Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:13, 8 August 2016 editNishidani (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,504 edits Note to Amanda← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,013 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<noinclude>{{shortcut\|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>

			<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile\|\|{{Fake heading\|sub=1\|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
	{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
	<noinclude>{{shortcut\|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
	= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}\|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment\|Requests for clarification and amendment\|]}} =
	<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>		<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
	]		]
	]		]

	== Amendment request: GoodDay ==
	'''Intitated by''' ] (]) 12:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

	;Case or decision affected
	:{{RFARlinks\|GoodDay}}

	''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
	*{{userlinks\|GoodDay}} (initiator)
	*{{userlinks\|Steven Crossin}}

	''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
	*

	===Statement by GoodDay===
	Howdy. It's been over 4 years, since I was banned from editing around or mentioning diacritics on Misplaced Pages. I'm requesting that the ban be over-turned. ] (]) 12:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

	As in my previous requests, I again promise 'not' to be disruptive in that area. ] (]) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

	''Response to Arbitrator'' - A clean slate would be good. Mostly though, I want to work on the Ice hockey articles in that area. ] (]) 21:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

	''Response to Arbitrator'' - I wish to concentrate on fully implimenting ]'s wanting to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based ice hockey articles. As for the question of what's changed since my last requests? I'm feeling stigmatized by this near half-decade ban. ] (]) 22:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

	''Responses to Arbitrators'' - ], is what I'm getting at. ] (]) 09:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

	''Response to Kelapstick'' - Exceptions are made in North American based hockey articles, concerning French Canadians. ] (]) 23:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

	''Response to Kelapstick'' - I wouldn't go 'round the Salming article, which is a ''player'' article. But, I would un-diacriticize Salming in any NHL-based ''team, tournament, or any other non-player'' articles, like ] (for example). ] (]) 01:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

	''Comment'' - Keeping an eye on things here :) ] (]) 11:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

	''Response to DQ'' - in my opening statement, I wrote that ''"it's been over 4 years since I was banned from editing around or mentioning diacritics..."''. How is that a misleading statement? ] (]) 09:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by Steven Crossin===
	Meh, it's been four years. I'd say lift the ban - ArbCom can always reinstate it if need be. I would pre-emptively disagree with people that state he needs to give detailed reasoning on why the ban should be lifted, I'd think after 4 years, a promise to behave is all that's really required, and he's done so. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 13:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by HighKing ===
	I agree with Steven. GoodDay has kept his nose clean for 4 years (wow .. that's a long time!) and I also think that asking for detailed reasoning at this stage would be unreasonable. His actions and good behaviour on this issue speak for themselves. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
	:After reading some of the comments below from our Arbitration people, I'm worried and concerned that the prevailing reasoning being provided for not lifting the ban suggests that an editor should only request an unban if they declare that they've no intention of editing in the subject area in question again. Yet I've seen other requests where an editor makes a declaration along the lines that they don't intend to rush back to the topic only to be told that there's then no need to lift the bad. Should we not AGF once the editor declares they intend to mend their ways (and have shown efforts to do so) and that they intend to abide by policy? Am I missing something? ]<sup>]</sup> 13:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
	The ] makes it clear that you were not staying clear of the topic area then - for example ] said "this does strike me as a frantic attempt to participate in the topic area without technically being in breach of a ban, which frankly makes me think the ban was a good decision." so saying now you've kept your nose clean for 4 years is a bit disingenuous. Being patient is a lot more than remaining civil.

	In my then capacity as an arbitrator I said then, "I've commented previously that you (GoodDay) should completely stay away the topic area you were restricted from, and I'm going to reiterate that advice now – let it go.". Coming back here 7 months later is not letting it go, so I would repeat my advice and add that when I say "let it go" I mean you should essentially forget that the topic exists and have absolutely nothing to do with it for at least a year - preferably two. I recommend to the current Committee that this appeal be declined and that adding a minimum time of 1 year before the next appeal should be considered. ] (]) 15:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Unhelpful comment by Newyorkbrad ===

