did you not mean to address such a situation? I'm not marked Kww as a party because this isn't related to his post-case behavior: it's just a confusing element of the decision, and an authoritative interpretation would be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note after reading Salvio's comment — my only concern is that we get an unambiguous statement from Arbcom, because everyone loses when there's an ambiguous decision. I don't really know either editor and don't have an opinion on what Arbcom should decide here (so no point in asking my opinion); I just hope you'll decide something in place of the current wording, so that we all know what you were intending in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dragons flight

Due to his apparent lack of due care and competence in previously implementing edit filters, I am opposed to any process that would allow Kww to regain the EFM right without a community review. See my previous comments: [1][2]. My understanding of remedy #2 while it was being drafted is that a desysopped Kww would be required to pass RFA before getting EFM restored, and I don't see any reason to weaken that. If this case hadn't been coming to RFAr already, I would have opened a separate community discussion about revoking Kww's EFM right. In practical terms, I assume it will be years (if ever) before Kww passes an RFA, but I don't think there ought to be a path that allows Kww to regain EFM any sooner than that (and I'm not sure he should be an EFM even if he passes RFA). Keep in mind that EFM capabilities are in some ways more powerful than the normal admin toolkit. Dragons flight (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: It has never been clear to me that you really understood my criticisms / concerns, which is part of the problem. However, I don't want to have an argument with you about this. Should you actually want additional feedback on this issue (either now or some time in the future), I would suggest that you ask for other people at WT:EF to give you their opinions of your previous filters. Dragons flight (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

I already understood the restriction to be much as Salvio phrased it. I deeply resent Dragon flight's portraying our different opinions as to the weight that should be placed on false positives as a competence issue: I could just as reasonably claim that his insistence on consuming resources looking for rare corner cases was a competence issue. Neither one is: it's a difference in opinion as to where a reasonable balance between execution efficiency and false triggers lies.—Kww(talk) 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Salvidrim

Since we're really getting down-and-dirty with the specifics of wording, I don't feel too bad about chiming in: in Salvio's proposed wording underneath (visibly inspired by an earlier post of mine), the removal of EFM is described first as a "restriction" that would automatically expire, and later as a "remedy" than can be appealed. The wording should probably brought in line with either term (restriction or remedy) for consistency? I really feel pedant pointing this out though. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis Schonken

This may be understood in the current comment by Arbs (although I see no reference to it) but a non-admin desiring "edit filter manager user right" has to go through some procedure as described at Wikipedia:Edit filter#User right, second and third paragraph (starting with "The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should only be requested by and given to highly trusted users, and only when there is a clear, demonstrated need for it...")

My point is this: if and when (within a year or whatever) a non-admin Kww would request a lifting of remedy 2 of the ArbCom case, I don't see how this could automatically result in Kww getting the edit filter manager user right back. Or would the ArbCom plan on overriding the regular procedure by ArbCom decision? Any future decision to lift that sanction should imho be formulated thus that after lifting of the sanction (if and when this is granted, in a scenario where Kww would not be an admin at that time) the regular procedure for a non-admin to be granted the right should be followed.

Seeing the analysis here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Kww's edit filters I can imagine some reluctance by those allowed to grant the right to non-admins.

All this is a bit far ahead, and needs to be dealt with when it would occur in the future (if and when etc.), and by that time procedures might be completely different (especially when the community would take up on remedy 3 of the case), but I think it best this caveat is taken into the equasion now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Kww and The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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

