Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of single and primary sources in Sri Lankan Civil War articles | 29 April 2024 | 0/0/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: BLP issues on British politics articles | Motion | (orig. case) | 7 August 2018 |
| Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 | none | (orig. case) | 7 August 2018 |
| Amendment request: post-1932 American politics, broadly construed | none | none | 9 August 2018 |
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!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- 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. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
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:
Clarification request: BLP issues on British politics articles
Initiated by RebeccaSaid at 12:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- BLP issues on British politics articles 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:
- RebeccaSaid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by RebeccaSaid
Please can you provide clarification around the scope of the Topic Ban issued to Philip Cross, 26 July 2018?
On 2 August Philip Cross edited the article of Colin Jordan and on 3 August he edited the article of /Andrew Faulds.
Both of these articles would appear to fall within the reach of “post-1978 British politics, broadly construed”.
On 5 August User Kal Holmann raised the potential breach of the TB here: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Philip_Cross
Notwithstanding the issue of self-reverting, which Cross did only after the potential breach was raised, there’s an interesting point being made around the wording of the actual Topic Ban.
Looking at the standard policy I read “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, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". “ Topic ban
However, it would appear that the Topic Ban of Philip Cross is being interpreted differently -
"I would close this as not actionable. The wording of the remedy is in relevant part: "Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics". This is more restrictive than a usual topic ban per WP:TBAN: while a usual topic ban covers both pages related to the topic and edits related to the topic, the unusual wording of the remedy ("banned from edits relating to ...") indicates that this ban is intended to cover only edits related to the topic. The normal wording would have been something like "banned from anything related to ...". In this case, the edits as such were not related to politics, and the remedy was therefore not violated." Sandstein 06:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you kindly confirm then, which of these interpretations is accurate? Thank you. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Thank you for clarifying Rob. It was pretty obvious to me that's what was meant. Apologies for bothering you with it. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Philip Cross: Throw as much shade as you like Mr Cross, but it's quite simple. The 2 examples I cited were British political figures who remained active beyond 1978 and, therefore, fall within the scope of your TB. You've been around long enough to know what the boundaries are. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Philip Cross
Earlier today, I edited the article on John Strachey who died in 1963. The article also links to Harold Wilson who left the House of Commons in 1983 (died 1995), Manny Shinwell (1884–1986) a Labour peer and Peter Doig who left the Commons in 1979. These edits are thus marginally in the post-1978 era, and it is possible I could be successfully challenged. A little earlier today, I worked on an article about Jon Kimche, who knew George Orwell in the 1930s, but decided to revert because the article contains a mention of Michael Foot during the second world war when he was a journalist. Possibly I should do the same at Anthony Crosland (died 1977) because Roy Jenkins is mentioned and the article cites a book which includes the term 'New Labour' in the title. I edited David Mamet yesterday after searching for references to 'antisemitism'. It cites an interview with Mamet conducted in New York in 2011 which mentions his general claims about A/S in the UK and also includes a mention of Harold Pinter who was certainly a writer on politics post-1978. Should I revert? There are other recent edits of mine, such as to Dennis Potter, which should be counted as well. The article includes Potter's comments about the Australian-American Rupert Murdoch, who has had an influence on British politics since 1978 as elsewhere, and surely also falls under the "broadly construed" element. Philip Cross (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Statement by KalHolmann
Today's exchange between inactive ArbCom member User:BU Rob13 and uninvolved admin User:Sandstein emphasizes the need for formal clarification of this point by the Arbitration Committee.
"The remedy as written," Sandstein comments, "appears to contradict itself. While it links to WP:TBAN, which defines a standard topic ban that includes both topic-related edits and other edits to topic-related pages, the clause 'edits relating to' has, as I read it, a limiting effect such that only topic-related edits are prohibited, not other edits to topic-related pages. To avoid such uncertainty, I recommend that future remedies are worded to only make reference to WP:TBAN without additional clauses, e.g., '... is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from British politics'. Based on the current wording, I myself would take no action here, although of course other admins are free to interpret the remedy differently and take action."