	I see no acute need to modify the restriction, but I recognize this is a grave decision. If the sanction is lifted, I hope that GoodDay will be circumflex in his editing. ] (]) 16:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Kurtis ===
	<strike>I agree with Steven and support lifting the restriction on a provisional basis. If issues resurface after being allowed back to editing diacritics-related articles, then the topic ban can be reinstated at any time. I dislike the idea of permanent editing restrictions - they carry a stigma that lasts for as long as they are in place. These sanctions appear to have outlived their usefulness, so let's end them. ] ] 20:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)</strike>
	:<strike>I retract my earlier statement; I think keeping the topic ban in place is necessary for the time being. The whole point of sanctions is to prevent people from becoming a disruptive influence in areas where they've been shown to have difficulty in separating their emotions from their editing. GoodDay appears hell-bent on enforcing his own preferences relating to diacritics, and I can't really envision this as being anything but counterproductive. Keeping the topic ban in place for the time being will help to prevent unnecessary bad blood from arising in the short-term. ] ] 16:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)</strike>
	::I retract my retraction. GorillaWarfare (or Molly, whichever she prefers to be called) has swayed me back to my original point, which you can see in the first stanza of crossed-out words above. It sounds like there might be some issues, but if they do arise, we can always reapply the sanctions. Let's give GoodDay a chance and see how this works out. ] ] 00:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by isaacl ===
	In an earlier ], GoodDay stated "I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics." However with the latest statement indicating a desire to return to editing hockey player names, I believe this would result in a lot of wasted time arguing a matter that the English Misplaced Pages community as a whole has not managed to reach agreement upon. Thus I do not believe a removal of the topic ban would be beneficial to Misplaced Pages at this time. ] (]) 03:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

	{{ping\|Callanecc}} see ] for the compromise position on modified letters that had once been used by WikiProject Ice Hockey, and ] for a discussion of the background of this compromise (in particular, the statement from Resolute). ] (]) 03:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

	As a way forward, perhaps the topic ban can be modified to permit discussion of modified letters on talk pages, while leaving the prohibition on editing article pages in place. ] had ] of one comment per sub-section of a debate, and only in response to questions directed specifically to GoodDay. I suggest extending this to also allow a single comment in any RfC, poll, or other discussion where an opinion on the use of modified letters is specifically being requested from the community at large. This would prevent GoodDay from interjecting non-sequitur commentary on modified letters into other discussions, as has happened in the past. ] (]) 18:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

	{{ping\|Opabinia_regalis}} the whole issue of modified letters is an unresolved one in the broader community; the last time a Request for Comment discussion was held, the expressed views were nearly equally divided between those who feel that usage should follow what a majority of English-language sources use, and those who feel that any source that does not use the original spelling with modified Latin letters is, by definition, not a reliable source with respect to the subject's name. In these discussions, the compromise position on modified letters of the ice hockey project has been challenged. Ice hockey project members have responded that once English Misplaced Pages reaches a consensus on how to manage names with modified letters, the ice hockey project will be happy to follow suit; until then, though, the compromise stops the project from wasting time discussing the matter. At this point in time, though, it's unclear that the compromise position continues to have support, but without anyone changing spelling in articles, there has been no need to debate it. A resumption in removing or adding modified letters may retrigger a long discussion, which is an ineffective use of time since no definitive conclusion can be reached until the community as a whole provides guidance. Thus I do not believe a change to the current state of affairs would benefit Misplaced Pages.

	If any relaxation of the topic ban in article mainspace is entertained, I strongly suggest that a condition be attached: if an edit is contested, GoodDay must revert the change and all similar changes made to other articles. ] illustrates the usual approach taken: numerous edits are made in alignment with GoodDay's point of view, and when objections are raised, GoodDay says that others are free to revert if they wish. This imposes a burden on other editors to restore the status quo, which is a disruptive behaviour, as described in ]. ] (]) 05:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

	{{ping\|Opabinia_regalis}} the key concern is that it is primarily an overall pattern of behaviour that adds up to a great deal of wasted time, rather than any one isolated interaction. GoodDay usually does not edit war, and no one can be compelled to participate in discussion to reach a consensus if they do not wish. Although it is generally uncollegial to fail to revert a sequence of similar changes upon request, and disappointing for someone to engage in making a type of change across multiple articles without any desire to follow up with discussion, it is difficult to make either of these a hard-and-fast rule as there are too many exceptional cases. Thus it is unlikely an administrator will take any action without a new arbitration case to evaluate the pattern of behaviour, or without a specific remedy specified as a consequence of the previous arbitration case. I feel that having a condition in place to revert contested edits will help guide GoodDay to more productive interactions with other editors. Increasing the cost of making test edits counter to consensus will reduce the temptation to make them (particularly en masse). ] (]) 03:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

	{{ping\|Opabinia_regalis}} Given that GoodDay already has exhibited the pattern of behaviour I described since returning to editing, including during this discussion, I'm not sure the best approach is to loosen restrictions with the expectation that if it happens one more time, there will be a different set of consequences. I have no interest in seeing GoodDay blocked; I would much prefer that the editor be channeled towards productive pursuits. ] (]) 02:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Francis ===
	See ]: three broad discussions about the diacritics issue, the last one initiated less than a month ago. Doesn't seem like an area where the dust has settled.

