Initiated by Callanecc at 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Christianity and Sexuality arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Roscelese

Following an AE request (I'll add a permalink when it's closed) could the Committee please clarify what the second part of dot point one in Roscelese's restriction ("and is required to discuss any content [emphasis added] reversions on the page's talk page") applies to.

My suggestion would be that the bit in brackets for the first clause could be made to apply to the second clause as well, or if WP:BANEX could be applied to the whole dot point?

Roscelese may wish to make request regarding exceptions for dot point 2, but I'll leave that up to her. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: That really depends, currently there is no mechanism other than a formal amendment for the arbitrator comments below to be taken into account (or even found and referred to) for any enforcement in the future. If the Committee doesn't have an appetite for a formal amendment by motion perhaps they could do it through this request by foot noting the remedy with a summary of the arb comments here (though that would probably need to be done by an arb rather than a clerk). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually given that not all of the arbs commenting have answered:

• Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts?
• Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)?

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to consider here (and something which has come up in the past) is that if the admins involved in the enforcement of the Committee's decision don't understand or need clarification to confirm their interpretation (whether the interpretation is correct or not) then the Committee should provide that clarification as clearly as possible. The comments here are equivalent to obiter dicta on the PD page and they disappear to the case talk page, that is, you'd look at the decision the Committee has passed when deciding whether to report/enforce not the case talk page. In this case the dot points are separate items and so don't necessarily rely on the conditions set in in each other, so in this case the questions being asked are valid and may very well come up again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Courcelles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, I agree with the arbs who have commented here; if the user had provided some reason for removal (either in the edit summary or the talk page) I wouldn't have reverted with a simple "?" ("why did you do this?"), which seemed like a nicer thing to say than "rv vandalism" despite the lack of a summary, the fact that the text was cited to reliable sources, and the absence of other edits on the account. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to make material changes to the sanctions. The sanctions involved in my initial filing set minimum communication requirements. She breached; no one seriously argues otherwise. Claiming her breach was justified by WP:BANEX simply doesn't fly; BANEX requires that "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible explanatory edit summary or that you link to an explanation detailing the exemption". That's pretty much equivalent to the communication requirement that Roscelese didn't comply with; it would be rather silly to say she should provide an edit summary explaining why she didn't have to provide an edit summary. Perhaps the Committee might amend the second clause of the remedy to allow an appropriate edit summary in lieu of talk page comment when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations, but Roscolese didn't even make that minimal effort here. The more significant issue, as I saw it, was the violation of sanction 2, making an automated rollback-type edit without providing an edit summary; given that rollback-type edits are pretty much limited to situations which would fall under BANEX, it seems clear to me that no exception was indicated by the Committee's language. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• Generally speaking, an unexplained removal of large chunks of an article, especially by a very new editor, is reasonably treated as a vandal or test edit. Roscelese was well within reason to do so here. I would see the meaning of "content revert" as the reversal of a content edit, which would exclude vandalism. Regardless, I'm not inclined to require Roscelese to start a talk page discussion every time she removes "HI JOE!!!!!!!!" type vandalism from a page. If, of course, that editor comes back and provides a reason they believe the material should be removed, that would then bring these restrictions into force should Roscelese revert it again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I just re-read the restriction in question and was surprised to see that we did not explicitly say it did not apply to reverts of obvious vandalism/BLP violations; that said, I agree with Seraphimblade. It would be a waste of time to have Roscelese open a thread whenever she were to revert vandalism. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• i agree with both of my colleagues. Next time we must make this explicit. Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Having thought about this more since my comment at AE, I think all that is needed for vandalism reverts is an edit summary that notes it is vandalism being reverted (which is good practice for everyone). I'd be happy to amend the wording of the restriction to make this clear if people think that would be worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Callanecc: to explicitly answer your two questions:

  • Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts? It is neither required nor prohibited.
  • Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)? An explanation is needed, but an edit summary noting the nature of the revert (i.e. that it is reverting indisputable vandalism or BLP violations) is sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• We need to examine the full relevant sentence of the restriction being clarified:

  [Roscelese] is: indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page

  Given that reversions are expressly defined as excluding "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations", reverting simple vandalism is outwith the scope of the restriction. In my view no amendment is needed and the answer to the question seems fairly plain. AGK [•] 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually the second bullet point that clarification is being sought with regards:

    [Roscelese] is: indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;

    While that contains no exceptions on it's own, it unclear whether the exception in the first bullet is intended to apply only to the first restriction or to both restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is, thanks Thryduulf. I think all of the above in any case have answered the question from that angle fairly exhaustively, so I still concur that no amendment is required. AGK [•] 03:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes it applies to both"; or "yes it applies to the first only"?. I read it as applying to both. There can be a need to revert vandalism immediately; there is not a need to revert without explanation. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I read it as no discussion is required for reverting obvious vandalism, and Rosclese did nothing wrong here. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Roscelese should not be required to start a talk page discussion for reverting obvious vandalism. An edit summary mentioning that this was vandalism wouldn't have been a bad choice, but I'm not terribly concerned by "?". If we need to modify restrictions so that this is more clear, so be it, but I think that the exception of obvious vandalism is implied. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think at this point we need input. Do @Callanecc, Roscelese, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: or anyone else feels that the clarifications are sufficient as they stand or whether we need to amend the wording? Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Mildly surprised this is necessary, but suggest we add "except when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations" so that the sanction is clearer for anyone considering it at AE. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Euryalus:, that would have to be done by motion, but it is not a bad idea. I'm going to write one, hopefully this is noncontroversial, and we can get this out of here. Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Nyttend at 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Kww and The Rambling Man 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:

• Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Kww

As noted at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, the second remedy is rather confusing. Did you mean to say that Kww may not get the editfilter right unless he re-passes RFA, or did you not mean to address such a situation? I'm not marked Kww as a party because this isn't related to his post-case behavior: it's just a confusing element of the decision, and an authoritative interpretation would be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note after reading Salvio's comment — my only concern is that we get an unambiguous statement from Arbcom, because everyone loses when there's an ambiguous decision. I don't really know either editor and don't have an opinion on what Arbcom should decide here (so no point in asking my opinion); I just hope you'll decide something in place of the current wording, so that we all know what you were intending in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to his apparent lack of due care and competence in previously implementing edit filters, I am opposed to any process that would allow Kww to regain the EFM right without a community review. See my previous comments: [1][2]. My understanding of remedy #2 while it was being drafted is that a desysopped Kww would be required to pass RFA before getting EFM restored, and I don't see any reason to weaken that. If this case hadn't been coming to RFAr already, I would have opened a separate community discussion about revoking Kww's EFM right. In practical terms, I assume it will be years (if ever) before Kww passes an RFA, but I don't think there ought to be a path that allows Kww to regain EFM any sooner than that (and I'm not sure he should be an EFM even if he passes RFA). Keep in mind that EFM capabilities are in some ways more powerful than the normal admin toolkit. Dragons flight (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: It has never been clear to me that you really understood my criticisms / concerns, which is part of the problem. However, I don't want to have an argument with you about this. Should you actually want additional feedback on this issue (either now or some time in the future), I would suggest that you ask for other people at WT:EF to give you their opinions of your previous filters. Dragons flight (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already understood the restriction to be much as Salvio phrased it. I deeply resent Dragon flight's portraying our different opinions as to the weight that should be placed on false positives as a competence issue: I could just as reasonably claim that his insistence on consuming resources looking for rare corner cases was a competence issue. Neither one is: it's a difference in opinion as to where a reasonable balance between execution efficiency and false triggers lies.—Kww(talk) 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're really getting down-and-dirty with the specifics of wording, I don't feel too bad about chiming in: in Salvio's proposed wording underneath (visibly inspired by an earlier post of mine), the removal of EFM is described first as a "restriction" that would automatically expire, and later as a "remedy" than can be appealed. The wording should probably brought in line with either term (restriction or remedy) for consistency? I really feel pedant pointing this out though. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be understood in the current comment by Arbs (although I see no reference to it) but a non-admin desiring "edit filter manager user right" has to go through some procedure as described at Wikipedia:Edit filter#User right, second and third paragraph (starting with "The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should only be requested by and given to highly trusted users, and only when there is a clear, demonstrated need for it...")

