Initiated by GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

GoodDay 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:

• GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Steven Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Steven Crossin

Statement by GoodDay

May I please have my diacritics ban lifted. I believe there's no longer a reason for it to exist, as it appears that the topic itself has been settled by the general community, in favour of dios usage. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics. I merely wish the restriction removed, because it's a restriction. I wish for my slate to be clean. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response - If WP:HOCKEY has chosen to abolish the diacritics compromise & thus have chosen to include diacritics on North American hockey articles (including NHL team articles rosters), then I've no choice but to abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Resolute

If you believe the community has settled in favour of using diacritics, when is your position on our old compromise within WP:HOCKEY? Resolute 18:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steven Crossin

Since I was notified about this request, I'll make a brief comment. I largely side with the opinion of ArbCom here - the last request to lift the restriction was less than three months ago and I think not enough time or things would have changed since then to provide enough to support overturning their decision from less than 3 months ago.

Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 06:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

While I understand the reluctance of arbs and most commentators to remove this sanction, it would be nice to see some progress here.

GD claims, and we have no reason to misbelieve him, that he is "no longer obsessed with diacritics" - whereas those opposing his request have no stronger argument than "insufficient passage of time" - or the Catch-22 argument "anyone asking for a remedy to be lifted should be denied because the request shows that they are unreconstructed." Neither argument is appealing because both are ad-hoc and neither concomitant with a fair process.

Nonetheless concerns need to be addressed. What, then, should be done? There are a number of options that spring to mind:

1. Limiting the duration of the restriction. This saves Good Day from having to return and face the "too soon" or Catch 22 arguments once more.
2. Imposing a test period, during which such edits are not forbidden per se, and at the end of which diacritic behaviour will be reviewed.
3. Reducing the scope of the restriction. For example permitting discussion of, but not editing of diacritics.

Or indeed any combination of the above.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

GoodDay: Clerk notes

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

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion

• @GoodDay: What has changed since your last appeal was declined in July? Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I'm sorry I just don't believe that, given how tendentiously you clung to the idea of getting even smaller exemptions last time. That request was open from 29 May to 3 July (36 days), yet 70 days later you're back here again asking for exactly the same thing - to me that shows that actually you still haven't let go. When you have a couple of years or more of editing cleanly in other areas, with no pushing boundaries and no appeals or amendment requests related to the restriction, then we might be convinced you really have moved on. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Doesn't seem anything has really changed from two months ago. Courcelles (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline LFaraone
• Accept Whilst I do think it's rather poor form to re-request this so soon after it was near-unanimously declined, I moved to accept last time (with the proviso that a 0RR restriction relating to diacritics was put in place) and see no reason to change my position now. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline  Roger Davies ^talk 10:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Doug Weller (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Case or decision affected

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification of RAN

Statement by Beyond My Ken

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

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

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

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

• In March 2013, the final decision of WP:ARBRAN was posted. Remedy #2.2 "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation" -- which passed 12 to 1 -- reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Statement by SilkTork

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

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

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

Statement by Jbhunley

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Worm That Turned

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

Statement by Coren

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

Statement by Carrite

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Andrew Davidson

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

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

Statement by Choor monster

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

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

?

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

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

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

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

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

However there are additional questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Clerk notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Majority reference

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

Support

1. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC) as proposer[reply]
2. Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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

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

Abstain

---

Initiated by The Devil's Advocate at 22:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [2]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I was blocked for two weeks by Future Perfect at Sunrise as a result of this edit-warring report. The cited reason in my block log was "breach of topic-ban at WP:AE, disruptive wikilawyering over blatant abuse of BLP" because I removed an unsourced claim about a living person. As can be seen from the noticeboard discussion, the material I removed claimed an individual was an expert in a certain area, despite no sources or evidence backing up the claim that this person was an expert in that area. One user cited an article claiming the individual was an expert in other matters, but not the specific matter where expertise was being claimed.

There appears to be no dispute from the admins that the claim itself was unsourced nor any dispute that it was a contentious claim. According to

that would seem to make my removal a valid claim of exemption on its own. What the admins who commented seem to be arguing is that because claiming someone is an expert in not egregious or libelous I can't claim an exemption. However, my expressly stated reason for invoking the exemption was not simply the claim of expertise, but why the claim was made. The user who made the claim was trying to use it to back up an accusation this claimed expert made against another person. It was a very serious accusation, but it was mentioned in a reliable source so it was not something I could validly remove. However, the unsourced claim about the person making the accusation was being used to present this as some sort of expert evaluation when it was not presented as such in that source or any other source.