Kww and The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Nyttend, you are quite right that the remedy, as currently worded, leaves a bit to be desired and gives the impression that, short of another successful RFA, Kww may not receive the edit filter manager bit back; as far as I'm concerned, that's not satisfctory and, for that, I propose we reword the relevant remedy to Kww's edit filter manager permission is revoked. If he regains the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire; in addition, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Kww has been desysopped, the only thing of relevance is how Kww may regain his EFM permission. The remedy is not brilliantly worded I agree, but the restriction it imposes is not ambiguous: He may not regain the bit while the restriction is in effect. The restriction automatically expires if he regains adminship at RfA, at which point he may regain the bit according to policy at that time (if there is no change between now and then he could assign it to himself if he desired). There is no restriction on when he can stand for adminship. I agree with Salvio that the restriction should be appealable at WP:ARCA 12 months after it's imposition (i.e. no sooner than August 2016). Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that the EFM restriction should be appealable after some reasonable period of time has passed, 12 months would be fine for that. I don't think we need an amendment for that, though, as any arbitration remedy can be appealed at ARCA after a reasonable period, and the Committee can at that time choose to accept the appeal and lift the restriction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be in favour of changing the wording of the decision, per Salvio giuliano's text above. At the time it was written (when it was unclear whether the desysop would pass or not) the current wording was arguably preferable; now that Kww has been desysopped it's overly convoluted and would benefit from being simplified. Yunshui 雲水 10:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of the loop guy here. I would much rather us not have our hands in restoring permissions and have a fresh RfA be the only route of removal of the restriction. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a hypothetical appeal to ARCA I would not be supporting any granting of the permission directly. I would consider giving permission to ask the community, taking into account the change in attitude and behaviour over the year and the level of scrutiny likely to be imparted at the relevant venue. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that is disingenuous. There isn't a good WP:RFP like place to have that discussion that is in view of the community. By giving the OK for a discussion to happen at a little watched part of project space we are basically flipping the switch ourselves. I would much rather not have the committee in these matters. If anyone has a better idea for a community-centered way of signaling that the restriction is no longer needed, I am all ears. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Currently that is indeed the case and I would not support it. However if the proposal to split the EFM permission that was raised during the case happens, or if something else changes between now and next August that makes requesting the EFM bit something other than a barely observed blip in a backwater then I might support (depending on Kww of course). Alternatively, we could just say that the restriction may be appealed at the later of (a) when such a community process exists and (b) 12 months have passed. Of course this is academic if Kww does not wish to regain the EFM bit in advance of a successful RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer the community to handle this, not us. Doug Weller (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The remedy was convoluted, I'm sorry for that, but the part of it was to create provisions with or without the desysop, given that usual policy is that admins may self-assign the flag. This could easily be reworded now to be clearer that the remedy expires if/when RFA is passed, but I will not support any appeal other than via RFA given the absence of any process with scruitiny to grant the EFM flag, and a belief that Arbcom should not be (re)granting permissions that have clear community processes to grant. This flag is a bit unusual, but we've given a clear community appeal here. (Had he not been desysopped, there would have been no community process of any rigor/scrutiny to regrant the flag) Courcelles (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that we revoked the permissions, but did not ban him from re-applying by the usual means for them, I think the remedy is probably clear enough as it is. Happy to support a remedy amendment to make the existing text even clearer, if somebody wishes to move one, but otherwise I am satisfied that this is all in order. AGK [•] 23:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've kept an eye on this but for absolute clarity I am of the same mind as AGK. NativeForeigner Talk 09:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with AGK. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Abortion

Initiated by Anythingyouwant at 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Previously known as User:Ferrylodge)

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

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Anythingyouwant

According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed." The reason I ask now for clarification is because today I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard."[3] Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know. Am I supposed to avoid these types of pages altogether, or are these types of pages not included in the ban, or does it depend upon which parts of these pages I edit? I have made lots and lots and lots of edits to this type of page over the past four years without saying anything remotely related to the A-word.

I assume that this topic ban is a lifetime ban given the reaction of ArbCom members to my May 2014 request for amendment, and given my firm position on the matter, and therefore whatever response you give to my present request for clarification will presumably be part of this lifetime ban.

Not relevant to the clarification request. (Hatted with clerks-l authorization.) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed by an arbitration clerk. Please do not modify or continue it.

In case you want to know, my firm position on the matter is that I have no intention of faking contrition. Your committee's allegation that I "manipulated sources to present a POV contra sourcing guidelines" remains utter bullshit; I did nothing wrong with regard to Black's Law Dictionary aside from quoting an earlier edition that I did not realize had later been revised, and I made no objection whatsoever to the editor who installed the revised definition (other than earning that editor's explicit thanks by correcting an error of his). Let me be 100% clear about how very far I am from contrition: if this proceeding had involved real names (and thus real reputations), I would have sued every last one of ArbCom's members for slander (that's just a historical fact rather than a threat of any kind).

ArbCom ignored my objections against violations of your own length-limitations on evidence, and ignored my stated intent to not violate those rules myself.[4][5][6] I stand by virtually everything I said on November 22, 2011 shortly after you voted to topic ban me. If you allow my lack of contrition to affect your answer to the present request for clarification, that will not be surprising, but it would be unfair. The only mistake I regret is not being sufficiently careful about editing an article talk page in 2011 three weeks after I edited a policy page; I should have been more cautious about any appearance of impropriety, even though I was completely up front and honest at the policy page, and even though the change to the policy page was innocuous as of the time I mentioned it at the abortion talk page (an admin had edited my policy change during the three-week interim). I only edited the policy page based on prior advice from an ArbCom member that, "This is Wikipedia, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals." I had no idea that the policy change would be relevant weeks later at the article, nor did I understand the policy change as advancing my position; it was just meant to promote procedural fairness. I should have asked an admin for explicit guidance about it at the time.

