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 Beetstra (talk | contribs) at 07:53, 29 November 2017 (→‎Amendment request: Betacommand 3: long enough). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Betacommand 3 none (orig. case) 17 November 2017
Amendment request: Indefinitely blocked IPs none none 26 November 2017
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 27 November 2017

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: Betacommand 3

Initiated by Opabinia regalis at 05:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Betacommand 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3#Appeal_of_ban


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [diff of notification Δ]
Information about amendment request
  • This request serves as the appeal referenced in the linked remedy.


Statement by Opabinia regalis

Δ (formerly Betacommand) was banned in the Betacommand 3 case, which closed in February 2012. The decision contained a provision under which he would develop a plan for editing as part of his appeal, and the committee would offer this plan for community review. This ARCA should be considered the community review component of the remedy. The text of Δ's appeal is as follows:

As I have stated previously I have made mistakes in the past (CIVIL, socking) I would like to put these behind me and move on and make progress for the future. The proposal for unblock is:

  1. ) Limited to one account (except for approved bot account(s))
  2. ) Prohibited from making edits that enforce NFC. (This will allow me to participate in discussions, while avoiding past issues)
  3. ) Prohibited from making automated edits on my main account
  4. ) Prohibited from running bots for 6 months, after which the prohibition may be appealed at ARCA.

I have previously outlined a limited editing plan, beyond that I really cannot commit to much more since I already have a lot of stuff on my real world plate. ΔT The only constant 00:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are invited from the community on whether this appeal should be granted and what, if any, restrictions or modifications to the proposed restrictions should be considered. Community members may wish to review the following recent discussions: the "Public Appeal" section on Δ's talk page and this advisory RfC. It is not necessary to repeat details of posts made to the RfC. (Note that Δ has been unblocked to participate in this ARCA only.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Δ

I am going to keep my responses to the point since this section will probably get fairly large.

@Alanscottwalker: I have outlined ~6 month editing plan, I don't have my notes handy but I will dig out the details for you. ΔT The only constant 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: My planned activities are fairly limited at this point to minor gnoming (fixing issues that I come across), refreshing myself with the culture and policy shifts since I was active. Documenting and addressing issues with the tools currently on the toolforge (aka WMF labs). Examples of future edits: I will be fixing issues like [1] where google is listed as a publisher when in reality it is University of Manitoba Press, [2] cases where reflists have too few/many columns, and similar gnomish stuff. ΔT The only constant 01:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I purposely avoided the term simi-automatic because I don't want to get into what is and isn't a "pattern" of edits. I also wanted to have specific, definable rules. In the past claims about simi-auto/pattern edits have left me at a he said/she said argument because the only way to defend against those claims is to have a camera over my shoulder recording my screen as I make every edit. By limiting the wording to automated we set a clearly definable and clear line. If we wanted to specifically call out dis-allowing AWB, that wouldn't be an issue. ΔT The only constant 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • For those who want a complete topic ban for both NFC and bot related areas, I see that as overly broad. The issues in the past have been with NFC enforcement edits, not the discussions. Similar point can be made in regards to bots, issues where with the mass editing not the discussions. ΔT The only constant 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal was not meant as an exhaustive list of past issues, but rather to acknowledge a few issues that several users brought up that I may not have fully acknowledged to their satisfaction. I left out the elephant in the room, assuming that I was addressing it mostly in the restrictions proposed. Where I was in life in 2011 vs where I am at now is drastically different. By avoiding NFC enforcement I will be eliminating most of the contentious areas, while it will allow me to respond and help users on discussion pages such as MCQ. By prohibiting automated edits I am limiting the bot issue that has been raised. I was assuming that AWB would also be prohibited without actually making that explicit in the proposal. I avoided going into the simi-auto category because it is a very grey area on what is and isnt simi-auto editing. (Depending on your scope of reference tools such as CharInsert or FormWizard, enabled by default, could be considered simi-auto). As I said above the issue also comes into play when proving/disproving accusations. Because of previous restrictions and the issues with those wordings there where debates on what is and isn't considered a pattern. Given a large enough sample size of edits a pattern can be extrapolated. People have asked for evidence that I have changed, without being able to contribute it is difficult to establish said evidence. I have been contributing to non-WMF projects and have been assisting enwiki users off-wiki when my help has been requested (Most recently fixing and getting bibcode bot back in operation) Due to privacy issues I am not going to point to those projects so that evidence is non-admissible. To put things bluntly and to try to keep things simple: I know I fucked up in the past, I have made some bad decisions and now I need to overcome those.
  • There have been several request for me to list my socks, looking at what notes I have the two accounts that I have used to edit enwiki since Betacommand 3 are Smokestack Basilisk (talk · contribs) and Werieth (talk · contribs). I do currently have an account that I use for read only access to enwiki, so that I can use the watchlist feature, do some exports and occasionally view the source of a page to copy or for technical reasons. I use that account to avoid triggering the autoblock feature which just causes issues. That account has zero edits to enwiki.
    02:30, 20 November 2017‎ User:Δ (omitted signature added by Anthony Appleyard (talk) at 08:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Question by Alanscottwalker