My point is this: if and when (within a year or whatever) a non-admin Kww would request a lifting of remedy 2 of the ArbCom case, I don't see how this could automatically result in Kww getting the edit filter manager user right back. Or would the ArbCom plan on overriding the regular procedure by ArbCom decision? Any future decision to lift that sanction should imho be formulated thus that after lifting of the sanction (if and when this is granted, in a scenario where Kww would not be an admin at that time) the regular procedure for a non-admin to be granted the right should be followed.

Seeing the analysis here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Kww's edit filters I can imagine some reluctance by those allowed to grant the right to non-admins.

All this is a bit far ahead, and needs to be dealt with when it would occur in the future (if and when etc.), and by that time procedures might be completely different (especially when the community would take up on remedy 3 of the case), but I think it best this caveat is taken into the equasion now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• I have added Kww as a party, because they are named in the above mentioned remedy ("Kww's edit filter permissions revoked"). L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nyttend: Oh, I hadn't seen your note. In any event, they are still required to be notified, as the clarification request could directly impact a remedy against Kww and what they can and cannot do. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nyttend, you are quite right that the remedy, as currently worded, leaves a bit to be desired and gives the impression that, short of another successful RFA, Kww may not receive the edit filter manager bit back; as far as I'm concerned, that's not satisfctory and, for that, I propose we reword the relevant remedy to Kww's edit filter manager permission is revoked. If he regains the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire; in addition, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that Kww has been desysopped, the only thing of relevance is how Kww may regain his EFM permission. The remedy is not brilliantly worded I agree, but the restriction it imposes is not ambiguous: He may not regain the bit while the restriction is in effect. The restriction automatically expires if he regains adminship at RfA, at which point he may regain the bit according to policy at that time (if there is no change between now and then he could assign it to himself if he desired). There is no restriction on when he can stand for adminship. I agree with Salvio that the restriction should be appealable at WP:ARCA 12 months after it's imposition (i.e. no sooner than August 2016). Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree that the EFM restriction should be appealable after some reasonable period of time has passed, 12 months would be fine for that. I don't think we need an amendment for that, though, as any arbitration remedy can be appealed at ARCA after a reasonable period, and the Committee can at that time choose to accept the appeal and lift the restriction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be in favour of changing the wording of the decision, per Salvio giuliano's text above. At the time it was written (when it was unclear whether the desysop would pass or not) the current wording was arguably preferable; now that Kww has been desysopped it's overly convoluted and would benefit from being simplified. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of the loop guy here. I would much rather us not have our hands in restoring permissions and have a fresh RfA be the only route of removal of the restriction. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a hypothetical appeal to ARCA I would not be supporting any granting of the permission directly. I would consider giving permission to ask the community, taking into account the change in attitude and behaviour over the year and the level of scrutiny likely to be imparted at the relevant venue. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that is disingenuous. There isn't a good WP:RFP like place to have that discussion that is in view of the community. By giving the OK for a discussion to happen at a little watched part of project space we are basically flipping the switch ourselves. I would much rather not have the committee in these matters. If anyone has a better idea for a community-centered way of signaling that the restriction is no longer needed, I am all ears. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Currently that is indeed the case and I would not support it. However if the proposal to split the EFM permission that was raised during the case happens, or if something else changes between now and next August that makes requesting the EFM bit something other than a barely observed blip in a backwater then I might support (depending on Kww of course). Alternatively, we could just say that the restriction may be appealed at the later of (a) when such a community process exists and (b) 12 months have passed. Of course this is academic if Kww does not wish to regain the EFM bit in advance of a successful RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd prefer the community to handle this, not us. Doug Weller (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The remedy was convoluted, I'm sorry for that, but the part of it was to create provisions with or without the desysop, given that usual policy is that admins may self-assign the flag. This could easily be reworded now to be clearer that the remedy expires if/when RFA is passed, but I will not support any appeal other than via RFA given the absence of any process with scruitiny to grant the EFM flag, and a belief that Arbcom should not be (re)granting permissions that have clear community processes to grant. This flag is a bit unusual, but we've given a clear community appeal here. (Had he not been desysopped, there would have been no community process of any rigor/scrutiny to regrant the flag) Courcelles (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by MarshalN20 at 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Argentine History arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Topic ban

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

• MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Cambalachero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [3]

Information about amendment request

• Topic ban

• Requesting removal of topic ban. This is an appeal that was allowed after one year of the decision; nearly 2 years have passed.

A considerable amount of time has passed since the "ARBARG" case reached its conclusion. After the topic ban was placed, I asked then-arbitrator NuclearWarfare on how to proceed in order to appeal it; he suggested that I tackle a controversial article and take it to featured status (see [4]). Since then, I have taken three articles to featured status (Peru national football team, Falkland Islands, and Pisco Sour), and I am now in the process of passing another one through the GA-FA process (Bicycle kick) as well as conducting a GA review of an article by Kareldorado. It is worth mentioning that I worked on the controversial Falkland Islands article with Wee Curry Monster and was supervised by administrator Basalisk.

I am requesting the removal of this topic ban on the basis of the following points:

• First, I have demonstrated through actions that I am a valuable contributor to this encyclopedia. Over a year has passed since the ARBARG case, and so the topic ban at present is punishing rather than preventative (which goes against WP:NOTPENAL).
• Second, I understand my mistake and apologize for it. I was accused of battleground conduct because I pointed out that the editing patterns of certain editors were suspicious and favoring a national POV rather than a neutral POV. I felt that my points were left ignored, so I became increasingly aggressive. This behavior was wrong. At the time I did not know that there existed a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where I could have taken my concerns. I now know of its existence and, in the future, plan to use it in order to avoid creating bilateral conflict that is disruptive to the encyclopedia.
• Third, since its inception, the topic ban has been the cause of much harassment against me. Most of the enforcement and amendments that followed were the result of hounding users taking advantage of the TBAN's lack of clarity. Luckily, in all cases either an administrator or the Wikipedia Community stood by my side and repealed any harm done to my user account. Unfortunately, this has not prevented users from still using the TBAN to attack me. For example, most recently I was called a "delinquent" and unfairly accused of misbehavior for simply directing a new user to contribute to Wikipedia; the situation was so ridiculous and upsetting that administrator EdJohnston boxed it up (see [5]).