As a non-administrator, I naturally defer to admins in their knowledge of Wikipedia procedures. However, Sandstein's reading seems contrary to the spirit of ArbCom's sanction against Philip Cross. Please resolve this. KalHolmann (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: I identified you as an inactive member of ArbCom because I suspect many editors are unaware of your recent change of status and might misconstrue any remarks you make as speaking on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. If you are still an official spokesman for ArbCom, I'd appreciate clarification of that point as well. KalHolmann (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Please accept my sincere wishes for a speedy and full recovery by your family member following emergency surgery to remove a cancerous tumor. The mutual animosity between you and me is personal and has nothing to do with your family. KalHolmann (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
As an admin working at AE, I appreciate the proposed motion because it clarifies the remedy. When evaluating an AE request, I generally try to apply the plain meaning of the text of the applicable remedy. If the text is unclear or appears contradictory, as in this case, I tend to not take action, so as to err on the side of caution. Other admins, of course, may want to proceed differently. Sandstein 07:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
BLP issues on British politics articles: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- There seems to be some confusion about what "inactive" arbitrator status means. All it means is that the arb has sent the clerks an email asking to be designated as inactive, and the effect is basically a presumed abstention on any new matters that comes up. The arbitrator can at any time be moved back to being active, either on all matters or selectively on just some. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
BLP issues on British politics articles: Arbitrator views and discussion
- We definitely did not intend the topic ban to be construed to not apply to some edits to pages about the topic area. All topic bans apply to such edits. We chose the wording of “all edits” rather than “all pages” to emphasize that even edits that cover the topic on pages that do not typically cover the topic are covered, which is the standard meaning of a topic ban. If we intended to place a restriction other than a topic ban, we would not have called it such. I think even the admins at AE occasionally need a reminder not to wikilawyer - a topic ban is a topic ban. If it helps, we can strike “all edits about” and just say Philip Cross is topic banned from the topic area. ~ Rob13Talk 15:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @KalHolmann: As a side note, is there a reason you choose to emphasize my inactivity as if it’s a slur? ~ Rob13Talk 15:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I remain a member of the Arbitration Committee. My current inactivity refers to the fact a family member was just released from the hospital following an emergency surgery to remove a cancerous tumor. I am not necessarily available as often as usual as a result. I would hope you don’t begrudge me that. ~ Rob13Talk 15:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I certainly appreciate you bringing this to our attention. It was on my radar already, and I was probably going to propose this motion later today even in the absence of an ARCA. ~ Rob13Talk 18:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @KalHolmann: As a side note, is there a reason you choose to emphasize my inactivity as if it’s a slur? ~ Rob13Talk 15:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
BLP issues on British politics articles: Motion
The "Philip Cross topic banned" remedy in the BLP issues on British politics articles case is modified to read as follows:
- Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from
edits relating topost-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in May 2018.
- For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
- This is also the current meaning of the sanction, but let's modify it just to make this "slap you in the face" obvious. ~ Rob13Talk 17:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would of thought this wouldn't have shown up at our doorstep like this...but surprises. I think this more clearly explains the intent of the original motion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Doug Weller talk 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 15:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Per Rob, and confirming as the other drafter that this was our intent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Alex Shih (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Katietalk 15:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
- Arbitrator discussion
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3
Initiated by Sir Joseph at 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- First sentence to be changed to, "In order to edit any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict an editor must be registered and have more than 30 days tenure and have more than 500 edits"
Statement by Sir Joseph
This clause seems to continuously cause issues or concerns and it seems to me that rewriting this to specifically highlight in this manner makes it clearer as to who can and can't edit in this area.
Statement by Dweller
Worm That Turned, see my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#פֿינצטערניש, and those of my non-alter-ego, Doug Weller. I genuinely didn't understand the wording because the Oxford comma is confusing (actually, in my book, just darn wrong) and the wording is poorly drafted. Please bear in mind that we will often need to point this to newbies and people with passion on the topic. Both of those are reasons for crystal clarity. There's more discussion about this on my user talk. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Callanecc. Why is it that your wording below ("IP editors are prohibited as are registered accounts which do meet meet both criteria: 30 days or more; and 500 edits or more.") is so much clearer than an official ArbCom ruling and yet you resist changing it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Zero
I can see this suggestion is not going anywhere. However, there is a different sentence in the ARBPIA rulings that does cause confusion and it would be good to have clarification of its meaning. I refer to the sentence "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."
that appears in the General 1RR restriction. Consider this sequence: (1) A inserts some text, (2) B removes it. Some time later, (3) C reinserts the text, (4) D removes it, and (5) C reinserts it again less than 24 hours after edit (4). In the plain meaning of the sentence, C can argue that they didn't violate the rule because the "original author" of the text is A and not them. I've seen this from experienced editors at least three times at AE and on multiple occasions that didn't get to AE. A different problem is that the English language does not usually use "author" to refer to someone who makes a deletion, so a sequence deletion, revert, deletion is not clearly covered. Without thinking about it very much, I propose that the sentence be modified as follows: "If an editor makes an edit that is reverted, that editor may not redo the edit within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."
