Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 97

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 90

←

Archive 95

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

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (June 2017)

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 GoldenRing at 09:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

General 1RR restriction motion For the Committee - Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by GoldenRing

I recently took arbitration enforcement action pursuant to the ARBPIA case. Part of my reasoning was that the user has violated 1RR on a page (Acid throwing) which I think is reasonably construed as related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially since the dispute related to parts of that page specifically about Israel, Palestine and attacks on Jews by Palestinians. Several experienced editors have opined that this was wrong because there was no notification on the page that it was subject to 1RR and no 1RR restriction was logged at WP:DSLOG.

The current text of the relevant sanction reads:

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

That seems to me clear that any page reasonably construed to be related to the conflict is subject to 1RR regardless of editnotices, talk page notices and the like, and that any editor who has been correctly notified of the ARBPIA restrictions is expected to abide by 1RR there. Editnotices and talk page notices may be applied, but they act as a reminder and are not required for 1RR to be enforced.

The 1RR violation was only a small part of the decision to impose a topic ban in this case and I'm not here to ask whether the sanction was correct (though of course the user in question can appeal it if he wishes; he has indicated he will not). But as I'm fairly new to this business, and several editors who generally know better than me have disagreed with my interpretation, I'd like the committee to clarify one way or the other: Is 1RR enforceable on any page related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, or does a page restriction need to be enacted and logged as WP:DSLOG first?

Pinging User:NeilN, User:Kingsindian, User:Zero0000 and User:Capitals00 here. They're not parties as such but they've opined on this one way or the other. I've chosen not to name the sanctioned user here as I'm not asking for review of the sanction imposed as such; if I've erred, perhaps the clerks would let me know and I'll rectify it. Also note that some have opined that me closing the request only a few hours after it was opened, before the accused responded, was out of process; I'm confident that this was well within AE practice, but if arbs feel differently then we may as well cover that here as well.

@NeilN: You quote, "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log." But these are not page restrictions applied by an administrator, they are applied directly as a remedy by the committee. You pointed to elsewhere WP:DSLOG where I would expect to see such restrictions being placed - but I don't. Not in the PIA area. I see plenty of editors being sanctioned for 1RR violations on pages that are not mentioned in the log. Am I missing something? GoldenRing (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I'm confused. Are we looking at the same thing? I don't see any "Imposed 1RR on article X" or similar in that log (the PIA section). I see one notice of someone applying a 1RR editnotice and that's it. GoldenRing (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID

The editor has been notified in the last 12 months that discretionary sanctions are in effect for the *topic* of the IP conflict. So the fact that a specific article does not have a reminder (talkpage notice etc) does not matter, since the editor is well aware when they make edits (or edit-wars) anywhere in the IP area, they can potentially be sanctioned. The only credible defense would be if the editing was unrelated to the IP conflict. Its also procedurely silly to require any page that may have a section related to the IP conflict even if the rest of the article is unrelated - to have a DS warning and be logged. Thats why the DS are in place for the *topic* and not individual pages. So while this article might not already have a specific 1rr attached to it as a result of a previous administrator applying a discretionary sanction, its well within any administrator's rights to topic ban a serial edit-warrior in the IP area from the topic when they start editing problematically in a section that is IP related. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Capitals00

AC/DS applies wherever the topic is being mentioned on any article or space of this Wikipedia. Entire Israel-Palestine is treated as 1RR so if there is a separate section for West Bank and Gaza Strip on Acid throwing, the section comes under DS of Israel-Palestine. The editor was also notified of 1RR violation which he totally rejected,[1] and made a total of 4 reverts. Such disruption contributed to topic ban. Its that simple. Capitals00 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

The particular event that led to this question is not a worthy topic for ArbCom, but the general issue that GoldenRing raises can benefit from a clarification to remove existing confusion among both administrators and regular editors. So I hope we can focus on the general question.

On source of confusion is the recent decision on logging sanctions, which some people have taken to mean that ARBPIA restrictions like 1RR don't apply to a page until that is logged at WP:DSLOG. That interpretation would immediately remove ARBPIA protection from the majority of the 5,000 or so A-I articles and I find it hard to believe that it is the intention of ArbCom to do that. Please disagree if I'm wrong.

So, please clarify that the ARBPIA sanctions apply automatically to all pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict without the need for a tag or an administrative decision. Or, if that's not case, explain what is. Thanks.

NeilN points to a related problem of articles that contain a small amount of A-I-related text but are mostly not about the A-I dispute. Not long ago there was big fight and AE case over a very long article with a single Palestine-related sentence. Such cases are a problem only if a too-legalistic approach is taken. Many times I have seen sensible administrators applying ARBPIA to editors warring over the A-I parts of an article and allowing editors of the unrelated parts to work in peace. Editors who want to war over A-I text know exactly what they are doing and should be subject to ARBPIA no matter where the text is. Conversely, there is an editor (Gilabrand) who is topic-banned from A-I but edits in unarguably A-I articles every day without molestation precisely because she avoids the parts about the A-I conflict. Nobody minds. So it isn't really a problem if handled by the spirit of the rules, but I'm aware that it can be problematic shoehorning all this into the technical wording of the rules.

Zero^talk 14:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor NeilN: The rule is clear and prescriptive: "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited..." It doesn't say that an administrator has to decide to apply it first. It also doesn't say that E-C protection is "mandated" but only that it is a "preferred" way to enforce the 500/30 rule. Tons of editors have been sanctioned for violating 1RR on I-P articles that are not E-C protected. Finally, it is simply not true that "Palestine-Israel articles are typically put under 500/30-protect"; actually the great majority are not and nearly always E-C protection is only applied when it becomes necessary for enforcing the IP+500/30 rule. Post-finally, as GoldenRing noted, there no logs at WP:DSLOG of admins applying ARBPIA to articles but only logs of admins 500/30-protecting articles. Zero^talk 14:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC) @NeilN: I read the ARCA case you referenced and what I see there is a discussion of how ArbCom's rule should be enforced, plus the degree to which admins are required to enforce it. Nobody there, including you, suggested that the rule didn't apply to an article at all, no matter how obviously the article was about the Israel-Palestine conflict, until some admin decided to enforce it. I work in the I-P area every day and stand by my statistical statements. Zero^talk 15:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

My only comment was in regard to the 3RR restriction on the page. The article in question: Acid throwing has, largely, nothing to do with Israel-Palestine. IMO, most of the edits have nothing to do with Israel-Palestine; they are mostly internal to Palestinian politics, but some of them are about Israel. But let's leave that aside.

The talk page of the article does not have a 1RR tag. None of the "belligerents" in this case treated the article as falling under 1RR. I can point out that Capitals00 themselves broke 1RR on the page (1st diff 29 May - reverting this edit, 2nd diff 30 May), indicating that they were themselves not treating the page as bound by 1RR. There was a request on the edit-warring noticeboard by one of the other parties in the dispute, which only talked about 3RR violation (there was no violation, and the request was declined). These things could have been brought up if the request had been kept open more than three hours, and/or the "accused" had been given a chance to reply, but apparently this step was not deemed necessary.

Now, I know that rules don't matter much on Wikipedia: the aim is simply to get your opponent on one pretext or another. There are so many rules that it's easy to find one to match the crime. Also, the discretionary sanctions system gives admins wide powers to act as they wish. And, to be fair, the way Al-Andalusi was behaving, they were going to be sanctioned soon one way or another. However, to repeat, my comment was not about discretionary sanctions in general. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN

Page restrictions need to be logged per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Arbitration_motion_regarding_the_logging_of_sanctions: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log." There is no exception for ARBPIA articles. It is folly to expect editors to guess if an admin has placed a non-obviously-related article under a restriction. With no page talk notice, no edit notice, and no logging, how many of you would expect Acid throwing to be under WP:1RR? Extrapolate that to any well-meaning editor working on the Medical section of the article. The restriction reads, "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page..." It does not specify the revert has to be ARBPIA-related. There's enough editing traps in this area - let's at least make sure these traps are clearly marked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: The remedy is applied by admins to appropriate articles. And Palestine-Israel articles are typically put under 500/30-protect (also mandated by Arbcom). Plenty of log entries here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Palestine-Israel_articles --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Zero0000: Arbcom has pretty much tied our hands with WP:ARBPIA2. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_3_.282.29_.28March_2017.29. The meaningless "where not feasible" clause remained. "...nearly always E-C protection is only applied when it becomes necessary for enforcing the IP+500/30 rule" is also not correct in my experience. EC protection is often used preventatively on articles falling under ARBPIA2. Lastly, the motion I pointed to was enacted on March 26, 2017. It's relatively new so it may not be generally followed yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

Arbcom should consider this clarification request carefully because it has implications across the project. Generally, admins assume that any page that can be reasonably construed as belonging to the sanctioned topic is automatically restricted, and that action can be taken against an offending editor if they have been warned about the sanctions in the past 12 months. It is unreasonable to expect that every page in the sanctioned area be logged (there may be hundreds, perhaps thousands of them). If we were to follow a log first policy we're going to get bogged down with logs of unwieldy length and "cat and mouse" games with editors who flit from page to page while the logging trails slowly behind. Requiring that each and every page in a sanctioned area be specifically logged is impractical, will defeat the purpose of the sanctions (which was, presumably, to minimize disruption), and will exponentially increase the burden on individual administrators. Imo, in the case at hand, the questions that should be asked addressed are: whether the acid throwing article could be reasonably construed to belonging to the sanctioned area, whether the editor was given adequate notice and whether, perhaps, a warning first approach would perhaps have been kinder. --regentspark (comment) 17:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

Thank you for pinging me to this, NeilN. With respect (and a hint of amusement, since we seem to always disagree at ARCA), I think you're badly misinterpreting this. The 1RR is not applied as an arbitration enforcement action, and therefore it does not need to be logged. Following your logic, we'd need to log each ArbCom remedy (even blocks or bans placed by the Committee!) before enacting them, which just isn't the intended or usual practice. The AE log is a log of arbitration enforcement actions authorized by the Committee but carried out at the discretion of individual administrators. In this case, the 1RR is part of a remedy to a broad class of articles. No individual admin is applying or can rescind it. Arbitration enforcement actions occur when admins push a button to enforce a remedy (including the edit button, when placing a topic ban, etc). That's why we log page protections; it's a button pushed by an administrator to enforce the remedy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I just want to make sure the outcome here is clear. If the question is "Should administrators have to log remedies placed directly by ArbCom before enforcing them?", then the answer is "No, in all cases", right? (Ignoring possible exceptions if logging is explicitly required in a remedy.) I have a feeling this will pop up a month or year down the road in another topic area if that isn't stated clearly and generally beyond just the bounds of this topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by jd2718

GoldenRing closed the request with sanctions, less than four hours after the request was made. I am concerned (1) that Al-Andalusi did not have an opportunity to respond. I lurk at Arbitration Enforcement, and do not recall seeing sanctions imposed so swiftly. Whether or not an editor responds, they are usually (always? almost always?) accorded reasonable and sufficient time to do so. I am further concerned (2) that there was no comment by an uninvolved administrator, and no attempt to reach consensus among uninvolved administrators. With other requests I've seen an admin claim that the request was clearly valid, and that the sanction that should be imposed is X, and then wait for others to agree or disagree. It's a process that works, and that generates a certain amount of respect, even when individual editors disagree with the outcome. It feels like a different process from what occurred. Jd2718 (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

GoldenRing's closure was here. There is a comment (above) that GoldenRing should not have closed the AE so quickly (less than four hours elapsed) and that Al-Andalusi didn't have time to respond. The logical action on this request by the Committee would be to take no action, but suggest that Al-Andalusi follow the usual steps of WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. For example, he could open his own {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} at AE. The question of Al-Andalusi's conduct doesn't depend crucially on whether a 1RR existed on the I/P material at Acid throwing. I am in agreement with User:Doug Weller's comment below. My opinion is that the scope of the ARBPIA restrictions is already sufficiently clear and there is no big weakness in the system that Arbcom ought to be addressing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2017 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

Recuse For the obvious reason. GoldenRing (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I've slightly reformatted this title. For the Committee - Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

So far as I'm aware, it has never been the intention that every PIA related page should be individually logged as being subject to the relevant restrictions. (Or indeed, that any topic area's pages should be.) I understand Neil's point about communication, but realistically, a log that consists of a list of page titles sitting in an obscure corner of the arbitration pages is not practical for that purpose anyway. I am starting to suspect that the unending stream of clarification requests on the exact boundaries of these remedies, and the mechanics of enforcing those boundaries, is evidence that the whole thing needs to be redesigned - but since I don't have the time to even think about it, I should probably just keep my mouth shut ;) I'm not in favor of a strict requirement for AE requests to stay open for a particular length of time or until the subject responds, though I think it's wise to wait if something is ambiguous and not urgent. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: That's correct. Though I always feel like the Peter Principle in action when asked about the details of AE/DS procedures ;) It'd be good to see one of our more procedure-oriented arbs comment before we close this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, what OR says. Is someone were to point out that all these regulations and notifications and logs and logs of notifications and notifications of logs are byzantine and cumbersome and apt to be gamed, I'd "yes" that too. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should attempt the Herculean task of trying to log the pages and I'm pretty sure it would make enforcing the system worse. As for the system itself, sure it might be gamed at times and it creaks and it's all a bit Rube Goldberg machine, but it seems to work most of the time. The main complaint I get is problems with finding the templates. Doug Weller talk 04:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Mkdw, I think we are all agreeing with BU Rob13? Doug Weller talk 15:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with OR and Doug on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't have much to add on this issue but I tend to agree with BU Rob13's opinion on this matter. Mkdw ^talk 19:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Or, both that the whole system needs to be redesigned, and that I have no idea how to redesign it. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 27 June 2017 (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: GamerGate (June 2017)

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 Salvidrim! at 03:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: GamerGate 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:

Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Salvidrim!

This is a request for clarification of the scope of the Gamergate discretionary sanctions, particularly the second segment about its appplicability to any gender-related dispute or controversy. There arose a situation where there is a dispute (and slight edit warring) on the article philoSOPHIA (a feminist journal named after a goddess of feminity) over the inclusion of a list of advisory board members (original dispute on article talk). The dispute itself rests on arguments mostly about the weight WikiProject essays have, with WP:OWN-like issues within WikiProjects, with precedent and common practice for other journal articles, and with WP:UNDUE/WP:PROMO/WP:OR and other content policies. The article, by itself, is gender-related. During the course of the dispute, SlimVirgin added a DS tag to the talk page, which led Headbomb to react by opening the AN thread linked lower. These are generally agreed upon, unambiguous facts.

To my neutral eye, this could be summed up as "a dispute unrelated to gender, on a gender-related article". The content dispute itself is being hashed out on WP:AN and is not the focus of this ARCA. The issue requiring clarification is whether the placing of the DS tag on the article's talk page was appropriate: the DS applies to "gender-related disputes", not "gender-related articles" (a journal article is not intrinsically a dispute), but does "broadly construed" mean that, in practice, it is applicable to any gender-related article topic?

This ARCA flows right off of this AN thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Dispute over philoSOPHIA article, in which I have done my best to act as mediator. I ultimately consider myself neutral on the topic of the applicability of DS to this article (I can see it from both sides). In order to de-escalate and in the spirit of BRD, I have requested that SlimVirgin remove the DS tag temporarily pending this ARCA, but she declined to do so. I'm hoping Headbomb will calmly leave it as status quo while this is pending clarification.

The questions to clarify here are:

Whether this type of article falls within the DS (in which case a refining of the DS wording might be examined), or at least whether this specific article does.
Whether it was appropriate for an editor involved in a content dispute to add a DS tag to the talk page

I'd also personally like to see it clarified by what process the addition of a DS tag, once disputed, can be discussed or appealed. My instinct and experience says "ARCA" but that is not really mentioned anywhere on WP:ACDS and ArbCom procedure, of all things, benefits the most from clear directions. Perhaps the clerks can chime in on that.

The parties will be notified (although I've spoked to them both about the referral to ARCA beforehand anyways) and will surely present their positions in their own sections in due time. A short summary of both sides (direct quotes only, so as to not misrepresent):

SlimVirgin: You're reverting two women who are trying to write an article about a feminist journal, and you keep removing the names of the women who run it. It doesn't get more gender-related than that.

Headbomb: Admin User:SlimVirgin wants to put me under discretionary sanction by shoehorning a content dispute into a gender issue, when they themselves are involved in said dispute. (...) Having lost consensus, they now slap me with horseshit discretionary sanctions, saying this is somehow a gender-related dispute.

RE: Johnuniq - As outlined above, the content dispute included an element of edit warring, as I've already pointed out on AN everyone involved should be trouted for that (edit warring should never be part of dispute resolution, etc.) but I don't think the dispute nor warring over the list of advisory members to be particularly relevant to either of the questions asking for clarification here. I've deliberately chosen not to rehash the content dispute or the warring to focus this here on the DS tag itself, as that is all ArbCom should concern itself with. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

RE: MjolnirPants - And yet the text of the DS does not include "gender-related articles" as you say. It includes "gender-related disputes and controversies". If in practice this is understood as including all gender-related articles where dispute may occur, I suppose it should be clarified indeed. RexxS provides good insight into the nuance of the wording of the DS and I suspect his inference of ArbCom's intended usage of the DS is probably going to turn out accurate. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

RE: Gorilla Warfare - This confusion between the "editor action of adding a DS tag or issuing DS alerts" and the "admin action of enacting discretionary sanctions" is not very clearly resolved by reading WP:ACDS. I think adding clarification there as a result of this ARCA would be the best way forward. However there is already a clear division of opinion amongst ArbCom as to whether an "involved editor adding a DS tag" is appropriate or not, so that needs to be settled amongst yourselves first, and then written into WP:ACDS. It might also be worth it to clarify how to "appeal" (so to speak) a contested DS tag (revert, AN, AE, ARCA, whatever else) and mention it on WP:ACDS as well because in this case I've opted for ARCA based on instinct since WP:ACDS doesn't provide explicit guidance. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

Headbomb arrived at the article—a new article about philoSOPHIA: A Journal of Continental Feminism—wanting it to be deleted, calling it a "special snowflake", and being aggressive and insulting. He removed the names of the editorial board five times between 31 May and 3 June, reverting against three editors. [2][3][4][5][6]

Headbomb based the removal on WP:JWG, an essay he and RandyKitty wrote for WikiProject Journals that says editorial boards need independent sources that discuss them in more than just passing, and that using the journal itself or the publisher isn't enough. It was Randykitty who added those words to the essay. Randykitty arrived at the article on 4 June and removed the names three times in under eight hours. [7][8][9] On 5 June Headbomb removed them again, [10] after which Randkitty slapped two tags on the article, [11] and Headbomb removed a secondary source that a new editor had mistakenly placed in External links. [12]

This is disruption. Because of the reverting, I posted a DS alert on talk, to Headbomb and to Randykitty, which led to more insults from Headbomb on WP:AN: "utter fucking horseshit", I should be desyopped, I'm engaged in "toxic feminism". He alleged that by posting the alerts I had abused the tools, but informing editors that a page is subject to DS is not an admin action. Anyone can do that ("Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict"), and must do it if a complaint under DS might be made.