	Without prejudice what this means for this ARCA request: The OP's opinions in this matter may be as valuable as any other's (so that they should be allowed to edit in the area), or, alternatively, not a good idea to let the OP re-enter an arena where new surges of tension would not come unexpectedly? Maybe a transition period with no diacritics-related page moves without ] and/or no diacritic-related ]-like edits to articles without prior talk page agreement? --] (]) 10:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by Rich Farmbrough===
	{{@\|Kelapstick}}{{@\|Opabinia regalis}}
	The ] page says:

	* '''All player pages''' should have ]s applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question).
	* '''All North American hockey pages''' should have '''player names''' without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the ] and the ]).
	* '''All non-North American hockey pages''' should have diacritics applied (where required).

	The ] says (''apropos'' of article names):

	* '''All player pages''' should have ]s applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question).
	* '''All North American hockey pages''' should have '''player names''' without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the ] and the ]).
	* '''All non-North American hockey pages''' should have diacritics applied (where required).

	These look identical to me.

	All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 11:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC).</small><br />

	===Statement/Clarification by Calton===
	] wrote, "I agree with Steven. GoodDay has kept his nose clean for 4 years"

	It's been two years, not four. From GoodDay's block log:

	:*08:14, May 21, 2014 Worm That Turned (talk \| contribs) unblocked GoodDay (talk \| contribs) (Unbanned by Arbitration Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:GoodDay&diff=609493697&oldid=609438782)
	:*15:54, April 23, 2014 Newyorkbrad (talk \| contribs) changed block settings for GoodDay (talk \| contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) (enable talkpage editing to allow for appeal, as one year from ban has elapsed)
	:*06:25, May 6, 2013 Richwales (talk \| contribs) changed block settings for GoodDay (talk \| contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Banned by the arbitration committee - ; adding talk page to existing block)
	:*01:16, April 22, 2013 Spartaz (talk \| contribs) blocked GoodDay (talk \| contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Banned by the arbitration committee - )''

	--] \| ] 15:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
	===Statement by Miesianiacal===
	I am of two minds on this: One is that GoodDay has managed to, so far, not cause major disruption on any British Isles-related articles since his ban against editing anything related to that topic was lifted. He has veered back there once or twice, but, appears to back down relatively quickly from conflict, knowing that acting in the opposite way will result in another topic ban or worse. However, the other mind says to me GoodDay still craves the drama of conflict to spice up the seemingly endless hours he spends on Misplaced Pages. This thriving on discord was noted before, during on amending restrictions against him, and, based on both recent and older personal experience, I hold the opinion that his craving has not been entirely satiated. That falls in line with his history of being difficult to reform and would suggest the more restrictions on GoodDay the better.

	I suppose my conclusion would be: While we can assume good faith and recognize that it's entirely possible GoodDay won't return to old habits in the area of diacritics, lifting the ban will open that door for him again, returning to GoodDay the choice to go through it or not. And This is where I'll add that both the eagerness and the slightly misleading nature of GoodDay's request prompts me to raise an eyebrow in suspicion. Keeping the ban in place, however, ensures the door to disruption remains locked and, if GoodDay has managed to be a contributive editor with the ban in place, it can't hurt to leave it be. Though, modifications, such as those mentioned by isaacl, could be safe enough. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
	Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
	<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

	=== GoodDay: Clerk notes ===
	:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