For years prior to the 2011 ban, your committee subjected me to endless harassment at Arbitration Enforcement, and all of those endless frivolous complaints at AE were denied, see for example these diffs: [7],[8],[9],[10][11], etc. When these messed-up accusations came during the ArbCom case, I was worn out from endless bogus complaints, and perhaps I should have responded fully to the bogus accusations that exceeded the evidence limits, in view of your committee's apparent disregard of those limits. I remain deeply disappointed by this whole matter. I sincerely try my best to follow the rules here, and will follow any decision you make now regardless of whether I agree with it. That's all I have to say at this time relative to the present clarification request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @User:Bishonen, thanks for referring me to WP:TBAN which I had not been referred to and had not read before. According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed." It would have been very easy for them to say "topic area" or "edits" instead of "pages", and easy for them to wlink to WP:TBAN. If you are correct (which you very well may be), I'd like ArbCom to confirm it. Thanks. I don't know if clarification requests are affected by an editor's level of contrition, and so explaining that level was the purpose of the rest of my initial comment here. According to plain English, a page is either abortion-related or it isn't, and, if it is, then plain English seemingly dictates that I may not edit it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, how about waiting until things get out of hand? I sincerely want to know whether, as Bishonen suggests, I am perfectly free to edit abortion-related pages as long as my edits are not about abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my replies to the comments of others have been hidden. You guys are too much! Perhaps you will allow a reply to Thryduulf....Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)The comments have been moved out of the little hidden box.[reply]

  • @User:Thryduulf, since you now suggest arbitration enforcement action against me regarding this matter, is there anything I can do at this point to avoid such action? I have carefully avoided abortion-related articles like fetus and pre-natal development and feticide and the like for four years just to be careful. But I understand from Bishonen's comment below that it's fine for me to edit pages like those as long as I don't bring up abortion. I would like ArbCom to confirm that now, because I do not want to land at arbitration enforcement for editing articles like those.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Thryduulf said "you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit." That is painfully obvious. Am I allowed to edit fetus and pre-natal development and feticide if my edits are not about abortion? That seems to be what Bishonen was saying about Political positions of Jeb Bush.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Thryduulf, you seriously want to respond to this request for clarification by essentially saying: "We won't tell you whether you can make non-abortion edits to articles like Political positions of Jeb Bush and feticide and pre-natal development except to say that you shouldn't if you're unsure"? Sheesh. Let me put it this way: only a nutcase would think that a non-abortion edit to any of those articles violates my topic ban, and so I intend to feel free to make such edits unless you advise otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:DGG, you object to a long quotation that I put in a footnote. Not to worry! I now understand from WP:TBAN that I shouldn't have made the edit at all. Finding out about that was the main purpose for me coming here, and now I know. I sincerely apologize for this inadvertent error, and it will not happen again. Before coming here I did not realize that I am totally free to make non-abortion edits to articles like feticide, but barred from making abortion edits to articles like Political positions of Jeb Bush. Now I know, and can therefore comply more fully and completely with your [expletive deleted] topic ban. Incidentally, I'm a big fan of long quotes in footnotes; see, e.g., the footnotes in the lead of Carly Fiorina. YMMV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Bishonen, it seems to me that Pre-natal development and Political positions of Jeb Bush are both abortion-related to some extent. But both also have lots of material that is not abortion-related, and I have come here with the express purpose of finding out whether I can edit the latter. So far, arbitrators say "don't edit it if you're unsure". Well, I am sure that a reasonable person reading my topic ban and WP:TBAN would say that a non-abortion edit to either article is okay. Is it wise for me to use a "reasonable person" standard? I think so. The Bush article has a whole section titled "Abortion" but the fetus article does not, so why do you think I'm completely banned from the latter but not the former?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Seraphimblade, User:Doug Weller, User:Bishonen, per your comments, I will construe my topic ban as pertaining to "any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion" unless the consensus of arbitrators changes. That was the language in the sanction that this committee imposed on me eight years ago, and is apparently what you wish the most recent topic ban said too.[12] As always, you folks meet my expectations. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Guy Macon, you have posed this question for me to answer: "You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know whether an edit in a section labeled 'Abortion' with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban?" No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban. I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it. Anything else?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Everyone, I have restored the section in question to exactly how it was before I touched it yesterday.[13] Some one edited the section since then, and so I explained and apologized to them.[14] I don't see what more I can do about it. Ever since 2007, you people have assumed the worst possible faith on my part. There was never any possible way I ever could have gotten out from under. It doesn't matter how many years go by without blocks and without the slightest violation of the topic ban, and of course not one word that I say matters because I am presumed to be a venal liar. So sanction me all you want for making a possible mistake and immediately coming here for clarificaton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:DGG I didn't ask for any guidance here about whether it's generally wise or unwise to include long quotations or short quotations or no quotations within footnotes, and I intend to keep on editing articles outside the scope of this topic-ban just as I have always done because I do not consider anything in this proceeding to be a warning not to do so. My own opinion is that extended quotations from reliable sources (within footnotes) are often fine at Wikipedia when they neutrally provide useful information to readers about a subject. The mere fact that a Wikipedia article might discuss one subject using an extended quotation and another subject without using an extended quotation is no ground for objection, IMHO. I chose to add a long quotation from Bush that supplemented other material in the section; the site I used was very easy for anyone to access by themselves, but it's very often convenient to provide quotations and other information in a Wikipedia article even though readers could instead access it via other websites. I write such footnotes all the time, and I just want to make it clear that I do not understand anything in this proceeding as a warning to stop.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:GorillaWarfare, I said above: "According to plain English, a page is either abortion-related or it isn't, and, if it is, then plain English seemingly dictates that I may not edit it." That's why it was unclear to me what the rules were regarding the Political positions of Jeb Bush. If that's an "abortion-related page" then the plain language of the topic ban indicates that I can't edit it in any way. If it's not an "abortion-related page" then the plain language of the topic ban indicates that I can edit it like any other article. So now I've come here and been told that Political positions of Jeb Bush is an abortion-related page if I make abortion-related edits to it, but is not an abortion-related page if my edits are not abortion-related, and furthermore articles like fetus are abortion-related even if my edits have nothing to do with abortion. None of this was apparent from the plain language of the topic ban, and so now it is apparent which is why I came here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:GorillaWarfare, I have not requested an amendment here, as indicated by the heading I chose. Frankly, I do not anticipate that an amendment will ever be granted (given the information that has been hidden above), and so I don't plan on ever asking for one. Yes, I agree that my ban (as clarified here) extends also to pages and sections of pages that relate to abortion. And a question for you: do you want the topic ban to extend to pages that say or imply nothing about abortion, like pre-natal development? Another arb said below that it does extend to all pregnancy-related articles, which seems kind of weird given that the topic-ban could have easily said so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @@GorillaWarfare: Given the stuff that's hidden above, will it be futile for me to ever request that this topic-ban be lifted?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GorillaWarfare: Thanks for the reply. I am only human, and I cannot promise to never make innocent mistakes such as when I cited a dictionary definition that I did not realize had been revised, and such as when I obeyed ArbCom limits on evidence even though the accusations were 100% beyond those limits. I am never going to admit to ArbCom's accusation that I "manipulated" a reliable source. I already explained that I would be more careful about editing Wikipedia policy, but will never agree with the ArbCom accusation that I had some nefarious intent, and have explained why I did what I did. These were the only two items that ArbCom cited against me in 2011 as far as I recall. I cannot even recall the details from 2007 anymore, but I note that every single one of the AE actions against me from 2007 to 2011 (that I linked in the hidden section above) resulted in no action against me, and very probably should have resulted in action against those who made unpersuasive accusations. So please remove the topic ban, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bishonen

