Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 86

This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page.

Archive 80

←

Archive 84

→

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130

Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (October 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Beyond My Ken at 21:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 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:

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notification of RAN

Statement by Beyond My Ken

In the current AN/I thread concerning the editing of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (RAN), a number of concerns have been raised, however there has been disagreement during the discussion about the scope and meaning of Remedy #2.2 of WP:ARBRAN, "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation". I would like clarification of this remedy, both for RAN's information, and for the information of other editors examining RAN's edits, including those involved in the current AN/I discussion.

Here is the history of the remedy as I understand it:

In November 2011, a community discussion on AN/I was closed by Jbmurray. The close resulted in a one-month topic ban on RAN, characterized as " he is banned specifically from creating new articles and from page moves".

In December 2011, another community discussion on AN/I, closed by Swarm, determined that the topic ban should be made indefinite. It was expressed as " Richard Arthur Norton's topic ban (from creating new articles and from performing page moves) is extended indefinitely".

In March 2013, the final decision of WP:ARBRAN was posted. Remedy #2.2 "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation" -- which passed 12 to 1 -- reads:
The Committee acknowledges that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s community-placed topic ban on article creations was a valid and apparently successful attempt to curb his text-based copyright violations, and further recognizes that this sanction has been violated a number of times. This topic ban will remain in place and is assumed under the Arbitration Committee's authority. After at least six months have elapsed, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) may appeal to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted in full; in order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions.

The topic ban was posted to WP:Editing restrictions with exactly the same wording as above.

Given this history, it appears to me that the Committee did not fashion a new topic ban, but simply accepted, endorsed and adopted the existing community ban. If this is correct, then RAN's topic ban forbids him "from creating new articles and from page moves".

The problems arise in trying to determine the exact meaning of this. There are, I believe, two distinct possibilities:

RAN is forbidden to create articles anywhere on Wikipedia, and is forbidden from making page moves of any kind anywhere on Wikipedia; or
RAN is forbidden to create articles in article space, but may create them in his userspace. He is forbidden from moving those articles into article space.

Obviously, these are radically different. If the first is the correct interpretation, then RAN has violated his topic ban hundreds of times by the creation of articles in his userspace, and a similar number of times by making normal page moves (i.e. those not related to his userspace articles). If the second is the case, then there have been no recent blatant violations that I am aware of, although an argument could be made that by directly encouraging movement of his userspace articles into articlespace by other editors, and by submitting articles to AfC, RAN is attempting to circumvent the topic ban through the use of proxies. That, however, is not the subject of this clarification request.

To assist in this clarification request, I plan on notifying members of the Arbitration Committee at the time of the ARBRAN decision who are not members of the current committee, in case they have insights into the Committee's thinking at the time. BMK (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I have posted neutral pointers to this request to the 11 Arbitrators who voted on Remedy 2.2 who are not current members of the committee: Carcharoth, Coren, David Fuchs, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, NuclearWarfare, Risker, SilkTork,Timotheus Canens, and Worm That Turned. AKG and Courcelles are the two current Arbs who voted on the remedy. BMK (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to Worm and SilkTork for bringing up the November 2013 clarification, which I was not aware of, even though it was probably included in a link Choor monster brought to light in the AN/I discussion. BMK (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yunshui - Could you or a clerk specifically ask RAN to respond? BMK (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

To bring everyone up to date, the AN/I thread has been closed by Spartaz, with the implementation of Carrite's suggested community ban on RAN using the "quote=" parameter. In addition, Carrite implemented SilkTork's suggestion that RAN's articles in his user space be tagged with an explanation of the reason the article was in userspace and not mainspace, and informing anyone planning on moving it of their responsibility for the article's content, including any copyvio problems.

The question remains, however, of what, exactly, RAN's primary article creation/page move topic ban means, so the closing of the AN/I thread should not cause this clarification request to be closed. I would ask that it not be permanently stalled by RAN's apparently deliberate choice not to make a statement here. BMK (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the use of the "Quote=" parameter being discussed on Jimbo's talk page is not at all central to my clarification request. What is central is the question of what RAN's topic ban means. Does it mean he can create articles in his user space but can't move them, or does it mean he can't create articles anywhere and can't move pages anywhere, or some combination of the various possibilities. Editors discussing his contributions disagree on the meaning and purpose of the ban, which is why I asked for clarification; the "quote=" discussion is a side issue. BMK (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Statement by SilkTork

We almost reached a decision to suspend the topic ban - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)/Proposed_decision#Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29.27s_topic_ban_on_article_creation, but I don't recall a discussion on allowing him to create articles in userspace, and then having someone approve of it before moving it into mainspace. I think if that option had been raised, I would have supported it, probably in preference to a suspension. The form of the topic ban, in which he was forbidden to make page moves, implies that he was allowed to create articles in draft space, but not move them into mainspace himself. It is up to the current Committee as to how to proceed; my view is that if the articles that have been created under this method are free of copyright violations, then I don't see a problem, and it would be something to be considered favourably in a future appeal. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Following Worm's example, I have moved my comment here. And thank you Worm for providing a link to the November 2013 clarification, in which I was involved. My view at the time was that if RAN were urging other editors to move his drafts into mainspace, that could be considered proxy editing as a way to circumvent his topic ban, and that a direct appeal to have the ban lifted would be more appropriate. The conclusion of the discussion was that creating articles in draftspace wasn't explicitly forbidden by the remedy, so RAN could create articles, and someone else could move them into mainspace as long as they assumed full responsibility for them. I think that was an appropriate outcome. I think it's for the present Committee to decide if an amendment needs to be made to explicitly forbid article creation in draftspace, as I think we didn't explicitly forbid it. My own current view is that allowing RAN to create articles in draftspace, and then have someone check them before moving them into mainspace, is a positive remedy as it provides the means to educate RAN on what is appropriate, and also allows the community to assess RAN's progress, which would be helpful in any future appeal. If he continues to violate copyright rules in his draftspace editing, then the ban would remain in place, and may even be extended to draftspace to prevent further waste of the community's time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have proposed that a move notice should be placed on all RAN's draftspace articles making users aware they take full responsibility if moving them into mainspace. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jbhunley

I was briefly involved in the ANI discussion that prompted this request and I supported an indef block because of his obstinate refusal to recognize there was a problem with way he was using quote= to include copyrighted text in violation of our non-free content policy. My thought being if someone does not get a clue after many others describe the problem over a period of years and they are continuing the problematic behavior then they really do not belong on a collaborative project like Wikipedia.

RAN is a prolific writer of articles and has created ~300 in his user space [1], evidently since his ban. I looked at 10 randomly and found one (1) that used quote= and was a redirect to project space; Five (2) that seem to have the problem with excessive text in quote= and four (3) not making use of quote=. The articles I looked at are below.

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Edward Everett Grosscup ==>Edward Everett Grosscup
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/John Jacob Esher, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/George Henry Payne, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Arthur von Briesen (lawyer), User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/James William McGhee, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/J. Walter Smith
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/John Milton Potter,User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Gerard Maxwell Weisberg, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Death on Birthday, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Johannes Sembach

Looking at his contributions shows me he is a prolific content creator and but for his obstinate refusal to 'get' that he should not be importing excessive quotations into articles and why doing so is bad he would be an asset to the project. The continuation of the original problem in his user space indicates to me that his ban should extent to all name spaces. The question what the original intent of the ban, and his understanding of it, was is really only relevant if he is going to be sanctioned for violating the ban. If he is not going to be sanctioned now just make it clear he may not create articles in any name space and be done.

Massive violation of the non-free content policy is not compatible with with the goals of the project. The down side of this is I hate to see what is obviously a lot of time and work, voluntarily contributed by a talent researcher, go to waste. If the articles in his user space are not going to be deleted out of hand I would be happy to, with the permission of the committee, help go through the articles and clean them up so they do not violate our content policies. Jbh ^Talk 23:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Worm That Turned

I'm happier out of that section below, the decision should be with the current committee, so I'll just comment here instead. Richard is a prolific contributor and generally an asset to Wikipedia. However, he appears to have a blind spot on how Wikipedia handles copyright. As this is such crucial area for the encyclopedia, we need to be firm on this - and Richard's arguments that his actions are "legal" are irrelevant here. Excessive use of quotes was one of the issues that was raised was with excessive quotes (Carrite's evidence), and that issue is still happening. Personally, I supported Carrite's excellent suggestion at the ANI (topic banning Rich from using quotes at least in references), and given that Carrite has followed this case closer than most, I do recommend listening to his opinion.
As for the "creating articles in his user space" issue, I do remember it being discussed - as the November 2013 clarification was specifically around the issue of pages moving from his userspace into article space. Worm^TT(talk) 08:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Coren

When we enacted this remedy, it was very clear that RAN had considerable difficulty with complying with the requirement of copyright law; and copyright violations are just as damaging regardless of which namespace they are in. My intent, when supporting that remedy, was that RAN was not to create any articles in any namespace. — Coren ^(talk) 22:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

As Worm That Turned notes above, RAN was expressly permitted to create articles in his own space per the cited November 2013 Arbitration clarification. The core of this ruling is that he could create but that anyone moving his ostensible new starts to mainspace would be doing it on their own authority and under their own responsibility that the material should be copyright clear. To my knowledge no substantial copyright violation has been committed by RAN through this process. Does the process actually work? No, there is a huge and growing backlog of RAN's unported creations and the encyclopedia is the less for it. I've made a proposal at AN/I calling for a prohibition of RAN's use of the "quote=" parameter of the citation template — which is clear "fair use" under American copyright law, but still a point of contention for the Anti-Fair Use caucus. (It's completely unnecessary and should be removed from the template itself, in my opinion, and the source of much of this latest hubbub, in my opinion). I think RAN is completely safe in his understanding and adherence of copyright, but he has his enemies, to be sure. I believe the Arbcom expectation that he should go through 50,000 nearly 10-year-old edits looking for his own copyright violations is patently absurd and should be vacated at this time in conjunction with this clarification request. If RAN doesn't truly "get" copyright and violates it, he'll be banned off almost instantaneously — he knows that, we all know that. Yet because the Contributor Copyright Investigation process does not scale and is backlogged, RAN is effectively lifetime banned from new creations via normal means for no very good reason. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Pee Ess. This is still the correct answer to the puzzle:

"...Get rid of the ill-considered topic ban on creations, which was a really bad decision in his case. Limit him to 5 starts a month for 12 months or some other reasonable number. He'll be monitored with respect to copyvio, trust me." Carrite (talk) 10:10 am, 14 November 2013

Step up to the plate and get rid of the idiotic "Must Self-Police Entire Decade of Volunteer Work For Wikipedia First" requirement... The old copyright violations were never so prolific or terrible as alleged, done is done. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf - It is an abject waste of time for me or you or Richard Norton or anyone to waste time parsing 10-year old edits, virtually all of which have been through subsequent editing by others, looking for nefarious cut-and-pasting from websites or failure to footnote in the 2015-approved manner. To repeat: an abject waste of time. It is never going to be done, ever, by anyone — so please don't pretend that this is any less absurd a requirement than chopping down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring... Greenlight Richard for a limited number of new starts per month, monitor those carefully, and ban his ass if he violates copyright. That's the solution. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
November will mark the FOUR YEAR mark since the CCI case against RAN was opened. There are cases in the queue that are nearly two years older. CCI does not scale — this queue will never be resolved. Carrite (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As I have been working through the backlog of user-space articles started by RAN I have been not only flagging each in accord with the recent AN/I decision in his case but have been removing all "quote=" quotations. Assuming these deleted cites fall within the umbrella of Fair Use under American copyright law (which is nearly certain), I have found ZERO evidence of any copyright violations in the material I have touched so far. It also seems clear that RAN has accepted the AN/I prohibition on further use of the "quote=" parameter. It makes no sense whatsoever from the perspective of building the encyclopedia to tighten sanctions on this very productive editor. Carrite (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf - Your intimation that RAN's 2014 and 2015 have copyright violations is absolutely dishonest — "no consensus that they do not"... That's completely bogus. Show me one example of copyright violation in any of those. Five bucks you can't do it without nit-picking his (soon-to-be-deleted) fair use "quote=" glosses... I'll even loan you a herring. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please re-read what I wrote, "no consensus that they do not" is accurate. Your statement that "there are no copyright violations from the last two years, if you exclude the parts where there is not a consensus that they contain no copyright problems" may or may not also be accurate, but it is a different claim and not a claim that I consider relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is completely bogus, "have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife" type phrasing. It is also equally true that "there is no consensus that they do" contain copyvio. Small sample size either way, n=0. It's an absurdity, and one phrased in a very dishonest way. I'll go further since I've been over the new 2015 material and am ready to embark on the 2014 material — there are no apparent copyvios in that, and I insist you or anyone prove me wrong before you go intimating that there is any such problem with that material. It is simply not a problem with RAN's new material outside of the controversial-and-now-prohibited "quote=" quotations he has been so fond of. We're here to build an encyclopedia, last I checked. RAN actually is doing that. Why are people impeding him? The bad edits of 2005-2008 are buried under the better part of a decade of editing by others, revisions, deletions, and changes. They're part of the sheetrock job at Wikipedia by now, spackled and painted over three times. It's absurd to expect him to waste a year of his time on the really quite unimportant job of analyzing ancient edits. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Good job, Arbcom, more brilliant INVESTIGATIVE WORK to help cap off an excellent and productive year helping build the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Andrew Davidson