The third point, which goes against WP:HARASS, is what has prompted me to request this TBAN removal. The harassment needs to stop, and the only way to do so is by removing this unnecessary, punitive topic ban. My contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves and demonstrate that I am not an editor that deserves this type of mistreatment. In fact, this experience has taught me many valuable lessons about Wikipedia and its community, including the reality that many editors also deal with this problem of harassment; in the near future, I would like to become an administrator in order to help users become productive editors while also tackling harassment issues which drive away productive editors. To achieve this goal, I will have to earn the community's trust, and this I will do by committing myself to continuing my positive behavior and contributions to this online encyclopedia. To be more precise about my near future plans, I would like to first take the Peru article through an FA re-review (since it no longer meets the standards) and next work on taking more articles to featured status (mostly those in my sandboxes).

Please let me know if you have any questions. I would kindly appreciate the opportunity to answer any questions prior to arbitrators making any final decision on this request.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of recent comments, I would just like to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon. I believe that, if needed, @EdJohnston: can provide further insight on the situation that recently occurred with Keysanger, and he can also explain each side's behavior. As I write this message, I read the following recommendation from the committee: "Be professional. Comments that are intended to provoke a negative reaction or that are uncivil are completely unhelpful." That's exactly what I plan to do. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasons why I was topic banned back then. I know that many people does not trust me, I can't simply ask for a lift of the topic ban by just stating my good intentions. Although two years have passed, I think that I have to earn that trust, and time alone may not be enough. For that reason, I asked some months ago for exceptions for the biographies of the Argentine presidents from 1983 to modern day: if I manage to make them all featured articles, then I may have something to justify my case. Unfortunately, my limited time did not allow me to have any progress that I may show at this point (I'm just with a good article nomination, and nothing more). Because of this, I will make no special request in this case for me at this point.

On the other side, there is a request I would like to make: please do not tie Marshal20's fate with mine. His situation is not the same, and his topic ban should be lifted now. The original dispute was with the biography of Juan Manuel de Rosas; the scope was expanded to all of latin american history surely to prevent the problems with "testing the limits" if the thing was too narrow. But if you check him, you will see that before that dispute he had never took part in any discussion or made any significant number of edits to either the article of Rosas or to some other article that may be more or less related (such as those in the navbox {{Argentine Civil War}}). In fact, he's not Argentine but Peruvian, and the national histories of Argentina and Peru had very little points of intersection. MarshalN20 simply joined the discussion when the discussion had been taken to venues to request to intervention of more users, just that. If someone deserves to be punished for that old dispute, let it be just me. Cambalachero (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment: please take Keysanger's comments with care, and check them instead of taking them at face value. First, have in mind that MarshalN20 has not been topic banned because of his work in the article on the War of the Pacific. That article has never been discussed during the case, it just fell into the expanded topic ban placed to make sure that we did not get anywhere near Juan Manuel de Rosas (and let's point that both topics are not even contemporary; the war started almost 30 years after Rosas was ousted in the distant Buenos Aires). The topic ban does not prevent MarshalN20 from discussing with or about Keysanger as a user (for example, providing evidence in a sock puppet discussion about Keysanger). Neither should be forbidden to talk about the articles as articles (as in "X user has been editing Y article"), as long as he does not discuss the content of the article or try to influence the way it is being edited (and note that when Keysanger says that MarshalN20 provided info in a sockpuppet discussion related to the War of the Pacific, he's not pointing that the user under investigation is him). He describes a diff as "was involved again in a discussion about Socketpuppetry in the Article War of the Pacific", which is a completely inaccurate description of the discussion linked (note that admin EdJohnston saw no problem in that discussion; a newbie asked MarshalN20 for help and he simply told him someone else who may help). As for the wikisource link, which is the alleged problem? Here in wikipedia, the name of the article about a document would be that document's name, and I'm sure that the same applies in wikisource; there can hardly be a hidden agenda if we simply call a spade a spade. In any case, have in mind that Keysanger already held several disputes with different users about the war of the pacific, in a short investigation I have seen two mediation attempts (see here and here), an edit war that led to article protection for two months (here), and another edit war that had him blocked (here, the admin points that "The saga of the War of the Pacific continues"). Cambalachero (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was dismayed when the topic ban was imposed on MarshalN20 (on 23 June 2013), and I expressed my disappoinment on MarshalN20's User talk page at the time. I have interacted with MarshalN20 for some years here, and have personally always found MarshalN20 to be a helpful and constructive contributor who seems to be here to help write a good encyclopedia. I also recently encouraged MarshalN20 to request for the ban to be lifted (on 3 July 2015), which at the time I thought was one year after the topic ban was imposed, but actually I now notice that two years has passed by. I think enough time has gone by to further demonstrate that this user is a very helpful contributor to Wikipedia. The user has also expressed regret for the prior behavior that led to the ban, which further demonstrates a willingness to do better in the future. I never really thought I properly understood the prior dispute, but have always thought MarshalN20 was a generally good editor who should be allowed and encouraged to help further improve Wikipedia – in all areas – and especially for the history of Latin America, as that is a subject on which MarshalN20 appears to have considerable expertise and a commitment to try help and to try to improve accuracy and NPOV (e.g., with regard to political and nationalistic biased editing). I thus strongly support removal of this old topic ban. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ban was imposed on 23 June 2013. Since then MarshalN20 has broken the ban a lot of times, always in an agressive manner:

• On 21 October 2013 MarshalN20 commented in the talk page of the War of the Pacific: diff
• On 27 Feb 2014 he wrote Hopefully now that Keysanger has "retired" the editing of War of the Pacific articles will have less conflict. diff (BTW he is canvassing votes for his nomination of an article)
• On 6 Mai 2014 he participated in a investigation about my contribs in the War of the Pacific : Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keysanger/Archive
• On 29 May 2014 he wrote I am still concerned by the behavior of these users. Their contribution history is filled with combative nationalist behavior in controversial articles (please see [6]). diff
• On 27 June 2014 Cloudac seeks advice by MarshalN20 how to proceed in the War of he Pacific diff
• On 21 October 2013 diff MarshalN20 induced Darkness Shines to gather information against an editor of the article War of the Pacific (Darkness Shines is now blocked for different causes) ... My only recommendation is that you document all of the nonsense and later present it at AN/I or an RfCU for review...
• On 22 October 2013 diff Darkness Shines asks MarshalN20 for information to post to the War of the Pacific article EMail me the full quotes please
• On 22 October 2013 diff MarshalN20 sent the information needed for reaking the ban. He knew that he was breaking the ban but he didn't care: The information is found in the second paragraph of page 192. I'd rather not take any further action at this point without listening to Basalisk's advice. Nonetheless, if Basalisk thinks it's appropriate, I can also just write the text to your talk page (both in Spanish and the translation). I am honestly not trying to mock the topic ban (and have been mindful of it in my actions); in this case, the issues of vandalism and conflict of interest are pretty blatant.
• On 23 October 2013 Darkness shines explained to MarshalN20 which is the best way to break the WP rules diff: :{{reply|MarshalN20}} Spanish is not my language, posting on my talk page would violate the TBAN, mailing it to me will not.
• On 27 July 2014 Darkness Shines reverted my proposal at the article War of the Pacific: diff
• On 28 July 2014 Darkness Shines was congratulated by MarshalN20 for breaking his ban:diff Stay strong, friend. Don't lose your cool in the face of stupidity.
• On 4 August 2015 was involved again in a discussion about Socketpuppetry in the Article War of the Pacific: diff

It doesn't belong to the scope of this committee, but this intervention demostrates the true intentions of MarshalN20.