As to whether this is a "gender-related dispute or controversy ... broadly construed", it's gender-related in every sense: male editors arriving to tell female editors how they're allowed to write about women, in an article that references the exclusion of women from philosophy. The names they keep removing include women known for their work on gender and sexism, including Judith Butler, Kelly Oliver, and Linda Martín Alcoff—and specifically on how philosophy has been affected by its treatment of women. There's an enormous dispute about this in academic philosophy: because of sexual harassment, the type of material that is taught, and the way it is taught. [13][14] The article refers directly to this, citing one of philoSOPHIA's articles: "one of the functions of the journal is to ask what the daughter's responsibilities are toward the father: 'Must the daughter be patricidal?'"

I created the article as part of an effort to improve the coverage of women in philosophy. I recently improved {{Feminist philosophy sidebar}} and created {{Feminist philosophy}}. The other editor working on the article, Hypatiagal, is a newish editor, a woman with a PhD in philosophy, who should be encouraged, not put through this. We would like to include the names of the editorial board in that article, and I plan to write about their ideas using the journal as an RS. Headbomb has decided that this isn't allowed. I am therefore invoking the gender-related DS as part of dispute resolution in the hope that it will end the disruption. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

kelapstick, you're confusing the content with the behaviour. The content issue can be resolved with an RfC, but the behaviour (the serial reverting, the aggression) cannot. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing that would help is if the committee were to reorganize the gender DS alert so that Gamergate isn't mentioned first. Editors involved in gender-related dispute have regularly wondered why they're being told about Gamergate. This would be less confusing: "(a) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (b) pages related to GamerGate, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed". SarahSV ^(talk) 08:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

kelapstick, every aspect of this dispute oozes sexism from my perspective. Two women are not allowed to write an article about a feminist philosophy journal, and include the names of the women who run the journal, without three men—who know nothing about feminist philosophy—arriving with instructions about what kind of sources they will allow, two of them edit warring very aggressively to impose their preference. One of the men uses sexist language: "special snowflake" and "toxic feminism". This is sexism and "gender-related, broadly construed".

One of the big issues causing the content gender gap has been the type of sourcing we require, which can have the effect of excluding women. In this case, Headbomb and Randykitty have come up with an especially stringent rule: that editorial boards must have independent sources that discuss them in detail, not just in passing. That is going to exclude all but the most notable, which places journals run by women and people of colour at a disadvantage. SarahSV ^(talk) 09:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb

There is zero gender component to the dispute, it is purely and solely about on whether or not editorial boards should be listed on journal articles since those usually violate WP:PROMO (we allow them when we have WP:IS discussing the role of the editorial board/specific members, otherwise we restrict ourselves to editors-in-chief and equivalent positions). I'll offer User talk:Randykitty#A request as material to consider here. I feel it was highly inappropriate of SV to shoehorn the dispute in a a gender-related issue so she could add the tag, placing the article under discretionary sanctions via admin fiat despite being WP:INVOLVED, and threatening to take us to WP:AE if we removed the tag. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If there is indignation User:Johnuniq, it is because I do not appreciate being lumped with troglodyte cavemen GamerGaters, or because SV abuses her authority to deny my rights and that of others as editors, or being generally being bullied into submission because of my gender by sexists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: WP:ACDS states "Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee has authorised their use". If an article doesn't have discretionary sanctions, then an admin places {{Ds/talk notice}} which states in plain bold "This page is subject to discretionary sanctions", how is this not putting the article under discretionary sanctions??? Or a violation of WP:INVOLVED? Especially since normal editors can't remove the sanctions, and admins can't without consent of the original admin? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Re to SV

"Headbomb arrived at the article—a new article about philoSOPHIA: A Journal of Continental Feminism—wanting it to be deleted, calling it a "special snowflake", and being aggressive and insulting.

This is patently false. I made a comment in the AfD that I didn't understand how the keep !votes were based in policy, and argued that this journal should follow WP:JWG because it was not a special snowflake, unlike SV who pleaded that because the journal was small and feminist, WP:JWG did not apply. I insulted no one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

SV is so intent on winning this that now I'm being faulted for "Headbomb removed a secondary source that a new editor had mistakenly placed in External links". Or you know, cleanup. And lastly saying your deployment of discretionary sanctions while being WP:INVOLVED is horseshit is not an insult, and I find you making this somehow a gendered-debate just so you can at the same time abuse your admin position to stiffle debate, and depict myself and other editors of absolutely impeccable pedigree as User:Randykitty and User:DGG as some women-hating cavemen ("male editors arriving to tell female editors how they're allowed to write about women, in an article that references the exclusion of women from philosophy.") is the very embodiment of toxic feminism. You claimed my interest in this journal was non-genuine because I was a man. I became interested in the journal because it popped in WP:AALERTS for WP:JOURNALS, of which I'm a highly-active member (see User:Headbomb/My work#Academic serials and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism/Archive 4#WP:JCW needs help, amongst others). You claimed that I bullied people/disagreed with editors because they were women. The first time I learned/realized anyone of them were women was when you brought it up. Hell, I didn't even realize you were a women until I noticed you had updated your signature to SarahSV. I simply gives zero fucks about what gender people are/identify as, and before accusing me of assuming everyone are men, no I don't do that. Hell, I even used the singular they to refer to you initially because I couldn't be arsed to look up which pronoun to use. It is way more efficient and effective to think of everyone as anonymous amorphous blobs of flesh. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And again, I have not decided that the inclusion of the editorial board is not allowed, the community has over many many discussions with several editors concerning several journals across many years. You were made aware of this many time, especially at User talk:Randykitty#A request. It's not looking like it'll be any different this time either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Re to GorillaWarfare

If there is a restriction because of gender-related crap, then that's solely on SV. She's the only one that brought gender into this, made arguments based on gender, and tried to exclude people from participation based on gender. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The only part where I'm alleging toxic feminism is in SV's action (and only hers, not SV et al) of shoehorning a non-gender dispute into a gender dispute, so she can as an admin put the article under a gender-related discretionary sanctions (a tag which as a non-admin I am not allowed to remove, and which WP:AC/DS states only admins may put under sanctions), with threats to take me to AE if I did remove it, alongside multiple claims that I and other editors cannot opine on things because we are men. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Ds/talk notice}} states black-on-white "This page is subject to discretionary sanctions". Not may be covered by, it says that it is (and what those are is quite unclear, but "I'll block you if you disagree with me again" is not an unreasonable reading of that when the sanctions are placed by an involved admin). If this is not what is meant (and that is exactly what SV meant by it, backed with threats), then there is a gross failure to communicate clearly somewhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If there are no sanctions, then SV's behaviour and claims are then completely misleading and grossly inappropriate, both as an editor and as an admin who should know way better than this. Can ARBCOM opine on whether or not SV should be allowed to make such claims in the future / put those templates on articles where she's herself involved in disputes? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Re Opabinia regalis

The template says "This page is subject to discretionary sanctions", SV who placed the template said it's under sanctions with threats to bring me to AE if I did remove the template, and WP:ACDS says "No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without the sanctioning admin's consent / other conditions". You'll forgive me if I take those things at face values. Or express consternation that SV is judged to be not-guilty of admin abuse because but failed to actually impose sanctions because of a technicality even thought the intent was clearly there.

As for the "gendered" component of this, I find if this is to somehow fall under the gamergate shit, that is a gross abuse of the scope of that resolution. There is absolutely nothing in the Talk:PhiloSOPHIA dispute that has any grounds whatsoever in gender. The gendered component was started and caused by, and solely by, Slim Virgin and the rest is a meta-level "well is this actually a gender-related dispute or not?". This is like if

A dispute at Climate of Mars concerning the mention of dust devils arised
Someone slaps the Climate change discretionary sanctions on the article because the dust devil claims are supported by a meteorology journal
A meta dispute on whether or not Martian climate is covered by the climate change sanctions ensues

Then on the basis of

The sanction imposer having made those claims
Those who think it is ludicrous for climate change sanctions to apply to the planetary climate science

ARBCOM decides Climate change sanctions apply to a dispute on martian dust devils because "see, both sides talked about climate changes". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

If Headbomb is confident about being on the correct side, why all the indignation? Indignation often indicates that there is an underlying issue responsible for the enthusiasm with which arguments are presented. Headbomb removed the text six times (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) and should know that if he is correct, the best procedure would be to wait per WP:NODEADLINE rather than harass good editors with belligerence. 04:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Discretionary sanctions apply to topic areas. An article may be covered by the topic area and so be subject to potential sanctions in the event of a dispute, but applying the DS template as an Admin (which Headbomb correctly points out, a non-admin cant remove) while in a content dispute about a non-gender issue - then templating the people you are in dispute with - this is a clear attempt to chill any opposition and is sub-standard admin behaviour. If as an admin you take an action that a non-admin cannot revert while in a content dispute, its textbook involved. Its using your advanced permissions to win an argument. And frankly if SV doesnt want her actions to be described as 'toxic feminism' she should spend less time escalating bog-standard minor disputes into 'this is because I/we are women (or) you are not a woman' territory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants

It seems to me to be fairly clear-cut that this article is a gender-related article (being about a journal of feminism). So as to whether it falls into the topic area in which these DSes are authorized is not really much of a question. However, it has been disputed (because it's also an academic journal, I believe is the reason), so I suppose this needs clarification. I'm completely uninvolved in this, but it's apparent to me that tempers are high, and so I'd like to offer some free beer and a sympathetic ear to any party on either side of this issue. Just swing on by my talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: I think several others (including some arbs) have already addressed that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

It would be helpful to concentrate on policies, not personalities, if we are to move forward. Salvidrim! asks two questions: (1) Whether this type of article falls within the DS (in which case a refining of the DS wording might be examined), or at least whether this specific article does; (2) Whether it was appropriate for an editor involved in a content dispute to add a DS tag to the talk page.

The wording of the GamerGate Remedy 1.1 is "standard discretionary sanctions ... are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy ... broadly construed." I believe that the essence of that is to defuse the Finding of Fact concerning "Battlefield conduct". It should be clear therefore that ArbCom felt that disputes and controversies where gender can enter into the debate ought to be amenable to discretionary sanctions. In that case, an article about a feminist journal seems quite likely to be susceptible to precisely those problems of Battlefield conduct that the Arbs envisaged. Looking at what has already occurred, I think they were quite prescient.

My view, for what it's worth, is that a non-gender-related dispute on a gender-related article is always likely to veer off onto a gender-related tack. From that, I would argue that having an uninvolved admin apply discretionary sanctions to an editor who transgresses the accepted standards outlined by AC/DS would be a good thing. That effectively answers both questions. The act of informing another editor that an uninvolved admin may arrive and impose sanctions at their discretion, is a neutral action, and definitely not an admin action. In fact, many might consider it doing them a favour. If the argument remains that such a notice may have a 'chilling effect', I would counter that an involved editor placing such a tag cannot be making even an implied threat, because they may not take any admin action in a dispute where they are involved anyway. --RexxS (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo

Wait a second here. Is the contention of SV and some of the arbs here that DS cover more than the article subject and discussion of the article subject? That a "gender-related dispute", as described in the DS, can literally be a man and a woman in a content dispute? Because, frankly, that's absurd. That's so wide open to gaming it's ridiculous. Gaming like this from SV: "it's gender-related in every sense: male editors arriving to tell female editors how they're allowed to write about women, in an article that references the exclusion of women from philosophy". Especially on a site where it's nobody's business what your gender is and where your gender, excluding editors that have to disclose their identities, isn't even verifiable. That an admin would even write that is shocking to me.

It's hard to even parse the implications of that reading of the DS. So on any article, where the subject is related to women, deference has to be given to editors that claim to be women? That was the intention of this DS? That seems to be SV's interpretation: "Two women are not allowed to write an article about a feminist philosophy journal, and include the names of the women who run the journal, without three men—who know nothing about feminist philosophy—arriving with instructions about what kind of sources they will allow, two of them edit warring very aggressively to impose their preference." Again, an admin said this? It's so contrary to basic editing policy that it's a bit hard to fathom. Not to mention, wildly presumptuous.

To be more on the point of the clarification, the templates need badly to be clarified. So anyone can put a Ds/talk notice on a page and start throwing around threats? Or in SV's case directly claim that page IS now under DS because they said so? The simple fact that even the responding Arbs aren't even sure if only admins are supposed to apply the template shows how discombobulated this system is. From SV's own words, "Yes, it is under discretionary sanctions. Initiating DS has nothing to do with being an admin," shows how ridiculous the current situation is. What does "initiating a DS" even mean if it holds no actual weight? I agree with SV that the DS alert, however you fashion it, should not mention Gamergate outside of the link to the actual case. It's confusing and has no relatable bearing on what, whatever interpretation you apply to the DS, is the presumptive point of the DS. Capeo (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:, you get the heart of my question when you say the dispute is gender related to the editors themselves, when it's my understanding DS apply to subject matter, not editors' interpretations of content disputes. I know that sound the same but there's a subtle distinction. Due to this article's subject matter I believe it should fall under the GG DS, but you seem to be saying that the DS could possibly apply anywhere there's a dispute. Is that the case? Because that's contrary to how I've seen other DS used in the past. Stuff brought to AE gets tossed all the time because the article where the dispute is taking place doesn't fall under a particular DS. We don't go around templating editors that have fringe views on their user or talk pages. Only if they try to force those views into an article that is subject to DS. Similarly with all the editors that have very strong views regarding the PI conflict. If that is the intent/interpretation of this DS then it is extraordinarily broad.

Specifically, I took "all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed" to mean the subjects of GamerGate, gender-related disputes or controversies, and people associated with them. Not any dispute, anywhere on WP, where one side "feels" like the conflict has some gender-related component, regardless of what the dispute is even about. If someone is being a sexist ass, outside of a GG or gender related article, then that's a behavioral issue easily handled at AN/I. I don't believe most editors would think to take it to AE. By the same token, I believe most, if not all, admin regulars at AE would say the DS doesn't apply and toss it to AN/I anyway. At least as it's currently interpreted. Capeo (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

After perusing the DS related pages I see, even after years being here, I didn't even quite understand how DS work. Now that I've read it all I find it strangely confusing. So there's three templates. Two, the alert and talknotice, can be placed by anybody. The editnotice can only be placed by an admin. I was always under the impression that the TPs of all pages subject to DS had to have the editnotice placed on them to show they are subject to DS before bringing someone to AE. The reason being the other two templates, that anyone can place, claim that the page is under DS. So we have a situation where any editor can claim an article is subject to DS, whether it is or not. If there's no editnotice then, say, it goes to AE where admins decide is the page does fall under a DS topic. So does the alert or talknotice count as being "alerted" to the DS and leave an editor open to sanctions? Even though the page hadn't been positively confirmed to fall under a DS topic prior to that?

Not to mention, editors shouldn't be able to throw templates around that make a positive claim that hasn't even been confirmed. The templates don't say DS might apply, it says they do. I know it's not feasible for admins to go around and place editnotice templates on every page on WP that is included in a topic that's subject to DS. That's pretty much impossible. As it is right now though we have a system where editors can make claims about the stiffest sanctioning system we have without any confirmation that the claim is true. Half of this current conflict stems from Headbomb reacting to these alerts as confirming that SlimVirgin just made the page subject to DS and, the way the templates read, I can't blame them. I mean, can't we have a template that says "may be subject to DS", for those pages that haven't been confirmed, and a template that says what the current ones do that can only be used by editors when it involves pages with an editnotice on them? On top of that, anything brought to AE or ARCA where the consensus is that a page is subject to DS should have an editnotice added as part of the closing process.

Side note: along the lines of what Ks0stm mentions, the pages that describe DS, and the process surrounding them, suffer massively from a constant use of the word "sanction". It's needlessly difficult to parse if the use of the word is in reference to a topic subject to DS or if it's referencing the sanctions that can be applied by an admin. Capeo (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

Only to comment that my reading of the DS is that the gender-related dispute or controversy should be as related to only what the topic is about, and not what happens behind the scenes between editors of WP; as I read this specific case, there's no gender-related dispute with the actual publication involved, but only editors' debate over it. Allowing the "dispute or controversy" to apply to talk pages or other behind-the-scenes areas (even things like edit summaries) opens up a potentially slippery slope not just in the GG area but other DS like American Politics (how many non-political pages have mentioned Trump in talk page discussions, thus flagging them under that DS?) Also, in the context of Capeo/GW's discussion, just saying that if one or more editors take offense to edits considering them "gender-related" , that again that a potential slippery slope that would allow people to game how DS are applied to influence how a talk page discussion occurs. There certainly are gender-based disputes between editors that are over content on pages that have no gender-related disputes, and I can see that if the dispute is heated enough, that the GG DS should be applied to the talk page, but that should be something determined by a consensus of uninvolved admins so that involved editors aren't gaming the system (not just in GG but in other areas) where the topic itself clearly doesn't broadly fall into the DS area. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The key word is "dispute or controversy", not so much "gender-related". Outside of WP editors, there's nothing controversial at all about the journal in the real world, the dispute is strictly about the behavior of two editors that one has turned into an issue over gender (arguing that men should not be instructing what to do on a journalism devoted to feminism). There's bad behavior all around, but this specific aspect is completely inappropriate to force into the discussion about the article and would make a way to game DSes across a wide range of topics that can effectively eliminate voices from discussion if they go all the way to 500/30 that some DS (like GG DS) has. The gender of the WP editors should never have been raised in the first place. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

The parade of horribles above by Masem is wholly unconvincing -- there is no "slippery slope", in putting a modern feminist journal talk page on the DS list for gender related. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

It has been asserted many times in the past that the reason for expanding the Gamergate sanctions to "gender-related" articles was to prevent the people importing conflicts into related areas. This area has absolutely nothing to do with Gamergate, nor has anyone said so. I fail to see how the use of the Gamergate discretionary sanctions is appropriate here. This just seems like WP:CREEP to me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by ForbiddenRocky

The lede for philoSOPHIA reads "A Journal of Continental Feminism". Doesn't get more gender-related than that.
The GG sanctions have been broadly construed against other areas and editors: WP:AEL. If this is not "(b) any gender-related dispute or controversy [...] all broadly construed", then those other sanctions should be reviewed.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, given that GG is now 3 years past. Perhaps the scope of the GG sanctions should be limited to things that are tainted by GG. However, determining what is tainted would be a nasty rabbit hole go down.

