Requests for clarification and amendment

Initiated by Manul at 17:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• diff of notification Littleolive oil
• diff of notification TimidGuy
• diff of notification MastCell
• diff of notification SlimVirgin
• diff of notification NuclearWarfare

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[1] but has ignored requests to follow WP:COI.[2][3]

• WP:COI is compatible with maintaining her privacy.[5] 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[6] 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.[7] 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.[8]

• Olive has been sanctioned three times in the area of Transcendental Meditation.[9][10][11] 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[12] 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[13] (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"[14] and "the arbs knew"[15] 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,
  outing Olive in 2013 by supplying the deleted link.[16] 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,[17]
  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[18] 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
  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.[19] 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[20] -- 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 [21]. 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

]

Responses to arbitrators

• @
  WT:PAG to continue the push.) Manul ~ talk 01:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @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)[reply]

• @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.[22] 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[23] 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,[24] 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 should be ignored. (And the reason she offers[25]

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.[26] 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)[reply]

• @
  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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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

1. I informed Olive about adding her to the connected template at Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement.[33]
2. Olive protested but ultimately accepted, adding herself as a connected contributor with the deleted link included.[34] This is incredibly significant. Olive would slime me with baseless aspersions (outlined earlier [35]), but, importantly, would not take the more concrete action of removing her name from the template.
3. 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.[36] Olive did not respond.
4. 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. [37]), 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)[reply]

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 [38] 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.[39]"

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 [40] and this discussion [41]

COI accusations

• History of the removed link

The link [42] 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.

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 [43]

• Number of edits to TM technique article - 2 [44]

• Number of edits to TM Movement -5 [45]

• Number of edits to John Hagelin article: 18 [46]

• 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))[reply]

• • 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 [47], Aug 2016 [48] 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 [49], then Sept 2016, [50]where while saying the problems he sees aren't my fault he implies they are, then Feb 2017[51] 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."[52] 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))[reply]

]

• • • • 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))[reply]

• 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))[reply]

• • 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))[reply]

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))[reply]

@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))[reply]

@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))[reply]

• • 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) [55] 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

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

.

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. [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] 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. [68][69] 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)[reply]

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:

1. 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'".
2. Does Littleolive oil have a conflict of interest regarding TM?
   • Possible answers: "yes", "no"
3. 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)[reply]

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

]

• 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:

1. The current case has ZERO to do with the TM case.
2. 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.
3. Olive is NOT engaging in undisclosed paid editing.
4. Olive has not socked.
5. 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?
6. 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.
7. Olive is a productive and useful wikipedian who has edited many articles across multiple subject areas (she helped me with
   Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet
   out to impose a secret agenda on the rest of us.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@

connected contributors}} template on Talk:Evangelism because of my recent edit? --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by OID

COI does not need clarifying in this case. Its well known LittleOliveOil has a COI, they freely admitted attending

]

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)[reply]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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".
3. 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Statement by Gerda

Really?

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)[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.

Transcendental Meditation movement: Clerk notes

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

Transcendental Meditation movement: Arbitrator views and discussion

• @
  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)[reply
  ]
  • @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]
• @
  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)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]

---

Initiated by Shrike at 06:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[70]]--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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

1. 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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]
• @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)[reply]
• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by BU Rob13

The related Syrian Civil War topic area, under general sanctions (

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

---

Initiated by Salvidrim! at 03:54, 6 June 2017 (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:

• 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

• SilmVirgin notified
• Headbomb notified

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:

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

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

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:
  ✉ 05:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• RE:
  ✉ 16:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• RE:
  ✉ 18:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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. [71][72][73][74][75]

Headbomb based the removal on

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. [82][83] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

]

If there is indignation

b} 04:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

]

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

b} 12:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

SV is so intent on

]

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

b} 12:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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.

b} 17:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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

b} 17:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

{{

b} 18:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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?

b} 18:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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

. 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".

]

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 (

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

]

Statement by ForbiddenRocky

1. The lede for philoSOPHIA reads "A Journal of Continental Feminism". Doesn't get more gender-related than that.
2. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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

• 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
     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.
  E) 05:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    E) 05:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @
    E) 19:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• (
  WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• @
  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)[reply
  ]

@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)[reply]

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

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 "

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)[reply

]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• 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)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

---

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction

Initiated by GoldenRing at 09:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction 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:

• 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 (

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: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.

@

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)[reply

]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Capitals00 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

To editor

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by NeilN

Page restrictions need to be logged per

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)[reply

]

• @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)[reply]
• @
  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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[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.

Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction: 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)[reply]

Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction: 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)[reply]
  • @
    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)[reply
    ]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Mkdw, I think we are all agreeing with BU Rob13? Doug Weller talk 15:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with OR and Doug on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

---