A topic ban should not be punitive, but should be preventive, that is it schould protect the others editors working in Wikipedia. And the quality of MarshalN20's edits, if any, say nothing about his capacity to team work. There is al lot of "good" editors that have been blocked or are unable to work in team.

In the light of MarshalN20 breaks of the ban, can anyone guarantee that MarshalN20 will respect the Rules of Wikipedia this time?. No. He didn't respect the rules before the ban and not during the topic ban and he will not respect the rules if the ban is lifted.

I thus strongly oppose removal of this neccesary topic ban. --Keysanger (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• It would be most appreciated if Wee Curry Monster and Basalisk could comment here. That being said, provided there are no serious objections, I could see using the same method we've used before, with a probationary lifting of a ban for a year followed by lifting entirely if no incidents occur. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read through the objections, and don't find anything recent and seriously concerning there. I've proposed a motion accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with Seraphimblade,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I also think Seraphimblade's proposal of a probationary lifting is a good way forward here, and pending any credible objections I recommend we follow that route. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that a probationary relaxing of the restrictions would be a good precursor to fully lifting the ban. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I may as well pile on here and agree. Seems a very reasonable course of action. Doug Weller (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Proposed:

Remedy 2 (MarshalN20 topic banned) of the Argentine History case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should MarshalN20 fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

Support

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Thryduulf (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Doug Weller (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. LFaraone 22:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

---

Initiated by Anythingyouwant at 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Previously known as User:Ferrylodge)

Case or decision affected

Abortion arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed." The reason I ask now for clarification is because today I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard."[7] Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know. Am I supposed to avoid these types of pages altogether, or are these types of pages not included in the ban, or does it depend upon which parts of these pages I edit? I have made lots and lots and lots of edits to this type of page over the past four years without saying anything remotely related to the A-word.

I assume that this topic ban is a lifetime ban given the reaction of ArbCom members to my May 2014 request for amendment, and given my firm position on the matter, and therefore whatever response you give to my present request for clarification will presumably be part of this lifetime ban.

• @User:Bishonen, thanks for referring me to WP:TBAN which I had not been referred to and had not read before. According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed." It would have been very easy for them to say "topic area" or "edits" instead of "pages", and easy for them to wlink to WP:TBAN. If you are correct (which you very well may be), I'd like ArbCom to confirm it. Thanks. I don't know if clarification requests are affected by an editor's level of contrition, and so explaining that level was the purpose of the rest of my initial comment here. According to plain English, a page is either abortion-related or it isn't, and, if it is, then plain English seemingly dictates that I may not edit it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, how about waiting until things get out of hand? I sincerely want to know whether, as Bishonen suggests, I am perfectly free to edit abortion-related pages as long as my edits are not about abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my replies to the comments of others have been hidden. You guys are too much! Perhaps you will allow a reply to Thryduulf....Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)The comments have been moved out of the little hidden box.[reply]

• @User:Thryduulf, since you now suggest arbitration enforcement action against me regarding this matter, is there anything I can do at this point to avoid such action? I have carefully avoided abortion-related articles like fetus and pre-natal development and feticide and the like for four years just to be careful. But I understand from Bishonen's comment below that it's fine for me to edit pages like those as long as I don't bring up abortion. I would like ArbCom to confirm that now, because I do not want to land at arbitration enforcement for editing articles like those.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Thryduulf said "you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit." That is painfully obvious. Am I allowed to edit fetus and pre-natal development and feticide if my edits are not about abortion? That seems to be what Bishonen was saying about Political positions of Jeb Bush.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Thryduulf, you seriously want to respond to this request for clarification by essentially saying: "We won't tell you whether you can make non-abortion edits to articles like Political positions of Jeb Bush and feticide and pre-natal development except to say that you shouldn't if you're unsure"? Sheesh. Let me put it this way: only a nutcase would think that a non-abortion edit to any of those articles violates my topic ban, and so I intend to feel free to make such edits unless you advise otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:DGG, you object to a long quotation that I put in a footnote. Not to worry! I now understand from WP:TBAN that I shouldn't have made the edit at all. Finding out about that was the main purpose for me coming here, and now I know. I sincerely apologize for this inadvertent error, and it will not happen again. Before coming here I did not realize that I am totally free to make non-abortion edits to articles like feticide, but barred from making abortion edits to articles like Political positions of Jeb Bush. Now I know, and can therefore comply more fully and completely with your [expletive deleted] topic ban. Incidentally, I'm a big fan of long quotes in footnotes; see, e.g., the footnotes in the lead of Carly Fiorina. YMMV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:Bishonen, it seems to me that Pre-natal development and Political positions of Jeb Bush are both abortion-related to some extent. But both also have lots of material that is not abortion-related, and I have come here with the express purpose of finding out whether I can edit the latter. So far, arbitrators say "don't edit it if you're unsure". Well, I am sure that a reasonable person reading my topic ban and WP:TBAN would say that a non-abortion edit to either article is okay. Is it wise for me to use a "reasonable person" standard? I think so. The Bush article has a whole section titled "Abortion" but the fetus article does not, so why do you think I'm completely banned from the latter but not the former?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:Seraphimblade, User:Doug Weller, User:Bishonen, per your comments, I will construe my topic ban as pertaining to "any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion" unless the consensus of arbitrators changes. That was the language in the sanction that this committee imposed on me eight years ago, and is apparently what you wish the most recent topic ban said too.[16] As always, you folks meet my expectations. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:Guy Macon, you have posed this question for me to answer: "You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know whether an edit in a section labeled 'Abortion' with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban?" No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban. I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it. Anything else?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Everyone, I have restored the section in question to exactly how it was before I touched it yesterday.[17] Some one edited the section since then, and so I explained and apologized to them.[18] I don't see what more I can do about it. Ever since 2007, you people have assumed the worst possible faith on my part. There was never any possible way I ever could have gotten out from under. It doesn't matter how many years go by without blocks and without the slightest violation of the topic ban, and of course not one word that I say matters because I am presumed to be a venal liar. So sanction me all you want for making a possible mistake and immediately coming here for clarificaton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the WP:TBAN policy makes it clear what a topic ban is and what it applies to: "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Italics in original. In other words it's fine for you to edit most of the article Jeb Bush, but not fine to edit any part of it broadly related to abortion, such as the sentence you inadvertently inserted (in a section called "Abortion", yet). I don't see that there's any doubt about that, and that's what you request clarification of, in your first six sentences. The rest of your text above seems to be about something else — not really about clarification at all. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• @Anythingyouwant, you seem to have read my policy quote quite selectively, since you think I said your topic ban doesn't cover pages such as fetus and pre-natal development and feticide and the like. Of course it covers them. In their entirety. It seems you focused so hard on the words "as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" that you actually missed the first part, "a topic ban covers all pages… broadly related to the topic". Fetus, Pre-natal development and Feticide are "pages broadly related to the topic", as you know, since you yourself refer to them as "abortion-related articles". Please read all the green words carefully and in their context, and avoid tunnel vision.
• @L235, it seem obvious that you shouldn't have collapsed Anythingyouwant's replies to me and Boris with the other stuff. Those replies were relevant to the clarification request. I'm tempted to move them out of the box myself, or send bold superclerk Bishzilla to do it, because I'm pretty sure you simply made a mistake. The responses weren't indented (as IMO they ought to have been), which perhaps caused you to miss that they weren't part of Anythingyouwant's original irrelevant text. Please fix. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Anythingyouwant again: I'm done trying to explain to you, because it seems you prefer not to understand. You're starting to remind me too strongly of Ferrylodge's lawyerly demeanour in this RFC a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I'll not address you again. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Editors under sanction are allowed to show their displeasure and let off some steam, but this isn't the place. Suggest this be closed as unactionable before things get out of hand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, you don't have to agree with the decision to topic ban you -- in fact you can continue indefinitely maintaining that Arbcom was completely wrong -- but you do need to show two things. First, you have to agree to abide by the decision whether you agree with it or not. From your comments here, I believe that you have done that. Second, you need to have the ability to understand the topic ban well enough to abide by it. This is the part I am having trouble with. In this edit, you posted a comment under the section heading "Abortion" that contained a link to a page titled "Much of the Republican 2016 Field Has Actually Moved to the Right on Abortion" and a quote about defunding Planned Parenthood.