The above Appeal speaks of a previously outlined "limited editing plan", would the committee or clerk please explicitly append that to the above Appeal, for clarity sake? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: the banning policy requires Arbitration bans to be appealed to the committee. That is the standard procedure, it does NOT have arbitration bans appealed to the community. The only wrinkle here is that the adopted appeal remedy has an extra step of presenting the appeal for community comment (I gather because there was much controversy). Under current policy, the arbitration committee cannot convert an Arbitration ban into a community ban, as you argue. The committee can lift the Arbitration ban or limit the Arbitration Ban. The community will have to enact its own ban, if it wants a community ban and a community appeal, as you request. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: No. By Community policy, it is explicitly not "up to the community," (at least not that part of the Community that is not the Committee). By Community Consensus as addressed in policy, an Arbitration Ban is committed to the the Committee to decide, to impose and to lift (not the general community) -- it fell to the Committee precisely because the rest of Community could not/did not/would not settle the matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Well, no, I read it fundamentally differently, as I said above -- all that provision is, is that the committee will take public comment on the appeal/modification, when it is made - that is the reading that accords with policy -- they will then make their decision but if the public comment offers nothing useful or partially useful (or just muddled statements), they can like any committee ignore it -- the only difference here is, unlike other times, where the committee does not take public comment prior to making their decision. I think there are pros and cons to taking public comment in this manner at all, but as a committee they are certainly free to do so, and it is exactly like comments from Users at any other arbitration page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement
For what it's worth, I am uninvolved, but this whole thing (not at all from 2011) is - trying not to over-state - wiki-horrifying. The lack of conscience displayed there by "Werieth (talk · contribs)" is not just a wholly nasty/underhanded attack on a single User (Dingley), but everyone who had the misfortune to fall into that conversation became compromised -- more importantly, the very basis for every other good-faith user working together (all of us) is shredded there, and there is only one User to blame, Werieth. Good luck to the committee . . . grouping for words that convey any conclusion, all I came up with was, nonplussed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andy Dingley

I oppose this unbanning. Although seemingly not mentioned here, Werieth (talk · contribs) was another highly active sock in 2013–2014. I encountered them then, and found them so problematic just of themself that it went to ANI. It soon became obvious that they were also a Betacommand sock. A variety of ANI ructions ensued, [3], User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_5#FYI, User talk:Arnhem 96, User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_5#Can_we_get_a_few_things_straight.3F et al. This ended with me blocked for refusing to accept Werieth as a gf editor (I thought they warranted indef blocking for their own attitude, let alone the obvious socking), and a group of admins who clearly supported Betacommand so much that they were happy to proceed on this basis. My blocking admin sought an indef block of me and described me later as 'I consider you to be de facto banned'. When Werieth was finally blocked as a sock it still took appreciable time before I was most begrudgingly unblocked as the issue was now 'moot' (i.e. they'd still been right to block me), rather than any sort of apology for actually having been right all along.

There is no discussion in this unban request of Betacommand's support amongst this handful of admins. If they were blocking other editors to support him when he was blocked, what are they going to get up to if he's restored?

I also question the GF of an unban request that can't even acknowledge their past socks.

Betacommand is too toxic an editor to be let back. There is no evidence that they have changed their behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb raises ROPE in the comment below. But who will Betacommand's supporting admins want to hang with it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Headbomb

The plan is sound, curtails the past problematic behaviour, and my interactions with Betacommand/Δ in the past years have all been very positive and productive. Give him the WP:ROPE, he'll be under plenty of scrutiny from the community. It's a rather easy thing to re-block if he misbehaves again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, I'd like to add I'm entirely fine with and supportive of the 'MASEM restrictions' below, so to speak. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fram

Oppose unban, for all reasons outlined at the advisory RfC recently, and for this unsatisfactory unban plan. "I have made mistakes in the past (CIVIL, socking)" And, umm, the actual reasons you were banned in the first place? The problems didn't arise out of the socking or out of incivility, it was the actual editing that was too often the problem. Plus what Andy Dingley said; an unban plan should at least list the socks, not just some vague "I have socked" statement. Fram (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Where I was in life in 2011 vs where I am at now is drastically different." The problems (we know off) ended in 2014, not 2011. Fram (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Andy Dingley's statement summed this up very succinctly for me:

Betacommand is too toxic an editor to be let back. There is no evidence that they have changed their behaviour.