Jimbo Wales recently stated that "It should be noted though that extended quotes, properly sourced, are not generally a violation of copyright. ... We have never, to my recollection and knowledge, had a legal complaint or threat of any kind about a properly sourced quote." We should therefore not be officious or bureaucratic in preventing the use of quotes when their use is being endorsed at the highest level. Andrew D. (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, please note that many of the sources in question were published before 1923 and so are now public domain in the USA. For example, in User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/John Jacob Esher, there is a quotation from the Chicago Tribune of 1901. To complain about quoting such sources is as absurd as complaining about the use of photographs from the same period. This suggests a way forward. As RAN likes to work on deceased subjects of this sort, he could perhaps stick to pre-1923 US sources and use them freely without all this fuss. The date provides a clear demarcation, which is what he would like, and there is a vast body of material of that age which will keep him busy for years. Andrew D. (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Choor monster

My involvement began when I raised the issue on ANI regarding a particular article that began as an RAN subpage. After a comedy of good faith errors that turned mildly unfunny, it seemed best to turn to ANI for help.

I believe the issue boils down to a single question. Just how absolute is our policy regarding WP:NFCCP?

I would say that, despite the words written there and quoted above, there is in fact an unstated but widely accepted gray zone. We normally do not delete non-justified fair use quotations, we bury them in the history. They remain on WP, available for any reader who knows where to look. They can be linked to from anywhere on the Internet. In particular, they are sometimes linked to in Talk discussions. Meanwhile, admin-level deletion, whether a simple RevDel or a full-scale AfD, is left for the extreme cases only.

I suggest that user subpages fall into this gray zone. They are the sort of page which you have to know where to look. You do not stumble upon them in normal browsing, and even Talk discussions rarely link to them.

Placing the two in the same gray zone does not imply identical treatment. But it does provide breathing room. Choor monster (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (RAN)

Indeed the "quote=" issue should be set aside in considering the stated question for clarification: "What was the meaning of the restriction assumed by the Committee?"

However there are additional questions:

What should the restriction say henceforth?
Has the restriction passed its sell-by date?

For these questions the "quote=" issue has some relevance. It should be understood, that "quote=" fills at least four functions, which I discussed some years ago:^{[citation needed]}

It provides concrete, albeit de-contextualised, citation support for a statement.
It relates a specific passage to a specific citation.
It provides insurance against link rot.
It provides a means of limited verification, especially important in hard to find or restricted content.

(As remarked elsewhere, copyright concerns are somewhat misplaced.)

It would seem that the "quote=" issue shows that RAN is interested in providing quality citations, providing them requires more work than not doing so, effectively refuting claims (if any such were made) that previous issues around using copyright text were born of a desire to produce articles with he least effort.

On the other hand it might be argued that RAN failed to see the writing on the wall in both these issues, and it was for that reason that sanctions were imposed, and since that has not (apparently) changed sanctions should be maintained. However even if we impute an inability to see community consensus before a restriction is imposed, there is no doubt that RAN is aware of and has understood and complied with copyright concerns of the community.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC).

Addendum

There seems to be a mistaken idea that we benefit from preventing good content being created by people who created poor content in the past. On this reckoning no-one would be editing Wikipedia (except one or two who only tell others what to do, or delete things, I suppose).

Some time ago I looked at the "examples" of alleged copyvios by this editor, and remain unconvinced by some of them. For example one was text written by a Smithsonian employee. Approximately half of their employees are funded by the federal government, and their work is PD-USA. No-one has made any effort to establish if this was the case. If the copyvios were as egregious and extensive as was claimed it should have been simple to find numerous unambiguous examples.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC).

Second addendum

I would be very interested to see a bona fide copyvio from RAN in the last few years. The vast majority of his later edits before the CCOI have been passed copyvio free, and even in the early ones true copyvios are pretty scarce.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Only in death

Someone who knows advised me it would be simple (5 minutes!) to write a bot to strip all the uses of the quote= parameter from the articles in RAN's userspace (leaving the references otherwise untouched). Since this is the primary cause of the COI material, perhaps ARBCOM could pass a motion this be done instead? Given that RAN is now prohibited from using the quote function by the community, this would resolve a lot of the issues and allow people to actually move forward without the need for excessive and time-wasting vetting of his drafts. The refs are the important bit, quotes are not needed 99% of the time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

If only it were that simple, but while the quote= may be the primary cause of copyright violating material in the recent drafts, it is not the only cause for concern in all the drafts. It does need human review. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

True, but it would be a damn sight quicker if the quote= issue was taken out of the equation. The actual backlog of articles with issues from last time still exists, there is now a backlog of *drafts* (500+ at last count I think) in his userspace due to the less than explicit wording from the previous case.. Surely the prime purpose of any alterations in his restrictions at this point (since no one is willing to pull the trigger and go for an outright ban despite RAN's unrepentant refusal to obey consensus on this issue) is to reduce the backlog of RAN-related issues? How does the below do that? Preventative measures have had no effect previously, so why not try doing something to actually clean up the mess? Relying on some outside influence to get RAN to do his own cleanup is folly, he has no intention to, has made no efforts to, and is not going to just because an additional restriction is placed on top. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Yunshui, the problem which you seem to be missing is not that quote use may or may not be a copyright violation, its that RAN's use of it certainly violated the use of non-free content. Non-free quotes have to be short and provide detail that could not otherwise be paraphrased or explained without the quote (in context). Extensive quotes are prohibited. RAN's use of quoted text was not even in the article as read, he used (and still does in his userspace) excessively long quote= that added nothing to the article. Even a short quote of non-free text would generally not be used in that situation. RAN's issue is that despite being repeatedly told time and again his extensive use of non-free content violated wikipedia's policies he has shown no inclination to stop and has just moved from doing it in article space to doing it in his userspace. Policy and the non-free use guidelines are very clear on this. Enforcement on this has been consistant for years. RAN either argues his additions are not a violation, or that they are a violation but not according to US copyright law so he doesnt have to obey wikipedia's policies. The first has been rejected soundly by the community repeatedly over a number of years. The second has been rejected as irrelevant as wikipedia's policies and guidelines are by neccessity, stricter than the law allows for. All of the above is merely explanatory and could be gleaned from 5 mins looking at the past cases, and discussions, and restrictions placed on RAN. At this point RAN is community banned from using quote= at all anywhere because he cannot be trusted to use correct judgement in line with wikipedia policy in his use of it. His past articles have extensive problems, his drafts have the same issues. Literally every single one has to be checked, line by line in some cases due to his past history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Because this really is getting old now:

2006

2010

2015 Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2015 (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.

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Clerk notes

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

I've moved Coren's section to their own section. The Arb section below is for the current Committee. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Per a recent discussion on the clerks' mailing list I've removed qualifiers ("ex-arb") from section headers, if you'd like to make it clear that you're commenting from that perspective could you please say so at the beginning of your statement. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Copyright violations are possibly the most damaging things to include in Wikipedia, regardless of where they are. The December 2014-January 2015 amendment request was declined because there was no evidence of him doing the "substantial work" on clearing the backlog of his CCI, and there appears to have been none since, rather more copyright issues have been introduced. Accordingly I believe that we should be clarifying/amending the restriction to disallow all article and article draft creations in all namespaces and disallow all moves of pages into the article namespace by him or at his request/encouragement. Anyone else may move pages he has created, but they must explicitly take full responsibility for any copyright violations on any page they move. This would last indefinitely but may be appealed when (a) all draft articles in his userspace and all pages he authored in the draft namespace have been verified free of copyright violations or deleted; and (b) he presents evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions. I will propose a motion to this effect if my colleagues agree with my opinion and think such clarification is required. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Carrite: As was made clear in the most recent ammendment request, we do not expect RAN to go through his entire contribution history, we expect him to undertake substantial work towards clearing his CCI backlog. To date we have seen evidence of almost zero work towards clearing it and so I will vote against any proposal to remove the requirement or relax the restriction until that changes. If you believe the encyclopaedia is poorer without RAN's creations, you are free to confirm they contain no copyright problems and move them yourself, until that time please do not complain that others are not doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I largely agree with Thryduulf. Before considering scaling back any restrictions, I want to see that the existing issues have been addressed, meaning that RAN has made substantial efforts toward addressing the previous problems, and has done so properly. The point here, to be quite blunt, was that RAN was to help clearing up the issues he caused, and I won't consider relaxing the restrictions until substantial effort is made toward that. If instead it's more of the same in a different namespace, we may need to make the creation ban apply to all namespaces until the existing issues are addressed. I do agree that the original restriction was not on all namespaces, so if we decide that's needed it would require an amendment motion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm awaiting comments from RAN before making any decision, but I would note that I can't see any clear evidence that he's fully accepted the community's views on extensive quotations/copyvios at this time. I would like to hear an explanation of his current understanding of the copyvio policy before accepting or denying this request. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I've asked RAN to respond here, but note that he's already done so at JimboTalk. Still considering. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look as though we're going to get a response, so here's my take on BMK's original request: As I read the wording of the sanction, it allows RAN to create drafts in userspace, but prohibits him from moving them to mainspace. This may not have been the intention of the original drafters of the wording, but it was confirmed to be the approved interpretation in the 2013 clarification and I see no reason to differ from the consensus arrived at there. If there is to be a proposal to amend the sanction so as to explicitly prohibit the creation of drafts, this would need to take place by motion, but I for one would not support it. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

By way of clarification, RAN's ban allows him to create articles in his userspace, but not to move them to mainspace. And, regarding the proposal to lift the restriction, I am opposed. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Thryduulf on this one, and it does seem that a new motion will be required. I don't think RAN should be working on new material while there is outstanding material that needs to be cleared. 12:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC) previous unsigned comment added by Doug Weller

Motion: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Remedy 2.2 of the Richard Arthur Norton (1958 - ) case is struck and replaced by:

2.3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") is indefinitely prohibited from:

Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace.
Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace.

7 Other editors may move pages created or substantially edited by RAN, but only if they explicitly take responsibility for any copyright violations on that page.

This remedy may be appealed after the later of 6 months and when all draft articles he has authored, in his userspace and in the draft namespace, have been verified free of copyright violations and moved to the article namespace by other editors or deleted. In order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCI) filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions.

Any article or draft article created contrary to this restriction will result in a block, initially of at least one month and then proceeding per the enforcement provisions. The article or draft article may be speedily deleted under criterion G5 by any administrator.

Any page moves made contrary to this restriction may be enforced by blocks per the enforcement provisions. The page move may be reversed by any editor able to do so.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC) as proposer
Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand Yunshui's concerns, so my vote, at least, does not reflect any thought on exactly how the "quote" parameter should be used. It is, rather, that RAN is still and yet creating articles that are at least in a grey area as copyright and nonfree content use go. The spirit (if not the letter) of the original ruling was that RAN was to help clean up the mess, that being, substantially work on the CCI, before returning to such activity, and that it would be wise for him to stay well clear of the line when it comes to copyright and nonfree material, not try to dance right along it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
AGK [•] 23:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
(see comments) Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Brings this more in line with the intent of the original ruling. This is potentially more restrictive than necessary but I think with the substantial number of borderline copyright cases this is the best solution at this time. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. this was the intent of the original restriction. I'd like to reconsider this eventually, but I think we need to see progress make on the original problems first. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC) .