Zerotalk 09:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I'm not sure I agree. It's plain to me what the sentence means, you need to have evidence of experience to edit the topic as a registered user. That's been set at 500 edits and 30 days tenure. No matter how it is written, there will be someone who thinks it can be written better and I'm reluctant to support a motion for a change that doesn't change the meaning. WormTT(talk) 19:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- There is clearly some uncertainty as Admins have expressed concern. User:Zero0000 has suggested "Registered accounts are only permitted if they have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits." I can't see any downside to the wording, but I might have missed something. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm strongly opposed to further changes of this remedy. It's already quite clear. The remedy says that the following three types of editors are prohibited from editing in the topic area:
- IP editors
- Accounts with less than 30 days tenure
- Accounts with less than 500 edits
- If you fall into one or more of those categories, the prohibition applies to you. The current wording is grammatically and logically correct for that meaning. It means what we want it to mean. I'm very open to changing remedies if it will increase clarity (see above), but that is not the case here. At some point, we have to stop refactoring this and rely on reading comprehension. I would be surprised if an administrator could not demonstrate those skills when pressed and after the repeated clarifications at this board, but if so, I would suggest that they avoid enforcement in this area. ~ Rob13Talk 08:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- A plain reading of the sentence is already clear, as is WP:ECP which is based on the ArbCom decision. I've no problem clarifying decisions (as this is), but I don't see a need to amend it. To be clear, IP editors are prohibited as are registered accounts which do meet meet both criteria: 30 days or more; and 500 edits or more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- We're getting to the point that we'd be changing it just to change it. It's been clarified and amended so many times already that the original purpose behind the remedy is becoming clouded. When the intention, to prevent new and/or inexperienced (or not so new/inexperienced) users from editing in this contentious topic area, is considered along with the words on the screen then the meaning is much clearer. Any way we write the remedy it can be interpreted in different ways, that's language for you. To gain an understanding of a message, one must do more than just read words on a page, the intention and context must also be accessed. In ArbCom's situation, the way people do this is to read principles, findings of fact, arbitrator's comments on votes and clarification requests. We could add a footnote with the criteria written a different way but I don't see that as necessarily helpful given that it could (and likely will) lead to another interpretation. As I said above, there are other pages which have been created to further explain and "flesh out" the decision, for example WP:ECP, {{ARBPIA}} and {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- It reads plain and clear to me as well. Oppose any change. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with my colleagues. There is no need to change the wording. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- The very clearest version would actually be something like "Only registered editors with at least 500 edits and at least 30 days' tenure may edit articles in this topic area; other editors may not do so." (The negation of an "or" statement is an "and" statement; see De Morgan's Laws.) By the way, this is as good a time as any to mention again that I dislike the whole concept of a whole topic-area being under an extended-confirmed restriction, but I'll accept the word of those active in the area that the alternatives are worse still. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
On the topic of Zero's suggestion
- While we all pretty much agree with there being no need to change the wording of the general prohibition, I think Zero0000 brings up a good point regarding the use of the phrase "original author" in the general 1RR. I'm not worried about dropping "author", since for better or worse, Wikipedia defines those removing content as an author. I am concerned about "original", though. I think we intended that restriction to apply to the most recent editor who added the content to slow down or prevent edit wars. Is there an appetite for making that more clear? ~ Rob13Talk 17:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Amendment request: post-1932 American politics, broadly construed
Initiated by Atsme at 18:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Indef topic ban;
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- T-ban decision by Bishonen
- DS remedy per DARCA case filed by MrX that resulted in Bishonen's independent action
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- T-ban decision by Bishonen
- Repeal and remove from the log - as an involved administrator imposed it
- DS remedy per DARCA case filed by MrX that resulted in Bishonen's independent action
- Vexatious filing
Statement by Atsme
I am here to appeal my t-ban after taking some time off for introspection, and to analyze the many diffs MrX presented in his case against me. I published the results at User talk:Atsme/RVW. This has been a difficult case for me because I once held MrX in high regard; however, his accusation that I have an ideological blindspot is, in and of itself, evidence that he believes his own ideology is superior, and I consider that to be detrimental to the project. His case against me was devastating as my initial reaction shows but I have since learned from it.