Those of us who lived through the years of ongoing drama caused by Beta won't soon forget the turmoil they caused. No person is completely irredeemable, but the worse the editor was, the more they flipped off the community, the higher the bar is for their return, and I cannot think of many banned editors for whom the bar is higher than it is for Beta. I think we would require much more in the way of assurances and protective restrictions then are provided for here to allow Beta to even dip his toe into editing again. Further, the idea that an unblock plan which includes Beta's being allowed to use bots (even delayed for 6 months) is one that will pass community muster is totally unrealistic, considering it was bot editing that was at the root of Beta's problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

Support the unblock request, though I would also suggest the plan include the use of semi-automated tools (AWB, etc.) among the six-month ban on bot use. Beta's identified the two big areas that caused the problems in the past - NFC enforcement, and bot tools. Nearly all the problems related to behavior was related how editors confronted Beta about these actions and Beta's inappropriate responses. Keep Beta out of NFC and automated editing and that takes away 90% of the problem. The rest has to deal about editors with grudges against Beta (which can be seen above already), and we should expect that Beta should be civil in face of hostility (though taking cues from how the current sanctions regarding interactions for TheRamblingMan should be taken, so that editors are not purposely taunting Beta into mis-action). --MASEM (t) 20:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I support the unblock request and I would support Masem's restrictions as well. I am sure that if you unblock, there will be editors with sharp eyes ready to pounce if there is a CIVIL or NPA or BOT violation. As such, I think the risk to the encyclopedia is manageable versus the potential. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

I know Arbcom say they don't want material from the RFC being repeated here, but I'm going to regardless: I don't believe he even understands why he was so disruptive, let alone any kind of indication that he won't go back to his old habits at the first chance. Why are we even entertaining an unblock request when he's lying in the unblock request about why he was blocked? The absolute minimum I'd be willing to accept to even consider shifting my position from "keep banned forever" is a total and permanent (no "after six months" or anything else of the sort) ban on automation, anything to do with copyright and anything to do with deletion, and even then I'd be reluctant. Wikipedia's willingness to give second chances is laudable; when it comes to a sixteenth chance (or whatever we're up to now) for someone who every single time they're given another "final chance" immediately goes back to what they were doing before, less so.

Statement by CBM

I'd like to refer to a longer comment I wrote to Arbcom in 2011 about codependency, which is still completely relevant. The cause of the editing restrictions, arbitration case, and ban was not violations of CIVIL nor the use of sockpuppets (although those are also issues). The cause was the inappropriate use of automated edits over a period of years, often related to NFC, and a refusal to change or stop those edits in light of repeated feedback.

Nothing in the wording of the appeal suggests that a different pattern would emerge if Δ were allowed to return to editing. Indeed, I don't see any strong reason why he should be allowed to return.

However, if there is a desire for yet another chance, it should involve a complete recusal from all aspects of NFC on wiki (no discussing NFC in any on-wiki forum, including his talk page, no assisting with others who do NFC maintenance - a complete recusal). And there should be a complete recusal from all bot-related activity for the indefinite future, with no schedule for ever becoming a bot operator. The appeal as written is an appeal to continue the cycle of codependency which was only finally broken by a complete ban from the wiki. Nevertheless, if the ban is lifted, I fear that we will again see Δ either ignore or game his restrictions, rather than to take them to heart and avoid any possible appearance of breaking them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the question by Newyorkbrad: if the committee is dead-set on allowing Δ to return (which I think would be a mistake), the key issue to consider is that Δ has never shown an interest in moderating his own edits. There is no chance he will be productive in NFC or bot related areas, and a complete and total prohibition from these would be essential (i.e. a hard edit limit in terms of pages per minute, no discussion of bots or NFC on any page, and no NFC enforcement in any namespace, indefinitely). The pattern in the past has always been to ignore restrictions as much as possible, and to game them or claim they were too vague when they could not be completely ignored. Unfortunately, in the current appeal Δ still seems to claim that the issue was with vague restrictions rather than with him not making an attempt to keep within the restrictions he was given. Similar editing behavior should be expected if he is unbanned. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw, Euryalus, and Drmies: Responding to several arbitrators' comments: if this appeal is declined, I hope you will consider setting a fixed time period before the next appeal can be made. As Mkdw writes, this process has required significant time and effort from the community. While everyone should have the ability to appeal, frequent appeals are not likely to help anything, but they take up even more time and energy, and cause even more frustration for everyone involved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Per the above two comments. To be more explicit about Andy Dingley's comment above, Betacommand has been overtly and covertly protected/supported by members of the admin corps. Even if he did return, at some point he will cause problems, and then editors like Dingley will end up paying the price again. I cant see a future where his coming back ends well for anyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

I don't believe I was on or atleast around when all of this occurred or ended however looking through the various cases I have to agree with Andy "Betacommand is too toxic an editor to be let back. There is no evidence that they have changed their behaviour.", I'm all for second chances and they may well be a reformed character however judging by the amount of crap they caused I honestly don't see any net positive in unbanning them, However as I said I wasn't all that around so I don't know as much as those above but from my reading of it all I don't see any positives in unbanning them, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

This was an enormously problematic editor. The way to minimize problems is to minimize enormously problematic editors. There are plenty of other Wiki projects for them to volunteer at, they don't need to be here. Carrite (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

Per Iridescent and Andy Dingley, the whole circumstance is such I can't support. I can understand why some might feel Beta is getting special handling here, and it does look that way to me. No unblock statement should be accepted that doesn't first acknowledge the original and ongoing reasons it has been kept in place. This just has the odor of backroom discussions to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

I'm not seeing here where Δ is actually addressing the issues which they were banned for in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Specifically - they willfully violated the terms of their community imposed sanctions. They "often performed tasks without approval from the community", "often saved edits without reviewing them for problems", and "often performed tasks at edit-rates exceeding four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time". To be fair, this appeal does mention the incivility problems, but it doesn't really address how Δ plans to improve that issue. The other three problems are not addressed at all. I'm not seeing any explicit recognition that they tried to deceive the community with the Werieth account. And allowing them to participate in NFCC discussions is just plain insane. As for the possibility of running a bot account - no. Just no. It would take years to get the community trust back enough to allow them automated editing. And I'm not seeing how this appeal is actually any improvement on gaining the trust back, given the problems that are swept under the rug that I've listed above.