Oppose

I can't get behind this. Unless someone can show me either clear evidence of copyright violations in RAN's recent drafts, or clear consensus/policy that use of the quote parameter violates WP:COPYVIO, I'm opposed to tightening the existing restrictions. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

RAN's drafts need to be individually examined for copyright violations - whether they contain them or not (and there is no consensus in the community that they do not). This motion is required to stop the backlog of contributions needing to be examined growing faster than it can be cleared, and to try again to get RAN to do the substantial work towards clearing his CCI that he needs to do. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Equally, I see no community consensus that they do. My concern is that this skirts the fringes of policy-by-fiat; if we decide that the use of quote in these drafts constitutes a copyright violation, we are effectively amending the copyvio policy to that effect. I am not convinced that the current policy's interpretation should be so broad as to encompass this, and it certainly isn't our place to make changes to it. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not about the quote parameter, which is why it is not mentioned at all in the motion. I have no opinion at all on whether it is a good or bad thing in the general case. This is, per Seraphimblade, about RAN continuing to create work for other editors without even attempting to help clean up the backlog he has already left. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of the evidence of more recent copyright problems. Show me some, and I'd support this. Courcelles (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the restriction recently imposed by the community should be enough to curb the disruption caused by RAN. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

As best as I can tell, we're sitting on a motion at 5-1 when the subject of the motion has not been formally notified of it. I'm going to ask the clerks to do a round of notifications. Courcelles (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Jumping to the comments section to lay out my position, so that the Oppose section doesn't get too crowded... @Thryduulf: I do get where you're coming from with regards to reducing the workload on other editors with this motion. However, as I understand it, the primary reason for the copyright complaints made against RAN is the "excessive" quotation from sources. I am unsure whether this constitutes a clear violation of the copyright policy, and it seems to me that the community is too: some argue that long quotations are a copyright violation, others that they are not. There appears to be no clear consensus. It is therefore unclear to me whether there actually has been any consistent history of copyright violation in RAN's contributions. I do not think it's possible to make any meaningful headway with the CCI until this question is resolved - if the overuse of quotations is a copyright violation, then this motion has merit and I would vote in favour of it. If the use of quotations is not a copyright violation, then unless a pattern of other text-based copyvios can be demonstrated, the CCI is moot. I am not happy imposing a prohibition on draft creation until that issue is decided. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection and having reviewed some of the history more closely this morning, I'm starting to think that I've focussed too heavily on this one aspect of the case. There are other copyright concerns that need have been raised, and taking those into account, I've become convinced that the best course of action for Wikipedia is to pass this motion. It may not be entirely fair to RAN, but Wikipedia isn't benefitting from contributions tha have to be checked like this, and ultimately it's the good of the project that we need to consider. Striking my opoosition, and moving to support. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Cirt and Jayen466 (October 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Cirt at 05:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Cirt and Jayen466 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 1

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

Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

diff of notification Jayen466
diff of notification The Rambling Man

Information about amendment request

Remedy 1

Amendment to allow Quality improvement project for one (1) article which I previously improved to WP:GA = Typewriter in the Sky.

Statement by Cirt

I'd like to respectfully ask the Committee to amend the case to allow me to work on further improving the quality of one (1) article I'd previously brought to WP:GA, namely: Typewriter in the Sky.
I've served the Wikipedia community for the past four (4) years since the closure of the case by working on Quality improvement projects — successfully bringing many articles to Good Article and Featured Article quality.
In the interim since the closure of the case I've been placed under the mentorship of The Rambling Man and under this guidance, successfully taken a page approved by the Arbitration Committee, to Featured List quality. See: (Motion by Arbitration Committee) and (promotion of page to Featured List quality)
In addition I've focused on quality improvement projects to bring articles to higher levels of quality — this has resulted successfully in five (5) Featured Articles, two (2) Featured Lists, and thirty (30) Good Articles, among other types of quality contributions.

My thanks to the Committee for revisiting this case after my four (4) years of Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia — and considering my appeal request for an exemption on one (1) article, Typewriter in the Sky. — Cirt (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

Statement by The Rambling Man

I'm more than happy to help Cirt here, and also more than happy to be contacted by any member of the community who may believe that Cirt has over-stepped any particular mark with regard to editing this particular article. I actually trust that Cirt will not do anything to jeopardise their standing here and I'm also minded to thank them for the manner in which this situation has been conducted. To whit, I am happy to act as Cirt's mentor, moreover I am happy to take full responsibility for anything that Cirt may do as I actually implicitly and totally trust this editor. Happy to answer any questions Arbcom/the community has to offer. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: No, I have no experience of editing Scientology articles but I have a reasonable awareness of the organisation, the history, the people involved and the controversies surrounding it. I have plenty of experience in rooting out POV editing, I'm very cautious in all of my own content creation to maintain a neutral perspective, of course. In the previous round of mentoring, Cirt was very keen and open to me about each and every proposed edit he wanted to make, so I have no worries in that regard. Plus, the offer I made in my previous statement stands, if I'm prepared to take full responsibility for Cirt's edits, there should be no problem. After all, we have undo/rollback, admins to block us and 'crats to remove any/all privileges. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: I've done you the courtesy of answering your query, the least you can do is respond in kind here, even if your opinion is entirely moot. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

If nothing else, I would be willing to at least provide any information I can regarding reviews of the books and discussions of it in the various sources I can find to those involved. Having said that, this article is, at best, peripherally related to what seems to be the central subject of the sanctions, which may have been regarding the philosophy of Hubbard and Scientology proper, and it seems to me anyway that the possibility or probability of there existing even much real motivation to slant this particular article too strongly one way or another would be at best less than productive, and that Cirt would probably know that and be unwilling to damage himself by engaging in problematic conduct on this article. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding questions of subtle POV pushing, I am aware of some of the issues involved with that and Scientology, and, although my own credibility in this matter may be seen as limited, and I certainly don't want to try to take responsibility for anyone else's edits like TRM is generous enough to do above, I can try to at least point out anything I see which might strike me as being maybe less than neutral. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax

Per Courcelles, I would like Cirt to be released from sanctions entirely. Knowing TRM to be a stern taskmaster (with whom I sometimes strongly disagree) Cirt will be under supervision and I'm sure a strong net positive to the project. Jus da fax 00:02, 23 October 2015 (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.

Cirt and Jayen466: Clerk notes

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

Cirt and Jayen466: Arbitrator views and discussion

I'd like to hear from The Rambling Man before deciding on this - particularly whether, if the request is granted, he would be prepared to act in the same role with regards this article as he did with respect to the featured list. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
This seems a pretty straightforward up or down vote, so I've proposed a motion accordingly. I see no significant issue given that TRM is willing to supervise again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Question for @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the offer to mentor. May I ask please what direct experience you have of editing within the Scientology topic and whether are you familiar with likely sources? Did you, by any chance, follow the Wifione case, which has parallels with the type of POV pushing that Cirt has previously engaged in both the New Religious Movements topic and in BLPs? And how confident are you that you will be able to determine whether POVs are being subtly pushed? Roger Davies ^talk 12:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: My apologies. I thought I had responded within an hour or so of you posting. I must've not saved ... Apologies again, Roger Davies ^talk 02:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Cirt and Jayen466

1) Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt (talk · contribs) may edit the article Typewriter in the Sky, its talk page, and pages related to a peer review, good article or featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be revoked by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Cirt fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards while editing under the exemption. Appeal of such a revocation would be through the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Given TRM's vote of confidence and willingness to act as a supervisor I see no reason not to support this. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This goes nowhere near as far as I'd like to go, which would be the total parole of this sanction. Courcelles (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Support per Thryduulf. Doug Weller (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense & I cannot see how it is likely to do any harm DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
L Faraone 21:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Awaiting response from TRM. While in principle I am not opposed to a single article exemption, I do wish the edits to be closely supervised (and preferably viewed with a degree of scepticism by the supervisor). Roger Davies ^talk 12:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: India-Pakistan (October 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Js82 at 09:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Topic banned from edits in any namespace and any pages related to Indian religions, broadly construed

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

Js82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

diff of notification SpacemanSpiff

Information about amendment request

Topic banned from edits in any namespace and any pages related to Indian religions, broadly construed

revocation of the sanction

Statement by Js82

UPDATE OCT 18 20:41 Greenwich Time: I am deciding to withdraw my amendment request. I do however wish to retain this application and my below statement as a means of having officially lodged a protest, and to appeal to the committee members to consider removal of Sikhism and other religious pages from the purview of India-Pakistan arbitration clauses.

If this is not acceptable, please let me know. Thank you.

A 6 month sanction has been imposed, related to Indian religions, broadly construed, citing "disruptive editing and an inability to collaborate with other editors". I feel this is completely unjust, and motivated by a deep-rooted desire to subdue a voice that does not conform with the personal views of some of the editors who overwhelmingly "control" these pages, and mostly act in groups to harass and torment new/differing view point editors.

On the actual pretext of "disruptive editing and inability to collaborate": I had joined Wikipedia in Aug 2015, and I understand that my edits for some period of time appeared disruptive (which Wikipedia itself agrees may happen with new editors). However, after I was blocked for a week last month, I have been careful and understanding of Wikipedia policies. In fact, over the last 25 days, I have only made very few edits (restricted to Sikhism page only), and have not engaged in any edit-warring. If anything, I have presented my views on the talk page, and moved away from a discussion where no headway seemed possible, rather than persisting with my POV. How can this be construed as "disruptive editing and non-collaboration" ? In the one case where there were differing views, it was actually one of the other editors (Ms Sarah Welch) who edit-warred. See Here. In the most recent instance, again, I had made only one edit, following which I have been engaging only in talk page discussions. Again, the user Ms Sarah Welch has made numerous edits within the past 24 hours itself, without getting any consensus at all. See Here. And the end result is, I am banned for "inability to cooperate" ? Citing an issue that has been discussed for less than 24 hours yet, where I gave no indication whatsoever of not being open to collaboration ?

My main interest here has been to improve Sikhism related articles. I feel that barring someone from editing Sikhism articles, under the pretext of an "India-Pakistan Arbitration" is highly contentious. India Pakistan may have territorial conflicts on Kashmir, etc, (which I presume is the reason for the arbitration powers), but what has that got to do with Sikhism? Further, Sikhism is in no way restricted to India and Pakistan (more than 5 million Sikhs live outside India), so how can this be justified ? One purpose it does serve though is to provide admins and editors with a Indian/Hinduism background or interests (who are present aplenty here, as opposed to those from Sikh background) the discretionary powers to shoot out and subdue voices that do not conform with their own POVs about Sikhism.

Finally, I have issues with even assuming Mr. Spiff to be an uninvolved admin. Right from the day I joined Wikipedia (when I had no idea how it works), he has been hounding and harassing me. Till very recently, he has been bringing up my actions from the first few days as evidence of my disruptive editing. How dishonest is that. Further, last month, he instigated an inquiry into my actions, based on false accusations, as I had exposed Here and Here. He never bothered responding to these false accusations, despite my repeated prompting. End result was, I was blocked for a week for personal attacks.

I would like to conclude by stating that the committee would likely see a barrage of negative posts here from some of the editors who dominate India/Hindu/Indian religion related articles. These should be treated with caution, as these editors are hand in glove in their ulterior motives to get me banned.

Js82 (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Salvio and other members: You state that "Unfortunately, South Asian topics have, historically, ...". This is precisely my point: The entire Sikh religion (and for that matter Buddhism Jainism etc) should not be construed as South Asian topics. I understand there is historical and cultural relation, but that's about it. In the contemporary world, it does not seem reasonable at all to limit these global religions to India/South Asia. If anything, these should be included in a arbitration under some "religion related" clauses (I am assuming one exists here). And to reiterate what I said above, covering all these religions under the purview of India-Pakistan discretion only gives editors and admins who are active in India/South Asia pages unjustifiable powers to tacitly impose their own views and POVs on these otherwise global religions. What this does in effect is make any new editors (like myself) who join Wikipedia with an honest intention of improving articles on Sikhism feel suffocated and hounded in face of these unjustified discretionary powers.

To quote, from the very same first reference that has been used to actually even justify the the term "Indian religions"

At a more profound level, geographical classifications are unacceptable because they have nothing to do with the essential constitutive elements of religion. The physical location of a religious community reveals little of the specific religious life of the group. Though useful for some purposes, geographical classifications contribute minimally to the task of providing a systematic understanding of human religions and religiousness. Adams, C. J., Classification of religions: Geographical, Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007

As an example, to further point out the flaws and the misleading nature of such geographical prominence, I quote:

By this test Sikhism, though born in India is "a religion of the West" in texture and temper, being non-idolatrous, prophetic and revelatory Kapur Singh. Parasaraprasna. Guru Nanak Dev University Press. ISBN 81-7770-014-6.