	=== GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
	*What has changed since July 2015, September 2015, and January 2016? --] \| ] 17:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
	*I'm mostly with Thryduulf and Guerillero. What's changed from the previous appeals and the comments arbitrators made then? <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 05:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
	*Just a breve comment <small>OK, fine, NYB took all the good puns!</small> {{ping\|GoodDay}} Do you want this restriction lifted because you want a "clean slate" or because you want to edit in the area? If the latter, what do you want to work on? ] (]) 21:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
	**{{ping\|GoodDay}} Thanks. Maybe I'm uninformed - not much of a hockey fan - but can you clarify what hockey-related editing you want to do that involves editing or discussing diacritics? (And while you're here, see also Guerillero's question above.) ] (]) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
	***{{ping\|GoodDay}} I'm still a little hazy, could you please give me an example (a discussion about removing them and an article they'd be in)? Thanks, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 02:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
	****{{U\|Callanecc}} I would presume (although I could be wrong), names of hockey players (either European or French-Canadian). --]<sup>(]) </sup> 02:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
	*''I wish to concentrate on fully implimenting WP:HOCKEY's wanting to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based ice hockey articles'' does not seem in line with what is at ]. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 23:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
	**Indeed. And that subject was specifically part of the problem that prompted the original case. ] (]) 00:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
	***{{U\|Rich Farmbrough}}, the point I am making is GoodDay wishes to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based hockey articles, where:
	***#All player pages should have them as according to the languages of the player in question (I read this as all encompassing regardless of where the player is currently playing).
	***#There is an exception to removal from North American hockey pages, particularly around the names of French-Canadian players (who commonly have diacritics in their names).
	***Thus it looks like he wishes to have his topic ban removed, in order to go against what the standard practice is. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 23:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
	****So {{U\|GoodDay}}, take a page like ]. This reads like to me, is that you would take this page, and move it to ], because he's played for the Red Wings and Maple Leafs, but that stands contrary to point 1: ''All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question).'' Or is the idea to keep the page at the same location, and change references to him in the articles to ]. For example, on ] he is listed within the text as both ] and ], depending on where one looks. Related to this, under the ''French-Canadian Exception'' on ], should Leo Dandurande should be listed as ] (which he is not)? I am just trying to understand what it is you want to do, and if this is the accepted practice with naming conventions and representation within articles. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 00:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
	*****Thank you {{U\|GoodDay}}, that clarifies things a lot. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 01:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
	*{{U\|Newyorkbrad}}: did you take a dash, or possibly a double dash, of something illegal in some states while going through your high school French books and playing around on Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 15:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
	* Given GoodDay's that he intends to go around removing diacritics, I see no reason to lift the ban. ] (]) 19:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
	*Nope, the ban should stay. GoodDay has convinced me. ] ] 14:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
	*Sorry, I have to agree with the above; the ban should stay. Normally I'm inclined to lift long-standing sanctions, and I would've supported an "I don't care about this anymore and just want a clean slate" type of request, but the stated intention to go back to the area that caused the trouble in the first place convinces me we should leave the ban as-is. You've done plenty of other good work and there's plenty of other things to work on. ] (]) 00:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
	*<s>Unfortunately I don't think we should remove this ban. Opabinia said it well above; I'm inclined to lift such old sanctions, but that statement concerns me too much to do so here. ] <small>]</small> 00:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)</s> Actually, after noodling on this for a bit, I'm inclined to lift the ban. If someone is subject to a topic ban and no longer wishes to edit in the area they're banned from, why would they even appeal it to begin with? I don't feel right declining an unban request because they wish to return to that area; if they didn't, they wouldn't appeal. Let's give GoodDay a chance in this area; if it doesn't go well, re-bans are cheap. ] <small>]</small> 01:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
	*I am of two minds on this, first I appreciate that GoodDay wishes to abide by the consensus of WP:HOCKEY and their article naming convention, and implement the agreed standard of a lack of diacritics in NA based hockey articles. I really don't see an issue with this, because it is making articles consistent within an article (as illustrated by the Toronto Maple Leafs example above, it currently is neither consistent, nor according to the agreed style guideline). On the other hand I agree with Opabinia's comment above, and can see this doing more harm than good. So at this time I am going to say no. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

	] ] 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	====GoodDay: Motion====
	:''{{ACMajority\|active=12\|inactive=2\|motion=yes}}''

	{{ivmbox\|1=The Committee resolves that ] (GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics) in the {{RFARlinks\|GoodDay}} is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on GoodDay should GoodDay fail to follow Misplaced Pages behavior and editing standards while editing concerning diacritics, broadly construed, or participating in any discussions about the same.<p>

	In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should GoodDay be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct related to diacritics, broadly construed. Such a reinstatement may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated, or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be vacated.}}