What I am seeking clarification on is whether I am correct that claiming someone is an expert on a specific subject without backing from sources, especially when said claim is being used to back a serious accusation against another person, was the kind of BLP violation where I can validly invoke an exemption. If so I would like some note either in my block log, in the sanction log, or both, that this was a wrongful block. Admittedly, I would have preferred to handle this privately through my block appeal given some aspects of why this is a serious BLP issue cannot be discussed publicly, but as my block's expiration before the appeal could proceed has rendered that moot I am seeking this as a form of relief. I think at the very least the Committee should be able to clarify whether my claim of an exemption was valid and therefore the block invalid.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim, both 3RRNO and BANEX only say it needs to be an obvious BLP violation, which is any unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious material, and the two admins who actually commented on it seemingly agreed the material was both contentious and unsourced in this case. Their disagreement appears to be based on either a misunderstanding of how BLP exemptions work, a misunderstanding of why I was reverting it, or both. My revert of the first editor was because the editor cited a source that did not back the specific claim made and I noted as much when reverting the editor. Given that the second editor is a new editor who appears to have a

]

Hullabaloo, the reality is conduct noticeboards are not places for discussing content and it is not clear how the claims being made were relevant to the conduct issues raised. It is also the case that ArbCom has taken a more restrictive view on BLP and that is evidenced in their endorsement of topic bans over more minor past BLP violations on conduct noticeboard pages that are relevant to a content discussion in the GamerGate case. One of Future Perfect's own actions on a much more indirect alleged BLP violation on the talk page itself was endorsed in a finding of fact in the original case. Given that ArbCom believed these actions were severe enough to warrant rather harsh sanctions on the basis of BLP, there is no reason to believe the claims I removed are not to be considered BLP violations. I would suggest the common element in my case and those cases is concern about libel. To suggest an expert on a subject has evaluated someone's conduct and determined it qualified as a rather severe form of misconduct is potentially libelous if there is no indication that person is an expert on the subject and, in this case, such a claim has harmful implications for ongoing legal proceedings where the accused's constitutional rights may be at stake.

Guerillero, clearly the issue I am raising is the allowance all of those restrictions make for addressing obvious BLP violations. Other editors sanctioned on this issue have been allowed considerable leeway by AE admins as it concerns BLP exemptions, more leeway than I am asking for as no one here seems to dispute that the claims were unsourced and contentious, it was not an issue that had already been resolved, and I am not attempting to sanction anyone. I have similarly used the exemption on several occasions as it relates to GamerGate and connected issues, including instances where I was talking to admins or admins and others plainly supported my actions. My restrictions allow me to do such things to address BLP issues and that is what I believe is the case here as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, all of my restrictions very explicitly state they are subject to the usual exceptions and cite WP:3RRNO, which means BLP violations are a valid exemption. WP:BANEX is not even remotely meant to limit the number of times BLP violations can be reverted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mark Bernstein has made the point of mentioning many of the specifics I have avoided mentioning, let me point out the problem more explicitly. Nowhere in the Guardian article is Anita Sarkeesian claimed to be an expert and certainly not in the area of domestic violence, which is what Bernstein was asserting at AE with the clear intent that her inflammatory accusation against another living person be taken more seriously. Anyone who read his comment in full would discern that unduly legitimizing that accusation from an involved party as an expert opinion was the intended effect. Even if some sources suggest she is an expert in feminism or harassment that does not make her an expert in domestic violence and she was definitely not sought out as an expert on that subject or any other, but rather was sought out as a prominent figure in the GamerGate controversy. To assert that she is an expert in the area of domestic violence without any basis as a way to make her inflammatory attack seem like an expert evaluation is so egregious that I find it baffling how anyone can not immediately see the problem with it from a BLP perspective.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf and Yunshui, I was able to explain the BLP violation in one edit summary and despite all the administrative wikilawyering over BANEX, the standard is obviousness and it is obvious that this was an unsourced and contentious claim about a living person and thus an obvious BLP violation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: You were plainly claiming Anita Sarkeesian is an expert on domestic violence to present her domestic violence accusation against another living person as an expert opinion. Saying there is no basis in any sourcing to claim her as an expert on domestic violence is not saying she is not an expert. Whatever I may think of it, she is stated in many sources to be an expert on gender representation in popular culture, but that is fundamentally different from being an expert on domestic violence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: Anita Sarkeesian has been regularly interviewed as a victim of harassment or online abuse, not as an expert on it, and the Guardian interview is a continuation of such interviews. Even if she were considered an expert on harassment, she has certainly never been regarded in any source as an expert on domestic violence. This "unimpeachable" source that interviewed her as a victim of harassment presented a serious unsubstantiated allegation against the same person as fact in the same paragraph where Sarkeesian's accusation is included. It is an outlet that has made demonstrably false claims against that person as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: I have no personal conflict with Bernstein. Only reason I responded to him is to address his revisionism regarding what he claimed and hopefully better illustrate with my response why I felt the claims were an obvious and egregious breach of BLP.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain: Far as I know the sole "BLP violation" had nothing to do with Anita Sarkeesian and was about how I imperfectly raised a BLP issue. Only reason I mentioned Sarkeesian by name here is because Bernstein did it to repeat everything I was trying not to say. All I have said is that there is no indication she is an expert on domestic violence, which is hardly badmouthing her.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Statement by Cuchullain