I hope that all the members here would debate my amendment appeal critically. Js82 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point further, but again, as another example, because of this "India-Pakistan" arbitration sanction, I am unable to edit articles like Gurudwara (a Sikh place of worship) ? What have editing privileges for a Gurudwara article got to do with an India-Pakistan arbitration ? And coming to my particular case, the last topic we were debating just before sanctions were imposed was to do with the revelatory nature of Sikhism (Please see relevant talk page discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sikhism#Revelation_again_and_WP:BRD). Again, what has this got to do with an India-Pakistan arbitration. Editors and admins who have very limited knowledge, at best, of religion have unjustifiable powers to impose sanctions on topics related to religion, simply because they are active in India/Pakistan topics ?

The more I think of all this, the more unjust all of this seems. I do hope there would be a redressal here. Js82 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SpacemanSpiff

This isn't new, it's been happening since day 1, and a classic case of WP:IDHT. I came across this on WP:AN3 -- Sardarji joke where Js82 (as an IP first and then as an account) was editing against consensus and blocked the IP and then the account. Point in time snapshots of the user talk page show the various warnings on issues spanning copyright violations, edit warring, original research, NPOV, personal attacks etc across multiple articles. I have sought a second opinion from NeilN in the past regarding this as I have been unable to get through to the user, but sadly that doesn't seem to have helped either. There has been an enormous amount of discussion at various talk pages ([2], [3], [4] -- the full page from those sections provides the necessary context). Today it was this response to a critique of sources. Given the editing pattern and behavior since creation of the account, unless the editor shows that they can adhere to policies and guidelines in other areas, this sanction is necessary. Please ping me if you need any clarification. —SpacemanSpiff 10:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: Islam and Christianity would not be included but Islam in India and Christianity in India would be, this is per the AC motion listed at WP:ARBIPA. —SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough (IPA)

I do encourage User:Js82 to withdraw the request, and take the six months to learn about how Wikipedia works. There is every chance that had the topic ban not been considered available a similar length block would have been used.

But I am concerned with the interpretation of "broadly construed".

"Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed."

If we are to include the major religions of the region, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam and Christianity, we are including 98% of all our religious articles, at a guess. And that is only one facet of knowledge

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 19 October 2015 (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.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

Decline Indian religions are in the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorization. Based on the information provided, the sanction in question seems appropriate. "They started it", even if true, does not give one a pass on civility or disruption. L Faraone 20:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The appeal has been withdrawn, so there is no need to focus on that issue. On the other hand, concerning the request to amend the original case, to unauthorise discretionary sanctions for edits relating to Sikhism and other religions, I am not inclined to accede.
Unfortunately, South Asian topics have, historically, proven to be rather contentious and to flare up unexpectedly (for the best example of this, see the articles about castes), and that is why ArbCom was forced to authorise discretionary sanctions in the first place. In light of that, I'm not really in favour of limiting the scope of DS in that area, as I don't see how that would possibly be beneficial. And, though many Sikhs may not live in India today, the (historical and cultural) link between India and Sikhism is strong enough that, in my opinion, it justifies the inclusion of the topic among the ones covered by WP:ARBIPA. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Salvio. Sikhism is clearly covered as things stand today, and I don't see a good reason to change that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Formal decline although I see the request is withdrawn. Doug Weller (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No comment on the appeal, as that has been withdrawn. Decline the amendment request re Sikhism per Salvio. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Waenceslaus (October 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Waenceslaus at 16:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Longevity topic related articles

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

Waenceslaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Longevity topic related articles

Kind request of the user Waenceslaus to get un-topic-banned in the field of longevity.

Statement by Waenceslaus

Greetings, I am a Wikipedian from Poland since June 17, 2014. My main area of interest is the study of extreme longevity. I have been topic banned in August of 2015 on the basis of misunderstanding regarding the consideration of reliability of sources used for the topic related articles. Being unaware of new settings, I reverted a destructive edit which removed a source that has always been considered as reliable and as a result my account was topic-banned for all the longevity related articles. I consider this decision as very unfortunate for the reason that it has been forced too fast so that I didn't have an opportunity neither to say anything in my defense nor explain the position I took. Over the past year of my activity in this area, I have made many constructive edits as seen in my contributions' page. Furthermore, I have created many new articles related in the topic area such as List of Polish supercentenarians, Aleksandra Dranka, List of Czech supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary, List of supercentenarians born in the Russian Empire, List of supercentenarians from the Nordic countries, List of supercentenarians from Asia, List of supercentenarians of the Caribbean, List of supercentenarians from Oceania, Maria Pogonowska. I believe that I brought much for this branch with my work and I am still willing to contribute further. Therefore my kind plea. Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

This appeal should go elsewhere. The ban was *not* under discretionary sanctions. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#Topic ban for Waenceslaus.

This was a regular community topic ban imposed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in August, 2015. It's been entered in WP:RESTRICT. The editor was notified here on user talk. There are discretionary sanctions provided under the Longevity case but FP did not use them. So unless Arbcom thinks there was something abusive here, there is nothing for User:Waenceslaus to appeal in this forum. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2015 (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.

Waenceslaus: Clerk notes

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

Waenceslaus: Arbitrator views and discussion

Decline as a valid community sanction --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Decline Valid community sanction, that even if we could overturn, I see absolutely no reason why it should be. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Technically, this is the wrong venue, as appeals of community sanctions should go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case; then again, as far as I'm concerned, there's no point in moving this thread there, since I don't see any reason for us to overturn the sanction. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Decline. While theoretically we can review community sanctions, we would only overturn them in cases where there were very serious issues. Even if filed properly, there isn't any chance we would overturn this one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Per Ed Johnston. On the basis that there wasn't anything abusive, decline. NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Decline per Salvio. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Decline. L Faraone 21:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Decline Doug Weller (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Decline per EdJohnston. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Shall I even pile on? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Banning Policy (November 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Hell in a Bucket at 02:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Banning Policy 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

Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[5]
[6]

Information about amendment request

Banned users

I'd request verification that banned users mean site-banned users.

Recidivism

Enact a 1rr restriction on Smallbones for reverting or removing registered account comments not site-banned or Arb restricted.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

Smallbones is acting as judge jury and executioner on Jimbos page with editors in good standing. The rationale for edit warring to remove User:Sitush comments is [7] and when further asked he used Jimbos comment about TheKohser as a justification for his removal as well. The reverts are [8], [9], [10] and a fourth I previously missed [11]. Now after I left two nicely worded non templated warnings [12] for refactoring or removing a non banned user's comment and on the 3rd revert a 3rr warning [13]. His last response after the 3rr warning was "Read the case again". Now I miss things quite often and because a central part of wikipedia is discussing and coming to a consensus I asked what part? His response was to disinvite me from his talk page with the bad faith accusation that I just wanted to argue. Everything, literally everything I have said in this discourse was amiable and very civil. I contested his removal, Sitush contested the removal but as you can see the only judge that Smallbones is willing to listen to is JImbo and that basically he can do what he pleases [14]. I think a 1rr restriction on registered users unless a clear BLP issue or vandalism is warranted due to past history and doesn't effect his ability to revert actual ban evasion if needed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

As an addendum the recent comments really highlight why Smallbones should take the break.

"I thought his bringing the case and his handling of it was frivolous, just like his current request is. If he wants to bow out of the case, he should do it forever." The pages on arbitration state very clearly that if a person is having difficulty maintaining composure they should take a leave. I did that, nowhere does it state an editor renounces any right to act on problems relating to that issue later. It also certainly does not crown him as the sole wielder of the Jimbo talkpage sword of justice either.
" I remove comments by trolls and banned users because I believe they are trying to prevent myself and others from calmly discussing the issues." Refer to sole wielder of the Jimbo talkpage sword of justice
"If Jimmy disagrees with my moderation of his talk page, I'll gladly stop." Refer to comment that Jimbo is the judge of his actions, not the community that was in place on that page

I certainly think that there are issues if Smallbones find these issues to be completely reasonable reactions when his opinion holds no more weight then mine or Sitush's but when multiple people disagree it is time to rely on the others around you in the community to help enforce those, especially in controversial actions such as this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User: Euryalus, I considered the 3rr board as a possibility but choose this venue as this apparently was the venue that User:Smallbones preferred. In last years case a warning was issued to both SB and myself. Read the [here]. So needlessly [inflammatory rhetoric] confirmed (also a BLP violation) and I've illustrated there are at least 4 occasions with just this one incident where there was the edit war. Smallbones stated that the banning case established he was well with his rights to revert established editors and when asked which part his response was ["Read the case again"]. I followed his request to elevate it to the appropriate noticeboard and as he was claiming this was covered under this case the clarification became nec. and also combined with the rhetoric, intransigence and the edit warring behaviors, a sanction may be needed. I thought that maybe it might be time to restrict his actions to a 1rr for established editors that are not banned. No one is stating that he should lose his ability to revert banned users. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye7, I have no disagreements with this statement you made "editors have been blocked by admins for violations of this". I asked quite clearly [take the issue to the appropriate noticeboard]. Smallbones is not an admin, hopefully he will never be, but until that time when multiple editors say the same thing maybe it's time to involve one. I attempted to do this without involving anyone but Smallbones as was right and proper. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales has stated outright he approves of User:Smallbones taking liberties on his talkpage. I'll leave my opinions on his integrity in this situation and many other situations to myself and ask that this be closed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Smallbones

I have to be quick here, and will put in diffs later if requested. User:Hell in a Bucket requested the case last year and then disappeared from it stating in essence "Give me any sanctions you want, I don't care." [15] I thought his bringing the case and his handling of it was frivolous, just like his current request is. If he wants to bow out of the case, he should do it forever.

The main item of contention last year IMHO was how Jimmy wanted to handle his talk page. My understanding of the final result was (in my words) "Everybody's talk pages are subject to Wikipedia rules, but editors are given wide latitude on their own talk pages. Jimbo should have especially wide latitude on his talk page and he leaves moderation of that page to others." This fits with what Jimmy said in his opening statement to the case, and it fits with what he said yesterday and today at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Bans

The only mention of this in the final decision last year was

Findings of fact

Jimbo Wales' talk page

1) Jimbo Wales has stated that issues can be raised at his talk page without the user's being accused of forum-shopping[18]. Between July 2012[19] and August 2014[20], his talk page stated that he had an "Open door policy". He has also often left moderation of his user page to others.[21]

Today Jimmy stated (all this is on Jimmy's talk page, same section) "I generally support the idea that if people have a problem, they should be able to approach me here without getting into trouble for "canvassing" and the like. But there are limits, and we are not required to have unlimited patience for people who are not prepared to behave in an appropriate manner. I acknowledge the difficulty that GorillaWarfare identifies and the main thing about it is that no one is going to get into trouble for removing trolling from my user page. As another example, anything from "Mr. 2001" should be deleted immediately - he's not here to build an encyclopedia, he's here to wage his nearly 10 year obsessive campaign against me."

That seems entirely clear to me.

Today Jimmy told Sitush "Please go away then" and last year Jimmy said I have asked Sitush to behave better or stay off my talk page.

It appears to be the case that Jimmy thinks that Sitush is trolling on his talk page. I think that as well.

Please note that I do not claim any special status on User talk:Jimbo Wales. I am not trying to protect Jimmy - he can do that himself. I remove comments by trolls and banned users because I believe they are trying to prevent myself and others from calmly discussing the issues.

If you have any questions on whether this is consistent with what Jimmy wants for his talk page, I'll suggest you contact Jimmy (probably email would be best), which is what he suggests on his talk page. [16]

"if anyone wants to remove them (the comments), I won't complain and will defend that action as being consistent with maintaining this page as a useful forum." - Jimbo

(I added (the comments)) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If Jimmy disagrees with my moderation of his talk page, I'll gladly stop.

HIAB's request is entirely frivolous. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay and John Carter: If you want to tell Jimmy what he must do, you can tell Jimmy himself on his talkpage. If you want to make a request you'll probably get a better reception. His talk page is also the place to do this, but you do understand, I hope, that if you make a request it implies that you will accept his decision.