	;Support
	# <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	# On thinking this over, I am going to very hesitantly support this, with the expectation that the topic ban will be promptly reimposed in the event of further problems. I do think people should have a chance to move past old sanctions. I would strongly encourage GoodDay to spend most of his time in other areas and not to worry too much about diacritics issues, because I feel like I'm still hearing a bee buzzing around in a bonnet here. ] (]) 22:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
	#:{{ping\|Isaacl}} I see what you mean, but I think that type of behavior is covered by the "participating in discussions" clause. ] (]) 22:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	#::{{ping\|Isaacl}} I understand the concern, but I don't think more rules is the best approach. If this motion passes, and then you see this kind of behavior, take it to AE; there's no need for a new case. I think it will be quite clear to the admins at AE, based on the comments made here by arbs and community members, that this is meant to be enforced strictly and without room for wikilawyering. ] (]) 20:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
	# As we have a clear pathway to sanctions if there is a problem. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	#Per OR and Casliber. Anything which resembles disruptiveness in this topic area should lead straight to a reinstatement of sanctions so I would caution GoodDay to act very carefully. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	# Per my comments above. ] <small>]</small> 03:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	;Oppose
	# --] \| ] 13:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	# ] (]) 15:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	# ] ] 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	# ''']''' (]) 23:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC) �
	# I can't shake the feeling that Good Day is not going to be able to drop the stick when it comes to the proper times. They have demonstrated this with the ARCA requests repeating and with a misrepresentation of the situation. Like in 2015, they said "I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics. I merely wish the restriction removed, because it's a restriction. I wish for my slate to be clean. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)". The amount of appeals and time frames doesn't support that. Earlier in 2015, they also stated that "It's been nearly 3 years since I was restricted from diacritics & almost as long since I've breached my restriction.". They forgot to include/mention the ban that was only lifted a year earlier. In this request, they state it's been four years since the ban was lifted, not two as is. This makes me unable to trust them by their word. I therefore can not support this as is. A more gradual return to the area, like namespace restrictions might be possible, but I'd rather see some clear honesty and acknowledgement of history first. -- ] <small>]</small> 08:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	;Abstain/Recuse
	#

	;Discussion
	*Proposing this so we can hopefully move this forward. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 11:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	== Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1)==
	'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 03:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	;Case or decision affected
	:{{RFARlinks\|Genetically modified organisms}}

	''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
	*{{userlinks\|David Tornheim}} (initiator)
	*{{admin\|Laser brain}}
	*{{userlinks\|The Wordsmith}}
	*{{admin\|Lord Roem}}
	*{{userlinks\|Kingofaces43}}
	*{{userlinks\|Tryptofish}}
	*{{userlinks\|EllenCT}}

	''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
	<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*

	=== Statement by David Tornheim ===
	I request a stay of the Proposed Decision to <s>block</s> <ins>sanction</ins> me in . (revised 08:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

	<b>I reassert the appeal of the now final decision in </b>. I also add that one of the reasons given for a stronger sanction was punishment for asserting my right of appealing the decision to this forum (per ]) pejoratively labelled "wikilawyering" (isn't that "casting aspersions?). I did file the appeal before the decision was finalized, because I was under the (apparently mistaken) belief that the proposed remedy was a block based on in the case.
	Waiting until after the decision was final would have made it impossible to remove the block from my block-free record, causing irreparable harm to my Misplaced Pages reputation. It is my belief that in American jurisprudence, an appeal before final judgment is not unusual. I find it unbelievable that my punishment should be increased for asserting my right of appeal. --] (]) 23:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

	Nothing in the admins' comments show any consideration of the evidence I presented of ] editing by my accuser {{u\|Kingofaces43}} ("King") or ] and ] behavior by King and {{u\|Tryptofish}}. I specifically asked whether the diffs I provided showed POV editing and got no response.

	The evidence of others who made similar comments to mine was not considered or commented on either.

	I also question the neutrality of {{u\|The Wordsmith}} and {{u\|Laser brain}}. When I asked for an admonition to King for POV-editing and , the admins all said they would not act on it, that I should go to ], including The Wordsmith. Laser brain had also voluntarily left all GMO related administration after he was accused of bullying regarding comments about me and {{u\|Petrarchan47}} . I previously explained to you <ins></ins> that Laser brain <ins>and The Wordsmith</ins> had not been even-handed with me in comparison to King and Tryptofish at the . (revised 05:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

	<ins>The Proposed Decision only applies sanctions to me and a warning to {{u\|EllenCT}}; It proposes no sanction, warning or admonishment
	for King and {{u\|Tryptofish}}, despite the troubling evidence I provided.</ins> (added 08:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