Despite the above edit being clearly about abortion, in your statement above you blatantly mischaracterized your edit with this description:

"I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard." Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know."

Seriously? You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know and still didn't know when you opened this discussion whether an edit in a section labeled "Abortion" with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban? Competence is required.

My recommendation is that this be brought to AE and and that AE impose a one-to-three-month block and a stern warning that the next time you post any edit about abortion the block will be far longer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Anythingyouwant's reply in his section ("No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban. I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it. Anything else?") I have rephrased the question above. Anythingyouwant needs to have the ability to tell that this edit was about abortion without having to ask. If an admin thinks he really had a doubt, then the only logical conclusion is that he lacks the competence required to abide by the topic ban and needs to be indefinitely blocked. If an an admin thinks he knew that the edit was a violation of his topic ban (this is what I believe) then a one-to-three-month block should suffice to convince him that we will not tolerate such behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• @Bishonen: I was directed to leave the first two paragraphs but hat everything else, so that's what I did, but I see I should've exercised a bit more discretion. I'll move the replies outside of the collapse in a second. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The policy as quoted by Bishonen is perfectly clear. Editing a section of an article called "abortion" for a reason not listed at WP:BANEX is a clear violation of a topic ban from abortion, doubly so given the content you edited was directly related to abortion. You are not appealing your topic ban, so there is nothing to do here and it should be closed quickly with no prejudice to raising anything at WP:AE about this matter. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anythingyouwant: you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit. If you edit those articles in future you may be sanctioned at AE. I do not "suggest" you be sanctioned for this breach of your topic ban, I am simply saying that this clarification request does not prohibit anyone initiating a discussion if they so choose, nor should it prejudice the outcome if such a discussion is initiated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Anythingyouwant: I do not know how I could make it any clearer than what Bishonen has said - if it is related to abortion you cannot edit it, if it isn't you can. If you are not certain whether something is covered by your topic ban, assume it is - stay clear, do not test boundaries. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree that BishoIen has expressed policy clearly, but apparently it isn't yet clear that you can not edit any part of an article related to abortion, or anything or section related to abortion in an article which doesn't focus on abortion. If you have any doubts, don't do it. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Anythingyouwant: Nor was the material added in an altogether neutral manner. I think it was appropriate to add material showing his current view (the other material in the section was older); the three references you added were suitable (2 of them from sites generally considered liberal, one neutral) But you chose to add a long quotation from Bush that partially repeated other material in the section. (Other refs in the article do not have a quote in the ref, and the site you used was very easy for anyone to access by themselves, rather than being , for example a paid or print-only site.) DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, I am saying that there is a purpose in our general position that topics bans should be being interpreted broadly--it is difficult to retain a truly neutral POV even in what one thinks to be unexceptional edits. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So far as articles like fetus, feticide, etc., those are far too close to the subject. Yes, edits of those articles would be violations of the topic ban. On Political positions of Jeb Bush, on the other hand, it would be alright for you to edit parts of the article that cover his positions on, say, taxes or foreign policy. It would not, however, be appropriate for you to edit any page in any manner related to abortion, including any political figure's political statements or positions on it, except under the exceptions as provided by WP:BANEX. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraphimblade --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Ricky81682 at 09:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Longevity arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Discretionary_sanctions
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#WikiProject_World.27s_Oldest_People_urged

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

• Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ollie231213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 930310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ca2james (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Discretionary_sanctions

• Reinstatement of discretionary sanctions

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#WikiProject_World.27s_Oldest_People_urged

• Stronger language that re-affirms that the WikiProject should listen to the experienced Wikipedia editors

I think we need to reconsider and allow for discretionary sanctions in regards to longevity articles, including in particular problems we continue to have with longevity articles and at Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People (WOP). With the absence of User:DerbyCountyinNZ, none of the other parties from the original case have been active in this area to my knowledge so I wasn't sure who to add a party here. I've added recent participants at the WOP talk page (and Jytdog due to a reference to him below). Regardless of Remedy 4 from before, in my mind, the project has largely moved along with little actual involvement from outside the insular community that exists at WOP articles.

The comment of Waenceslaus (since topic banned so not included as a party) that "Yet, before any change in the WOP guideline can be done, a user is to become a member of Wikipedia WOP group" reflects a long-held belief that the WikiProject can create its own guidelines that trump the rest of the Wikipedia. The WikiProject's need for guidance and insistence on them actually listening is required. Even today, most of the "real" editing from the project takes place at the project's personal pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians and not within the larger encyclopedia itself (article, talk, project, none of it absent AFD discussions and even then a subset).

In July until August 2015, a discussion was held at WP:RSN regarding the inclusion of claims based on tables produced on the website of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), in particular the inclusion on Wikipedia of people's names and alleged birth (and for the non-living, possible death dates) based on the so-called Table EE ("Table EE PENDING GRG CASES"). The discussion closed confirming that tables E and I (of verified supercentarians) was a reliable source, of which there was little dispute, but that Table EE was not. Since then, the WOP project talk page has engaged in what can be considered a long-winded repetitive discussion that basically asserts that the RSN discussion should be ignored and repeated argues based on the same reasoning. This discussion is repeated on numerous edit summaries and across a number of talk pages, resulting in a number of articles being protected.

As an clearly WP:INVOLVED admin, I'd be asking for the reinstatement of sanctions so that other admins would be able to assist. Discretionary sanctions are required because the editors involved are largely WP:SPA who do not discuss their beliefs but edit war voraciously and without any regard to policy. The attempts to remove the "pending" and "unverified" have been going on for close to a decade. For why ANI is not a remedy, User:Ca2james attempted to update the project's self-description of the notability guidelines. This edit was reverted by User:Waenceslaus [25] amongst others. Waenceslaus's edit warring continued (including said "membership required comment") and was ultimately brought to ANI in a discussion with two counter-topic ban arguments and two nonsense desysop arguments but ultimately resulted in a topic ban against Waenceslaus. There must be a way to prevent disruption as these editors can essentially stay in the shadows for months if not years and all suddenly appear to re-engage in repetitive arguments.