Perhaps it would be better to try to convince arbcom what you think Jimmy must do; and have them impose that decision on him. But I think they will keep their current hands-off policy there.

So that pretty much leaves us to follow what Jimmy has actually said. I'm almost certain I'm correctly interpreting what he's written, but Jimmy can tell me himself if he thinks I'm misinterpreting it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

Plausible deniability: Jimbo's specialism is evident in this confusion. Smallbones assumes a certain reading of his words that in fact are ambiguous. There is a significant conditional with the or in one statement and a peculiar contextual use of then in the other. In between times, he completely misread the events leading up to the first statement - my use of the word "hysteria" as a descriptor, which was blown by others into a ridiculous full-on misogyny claim - and he failed to respond to an email after some discussion on my talk page.

Smallbones, despite their assertion, is scarcely neutral when it comes to determining who is or is not "trolling". They're at the heart of the GGTF stuff and, well, they cannot parse the English language let alone spot the cultural differences. I've never trolled in my life and am not going to start doing so now. Back off Smallbones and let Jimbo do what he should be doing. If he hasn't got the time or inclination to do so (he often disappears due to other commitments at what might sometimes be considered convenient moments) then that is just more support for my opinion that his talk page here should be deactivated (full protected) and if necessary moved to Meta. Arbs have in recent cases expressed concern about how he uses that talk page - he needs to be told this explicitly because he is using people in a way that is detrimental to the project. They are just either (a) not seeing it or (b) in cahoots with the Master Plan that is "Friendly Space". This is an encyclopaedia project, not a social engineering project. - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jimbo Wales

I strongly commend and warmly thank Smallbones for his excellent assistance in helping to keep my user talk page useful as a place where thoughtful and reasonable dialogue about the project can proceed productively.

Sitush has, in his own comments here, illustrated exactly why he's banned from posting to my talk page. First, he says "I've never trolled in my life and am not going to start doing so now." But then he continues with an absurd allegation and insult which is not in any way true: "(he often disappears due to other commitments at what might sometimes be considered convenient moments)" and continues with an outrageous and unsupportable proposal that my talk page "should be deactivated (full protected) and if necessary moved to Meta".

There is a much better solution. Sitush, go away. Stay away. Don't come and further bring down the tone of the discussion on my user talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

IMHO, only Jimbo Wales should decide as to who can/can't post on his talkpage. If he has authorized others to make that decision? then clarification is required on that authorization. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Response: Again, if Jimbo has authorized others to remove posts from his talkpage? Then clarification from him, would be helpful. BTW, it's GoodDay :) GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've asked Jimbo what he wants done on his talkpage, concerning this issue. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

After having read Jimbo's statement, I recommend this amendment request be rejected. The talkpage deletions-in-question, have been approved by the talkpage's owner. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I think it is not unreasonable to have some indications on Jimbo's talk page regarding matters of conduct, including removal of posts, there. I know over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention after some recent matters a number of editors, myself included, were specifically told that we could act in a similar way regarding counterproductive posts there. I think it would be in everyone's interests if @Jimbo Wales: were to designate, in one way or another, editors who have his authorization to perform maintenance edits on his talk page. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that anything I said here or on Jimbo's talk page could be seen as indicating that I think he "must" do anything, and rather object to the implicit presumption in that statement. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7

Per WP:NOBAN: If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request. Traditionally, we have permitted users to ban other users from their talk pages (WP:NOBAN), and to remove comments as they see fit. (WP:REMOVE) Editors have no right to comment on other users' talk pages, and editors have been blocked by admins for violations of this. This case is entirely without merit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (BP)

Jimbo Wales If User talk:Jimbo Wales is merely for discussing Jimbo Wales' edits to Wikipedia, then I have no objection to him "banning" people from his talk page, and very little to his talk-page stalkers implementing that ban.

If, on the other hand, it is to remain one of the central discussion pages, then to ban people from it is a bad idea. It is a worse idea when they are being discussed on the page - "Go away, we are talking about you, not with you." is a wholly unacceptable attitude.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Coretheapple

It's deeply disturbing to see an editor being forced into this kind of ridiculous and unnecessary proceeding. I don't endorse Smallbones's efforts to police Jimbo's talk page, not because he is wrong but because of precisely this kind of nonsense. What I would suggest is that Arbcom rule that Jimbo and only Jimbo can initiate proceedings like this involving his talk page, and that Arbcom take appropriate measures against the editor who brought this case to prevent a repetition. If that does not happen, then I would respectfully suggest to Smallbones that he desist from helping out Jimbo, however justified it may be. It just is not worth the trouble. Coretheapple (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2015 (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.

Banning Policy: Clerk notes

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

Banning Policy: Arbitrator views and discussion

@Everyone: apologies, am not clear in what you're seeking here. If you would like Arbcom to set some rules for the use of Jimbo's talk page by blocked/banned editors, then i would argue to decline as the current circumstance seems clear enough - Jimbo is happy to allow some latitude for good-faith and uselful comments by blocked/banned users but not including obvious trolling or harassment, and not including any specific editor like Mr 2001 that Jimbo directly declares unwelcome. If you're seeking action over a specific instance of overly aggressive removal of comments, the stifling of discussion and/or an action against consensus, it's something that might more directly be addressed at ANI than here. This is not an opinion on the rights or wrongs of this incident, it's a comment on the request that Arbcom resolve it rather than any other forum. Overall, absent any further advice from Jimbo himself I'd say the retention or removal of comments on his talkpage depends on the discretion of individual editors, which cannot be satisfactorily codified in an Arbcom decision and breaches of which should be taken through the usual dispute resolution channels. But if I've missed some key point, please let me know. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Decline as Jimbo has clarified above who is permitted to contribute to his talk page, and specifically endorsed Smallbones' removal of comments. Seems nothing left to be discussed here as this seems a routine application of policy regarding user talk pages. However, this treats the page as a regular talkpage - it needs to be accompanied by a general acceptance that WP should not (or no longer) be using it as a general dispute resolution forum. - Euryalus (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline Jimbo's clarified his position. I don't see anything here that we could or should do. Doug Weller (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to be done here. Jimmy has the same right as any other editor to ban others from his talk page. That being said, it is in very poor taste to criticize someone in a venue where they may not respond. I would hope not to see that in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline. Jimmy has the same right to ban people from his talk page every other editor does. I too though take a dim view of criticising someone in a venue where you know they may not respond, and I would encourage the community to sanction those who repeatedly do so (for example by enacting topic or interaction bans). @Rich Farmbrough: Jimmy's talk page exists in its current form only because Jimmy allows it to be used that way - it has no official standing; further, anyone may be banned (by arbcom or the community) from any discussion space where their presence is disruptive regardless of it's official status. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline Jimbo can control his talk page. If he permits someone else to control it,that's his decision. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Callanecc at 06:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 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:

Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]
[diff of notification Beyond My Ken]

Statement by Callanecc

I am filing this request here as an uninvolved administrator in response this AE request. Sorry for another job for you all to do (hopefully this can be resolved one way or the other without a motion) but there does seem to be some uncertainty regarding whether this edit (for clarity, this was the series of edits made by RAN, before the first edit by someone else) breaches RAN's prohibition on creating articles.

So the question is does turning a redirect into an article count as "Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace" (from the restriction as modified last month)?

Whether or not the Committee considers this possible violation worthy of sanctions or not I believe it's worth clarifying that point for everyone's benefit. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @arbs that's pretty clear. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I don't have anything much to add to what I'd already posted on the AE Request. As Callanec says, I contend that although they are both pages, a redirect is not an article – see How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article on WP:Redirects, where the word "convert" is a clear indication that a redirect is not an article, but must be changed in some fundamental way in order to become one; see also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, in which there are different rules for the deletion of articles and for the deletion of redirects; and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion vs. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. By converting a redirect to an article, RAN created the article, violating his ban. Another editor has proposed that the redirect was an article from the time it was created (by me). I reject this contention, but if it is true, then RAN has violated his ban by creating numerous redirects, as can be seen here. BMK (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Since 8 Arbs have confirmed that converting a redirect to an article is the creation of an article, and therefore a violation of RAN's topic ban, would it be possible to formally close this Request for Clarification and either alter the topic ban per Thryduuf's suggestion or, at the very least, give RAN a formal notification of the findings of the Committee? BMK (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Andreas Philopater

I'm not sure how appropriate it is that I speak up (I have nothing to do with this), but this is a case where I think "no harm, no foul" can safely be applied, as long as there is clarity moving forward as to an edit of this type (article creation vs page creation) being subject to the ban or not.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bencherlite

FWIW, the act of turning a redirect into an article was regarded by Arbs in October 2013 as the creation of an article for infobox restriction purposes at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Arbitrator views and discussion (there may be a better link to be found to more a pertinent discussion than that). In other words, if X is restricted from adding infoboxes to articles save for those articles that X has created, X can turn a redirect into an article and add an infobox without breaching the restriction. If Y is restricted from creating an article, then it would seem to follow that Y is not allowed to turn a redirect into an article. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (RAN)

Committee should clarify that this will be considered a violation in the future. Then take time for a motion to remove the restriction completely. There is no benefit to it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC).

Thryduulf

What purpose? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 9 November 2015 (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.

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Clerk notes

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

Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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

For the purposes of RAN's restrictions, changing a redirect to an article is the same as creating an article from scratch meaning this was a violation. As there are almost no occasions on en.wp where this is not regarded as creating an article, I am more inclined to see this as an intentional gaming of the restriction than I am to see this as a genuine misunderstanding - however I invite RAN to convince me otherwise if he wishes. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
To hopefully prevent a future requests for clarification:
- If a page was previously an article (written by someone other than RAN) but was redirected without consensus, RAN may revert that redirection, but he may not completely rewrite the article (i.e. it must remain based on a revision prior to redirection).
- Completely rewriting a page such that almost no previous material remains and/or the topic is changed does count as a violation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Rich Farmbrough: We will not be amending or removing this restriction without an appeal by RAN. The purpose of the restriction was explained and discussed when it was enacted, and again when it was recently amended - that you disagree with the committee about whether it will achieve it's purpose does not change this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
With respect to what counts as starting an article, I agree totally with Thryduulf ;

With regard to asking us to modify our decisions. I think anyone can ask. We may make mistakes, what we say may become superseded by events, there may be factors we had not taken into consideration, or we may simply be well advised to reconsider. The idea that we might do something wrong and not want to fix it because the wrong person asks us is totally alien to my sense of justice, but it is unfortunately true that most of the current committee seems to feel otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Changing a redirect into an article is creating an article, unless RAN is as one scenario above suggests simply undoing a redirect made to an article without consensus. Doug Weller (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A redirect is not an article, it is a navigational aid with no content. Changing it into an article is, therefore, creating an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Per bencherlite. That being said no harm no foul here. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Turning a redirect into an article is a violation of the restriction. Please take this to heart in the future. Courcelles (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Courcelles and various others. Turning a redirect into an article is creating that article, unless it is simply a reversion (or any similar trivial use-case). -- Euryalus (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
(Late to the party) Redirect --> Article = creating an article. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Jeppiz at 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Palestine-Israel_articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Area_of_conflict

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

Jeppiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Area_of_conflict

Extending ARBPIA to cover Jews and Palestinians

Statement by Jeppiz

I believe neither Jews nor Palestinians to be covered by WP:ARBPIA, and I'd suggest that amending this situation may benefit the project and discourage much edit warring. Having watched both articles for a long time, I notice that Jews (and to some extent Palestinians) see quite intense disputes. As the edit history of Jews show, there have already been over 20 reverts in November alone. Below user:Debresser asks for examples, so a short non-exhaustive list from the last days [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. These disputes are never about Jewish culture in 17th century Poland or Palestinian culture in 17th century Palestine, but very often about the origins of both peoples, along the lines of "who was there first", "do modern Jews descent from ancient Jews", "are modern Palestinians the descendants of ancient Jews" etc. These questions are directly linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict, as both sides try to up their own claim to the land by invoking history. Furthermore, the most active editors engaged in these disputes are almost always the same few editors engaged in other ARBPIA-covered articles about the conflict. As the disputes at Jews and Palestinians are directly linked to the area covered by WP:ARBPIA, and see much more conflict than many articles currently covered, I suggest ARBPIA be extended to these two articles. It would benefit everybody involved, except a handful of people who frequently revert, and would benefit the whole project.
No individual user is concerned, so I have not named anyone, but I will post a short information notice at the talk pages of both Jews and Palestinians.