I believe the WP:TBAN policy makes it clear what a topic ban is and what it applies to: "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Italics in original. In other words it's fine for you to edit most of the article Jeb Bush, but not fine to edit any part of it broadly related to abortion, such as the sentence you inadvertently inserted (in a section called "Abortion", yet). I don't see that there's any doubt about that, and that's what you request clarification of, in your first six sentences. The rest of your text above seems to be about something else — not really about clarification at all. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Anythingyouwant, you seem to have read my policy quote quite selectively, since you think I said your topic ban doesn't cover pages such as fetus and pre-natal development and feticide and the like. Of course it covers them. In their entirety. It seems you focused so hard on the words "as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" that you actually missed the first part, "a topic ban covers all pages… broadly related to the topic". Fetus, Pre-natal development and Feticide are "pages broadly related to the topic", as you know, since you yourself refer to them as "abortion-related articles". Please read all the green words carefully and in their context, and avoid tunnel vision.
  • @L235, it seem obvious that you shouldn't have collapsed Anythingyouwant's replies to me and Boris with the other stuff. Those replies were relevant to the clarification request. I'm tempted to move them out of the box myself, or send bold superclerk Bishzilla to do it, because I'm pretty sure you simply made a mistake. The responses weren't indented (as IMO they ought to have been), which perhaps caused you to miss that they weren't part of Anythingyouwant's original irrelevant text. Please fix. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Editors under sanction are allowed to show their displeasure and let off some steam, but this isn't the place. Suggest this be closed as unactionable before things get out of hand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Guy Macon

Anythingyouwant, you don't have to agree with the decision to topic ban you -- in fact you can continue indefinitely maintaining that Arbcom was completely wrong -- but you do need to show two things. First, you have to agree to abide by the decision whether you agree with it or not. From your comments here, I believe that you have done that. Second, you need to have the ability to understand the topic ban well enough to abide by it. This is the part I am having trouble with. In this edit, you posted a comment under the section heading "Abortion" that contained a link to a page titled "Much of the Republican 2016 Field Has Actually Moved to the Right on Abortion" and a quote about defunding Planned Parenthood.

Despite the above edit being clearly about abortion, in your statement above you blatantly mischaracterized your edit with this description:

"I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard." Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know."

Seriously? You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know and still didn't know when you opened this discussion whether an edit in a section labeled "Abortion" with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban? Competence is required.