This is pretty clear cut on the face of it. TDA is banned from the drama boards and GamerGate, and he came in "redacting" another editor's comments. Then he proceeded to edit war over his redactions and make the rather outlandish claim that this was a BLP issue. Here is his first edit containing the alleged problematic material. This was a good block on Future's part, and given the fact that TDA is still trying to squeeze drama out of it it's probably time to revisit the question of a site ban.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be reiterated that BLP violations and other disruption related to Anita Sarkeesian was one of the major factors in the Committee banning TDA from GamerGate, revert warring, and noticeboards.[3] He is now using this noticeboard discussion, which most have recognized as being opened on weak premises, as a pretext to badmouth Sarkeesian some more on Wikipedia. This is a camel's nose situation if I ever saw one. This discussion ought to be closed as soon as possible, and the community should turn its energy toward determining whether the positives of allowing this editor to remain on Wikipedia outweigh the serious disruption that seems to accompany him everywhere he inserts himself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jbhunley

I saw this discussion when it originally happened and thought a fair point was being made. I did not comment there because... well... Gamergate. I hope it is a bit safer here. To be clear I am addressing only the concept of BLP violations occurring due to an indirect unsourced claim and I intend no comment on any other issue.

There is, to use an analogous example, a huge difference in the way these two statements will be read and the potential damage to John Smith's reputation:

• Jane Doe, an expert on sexual harassment, says Mrs. Roe was sexually harassed by John Smith
• Jane Doe says Mrs. Roe was sexually harassed by John Smith.

While both may damage Smith's reputation, one is just someone spouting off the other is from an expert. The claim of expertise leans both weight and authority to the harassment claim because a reader will assume a statement by an expert has more weight and is likely to be true. Most people assume an expert knows what they are talking abut. By removing the un-sourced claim Jane Doe is an expert and thereby the extra weight of authority given to her words, the potential extra damage to John Smith's reputation is mitigated. Just as BLP intends.

I do think that the concern expressed is a valid BLP issue in regards to Smith even though the un-sourced material related to Doe. This is just the kind of thing BLP is intended to protect against and I think if it had happened on a non-Gamergate article more people would have chimed in to discuss the issue rather than being terrified to dip a toe into that toxic hellpool. Jbh^Talk 20:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

And, once again, we begin to see ArbCom twisting itself into knots to evade the terms of community-established policy that it has not authority to alter or grant exceptions to.

: would have it, "blatant, obvious, and noncontroversial violations" involving grossly negative material. Jbhunley is pretty much on target, and I'm baffled by the fact that no one involved in the underlying dispute, not even TDA, seems to have noticed that saying "Notable Person A has accused Living Person B of domestic violence", without referencing, is ordinarily a textbook BLP violation, whether or not Notable Person A is an expert in a relevant field.

More important, though, is that this is an area that no one needs to get into in order to resolve this matter. If the disputed material was in articlespace, or otherwise presented in Wikipedia's editorial voice, no reasonable editor would dispute that it failed BLP and needed to be removed. BLP applies generally to all material outside articlespace -- except material "related to making content choices". Editors are allowed a reasonable degree of freedom in discussions of what should be included in articles, and are not subject to the rigorous sourcing requirements of BLP in those discussions. This both facilitates useful discussion and prevents the infinite regress that would result if a disputed claim were immediately removed from talk page discussion under the same standards that would be applied to statements in articles.