Statement by Debresser

The nominator of this amendment first proposed this at Jews, claiming that discussions about the origins of Jews should be subject to the 1RR rule, because often the issue is raised in connection with the IP-conflict. I will comment only on the merits, or more precisely the lack thereof, of this proposal in regard to the Jews article.I have no clear opinion regarding the Palestinians article, although I think that the issue is much stronger on that article than it is on the Jews article.

I think the claim of the nominator, which is not backed up by any links to discussions either on Wikipedia or outside of it, is incorrect. In addition, I think that the proposed measure is not proportionate, even if the claim were correct. Ergo I feel strongly that the proposed 1RR restriction should not be considered. My arguments are as follows.

I have not often seen discussions about the origins of the Jewish people in connection with the IP-conflict, neither on Wikipedia nor in the real world. I am not saying it never happens, but not as often as the nominator makes it seem (without giving even one example).
The cases in which the origins of the Jews are discussed without connection to the IP-conflict are many times more numerous than the cases in which such discussion is related to the IP-conflict. It would therefore not be fair to put all discussions regarding the origins of the Jews under a restriction that applies only to a minority of the cases.
The article Jews is so much more than just the question of the origins of the Jews, that it would be completely disproportionate the put the whole article under a 1RR restriction because of that.

Statement by Musashiaharon

I agree with Debresser that putting Jews under 1RR is disproportionate.

In addition to Debresser's points, I'd like to add that overall the discussion seems pretty civil to me, and I see no reason to stop WP:AGF, certainly not to the point of imposing 1RR. I don't think the intensity and nature of the discussion merits it. Jeppiz himself links to my only counter-revert, where I specifically note that the discussion had a three-day gap of silence in it after I requested an explanation of a previous revert. My request was answered soon afterwards. 1RR is unnecessary.

Statement by Nishidani

I don't think the article Jews should be placed under ARBPIA IR restrictions, while I think this should apply to Palestinians. I gave my reasons here. That said, Jeppiz does have a serious point however. It is absolutely impossible to discuss Jewish origins on Wikipedia in a rational, rigorously high RS source based manner. One is just over-ruled, as are the relevant sources and the reason is that the definition is perceived by a majority of editors as one which must contain a political statement about Israel and the Law of Return, meaning that whatever sources say to the contrary, the definition of a Jew must state that (s)he comes from ancestors who lived in Palestine, which is total nonsense.. But this, which relates to one or two sentences in the lead, should not translate into making the whole article, which has nothing to do with the I/P conflict, lie under an ARBPIA sanction. Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Yossiea

I think the question ultimately on the table is whether or not any article with the word Jew, Israel, Palestine, etc. is subject to arbitration. I think it's a far stretch to include Jew within the scope of ARBPIA. I haven't seen any solid evidence of major edit warring or even minor edit warring to warrant inclusion. It should be a last resort to include articles within a sanctionable area, and we should be working to remove articles, not add them.

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

I'm not really seeing any common sense reason, or for that matter any other reason to do this other than as an attempt to chill speech. Ending major disruption is generally the only reason to even consider it. The diffs provided, I'm not sure if they even show minor disruption. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I just wanted to add an additional comment, especially regarding my below request. If this is a request to have Jew be placed under sanctions, then how did any article get placed under sanctions? The template should make mention of a discussion where it was voted on. It is quite possible that somebody just decided that sanctions apply to my article below, or to some other article Jew included and just puts in the sanction template and then that article is now under sanctions. There ought to be a safeguard in place to prevent that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:55, 26 November 2015 (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: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel_articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

Decline Excessive--and inadequate to deal with the key stated problem on the origin of Jews, which could be fought equally well on other pages. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline. There are two separate topics here, "origin of Jews" and "origin of Palestinians", neither of which are not part of the Arab-Israel dispute, and which form only small parts of the noted articles so extending the existing discretionary sanctions in this manner is a poor fit. With no evidence that prior dispute resolution has been sought, let alone tried and failed, I don't see this as something that Arbcom should be involved with at this stage. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline - too soon to consider. Doug Weller (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline per Thryduulf, noting I was inactive on ArbPIA3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Lightbreather (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Site-ban

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

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[23]

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Site-ban

That an exception be made to Lightbreather's sanctions, allowing her to respond on-wiki to on-wiki criticisms, paralleling the exception advocated for Eric Corbett, making an exception to his topic ban allowing him to respond on-wiki to off-wiki criticisms

Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Lightbreather has been subjected to innuendo, aspersions, derogatory comments and personal attacks in connection with the discussion of the recent block and unblock of Eric Corbett. There is strong community sentiment that, despite his topic ban, Corbett should be allowed to comment on-wiki about comments and accusations made against him off-wiki. Given that no one was been sanctioned or warned for their attacks on Lightbreather, and no comments have apparently been removed or suppressed, it is only fair that she be afforded the same opportunity to respond on-wiki to on-wiki attacks and criticism, especially since much of that commentary rests on assertions made without evidence. It is anomalous that such comments may be freely made about Lightbreather while statements made about the male editor (not Corbett, to avoid any confusion) accused with evidence of sexually harassing Lightbreather on-wiki and off-wiki have regularly been expunged. Therefore, an exception should be made to Lightbreather's sanctions affording her a decent, reasonable, and adequate opportunity to respond to these sustained on-wiki comments and aspersions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter and Fæ: Are you arguing that female editor Lightbreather needs to ask for equal treatment when male editor Corbett didn't have to ask for the exception that seems to be being made, and the male on-wiki sexual harasser didn't have to ask for suppression of criticism and comments? Do some editors receive such grace as a matter of course, while others must go hat in hand to beg for fair treatment? Are some of the animals here less equal than others? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: This is not a ban appeal. This is a request for consistent treatment, which would not have been necessary if Wikipedia had been willing to afford the same rights and protections that other editors enjoy. Being site-banned does not paint a target on Lightbreather and authorize free fire with no ability to return it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: How can you maintain that I have introduced concepts like "male" and "female" into a matter that already involved serious sexual harassment? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Lightbreather

Statement by John Carter

This looks very much like a bit of a nonstarter to me. Lightbreather is currently not even able to edit her user talk page. That makes it extremely difficult for any statement by her to be presented anywhere, except, perhaps, by e-mail to the committee. That being the case, it would presumably be reasonable for her to e-mail the committee to request this herself. Also, honestly, it would be useful to know whether Lightbreather had any intention of returning, which, without a visible comment from her, is at best theoretical, at least to those of us who don't see the presumptive e-mail she might send. Lastly, she was site-banned in July of this year, and as per WP:UNBAN she might not be capable of even appealing that ban until next July. All that taken into account, even given the presumption of the best of intentions by the person making the request, this very much seems to me to be something that would require input which can't be made, at least visibly, here.

Having said all that, if there is a basis for believing this individual has allegations here she wishes to address, it might, maybe, be possible for the Wikipedia:Signpost to interview her, and maybe others, regarding the current brouhaha about the Atlantic article, which I am going to presume is the proximate subject of discussion here. In fact, I even suggested such coverage myself at Jimbo's talk page recently. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to HW, I am saying nothing of the kind, I think a reading of my comment above would demonstrate that, and I rather strongly object to the presumption that I might be. And I find the introduction of "male" v. "female" arguments nothing less than appalling. Lightbreather, for better or worse, is sitebanned for a year. Eric is not. "Sitebanned" vs. "not sitebanned" is the more appropriate differentiation here. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to GoodDay below, Lightbreather had her ability to edit her own user talk page at the same time as the site ban was imposed. John Carter (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: you introduced them to this particular discussion, which honestly is about the lifting of a ban of a sitebanned editor, not about anything about men or women. And that editor was not banned because of any issues related to sexual abuse, but rather gross misconduct in the topic of gun control and still-private evidence of WP:OUTING, which is at best tangentially related to any issues of sexual abuse. By so doing, it could reasonably be seen that you are attempting to basically distract from the more central issue, about lifting a siteban implemented on the basis of gross misconduct, to a marginally related issue, that the individual involved is a woman. That woman has recently taken advantage of her ban by providing information for a rather embarrassingly bad article off-site. And you did it on the basis of that individual being subject to "innuendo, aspersions, derogatory comments and personal attacks in connection with the discussion of the recent block and unblock of Eric Corbett," seemingly ignoring that Eric Corbett has been subjected to outright lies in the same article, and her own history of OUTing others, which, honestly, are probably more important. The central issue is about the lifting of the siteban, not the gender of the person sitebanned. Having said that, I would support with some reluctance lifting the talk page ban, with perhaps the understanding that if the individual in question abuses the privilege of editing that page that doing so will almost certainly be considered a factor in any appeals to lift the broader siteban. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fæ

This amendment would only be relevant if Lightbreather has written to Arbcom expressing an interest in correcting the record and/or expressing a viewpoint from their experience.

Though it may be felt that Lightbreather is free to email Arbcom with any issue, at the same time is easy to understand why this would not be a realistic process to follow to have corrections or commentary posted on-wiki. Should Arbcom be minded to accept this, I recommend the parties consider taking advantage of a trusted interlocutor, perhaps an interested Arbcom member. This would reduce the chances of a "misspeaking" moment resulting in iterations of further controversy. --Fæ (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@HW, I have made no statement on whether there is equal treatment on our projects, in fact I would not be comfortable expressing my uncensored views in this place... My comments are limited to the request made above and are based on my experience of relying on an interlocutor when being part of an Arbcom case. --Fæ (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade:, in the light of the information from @Elvey: below, would you revisit your opinion? To avoid confusion, it would be sensible if Arbcom publicly stated whether an email request to the committee was received from Lightbreather. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

Having gone through a 1-year siteban, I believe (or remember) one is only allowed to post on one's own talkpage & only then, about one's siteban. AFAIK, Eric Corbett is not sitebanned & so there's a difference. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Response to JC, I recommend that LB's talkpage privillages be restored. Although again, as I understand it, LB would be limited there to discussing her siteban. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Question for HW - Are you making this request per Lightbreather's wishes & consent? GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Recommend arbitrators reject this request. It appears the request hasn't been made via proxy & the requesting editor seems to have abandoned it. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This post at Lighbreather's talkpage doesn't quite make sense to me. I can't tell if HW's is getting consent from LB to make this request or not. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

In light of many comments that have been made on wiki in recent days, this is an obvious and necessary step; I am ashamed that I did not propose it sooner and thank the proposer for realizing its urgent necessity. Many editors assert that this right of reply is a matter of Wikipedia custom or one of human decency; until and unless ArbCom definitively refutes those contentions, this is demanded by fairness and equity. It is imperative, moreover, that this motion be granted promptly, in light of active discussion in the case request, Signpost, and elsewhere; fairness delayed in this case would indeed be fairness denied.

The motion should not merely permit LightBreather to participate but should actively invite her participation and offer the committee's assistance, as needed, to facilitate this. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Some commenters here and in the Case Requests page have denounced Lightbreather and @GorillaWarfare: for granting an interview to The Atlantic, claiming that Wikipedians should not give interviews about Wikipedia. Before sanctioning Lightbreather for doing this, ArbCom would have to sanction itself, since it not only granted an interview but actually distributed a press announcement during the Gamergate case. Wikipedia is not Fight Club: the first rule of Wikipedia is not that editors may not talk about Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In light of repeated calls to censure Lightbreather for granting an interview to The Atlantic, which constitute a large portion of the so-called evidence in this motion -- I believe we require an affirmative ruling from ArbCom indicating whether or not Wikipedians may be punished for discussing Wikipedia in books, newspapers, or journals. Otherwise, Wikipedians (and outside observers) reading the evidence will conclude that commenting on Wikipedia to the press will be punished by its arbitration committee, especially if the committee or foundation dislikes the way those comments are used. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: @Euryalus: With regard to "why anyone thinks [it] is a possibility" that someone would be censured for granting an interview, see "evidence" sections above by Rich Farmbrough and Mangoe, and statements in what we're now calling Arbitration Enforcement 2 [24] Case Request phase by Black Kite and many others. Clearing this up unambiguously is clearly desirable, lest the many calls to censure LB and GorillaWarfare in this matter be taken by the general public to reflect the community’s position or Arbcom’s acquiescence. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

It would be simply unkind to refuse Lightbreather the courtesy of being able to gravedance on-wiki at the time of her figurative execution of her arch-nemesis. Anything that can be done to liven the festivities by rolling back editing restrictions upon her or any other banned editors should be done most expeditiously. This is a fantastic idea and hopefully a lasting precedent for future ArbCom circuses... Carrite (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mangoe

Lightbreather has been plenty free with responses in the comments on the Atlantic article, so I don't see why we have to reopen a venue just for that. And as far as I can see (not wanting to read everything from the old case) this is pretty much an invitation to bring the dramafest from Disqus over to here. We are here to write a reference work, not to provide a forum for these discussions. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (LB)

While I would welcome Lightbreather back to editing, I have concerns that they have been unable to drop the stick.