On the other other hand, there could be an asymmetry created by a bad modification of the GG sanctions because editors that have been dealing with GG could trigger something being under GG sanctions simply by showing up.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

On another other other hand, perhaps drop redo the the GG DS, and have it be primarily about about "any gender-related dispute or controversy". Again, this being 2017 looking back at 2014. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

I'm concerned about scope creep. Having seen the original GamerGate ArbCom case and articles, it's pretty clear that making a case that an article is covered by GamerGate will escalate tension and conflict. It's a last resort. It should be limited to articles that are already tainted with GamerGate conflict. Unless I'm missing something, this article has nothing to do with GamerGate but GamerGate is invoked because GamerGate topic area articles are covered by gender-related discetionary sanction. It is a huge mistake to look at remedies first and then searching for an ArbCom case that can be slapped on the article. I ran into this earlier in the week when someone tried to put the London attack in AP2 simply because AP2 has a 1RR restriction option and Trump commented on the bombing. It didn't fly there and that should be taken to heart here.

Gamergate is toxic. It should be invoked only after GamerGate toxicity has infected it. Simply using GamerGate because it has a desired remedy is a poison-pill tag that escalates conflict rather than a remedy being applied to existing conflicts. If the conflict in this article is to GamerGate levels, file the appropriate arbitration case. If it's not at arbitration levels of conflict, then it certainly is not a GamerGate article. --DHeyward (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare why GamerGate? There are other ArbCom cases that cover gender. It's my understanding is that "broadly construed" is contained with content covered by the case. If it's not, then there are very few, if any, admins that are uninvolved in an unconstrained "gender related dispute." Manning is gender related. The Matrix/Wachowski's are gender related. Jenner/Kardashians are gender related. Wonder Woman is gender related. Bill Cosby is gender related. A broad interpretation that these would fall under GamerGate because gender is a main topic seems to create the exact opposite construct and would involve all admins to some degree. We would be much better off constraining the articles subject to GamerGate AC/DS to articles that are within the GamerGate topic area. GamerGate in no way defines gender or a gender related dispute. Rather, GamerGate highlighted misbehavior that was gender related within the GamerGate topic area. Admins enforcing GamerGate AC/DS only had to be uninvolved in GamerGate topics, not broadly construed gender related topics. How would applying GamerGate AC/DSs to all gender related disputes allow for any admin to claim they are broadly uninvolved in any gender related content area? We run the risk of creating "involved" classes of admins by fiat of overly broad interpretations. Are admins that have edited any gender related articles now "involved" in GamerGate disputes? --DHeyward (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog

It is hard to think clearly about identity politics. Here is my effort.

Yes, the WP:GENDERGAP issues are real, and important. Nobody disputes this.
There is a difference between a topic and editors who work on it being subject to DS, and DS actually being applied through some uninvolved admin placing them, or one editor bringing another to AE and DS being applied there. No DS have been applied to the article. (Headbomb appears to be confused about this)
The Gamergate DS were made available to deal with poor behavior generated in hot disputes over specifically gender-related content. What we are seeing here, is indeed poor behavior in a hot dispute over gender related content.
In my view, the behavior of SlimVirgin (disclosure - the two of us have tangled) is an example of why DS are useful on gender-related topics --- in the edit warring she has done, her stated intentions with regard to content (apparently intending to turn the article about the journal into a COATRACK for topics covered by the journal), and arguments she has made for exceptions to policies and guidelines for content in this article. And the argument that people who claim they are gender X should be given deference when they are editing about topic X is anathema to this project, and frankly appears to me be just an ugly effort to get what she wants. Identity-based privilege is not the way to address the gender gap.
In my view, Headbomb is generally aggressive (even moreso than me) and too quick to descend to personal attacks (disclosure - the two of us have tangled). They have done all that here, and that behavior in this context was especially unproductive. As an example, Headbomb made a good argument about advocacy in the AfD, here. But just 2 minutes later, in this diff they came back put an ugly point on it with the "not a special snowflake" comment (reacting too strongly to SlimVirgin's obvious advocacy). I have never heard the phrase "special snowflake" used without a denigrating intention, and Headbomb's response on that issue is off point. (This is the kind of thing that WP:CIVIL is actually about - that 2nd comment did nothing to advance the discussion but was just pouring sand into the gears of getting work done; they had already made the advocacy argument well enough in their 1st comment, and the article was obviously not going to deleted by the point in the discussion). But the availability of DS and notices of it, are useful to help people think twice before they save edits like that one.
So yes, this article is within the scope of the Gamergate DS and both editors should be acutely aware of that, as both of their behaviors have been objectionable.
I urge the committee to explicitly reject SlimVirgin's argument about identity-based exceptions to content and behavior policies and guidelines.
I agree that these DS being referred to as the "Gamergate DS" is unfortunate, but that is how we name DS as far as I know. If Arbcom could provide a way to refer to them otherwise, that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

Recently there was an editor who claimed that an article on one the terrorist attacks in Paris (if I recall correctly) was authorized for discretionary sanctions for American politics because it contained a statement quoting American Vice-President Pence (in particular, edits to that sentence). A discussion subsequently ensued on whether or not this should be the case. I believe the community should be allowed to reach a consensus on the scope of discretionary sanctions, when possible, and a clarification sought on this page if an agreement cannot be reached. I do not think it is wise to automatically accept any single editor's claim that discretionary sanctions have been authorized for a given article. isaacl (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2017 (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.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

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

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

Without (yet) speaking to their applicability in this particular situation, it's currently my thoughts that:
1. Actions which do not have to be logged at the arbitration enforcement log, such as placing {{Ds/talk notice}} on talk pages and/or {{alert}} on user talk pages for the purpose of notifying editors that discretionary sanctions have been authorized for a topic area, do not constitute an administrative action and may be done even when involved
2. Any actions that must be logged at AEL, such as using the discretionary sanctions system to place restrictions on pages or editors, constitute an administrative action and may not be done while involved.
My thoughts are not set in stone, so I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say on this ARCA before I come to my final conclusions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: It's a bit of an unfortunate collision in wording, to be honest. The talk page notice states that the page is subject to the system of "discretionary sanctions", but does not actually place any "discretionary sanctions", if that makes sense. "Discretionary sanctions" refers to both the system that can be used to enact sanctions as well as to the actual sanctions enacted under the system. {{Ds/talk notice}} and {{alert}} merely notify that the system applies, and placing them does not require logging at AEL. They do not actually enact any sanctions under the system, which can only be done by uninvolved administrators and must be logged at AEL. It's like warning someone for edit warring versus actually blocking for it: The notification can be done while involved, while the administrative action can only be done by an uninvolved administrator. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Only in death: My understanding is the same as GorillaWarfare's: "
  The template is just to ensure that editors are aware that uninvolved administrators may be allowed to place additional types of restrictions with regards to a page (protections, topic bans, etc.) because the page (or parts of it) falls under a DS topic. ... As far as I'm aware, there's no rule that only administrators may add or remove that warning template, though I could be wrong.
  " Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
While the subject of the article could (very) easily become the subject of a "gender-related dispute", every content dispute on the article is not inherently gender-related. Superficially (i.e. simply the removal/re-addition of the content) this dispute does not appear to be gender-related. What does drive this in that direction is Headbomb evoking the snowflake clause and referencing to toxic feminism. Noting that both examples are taken (somewhat) out of context (and that is a large assumption of good faith towards Headbomb), they do largely point to motive. Having said that, both DGG and Randykitty appear to be siding with the removal without resorting to such arguments, and under no such motivation. In fact, the arguments for removal are all this is the way we write articles about journals on Wikipedia (noting that Wikipedia works on consensus not precedent). As such, we can't simply say that the removal by all parties in an effort to remove them because they are women advising on a journal about feminism. The proper way to curb disruption/edit warring would have been to request full protection (which you would not have been allowed to edit through) until consensus was reached on the talk page. And while I don't doubt that you may see this as a gender-related dispute, in my opinion it is not. It is an editorial dispute, which can be remedied by the RfC which has been started on the talk page.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

In answer to your second question Salvidrim!, as a general rule (to which there will always be exceptions) I would say no, a user shouldn't tag an article as being under discretionary sanctions on an article in which there is a content dispute in which they are involved (in an effort to further their position). However, as SlimVirgin has not replaced the material since the addition of the template, I would say no-harm no-foul in that respect in this particular instance. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, this ARCA was asking two specific questions, if the article should be subject to discretionary sanctions, and if an article should tagged by someone involved in a content dispute. To which my views are "no (or at least not yet)" and "not usually". Serial reverting and behaviour can usually be taken care of without resorting to applying DS as the first step. Regarding your wording reorganization suggestion, that seems sensible. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if you would like me to state on the record that I believe that Headbomb has acted like a jackass, than yes I believe he has. However your desire to change sourcing requirements in order to bridge the content gender gap (noble an effort as it may be) is not a matter for the Arbitration Committee. As an aside (related to the comment three men—who know nothing about feminist philosophy), I wrote the article Henriette Alimen, which is about a woman who was a paleontologist. Should I not have done that because I am not a woman, and know nothing of paleontology? (Rhetorical question of course, there is no need to answer that, unless you really think I should not have, in which case a more appropriate venue would probably be my talk page). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Ks0stm. Being placed "under" sanctions or being alerted to sanctions is not actually sanctioning anyone. As {{Ds/talk notice}} says, "This template warns people on the talk page that arbitration discretionary sanctions have been authorised." I see this as the same as placing an alert on another editor's talk page. Anyone can do that but only uninvolved Administrators can sanction editors. Note also that WP:ACDS#Alerts states that "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned." I don't see evidence that's what's happened here. It's unfortunate that WP:ACDS doesn't have a section on placing talk page notices but it doesn't, nor does it restrict placing such notices to Administrators. The default is that anyone can place talk page notices. We don't seem to have set a procedure for removing a sanctions talk page notice although we have amended {{WP:ACDS]] specifying that editors may request the removal of restrictions at WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Adding that I agree that placing this article under discretionary sanctions is reasonable given the conflict. I'll also note once an editor has been given an alert or a ds notice has been placed on a talk page, "behavioural best practice", although always hoped for, is required and that "Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I've just moved the above comment of yours that got somehow inserted between mine. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I do think that this dispute should be considered to be covered by the GamerGate discretionary sanctions. I might normally question whether it's appropriate to apply them to a dispute like this (even though it focuses on a list of women advisory board members, all of whom are active in gender- and sexism-related topics, on an article about a journal of feminist theory) because that requires the judgment that the dispute itself is gender-related. However, I think since people on both sides of this dispute have brought feminism, sexism, and gender into their arguments, and because the scope of these discretionary sanctions is meant to be broadly construed, it's appropriate to warn folks involved in the dispute about the discretionary sanctions, and for an uninvolved administrator to use them in the future if things escalate.

@Headbomb: Regarding the application of discretionary sanctions, and the warnings: I agree with others that simply placing the warning on an article or users' talk pages is not an admin action. It's also not an accusation that you or others involved in the dispute has done something wrong, nor is it a sanction against you. My recommendation to you when you see such a notice on an article or on your talk page is to familiarize yourself with the issues that led to discretionary sanctions being authorized in the topic area (if you are unfamiliar), then continue with your constructive editing without much worry. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: You are also calling SlimVirgin et. al. sexists and "toxic feminists", and arguing that at least some of the dispute is based on your gender. Regardless of how your participation in the dispute began, it has certainly by now become a gender-related dispute. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I think you are still misunderstanding discretionary sanctions and the role of that template. The template is just to ensure that editors are aware that uninvolved administrators may be allowed to place additional types of restrictions with regards to a page (protections, topic bans, etc.) because the page (or parts of it) falls under a DS topic. Placing the template is not placing a sanction; it's just noting that administrators are authorized to do so if disruption occurs. The bit you link to, about removing sanctions, is referring to the removal of sanctions that an uninvolved administrator has actually placed on the page or on editors, not referring to the removal of warning templates. As far as I'm aware, there's no rule that only administrators may add or remove that warning template, though I could be wrong. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: The template should perhaps be reworded to more closely match the longform version, which reads "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." As yet, no discretionary sanctions are in place regarding that page, the template is meant to be a warning that there are additional sanctions available to administrators. Look at the WP:AC/DS policy page: there aren't default sanctions that are applied when a page or topic area is authorized for discretionary sanctions, and the authorization of discretionary sanctions on a page alone does not change how you may edit the page. You're arguing that page is now somehow restricted because of SlimVirgin's addition of the template, or that you are somehow now restricted in your editing of that page; I'm saying that that's impossible because no restrictions have been placed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Good suggestions. We should consider where we can clarify this, since it's obviously confusing. I'll put some thought into it later this evening. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now that it's later this evening: I feel like there should be no restriction on placing a DS notice on a page or an editor's talk page regardless of whether the person placing the template is involved in the dispute. The discretionary sanctions page is clear that an alert is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault, and I feel like restricting these alerts to only be used by uninvolved editors would only make sense if the alerts are meant carry more weight. There are a lot of topic areas under discretionary sanctions, so it's easy for folks (even those who are very experienced) to start editing a page without knowing. I don't see placing an alert as being much different from telling an editor you're in dispute with about a policy that they may not be familiar with. As an example, I've been around for a while now, but if I suddenly took up editing medical articles and got into a dispute with someone over a source, them pointing me to WP:MEDRS would be a reasonable choice, since it would be a very reasonable assumption that I didn't realize that there was additional guidance on sourcing medical articles.

Certainly if an involved administrator not only placed a DS notice, but then also imposed sanctions, it would be a different matter. That doesn't seem to be under argument here, except for some misunderstanding about the distinction between placing an alert and placing a sanction, but the DS page is already clear that administrators may not impose a sanction when involved.

Regarding where a final decision can be made on whether an article/dispute/section/etc. falls under sanctions... That's a good question. The only real guidance about whether a page falls within discretionary sanctions is in the section on "broadly construed", and that's not particularly useful when it comes to how to handle disagreements. I'd suggest that editors who disagree with a page notice follow the same advice for escalation given to sanctioned editors: speak with the person who placed the notice, then request review at AE or AN, then file a clarification request here at ARCA. Would welcome any thoughts on that, though, and perhaps we can codify it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Capeo: I haven't said (nor do I believe) that the DS authorized in the GamerGate case apply to any dispute between Wikipedians simply because they differ in gender, and I don't think any of my colleagues have either. But, as far as I'm concerned, when people on one side of a dispute start to say that an argument is gender-related, it is gender-related for them. When people on the other side start referring to the folks they're disagreeing with as "toxic feminists", saying that they are being kept from editing an article based on their own gender, and start saying that their opponents are classifying them as "women-hating cavemen", it is gender-related for them. I am not saying that either party is at fault or needs to be sanctioned for their participation in the dispute; I think that's something the rest of the community can adeptly handle. I'm just saying that this dispute has clearly become gender-related, even if it perhaps was not to begin with.

I'm getting the impression (though perhaps I'm mistaken) that some folks here are assuming that as soon as discretionary sanctions are applied to a gender-related dispute, the men will automatically be sanctioned and the women will waltz off elsewhere to continue to insist that men are garbage. We've certainly had issues with misogyny being introduced into Wikipedia articles, and that is why some of these additional sanctions have been authorized, but there's certainly no "if men and women are in a gender-related dispute, the women win" rule. I'm at least confident enough that if there's a gender-related dispute where men are editing within acceptable behaviors and women are not, it will be handled fairly for the men. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: This is one of the cases where the scope of the sanctions authorized in the case was broader than the case name implies. This is fairly rare, but there are a few other examples: alternative medicine is under DS, despite the case being called Acupuncture; Afghanistan is under DS, despite the case being called India-Pakistan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The practical question here seems to be about whether this notion that editorial boards are verboten in articles really has broad support, and whether a list of members is useful information in this specific article. Most of the discussion around this dispute has been about peripheral things, with a high level of rhetorical excess compared to the very anodyne underlying issue. The article in question is about a feminist philosophy journal, so on that basis I have no trouble seeing it as subject to DS, but specifically not on the grounds of the (stated) genders of the participants. (Yes, I realize that gendered social dynamics don't just stop happening because we're in an environment where typical gender-identity signals are less clear, but that doesn't mean that's what DS is for.) There seems to be a lot of misunderstandings here about how DS work. Notifications are explicitly not "sanctions", so Headbomb's argument that "normal editors can't remove the sanctions" with a wikilink to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals by sanctioned editors doesn't make sense. On the other hand, SV referenced "initiating DS", which isn't a thing either. It's not immediately clear that these misunderstandings are widespread enough to necessitate formal clarification, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- The extreme case of the case-scope issue is surely the ancestor of the BLP DS being authorized in a case called (at the time) "Footnoted quotes" ;) I am rethinking this a bit now - in most of these instances where DS were authorized over a much wider scope than the specific incident that led to a case, mentioning the incident was not itself a potential source of disruption. Nobody is offended at being lumped in with those dastardly footnote-quoters (or was it quote-footnoters?) if they get a warning about BLP. Gamergate, though, is such a narrow and toxic issue that bringing it up has the potential to cause disruption in its own right, and is almost certain to be a distraction in a dispute about something gender-related that wasn't about Gamergate to begin with. We may well need DS over the subject of "gender-related controversies" - and I have no serious doubt that a journal about feminist scholarship should meet that description - but I suspect there is a case for separating Gamergate DS from a broader "gender controversies" category. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I consider myself recused from this discussion, because I was involved in the dispute about the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 27 June 2017 (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: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (June 2017)

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 Shrike at 06:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Palestine-Israel articles 3 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Shrike

The restriction reads "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc."

Does user that don't meet the criteria can !VOTE in RFC? Because it would be a big loophole to allowing non-ECP editors to influence the outcome of a RFC.The situation right now that the vote in the RFC was allowed [[15]]--Shrike (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC) The same question is about move discussions too of course Shrike (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:ThryduulfThe intent of the remedy was circumvent sock participation in the area.I don't see any difference between casting a vote in AFD and RFC. -- Shrike (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:Thryduulf But this the whole point of the remedy there is no way to know if someone a sock except obvious cases and that the reason that all new users are limited.You should read the arbcom case and see why such sanction was enacted in the first place Shrike (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Either way please make a motion so it will be perfectly clear and I am in full agreement with KI on this one. Shrike (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re PIA3)

I think it is helpful here to include the first part of the remedy not just the exception:

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.

[The second exception is related to article creation and not relevant to this request]

My reading of that is that if an RfC (or move, etc discussion) is being held on an article talk page that is not ECP protected, then editors who do are not extended confirmed may contribute to the RfC provided that: (a) their comments are constructive, and (b) their conduct is not disruptive. If the RfC is being held at any other venue then only extended confirmed editors may participate.

I am not involved in the topic area, but allowing constructive comments from editors who are not disruptive seems like a Good Thing. The intent of the remedy seems to me to be clearly to prevent disruption not to prevent all new editors from influencing article content. Even if most disruptive users are not extended-confirmed this does not imply that most users who are not extended-confirmed are disruptive.