And these are just the problems with this appeal from the third and final ArbCom case, it doesn't even begin to delve into the problems ignored from the community ban discussions (for both Δ and Werieth) as well as the two earlier ArbCom cases. (And as a freaking aside - why in HADES do we allow user accounts with symbols? It's a royal pain in the ass to have to either type the unicode, type the wild keyboard equivalent, or copy-paste some character just to be polite and address the user by their current account "name". I wonder if Δ's use of the symbol is not some unconscious "finger in the eye" to the community as well...)

And Δ's own statements above do not help the matter. "For those who want a complete topic ban for both NFC and bot related areas, I see that as overly broad. The issues in the past have been with NFC enforcement edits, not the discussions. Similar point can be made in regards to bots, issues where with the mass editing not the discussions." Uh, no. There WERE problems with the discussion style - see the findings of fact 2.2 from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Yes, I do think a "broad" topic ban as a good idea. Yes, I think it should be permanent. Δ - you still do not see how out of touch your ideas of your own editing is with community norms. Until you can learn to listen to what the community is telling you, you will keep having issues. Learn to edit without bots or automation. Learn to accept the fact that your own self-evaluation is not how the community sees your editing and that you need to change how you behave. All I see from this set of suggestions is that you want to return to editing the way you were before you were banned. That isnt' going to fly with the community and you need to internalize and accept that before you have a hope of re-earning the community's trust.

Statement by Ivanvector

No comment on the unblock request.

I request that the Committee rescind remedy 3 of the Betacommand case, and permit Δ to submit future unblock requests per the usual community processes as generally defined in the banning policy. The remedy as stated shrouds the process behind the veil of Arbcom, which can make it seem to the community that the Committee is failing to respond to unblock requests when in fact none was submitted, and which led very recently to an embarrassing circus of an RfC featuring a number of long-tenured and well-respected members of the community behaving like petulant children. That should not be allowed to happen again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: I realize that. Still, Arbcom should not be creating situations like this where ban appeals from some users have to be submitted in some prescribed format which differs from policy and varies from case to case: it creates unnecessary confusion and leads to the sort of conflict we saw a month or so ago. There is precedent for Arbcom doing whatever it feels appropriate in any situation, which has left a long history of various users being banned with a whole spectrum of different and sometimes unusual conditions; I made a list in the RfC to illustrate that problem. In this case in particular, the condition that Arbcom has to green-light an appeal before it goes to the community anyway just seems like unnecessary red tape: it's ultimately up to the community anyway. Arbcom should either lift the ban or not, or else step away and leave this for the community to deal with, and I don't see any reason in this case why the community is incapable of doing so. Arbitrators are supposed to be, well, arbitrators, not prison wardens. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: you're right about all that, except for the "not up to the community" part. Remedy 3 states, in part: The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban. I read this as indication that the Committee intends not to act without the community's endorsement, thus this is an arbitration ban in name only, and functionally a community ban. If it's not up to the community, then what is this ARCA? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus and Opabinia regalis: I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I do think it would be a good idea for the Committee to establish something like a "standard provision" for arbitration bans, which simply refers to the appeal process in the banning policy (including revising that policy, if necessary). Ideally this would also allow for revisions to those processes to apply retroactively (say if we brought back BASC, or something) so that we don't have "old" cases like this one hanging on to an outdated process. Adding extra language about community input (or about whatever) breeds the sort of confusion evident here: did Δ submit an appeal? did it meet the prescribed format? what is the prescribed format? et cetera. I don't really see any reason why all arbitration bans and appeals can't be handled through a common process, I suppose excepting cases involving private info, but even in those cases the Committee has always been pretty good with transparency within appropriate limits. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I edit-conflicted with Ivanvector, who said it better than I did and with whom I concur completely (other than I lean toward favoring some kind of loosening of the restrictions, per WP:ROPE – perhaps a provisions unban with a prohibition against automated and perhaps semi-automated edits), so I won't re-state essentially the same stuff in other wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nyttend

I don't believe that unblocking with restrictions would be appropriate. If I remember rightly (and based on what others have said), most of Betacommand's blocks have arisen from restrictions that were imposed on him. Whether he's persistently violated those restrictions, or whether his opponents have persistently gotten rid of him through specious complaints, I can't say (I've not looked into it at all), but permitting Betacommand to edit with restrictions virtually guarantees that we're going to have yet more disputes over his editing restrictions. If he can be trusted to edit properly, drop the restrictions; if he can't be trusted to edit properly, leave him banned. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legacypac