This is starting to get more ugly as the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination) shows wherein User:Jytdog is creating lists of WOP and non-WOP members which reflect a divide between the insular views of the project and the broader actual consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 2:25, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

@Ollie231213: The reason that the arbitrators have already discussed this is because this is largely based on the prior discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity and is merely a request to reinstate Remedy 4.3.1. The issue is whether those issues from before have been resolved, namely in my view, Principle 4.1.4 about the project paying attention and acknowledging the wider consensus and whether there has been any serious attempts at paying attention to Remedy 4.3.4, namely noting that the editors who are you disagree with are editors who are far more experienced here. The point is, your views about "validation" or whatever have been made, have been argued and have been repeatedly found not to be in consensus with the wider encyclopedia and "[perpetuating] disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive ... is disruptive." The project talk page continues because we are going round and round over the same issues as I repeatedly to move on and instead ask for someone to point to a single example of a name that's concerning to them, rather than running to RSN to argue hypothetical points about whether there exists terrible newspaper articles or random on-line obituaries (which as I note, as perfectly included whenever someone wants to create an article on a supercententarian). I asked for input from the let's say the more inclusionist editors on the project to see if they think the problems recognized in 2010 have been resolved and whether other admins should need to topic ban individuals. The fact that you are still arguing in the same manner as that did that time is the insight the arbitrators need. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (joined in December 2013), as are some other editors involved in the World's Oldest People (WOP) Project. I joined because longevity is a subject I'm interested in, and since Wikipedia is the first place many people turn to to find out about any given subject, I feel it's important that the articles in the scope of the project are as accurate and informative as possible for readers.

There's no doubt that there have been some issues with this project in the past, but that's largely down to the editors involved not properly understanding how Wikipedia works or Wikipedia's core policies, and longevity "fans" wanting to create as many trivial lists of supercentenarians as possible, often which were unsourced and in violation of WP:OR. But the problem is that these "fans" usually know that the information they are putting in is correct, but don't understand that WP:VERIFIABILITY requires the lists to have references. So, when people make what they believe to be a constructive edit, but a more experienced user, say, reverts it with good reason, they may view that as some kind of "attack".

And I know that's how I felt when my user page was nominated for deletion because it was in violation of WP:WEBHOST, but looking back (now that I have a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies) I realise that the reasons for nominating it for deletion were justified. Other members of the WOP project also had their user pages deleted for similar reasons. But this issue has been dealt with and has now gone by.

I also think we can all agree that the 166 IP user needs to be topic banned, as he/she is NOT a positive contributor. Note that, while this user is pretending to be as such, they have engaged in vandalism in the past. Likewise, Waenceslaus has been topic banned, so the issue with that particular user has been resolved.

So, the issues surrounding the project are being resolved and I personally am trying to work towards a solution. The RSN discussion found Table EE and I have accepted this decision (contrary to what Ricky claims) and have made some changes to articles accordingly. The reason I have been having discussions on the WOP project talk page is because some users are trying to argue that if a longevity claimant is reported on by a newspaper, that they should be added in to Wikipedia without any mention of the fact that their age has not been validated by any internationally recognised body (such as the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), The International Database on Longevity (IDL), or Guinness World Records). I think it's very important that Wikipedia makes the distinction between "validated" and "unvalidated" cases, for two reasons:

1. The need for the validation of exceptional longevity is a scientific concept accepted for 140+ years, with William Thoms establishing the basic premise of the need for age verification in the 1870s. Wikipedia needs to reflect scientific consensus in line with WP:VERIFIABILITY

2. 65% of claims to age 110 are false, and 98% of claims to 115 are false (see here).

But instead of reasoned discussion, I'm being faced with straw man arguments. THAT is why the discussion is long-winded and repetitive, not because I'm saying that "the RSN discussion should be ignored" or because I'm being disruptive.

And one of the biggest reasons why things are getting "ugly" is not because the wider community are stepping in and the WOP project members are reacting, it's because there's a certain few editors who get themselves involved in the project who hold views which aren't necessarily representative of the whole community.

Let me focus in particular in the last part of Ricky81682's post, where he says there is a "divide between the insular views of the project and the broader actual consensus" ---> No, that's totally misleading. Some of these people in the so-called "broader" community are the likes of CommanderLinx, whose sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to effectively police longevity-related articles, and DerbyCountyinNZ, who also makes a lot of edits in longevity-related articles. What about the views of people who have NOT been previously involved?

And in fact, the AfD nomination of List of the verified oldest people (which was closed as "snow keep") shows that the wider community are not necessarily in agreement with some of those who are "policing" the WOP project. Note the comment from an editor uninvolved with the project: "For pity's sake, snippily suggesting that the article is suspect because the GRG is the source is like saying an article about soccer "verified" by FIFA is suspect. The GRG is the outfit generally held to be the worldwide authority in such matters".

This whole business of creating lists of WOP and non-WOP members to show the difference in views is quite frankly ridiculous. Shock horror, different people hold different views. What does segregating Wikipedia editors achieve? All it does is turn Wikipedia in to a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

I am trying my best to compromise with editors with whom I hold disagreements with, but I'm not sure if I'm getting anywhere. Little attempt has been made to establish wider community consensus, which means people outside of the WOP project and those who are regular contributors to longevity-related articles. This is what needs to be done moving forward.

P.S. Can someone explain why some arbitrators have begun with their discussions before everyone has had a chance to comment? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While my account is almost ten years old I am not an experienced user of the English Wikipedia website. I do however have an interest in longevity so that is why I have been posting in these areas. I have never been involved in any discussions before this one so I might not be absolutely the best person to comment, but I guess that this is a learning process and that I am just starting out here. I was not aware that my sandbox wasn't in compliance with the Wikipedia policies until recently because I had never looked into it. This is however not an issue any longer.

Interest in human longevity has existed for several millennia (as we can see with Biblical claims such as Methuselah). The book of Guinness World Records began listing the World's Oldest People in its early editions. Age validation research itself began in the 1870s with the pioneer demographer William Thoms who laid out some rules for age validation in his 1873 book on Human Longevity, with one of them being that there should be evidence of birth for the longevity claimant. ^[1]

What modern-day unverified claimants do not have is exactly that, no early evidence of birth. Validated supercentenarians do have early evidence of birth as it is a requirement for validation by most age validation groups.^[2]

Here are what I believe are the real reasons behind the entire debate on longevity articles here on Wikipedia:

1. Some believe that longevity cannot confer notability
2. Some believe that age validation research isn't important and doesn't matter and that Wikipedia should ignore research that has existed for 140+ years
3. Some of the major admins that have chimed into the longevity research project have failed to distinguish between longevity "fans" and longevity "scientists"

The purpose of the WOP-project is to present reliable information that is available to the public, which shows how long the oldest people live and how the average ages for the absolutely oldest people are increasing. The way that people in the project have done this is to have written articles about some of the oldest supercentenarians, where they've tried to illustrate how the life of the person was and what they themselves might have thought was the reason that they lived so long. They have also created lists of supercentenarians where they've listed them based on where they lived and so on. These lists and articles shows verified data, where there is original proof of birth and not claimants for extreme ages where the only evidence they have of their claims are documents issued late in their lives. This means that if verified and unverified data is mixed the data is no longer reliable.

The members of the WOP-project are people who are interested in longevity and usually an interest means that they have more knowledge in the subject than the average user. Some of the members are however not experienced Wikipedia users and have acted in good faith while editing articles, which later have been reverted due to lack of sources etc. While some of this interest might be a bit trivial, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which means that the main focus in this topic area needs to be changed from updating lists to writing material about this field from a scientific perspective.