My recommendation is that this be brought to AE and and that AE impose a one-to-three-month block and a stern warning that the next time you post any edit about abortion the block will be far longer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Anythingyouwant's reply in his section ("No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban. I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it. Anything else?") I have rephrased the question above. Anythingyouwant needs to have the ability to tell that this edit was about abortion without having to ask. If an admin thinks he really had a doubt, then the only logical conclusion is that he lacks the competence required to abide by the topic ban and needs to be indefinitely blocked. If an an admin thinks he knew that the edit was a violation of his topic ban (this is what I believe) then a one-to-three-month block should suffice to convince him that we will not tolerate such behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

IMO AGK hits the right note here. Yes, a breach of the ban. But the guy did the right thing, owned up and asked what he should do next. What do you want him to do, self-report to AE? Everyone should take a deep breath, step back from the brink and move along. @Anythingyouwant: I'd advise that you don't do it again. GoldenRing (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Abortion: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • @Bishonen: I was directed to leave the first two paragraphs but hat everything else, so that's what I did, but I see I should've exercised a bit more discretion. I'll move the replies outside of the collapse in a second. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The policy as quoted by Bishonen is perfectly clear. Editing a section of an article called "abortion" for a reason not listed at WP:BANEX is a clear violation of a topic ban from abortion, doubly so given the content you edited was directly related to abortion. You are not appealing your topic ban, so there is nothing to do here and it should be closed quickly with no prejudice to raising anything at WP:AE about this matter. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Anythingyouwant: you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit. If you edit those articles in future you may be sanctioned at AE. I do not "suggest" you be sanctioned for this breach of your topic ban, I am simply saying that this clarification request does not prohibit anyone initiating a discussion if they so choose, nor should it prejudice the outcome if such a discussion is initiated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Anythingyouwant: I do not know how I could make it any clearer than what Bishonen has said - if it is related to abortion you cannot edit it, if it isn't you can. If you are not certain whether something is covered by your topic ban, assume it is - stay clear, do not test boundaries. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that BishoIen has expressed policy clearly, but apparently it isn't yet clear that you can not edit any part of an article related to abortion, or anything or section related to abortion in an article which doesn't focus on abortion. If you have any doubts, don't do it. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anythingyouwant: Nor was the material added in an altogether neutral manner. I think it was appropriate to add material showing his current view (the other material in the section was older); the three references you added were suitable (2 of them from sites generally considered liberal, one neutral) But you chose to add a long quotation from Bush that partially repeated other material in the section. (Other refs in the article do not have a quote in the ref, and the site you used was very easy for anyone to access by themselves, rather than being , for example a paid or print-only site.) DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
to clarify, I am saying that there is a purpose in our general position that topics bans should be being interpreted broadly--it is difficult to retain a truly neutral POV even in what one thinks to be unexceptional edits. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as articles like fetus, feticide, etc., those are far too close to the subject. Yes, edits of those articles would be violations of the topic ban. On Political positions of Jeb Bush, on the other hand, it would be alright for you to edit parts of the article that cover his positions on, say, taxes or foreign policy. It would not, however, be appropriate for you to edit any page in any manner related to abortion, including any political figure's political statements or positions on it, except under the exceptions as provided by WP:BANEX. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Seraphimblade --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was plainly a breach, though I respect the user for bringing it to our attention themselves on this occasion. For that reason I would be minded to excuse this one violation alone, on the understanding that our guidance here was perfectly clear and that it won't happen again. AGK [•] 23:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much exactly per AGK. Hopefully the scope of the TBAN is now more clear. Yunshui 雲水 09:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is quite clearly a breach; I am somewhat confused as to why this was not clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Anythingyouwant: I understand how you may have misunderstood that previously, but now that Bishonen has provided the "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." quote from WP:TBAN, do you agree that your ban extends also to pages and sections of pages that relate to abortion? If so, it seems that no explicit amendment would be necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if "amendment" was unclear—I meant that if you agree with what seems to be the general interpretation, amending your original topic ban to explicitly include this doesn't seem necessary. Regarding pre-natal development, there are edits you could make to that page that don't involve abortion (for example, the content of the fertilization section as it currently stands is fairly removed from the abortion topic). However, other edits to that page could very easily fall within the topic area. Generally your best bet is to steer clear of anything that could be interpreted to relate to abortion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think just about any restriction can be successfully appealed if the appellant is willing to avoid the behaviors that led to the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Collect and others

Initiated by MrX at 11:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Collect and others arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by MrX

Does this remedy: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others#One Revert restriction include an exception for reverting content that is asserted to violate WP:BLP?

Folks commenting at WP:AE have different opinions about whether Arbcom intended that "vandalism" includes alleged BLP policy violations, or whether a one revert restriction falls under the authority of WP:EW, thus excluding alleged BLP policy violations. See third heading "Collect" here

  • @Brustopher: Don't even go there. Collect was banned from interacting with me because of his bad deeds, not the other way around. Now kindly let Arbcom clarify the restriction. - MrX 20:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: Would you kindly explain why I, the user who initiated the original Arbcom case, should be advised not to seek clarification about that case at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? I didn't comment on the AE because I had nothing novel to add, but I have an interest in the outcome, because it's clear that Collect doesn't intend to comply with the remedies from the Arbcom case. To suggest that I can't pursue clarification because the subject of that request was banned from interacting with me strikes me as rather Kafkaesque, even by Wikipedia standards. - MrX 22:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Note that I am on a Wikibreak (seeking to regain my patience), and had clearly announced such. Note also the endless and multiple complaints at AE etc. - including from two miraculous virgin IPs whose only posts ever were to complain about me. If this is done for amusement, I am not amused. I do suggest, moreover, that BLPs totally unrelated in any way whatsoever to US politics is a poor choice of remedy - I find those who push allegations of felonies in any page to be far more reprehensible than any of my many sins. Collect (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I am unable to comment on allegations made about me from another unnamed editor. Any outside observer if free to use the Editor Interaction tool to note whether I have followed any editor, or whether another editor appears to follow me. The results are sure to astound anyone willing to actually look at "who comments on whom".