This editor has been blocked for many years - a punishment that exceeds the crime. He means well, has continued to he helpful, and I've got enough AGF to believe people can grow in maturity and wisdom in 5 years. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I read a lot of material going back years which refreshed my memory and I strongly oppose allowing this person to return to editing. I have many reasons but one sticks in my mind. This person blatantly and flagrantly lied to the community about their Werieth socking. Had they told the truth when asked, Andy Dingley would not have been blocked. I see not a shred of contrition and I can never trust a person who lies like that without a detailed acknowledgement of past misconduct and a sincere pledge to avoid all past problem areas. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

Editor (A) demonstrably cannot be trusted, and (B) is highly toxic and disruptive. Under no circumstances should ArbCom unban the editor. If the editor still insists on somehow appealing the ban, if push comes to shove it should only be put to the community at large. But ideally the request should just be shut down. No matter how much good an editor may have done at their best, if the mountain of evidence proves they are by far a net negative and cannot be trusted, the answer has got to be no, for the sake of the encyclopedia and for the sake of the community and its individual editors. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LindsayH

I believe in the possibility of people changing as much as anyone; i also, however, find it hard to believe that, in the absence of evidence, this editor has changed. Legacypac has it wrong: This block is not a punishment, but a way of preventing further turmoil and damage; there is no reason to believe that that turmoil will not continue if Betacommand is unblocked. Andy Dingley says it succinctly and best: A toxic editor should not be allowed here ~ at least until he shows some signs of understanding and accepting the behaviour that led him here; the misleading, at best, request is not such a sign. Happy days, LindsayHello 10:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Eppstein

The unblock request shows no recognition of, contrition for, nor promise to avoid repeating some of the most problematic behaviors that ended with this block, including both abuse of automation and deception leading to the unfair block and almost-ban of another productive editor. Unless these issues are addressed I think an unblock is premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

There seems to be here only what I can term as a conspiracy theory. The notion that there is some cabal of admins have misused their position of trust to protect this user. This should be ignored in regards to whether to unban him or not. If this is true then a separate case at the appropriate location should be opened to review the facts pertaining to these admins actions and where applicable remove them from this position of trust.

I don't find it unreasonable to ask Δ to further address their actions beyond a generic comment such as I have made mistakes in the past (CIVIL, socking). In addition some of the addendum's suggested such as as the prohibition of using certain specialized semi-automated tools like AWB that provided any bot like behavior that would allow him to do any disruptive action is a similar nature o their prior bot related disruption. I have to say no at this time without the above.

In principle I can support unbanning this user. In the end they can always be banned again. This is from 2012. I question what it would take from those who have said no to unban his user?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re Δ)

Having refreshed my memory about why Δ was banned, I firmly oppose unblocking based on the current plan. As others have also noted, there is no acknowledgement of the relatively recent socking, no list of socks, no acknowledgement of the disruption caused, no acknowledgement about the fundamental reasons for that behaviour, no demonstration of how they have changed and how they will avoid causing further disruption, and no reason why he should be trusted this time after betraying that trust so many times previously. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

The remedy in Betacommand 3 requires Betacommand not only submit a "plan outlining his intended editing activity", but that he should also "demonstrat[e] his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban". It appears that Betacommand is supposed to demonstrate this in the context of presenting the plan to the community.

Like the others, I'm not wowed by Betacommand's compliance with this latter portion, though I somewhat understand why it is so brief. I believe the intent of this ARCA is to submit the plan outlining intended editing activity so it can be fairly evaluated separately from concerns as to how repentant Betacommand is. Dealing with it all at once would likely result in almost no focus on the intended editing activity. As this discussion has progressed, it's clear that had Betacommand focused more on the conduct that resulted in his ban, we would not be talking at all about the plan.

From my perspective, I think this is a decent enough plan, though I would agree with others who say semi-automated editing as with AWB should be off the table along with fully automated editing. And of course, Betacommand should comply with the portion of the Betacommand 3 remedy requiring him to "demonstrat[e] his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Od Mishehu

I'm generally against usernames which can't be typed on a standard English-language keyboard on English Wikipedia. In the case of a user who has caused a significant amount of trouble in the past (in fact, this user has his own section of WP:AN as a centralized location for discussions about him), I believe that changing his username should be an absolute requirement. If the user is willing to do this, I would support allowing the user to re-enter the Wikipedia community gradually - and the proposed restrictions (including specific semi-automated tools, such as AWB) look like a good start.

Statement by Paul August

Simply put no.

I urge anyone who is inclined to give Betacommand another (4th, 5th?) chance please read:

As the arb who wrote the first of these decisions, and who has been an interested observer of the subsequent two, based on my intimate knowledge of Betacopmmand’s past actions, I can say with confidence that granting this request would be an extremely bad idea.

I see no evidence (certainly not in this request) that Betacommand understands what the problems are, nor do I believe, that Betacommand has the ability to understand them. Betacommand’s one-size-fits-all approach, and predilection for bot-aided-mass-edits is inherently problematic. Betacommand’s inability to communicate, would only compound the inevitable problems such edits entail.

Paul August ☎ 16:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jtrainor

No.