There has been talk in the discussions on Wikipedia that longevity does not warrant notability. Cases such as Jeanne Calment do however show that you can be notable because of your longevity. I believe that Wikipedia should have policy guidelines on the "notability" of supercentenarians due to longevity and that those who have been internationally recognized as the World's Oldest Man, World's Oldest Woman and World's Oldest Person should be considered notable enough to have separate articles, along with the people who are ranked in the Top 100 Oldest of all-time list. The ones who are noted for things such as having been the oldest Jewish person ever might or might not be notable enough to have their own articles. The ones who were only known within their region or state are likely not notable enough for them to have separate articles.

These levels of regulation would limit the growth of articles in this area to a minimum and would actually be a clarification of the guidelines for the WOP project that were written in 2010.

In other words, let's have a slowdown in deleting long-standing material and have a review of why this may or may not be important. Just a month ago, things seemed to be calm and workable, everyone here would like a return to that. That's not to say that we haven't all learned lessons: Wikipedia is not a webhost and the trivial material needs to be cut down. But there's no reason to be cutting the scientific material on the subject matter too.

While we, the members of the WOP-project give ground and re-learn we ask for the admins to do the same thing. I think CA2james is on the right trail by being able to admit that he was wrong.

Finally here is an article about longevity written by Alexander Graham Bell and published in National Geographic in 1919: [26] 930310 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's all the same, only the names have changed. There is an issue with distinguishing between the fanboys and scientists, but the problem is on the other end; the fanboys are working in concert with the scientists, and as we know one of the scientists was the biggest promotional editor of all in the area. One thing I think we really need is a name change, because the very name is the same as the Yahoo group where absolutely massive canvassing occurs when anyone attempts to do anything in this topic area, and having the DS in place will make it much easier to have that discussion. The trick then will be finding people willing to enforce them, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the discretionary sanctions were lifted because they had been in place for five years and hadn't been used. However, the reason they weren't used is that outside editors had not been looking at the articles associated with WP:WOP. As soon as outside editors come in, members of this project as well as members of their forums (the 110 club and the yahoo group) engage in disruptive reversions and behaviour. The ANI case involving Waenceslaus linked above shows the battleground mentality some of these editors have and how disruptive they can be. Reinstating the discretionary sanctions is needed to prevent the disruption.

I first saw this WP:WOP project in December 2014 when I became involved in nominating user pages for deletion that were associated with the project.[27] There was much arguing and reverting and talking because these editors strongly objected to having these pages deleted. I recognized at that time that there were issues with this project's articles - in particular sourcing and the use of colour on these pages - but after bringing them up and discussing them (see this archive, this discussion, and this discussion), I stayed away for a while after that because the experience deleting those user pages and the subsequent discussion was exhausting.

I've recently returned to this project to try to bring these pages into compliance with WP policies and guidelines. There was some question about whether the GRG was a reliable source so I took that question to RSN[28] to get the community's opinion. When the community decided that Table EE was not reliable,[29] I attempted to edit the project page[30] to reflect this information and was reverted.[31] Several editors attempted to reinstate the material but were also reverted until the page was protected.[32] Since then, I've tried to update some of the articles[33][34][35] and have encountered reverts[36][37][38][39] (that's all from List of supercentenarians who died in 2015; this has happened on other articles) and along with lots and lots of discussion.[40][41][42][43] Much of the discussion has been a repeat of the discussions I linked to above. I've attempted to explain why things are being changed because I do recognize that having their articles changed is difficult.

There is much more to be done. In addition to the work to bring the articles up to snuff, I think that there may be some articles that duplicate information or could be merged. Doing that work is very difficult because of the disruption. The discretionary sanctions are needed. Ca2james (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I did list List of the verified oldest people for deletion, which was quickly closed as snow keep. I definitely made a mistake and I've been very careful since then not to nominate anything for deletion without much more careful analysis; similarly, I've been quite careful to discuss my edits and changes on WT:WOP. Ca2james (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement in WOP is recent and minimal, and mostly I have expressed concern.

In early August, I commented in the RSN thread about GRG tables, agreeing that table E (claims of age verified by GRG) is reliable and table EE (unverified claims of age) is unreliable, for example here.

On August 14 I commented in the ANI Ricky mentions here, noting, "I have been reading within WP about WikiProjects that went off the rails and were disbanded through MfD. It may well be time to see if the community is ready to disband that project and start an MfD on that.... The attitude of project members posting here makes it seem that that they have lost their way. "

Also on August 21 I !voted at the AfD, as follows: "Merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians The GRG project is getting step-by-step closer to being disbanded by the community for exactly the kind of activity going on in this AfD."

On August 24 I posted the list of WOP members or WOP-SPAs, at the AfD. I posted that list with some uncertainty as to whether it was a good thing or not. We tag SPA comments in AfDs to provide context for the closers; I intended this to function along the same lines, but again was uncertain as to whether it would be helpful or disruptive. Out of an abundance of caution, I just struck the list. I am sorry for making things uglier.

I do think the time may be ripe for the community to disband the WOP project. I am not sure it is, but WOP members/followers do seem to be acting in a GANG/OWN fashion on content that interests them, and seem to be making their own guidelines about WP content and ignoring CONSENSUS of the broader community.

I do support re-instatement of DS for longevity content, per the proposal. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are still persistent issues, not only as mentioned above, but also with IP editing. See current ANI section here where I have suggested a topic ban for the IP-hopping editor. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• If the disruptive editing and ownership issues have resurfaced, I'm minded to propose a motion putting the discretionary sanctions back in place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that motion is quite in order, Seraphimblade. Courcelles (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would certainly support such a motion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Thryduulf, Seraphimblade; I'm not seeing the point of discussing this and then voting on it, so I'm putting this up, it'll either get majority or it won't, so may as well discuss and vote simultaneously. This is the exact same remedy and wording from the original case that was rescinded. Courcelles (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Euryalus (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. LFaraone 22:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

---

Initiated by MrX at 11:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Collect and others 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:

• MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Collect notified
• Nomoskedasticity notified

Does this remedy: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others#One Revert restriction include an exception for reverting content that is asserted to violate WP:BLP?

Folks commenting at WP:AE have different opinions about whether Arbcom intended that "vandalism" includes alleged BLP policy violations, or whether a one revert restriction falls under the authority of WP:EW, thus excluding alleged BLP policy violations. See third heading "Collect" here

• Relevant case finding: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others#BLPs

• @Brustopher: Don't even go there. Collect was banned from interacting with me because of his bad deeds, not the other way around. Now kindly let Arbcom clarify the restriction. - MrX 20:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thryduulf: Would you kindly explain why I, the user who initiated the original Arbcom case, should be advised not to seek clarification about that case at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? I didn't comment on the AE because I had nothing novel to add, but I have an interest in the outcome, because it's clear that Collect doesn't intend to comply with the remedies from the Arbcom case. To suggest that I can't pursue clarification because the subject of that request was banned from interacting with me strikes me as rather Kafkaesque, even by Wikipedia standards. - MrX 22:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am on a Wikibreak (seeking to regain my patience), and had clearly announced such. Note also the endless and multiple complaints at AE etc. - including from two miraculous virgin IPs whose only posts ever were to complain about me. If this is done for amusement, I am not amused. I do suggest, moreover, that BLPs totally unrelated in any way whatsoever to US politics is a poor choice of remedy - I find those who push allegations of felonies in any page to be far more reprehensible than any of my many sins. Collect (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to comment on allegations made about me from another unnamed editor. Any outside observer if free to use the Editor Interaction tool to note whether I have followed any editor, or whether another editor appears to follow me. The results are sure to astound anyone willing to actually look at "who comments on whom".