I would also therefore strongly argue against choosing the venue of an RfC on the basis of who may participate (rather than where it is most relevant). I would regard ECP protecting a talk page solely to prevent non-extended-confirmed editors from participating in an RfC, without evidence of disruption on that talk page, to be contrary to the protection policy. I should note that I am not alleging either of these has happened, I have not looked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: if the commenter is a sockpuppet then the comment is disruptive and not permitted. If sockpuppets are disrupting the page then it can be protected under the terms of this remedy, if the page is not being disrupted then there is no problem to solve. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Shrike: As for the difference between an RfC and an AfD, one is about making improvements to the article the other is about deleting it. Non-extended-confirmed users are explicitly permitted to make constructive comments and requests towards improving the article, some of these comments will require discussion - including discussion about whether they are improvements. I see no material difference between a discussion about changes to the article and an RFC about changes to the article. RfCs about things other than changes to one or a small number of closely related articles should not be being held on article talk pages. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Shrike: So if a comment is constructive and not disruptive (on its own or in combination with others) and the conduct of the commenter is constructive and not disruptive (on their own or in combination with that of others), why does it matter if the user is a sockpuppet or not? How is permitting such users to make constructive comments on articles outside the context of an RfC different from permitting such users to make constructive comments on articles in the context of an RfC? If the exception was a causing a problem then you would be seeking an amendment to remove it all together, as you are not doing so strongly suggests that in practice it is not causing issues. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

The 30/500 rule was made because of the presence of sockpuppets in this area. (I did not support it, but that's not relevant now.) I am not accusing the editor of being a sockpuppet, and their comment is constructive. In general, constructive edits and comments by people are welcome. I often leave constructive edits alone (even on the main article) though they are technically not allowed to edit. I am also opposed to the practice of using edit filters on these pages pre-emptively, instead of when disruption arises.

Given this situation, comments in an RfC are a different matter. To some extent, RfCs are a vote (even though many people pretend they aren't). A headcount is often used as one of the factors in the final close. Allowing sockpuppets to "vote" in RfCs defeats the whole purpose of the restriction.

I suggest: allowing general talk page comments, and perhaps participation in the "discussion" section in RfCs, but not to "vote". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

The related Syrian Civil War topic area, under general sanctions (WP:GS/SCW) has recurring problems with sock/meatpuppetry or suspiciously competent new accounts popping up suddenly in RfCs. I haven't seen that in this topic area, but I also haven't paid attention to many (any?) RfCs in this topic area. I don't agree with barring IPs from commenting on RfCs, but I think it should be generally accepted that new accounts in controversial topic areas with histories of sock/meatpuppetry will have their opinions weighted as appropriate given the circumstance. That weight would be zero or near-zero. This is a good compromise/informal solution that doesn't stifle discussion, avoids instruction creep, and keeps sock/meatpuppetry (which has quite a history in Middle East topic areas) from dominating RfCs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:27, 8 June 2017 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

I would be curious to hear more views on this, but my preliminary opinion aligns fairly closely with Thryduulf's. ECP is an effort to curb disruption on these articles, not a blanket statement that editors with too few edits or too short a tenure are somehow incapable of providing value to the articles. Where possible, input should be welcomed from 500/30 editors, since many (most?) of them are not disruptive. If some of these editors are so disruptive to an RfC that they're hindering it, that disruption can and should be addressed. If there is a little disruption among otherwise good-faith participation, it can be ignored by whoever closes the RfC in the same way that input from sockpuppets and trolls is ignored. Otherwise, opinions of editors who are not yet extended-confirmed shouldn't be discounted just because they haven't worked up the sufficient edit count.

I waver a little bit on this view, since it doesn't fully align with the restriction against !voting on AfDs or contributing to noticeboard discussions, etc. What keeps me leaning in the direction of allowing it is that often things are decided by simple, informal discussion on talk pages, and that's something we've invited non-EC editors to participate in. It seems odd to exclude them from these same discussions as soon as they morph into RfCs, particularly since the decision on when to start an RfC varies widely between editors and topic areas. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like the "no eating food outside the kitchen" rule ;) But I also broadly agree with Thryduulf. Do we have examples where this has caused actual problems? (I'll be honest, I think the significance of socking in RfCs, XfDs, etc. is generally overstated - while we can all think of occasional exceptions, most of the time this is either blatantly obvious, or doesn't involve enough accounts to make much difference.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I also broadly agree with Thryduulf on this. I wouldn't have thought that socking (by new accounts - that ECP would actually stop) in RfCs (etc) doesn't tend to be too much of a problem based on the reasons OR gives. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:49, 24 June 2017 (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: Transcendental Meditation movement (June 2017)

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 Manul at 17:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Transcendental Meditation movement 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:

Manul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Manul

For the sake of focus and clarity, evidence and details have been deferred to the next section.

In the final decision it says,

Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies.

In my understanding, the decision is rightly addressing one of the underlying causes for the contentiousness surrounding TM articles: the presence of editors with a conflict of interest. The above text was meant to foster a better editing environment and, in the long run, improve the encyclopedia.

The intervening years since the arbitration case have not gone well in this regard. Two COI editors who were once sanctioned with a combined 1RR restriction went on to collaborate on the article of a prominent TM leader, bringing it to GA status. Upon reassessment, however, the article was found to be grossly imbalanced, with one GA reviewer calling it "a skillfully written piece of propaganda".

One of these editors has ignored requests to follow WP:COI, and the other has rebuffed such requests. The latter editor received two further sanctions, each being a topic ban from TM for tendentious editing. This editor continues to show an inability to recognize when Wikipedia is being used to host TM propaganda. The editor also lashes out harshly at those who bring up the conflict of interest. Administrator MastCell said to this editor: you and other affiliated accounts flout both site guidelines and common-sense prohibitions on COI editing, and then question not only the arguments but the very humanity of anyone who tries to hold you accountable.

In the above quote from the final decision, if the committee affirms that the meaning of "should" is the non-optional sense of "should", then such problems may largely disappear. It seems to me that this was the intent. There is much work ahead in bringing some balance to TM articles, and having this clarification will help to improve the encyclopedia.

Details

TimidGuy (talk · contribs) has declared a conflict of interest[16] but has ignored requests to follow WP:COI.[17][18]

Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) (hereafter referred to as Olive) has a conflict of interest.[19] That deleted link points to Olive's own statement and does not give any identifying information. I have assured Olive that I respect her privacy and that following WP:COI is compatible with maintaining her privacy.[20] The link was supplied by then-arbitrator NuclearWarfare inside this AE request.

MastCell says that Olive has a conflict of interest. Please read his comment on the matter[21] which includes the above quote from him.

After bringing up the Olive's COI I have been on the receiving end of her attacks. It does feel like, in MastCell's words, that she questions my very humanity. For details please see my message to her.[22] Note that, even after my plea for decency, she continued assuming bad faith and continued down the road of conspiracy, still not looking at the AE request and still imagining that I obtained the deleted link by some nefarious means.[23]

Olive has been sanctioned three times in the area of Transcendental Meditation.[24][25][26] The first was an editing restriction that she shared with Timid Guy. The second and third were topic bans for tendentious editing.

For more context, please see my message to her[27] in which I thoroughly explained the issue, demonstrating that she can't recognize, or seems indifferent to, TM propaganda in Wikipedia articles. This also covers the above-mentioned case of a GA reviewer calling the TM article "a skillfully written piece of propaganda".

Despite having written what she did on her user page[28] (in the AE case NuclearWarfare mentioned how non-admins may obtain the text; I will not repeat it here), Olive says, perplexingly, that she does not have a conflict of interest. And by using phrases such as "despite arbitrations"[29] and "the arbs knew"[30] she appears to intimate that the committee concluded that she does not have a conflict of interest. That is, it would appear her argument is that she doesn't have a conflict of interest because the arbitration decision doesn't contain a statement to the effect of "Olive has a conflict of interest". On the other hand, I read the COI section of the final decision as referring to Olive and others.

In another twist, SlimVirgin has accused NuclearWarfare of outing Olive in 2013 by supplying the deleted link.[31] Outing is perhaps the most serious charge one editor can make against another. I believe it is wrong for SlimVirgin to make this accusation toward NuclearWarfare and, by extension, toward me. Although she did clarify that she was not fingering me directly,[32] the implication remains.

Questions for the committee

Does this text in the final decision
Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies.
mean that following WP:COI is merely recommended for editors with a conflict of interest -- that they are ultimately free to ignore WP:COI? Or is this a non-optional "should"?

Given Olive's own statement[33] in conjunction with her previous sanctions and behavior discussed above, does Olive have a conflict of interest? And regardless, is she perceived (per the wording of the decision) as having a conflict of interest?

Did NuclearWarfare, an arbitrator at the time, out Olive in September 2013 by offering a link that (1) is not publicly visible (deleted); (2) does not contain any identifying information; and (3) was written by Olive herself on her user page?

Preemptive answers to expected questions for me

Q: Aren't you harassing Olive by trying to out her?

A: Absolutely not. I have made clear to Olive that I respect her privacy and that following WP:COI does not require revealing any personal information at all.[34] I have not asked Olive for any personal information, and such information is not the least bit necessary.

Q: Why haven't you taken this to Arbitration Enforcement?

A: Indeed there is ample evidence (including recent hounding[35] -- she never edited that page before) for an AE case. However the last AE case went very poorly, with the submitter being railroaded on the false claim that he was trying to out Olive. He ultimately left Wikipedia largely as a result of this, it seems. Any future AE case would greatly depend upon the committee's answers to the above questions, so this ARCA needs to come first. Otherwise I would expect the pattern of the last case to be repeated.

Q: Isn't this ARCA just a ploy to impose your own POV on TM articles?

A: My POV, if you can call it that, is merely that policies and guidelines should be followed. The current state of TM articles is quite unfortunate. When I look at a random TM article problems jump out immediately. See for instance [36]. To someone familiar with the topic, it is hard to miss that the Transcendental Meditation technique article is scrubbed of "embarrassing" aspects such as claims that advanced practitioners can levitate or turn invisible.

Q: So why don't you just fix the TM articles, then?

A: Indeed I have delved into editing TM articles, and I was stunned at the level of disruption I encountered there. I would like editing in this area to approach something resembling normalcy, and I believe this ARCA is a step in that direction.

Postscript

As I have done in the past, I would like to bring special attention to these words at the top of WP:COI: That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity. Manul ~ talk 17:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Responses to arbitrators

@Opabinia regalis: The two links at "After bringing up the Olive's COI I have been on the receiving end of her attacks..." are from February 2017. The context was the John Hagelin article, the article that the GA reviewer called "a skillfully written piece of propaganda" in 2013. But I could have cited any number of my interactions at TM articles since I joined, and in any case I don't see how this is relevant to the questions I asked to the committee. This isn't an AE case; I'm not seeking sanctions against Olive or anyone else. I'm seeking clarification of the arbitration decision for the future of TM articles generally, which, as I mentioned, are in an unfortunate state. As troubling as the stalking at WP:PAG is, that is not the direct concern here. (The context for WP:PAG is that Olive and SlimVirgin wish to disregard WP:FRINGE at the Hagelin article -- see the current Talk:John Hagelin -- and oh look, SlimVirgin joined in at WT:PAG to continue the push.) Manul ~ talk 01:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: An arbitration case is the last thing I had in mind. This a request for clarification, not a request for arbitration. I expected this to be a simple process in which arbitrators would consider the questions in the "Questions for the committee" section. I provided background because I thought it would be helpful; sorry if I gave too much of it. I didn't expect anyone to rehash 2013; the information from 2013 is there because it bears on the questions posed to the committee. Manul ~ talk 21:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, and GorillaWarfare: In my molasses-paced editing, the dispute in February 2017 is recent. It reappeared on the 17th of this month. My February comment is a watershed moment.[37] It is simply not acceptable for an editor to continue making such aspersions against me. That she responded by assuming bad faith and by continuing the aspersions[38] was the end of the line. However instead of pursuing it further, I took time off, hoping the matter would subside.

With the recent hounding on the 17th,[39] this really is the end of the line. Her claim that it is not hounding is not credible. That edit is the only edit she has made to policies/guidelines since 2015, and WP:FRINGE and WP:COI are the only policies/guidelines she has edited since January 2013. The edit comes after she was inactive for five days, and less than three hours after my edit. The edit pertains directly to the February dispute at Talk:John Hagelin where she and SlimVirgin are attempting to impose the view that WP:FRINGE should be ignored. (And the reason she offers[40] is muddled: a change can't be both redundant and inaccurate at the same time.)

Re Opabinia's question, "What is it that you want to do that you feel unable to do without the clarifications you're asking for?" I would like to bring an AE case. However that can't be done until we address Olive's insinuation that the arbitration committee supports her claim that she doesn't have a COI. Part of the flare-up is tied her reactions to me bringing up the COI. That is what she is upset about. Am I justified in asking Olive to follow WP:COI? That is one question. Should WP:COI be followed, or can WP:COI be ignored? That is another question. Please read MastCell's assessment of the situation.[41] The toxicity here is way over the top, and MastCell got it right when he said that Olive questions "not only the arguments but the very humanity" of whistleblowers. By insinuating that the arbitration committee supports her claim that she doesn't have a COI, Olive forces this ARCA because only the arbitration committee can answer that.

Regarding the last question in "Questions for the committee", the current issue -- from February 2017 -- is whether SlimVirgin should be leveling the incredibly serious charge of outing, even considering the caveat she added. Manul ~ talk 18:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis and RexxS: We know Olive has a conflict of interest because we can read her statement (admins see it automatically; non-admins have to look at what NW said). It is further confirmed by all the aforementioned behavioral evidence (e.g. she literally does not recognize TM propaganda in articles, or is (presumably unconsciously) accepting of its presence[42]). I can't imagine a clearer case of COI. If Olive does not have a COI then nobody ever has. If WP:COI is not meant for Olive then it is not meant for anyone. She shares the same 76.76.* IP range as another editor who actually declared a COI.[43][44][45][46] She does not assume good faith toward whistleblowers, attacking them with a stream of unfounded aspersions[47] (IRWolfie-/Second_Quantization is another example). She is currently teaming up with a longtime admin to lobby for the view that WP:FRINGE can be disregarded.

All of this is toxic for the editing environment and ultimately for the content that environment creates. I am seeking a way forward. Having the arbitration committee put the COI issue to rest once and for all (only they can do so) would be a first step. If only Olive would follow WP:COI and stop attacking others, the proximate issue would be largely solved.

TM is a new religious movement whose followers are concentrated at a particular geographical location, the 76.76.* IP range. The edits coming from this location consistently push TM articles in one direction. The tragedy here is that the thousands of hours people have collectively spent dealing with TM-related disputes over the years could have been avoided by simply viewing the 76.76.* range as one voice. Editors from that range wouldn't be auto-blocked or auto-topic-banned, but just given the appropriate weight when, say, one of them lobbies for ignoring WP:FRINGE. Manul ~ talk 13:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: One could ask the question, "Why can't we assume good faith when Olive says that she doesn't have a COI?" The answer is that we can. We can believe that Olive has a COI while simultaneously believing that she believes she doesn't have a COI. I expect the same situation would apply to many editors involved in new religious movements at an institutional level. Indeed I would expect many (even most) of them to believe they represent the neutral perspective -- as Olive believes she does -- when actually they represent the view of the new religious movement. We can also believe that Olive believes she is neutral. Manul ~ talk 14:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Contra SlimVirgin's statement, here is the correct timeline, with evidence:

I informed Olive about adding her to the connected template at Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement.[48]
Olive protested but ultimately accepted, adding herself as a connected contributor with the deleted link included.[49] This is incredibly significant. Olive would slime me with baseless aspersions (outlined earlier [50]), but, importantly, would not take the more concrete action of removing her name from the template.
The second (and only the second) addition of the connected template was at Talk:John Hagelin, and I went out of my way to inform Olive about this respectfully: Hello, I've added the connected contributor template to Talk:John Hagelin. Leaving this message this seems like a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation. Informing you could be interpreted as a provocation, given your earlier reaction, while not informing you would seem rude. If you'd rather not be notified in the future then I'll respect that; whatever you wish.[51] Olive did not respond.
The rest of the additions came a month or more after that. Given the slowdown of my own editing pace and the obvious problems I saw at TM articles (e.g. [52]), it seemed in the best interest of Wikipedia to tag these articles for future editors to check.

As a measure of respect to the departed, please note that IRWolfie did not speculate on the real-life identity of Olive. That was the aspersion made upon which he got railroaded. There is no evidence that IRWofie did this, and of course he denied that he did. The toxic atmosphere in which those events occurred is partly the reason for this ARCA. Manul ~ talk 21:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil

I actually think the background information is important and has to be accurate because it is the editing information that indicates neutrality and potential COI. Narratives about editors should not be overlooked either. Narratives false or true build their own realities over time and become entrenched. I have good reason to know this.

There are multiple mischaracterizations in Manul’s request. These are a few

Alleging disruption on TM articles

Disagreement is not disruption and no diffs have been presented to show disruption. (As an aside: Disruption like tendentious editing is amorphous in nature and both lend themselves to highly subjective use and even misuse.) I have edited seldom in the last 3 years on the T M articles. See edit count at end.

Alleged hounding

I watch-list policies and guideline pages and commented on this one despite Manul who has been adversarial, not because he was there. Manul had made a unilateral edit [53] which changed the substance of the guidelines paragraph so that "guidelines" became rigid and resembled policy. My talk page comment here. This concerned me. Such a change should have more community input in my opinion.

Including only parts of a discussion (which looks like but may not be an intentional attempt to mislead)

Manul says, “For details please see my message to her.[54]"

Manul has posted his comment but not my nor SV’s replies which are here

That I was pushing for inclusion of fringe content.

I don’t push to include fringe content and no diffs show this. I do say that the author of the content may be the definitive source for describing what the fringe content is. For example, it’s a good idea to describe the fringe theory then the criticism and not just add criticism without explaining what is actually being criticized. My position [55] and this discussion [56]

COI accusations

History of the removed link

The link [57] is to a statement I made in my early naive days on WP. I was then harassed off-Wikipedia repeatedly over a few years time and eventually asked to have that information removed. User:Dreadstar removed it but did not have oversight rights. By the time of the first T M arbitration, I no longer worked at the place identified in the link and have not for 10 or more years. I was transparent about that link in the first arbitration; I had emailed the arbs about it. The link gives enough personal information to have probably helped create a bad time for me including anonymous phone calls that began 15 minutes after I was in discussion with a particular editor and with 5 minute intervals after that. I couldn’t trace the calls and a lawyer told me to remove as much personal information in public forums as I could, which I did. I have had three separate instances over the last ten years, of this kind of harassment. For Manul to refer to these links in concert with his multiple attempts over several years to have me admit to a COI constitutes harassment in my mind. And yes, I don’t feel particularly happy when an editor uses that link as has happened in the past with Nuclear Warfare and Wolfie and as Manul continues to do even here several times.