This is clearly just another attempt by Beta to return to abusive bot usage.

And on another note, someone needs to force rename his account to something that isn't completely impossible to type on mobile. Jtrainor (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Oddly, I think the pitchforks and torches above are actually the best reason to unblock - simply put, Beta would be watched like a hawk by dozens of editors keen to see him banned again. I see that as a no-lose situation, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PGWG

I would support this unblock request - it's been 3+ years since the last socking, significantly longer since the original block, and we all change. If this is just a ploy or attempt to game the system, that'll be quickly identified and I see no shortage of people willing, if not eager, to pull the trigger. PGWG (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

Please do not add more bot drama to the encyclopedia. Most editors simply do not care about bots or bot policy. If I am aware of a bot issue it is a sign that something has gone very badly wrong because I think along with Wikidata, it is the most boring area on Wikipedia and do my absolute best to stay away from it. We have the editor who is known for running the most controversial bot in Wikipedia's history. Do we really think that they are not going to try to get involved with bot policy and do we really think that their involvement there will be a net-positive to the encyclopedia, even if they don't run a bot themselves? Please save us the drama of more automation conflict. I strongly oppose this unban. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 😂

We absolutely should unban Δ. It was a net loss to the community to ban him from the get go, and he's been blocked for far more than a sufficient time (per Legacypac). FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY [u+1F602] 17:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acalamari

Quite a few of the comments in opposition to the unbanning of Δ are bordering on or, if not, outright personal attacks. We get it: Δ is banned and quite a few people don't like him but neither of those are a free pass to insult him and malign his character. I don't care if he allegedly caused "years of disruption" - Δ is still a human being and last I checked, no personal attacks is still a policy. Commenting on his actions is absolutely valid criticism but to continually refer to him as "toxic" and to call him other names isn't acceptable.

And please, please, *please* call him Δ. To continually refer to someone by a name they have long since abandoned is offensive and disrespectful; again, a person being unpopular is not a free pass to be disrespectful to them. It doesn't matter if his name can't easily be typed - there's such a thing as cut and paste or you can use "Delta". Acalamari 12:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Begoon

No, please don't unblock Beta. The RFC clearly indicates community opinion. -- Begoon 12:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lankiveil

I actually believe that Δ means to be constructive if allowed to return, but from what I see there is still a lack of understanding there about how they got into trouble in the first place. The first step to avoid repeating your mistakes is to understand them. I'm not seeing a deep enough understanding there on the part of Δ to stop themselves from getting into difficulty again. I do not recommend an unblock at this time.

If allowed back under some form of restricted access, I think it is imperative that we put forward a condition that any blocks of Δ (or whatever account they end up using) should only be appealable to Arbcom, rather than to the drama boards. The whole situation with them in the past was dragged out for far longer than it needed to be due to a small group of admins who were happy to cover for them and drag the drama out for as long as possible. Such a condition would prevent a re-run of those unfortunate events, while still giving Δ some protection against heavy handed blocks for minor infractions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Beetstra

Definitely unban. It has been long enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:53, 29 November 2017 (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.


Betacommand 3: Clerk notes

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

Betacommand 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @Alanscottwalker and Ivanvector: - I think we see it the same way as Alanscottwalker. The terms of the Arbcom decision require community input before any action to modify the ban. The ultimate decision on any modification remains up to the Committee. That said, I can't imagine we would simply ignore an obvious community consensus - and if we did, there'd need to be some solid public explanation. Unrelated point - I do kind of agree with Ivanvector's point about avoiding different regimes for different bans, which is something to avoid in future case outcomes. However in this instance we've been reasonably transparent - as I noted at the RfC, we received a perfunctory appeal in 2015, which didn't contain an editing plan. We didn't receive any appeal in 2016, and here we are in public with the 2017 one. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Euryalus about the structure of the remedy, and with Ivanvector that it hasn't really proved itself very practical. But there isn't really a "shroud of arbcom" here, nor do I think there's been bad faith among people who believed we were stalling or said as much on-wiki; just a case of miscommunication and the telephone game. Now that we're here, I would like to encourage comments to focus on things Δ is actually personally responsible for, not on bad decisions made by others in the course of interacting with him. Also, for the record, we've looked and found no current socking. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer seems very clear to me. Mkdw talk 04:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is sizeable consensus that there is not a desire to unblock Δ. This has been an extensive an unblock appeal ARCA and the whole point was to elicit feedback from the community. Any outcome other than decline at this point would be undermine the process. While this process does consume quite a bit of time and effort on the part of the community, it was effective in delivering a definitive answer. I think a similar process or following the unban policy would both be suitable solutions should there be another future appeal. Mkdw talk 04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reviewing the noticeboard thread and statements above. If there is anything else to be said, commenters should focus on whether or not Δ is likely to contribute productively if unbanned and what restrictions, if any, would maximize the odds. There has been a bit too much focus on procedure leading up to this request—the requirement that Δ submit a plan in connection with any appeal was really just a fleshing out of what the committee and the community would expect from any banned or indefblocked user seeking to return: an explanation of how or she would edit, and what he or should would do differently so as to avoid the problems of the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see a good reason to unblock. The "plan" is all too short and perfunctory; sure, one can have stuff on one's plate, but if that's the case and it prevents a solid plan as required years ago, then one is maybe not ready. This is not a community unban process, of course, but ArbCom would be a fool not to take the community seriously. In other words, I do not see enough "what he or she would do differently". Drmies (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me consensus opposes an unban - barring any sudden turnaround in the next couple of days I think we should wrap this up as declined.. Ivanvector make a good point about whether future ban appeals should be via the unban policy rather than appeal to Arbcom; I'd be interested in other views on this as a matter of transparency. I think this discussion has been a useful process, and at the very least, it should be a precedent for future committees to consult with the community as a first step in a Δ unban request. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CBM: Yes, I'd suggest the standard twelve months. I can imagine (and sympathise with) Δ's frustration - for most editors this would have been a perfectly reasonable unblock request; but in this instance the community still doesn't have the requisite level of trust. Unsurprising, given the second, third, fourth, fifth chances already granted and abused; but frustrating nonetheless. The only advice I can give to Δ is to give it more time; and/or to show some bona fides through assiduous and error-free work on a related project. I'd also reiterate the point made above, but for some reason not universally acknowledged, that the period since the last breach of trust is 2014 (Werieth), not 2011 (Δ). If the Werieth saga had not occurred, we might have seen a different result in this ARCA. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus clearly appears to be that we should not unblock, and I see no reason not to accept that view. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Indefinitely blocked IPs