Lightbreather is solely their Wikipedia identity and they have left the project several times (as well as - and before - being banned) claiming to be here only for the sake of the the ArbCom case.

However they have continued the dispute off-wiki through a dedicated website and Twitter account. Enablers on-wiki have assisted promulgation of inaccurate narrative, in support of doubtless worthy goals.

This is not, historically, a new tactic - however it is one that is abhorrent to most encyclopaedists. Truth may be the first casualty in war, but if it is a casualty in building this encyclopaedia, we loose all credibility and may as well put fire sale signs on the servers.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Elvey

But User:Fæ, User:Seraphimblade, User:Thryduulf: Erm... Lightbreather DID email arbcom on Oct 27.--Elvey^(t•c) 23:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Fæ, thanks for pinging. User:Seraphimblade, User:Thryduulf: can you please provide, in the interests of transparency, a reason for your votes ~~that don't rely on apparently false information~~? Seraphimblade, you wrote, This has not, in any way to my knowledge, been requested by Lightbreather. It would seem appropriate to check your inbox(es) and strike that claim unless you have reason to believe Lightbreather did not send what she said she sent. Retracting your claim does not require disclosing the content private email. FYI I don't have a dog in this fight, I just find this behavior odd and needing light. Addendum: It sounds like "site ban may be appealed no less than one year after it was placed" would be a valid reason - well, unless that was applicable but ignored in the case of Eric Corbett; I haven't looked. Anyone? --Elvey^(t•c) 20:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply User:Thryduulf. I feel I understand where you and arbcom were coming from now; the decision y'all made makes sense now. Confidence gained; concerns addressed. Seems safe to assume Seraphimblade's statement merely quickly became out of date and remained so, but was correct when made.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:20, 19 November 2015 (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.

Lightbreather: Clerk notes

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

Lightbreather: Arbitrator views and discussion

Decline. This has not, in any way to my knowledge, been requested by Lightbreather, and we don't consider third-party ban appeals. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- For reference, while I will not disclose the contents of any private email, the site ban stated that it may be appealed no less than one year after it was placed, which would be 17 July 2016. At that time, and not before, an appeal could be considered if it were made by Lightbreather. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Recuse, as this is directly related to the Eric Corbett discussions from which I am also recusing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Decline per Seraphimblade. Also, GoodDay is correct when he says that the only reason a blocked or banned editor may edit their talk page is to seek clarification of or appeal their block/ban. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein:. Arbcom has not, and is not proposing to, sanction Lightbreather for giving an interview. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: It's no different to a self-published source - if they out or harass another Wikipedia editor then obviously sanctions, up to and including a ban, will be considered. If they merely express an opinion, however controversial or unpopular, then there will not be a reason to consider sanctions. In all cases though the full circumstances will be considered, and nobody is going to get sanctioned because someone else misquoted them for example (although if the misquoting is deliberately intended to harass, the person doing the misquoting may themselves face sanction). To be explicit about the case in hand: Nobody will be sanctioned for what they said in this piece in The Atlantic. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Tangentially related but worth saying here in case it comes up, a Wikipedia editor should not quote themselves in a content namespace (no matter their expertise or the reliability of the source) without discussing it first on the talk page (or centralised discussion space if appropriate). Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Elvey: Lightbreather's email post-dates the opening of this amendment request and is explicitly in reaction to it. She did not ask for anything as extensive as Hullaboo did, and the implication is she hadn't planned on asking until she saw this request. The difference between this and the Eric Corbett case is that (a) this is a third party appeal; (b) Lightbreather is site banned, Eric was only topic banned; (c) Eric was not given a minimum time before he could appeal his topic ban (as I recall, I haven't double checked), Lightbreather was. (PS: your first ping did not work for me, I don't know why). Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline - talkpage access is only restored under certain circumstances, and offering evidence in case pages related to other editors is not one of them. If anyone (including banned editors) want to send evidence to the committee via email on any current case relevant to them, they can do so. Separately, anyone who uses case pages to engage in personal abuse of other editors is likely to be sanctioned for it. And +1 to Thryduulf's second comment above - to the extent that this was a genuine query, there is not the faintest prospect of an arbcom sanction for anyone who offered their opinions in the Atlantic article. I really struggle to see why anyone thinks this is a possibility. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: Hopefully the responses in this section help address the concern. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would be prepared to reopen the question of modifying their sanction. Asa reminder, the vote for banning her was 8-4, not 12-0 or 13-0 as for most other votes in that case. I was in the majority, but due to more recent private information to the committee, I'd now support modification or even withdrawal of the site ban. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline. Euryalus puts it well. Doug Weller (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Abortion (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by RGloucester at 16:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

diff of notification EdJohnston
diff of notification Bbb23

Statement by RGloucester

I'm here to request clarification on a technical matter related to sanctions enforcement for this arbitration case.

According to remedy 4.1, the previous community discretionary sanctions for abortion-related pages were superseded by ArbCom standard discretionary sanctions. All existing sanctions issued under the community regime (1RR and otherwise) were then added to the new log for the ArbCom regime, and labelled "inherited". Despite this, administrators have continued to log 1RR violations at the old community sanctions log, and not at the log created by ArbCom. In January of this year, I was confused by this situation. A discussion between administrators and myself led to no firm answer, but I had no time to pursue the matter. Therefore, I have filed this request.

My two questions are as follows:

Should 1RR-related sanctions issued after the abortion case was closed be transferred to the AC log, in the manner that those issued before the case were?
Should the community log be marked historical?

I am much obliged for you assistance in this clarification. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I agree that the 1RR violations should be logged at the main case page, as they are not discretionary sanctions. It is clear that ArbCom did take over (or intended to take over) the 1RR, given that the community sanctions issued for 1RR up until the case were labelled "inherited" and added to the main case page. It is possible that some kind of procedural error occurred here in the drafting of the case. RGloucester — ☎ 14:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Topic wide 1RR is not part of DS. It is a revert restriction. Both revert revert restrictions and DS are types of general sanctions. DS allow administrators to institute 1RR on specific pages in a topic area, but that's not the same thing as an ArbCom or community revert restriction. They have separate regulations, depending on the case. If 1RR violations are to be recorded in the DS log, the name should be changed from "DS log" to a broader "general sanctions log" (including all types of topic wide sanctions) or "sanctions log" (including editing restrictions), depending upon how the Committee desires to expand its scope. For more information, see WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 15:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

The four arbitrators who have replied so far think that these 1RR violations should be recorded in WP:DSLOG. That seems fine to me. It is logical that the abortion 1RR restriction should be viewed as a discretionary sanction. One nuance should be raised. We are used to discretionary sanctions requiring an alert before use, but 1RR doesn't fit precisely into that paradigm. People are routinely blocked for 1RR even if they haven't been explicitly notified using {{alert}}. As authority for this, you can see (for example) WP:TROUBLES: "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." I've noticed that the admins who block for these 1RR violations (on Troubles, Abortion or ARBPIA) generally use Template:uw-aeblock, which means they see themselves as blocking on Arbcom authority, not the community's. Making it a routine practice to put 1RR violations into DSLOG will make all these actions consistent. EdJohnston (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bbb23

My gosh, RGloucester, you have a long memory. I'm impressed. I don't have much to add to what was said on EdJohnston's Talk page back in January. From my comments there, it's obviously not clear (to me). Apparently, it wasn't clear to Ed, either, who is more involved in AE than I. Although not a big deal in terms of enforcing the Arbcom decision, this seems like an ideal request for clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2015 (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.

Abortion: Clerk notes

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

Procedural note here, it looks to me like the Committee, in the Abortion case, took over only the community imposed discretionary sanctions, not the community imposed 1RR. Therefore the community sanctions page appears to be the correct venue to record 1RR vios until/unless the Committee takes over the 1RR restriction, in which case they'd be logged on the main case page as they aren't discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: That may have been a misinterpretation from the clerk or admin who created it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion

There should be only one log being used, and IMO, it should be the central DS log created earlier this year. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course - and mark the community log historical. Doug Weller (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Courcelles and Doug. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Ed, I'd agree with your adding the 1RR violations in there too, and I doubt anyone on the committee would object. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Former arbitrator access to advanced permissions (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Beeblebrox at 22:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight#Appointment_process

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

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Beeblebrox

In the same email of September 13 referenced in the above request, I asked if I, as a former arbitrator who voluntarily gave up CU access for non-controversial reasons, could have it back upon request or would have to go through he normal appointment process whenever the next time that happens to be deemed necessary. One arb commented that they thought I should be able to just get it back, and I got no further replies or information. In the past year we have seen multiple instances of mass paid editing socks, as well as serious backlogs at SPI. I'd like to be able to pitch in with this, and as there is usually training for new CUs right after the new arbcom is seated, now would be a perfect time to join the team and get up to speed on the use of the tool, but I'm still unsure as to whether I can simply be given back the tool, or if I have to wait for the next formal appointment process, so I'd like that matter clarified, and if the answer is that I can just have it back I would ask that the committee file the appropriate request with the stewards. thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Only in death: Your objection ~~ignores~~ acknowledges but seems to discount the fact that the community elected me to arbcom in the first place and if I had not voluntarily given up CU while still an arb I would still have it now. This is about clarifying an ambiguity in the existing policy. If you do not like that arbs are automatically granted these rights you are free to open a discussion aimed at changing that policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Philippe surely did not need to go through the standard process. He was the staff contact person for functionary and arb matters and due to that position had already had access to the full toolset for years. Per WP:NOTBURO there was no reason to force him to wait for the normal process, which takes place on average once a year, sometimes less. We need more people on the team, if they're are qualified (or in his case, over qualified) people who already had the tools in other roles it's an easy IAR situation. The accusation that they are trying to sneak this in under the wire is just pure ABF. I'm the one who has been pressuring them about it, to the point I was worried I might have pissed them off bad enough that they wouldn't do it at all. The only timing concern, as I clearly stated above, is that new arbs get CU training sessions and if I can get the tool back I can slip in there with them next month instead of trying to find someone to do it just for me at some point. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Without much knowledge (or interest) in the minutia of ArbCom/functionaries rules and regulations regarding this, I'd like to suggest that, since Beeblebrox is known to be a responsible admin and a respected member of the community, WP:IAR be applied here. The action which would help to improve the project's goal of building an encyclopedia is not Talmudic contemplation to determine the specific answer to Beeblebrox's question, but simply restoring the CU function to him so he can help in the ways that he has pointed out he will. BMK (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death

As with the other out-of-process granting of CU/OS rights recently to an ex-WMF staff member, there is a distinct whiff of lack of community consultation about this sort of thing. Even in the link posted by BBrox above, the word 'community' is involved at all parts of the process. The only way to do it without community consultation is to effectively IAR and ignore process completely. IAR is designed for where a specific rule is preventing/hindering an improvement to the encyclopedia, it is NOT meant to be used to ignore a policy that is in place to make sure that only the most trusted people gain access to large amounts of private data! At least in this case there is the prior history that BBrox was at least promoted by the community to a position previously where he had that access. So there is an argument that he already has had the backing to justify it. However opinions change. (FYI, I have absolutely no objection to him having access personally.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: My objection is that this is the second case in a short period of time where the written policy designed specifically to enable community consultation on the granting of advanced permissions is basically going to be ignored flat out by Arbcom. Either amend the policy to say 'OS/CU will be granted or taken away by Arbcom at their leisure with no community input' or follow the procedures as they are laid out. When existing best practice is ignored for favoured individuals, it lessens the strength of the policy and makes it worthless. Given the current arbcom elections, it also has the ring of 'lets get away with this because the incoming squad wouldnt do it'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I think I disagree with Only in death that granting this request would represent a change of policy. The usual rule for years has been that a holder of advanced permissions, who relinquishes them voluntarily and outside controversial circumstances (not "under a cloud") may have the permission restored upon request.