The history of the Hagelin article

According to Manul

…the article was found to be grossly imbalanced, with one GA reviewer calling it "a skillfully written piece of propaganda"

What actually happened.

The John Hagelin article was written by multiple editors across the WP spectrum including Will Beback, Fladrif and me. In 2012 I asked for a GA review; I wanted to see if the article could be stabilized as neutral. This is the original GA review carried out by a random, self-selected reviewer. He requested an overhaul of sources to sfn format which I spent weeks doing. I probably made hundreds of edits on the sources thus my high edit count. I asked another editor to help me given the immensity of the changes needed in formatting the references. We also complied with the reviewer’s requests per the article itself. The article received GA status. To imply there was anything else besides an honest effort to both comply with the reviewer and create a good neutral article is an inaccurate portrayal of the situation

My edit count on three major T M articles and the John Hagelin article in over three years

Number of edits to TM article - 16 [58]

Number of edits to TM technique article - 2 [59]

Number of edits to TM Movement -5 [60]

Number of edits to John Hagelin article: 18 [61]

I made multiple edits to the Deepak Chopra article only peripherally related to TM. I know very little about Chopra beyond my own reading for this article and don’t edit there much anymore given the article’s rather toxic environment

I have never been asked to edit in a particular way by anyone or any organization.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC))

- Its become clear that surprisingly what this clarification is about is to clear the way for an AE. Manul is not asking me if I have a COI he is telling me I have one and then demanding I admit to this. He has pursued this since Jan 2015 [62], Aug 2016 [63] at which time he templated two articles which linked to the removed link. He added the template to the Hagelin article and again implies I should admit to a COI [64], then Sept 2016, [65]where while saying the problems he sees aren't my fault he implies they are, then Feb 2017[66] and finally here May 2017. I feel harassed.
- My most recent comment about fringe, "If we are going to include fringe content in this article we must present in in a neutral way. If we don't want the fringe content we can remove it all, but we should not exclude just what agrees with a POV."[67] which belies the idea that I am trying to exclude fringe content.
- I watch list Policies and Guidelines and for that matter other Wikipedia pages and read what is posted most days I am on Wikipedia. If I don't do so I lose contact with the forms that guide editing. This doesn't mean I see a need to comment. I did in this case because of the way the change was moving guideline to be policy-like. If the community wants that kind of change I have no argument. However, one editor should not be dictating that kind of adjustment. I suggested an RfC to Manul which will include the community and if supported will give Manul support for his change. Part of the comment reads, "I am uncomfortable with the rigidity and redundancy of the change you made so will remove it for now. I believe it changes the meaning substantially. I would suggest a RfC to make that kind of change." He seems to have ignored the usefulness of that collaborative process.
- Because I in no way want to exclude fringe content or its criticism and was not arguing about guidelines on the Hagelin article I also did not see my comment on Policies and Guidelines talk as connected in any way to the Hagelin article discussion here. This connection is in Manul's mind not mine.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC))

Opabinia regalis Did you see my comment on the John Hagelin article? "I'm actually more than happy to have a neutral editor working on this article so while I may not always agree with everything I am very happy to have your edits and changes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC))" here. I think its an excellent idea to have neutral input on any article and that was Slim Virgin's role. She asked for information here which is why I came to the article and felt I could help. She has a reputation as being one of Wikipedia's best and most neutral editors. (Indeed, she authored many of Wikipedia's original policies.) She did great work on the article to make it more neutral. And Manul fought with her. It appears that he feels that anyone who doesn't share his point of view is someone who is a supporter of fringe views. I also welcomed outside support earlier in the article. "I would be happy to have an uninvolved editor try to make something of this article. (olive (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC))"[68] The editor who is responsible for David in DC's response to the unilateral reversion of his edits was not me. David in DC was/is an uninvolved editor. "The near realtime reversion of edits is just plain annoying. It bespeaks WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS problems at a high degree of magnitude. David in DC (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)". This reverter was Second Quantzation. He took me to AE when the uninvolved editor, David in DC appeared and I was sanctioned for 6 months. Was I frustrated with the discussion, yes, and because of that I wanted and asked David in DC to carry on when he appeared.[69] He was reverted immediately. Am I frustrated with the way things happen on WP and the false narrative that has been created about me. Yes. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC))

- - - I do not work for the place revealed in the removed content and have not for 10 years. No one tells me what to edit and never has. No organization tells me what to edit and never has. I do not get paid to edit. I am self-employed, an artist, hopefully a writer, and former artistic director for a improv movement/ dance company.
    - I believe there has to be evidence of POV pushing; there isn't any such evidence. Jytdog has tried to reduce the choices the arbs have to two choices. I hope the arbs can see that Jytdog goes wrong when he reduces and then dictates choices ~~to the arbs~~. He is advocating that I reveal my connections - my COI. ~~or the arbs should deal with me as if I am a long -time POV pusher.~~ I can reveal something, something not yet revealed I assume, or I will be dragged further down this path to AE or even an arbitration. As a teacher and parent I am very familiar with the technique one can use when a child wants to do something we don't want them to do. We offer them two other choices which distracts them. There is a parallel here. And make no mistake, this is a threat. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC))

apologies the auto edit summary added "add quote" on my last summary as I saved when I had only written "add"...slippery little auto edit.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC))

- Jytdog wrote, "If Littleolive oil will not confirm or deny relevant external relationships, the recourse is to bring a long term POV pushing case."(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC))

Final Comment. I can't spend my days here rebutting every cmt that comes along. Life is too precious and too short. Thanks to the arbs for reading this long post. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC))

@SlimVirgin: A few years earlier, Worm that Turned whom I believe was an arb at the time had told an admin that he would deal with the information but when I asked him to do so (I think I was the one who asked but might have been the admin) Worm declined saying it was already on the internet. I can't agree with that but also didn't feel I had any recourse. I had done as much as I could, at the suggestion of a lawyer, to remove personal information from public domains including shutting down a Facebook account. While the lawyer was concerned about the way personal information had potentially led to harassment Wikipedia seemed to care much less. One of the issues I have with the way editors are dealt with on Wikipedia is that incivility seems to be fine if you like the editor but if you don't like that editor or dislike the article or subject matter any kind of behaviour is acceptable. This isn't a professional standard. The Deepak Chopra article is a good example of an article where distaste for the subject has led to a talk page environment that in my mind violates our BLP talk policy, but that's another subject.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC))

@Gorilla Warfare: Thanks Gorilla Warfare. I may be misunderstanding you but I don't think I've ever linked to the removed content. I created the content as a new editor, was harassed off wikipedia, then asked an admin to remove and hide the content. Nuclear Warfare posted the link; he may have been the first but I'm not sure. I would be happy to have the content over sighted but as for what exactly to remove well, I can't see it since I am not an admin. I will look through my archives probably tomorrow and email you with as much information as I can find given my inability to see those archives. Thank you again.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC))

- This simply isn't true. I don't want to continue with the back and forth shoe chewing but this is so outrageous in either misunderstanding or mischaracterization that It should be dealt with.

" Olive protested but ultimately accepted, adding herself as a connected contributor with the deleted link included. This is a mischaracterization. I had trouble with the template as I tried to remove it and had no time to fuss with it, as my comment indicates, "undo until can fix..." so reverted. (Please scroll down to see the problem) [70] Ultimately, I did not want to engage in a potential edit war. I did not accept Manul's allegations as Manul states; the rest of the edit summary states... "my position stands" Later SV removed the links she could find. "I've removed that link, which I only just noticed. Manul, how were you able to link to a deleted revision from years ago? SarahSV (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)"

Statement by TimidGuy

Statement by MastCell

Statement by SlimVirgin

To resolve the COI issue, Littleolive oil might consider disclosing her personal details to someone who is familiar with COI. That person can then inform the community whether she has one in relation to TM.

What has happened here is not the way to handle COI. We've had a lot of discussion about this recently, with arbs and functionaries expressing strong views about WP:OUTING, yet the deleted revision from Littleolive oil's page has been posted here without action. Should it not be suppressed, even at this late stage? Pinging GorillaWarfare and Fluffernutter. WP:OUTING says:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment [unless that person has disclosed it on Wikipedia] ... If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia.

The text in question was deleted (deleted, not just removed) from Littleolive oil's user page in 2009. It can't be argued seriously that posting links to deleted revisions doesn't amount to posting personal information. Manul could have emailed the link to the committee per WP:COI#Avoid outing.

The link was first posted on Wikipedia in 2013. That September IRWolfie/Second Quantization opened an AE against Littleolive oil, alleging advocacy and COI in relation to TM. During that complaint, NuclearWarfare (then an arb) supplied IRWolfie with a link to the deleted text; IRWolfie had apparently emailed NW about it after finding it on mirror sites. Seraphimblade closed the AE by topic-banning Littleolive oil for six months, and banning IRWolfie indefinitely from speculating publicly about the real-life identities of any TM editor.

Between August and October 2016 Manul repeatedly posted the link while adding the {{connected contributor}} to TM-related talk pages. [71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] Littleolive oil was upset about this and told Manul that she felt harassed. I first noticed the link at Talk:John Hagelin in February this year and removed it. I advised Littleolive oil to ask a functionary to suppress it. [83][84] I would normally have emailed the functionaries myself, but I was puzzled that Littleolive oil had let the link sit there since 2016, so I decided to let her make the request. With hindsight, I wonder whether she felt so harassed that she was letting things happen that she would normally have dealt with.

However the committee handles this, I hope Manul will be asked to change his approach. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Statement by Thryduulf

I'm completely uninvolved here, but I can't help but think that the arbs who have responded so far are somewhat missing the point. The OP asked three very simple questions:

In the TM decision, does "should" mean "preferably" or "must"?
- Possible answers: "preferably", "must", "it's unclear, we'll amend it by motion so it clearly means 'preferably'", "it's unclear, we'll amend it by motion so it clearly means 'must'".
Does Littleolive oil have a conflict of interest regarding TM?
- Possible answers: "yes", "no"
Did NuclearWarfare out Littleolive oil in 2013?
- Possible answers: "yes", "no"

Everything else is just background to explain why the questions are being asked and give easy access to the relevant reading material.

There is no request for amendment, there is no request for an arbitration case, there is no request for arbitration enforcement. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

This appears to be a tempest in a teapot because someone was reverted on a totally unrelated policy page for, apparently, making an edit that exceeded the scope of consensus, for which WP:BRD clearly applies and Olive was well within her rights. Littleolive oil has been subjected to extreme harassment and character assassination on WP for years over the TM issue, and to the best of my knowledge, any COI she may ever have had is long gone and is now merely a strong interest in a topic, where she edits only with care and with consideration of previous ArbCom decisions . The history as stated by the filer is not accurate, and is clearly an attempt to poison the well. I see nothing recent that gives rise to any of these concerns. Unless the committee is presented with diffs from the last six months, I suggest that this be declined with a very large, wet, smelly trout to the filer. Montanabw^(talk) 01:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

In response to the comments entered here, most of which are generating more smoke than light, I think the following points must be considered by the Arbs:

The current case has ZERO to do with the TM case.
The apparent filing appears to be because Olive stuck to her guns on an article describing policies and guidelines; there was absolutely no connection between the topic and any restriction she has been given now or in the past. She correctly reverted an edit as undiscussed, and was well within both the WP guidelines and policy to do so.
Olive is NOT engaging in undisclosed paid editing.
Olive has not socked.
Where she worked 10 years ago may suggest a POV, but such would be true of any of us. Should someone be forced to declare a COI if they worked for, say, McDonald's when they were in High School because they still hit the drive-through for a burger now and again? Seriously, where does the line get drawn?
Doug Weller has it in one -- Olive has not edit-warred or engaged in any inappropriate behavior in any period relevant to the situation before the Arbs -- the last kerfuffle appears to date to 2013, which is old news and not in the least relevant here. I'm seeing diffs posted above dating clear back to 2007. These are Irrelevant.
Olive is a productive and useful wikipedian who has edited many articles across multiple subject areas (she helped me with Evans cherry, for example). She is not an Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet out to impose a secret agenda on the rest of us.
Olive has been unfailingly polite and even when advocating her position, I see nothing, even at the peak of the old TM case, that suggests anything worse than sticking to her guns, and she is quick to back off when questioned.
Seems to me that she is being Hounded by a group of editors who appear to wish her off WP altogether. That is not appropriate.
There has been an immense amount of "poisoning the well" occurring in the statements of some of the other users here, (example) particularly the filer and one of the supporters of the filer. I strongly advise the Arbs to actually read the diffs, note the date stamp, and ignore the current commentary.
The policies on undisclosed paid editing are clear; the definition of a POV or bias or a COI is far more fuzzy -- and the UPE and COI are not the same. Should committee members such as DGG look at the COOI issue, one must ask: Where is the line between working for an employer a decade ago versus being a member of a service club or someone who donates to, say, National Public Radio? WP:COI asks that we take a look at our biases and realize that they affect us emotionally, but it is not a ban on editing or even a requirement that we out ourselves or place a tag on every article where we have an interest in order to be allowed to edit. I once worked at a library over 15 years ago, does this mean I cannot edit articles about libraries?

I strongly encourage the committee to refuse this case and to refuse any other alternative drama that may be filed elsewhere. If others persist in further hounding, then I strongly advise trout and boomerangs all around. Montanabw^(talk) 02:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

I hope that those who know me will accept my assertion that I'm vehemently against paid-editing and conflicted editing, as well as a strong critic of any whitewashing of fringe notions on Wikipedia. However, in this case, as I read through Manul's statement, it seemed that I was looking at a content dispute at John Hagelin over some rather precise distinctions of wording. On one side was Manul with Olive and Sarah on the other, although in much of the recent, long talk page discussions at Talk:John Hagelin#Unclear sentence, there are many examples of give-and-take over what text is best.

I really don't see any point in examining editing from 2013, as surely that's water under the bridge by now? So I'm having a problem in trying to decipher what clarification is being asked for here. I'm guessing that Manul wants ArbCom to declare that Olive has a COI on TM-related topics so that he can begin an AE case based on that.

The problem is that COI doesn't work like that. Our policy Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has this definition in its opening: "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." It's one thing merely to be an adherent of a particular belief, it's quite another to put that belief's interest above one's interest in improving Wikipedia. For example, I have an unshakeable belief in evidence-based medicine, but I'd get quite annoyed if somebody suggested that is a COI and that it disqualifies me from editing on any medical topics.

Now, if you look at the proximate cause of this request, you're being asked (I think) to declare that Olive has a COI with regards to John Hagelin. Yet from what I can gather, Olive says she has no conflict of interest regarding the article. Does she have a relationship of family, friend, client, employer, or of a financial nature with Hagelin? How else are we to interpret COI in these circumstances; more importantly, how are we even to go about determining if that were the case? Normally I'd recommend simply asking the editor concerned, but that has already been asked and answered. At some point, surely we have to extend good faith to such declarations. I'm going to suggest that that point is where we are right now. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: I sincerely hope, David, that your view on the non-optional nature of COI disclosure is shared by all of your fellow arbitrators, as well as every editor who is concerned for the well-being of our encyclopedia. The part I'd ask you to reflect on is the degree to which we should be willing to rely on an established editor's word that they have no conflict of interest on a particular topic. We have to balance our trust in each other with the possibility of being fooled by a dishonest editor. The consequences of failing to spot a hidden COI is that we have to examine their edits on their own merits, and I suggest that is no more problematical for us than it would be when examining the edits of a non-conflicted editor. However, the consequences of a false positive can be quite catastrophic: an accusation of COI against a good-faith editor; the anguish of being dragged through the drama boards; the possibility of outing and off-wiki harassment; and perhaps worse. Therefore I suggest that our default position must always be a presumption that an editor is editing in good faith and they have no COI if they declare that they have none. If we ever reach a stage where our position panders to the "no smoke without fire" meme, then decent editors will no longer have a defence against the mud-slingers who see an opportunity to disable an "opponent", and our project will be in its terminal phase. Let's not hasten the day. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: What WP:COI #External roles and relationships actually says is "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." (my emphasis). If I were to mention somewhere that I was raised a Methodist and became involved with Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union at university, would you want me disbarred from editing our articles on Charles Wesley or David Watson? Or are you going to name me in a {{connected contributors}} template on Talk:Evangelism because of my recent edit? --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID

COI does not need clarifying in this case. Its well known LittleOliveOil has a COI, they freely admitted attending MUM - a private university for followers of TM etc. WP:COI makes it clear at external relationships that "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal—can trigger a COI." - bolding mine. It is not limited to strictly financial relationships. Olive has at one point or another been subject to academic or financial conflicts, and given the TM movement is routinely described as an NRM, a religion or a cult, likely has an ongoing conflict. Bar rare exceptions, you attend a private religious university when you are a member of that belief system. Given their editing history and sanctions over the last ten years, its ludicrous at this point to pretend they do not have a COI that has affected their ability to edit neutrally in this area. If you want to open an AE request, do so, there is more than enough evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No Rexx, but if you went to a private Methodist university, were employed by a Methodist-linked employer, followed methodist teachings, and spent ten years skewing the Wesley article to reflect the viewpoint Methodists want shown of Wesley, to the extent where you were banned from the topic, then any common sense interpretation would say you have a COI in the area. Like I said, there is plenty in Olive's editing history to support that the 'can' in WP:COI is a 'does' in their case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog

Manul thanks for teeing up a very clear clarification request. People are writing all kinds of off topic stuff. Here are my suggested answers and some additional thoughts. Answers:

We avoid hard and fast "musts" like the plague so this question is kind of a red herring, especially on the topic of COI and disclosure. There are two parts to COI management - first, people should disclose relevant external connections. Second, people should not directly edit where they have a COI. In this instance we have alt med DS as well as well as the specific directive to follow COI. So yes "should" but with the additional, "if you don't do what you should, you will probably face sanctions". About the first part this is tricky and is really what this case is about see #2 and the longer comment below. About the second part - not directly editing content where you have a disclosed COI - can be easily enforced.
This is interesting. On the surface it is not answerable as there is no explicit current disclosure. I am interested to see whether Arbcom will answer this at all based on the evidence presented and anything else it knows. I will be a little surprised if they do. My guess is that they will say "we don't know as there is no current disclosure".
Nope. Nothing was disclosed on-wiki.

Additional notes. I have two kinds of responses. The first just deals with garden variety COI. The 2nd with the PAID policy.

1) Plain old COI.

We manage COI through a two step process. 1) Disclosure of relevant connections. 2) Putting edits on topics where those connections create a COI, through peer review. (new articles should get put through AFC, and for existing articles, suggestions should be made on the Talk page) In other words, not editing directly.

Here we have the hard thing, where the value of privacy is clashing with the value of protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. The value of privacy is deeper than the value of protecting integrity. The community cannot and will not force anybody to disclose their identity.