For jbh - I stated the June 15th date quite early on, and ask you make your apology clear for claiming that I did not ask for extra time. Collect (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I had asked multiple times to address the last minute evidence which had given by others in a coordinated manner (the "complainants" were so bold as to write to each other on user talk pages etc.). When last minut material which was not related to the immediate complaint was given, I wanted actual time to reply. As it is, I was quite preoccupied and unable to actually address the "charges" even though I asked to be allowed to do so. In most places, the "accused" is afforded every opportunity to address charges. Prevention of a "right of reply" is unusual, indeed. I[reply]

@Thry: I have made many thousands of edits on BLPs - yet you appear to claim that I regularly violated the policy? I find your claim incomprehensible - noting that the immediate anteceding contretemps was whether am article was. or was not, SYNTH and violative of Wikipedia policy. I hate to say this, but it damn well looks like you made no actual effort to look at my work, but had "verdict first" as a m.o. A few of the articles I have edited are on my talk page. I stand by them. Collect (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) - note I have made no statements about anyone I am interaction banned form, and object to the snarky implication that I would do so.[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Collect is on a 1RR restriction in part because (as per Arbcomm findings of fact) his editing of BLPs was not in keeping with policy requirements. It is useful to have editors revert BLP violations, but we don't need someone who has a poor record in this respect making judgments about what constitutes a BLP violation; carving out an exception along these lines is a recipe for disruption. Guy's suggestion is the right way forward: one revert and a noticeboard post so that others can take care of any further problems. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jbhunley

The whole reason we have restrictions and bans is that some editors have shown that their views of certain policies are not in line with the community's frequently enough that they cause disruption and therefore should be restricted from doing what "everyone can do". In this case Collect has shown he can assess "obvious vandalism" but, in enough cases to be disruptive, not "obvious BLP violations". I do not know why people are discussing the EW policy 1RR(3RR) at ArbE, that is not what the case sanction is. The sanction reads "3) Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.". That seems pretty clear. JbhTalk 13:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Collect: Since you want to bring this up again I will reply here although I do not think this is a proper venue. The edits you used at ArbE [15] to support your claim you 'brought up the date early on' were made on 10:31, 6 April 2015 and [ 13:31, 6 April 2015 ]. The evidence phase for the the ArbCom case ended 23:04, 6 April 2015. Since the Evidence phase started on 23 March 2015 my math says you brought up the issue ~13 hours before the close of a 14 day process. So no apology.

    I do not know why this timing thing is such a sore point for you. When I brought it up you replied with

    "I noted from the get-go that I was going to be away for a substantial period and asked I be given until July to prepare full responses. (reasons include the extended trip and a minor problem called melanoma for which my wife lost about 800 cc of her arm) ... Now I would be impolite left to my own here - but I shall avoid that temptation -- and wish your wife the same health my wife will hopefully have." [16]

    and then asked for an IBAN and then said I had "called (you) an outright liar". While I have not, to the best of my recollection, called you 'an outright liar' I have on several occasions said your statements do not comport with objective reality and then shown, as I have here, with diffs how that is so. (Your post here is a good further example you say I should "make your apology clear for claiming that I did not ask for extra time" whereas what I said was something else entirely) To the best of my understanding that is not harassment nor even uncivil. If you have further complaints about me you can A) bring them up with me on my talk page, or B) bring them up, with diffs, at ANI rather than further derail the ARCA discussion. JbhTalk 21:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Arbs: These two sections of Collect's talk page do not give me warm fuzzy feelings that he is willing to abide by his prior sanctions: UT:Collect:The Finding of Fact and UT:Collect:What ACTUAL BLP violations look like. These both discuss material related to US politics cf Pamela Geller and discussion of PNAC. I am, as I guess others are, hesitant to open an AE request while this ARCA request is ongoing but I believe it to be a blatant violation of his topic ban that needs attention. JbhTalk 15:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Collect's continuing picking at the boundries of his topic ban be addressed to AE or can/should it be handled here? He is engaging in more 'boundry testing' with comments on Sylvester Turner, who is a serving member of the Texas House and a US politician by any measure, at BLPN [17] while trying to duck his topic ban -'(Asserting that these comments are not "political" for those following my edits and that this noticeboard is not a "political page")'-[18]. At this point is has become obvious that Collect is not dealing with his ban in good faith. If this is not the proper place to bring these concerns please advise and I will open an AE request but I do not want to do so while a linked matter is in front of the Committee without a clear OK to do so. JbhTalk 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