Saying that Anita Sarkeesian is an "expert" on "sexual harassment" is contentious. (Whether it should be is a very different issue, as is whether she is sufficiently familiar with the subject to comment on it reliably.) The statement, without sourcing, doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. But it wasn't in an article, and it was part of a discussion relating to content choices, albeit at some remove. If the disputed statements had been made in a talk page discussion related to inclusion of Sarkeesian's statements in a Gamergate-related article, it is unlikely they would be seen as objectionable, in part because it's clearly an editor's opinion about Sarkeesian's reputation/stature. "Researcher X's opinion on the link between vaccines and autism can't be trusted because he makes big bucks as an expert witness for one side in the dispute" doesn't belong in an article, but we can't have useful discussions on whether Researcher X is a reliable source if we insist, in effect, that a case must clearly be proved before it can be argued.

Now I don't know just how closely the discussion that led to the block is related to a content choice. It comes from an arbitration discussion related to a talk page discussion of media commentary on Gamergate. What should be clear, however, is that it's not obviously unrelated, and therefore isn't an obvious BLP violation. BLP isn't limited to articles, but it also isn't intended to stifle reasonable content-related discussions. There are limits, but the content at issue here doesn't remotely approach them. FPAS got the outcome right, even though I wouldn't agree with their "outrageously lame" description, but if there was a BLP violation (which I doubt), it certainly wasn't obvious. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IP editor

Echo Jbhunley. This is nothing like the situation described by The Big Bad Wolfowitz, in which a researcher - whose work is being considered for inclusion in an article - is accused of having a conflict of interest. That's still something that ought to be sourced, but in the present situation, we have an individual being accused of a serious crime by proxy. And not just any individual, not a potential source, but instead a party to the controversy being argued about. There is no article on Wikipedia about him (although there is about the purported victim of his alleged wrongdoings), and in fact as far as I can tell no representation anywhere on Wikipedia of his views or his side of the story. Further, (I only follow suit out of a paranoia that I would violate some unstated rule by doing so) everyone seems reluctant to even name this person. Yet apparently it is okay to say for established editors to say anything negative they like about him, in the current climate. Isn't that kind of treatment precisely what BLP is meant to prevent? Is perhaps the avoidance of his name meant as an end-run around BLP policy? Because if that's all it takes, then I submit that the whole endeavour is meaningless, as it takes no effort to determine his name with simple, obvious Google search terms. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IP editor

TDA, I think Thryduulf's point is that they aren't viewing this as a viable

]

Statement by MarkBernstein

Some appear to think that the underlying passage might conceivably have been a violation of WP:BLP. This seems far-fetched; that it was thought a clear or unmistakable violation seems incomprehensible.

In the August 29, 2015 issue of The Guardian, Jessica Valenti wrote a 3000-word story about Anita Sarkeesian, titled in the Web edition "Anita Sarkeesian interview: 'The word "troll" feels too childish. This is abuse'" [4]. The Guardian is an old, large, and revered British paper, and I remind the committee that Britain’s laws regarding newspaper defamation are famously strict. A major newspaper devoting such a lengthy interview on the subject of abuse and internet harassment to Anita Sarkeesian is itself a strong argument that Anita Sarkeesian is considered an expert on the intersection of internet harassment and abuse. Sarkeesian’s many interviews and lectures provide further evidence if evidence is desired.

That interview includes the following paragraph:

She is frustrated by the way GamerGate has been covered in the media. “All the stories kept decentring the fact that it was domestic violence,” she says. Indeed, the movement was born when a 25-year-old software developer named Eron Gjoni posted a 10,000-word blog about his ex-girlfriend, video game designer Zoe Quinn. In the blog, he recounted the minutiae of their relationship and outlined her supposed wrongdoings and infidelities. Quinn has said, “It is domestic abuse that went viral, and it was designed to go viral.” (Gjoni linked to the blogpost in forums such as 4chan, well known for vicious online harassment.)

That is the paragraph under discussion at the start of this edit war, which a topic-banned editor undertook lest a Wikipedia talk page mention material that had, hours or days before, appeared in one of the world's great newspapers, and which was clearly attributed to its source in the paper and in my paraphrase thereof. (I believe the same quotations were used, in opposite sequence, in a second essay that appeared in a different publication about this time; we can resolve that if you think it useful.)