I am interested to see if Arbcom will judge that based on the evidence Manul and others have presented and anything else it knows, a) whether or not Littleolive oil has relevant real world connections to TM institutions and b) whether or not that these relationships create a COI for certain topics in en-WP. That is a very interesting and well crafted question.

The primary problem here is that Little oliveoil has apparently neither denied nor confirmed that she has any current connections to TM institutions, as far as I can see. And in the slew of writing even here, she does not say if she has any relevant RW connections to TM institutions.

I want to point that it is not Littleolive oil's role to evaluate whether her external relationships create a COI in WP on certain topics. That is for the community to decide. What she should do is disclose the external relationships that are relevant to her work here.

If Littleolive oil is uncertain if any external relationships that she has would constitute any COI here in WP, or is uncertain how to disclose them in a way that protects her privacy, she should work that out offline with Arbcom. There are plenty of ways to disclose while protecting privacy, if one is really trying to honor the spirit and letter of the COI guideline. (I was with a tiny startup for a while and disclosed it like this - see the left panel).

Manul, if a) Arbcom declines to determine that Littleolive oil has relevant external relationships that constitute a COI based on the evidence presented and b) if Littleolive oil continues to refuse to engage with the COI management process at all (which she may well do) you are not without recourse. The next step would be to bring a long-term POV-pushing case to AE under the altmed DS, just dealing with the broader notion of advocacy (of which COI is a subset). Ultimately what we care about is content, and long-term advocacy alone is actionable. That is the straightest road.

And Manul, if other people are directly editing TM topics where they have a disclosed COI, in my view that is actionable at AE, both under this directive as well as plain old alt med DS, which obligates people to do what they should do under the policies and guidelines. So doubly obligated "should".

2) PAID

The PAID policy did not exist when Arbcom laid down the directive in the TM case.

I just want to note that the community has now banned people twice for undisclosed paid editing, with no other disruption. It also banned another editor who it determined was an undisclosed paid editor who was also socking. These were done at ANI on the basis of behavior (editing in a way very typical of paid editors) with no violation of OUTING.

2017-01 Kavdiamanju (nondisruptive, just ToU)
2017-01 FoCuSandLeArN (nondisruptive, just ToU)
2017-01 Scorpion293 (socking and ToU) SPI

Arbcom arbitrates based on Wikipedia policy, and should take PAID, and the way it is being enforced by the community, into consideration as it thinks about this clarification case. It may want to add a clarification about PAID to this directive.

3) Summarizing - we can protect privacy while protecting the integrity of WP. The goals are not mutually exclusive.

The minimum that Arbcom should do here, is just confirm what the earlier Arbcom said. The earlier Arbcom was aware of the disruption that unresolved WP:APPARENTCOI creates and the directive was helpful. Arbcom should encourage people who have relevant external relationships to disclose them, and it should make it clear that people should not edit directly on topics where they have disclosed a COI. (A much stronger line can be taken on the not-directly editing bit).
Arbcom may choose to evaluate whether based on the evidence presented and on what it knows from other sources, Littleolive oil has external relationships that are creating a COI in WP. If Arbcom finds that Littleolive oil has been editing with an undisclosed COI (violating the directive as well as the DS) it may choose to take action or refer this to AE. I will be very interested to see Arbcom directly address this whole ball of wax.
Arbcom should welcome offline discussion with Littleolive oil if she initiates it.
If Littleolive oil will not confirm or deny relevant external relationships, the recourse is to bring a long term POV pushing case.

-- Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Littleolive oil in this diff you have misrepresented what I wrote at a very basic level. It is clear that they Arbs may decline to judge at all, and I said that. You are just generating off-topic drama and shooting yourself in the foot to boot. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Littleolive oil. In your first comment you described me as saying "or the arbs should deal with me as if I am a long -time POV pusher." and I never wrote that. My advice was to Manul. What you quote in your response is from the summary section. What I wrote is very clear to anyone who is competent or actually disussing these matters in good faith. I will not clutter up this clarification request dealing with this behavior of yours further. But thank you for displaying the tendentious behavior that has led to Manul filing this case. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda

I have been asked by an arbitrator to add cat images to ARCA (which I would avoid otherwise). I have known Littleolive oil for years as a reasonable editor of integrity who makes helpful edits. We all come with our point of view and tendencies. I think enough eyes are on TM (where I am uninvolved) to correct tendentious editing IF it happens. - Several articles could have been created with the writing skills invested here. Off to write a new one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2017 (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.

Transcendental Meditation movement: Clerk notes

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

Transcendental Meditation movement: Arbitrator views and discussion

@Manul: This is a very thorough discussion of the history, but on a quick look, many of your diffs and links refer to events from 2013. The only recent material I see is a short discussion from February and one revert at WP:PAG yesterday, which I gather is what prompted this request, but I don't see the connection between participating in a discussion about the text of a policy page and all this old stuff. Could you please briefly (very briefly!) summarize what the current issue is, with recent diffs? Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: We're probably not going to take a case here :)
- @Manul: OK, let me ask a different question. What is it that you want to do that you feel unable to do without the clarifications you're asking for? Edit the Hagelin article? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  - Nothing wrong with being an editing slowpoke :) OK, this took me a bit since I wasn't familiar with the events of the original case. But having looked it over, I very much agree with RexxS's first post above. This question about "is COI disclosure optional" largely hinges on the semantics of "optional", and at best can be said to be expected in the same sense that assuming good faith absent evidence to the contrary is expected: that is, we can only judge by your observable behavior. We can no more reach into people's off-wiki lives to determine whether they "really" have a COI despite denying one than we can reach into people's minds to determine whether they "really" think the editor they're arguing with is a dirty liar. Real-life COI disclosures can be required because they apply to real-named people whose backgrounds and conflicts can be formally audited. We have no mechanism to do that and no interest in half-assing it via the deleted revisions of userpages from nine years ago. To be clear, there is a difference between having a COI and having a POV; the latter is observable by on-wiki behavior and may well be the case. To the extent that this request is about the editing environment at John Hagelin, it looks to me like what's needed there is more input from parties not already immersed in the history of related disputes. I realize that's a frustrating answer, since RfCs have a tendency to attract partisans of both sides and rather few uninvolved people willing to enter an obviously disputed area. To the extent that this is about long-simmering interpersonal disputes, I will say that it would be wise to use the talk page first rather than reverting someone you have a long-standing dispute with, even if their edit came to your attention for other reasons. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  - I've had the newer posts on this request on my mental list of stuff to read for at least a week now, and keep getting distracted by other things. A few points:
    - This is not a venue for soapboxing about paid editing (which hasn't even been alleged in the request), nor for general personal views about COI. Some of the above material is off topic and irrelevant.
    - Determining as a finding of fact that someone has a COI is not really within arbcom's scope. Certainly not as a clarification of a seven-year-old case on the basis of evidence that a) precedes the case itself, and b) is almost a decade out of date. I can see why Manul framed the request this way, thinking that a definitive statement "arbcom says Olive has a COI" would solve his problems, but it is not a realistic expectation.
    - To the extent that it matters whether Olive has a COI or is pushing a POV, that needs to be evaluated based on recent behavior. Unfailingly polite POV-pushing is a very well-documented behavioral pattern on Wikipedia. Olive, to the extent that you're willing to take some advice, it is extremely obvious from reviewing the past history of editor interactions on this topic that a lot of otherwise very sensible editors do not believe that your editing is neutral in this area. I do not know if your thoughts on COI still reflect the comments in this August 2016 thread, but the comparison between the "COI" of a TM practitioner on TM articles and a physician on medical articles does not inspire confidence. While you don't seem to have edited TM articles much recently, you do seem to have quite diverse editing interests and would be well advised to continue concentrating on other topics. The usual Wikipedia truism is that nobody is personally responsible for dealing with a particular issue and if there really is a problem, you can reasonably expect that someone other than you will step in to deal with it.
    - Independently of all of this, those "connected contributor" tags are not IMO particularly useful, and the idea that articles need to be tagged to indicate Olive's involvement seems to be a distraction best left alone.
    - In short, I appreciate the level of frustration that is obvious in this request, but I see nothing for arbcom to do at this stage. The topic is under DS; if someone is not editing neutrally, regardless of what real-world situation you believe is the reason for that behavior, the thing to do is demonstrate that their editing is not neutral. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I would encourage anyone who feels affected by this request to make a statement if they can. We appreciate any efforts to keep it concise and to the point but I feel it's important to hear from everyone if possible. Mkdw ^talk 18:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd also like to hear from everyone who feels affected, but only about current issues. I can't see any reason to rehash material from 2013. Sure, it might be background, but it's not going to help us decide whether or not to take a case. We'll make that decision primarily on whether a case is required to solve current problems. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Jeez no. Of course we aren't going to take a case. Sorry. Same point though. I'd feel much happier discussing a clarification based on diffs showing recent problems. Doug Weller talk 05:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)o
I'll give my opinion as it stands right now, though I'll note we have relatively few statements at this point. Regarding your question 1, I feel the "should" in the COI remedy is the optional version, as it is with COI across Wikipedia. There is no way to know for certain if the average editor has a conflict of interest on one topic or the other unless they say so, which is really the ideal situation. Therefore, there's really no way for the non-optional interpretation to be enforced—we can only enforce it if we know an editor has a COI, and certainly by making it non-optional we discourage folks from declaring their COI. Even if there was a declared interest in a subject, someone would have to make the decision about whether it was enough to create a conflict of interest, and frankly this whole thing is a rabbit hole I don't think anyone needs to go into. As always, if an editor is editing disruptively in a topic area where they have a COI, this can be dealt with by sanctioning the editor for the disruption.

Now that I've made that point, I think question 2 is somewhat less relevant. To be honest I haven't really looked particularly hard at Littleolive oil's contributions at this point, or any statements they may have made regarding a COI. If they're editing disruptively, that is something that we can try to handle; if they have a COI and are not being disruptive, there's nothing for us to do here.

Regarding point 3, I'm not really sure why you are asking this question. I imagine among the fifteen of us we have differing opinions on this, and I'm sure we could answer whether or not it's a violation of policy, but it's also something that happened in 2013, and I don't see what purpose an answer to that question would even serve at this point in time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: Yes, we certainly won't close this up before tonight or tomorrow. If you can add your response within the next couple of days there should be no problem. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: It seems that it was Littleolive oil who posted the link to the now-deleted revision. I'm not going to remove the link to it, since it's their own userpage/deleted edits and they're certainly welcome to link to it as they please. However, Littleolive oil, if you would like to have the revisions suppressed, feel free to email me or contact the oversight team. I'm not going to suppress anything without your request, since it's been there for quite some time (and is probably duplicated in mirrors, etc) and since there are quite a lot of revisions in the deleted page history and I'd rather speak more to you about what you want removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that disclosing COI is not optional , but required. (I think the view that it is optional dates from much earlier years, and the consensus of the community has shifted to required. If this remains unclear, than we will need an RfC on the matter. )

The argument that making it required discourages people from declaring it does not make sense to me--what required disclosure does discourage, as it should, is people with COI editing with respect to their COI without disclosing it. Te underlying justification for that is the fundamental policy of NPOV. The difficulties of unambiguously detecting it are real, but that is no more a reason for making the declaration optional than the difficulty is detecting socgpupettry prevents making the avoidance of sockpuppettry optional. All rules have enforcement problems of this sort, which is why they need mechanisms for assessing violations of them. (Based on available information, the COI here was indeed present, but it is possible that it no longer is).

I am not sure I agree that a usable statement of COI can always be made without some degree of personal disclosure. There are various levels, such as a current vs past relationship to the subject, and certainly monetary vs. non-monetary--which, as defined by the WMF, is absolutely required as a matter of site policy (I note that enWP apparently has a somewhat broader definition, which includes employment). If a company or organization is small enough, or the COI is with respect to an individual, the mere statement of COI may well identify the individual to some extent--how this can be handled remains unclear--most suggestions provide for confidential disclosure of some sort).

BTW, I am quite aware that my views here differ from many of the others on the committee. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 21 May 2017 (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: Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) on Donald Trump (August 2017)

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 Emir of Wikipedia at 16:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Emir of Wikipedia

Regarding WP:ARBAPDS on Talk:Donald Trump it says Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. At Talk:Donald Trump#False and misleading statements someone has said to me It's about reinstating an edit, not reinstating content. An edit cen be addition of content, removal of content, or change to content. In this case the edit was removal of content. That was challenged via reversion and you reinstated the removal without talk page consensus to do so Were they correct in saying this or was I correct regarding my reversion? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: Thanks for the clarification and I apologize for my mistake. Could it be possible to change the wording to make sure that this confusion does not happen again in the future? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: If their is no better way to word it then we'll have keep to the current wording, but I think that some lenience should perhaps be given if someone else makes this honest mistake. I am grateful for your assistance and am happy for you to close this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kurtis: It was the title of the subsection at WP:ARBAPDS. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: If you could think of an amendment that could be made to resolve this possible confusion in the future I would be grateful, but otherwise I am happy for it to be closed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mkdw: In that case I am happy for it to be closed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley

The other editor is correct. Removal of long-standing content is an edit, not a revert. ~Awilley (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I'm not sure how it would be clarified without bogging it down in detail. Adding the terse clarification in my previous post would then spark arguments about what constitutes "long-standing". And in practice it is sometimes convenient for admins to treat removal of content as a revert, as when blocking clearly disruptive editors reported to WP:AN/EW for edit warring. I suspect that is part of why there is disagreement even among admins as to what constitutes a revert. ~Awilley (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: As the OP you're probably in a better position to close this yourself if you're satisfied with my rationale. I'm not an arb, and I have edited the Donald Trump article recently enough to be considered "involved" by some. I'm also not a "regular" at this noticeboard. ~Awilley (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kurtis: The relevant arbitration case imposed discretionary sanctions for all articles "related to post-1932 politics of the United States" which includes the Donald Trump article :-) ~Awilley (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

A 1932 cut-off for Donald Trump? Are we talking about the man himself or the ancient prophecy surrounding his birth? Kurtis ^(talk) 22:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley and Emir of Wikipedia: Ah, okay. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. :) Kurtis ^(talk) 03:44, 19 August 2017 (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.

Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) on Donald Trump: Clerk notes

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

Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) on Donald Trump: Arbitrator views and discussion

It looks like the requested clarification has been provided. Is there anything for us to do here or should this be closed? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Given the wide number of situations that fall within WP:ARBAPDS, I would hesitate to change it to address this singular issue and potentially affect hundreds of others. It's better for ARCA or AE to handle rare one off situations for clarifications and actions as needed. Mkdw ^talk 16:23, 22 August 2017 (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: The Rambling Man (September 2017)

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 Dweller at 14:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I've gamed this, by notifying and reverting. He knows I'm doing it and I've promised to not to bother him with it till it's done, so much as is possible

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited

Replace "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors" with "The Rambling Man is prohibited from making personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians"

Statement by Dweller

Since the Arbcom case, TRM has been approached from time to time by editors and administrators who have warned him, taken him to AE or even blocked him over breaching remedy 4 of the case. It is my belief that at least some of these approaches have been 100% in good faith, nonetheless, some have undoubtedly been problematic and they are having an unfortunate impact.

It seems to me that the vague wording you applied is having an unintentional effect. It gives license to users to wave the banhammer at TRM for too wide a range of wording. Pretty much anything other than the meekest and mildest behaviour can be cast in these terms. For an example, please see this warning, which was definitely made in good faith but the community strongly disagreed with, and the filing editor himself has agreed was incorrect.

I agree with the comments on TRM's usertalk that we shouldn't expect him to behave better than others, including admins who feel free to use appalling language without of being warned or blocked. And the constant hauling over the coals must be very wearing.

The standard for behaviour on Wikipedia is WP:CIVIL and this policy applies to all, whether ArbCom targets or vested administrators. I'd suggest that you focus the problematic remedy on the policy language at Wikipedia:Civility#No_personal_attacks_or_harassment: "Editors are expected to avoid ." as far too much can be construed (especially by anyone with an axe to grind, which has happened) as "belittling" or "insulting".

It is worth noticing that "belittling and insulting" is dealt with in CIVIL. As is using foul and abusive language, which TRM doesn't do, but has received. It's right there, in the messy section that begins "It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not", and that half sentence is all you need to understand why it is everyone ignores it, including successive ArbComs who've danced around thorny CIVIL cases for years and years.

TRM is worn out by ArbCom processes and has little faith in you, but I am an undying optimist. I hope you will agree to consider and then agree to this request. I also hope I've not broken this insanely tricky template --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller specifically not. My point is that the language there includes matters that Wikipedia seems to tolerate, (ie "rudeness") from admins and in ArbCom cases over the years, or find difficult to define (ie "belittling"). I'm very happy for you guys to open a big case and work out how you're going to untangle years of neglect of CIVIL, but this is a simple suggestion that limits the remedy to "harrassment" and "insulting", which we understand well and police ish well. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply Opabinia regalis and GorillaWarfare. You say that the wording I suggest won't help with curbing the "annoying" behaviour of TRM, but I'd say that your current wording is equally unhelpful, but worse it has negatives on top, being unclear, too broad, and setting parameters easily gamed by those with an agenda. On the basis of do no harm, you might therefore be better off revoking the measure altogether.

Those advocating pointing to CIVIL more generally should be aware that doing so takes us out of the frying pan and into the fire, as it takes the too broad parameters and makes them even broader! The terms that I'm objecting to here (and I'm getting some resonance from you and others) are included in CIVIL: they're right there, in the part that everyone, including Arbcom, traditionally totally ignores.

Yes, the community needs to get to grips with CIVIL, but that has been the case since I first starting editing 12 years ago and I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. I will happily start an RfC but we all know how easy it is to keep an RfC on long-established policy on-track, focussed and with a useful outcome.

If there's no Arbcomese that deals properly with the 'disruption' caused by TRM, don't legislate for it. Or take a closer look at it and find specific language. Or go for my suggestion. Don't leave it in a bad state... or make it worse.