I’m sure we can all agree that sanctions are not intended to prevent free and candid discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think civil disagreement while seeking consensus would be grounds for a sanction, or that suggesting consistency with MOS or using humor here and there to defuse tense situations would be grounds for sanctions. Articles with DS/1RR-consensus required restrictions naturally increase discussion, and one can expect lively debates because reverted editors tend to experience higher levels of frustration.
Administrators are expected to exercise good judgment, and respond flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. They should carefully analyze behavior without preference or bias, and determine if a remedy has been violated, or if the case and associated preliminary warnings were vexatious. Accused editors are customarily given an opportunity to defend themselves, but above all, they should not have to deal with intimidation, threats, or enforcement by an involved administrator. Unfortunately, none of the aforementioned received proper consideration in my case as the following diffs will demonstrate.
- MrX
MrX presented a compilation of cherrypicked diffs taken out of context, grouped them with prepended aspersions, exaggerations and misrepresentations in his ARCA case against me. It is patterned behavior used to rid himself of opposition. (Note: I have many more diffs that establish the pattern if needed)
- March 18, 2015 - "The rest of the initial statement by MrX appears to be fairly standard Wikipedia style mud slinging where some fairly innocuous diffs and somewhat irate statements are presented as if they were "teh [sic] worst thing ever!!!!". It's hyperbole meant to appeal to emotion and prejudice, rather than a well substantiated request.”
- June 29, 2018 “….I'd be inclined to warn MrX about misrepresenting others contributions out of context, which is shockingly bad faith.”
- Juy 9, 2018 - ‘’You have every right to challenge a close. You do not have any right to characterize good-faith disagreement on process as "wikilawyering”.’’
MrX was aware there was neither a smoking gun nor clear evidence of disruption worthy of a t-ban in my case.
- Talk:AE June 27 2018, MrX stated: “In other words, there are not 20 smoking gun diffs, because the case doesn't involve edit warring or egregious personal attacks.”
- EdJohnston: "If there are no smoking guns, I wonder if you have a case at all."
- ARCA June 29 2018 “Not all MrX's diffs are impressive…..”
Disruptive behavior by MrX
- April 17, 2018 - intimidation
- April 17, 2018 - vio of WP:TALKNEW - added my user name in the section title, another editor removed it. Consensus supported my position to remove the material.
- May 17, 2018 - incivility, self-aggrandizing
- June 23, 2018 - disruptive behavior
- June 23, 2018 - demands that editors cite policy, then criticizes them when they do
- June 23, 2018 - bullying and intimidation
- June 26, 2018 - profanity
- Jan 3, 2018 - NOTFORUM
- Jan 3, 2018 - criticizing RS (refer to the accusations he made against me and compare the diffs)
- Jan 3, 2018 - says media is sensationalizing a “nothingburger”
- May 22, 2018 - critical of WSJ as a source
- June 29, 2018 - said to not put much stock in Newsweek
- May 14, 2018 - POV pushing based on OR
- May 16, 2018 - his IDONTLIKEIT prod which led to his filing an AfD
- June 18, 2018 - defends anti-Semitic slur at AE
- June 30, 2018 - his duty to RIGHTGREATWRONGS - ‘’”….highlighting that the dark grays are misbehavin'. A lot.”’’ <— the “dark grays”?
- Bishonen - an involved administrator
The following will demonstrate that there was a lack of urgency for Bishonen to impose a t-ban which she inadvertently admits in her statement below. The ARCA case was only 12 hrs old, and her action against me was retaliatory and had a chilling effect, as it followed within 9 min after I posted the 1st phase of evidence in my defense which including diffs of incivility against her fellow admin.
- Relevant excerpts from Statement by Bishonen:
- "I should say that Am Pol is no rosegarden even if we disregard Atsme's input, and probably won't be one even if my ban is upheld."
- "Atsme rather unexpectedly posted a full response,…."
- "…it turned out she did after all have the heart to call for topic bans for MrX and Drmies, in a post that edit conflicted me."
- ''I’m not going to argue with you, Alex, as to whether that reflects badly on me or not. So heated and polarized as discourse in the area is, I naturally expect criticism from some users."