For jbh - I stated the June 15th date quite early on, and ask you make your apology clear for claiming that I did not ask for extra time. Collect (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I had asked multiple times to address the last minute evidence which had given by others in a coordinated manner (the "complainants" were so bold as to write to each other on user talk pages etc.). When last minut material which was not related to the immediate complaint was given, I wanted actual time to reply. As it is, I was quite preoccupied and unable to actually address the "charges" even though I asked to be allowed to do so. In most places, the "accused" is afforded every opportunity to address charges. Prevention of a "right of reply" is unusual, indeed. I[reply]

@Thry: I have made many thousands of edits on BLPs - yet you appear to claim that I regularly violated the policy? I find your claim incomprehensible - noting that the immediate anteceding contretemps was whether am article was. or was not, SYNTH and violative of Wikipedia policy. I hate to say this, but it damn well looks like you made no actual effort to look at my work, but had "verdict first" as a m.o. A few of the articles I have edited are on my talk page. I stand by them. Collect (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) - note I have made no statements about anyone I am interaction banned form, and object to the snarky implication that I would do so.[reply]

Collect is on a 1RR restriction in part because (as per Arbcomm findings of fact) his editing of BLPs was not in keeping with policy requirements. It is useful to have editors revert BLP violations, but we don't need someone who has a poor record in this respect making judgments about what constitutes a BLP violation; carving out an exception along these lines is a recipe for disruption. Guy's suggestion is the right way forward: one revert and a noticeboard post so that others can take care of any further problems. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason we have restrictions and bans is that some editors have shown that their views of certain policies are not in line with the community's frequently enough that they cause disruption and therefore should be restricted from doing what "everyone can do". In this case Collect has shown he can assess "obvious vandalism" but, in enough cases to be disruptive, not "obvious BLP violations". I do not know why people are discussing the EW policy 1RR(3RR) at ArbE, that is not what the case sanction is. The sanction reads "3) Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.". That seems pretty clear. Jbh^Talk 13:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Collect: Since you want to bring this up again I will reply here although I do not think this is a proper venue. The edits you used at ArbE [44] to support your claim you 'brought up the date early on' were made on 10:31, 6 April 2015 and [ 13:31, 6 April 2015 ]. The evidence phase for the the ArbCom case ended 23:04, 6 April 2015. Since the Evidence phase started on 23 March 2015 my math says you brought up the issue ~13 hours before the close of a 14 day process. So no apology.

  I do not know why this timing thing is such a sore point for you. When I brought it up you replied with

  "I noted from the get-go that I was going to be away for a substantial period and asked I be given until July to prepare full responses. (reasons include the extended trip and a minor problem called melanoma for which my wife lost about 800 cc of her arm) ... Now I would be impolite left to my own here - but I shall avoid that temptation -- and wish your wife the same health my wife will hopefully have." [45]

  and then asked for an IBAN and then said I had "called (you) an outright liar". While I have not, to the best of my recollection, called you 'an outright liar' I have on several occasions said your statements do not comport with objective reality and then shown, as I have here, with diffs how that is so. (Your post here is a good further example you say I should "make your apology clear for claiming that I did not ask for extra time" whereas what I said was something else entirely) To the best of my understanding that is not harassment nor even uncivil. If you have further complaints about me you can A) bring them up with me on my talk page, or B) bring them up, with diffs, at ANI rather than further derail the ARCA discussion. Jbh^Talk 21:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that Collect has misinterpreted the restriction. There are some who consider this to be wilful, others who are inclined to assume good faith, but there is little dissent from the view that he has violated the restriction, whether in good faith or not. I believe there is merit in a reaffirmation that there are no exceptions to the 1RR restriction other than obvious vandalism, and that this explicitly includes WP:BLP articles. My advice to Collect would be to post BLP violations to the relevant noticeboards rather than risk being accused of violating the restriction. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Opening an ARCA request against an editor who is 1 way interaction banned from you, in relation to an AE request you are not involved in, is in incredibly poor taste. Surely this should be against some kind of rule? Brustopher (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: The badness of previous actions (which tbh looking at the AE request are pretty bad) does not change the inappropriateness of this one. From what I can see you haven't even touched the British politics topic area with a 10 inch flagpole in the past. Suddenly Collect is involved and you're filing at ARCA. You're escalating a bad situation. When someone opens an ARCA request against a person they are 1 way banned with, and the request is completely unrelated to that ban, they are baiting (hopefully inadvertently in this case) the editor into breaking that ban. Brustopher (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sympathetic to Collect with respect to the two previous AE filings made by an IP who was obviously concealing identity. However, this is a separate issue. ArbCom made an exception for obvious vandalism. BLP violation is a serious problem, but it was not, in this case, obvious vandalism – and ArbCom found problems with Collect using BLP claims inappropriately. I agree with Guy that posting at a notice board is the proper alternative to a second revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Just before you made the comment about the interaction ban, that ban was lifted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Collect's track record shows that their judgement of what is and is not a BLP violation correlates poorly with the general consensus, so in my view BLP violations (which are not also obvious vandalism) are not an exception to his restriction. Guy's suggestion is a good one, and it will have the useful side effect of providing easy evidence of improvement in your judgement that you can present at a future appeal of the restriction. Regarding MrX's opening this request, yes it would have been better to let someone else bring it here - the AE thread is not short of people familiar with ARCA - but I don't think anything more than a "please do not do so again" is required. @Collect: you may comment here about specific allegations or comments MrX makes, but you may not comment about MrX nor about the merits or otherwise of your interaction ban with them (if you wish to appeal that, please do so in a separate request for clarity). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• JzG is correct. There are no exceptions to the 1RR restriction other than unambiguous vandalism, and this includes WP:BLP articles. If Collect becomes aware of something they think should be reverted on BLP grounds, but they cannot do so because of 1RR, they may take it to the relevant noticeboard for community input. This is subject to the concurrent restriction on edits relating to US politics, which applies in every namespace. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought we were pretty clear on this. We made no suggestion that Collect could treat what he saw as BLP violations as vandalism, and 11 of us supported the Finding of Fact that made it clear that his BLP editing was sub-optimal and incorporated a non-NPOV approach. Collect's response doesn't fill me with confidence nor does it approach the issue, but seems to challenge the decision. I'm a bit surprised that he wasn't blocked at AE. We can give him this one pass but only this once, and I would expect that any vandalism revert done by him in the future will be for indubitable vandalism. Doug Weller (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Doug here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by NE Ent at 22:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_2#LOCR

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Change the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests (with active talk page) transcluding: .... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

• NE Ent (talk · contribs) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Change the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests (with active talk page) transcluding: .... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

• to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement will have its own talk page.

The Wikipedia watchlist software links talk pages to their corresponding page, so that users monitoring a particular page can be notified of discussion about it. Given that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (WP:AE) is generally monitored not by arbitrators, but rather dispute resolution volunteers, including the administrators who are expected to enforce committee decisions with ideally, minimal to no involvement from the committee itself, it is counter productive to community discussion to have to host discussions about WP:AE on a page (e.g. WP:AN which may not be watchlisted by the participants.

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

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

---