Oh, and of course, I support the Motion, as it is precisely what I suggested at the start of this, in your insanely tricky template, above, if you remove the reference to incivility, with it's wikilink to the broad CIVIL policy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare the answer to your question to The Wordsmith is in the whole of what I have written above these words. CIVIL is completely broken and has been through the entirety of my time on Wikipedia. I explain why above. I hope to do something about that, but a) it won't be fast and b) even I, the eternal optimistic, is pessimistic about the chances of success. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis perhaps a good step then would be to just remove this remedy altogether. I think you're right, it doesn't lend itself to Arbcomese, it's not easy for good faith admins to interpret, it's easy for bad faith admins and editors to game, and perhaps, just perhaps, this small concession from ArbCom to TRM would see him respond in kind, as I think (my words not his, and apologies, TRM for putting words in your mouth) he feels thoroughly badly treated by ArbCom over a period of some years, which really hasn't helped things. TRM already knows, with or without this remedy, that significant 'bad behaviour' will lead to hefty further measures by ArbCom so perhaps you have little to lose and much to gain. Even TRM's greatest critic has to see what a tremendous asset he is to the community. In his early days, his perception by the community was such that he flew past RfA and RfB. That person isn't a changeling. What's changed is that bad blood in various areas has soured relationships. We're not so flush with editors that we can lose mediocre ones, let alone good ones. How about trying to turn this round? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
In a case where the Arbs want to point someone to WP:CIVIL, arbitrator Opabinia regalis is flagrantly breaching WP:CIVIL. If this doesn't tell you all you need to know about how useless and broken CIVIL is then nothing will. If you make this remedy point to CIVIL broadly, TRM could and would be blocked by an admin or hauled off to AE for making a comment like Opabinia's. Ridiculous. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbs, given that the problems you're trying to address are not about incivility, given that TRM is the frequent recipient of unpunished incivility and given that WP:CIVIL is a horrible mess, why mention it in your motion? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom. Please read SMcCandlish's words at least twice. It's about the wisest thing I've read on any Arbitration page, ever. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Recent contributions have suggested simply scrapping this clause, rather than replacing it. I'm persuaded. Suggested options are all flawed, although not as bad as the original. There seems to be consensus that things have improved and I think toning down the Arbcom rhetoric on this user can only help. Delete it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man

Yes, what Dweller said. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, one more thing. I'm happy to always comply with WP:CIVIL (as all editors are bound to do so), I'm not sure why that needs explicit statement. When admins are immune to any kind of admonishment when telling me "fuck you" or calling me "asshole" or calling me a liar across multiple venues on Wikipedia, it leaves me completely impotent to do anything. Even when requesting Arbcom's input on a previous IBAN, I was simply blocked without any kind of communication whatsoever, despite the original email about the issue being instigated by me. That's not "arbitration", it's "punishment". I am out of faith with this committee, I do believe they are avoiding the issues I've raised (some of which are still outstanding, e.g. including abuse of oversight), but all I'm asking for is a level playing field when it comes to discussion. Find a diff where I told someone they were an "asshole" or told them "fuck you" or told them they were a detriment to Wikpiedia or told them they were an "outright liar". I can give you diffs, from admins, directed at me, that have been accepted (or are under scrutiny) by Arbcom and the rest of the community. I know I'm an outcast, but a right to reply should be something that Arbcom works hard to preserve. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I warned Dweller that this would probably be a fool's errand, especially given how precious his time on Wikipedia is right now. It appears that Arbcom are using this appeal to actually make matters worse. The very fact that two members of the current "active" Arbcom have admitted to the edits I have apparently made as being "annoying" (rather than blockable) sums it all up perfectly. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Dweller I suggest you withdraw this, as it's clear that Arbcom aren't interested in making actual progress here, it's just being used as another opportunity to berate me. Which is both harmful and a waste of everyone's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty clear this is now a waste of time, as with most dealings with Arbcom. Wrestling with a convoluted yet objective wording on how best to enable admins to block me is proving impossible, OR now suggests that I shouldn't question the competence of other editors, yet (ironically) I had to question the competence of an admin at ANI where there was near-unanimous support for his desysopping, but of course, that can't happen because Arbcom are the only people who can sanction such a decision. This committee is the weakest I have seen for a decade, that they need to file a case to find that an admin who ardently refuses to comply with WP:ADMINACCT is astonishing, the evidence is there, it's been there since April. This amendment is going south, and users like OR are simply using it as an opportunity to stab at me again and again, and provide no actual useful remedy. Bring on the Arbcom elections, I have so much to provide our editors. Any one for oversight? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Mkdw this is being closed because.... Arbs can't be bothered to contribute? Why do we have them? There have been a number of calls now to remove the restriction altogether yet no Arbs are bothered to even respond. What's the point of this process if even the Arbs themselves are shirking their position? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Mkdw this isn't good enough. There's been virtually no real input from the Arbs here, no actual effort made to look at all the proposals. Even in recent days there have been several calls to remove the restriction yet that has received no attention whatsoever from any Arb. Am I to believe therefore that this sanction is indefinite and cannot ever be overturned or modified simply because of the intransigence of the committee? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Gorilla Warfare a few folks have expressed concern that we'll try to further restrict TRM in this ARCA. I personally don't intend to do that (and it doesn't seem like other arbs really do either) apparently that is actually far from the truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis so you want The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence., does that mean I can't discuss the incompetence or general dereliction of duty of rogue admins or Arbs? Or do I have to take any discussion I wish to have about the behaviour of such rogue admins and Arbs to ANI each and every time? Could you please clarify that? It's very important because I have a lot to discuss about the current committee's inabilities (both collectively and individually, including abuse of position) and I don't want to be summarily blocked in case it's deemed an infringement of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon

This was something I had doubts about during the case. After all, we're all bound by WP:CIVIL, so what's the point of "TRM is prohibited from ___"? It's already implicit in WP:CIVIL. Why not tie the clause to WP:CIVIL directly -

4) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is reminded that WP:CIVIL applies to all editors, under all circumstances.
If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to violate WP:CIVIL, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does violate WP:CIVIL, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

Banedon (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Support OR's wording, which I think is extremely well worded. If someone is opposing that wording I'd like to know why. Banedon (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

I have no comment on this request, just a question that I think the Committee must answer before proceeding. Public policy works well when it tries to achieve a clearly defined goal. The same applies to ArbCom remedies. What is the goal you're trying to achieve here? In particular, is it compliance with WP:CIVIL or something beyond that? I think you'll have a much easier time crafting an appropriate remedy once you answer that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on Opabinia regalis' comment, I have to add that the Committee should consider what remedies administrators can effectively enforce and whether an alternative venue is appropriate (such as ARCA) for enforcing a remedy that goes unenforced by the community. User_talk:The_Rambling_Man#Your_ArbCom_restriction is relevant, especially the comment claiming the remedy wasn't intended to be enforced against anything other than "personal attacks" and "aggressive and harshly personal comments". Whether or not this was your intent, that's how admins are enforcing it. The few that are interpreting the remedy as OR intended it to be interpreted are severely pressured to change their thinking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

I absolutely endorse this request. After the last incident for which TRM was blocked, people began to understand that the restriction itself was too vague and open to interpretation, both by TRM and by others. I advised TRM that he should consider it to mean that he shouldn't discuss "the suspected motives or competence of other editors", and he hasn't been blocked for it since then. However, the proposed wording here is also fine with me.

Vague notions such as insulting or belittling have been misinterpreted multiple times, both unintentionally and (I suspect) intentionally at times by some with longstanding grudges against TRM. Directly tying it to NPA and WP:HARASSMENT at least gives us solid definitions to work with that have lots of precedent. It also makes it clear that he is not being held to a higher standard than the people who interact with him, which would probably reduce the likelihood of another incident like previous occurrences of admins personally attacking him with impunity, then him being blocked when he responds in kind. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Arbs: I believe the new motion is actually worse and would be more heavily abused. As it is, TRM can defend himself when making the occasional mildly snarky comment because it is not insulting or belittling to a specific editor. Including wholesale incivility would strip him of that defense, and would mean that his blunt and to-the-point comments that he doesn't dress up in flowery prose could (and will, by those with a grudge) be construed as mild incivility. This is an insane standard that we would never hold anybody else to. If we did then everybody in this thread, including the entire Arbitration Committee, would be indeffed by now. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 12:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: By linking it to WP:CIVIL, you're (intentionally or not) making a statement that the things in WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL are sanctionable for TRM. This includes things like "rudeness (often mistaken for bluntness)" and judgmental edit summaries/talk page posts (which aren't necessarily directed at an identifiable editor). All established editors sometimes get mildly snarky, especially in edit summaries and talk pages. This is a standard that has not ever been enforced among the general population during my tenure on Wikipedia, so to attempt to broaden the sanction (again, knowingly or otherwise) to include these things, when it was asked that the sanction be narrowed, is unreasonable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 08:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

I've disagreed with the wording for a very long time - As noted above it's way too vague so it essentially means he can be reported for absolutely anything even for comments that are in no way personal attacks or belittling, The current wording also gives those with a grudge against TRM an excuse to drag him at Arbcom and constantly block him for no reason at all so I fully agree with the proposed wording. –Davey2010^Talk 13:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC) (Updated 11:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC))

Statement by EdChem

I am grateful to Dweller for beginning this request. This remedy has been misapplied at times and been needs clarification. What it does not need is to be expanded by reference to WP:CIVIL so that TRM is at the mercy of the most trigger-happy ultra-uptight admin whose idea of incivility is way out of line with community values and common sense, all protected by the power of AE to prevent the timely reversal of an over-the-top decision.

TRM has a history of unhelpful and pointed posts, certainly at DYK. I believe these have markedly reduced since the decision, and keeping the limitation on the problematic behaviour, as the original form of the motion did, was appropriate. Turning it into a broader-than-present wording not only ignores what Dweller is requesting, it is difficult to see as anything but deliberately punishing TRM for the request having been made.

Oshwah made a mistake in the recent warning, and had the character to recognise when the views of others disagreed and offered an apology. Some admins, who decide to police TRM with all the subtlety and nuance of a certain recently-former White House Communications Director, are not helping TRM or WP, and ArbCom further empowering them would be to the manifest detriment of WP and TRM. TRM is like a work colleague many of us have encountered, who can be brusque, direct, and blunt, who many wish would curb his words, but who is also usually right. His behaviour has improved and that should be recognised and appreciated. He was previously pushing towards a ban, his problematic comments are much reduced, please, ArbCom, please don't take an action the rest of us will regret.

Inconsistent views and actions on civility are a major problem on WP, and we all know it. Coming up with a policy that make sense is beyond ArbCom's remit and beyond the community's ability, sadly. But, knowing it is dysfunctional and that the present restriction is not working, changing the restriction to point to that known dysfunction would be irresponsible. It makes further conflict inevitable, wastes everyone's time, and generates ill-will. EdChem (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: Addressing a couple of specific comments...

@Doug Weller: of course TRM and every other editor is bound by the civility policy, and he is required to stay within the general bounds by which we are all constrained. However, naming WP:CIVIL in a modification would bind TRM (or any editor in a similar circumstance) to the standards of the most uptight and block-happy admin, backed by AE unquestionability. That is not asking that he comply with the civility policy, it's painting a target on him and making him wear a cap with a flashing sign that reads "shoot on the slightest deviation from hyper-civility, for protection from consequences ring 1-800-Arb-Com". If you believe you must remind TRM of WP:CIVIL, please please please restrict it to comments on the motion and not within the motion itself, because in the comments its a reminder and in the motion it goes from OR's stick to more like a semi-automatic machine gun.

@Opabinia regalis: I am one of the editors who has received snarky comments from TRM, and one who has commented critically to him at times. If approached as an intelligent colleague and taken seriously, a useful discussion can be had and civil disagreement is possible. Approaching him with snark is unwise, as it will likely be returned with interest. I have to agree that TRM can be, and has been, really goddamn annoying... but in this request, you have no one saying that has become worse, and me (at least) saying there has been substantial improvement. If you respond with a broadening of the restriction, how should that be interpreted?

Subsequent comments in reply to specific questions from Arbitrators Doug Weller and Opabinia regalis

Doug, I appreciate the follow-up question and have been wondering about how to reply, especially in light of further comments from OR. My reply here is meant for you both (and anyone else interested, obviously) as I have formed a hypothesis that I hope explains our divergent viewpoints. Feel free to correct me, obviously, if this does not resonate for either of you. Some comments, and particularly those from OR, appear to reflect the situation as it was at the end of the case. OR says that: TRM makes frequent comments that are, to varying degrees, barbed, snide, condescending, and self-righteous, and while no individual post reaches the level of a clearly blockable "personal attack", the comments are collectively really goddamn annoying. As someone who has criticised TRM at times, I can only agree that this has been a problem, but one that has decreased significantly. This request was started by Dweller addressing overly zealous / aggressive policing of TRM nearly two weeks ago, and yet no one has made a comment arguing about continued comments from TRM such as OR has described as being a problem.

The case was closed nearly 10 months ago and the Enforcement log shows a warning on December 1, 2016 which was struck as a misunderstanding, and a 3 day block on December 14, 2016, which was overturned as hasty and involved and a warning substituted. An AE block for a month was imposed on March 5, 2017, and reduced to a week on appeal as having a justified basis but as being overly harsh. The AE admin fully protected TRM's talk page, an action overturned within two hours and criticised as overzealous enforcement. Discussions occurred at AN, Bishonen's user talk page, and an extensive WP:A/R/CA discussion. Despite the activity, we are talking about a grand total of one justified sanction and a week's block. It's also worth noting AE requests closed as "No action required", "Complete waste of time", and as "Utter nonsense and a waste of time". TRM's block log shows a recent (unlogged) block for an iBAN violation, unrelated to the topic here. To me, all this shows, when coupled with warnings like the recent one from Oshwah, shows over-eager administrator actions and harassment of TRM by editors seeking to weaponise the ArbCom sanctions. My hypothesis, though, is that OR and some others are seeing the situation as it was at the end of the case, with suggestions from Dweller and others of problematic behaviour being predictions rather than observations, and comments from editors like me as to TRM's improved behaviour as being inconsistent with your existing perceptions. OR, TRM's self-regulation has improved, and your comment that I am behaving like a child is both unjustified and offensive.

More generally, we have an existing remedy which has had unintended effects, we have an editor whose actions have improved but is also clearly being monitored closely, we have one valid action under the remedy (the non-iBAN) part, we have an undisputed community request for the unintended effects to be addressed and advising the proposal will be gamed, and we have arbitrators concerned that the behaviour that was seen as problematic is unaddressed by either form. The obvious approach to me would be to draft an entirely new remedy with a focus on sequences of comments amounting to snark or whatever and not creating the opportunities for the most conservative view on civility / whatever to prevail. Perhaps something like:

Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

is amended to read

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has, at times, made individual comments or series of comments which belittle or insult other editors, and such actions are inconsistent with collaboration and are prohibited. The Rambling Man is reminded that he is expected to conform to the same standards of behaviour as all other editors, and advised to disengage and either let a matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve, rather than to engage in prohibited behaviour. Speculations on the motivations of editors or reflections on general competence of editors or administrators can easily become insulting and are generally inadvisable; The Rambling Man is reminded that comments which focus on edits rather than editors are often a wiser choice.

If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in belittling or insulting editing, especially with comments that amount to personal attacks or harassment (in either single edits or across a series of edits), he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. As the first block under this provision occurred under the original form of this remedy, the next three blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the previous text shall remain in force. At the time of passing of this motion, the block counter relating to this remedy stands at 1.

Obviously, the views of Dweller and The Rambling Man are important on how this version might be seen as well as the views of Arbitrators. My idea was to add OR's concerns about series of edits, but also to codify that the standards applying to TRM are the same as for everyone else (to discourage action that would never be taken against another editor) and to offer some constructive advice. EdChem (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: This post of yours begins by directing it to myself and The Wordsmith, it concludes that "everybody" (not TRM specifically, but everybody) should "act like grownups," and it has the edit summary "re edchem + wordsmith". I think interpreting your "everybody act like grownups" comment on childish behaviour as including (inter alia) The Wordsmith and myself is a reasonable reading, and whatever your intent, I don't think it reads as a comment only on TRM. In fact, if it was meant to imply childish behaviour from some of those who have made some of the spurious AE filings against him, then I would have to agree that TRM has been being treated poorly and provoked, which is another reason the gaming of this restriction requires action.

I'm glad to see that you liked part of my summary and agree that those sorts of comments from TRM or anyone else tend to be unhelpful. Part of my point, though, was that these types of comments have been much reduced at DYK and ERRORS and ITN/C. You reference the WT:ACN discussion from late May / early June, but that was hardly representative of his more general editing. Please bear in mind that ArbCom had just banned him from discussing Bishonen, who he sees as an exemplar of the abusive admin problem on WP. (For the record, I have considerable respect for Bishonen and though I agree with TRM that there are some abusive admins and getting things done about poor admins is exceptionally difficult, I don't agree with him that Bishonen is a major problem.) ArbCom's handling of the subsequent discussion was not good, in my view, and I was certainly not convinced by the arguments made. That TRM has a poor opinion of ArbCom and expressed it is not news, nor is it really surprising that he vented in that circumstance. I cannot say that everything he said was justified / appropriate, but equally I think it is unfair if ArbCom takes that discussion as typical of his recent posts in areas where his behaviour has previously been contentious. Surely if there was a pile of recent diffs fitting the pattern you describe, theywould have been posted at AE or here by someone. Instead, you have a request to address a problem with the remedy you crafted where no one has yet posted disagreement with the basic request Dweller has made. Despite this, and even following the recent comment from GorillaWarfare, I am concerned that either nothing will be done or that any change made will be equally vulnerable to being weaponised by those wanting to see TRM banned from Wikipedia. In my suggestion, I tried to provide framing to clarify what the remedy is meant to address. There are surely other options to craft something that is clear in intent, constrains the problematic comments (which I believe have been much reduced), and doesn't require more of TRM than is the common behavioural standards to which we all (hopefully) endeavour to abide. EdChem (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

@Callanecc: Aren't reminders unenforceable by sysops? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I am a bit concerned by Opabinia's alternative motion. TRM does a lot of work at places like ERRORS and DYK where (by the very nature of those pages) such work involves pointing out errors and - sometimes, although it's better than it used to be - complete nonsense that is either on, or due to appear on, the Main Page. It is not a stretch to think that at some point an editor whose contributions are being criticised may stretch that to "hey, you're commenting on my competence, you're not allowed to do that". People do - naturally - often react poorly to their work being criticised, however valid those criticisms might be. Surely any restriction needs to be focused on attacks on editors, not edits. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

Support, though fix the grammar, e.g. to "engaging in personal attacks against or harassment of other Wikipedians". "Making ... harassment" isn't idiomatic in English, nor is "attacks ... of" [in this sense]. "And" and "or" are not synonyms; using "and" here gives the unintended meaning "both of those things at once, not just one of them".

I thought the original "insulting and/or belittling" wording of the remedy was too vague and gameable from day one. I say this as someone who supported some kind of action in the original case, having been on the receiving end of TRM's historical incivility more than once. However, the remedies do appear to be punitive and unfair in actual practice at this point. And TRM's behavior has actually been markedly remedied anyway. It's not the intent of decisions like this to be permanent scarlet letters, or shackles; they're to address a problem until it's addressed. If there's a concern the proposed change is too narrow, include "incivility toward"; CIVIL, NPA, and HARASS are all policies that apply to all of us anyway. The community knows what they mean, and that their application in a remedy means "you've transgressed in this direction before, have some strikes against you, and thus will be held to a high standard henceforth". But the community (or its admin subset) is not going to consistently interpret ArbCom-invented, undefined standards like those in the original remedy.