Bending over backwards (as this committee seems to insist we do), we might walk through the criteria outlined at WP:BLP.

• explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source: the source was already used in Gamergate articles and should have been familiar to all active editors; it was impeccable. Talk pages typically assume a general familiarity with well-known sources. In any case, there has never been any question raised that Sarkeesian did not say what I attributed to her, or mean precisely what I reported.
• tone: this captures the precise tone or the Sarkeesian and Quinn quotes by repeating their simple language verbatim. If the committee can do better, I would be interested to see their work.
• balance: this is precisely the point Sarkeesian has made, repeatedly, and with which virtually all reliable sources concur. The statement is simple and clear; I paraphrase it simple and clearly.

It should go without saying, but apparently cannot, that Sarkeesian and Quinn use the terms "violence" and "abuse" metaphorically to describe the impact of written or spoken words; we are referring here to hurtful writing, not to literal kicks and punches. The use of this language should be familiar to all members of the committee and indeed to all Wikipedia editors, and I will forbear (for once!) to catalog any of the innumerable examples in literature, law, and criticism. If the committee really wants examples, ask me or consult any Womens Studies department or department of literature, beginning perhaps with The Man Of Property.

I conclude that it might have been nice to see a defense from this committee of a hard-working editor who has been careful to adhere closely to BLP, whose work was termed a violation of WP:BLP to gain a narrow and temporary advantage in a dispute, and whose reputation has again been unjustly and uncaringly disparaged for upholding Wikipedia’s supposed policies. Whether the committee is any longer guided by policy is certainly open to doubt. I will not write more without invitation, as the committee seems disinclined to hear me, but if I can be of service I will be happy to do what I may.MarkBernstein (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

@The Devil's Advocate: Speaking of BLP violations, let’s review the bidding:

• The Guardian published a 3000-word interview with Anita Sarkeesian
• The headline of that interview was: "The word "troll" feels too childish. This is abuse"
• In the interview, Sarkeesian cites a specific example of abuse.
• Sarkeesian is indeed an expert on feminist criticism, as indicated by her many lectures and interviews. In any case, The Guardian clearly regards her as an expert.

The standard here is a "blatant and obvious BLP violation". Can repeating Sarkeesian’s own words, as quoted both in the headline and the body of perhaps Britain’s leading newspaper, constitute an obvious BLP violation? Can it be a blatant and obvious violation to say that Sarkeesian is an expert if major newspapers regard her as one? Compare this page's decision to condone an administrator’s claim that he knew of a named individual’s sexual misdeeds but could not write about them on-wiki "at this time"; the standard that apparently applies here is that widely-published and expert opinions that criticize guys are obviously BLP violations, but sexual innuendo against their victims is not. Indeed, this page is used to defame the reputation of a professional critic who is accused above of not being an expert -- simply a woman "involved" in Gamergate. Shameful. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate: It is widely known that Sarkeesian has written and spoken extensively on online sexual harassment, which is in fact the topic of this interview. She was asked whether a specific, widely-discussed online act was abusive. She gave her answer, which may not be the answer you would have given. It is not Wikipedia's place to substitute the judgment of individual editors for the judgment of reliable sources: an unimpeachable source here said "this expert has stated that this act was abusive", and you maintain that not only is reporting the unchallenged statement in The Guardian a BLP violation, but you continue to maintain that it is a blatant and obvious BLP violation while continuing to use Wikipedia to denigrate the reputation of the subject. For reference, Sarkeesian holds an MA in Social and Political Thought (York) and

...has been interviewed and featured in publications such as Forbes, Wired, The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. She was the recipient of the 2014 Game Developers Choice Ambassador Award, she was given a 2013 honorary award from National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers and was nominated for Microsoft’s 2014 Women in Games Ambassador Award.

This is the person whose credentials are so weak that her opinion on online abuse is blatant and obvious BLP, and whose claim to expertise myst be redacted? Seriously? That this is countenanced by the arbitrators beggars belief. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Sorry: my conflict remains with an Arbitration Committee who, apparently, consider repeating an uncontroversial headline from a feature article in The Guardian to be a "blatant and obvious" violation of BLP; I'm defending my own professional reputation since -- unlike many others -- I take responsibility for what I write here. I think the increasing capture of Wikipedia by right-wing anti-feminists is a shame and a concern not just for the project but for society; my experience has also been that, regrettably, one has to shout in order for Arbcom to notice. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

@MarkBernstein: Sarkeesian is a noisy person in a narrow walled garden within the estate of feminist studies. Her "expertise" is dubious, although she is certainly a "talking head" and is entitled to her opinions like everyone else. In so far as her expertise exists, it seems to have an element of self-perpetuation through a cycle of promotion.