	I am concurrently filing another related action that will help resolve this one:

	(misspelling of Laser brain corrected 09:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

	=== Statement by Laser brain ===
	Literally nothing in David's statement is correct, including my username. I don't really have anything else to say. --] ] 05:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by The Wordsmith ===
	Please note that there is no proposal on the table to block David. The proposal being discussed is a sanction being crafted to enforce the Committee's decision on casting aspersions, which has been a serious problem in this topic area. It appears to be well within the bounds allowed by Discretionary Sanctions, and David has not presented any argument that either the sanction being considered or the process used to craft it are improper. Moreover, while ARCA is a valid forum for appealing an AE decision, I can't recall any precedent for going to ARCA to seek an injunction to prevent AE admins from enforcing an Arbitration decision. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 04:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	*Update: It should be noted that the original request, which was backed by several other editors, was for a topic ban (and that would have been upheld given the evidence presented). I don't like doing that unless absolutely necessary, so I came up with this new sanction (or rather, a variation on an old one). Different varieties of Civility Parole have been used a few times over the last decade where we've had great content creators who had problems interacting with others, with mixed results. My proposal is an attempt to solve the problem of casting aspersions (and in doing so, enforce the Arbitration decision) while still allowing David to have a voice in the topic area. Unless an Arbitrator specifically puts this on hold, I have no intention of waiting several days (or even weeks) for the Committee to come to a decision before enforcing the consensus of uninvolved administrators. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 13:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Lord Roem ===
	None of the admins responding to the enforcement request are proposing a block. {{user\|The Wordsmith}} suggested a to resolve the underlying conduct issue in a focused way without too broad a sanction. If and when an admin imposes such a sanction, David is free to appeal then, but nothing yet has actually been done. Based off my read of the evidence submitted, The Wordsmith's proposal is worth giving a shot.

	I'm also not sure what David's reasoning is for saying The Wordsmith isn't neutral. Is he saying they're ]? Or something else? --''']''' ~ (]) 04:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Kingofaces43 ===
	=== Statement by Tryptofish ===
	You Arbs are quite right to quickly decline, and I'm not sure that I need to say anything, other than to agree entirely with Laser brain, and to express my opinion that this toxic dispute is going to keep going on and on, unless AE follows the advice that I remember Drmies saying at an earlier discussion: that if editors keep fighting after the recent RfC, topic bans should be flying around like drones. --] (]) 22:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by EllenCT ===

	I note that arbitrators are considering warning me for "battleground" conduct at . I do not enjoy making editors uncomfortable by expressing doubts about their statements and conclusions, but it does not rise to the level of "battleground" conduct such as edit "warring" both of which are abominable abuses of the English language to try to rationalize censorship, on par with "slave hard drive," a data storage term, or "collateral damage" and "casualties" meaning war deaths. If warned, I will ask for specific behaviors which were found equivalent to battleground conduct. ] (]) 15:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by Seraphimblade===
	For reference, since there was no support expressed for any type of "stay", I've gone ahead with closing the request. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Cathry ===
	I wonder why Kingofaces43's behavior was not discussed at all by administrators there. Instead there was MastCell's statement about David Tornheim with offensive and irrational accusations without diffs ("he routinely characterizes his perceived opponents as industry shills " (where?), "presence are toxic to the topic area" , "he views this topic area in Manichean terms" (telepathy?). ] (]) 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
	Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
	<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

	=== Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes ===
	:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
	*

	=== Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
	* '''Recuse''' from all things GMO. ] (]) 06:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	*I really don't see anything for the Committee to do here. There's nothing which is not a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion and I haven't seen evidence to prove that any the admins involved shouldn't be. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 11:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Quick decline'''. The request has no merit whatsoever. Let's let the good folk over at AE handle this. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 14:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	* '''Decline''', per Callanecc and Salvio. ] (]) 15:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Decline''' piling on here per above. ] ] 15:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Decline''' per above. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Decline''' --] \| ] 00:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
	*''']''' (]) 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Decline''' albeit late. -- ] <small>]</small> 08:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
	----

	== Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (2)==
	'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 03:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	;Case or decision affected
	:{{RFARlinks\|Genetically modified organisms}}

	''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
	*{{userlinks\|David Tornheim}} (initiator)
	*{{admin\|Laser brain}}
	*{{userlinks\|The Wordsmith}}
	*{{admin\|Lord Roem}}
	*{{userlinks\|Kingofaces43}}
	*{{userlinks\|Tryptofish}}
	*{{userlinks\|EllenCT}}