Beeblebrox's request may not quite be a straightforward application of that rule, because one could distinguish an arbitrator who was granted CU and/or OS ex officio from others who received CU/OS through the appointment process, but I think the rule still provides a close analogy and precedent. Upon leaving the ArbCom, Beeblebrox would have been eligible to retain the CU and/or OS he had at the time, but he chose to give them up, it transpires temporarily. In the absence of any reason to believe he's less trustworthy or knowledgeable now than he was then, the case for applying the presumption of reinstatement seems a reasonable one.

(As a COI note, I am also a former arbitrator who gave up checkusership and oversighthood when I left the Committee in January, and have occasionally wished for one of them back when I saw a CU or OS request demanding attention, so any precedent here could potentially apply to me someday. And as a mild irony, the "automatic reinstatement except in controversial circumstances/under a cloud" rule actually does seem to have been a rare instance of policy creation in an arbitration decision to begin with. See, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano#Return of access levels. But this happened in 2006, and in the nine years since then no one but me seems ever to have noticed this fact, suggesting that the community is thoroughly satisfied with the rule.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (BB)

The whole CU/OS permissions system is a nepotistic mess. And this is by no means the only case where ArbCom has made policy, either de facto or de jure, something, as NewYorkBrad notes, they are explicitly prohibited from doing (and I don't include "ad hoc" representations of policy that are at odds with - or even 180° opposed to - written policy. Shades of "penumbra and emanations"? If only they were that mild.)

Nonetheless this reinstatement is uncontroversial, and is understood to be an acceptable process, until and unless there is a different process such requests should be granted. For the future, it is worth considering a more cautious approach than with the admin bit, perhaps with a central notice, and an out-of-band confirmation of identity.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Rschen7754

For the record, I think there is precedent for this, i.e. Hersfold following his first resignation. --Rs chen 7754 18:48, 12 December 2015 (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.

Former arbitrator access to advanced permissions: Clerk notes

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

Former arbitrator access to advanced permissions: Arbitrator views and discussion

Again we were dealing with this yesterday and should announce it today. This is straightforward and my personal apology for not getting back to Beeblebrox yesterday which would have saved everyone time. Doug Weller (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we were one vote short of gathering enough supports to formally post the re-appointment (and there were no opposes). This should be done soon. Courcelles (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. See : Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#CU tools restored to User:Beeblebrox, Doug Weller (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Editor conduct in e-cigs articles (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by AlbinoFerret at 23:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Editor conduct in e-cigs articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

[[25]]
[[26]]

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

AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cloudjpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
S Marshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[27]
[28]
[29]

Information about amendment request

[[30]]

~~Provide evidence so Quackguru is topic banned or blocked.~~

[[31]]

Include Cloudjpk and allow arbs to block for tag teaming/meatpuppetry.

Statement by AlbinoFerret

I would like to provide evidence that was impossible for me to provide during the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles case. I was on a 6 month self ban from E-cigarette related topics during the start of the case. That ended on September 16th, the case was still open and I asked to provide evidence.[32] The evidence I would like to provide is about two editors, Cloudjpk ~~and QuackGuru.~~

The complete evidence I would like to present totals a little under 6000 words and 228 diffs/links. It averages about 27 words per diff. The complete evidence is copy/paste ready. I request more words and diffs to add more here. Examples are below.

Partially withdraw, QuackGuru has been topic banned for 6 months. AlbinoFerret 14:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru

Competency

12/24/2014 The McKee source was clearly marked on the source as an editorial.[33] Per WP:MEDRS it was not usable for medical claims. This also NPOV problem, improper source used for negative claims. QG added it here.[34] Talk page on it.[35] Argues Its a review.[36][37] Says its MEDRS compliant.[38] Starts a new topic on the same article with deceptive heading arguing again that it should be included.[39] Inserted the editorial into the main article below line 158.[40]
Mixes first and second hand aerosol claims.[41]
QG cant understand there are different size particles.[42]
Endless round in circles, 11 Year old girls.[43][44]
Does not comprehend that while something may be possible, it isnt always the case. [45] SPACKlick points out that the sources do not list Propylene Oxide as a component of the vapor.[46] QG, unable to tell the difference between "can or could" and "is" defends that the source says it is a component of the vapor.[47] GuackGuru says he is basing the claim on future sources.[48]

Misuse of OR

Fixed OR and POV problem by adding POV to recreate the problem. [49] Reintroduced edit below line 23 [50]
Youth changed from young people. [51] The talk page section. [52] saying not Verifiable. Websters dictionary suggests they are the same.[53] as does Youth.
QG argues over the word "some", even when he admits the source says that the chemicals are not found all over. [54]

Misrepresenting

"There is no serious dispute". This is not just misrepresenting, but is a serious competency issue with ongoing issues. [55][56][57] [58] [59][60]
Misrepresents consensus [61] when its the opposite [62].

NPOV/Negative advocacy

12/25/2014 Removed cited claim that none of the components environmental impact has been done.[63]
4/26/2015 Toddlers motivated to ingest, using non MEDRS source.[64]
On August 16, 2015 QG inserted a claim,[65] but left out the rest of the information that says " nicotine outside tobacco has not been shown to be associated with cancer in the real world" that was added later by Johnbod on the 20th.[66]
3/10/2015 Nicotine is "lethal" poison (source says harmful).[67]link to the discussion. Tweaked it a bit.[68] Sees talk page and changes to "toxic".[69]
3/21/2015 From the source "Based on 76 studies, ECs cannot be regarded as safe, even though they probably are less harmful than CCs." QG added to the article, leaving out probably less harmful [70]
3/24/2015 Exposure to children, added claims about the dangers. [71] But did not add that this had not been studied yet. From the source, "Nicotine levels in infants and children exposed to electronic cigarette aerosol and surface deposits have not yet been studied and the health effects of nicotine in this age group are uncertain." England, Lucinda J "Nicotine and the Developing Human"
On 6/10/2015 Quack removed a part of a positive referenced claim that he completely removed later[72]
Moved negative claim in front of a positive one. [73]
On 6/10/15 QG removed a positive, referenced claim. [74] citing "Dated and repetitive" in comments. The source is from 2011, within 5 years WP:MEDDATE.
Blatant twisting of a source to a negative claim. The PHE source.[75] On pages 76-77 discusses the failed methodology of studies that found formaldehyde. What QG added, near the bottom of the edit. [76]

Cloudjpk

Out of the blue

Cloudjpk appears out of the blue whenever QuackGuru needs support, then disappears off WP. As of 11/16/2015 he has 579 total edits and 379 to E-cig articles 65%.[77]

I went to RSN about a source and made a post to the talk page.[78] QG starts to replace the questionable source.[79][80] Cludjpk hows up and WP:RSN having not edited for 4 days.[81] QG undoes one of his replacements.[82] Cloudjpk doesnt make another post for 18 hours.
9/14/2015 QG added 70% information in WP's voice.[83] but did not include where the information comes from. The source states " now 70 percent of American smokers who are looking to quit are turning to e-cigs, according to statistics compiled by Ecigsopedia." TracyMcClark added a FV tag because QG left off the source.[84] Cloudjpk showed up out of the blue to remove the FV tag.[85] He had not made an edit since 9/9/2015, did not comment in the talk page section on this. He did not make another edit until 18 hours later at 00:35 16/9/2015 September. The purpose of this edit [86] was to argue against a temporary injunction because of QG's activities.[87]
10/15/2015 After not editing the articles since 8/26/2015 Cloudjpk reverts out relevant sourced claim.[88] When this is pointed out [89][90] Cloudjpk blows it off[91] and does not replace the claim.
11/10/2015 QuackGuru doesnt want a image added to the page.[92] Out of the blue Cloudjpk comments against it having made one other edit 18 hours earlier to another page.[93] then doesn't make another WP edit until 11/16/2015.

Responses

I would like to point out to QG that this is to amend the case, as such the time frame should be prior to the case closing, not after. AlbinoFerret 21:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

DeltaQuad since space is no longer a problem since I have withdrawn QuackGuru because of his ban, can this request proceed on the remaining editor? AlbinoFerret 14:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by QuackGuru

I acknowledge there is a request for clarification. If this request is accepted or admins have any questions let me know. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There was evidence of disruption by the e-cig promoters, but there was no specific remedies to dealing with any specific editor.

Based on this comment I moved my request to WP:AE. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cloudjpk

If this case for clarification is approved I am happy to discuss this matter. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by S Marshall

Apparently the fun never stops.

I don't see any need for me to present any evidence here. I see from QuackGuru's evidence that one of the edits I made today does vaguely resemble one I made in March. I offer no defence, and I'm content for Arbcom to deal with this complaint in whatever way it sees fit. It is definitely true that I waited for the Arbcom case to be over before making any changes to the page; in fact I said at the time that this is what I was doing. I'm amused to note that QuackGuru lumps me in with his group of "e-cig promoters" and I'm content for Arbcom to judge the truth of this for themselves based on the diffs he provides without further input from me.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

Is this still needed now that QuackGuru has been banned from the topic area for six months for disruptive forum shopping and derailimg discussion on the article talk page? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 29 November 2015 (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.

Editor conduct in e-cigs articles: Clerk notes

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

Editor conduct in e-cigs articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

Having been inactive on this case, and hence unfamiliar with the material considered, I'll formally abstain from anything regarding this ARCA. Courcelles (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: I'm currently hearing a request on my talkpage of a evidence limit extension, and I'd ask Arbitrators to hold off for the moment on making any comments till that is resolved. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline any clarification Having reviewed what is remaining on this, there is no direct evidence that this is meatpuppetry, and I feel that any issues with tag teaming (or not since QG has been removed from the topic area) should proceed at WP:AE, and I don't see a need to clarify the case at this point. I would encourage though any presentation to AE be made with new diffs. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Decline per Amanda. Doug Weller (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Decline per Amanda. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Not seeing much prospect of this being resolved before these votes become void, but decline. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (2) (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by DrChrissy at 02:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Genetically modified organisms 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:

DrChrissy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by DrChrissy

I would like to request an amendment to my recently imposed topic ban.[94] I am requesting the amendment deletes the inclusion of "genetically modified plants and". I am requesting this amendment because there is a total absence of evidence that I have been disruptive in this topic area. I respectfully quote the WP:banning policy as "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." (my highlighting). Below, I provide evidence that I have not been disruptive in this topic area, in fact, I have not made a single content edit about GM-plants in my history of editing WP.

I have reviewed all the submissions relating to myself presented during the evidence phase of the GMO case. There was not a single diff provided by any party which related to me editing or discussing GM-plants.

I have also reviewed all my edits for the year of 2015. This review showed that I have not made a single edit of article content relating to GM-plants. In the last 12 months, I have edited only two articles about GMOs which contain sections on GM-plants, i.e. Genetically modified food and Genetically modified organism.

I made a handful of edits (6) on the Genetically modified food article ([95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]) but these were all unrelated to GM-plants.

I made 13 edits to Genetically modified organism. The vast majority of these related to animals and were often simple editorial changes such as typos, links, redundant words. I made one edit potentially tangentially related to GM-plants - I reformatted a reference title to be lowercase rather than uppercase.[101] I reverted only a single edit here[102] and although my revert was itself reverted, I did not engage in any behaviour that might be considered disruptive.

Prior to the GMO case, I was heavily involved in editing Glyphosate and I accept the ArbCom's decision to topic ban me from this as a remedy. However, I think there has been an inadvertent "topic-creep" which has led to the unnecessary inclusion of GM-plants in my ban. I have not been disruptive in the slightest in the topic area of GM-plants. My overall concern here is that some editors believe that because my topic ban includes plants, general GMO articles such as Genetically modified organism are included in my ban. I would be very grateful for a clarification by ArbCom that if this amendment is approved, my topic ban does not include these general GMO articles. I respectfully await your decision on my request for an amendment.

I would also like to note that I have posted an (almost) identical appeal to Jimbo's Talk page. This was in no way an attempt to avoid or subvert ArbCom's decision or thinking. I noted that appeals to his talk page are only allowed within 7 days of the original ArbCom decision, so I posted with 24 hours to spare. I am not expecting Jimbo to make any comment until after ArbCom have considered this matter.DrChrissy ^(talk) 02:01, 20 December 2015 (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.

Genetically modified organisms (2): Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms (2): Arbitrator views and discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4