Initiated by Nyttend at 14:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Nyttend

Per WP:IPBLENGTH, IPs should almost never be indef-blocked. I found these two IPs at Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs: 190.140.234.59 was blocked in 2008 for evading a ban placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli (the underlying account is no longer blocked), and 2003:51:4A44:E240:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB was apparently attempting to distribute child pornography when blocked in 2014. Unless you believe that these two are likely to warrant re-blocking, could they be unblocked? No point in notifying them ("hello IP, are you still going to be disruptive?"), but I'll notify the admins who blocked them. Please note that this not a complaint about anyone; I would have asked the blocking admins and not come here, but I know that an admin shouldn't revert an arbitration block even if he placed the block himself.

PS, would the Committee please direct one of the checkusers to tell us what IPs, or IP ranges, are being used by the bots operating on WMF Labs? Back when we had the Toolserver, {{Toolserver IP}} told us to indef-softblock the Toolserver IPs (bots often edited logged out), and that's likely no longer needed. I filed a quick SPI request for the IPs in question, but inexplicably this request was treated like a privacy-violating request for checkuser on a human, not a request for technical assistance with the WMF servers.

Statement by 190.140.234.59

Statement by 2003:51:4A44:E240:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB

Statement by BU Rob13

It's worth noting that Stefanomencarelli is no longer banned, so the indefinite block on 190.140.234.59 isn't even relevant anymore. That one can certainly be unblocked. The admin which blocked it, Rlandmann, is active. He can revert his own AE action. ~ Rob13Talk 19:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nyttend: Just as an FYI, the relevant ArbCom motion only prohibits undoing an arbitration enforcement block done by another administrator. (Beeblebrox won't be able to undo the ArbCom block, though, which presumably had the support of the Committee at the time.) ~ Rob13Talk 19:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in response to the PS, see my further explanation of why I declined that CheckUser request here. ~ Rob13Talk 19:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rlandmann

  • I'm happy to remove the indef block on 190.140.234.59, although, the way I read the ArbCom motion linked by Rob13, so could any other admin, since if Stefanomencarelli is no longer blocked, this is no longer "an active arbitration remedy" (emphasis mine) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2017 (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.

Indefinitely blocked IPs: Clerk notes

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

Indefinitely blocked IPs: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The first of these blocks is an AE block, not an ArbCom block, and can be unblocked by anyone at this late date. I expect the second can also be unblocked at this point given the dynamics of IPs, but please hold off until I get confirmation. I'll leave the last paragraph of the request for someone more CU-savvy than I. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've unblocked the first IP. Stand by regarding the second IP. I support Rob's comment at SPI that checking a random bot would be inappropriate. Looks like you're working with DoRD on other IPs which have been used by toolserver in the past. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with unblock of second IP, given passage of time. Their advocacy was pretty obvious, if the same user still has this IP they'll be spotted soon enough. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cautiously support unblocking 2003:51:4A44:E240:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They were only active for one day back in 2014 and have not remained active since. Given the serious nature of their editing topic, I think they could be unblocked with some monitoring for a short duration. Mkdw talk 16:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: American politics 2

Initiated by Kingsindian at 10:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
  2. Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
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
  • Rescinded. The provision can be applied for individual pages at admin discretion, but is not part of the template.
  • Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. The normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Statement by Kingsindian

[To clarify, I have included The Wordsmith as a party because they have in the past acted as a steward for Coffee's administrative actions.]

I am not sure this is the right venue, but I think it is. I am here seeking a relatively narrow amendment. The situation is as follows:

In May 2016, Coffee created a template (linked above) which is used on more than 100 pages dealing with American politics. The template includes a "consensus required" provision: challenged material should not be restored unless it has consensus.