"Insulting and/or belittling" is just radically subjective. Many people feel insulted any time someone contradicts them and points out logic holes in their arguments. Many feel belittled when their real-world credentials are not considered equivalent to reliable sources. I feel insulted and belittled every single time an OWNish or TAGTEAMy editor in a content dispute suggests my viewpoint should be discounted because I'm not a regular editor of that article. The average liberal feels insulted and belittled every time a conservative dismisses their viewpoint as liberal bias, and vice versa, even when it clearly is.

A remedy that effectively makes someone defenseless against verbal attacks will inspire more of them, inevitably. A remedy for one editor being verbally combative that empowers many more editors to be verbally combative toward that one, because he's trussed up, is no remedy for anything, but a baby-with-the-bathwater worsening of the original situation.

Finally, please keep in mind that having WP:HOTHEAD tendencies (I would know) isn't in and of itself a WP:COMPETENCE failure; it's a habitual set of responses that can be moderated, just like other habits that are unhelpful at WP (carelessness with facts, officiousness, hyperbole and histrionics, forgetting to punctuate, sarcasm and faux-civility, etc.). TRM is already showing this self-moderation.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

My peanut gallery perspective on the alternative proposal is it's better than the extant remedy, though it still has the flaw of also being made-up ArbCom-ese. At least the bit about assuming motives is one that's been used before, and the one about reflections on competence isn't as vague as "insulting and/or belittling". Neither of these are very hard to abide by, though it takes some practice (and helping others do it with regard to both is, entirely coincidentally, the exact subject of the WP:HOTHEADS essay I wrote.)

That said, I've reviewed the recentish background since the original case, and I see a) TRM showing contrition and reasonableness, thereby getting a three-way IBAN lifted unanimously at ANI; b) a way-calmer approach in general with other editors by and large; c) lots of productivity, despite d) frequent unaddressed verbal attacks/harassment against him; e) an attempt to drag him into a case about someone else (the old-time admin returning from a CBAN, I forget the name), and f) an extremely mysterious dispute which the community response so far indicates raises more concerns about ArbCom than about either party. Even if that last really does involve some kind of horrendous flamewar between the two editors and it's so crude no one should ever look at it, that's an isolated personality dispute, and isn't a "TRM is disrupting WP" matter. The fact that he's so vocally pissed off at ArbCom about this fiasco maybe has a bit of a "mooning the jury" quixotic element to it, but everyone has limits, and this ire is very localized, seeming to have no effect on his encyclopedia work.

I have to question the idea of any of these remedies remaining. What exactly are they preventing? He's already been desysopped, and subject to a hell of a public pillorying, so what's the point? TRM has clearly received the message, in his everyday activity here; ANI supported easing restrictions on him; and he's only being hotheaded about what he perceives as his treatment in this venue and by people connected to it as members or enforcers. I've been in an eerily similar boat, many years ago, including getting no recourse from the focused hostility of a clique of "Judge Dredd" AE admins, but a pile of additional sanctions for things no one else would have been sanctioned for, just because I'd ever gotten one; until a third party intervened and filed a motion on my (and some others') behalf a year+ after it all started, with barely any relief emerging from that. So, I sympathize very directly and more than I came here ever expecting to (while, like TRM in his case, conceding my own fault in and growth since mine). I have to wonder: why is this stonewall pattern repeating, pretty much down to the last detail? I'm sure the ArbCom work is challenging, including trying to deal with the mistakes of previous ArbComs, but repeating one of them as if following a playbook doesn't seem like a good plan.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

This relatively simple issue has been open for quite a while now. It does not seem like Arbcom will be able to provide a workable update, so I suggest to simply abolish the sanction per WP:TNT. Numerous others have pointed out the problems with it. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There has not really been any substantive comments from Arbs regarding this issue for quite some time now. I'm respectfully asking the Arbs to please come together to resolve this issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mkdw Why not close this by removing the restriction? Many other editors have described the problems with it - just get rid of it. If issues arise later, than can be dealt with. A close with no action doesn't really help anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mkdw Thanks for the response. So we're going to keep an unclear and relatively unenforceable (most arbs already commented that the sanction should be covered by the normal CIVIL or NPA policies) sanction that makes it easy to bait a productive editor? Personally, I can't understand why - but that's why they pay you guys the big bucks. Maybe just propose the deletion via WP:TNT and see what happens. At least this way we'll get a clear picture of which arbs in particular prefer to keep TRM under a sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2017 (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.

The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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

The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Pending comments from TRM and other arbs, but I think this change is a good idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As a follow up (so I remember as well) probably looking to change it to "The Rambling Man is prohibited from making personal attacks or harassing other editors." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dweller's points are well noted, and I cannot see anything that I disagree with in that regard. Indeed belittling and insulting should be covered under the standard NPA policy and I take no exception to rewording as per Callanecc's suggestion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm also happy with Callanecc's suggestion. As I understand it, this would mean that he is prohibited from making any edit covered at Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Dweller: I agree broadly with Opabinia regalis's comments and think that if we are going to remind TRM that incivility is prohibited that that still means that he is prohibited from making any edit covered at Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility. I can't see why we should water that down. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  - @EdChem: I take your point. But I can't support Callanecc's motion as it stands. Have you a suggestion that meets the concerns below? Doug Weller talk 16:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The issue of WP:CIVIL must be decided by the community should they desire changes or modifications to close any gap that may exist between the wording and community accepted norms and practices. In terms of the ArbCom remedy regarding TRM, I believe it exceeds the expectations of the policy and enforces a more strict code of conduct on TRM than intended. CIVIL has been brought up several times in the statements above. It may be worth including in any adjustment (since it already covers harassment and NPA), while ensuring the wording avoids any compounding restrictions. Mkdw ^talk 15:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Only inconsequential aspects of the situation were discussed at WT:ACN. I am not surprised that anyone's review of that discussion would be unsatisfying. A conclusion (albeit not resolution) occurred only thru the private dialogue between the parties involved, and not public disclosure or discussion.

The inequities some editors experience on Wikipedia are certainly apparent and can be unfair. The systems we have in place for handling disputes often fail with respect to consistency. The inherent problems of a policy or community to follow through on enforcement are not going to be resolved in a remedy against one editor. It only creates an argument for more rigidity rather than leniency. The "same standards of behaviour as all other editors" is an impossible qualitative requirement or criteria to assess. It will create the same problems with discretionary interpretation as occurred with the wording "belittle". I don't want ArbCom creating new codes of conduct on an editor-by-editor basis. Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: There's no consensus to even modify the language with respect to easing it; there is even less of a chance of a committee consensus towards outright removal. Mkdw ^talk 18:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: It is certainly not what I was hoping for either. I already put forward a proposal that was a compromise between the original request and comments made by the community and committee. It did not gain any traction. There is no point on putting forward yet another proposal that will obviously fail. I would even suggest it would gain even less support than the other failed proposals. This conversation has been going on for months and removal was eliminated from consideration early on as some deemed it a step backwards and worse than the status quo. Additionally, there's much more support to simply withdraw the request despite it being without progress. Mkdw ^talk 19:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm proposing the request be closed because no progress is being made -- something observed by multiple editors including yourself. If people want to keep it open, I'm not opposed to that either. There is no consensus even among participants. The issue of consensus is not currently being blocked by quorum. The idea of removing the remedy altogether is a step in the opposition direction from the views of the opposing side. It's not surprising it was met by little or no discussion. I would expect a comment proposing the remedy be strengthened and made more ambiguous would also not receive a meaningful dialogue. The point should be to find a compromise where both sides give -- not fail to compromise and then propose something even further a part. Mkdw ^talk 20:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for being so late to the party here, but Dweller's proposal (and thus Callanecc's motion) doesn't quite work for me. I understand the problem with the current wording; arbcom remedies aren't meant to be sticks to beat their subjects with (and the original source of the "insulting and/or belittling" wording didn't have great success either). It is true that warnings and blocks have a way of becoming self-reinforcing - "He's been blocked so often, he must be really awful!" - and that cycle is both unpleasant and difficult to break. But the specific proposed change doesn't quite cover the problem at hand IMO. For one thing, personal attacks and harassment are already prohibited, for everyone. Yes, people differ in what they think falls in those categories, and enforcement varies even for clear-cut cases, but it seems like that particular rewording would just be creating the same situation this is trying to avoid - singling TRM out for extra-special enforcement.
More substantively, the specific problem with TRM's behavior hasn't really been about personal attacks or harassment, and thus making that change significantly affects the scope of the remedy. The problem is that TRM makes frequent comments that are, to varying degrees, barbed, snide, condescending, and self-righteous, and while no individual post reaches the level of a clearly blockable "personal attack", the comments are collectively really goddamn annoying. In short TRM violates FidoNet Rule 1, "Thou shalt not excessively annoy others", and the fact that others around him are violating Rule 2, "Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed", only partially mitigates the issue. Unfortunately I don't know how to write "be less annoying" in arbcomese. I believe the underlying problem is a bad case of Someone is wrong on the Internet! - but arbcom has not historically been very effective with that issue. "Every time you make a snarky comment, any editor may respond in full by posting beneath it one (1) image of a hissing cat"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- TRM, if you read my post and what you got out of it was "ha! she said I wasn't doing anything blockable!" then I do not know what to tell you. I normally try to avoid comparing editors' behavior to that of children, but I can't think of a better analogy - you are behaving like the stereotypical bratty little brother who plays the "I'm not touching yoooou!" game in the back seat of the family minivan, with his hand an inch from his sister's face, and when she finally loses it and smacks him, he moans and whines - "Help, help, she hit me! I think my finger's broken! Moooooom! She hit me! ...What do you mean, 'Don't bother her and you won't get hit'? Are you saying it's worse to bother someone than to hit them? She was violent! This is child abuse! Why aren't you punishing her??? Mooooooooooooooom!" (The copyright police will come after me if I link it, but Google the "I'm not touching you!" scene from Lilo and Stitch for a good example of this game.) The TRM case last year was filed in early September, so we're coming up on a full year of attempts to prompt some kind of effective introspection or self-regulation. I don't know what happened to the guy who did some honest self-reflection and posted this request two years ago, but more of that would go a long way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- EdChem and Wordsmith, I'm not quite sure what you mean... in my view the defect in the motion, regardless of whether it mentions WP:CIVIL or not, is that it requires an admin to assert that individual examples of this annoying behavior are uncivil/a personal attack/harassment in order to implement a sanction, which is worse because it could appear to set a broader precedent when the problem is really quite specific.
  The best solution is for TRM to self-regulate his own behavior, or maybe commit to immediate withdrawal from any conversation when someone he trusts tells him to quit. What I think would work isn't actually something arbcom can do - that is, firm message discipline on the part of those who interact with him. When he says something snarky, just ignore him. Don't post "please remember to be WP:CIVIL!", don't put warnings on his talk page, don't take him to AE, don't even save the diff in your offline "Misbehavior by my wiki-enemies" folder. You thought you heard a funny noise in the distance, but it turned out it was nothing, so you just carried on your conversation with the other people in the discussion. And if he says something useful and reasonable, even if it's negative or critical, just respond as you would to anyone else making the same point. In other words, everybody act like grownups. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  - GW, I don't know about that - I'd much rather just be ignored than get the escalating WP:ALLCAPSBLUELINK, talk page template, AE filing treatment.
  - EdChem, I don't really understand part of your post; I don't see how my previous two paragraphs could be interpreted as calling you childish. Maybe I'm missing something. The person acting like a child is TRM. Anyway, I don't think your hypothesis is correct; as you know, TRM's most recent interaction with arbcom was not the end of his case in October 2016, but was just a couple of months ago. That said, your suggested wording Speculations on the motivations of editors or reflections on general competence of editors or administrators is a pretty good summary of where the problem lies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    - I realize that it's difficult to get a full picture of this spring's incident involving TRM, because aspects of it were private, but it was certainly not merely for making allegations of admin abuse. To be frank, the behavior that prompted that decision burned up a significant amount of my personal stockpile of patience with TRM, and I think I'd been on the more sympathetic side beforehand. I have a lot of sympathy for Dweller's position - I've certainly had the experience of enjoying the presence of "difficult" editors and wondering why so many other people seemed unable to leave them alone. I suggest a briefer variation on EdChem's wording - just replace the first paragraph of the remedy with "TRM is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors and administrators or reflections on their general competence". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis said it well above. The intention when drafting that remedy was not to repeat the civility policy, but rather to try to address a pattern of snide, unhelpful remarks that The Rambling Man had been making. These remarks generally fell short of what most admins would consider uncivil, but when repeatedly made against the same users were creating a very difficult environment to work in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith: Could you explain more how the motion below would be "worse and would be more heavily abused," and is an "insane standard that we would never hold anybody else to"? "incivility, personal attacks and harassment are prohibited" is a statement of fact—this is a reminder of what is already reflected in policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  - @The Wordsmith: My interpretation of that kind of wording has always been that it's a reminder not to do something that everyone on Wikipedia is similarly prohibited from doing—hence why I'm often unwilling to support those kinds of restrictions, since we shouldn't have to repeat what's already in policy and what the sanctioned party almost certainly knows about by now if we find ourselves needing to remind them. I guess perhaps the motion could link to Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking for incivility, though per my previous comment I don't see the benefit in reminding/warning TRM of something he's already well aware of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  - @Opabinia regalis: I disagree with you on your suggestion that the thing to do in situations like this is to just ignore TRM (or anyone who makes a habit of making remarks like the ones that ended in this sanction). That just creates a hostile environment where everyone "in the know" about the issue is bothered but tries to ignore the person who's making jabs, and people who aren't just wonder why the hell this kind of thing is accepted on Wikipedia. It's still an unpleasant environment for anyone to work in. "Just ignore him" is great advice when applied to a barking dog looking for attention, but I think that in this case it's a bit insulting both to TRM and to the folks he engages with to suggest applying that kind of psychology. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  - As a general remark, a few folks have expressed concern that we'll try to further restrict TRM in this ARCA. I personally don't intend to do that (and it doesn't seem like other arbs really do either)—we're not really looking at evidence that the restriction isn't working, rather that the restriction is not being applied or that it is being misunderstood. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: Motion

Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

is amended to read

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is reminded that incivility, personal attacks and harassment are prohibited.

Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the previous text shall remain in force. This motion does not reset the block counter imposed in the remedy.

For clarity the whole wording of the current remedy is collapsed here.

4) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.
If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

The above proposal is still way better than the current the wording. There is a stalemate between the sides and I don't necessarily think there is wording that may address the concerns on either side completely. In the absence of such, pointing to policies and taking away "insulting" and "belittle" will be a step (however small) in the right direction. Mkdw ^talk 16:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Time to get moving on this. The wording (I) proposed makes the remedy clearer and more enforceable. The rest of the motion (which I've now added above for reference) gives a clear enforcement provision. The proposed change includes "reminder" purely to make it clear that all editors are also prohibited from this conduct, not just TRM. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Not really the intent of the original remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Abstain/Recuse

Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I'll leave this as written for a bit to garner some more comments, in particular from The Rambling Man and Dweller. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

For everyone, the bit about personal attacks and harassment could probably go but it might be worth having it there for clarity? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Are we considering downgrading the prohibition to a reminder? I'm not sure that's a good idea. I liked the wording of your second attempt much better. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The rest of remedy is the authorisation for sanctions, this sentence just defines what "prohibited conduct" is in the context of the remedy. My reason for using "reminded" is that the purpose of this remedy is as an authorisation for admins to make AE actions (rather than normal admin actions) rather than as an extra prohibition on certain conduct. Every editor is prohibited from being incivil, making personal attacks and harassing others so saying that TRM is specific prohibited seems inaccurate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, I see what you're getting at now. Alright. I'll await comments from TRM/Dweller before voting. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I was puzzled by that also. I think it should specifically say prohibited, or there's an opportunity for further quibbling. In general direct wording is better; in this case, the history indicates direct wording is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My thinking here DGG is that everyone is prohibited from doing this. The rest of the motion, which I haven't quoted in the motion above, makes it clear that it isn't a "reminder" but it instead a motion to give a clear method of enforcement (that is, under AE protection rather than normal admin actions). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: "It is worth noticing that "belittling and insulting" is dealt with in CIVIL"; if it necessary that TRM be reminded that they must adhere to our policies prohibiting harassment and personal attacks, then civility is a well reasoned inclusion and something you already argued was covered by another applicable policy. The separate issues of equitable enforcement and the very issues with the policy itself are well beyond the scope of ARCA. Those issues will need to be raised and addressed either against the individual editors violating CIVIL or through RFC policy change respectively. Mkdw ^talk 16:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Guerillero and Callanecc: It is my understanding that "reminders" are non-enforceable provisions. I supported the changes with it being, in my eyes, a significant reduction in the force behind the previous remedy. Mkdw ^talk 21:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Guerillero and Mkdw: Generally yes they are unenforceable, however this first sentence just defines "prohibited conduct", the rest of the remedy (in the collapse box) gives the provision for enforcement. However I wouldn't mind changing it to TRM is prohibited from [what's there]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: Alternative motion

Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

is amended to read

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted -Kostas20142 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Support

Sorry, I said last week that I meant to post this as an alternative, and I forgot to actually do the paperwork. I think this is more specific about the nature of the problem and its scope, and doesn't carry the risks associated with the various policy links. As I said above, I think this has the potential to cause problems from overgeneralization, where it is really a very specific and idiosyncratic behavior we're dealing with here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Clearer. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
This is stronger than the proposal above, but ultimately it would remove the insulting or belittling ambiguity issue. Mkdw ^talk 21:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a much stronger sanction than its previous wording. However this proposal does clear up the wording and does more specifically target the problematic behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This is better than the existing wording and the first proposal. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I have my hesitations, but this should work. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain/recuse

Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I've removed "and administrators" as "editors" includes everyone who can edit (IPs and admins). I wonder whether this is going to broaden the restriction rather than define it more precisely? @Dweller and The Rambling Man:. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing my bad paperwork :) No objections to your edit - you're right that it's an unnecessary distinction. I'm not sure about broader or narrower; my feeling is that the original wording was never quite right as a description of TRM's particular brand of problem behavior, and this description is a much closer fit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delayed reaction here, but on Callanecc's post above, I still don't think this is "much stronger" than the existing sanction. The new version allows TRM to insult and belittle people all he likes about their ugly haircut or whatever - or at least the resulting block will just be a garden-variety one, not a special mark-of-AE one. He just can't do those things specifically about someone's competence. (It's very difficult to question someone's competence in a way that isn't insulting or belittling, and experience has demonstrated that TRM does not have that skill.)
  TRM, my opinion is still the same as when Dweller asked about this proposal awhile back - your best approach would be to spend much less of your wiki-time on criticizing people. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Close

~~Unfortunately, it seems like this is at a standstill. Several editors have called for it to be closed, so motion to close. Mkdw ^talk 14:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)~~

Withdrawn since there's growing support for the second motion. Mkdw ^talk 20:39, 16 September 2017 (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.

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

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