- July 31, 2015 - AN/I case I filed against 3 editors who were being highly disruptive at WP:AVDUCK. NOTE: there were no diffs presented by my accusers to support the aspersions cast against me
- Aug 1, 2015 - Bishonen participated in the boomerang
- Aug 1 2015 - her bias surfaced in a vehement manner
- Aug 3, 2015- my response to her aspersions
- Aug 3, 2015 - involved editor's 2nd alert on her TP
- Aug 3 2015 She said: “Please note, Atsme, that my pinging you here isn't aimed at bringing you to my page;” <—undeniable bias, and not how admins are expected to behave
- Aug 3, 2015 - my response to her ping
- Aug 3, 2015 - she was disappointed the case was going nowhere, suggested another case targeting me, and that someone “uninvolved” should close the open AN/I case
- Aug 4 2015 - I responded to another editor on her TP
- Aug 4, 2015 - she told me not to post on her TP
- Aug 4, 2015 - I agreed to honor her request, asked her to stop stalking me
- Aug 5 2015 - ANI close by an uninvolved admin;
- Aug 6 2015 - she shows up at my TP casting more aspersions, and I'm again forced to defend against her aggressive behavior
- Aug 6 2015 she overturned the close in order to enforce her preference, and blocked me for 1 month when the only legitimate block on my log was a 36 hr 3RR back when I was a newbie.
Further evidence of Bishonen’s involvement
- July 31 2015 - an editor added a Monty Python caption that I reverted, and a suspicious IP restored
- Aug 1 2015 - Bishonen's snarky reference to that caption
- Aug 1 2015 - ATG alerted her to my question on Alison's TP, Bish showed up and responded with sarcasm
- Sept 20 2015 - Her reaction to ATG’s retirement a month later
- March 5 2016 - ‘’(→Result concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: ...oppose... oppose... falls off the chair.)’’ Note: JPS has had numerous IDs.
- March 5 2018 - concerns about threatening admin actions from joke alt accts.
- May 8 2018 - Bishzilla puts little Giano in her pocket for safe-keeping.
Aug 2017, Bishonen appeared at AN3 for this one case while she was on a semi-break, and of course, it was the case I filed
- Aug 5 2017- says she's on an indefinite semi-break…."
- Aug 5 2017 - (burnout)
- Aug 13 2017 - I filed for edit warring and disruption, mentioned potential sock activity
- Aug 14 2017 - Bishonen appears from her semi-break for this one case: "I'm surprised to see Atsme suggesting that two experienced editors "may even be one in the same for all I know". Usually we only get that kind of silliness from new users, and it does you no favours, User:Atsme.” <—showed her preference to those 2 editors and was biased toward me
- NOTE: Of the 2 editors I filed against, one was CU blocked - different time, unrelated case; the other was investigated.
- Aug 14 2017 - asked her to recuse
- Aug 14 2017 - Her edit summary (→Based on history: I'm on semi-break, but if you continue to waste constructive editors' time and patience in the way you've been doing I'll take the time to topic ban you from American politics.) <--- Note: the article in question was a BLP not subject to AP2.
- Aug 14 2017 - Admittedly, emotions got the best of me because she called my case frivolous and cast aspersions against me yet again.
- Aug 14 2017 - unrelenting
- Aug 14 2017 - warning to t-ban me from AP2 over a BLP that is not subject to AP2 DS
- Aug 14 2017 - my response
- Aug 14 2017 - she returned to my TP and posted yet another warning about BLP sanctions which actually have since been updated at that article to include "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour" as an added DS restriction, but no AP2 DS.
Statement by MrX
Statement by Bishonen
As the banning admin, I think it's appropriate to leave the consideration of whether or not Atsme's topic ban should be lifted to the arbitrators. My rationale for placing the ban on 29 June 2018 can be seen here and here. At this time I only want to say I don't understand Atsme's claim that I'm an involved admin wrt her, and also don't understand her case (?) against MrX. She has been insisting I'm involved since at least 2015, but I've never understood it, and the diffs she posts above seem irrelevant, some of them wildly so. Bishonen appears from her semi-break? Bishonen said "Fuck" when Andy the Grump retired? Bishzilla puts little Giano in her pocket for safe-keeping [sic]? Seriously, what? See WP:INVOLVED. I can't find any diff in that list that suggests I'm involved wrt Atsme, let alone that my admin actions are "retaliatory" (?). I don't understand the diffs purporting to show bad behaviour by MrX, either. How do they make his filing of an ARCA case against Atsme inappropriate? OMG, I see he, too, has been guilty of "profanity" — though less gravely than me — he has said "bullshit".[1] What does any of it have to do with the price of tea in China? Bishonen | talk 19:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC).
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.
post-1932 American politics, broadly construed: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).