  • The template has been used in the past as a "default" template for American politics topics. For instance, Ks0stm says here: FWIW, I only placed the article under 1RR/consensus required because that was what came packaged in 2016 US Election AE [template]; it wasn't so much an explicit decision to make it consensus required.
  • Some admins do indeed explicitly want to enforce the "consensus required" provision. See the AE request here, and the comment by TonyBallioni.
  • The value of the provision is, let's say, contested. I can give my own view here, to make it clear where I'm coming from: it's a very bad idea.

I propose that the template to be used as the "default" for post-1932 American elections contain the amendment I proposed. The amendment is modeled on the solution used in ARBPIA, and takes care of a very common justification for the "consensus required" provision (see TonyBallioni's comment linked above, for instance). This is a much more lightweight, well-tested and clearer sanction. To be clear: individual pages may still have the "consensus required" provision placed on them. In this way, collateral damage from what I consider a bad provision will be minimized. If ArbCom wishes to make an explicit statement either way (either rescinding the consensus required provision altogether, or to affirm it to be the "default"), they can also do so.

The above text is self-sufficient. In the following, I make a case for the badness of the "consensus required" provision. People can skip it if they want.

"Consensus required" is bad (optional)

My argument hinges on two points. First, consensus on Wikipedia is mostly silent and implicit; indeed this is explicitly enshrined in policy. Second, any bureaucratic provision must prove its worth if it is to be imposed. I will now expand on each of the points.

  1. How do people typically handle disputes on Wikipedia? Some person writes something, someone else objects, the first person rephrases, the second person is still unhappy, a third person rephrases it etc. Talk page discussions are also commonly made concrete (and sometimes productively cut short) by someone using an explicit phrasing on the article which all sides can live by. To be sure, this outcome can be achieved by a schematic discussion on the talk page: people writing out explicit phrasings on the talk page, opening RfCs, polling people, incorporating suggestions and so on. Indeed, I have done plenty of this sort of thing myself. But this requires a fair bit of work and co-ordination, and a degree of good faith which is often missing among participants in political areas. All I am saying here is that mandating such a work-intensive and time-intensive procedure is counterproductive. Existing rules are adequate to deal with long-term edit warring: indeed WP:ONUS is well-established policy.
  2. The provision has never proved its worth, nor have its proponents given any measure by which its worth could be measured. Regardless of the claims of its proponents: of the provision being a "bright line" akin to 1RR, consensus in Wikipedia is often not a bright line. Besides, consensus can always change, based on new information. In practice, the provision has led to interminable and bad-tempered arguments (including, but not limited to, admins enforcing the provision), and essentially nothing else. For instance, in a recent AE complaint, even the person who brought the complaint under the provision thought that the provision is bad but, they said, since it exists they'll use it. Then come the retaliatory AE requests, making a reasonable argument: a dumb provision should at least be applied uniformly. This situation is, to put it mildly, not ideal. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: The instructions on the page state: Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement sanction issued by an administrator, such as through discretionary sanctions). Did I read them wrongly? By the way, this has already been discussed on AE, and the discussion didn't go anywhere. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: Here, I am only asking for the "default" template to not carry the "consensus required" provision (and a simultaneous tweaking of the 1RR provision). If ArbCom (and admins at AE who may wish to weigh in here), feel that it ought to be dumped completely, that is also fine with me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: That would be unsatisfactory, because: (a) the 1RR tweak I described above would not be implemented, which is definitely not ideal and (b) the pages already tagged with the template wouldn't be changed. If these two aspects are addressed, I would have no objection.

In general, I will wait for a few more comments from Arbs; if they feel that AE is the best venue, I'll withdraw this and refile there. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coffee

Statement by The Wordsmith

Statement by BU Rob13

I agree that this should be at WP:AE. ~ Rob13Talk 11:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by L235

The main problem here appears to be that the template containing the "consensus required" provision is the only one available for administrators to use for ARBAP2 sanctions. However, there is no decision by ArbCom mandating the use of the "consensus required" provision or that template. @Kingsindian: Would it resolve your request if I created an ARBAP2 talk notice template that did not include the "consensus required" provision? (Perhaps this template could also have "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert.") That way, administrators could still make the conscious choice to choose to use that provision on a case-by-case basis, but documentation should note that the other template is also available. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:13, 27 November 2017 (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.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Recuse in order to give statement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @Kingsindian: This looks like something which would be better at WP:AE. The Arbitration Committee will generally only intervene in arbitration enforcement decisions where there has been an abuse of process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're correct that AE decisions can be appealed here, however traditionally ArbCom has only decided to intervene when AE admins haven't followed the rules. To clarify are you asking that the Committee remove the consensus required sanction completely? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, that's what I thought. As I said, I suspect you won't get much from ArbCom, but I could be wrong. I still think, though, that this would be better placed at AE for another discussion (which hopefully will end with action this time). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless Coffee or The Wordsmith have anything additional comments, I would also be inclined to suggest WP:AE as a better venue. It would probably be handled more directly. Mkdw talk 21:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=812687162"