It is clear that Collect has misinterpreted the restriction. There are some who consider this to be wilful, others who are inclined to assume good faith, but there is little dissent from the view that he has violated the restriction, whether in good faith or not. I believe there is merit in a reaffirmation that there are no exceptions to the 1RR restriction other than obvious vandalism, and that this explicitly includes WP:BLP articles. My advice to Collect would be to post BLP violations to the relevant noticeboards rather than risk being accused of violating the restriction. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brustopher

@MrX: Opening an ARCA request against an editor who is 1 way interaction banned from you, in relation to an AE request you are not involved in, is in incredibly poor taste. Surely this should be against some kind of rule? Brustopher (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: The badness of previous actions (which tbh looking at the AE request are pretty bad) does not change the inappropriateness of this one. From what I can see you haven't even touched the British politics topic area with a 10 inch flagpole in the past. Suddenly Collect is involved and you're filing at ARCA. You're escalating a bad situation. When someone opens an ARCA request against a person they are 1 way banned with, and the request is completely unrelated to that ban, they are baiting (hopefully inadvertently in this case) the editor into breaking that ban. Brustopher (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I'm very sympathetic to Collect with respect to the two previous AE filings made by an IP who was obviously concealing identity. However, this is a separate issue. ArbCom made an exception for obvious vandalism. BLP violation is a serious problem, but it was not, in this case, obvious vandalism – and ArbCom found problems with Collect using BLP claims inappropriately. I agree with Guy that posting at a notice board is the proper alternative to a second revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Just before you made the comment about the interaction ban, that ban was lifted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

That nature of the clarification discussion is completely unworkable. If it is a BLP violation, and he is reverting it, which admin would be so obtuse as to not see WP:IAR as reverting a BLP violation as being beneficial to the project (it is policy WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE WP:BLPREMOVE, afterall) ? Which admin would not Boomerang a complaint that User:Collect corrected a BLP violation? If it is not a BLP violation than it is not excused unless it's vandalism. Thus, Collect would have to be reverting non-BLP and non-vandalism edits in order to be justly sanctioned. We're not a bureaucracy and it's extremely poor form to take action against an editor that actually improved the encyclopedia through policy.

What will his block log say: "Collect removed BLP violations but it violated his 1RR restriction?" Seriously, is that the clarification ArbCom is stating?

Collect will have to be careful that they are BLP violations, but if they are, he should not be punished. He decides BLP violations at his own peril. But why would ArbCom seek 1RR punishment for removing BLP violations except in vainglory for a finding? The spirit of the rules are not to allow BLP violations or vandalism and editors that correct such things are improving the encyclopedia which is why we are here. Anyone who says, "Yes, they are BLP violations but Collect can't fix them." misses the entire point of WP:BLP. The only legitimate finding for a sanction would be "No, they were not BLP violations or vandalism." Anyone that brings a complaint that the "wrong person" fixed a BLP violation should receive their justly earned boomerang for wasting time.

We are not here to seek retribution and there is a site wide policy that editors shall remove BLP violations. --DHeyward (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Harry Mitchell

I have blocked Collect for a fortnight for a topic-ban violation. If Collect's participation in arbitration venues is necessary, I'm happy for the block to be lifted or modified as necessary by a clerk or arbitrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

When did "All editors are equal, but some editors are less equal than others" become the sixth pillar of Wikipedia?

The one-revert limit is governed by the community-established policy on edit warring. The relevant section. WP:1RR, refers specifically to the standard remedy imposed by the Arbitration Committee. It states, quite plainly, that the difference between 1RR and 3RR is simply the number of reverts. It quite clearly does not state that the standard 3RR exceptions are not available under 1RR. Instead, the policy sets out seven exceptions to 1RR/3RR limits: self-reverts, reverts in one's own userspace, reverting edits by banned users and their socks, reverting obvious vandalism, reverting clear copyvios and NFCC violations, removal of illegal content, and reverting of BLP violations. Unless ArbCom imposes a specific, more restrictive limit in its decision, the policy governs. And the policy says that Collect's contested edits were allowed as 1RR exceptions.

Now some editors here, including several arbitrators, insist that because ArbCom mentioned only the vandalism exception in its decision, it made the other six exceptions unavailable to Collect. To put things politely -- no, let's not, that argument is a complete crock. Obviously none of the editors involved, particularly the arbitrators, have bothered to actually check the policy. @Doug Weller:, do you really believe that the Committee meant to deny Collect the option to self-revert if he decides that his initial revert on a page was incorrect? @Guerillero:, did you vote to deny Collect standard revert privileges in his own userspace? @AGK:, are you saying that Collect shouldn't remove an obvious copyvio/NFCC vio more than once? @DGG:, @Thryduulf:, are you ready to say, User:Collect, you removed those sexually explicit pictures of the underage Traci Lords twice from our wonderful article on Gang bang pornography, but we said you could only remove it once, so you get a nice long block?