I've no idea on what grounds you think that The Guardian is perhaps Britain's leading newspaper, although it is certainly the daily newspaper in Britain that most stridently supports feminist politics of all shades, and it does like to quote so-called experts who quite often turn out to be little more than exceptionally good self-publicists and/or highly opinionated loudmouths championing various pressure groups etc. Some are even regular op-ed columnists. This - "perhaps Britain's leading newspaper" - is yet another example of you making vague suggestions to bolster supposed authority. FWIW, I read The Guardian pretty much daily and have done so for over 30 years. I like it but, well, most people read other papers.

I suggest that the arbs ignore what you say, as you seem to think they are doing already. They can make their minds up without it. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by

GamerPro64

Should this request be closed since TDA got blocked for a month? I noticed he got blocked at 16:06, 22 September 2015 so it doesn't make sense for this to still be up if he can't continue here. GamerPro64 00:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

GamerGate: Clerk notes

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

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

• The BLP ban exemption is for blatant, obvious, and noncontroversial violations of BLP ("John Doe is a child molester" type stuff). If the matter is more nuanced, and especially if it's controversial, banned editors shouldn't be touching it, as they've already been excluded from the area for less than optimal judgment or conduct in that area. And certainly, if other editors in good standing disagree and revert, the matter is at that point controversial, so edit warring at that point isn't be acceptable at all. I can't be clear enough that BANEX is for dead obvious, totally uncontroversial cases of vandalism or BLP violation, and it is not meant in a way for the topic banned editor to reinsert themself into controversial areas or discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• We can impose stricter remedies than WP:BANEX if we want to. We didn't at this juncture but that is neither here nor there. As for the issue at hand, TDA should start making a case why he shouldn't be banned for edit warring on a noticeboard about gamergate. Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. TDA, you managed to breach all three of your restrictions in one go - you are lucky the block was not longer. Even ignoring the fact that you shouldn't be anywhere near noticeboard discussions about Gamergate,
  WP:BANEX does not permit you to edit war under any circumstances. If you do this sort of thing again then we will very likely remove even the standard exceptions (if you are not indefinitely blocked before then). Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • As noted by Seraphimblade above, the exemptions are only for "blatant, obvious, and noncontroversial" violations of the BLP. When other editors in good standing disagree with you about whether something is a BLP violation or not then it is by definition none of those and exemptions do not apply. If it takes a paragraph to explain why something is a BLP violation it's not obvious and the exemption does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The BLP violation was not sufficiently blatant to be exempt from the scope of the sanction. The block was valid. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Doug Weller (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline -- Euryalus (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @MarkBernstein and The Devil's Advocate: Please stop using this as a place to further, what looks like, a personal conflict. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Soham321 at 19:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Link

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

• Soham321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Bishonen
• diff of notification EdJohnston
• diff of notification Dennis Brown
• diff of notification JzG
• diff of notification Future Perfect at Sunrise
• diff of notification Gamaliel
• diff of notification Rich Farmbrough

Information about amendment request

• Link

• Waiver on the Voltaire page, and other waivers as described in my appeal

Statement by Soham321

I have argued my case at

.

One might argue--why not wait the ban out (4 months more) and then put the material in. My response is that i am moving to another city in the next few months and i may not have the source material (specifically the books) with me anytime soon after my move.

Reply to Yunshui: as a sign of good faith i am offering to not go beyond 1RR in any edit where i do the comparative analysis that i mentioned in my appeal. Soham321 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Seraphimblade since he gave a cogent reason why he is declining my appeal: First, i accept that i did lose my cool with Ms Sarah Welch, but my defense is that i was provoked. Mohanbhan has given my defense more adequately than i could in my previous appeal: diff. Even then i accept i was in error for losing my cool. The ban is not necessary in my opinion because i have not demonstrated any evidence of "Battleground editing" or "Battleground behavior" after my first appeal was declined to the best of my knowledge and recollection. I have never gone to 3RR to the best of my knowledge and recollection on any page after the topic ban was imposed on me. I have had many differences with Sitush in the past, and had i really been guilty of exhibiting battleground behavior i would have happily joined in when some other editors were criticizing Sitush on my talk page, but i did not do so. Please see the posts of Rabt man and Mohanbhan here: Link; and the post of Twobells here: Link. I may have *exchanged* some personal comments with Sitush earlier, but i have not done so after my earlier appeal with one exception. That is this comment: diff. I made my comment in the belief that Sitush was bullying a new editor. I have discussed this issue, and a related issue of IP editor(s) posting on my talk page, at ANI and i accepted the Admin Swarm's view/comment/advice since it sounded reasonable to me and requested that the thread be closed. This was Swarm's analysis of the issue: diff. The last time i have done joint editing on any article with Sitush was on the talk page of Eckankar. One may examine this page to see that the joint editing was being done in a collegial way, and not a battleground way. Soham321 (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

These permanent links to Soham321's previous requests may be useful: [5][6] Bishonen | talk 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Statement by Dennis Brown

As I concluded there, the sanction appeared to be reasonable when looking at the totality of the editor's edits. My opinion hasn't changed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

In my opinion, Soham's rationale for amending this sanction lacks any substance. Soham's reason for allowing edits in this area appears to boil down to not much beyond the fact that xe really really wants to. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Statement by Gamaliel

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

@ Floq.

There is no compulsion to comment on Soham's requests - or even to read anything Soham posts.

@ Soham

I think it's worth reading what I wrote a little carefully. My objections were not endorsements of you. or your editing of the Voltaire talk page. Rather I respect the opinions of those who said that giving you this latitude was likely to cause problems. Pragmatically denying you the ability to make these edits may well be in your best interests (in terms of further conflict and sanction), as others hold - though the heightened scrutiny may mean that problems will be headed off before it comes to that.

My objection was I suppose to some extent a procedural or conceptual one, in that the area you wished to discuss on Voltaire seemed (to my not particular well informed ear) sufficiently divorced form the subject that you were sanctioned on for a good faith request for an exemption to be granted.

This argument does not support your broader request to compare European philosophers to Indian philosophers.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Floq

If we're invoking

]

Statement by Sitush

Soham321, in your reply to Yunshui you offer not to exceed 1RR. Unfortunately, past history suggests even that will not avoid timesink issues. Bishonen is pretty conservative (imo) when issuing sanctions and there is little doubt in my mind that such issues will have played a part in her decision. She may, of course, disagree but the very fact that you have appealed again immediately after the AE appeal was closed rather supports the point even if not my assumption regarding Bish's thought processes. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Decline There's no substance here; it boils down to, "I want to make edits that I'm not currently allowed to make." No indication that the original reasons for the topic ban have been considered and addressed, no suggestion that previous behaviour will be avoided - just a complaint that the TBAN is inconvenient. This is not a reason to amend or rescind it. Yunshui ^雲_水 21:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, no reason has been provided as to why the ban either shouldn't have been applied or is no longer necessary. "I really want to do it now" is not a valid reason to overturn a topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline and quite frankly, I don't think this sanction should expire. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. I see no reason to overturn the consensus at AE. It is also worth noting that exhausting the community's patience can lead to blocks that are not often overturned. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline If anything, this seems to show that the sanction is required. Doug Weller (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by NE Ent at 01:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

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

• NE Ent (talk · contribs) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Replace numbered anchor tags in
  Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

with word tags as suggested by User:Timotheus Canens/DS tags

Statement by NE Ent

The numbers on the DS page (e.g. 7.4) are not a good idea, because: a) they make the page look too much like code of statutes, and

, of course, and b) If you provide anchors, someone might wiklink to them. And then someday some committee might revise the procedures, and then "7.4" might not be the fourth section, so then you have hyperlinks pointing to the wrong section, or sections numbered like 7.2, 7.3 7.31, 7.4, or 7.2, 7.4

@Guerillero: fully protected page. NE Ent 01:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Discretionary sanctions: Clerk notes

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

•  Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Just do it --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There was a consensus of everyone who commented in the now-archived discussion at
  AGK should be given a chance to comment as they were the most active arbitrator in that discussion, but to go ahead if there was nothing after a few days. Those two messages constitute the entire thread, so as far as I am concerned there is no reason for you not to go ahead and implement this in the manner Guerillero suggests, although being British I do feel compelled to point out that other sportswear manufacturers are available. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

---