And, not just so you don't feel left out, @Euryalus:, @Seraphimblade:, note that Collect just got a two-week block for discussing BLP violations at BLPN, supposedly as a contravention of his topic ban, even though under BANEX BLP violations would be exempt from that topic ban.

The problem that underlies all this nonsense is pretty clear. A few weeks, curing the Lightbreather debacle, after a majority of ArbCom had signed onto a finding instructing female editors not to fight back against sexual harassment, one arb commnented that the finding should be changed because it could be misunderstood. The real problem is is that ArbCom too often doesn't understand what it says. The real problem is that Arbcom too often doesn't say what it actually means . . . if it even knows what it meant. And it's very, very clear that, in cases like this, ArbCom has no principled approach to solving the problems it creates.

As I write, the oldest unclosed entry on this board, on Christianity and Sexuality, deals with an enforcement request I filed against Roscelese. There was no real dispute that Roscelese had violated the express terms of the restrictions ArbCom placed on her. Taking exactly the opposite posture that they're taking with Collect, admins and arbs became virtual contortionists, bending themselves over backwards and in all directions to insist that reciting specific exemptions didn't exclude others.

Of course, Collect, like The Big Bad Wolfowitz, is one of those animals here who's less equal than others. Whatever can be construed against him, will be. Hounding and harassment are ignored. Ultimately, holding heretical attitudes about Wikipedia is a more influential factor than one's actual compliance with purportedly important policies and guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Collect and others: Clerk notes

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

Collect and others: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Collect's track record shows that their judgement of what is and is not a BLP violation correlates poorly with the general consensus, so in my view BLP violations (which are not also obvious vandalism) are not an exception to his restriction. Guy's suggestion is a good one, and it will have the useful side effect of providing easy evidence of improvement in your judgement that you can present at a future appeal of the restriction. Regarding MrX's opening this request, yes it would have been better to let someone else bring it here - the AE thread is not short of people familiar with ARCA - but I don't think anything more than a "please do not do so again" is required. @Collect: you may comment here about specific allegations or comments MrX makes, but you may not comment about MrX nor about the merits or otherwise of your interaction ban with them (if you wish to appeal that, please do so in a separate request for clarity). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • JzG is correct. There are no exceptions to the 1RR restriction other than unambiguous vandalism, and this includes WP:BLP articles. If Collect becomes aware of something they think should be reverted on BLP grounds, but they cannot do so because of 1RR, they may take it to the relevant noticeboard for community input. This is subject to the concurrent restriction on edits relating to US politics, which applies in every namespace. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we were pretty clear on this. We made no suggestion that Collect could treat what he saw as BLP violations as vandalism, and 11 of us supported the Finding of Fact that made it clear that his BLP editing was sub-optimal and incorporated a non-NPOV approach. Collect's response doesn't fill me with confidence nor does it approach the issue, but seems to challenge the decision. I'm a bit surprised that he wasn't blocked at AE. We can give him this one pass but only this once, and I would expect that any vandalism revert done by him in the future will be for indubitable vandalism. Doug Weller (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Doug here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: lex specialis derogat legi generali. Our specific wording on Collect's 1RR overrides the more generous community definition of 1RR. However, this restriction is restricted to the mainspace (..one revert per article.. not ...one revert per page...). So to answer your specific question to me, no, he is free to revert away on his userpage. I might be willing to extend exemptions for self reverts and copyvios. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As do I. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too: on this occasion Collect plainly breached the remedy. Future enforcement should not excuse reverts citing BLP, and it would in fact seem appropriate to enforce the current breach as well (given the long track record). AGK [•] 23:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of what was addressed in the case was Collect's use of BLP in cases where it was unclear at best if a BLP violation was indeed at issue. The only exemption in this case would be blatant and obvious vandalism. Collect is, of course, still welcome to bring suspected BLP violations to BLPN or another appropriate venue, they do not have to go unaddressed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with above arbitrators. I'm increasingly concerned that blp isn't being used to actually enforce BLP, but is at times being used as a trump card or exemption to restrictions without much respect to the policy itself. NativeForeigner Talk 09:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quite agree with you; in fact, I'm getting increasingly troubled by the fact BLP is more and more being invoked on flimsy (and sometimes outright absurd) grounds by editors trying to advance their own POV or cause (this is a general observation). However, I'm uncomfortable with taking a very strict approach in this case, when in others we've allowed editors to use BLP as a way to avoid sanctions after violating their restriction. Yes, we have WP:NOJUSTICE and all that, but I'm still uncomfortable. Then again, I opposed the imposition of this sanction from the beginning (and still think it was a bad idea), so make of that what you want. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a clear breach of the remedy, but hopefully the clarifications that have resulted from this will ensure that Collect doesn't make the same mistake in the future. I don't support any sanctions beyond a firm slap on the wrist for this specific infraction. Yunshui 雲水 09:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I normally support exemptions for BLP, I don't think we intended to include one here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts are in line with NativeForeigner and Salvio's subcomment. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=679843301"