	''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
	<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*

	=== Statement by David Tornheim ===
	I request clarification on these questions regarding the Casting Aspersions
	Discretionary Sanction .
	:(1) Is it always wrong to identify an edit as pro-industry, <i>even if</i> it has a strong pro-industry ]?
	:(2) If so, how are we supposed to achieve ] if we cannot talk about ] problems?
	:(3) Does the sanction <i>only</i> apply to pro-industry allegations? in one direction?
	:(4) Does it continue to be acceptable (e.g. ) to call editors who challenge pro-industry edits with:
	:* pejorative labels (e.g. anti-GMO, anti-science, ], psuedo-science) -and-
	:* associations (e.g. anti-vaxxer, climate change denier, flat earther).

	I am concurrently filing another related action that the current action will help resolve.

	=== Statement by Laser brain ===

	=== Statement by The Wordsmith ===
	=== Statement by Lord Roem ===
	I think the casting aspersions principle speaks for itself. "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe." That goes in both/all directions on any topic. Editors should focus on research/references when dealing with disputed material in a calm and dispassionate manner. Saying something along the lines of "that edit is totally pro-X" is never helpful; instead, an editor should do their best to discuss their disagreement without attacking the credibility of their peer. ''']''' ~ (]) 04:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Kingofaces43 ===
	=== Statement by Tryptofish ===
	Per Satchmo: . --] (]) 22:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	David was placed under a topic ban at AE, and has now been AE-blocked for a month for violating the ban, as was another editor whose ban was enacted by ArbCom in the GMO case. Please let me suggest that this request, along with the one directly above, should be closed and archived. --] (]) 20:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by EllenCT ===

	Question for arbitrators: what is the difference, in practice, between casting aspersions and expressing doubt? Since expressing dissent is stronger than expressing doubt, would a consistent set of rules require that you also forbid dissent? I mean this as a sincere question to elucidate a flaw in reasoning using the Socratic method, and not as a rhetorical question. ] (]) 16:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Johnuniq ===
	At ] (]), David Tornheim has continued casting aspersions and apparently does not understand that serious accusations must be backed with evidence.
	*David Tornheim wrote (]) "{{tq\|King even admits he wrote the sanction to keep people from calling attention to his editing.}}"
	**The above refers to a statement by Kingofaces43 at WP:AE (]) where King wrote "I actually drafted that part of the language in large part because of evidence at Arbcom that EllenCT would follow me around to boards casting aspersions exactly like below and blatantly misrepresent me when I explained how I actually used the source in question even though they are fully aware there characterization of me below is false, directly calling me a '''paid shill''', etc.."<p>Apparently the draft became the ] adopted at WP:ARBGMO—a motherhood statement of the obvious.
	**The above is a gross mischaracterization of what Kingofaces43 wrote. Of course editors are welcome to call attention to any edit and to question its applicability in regards to ''policy'' compliance. Policy does not permit editors to cast aspersions by repeatedly insinuating someone is a shill, paid or otherwise, with no evidence.
	*The ] ran from 7 June 2016 to 7 July 2016. It was closed with a very clear consensus that anti-GMO editors do not like.
	*Despite the above, David Tornheim's ] statement includes "{{tq\|Can anyone look at my diffs above and with a straight face say those edits are not pro-industry?}}" Taken as a whole, the statement is another clear suggestion that <u>Kingofaces43 is a company shill</u>. The evidence supporting the ''shill'' conclusion appears to be that Kingofaces43 made edits in accord with the outcome of the RfC, although apparently David Tornheim believes those edits were too enthusiastic, and that edits which oppose anti-GMO views must be from a company shill.
	David Tornheim should be topic banned from the GMO area as his presence is unhelpful. ] (]) 05:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by JTrevor99 ===
	In my opinion, pro-science-industry comments are not ] when those comments are backed by non-industry scientific research, as has been demonstrated conclusively on this topic. The fact that what the industry states as fact is also stated as fact by a consensus of third parties should be taken into account. Stating that such comments are ] ignores the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence in their favor. Thus this ARCA action is moot. ] (]) 14:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by Rich Farmbrough===
	I would suggest that Arbitrators review the recent RFC on the Harassment talk page. While there was consensus against a vague wording of of an exception clause to off-wiki linking, there appeared to be a guarded consensus for it in certain cases, mostly related to paid editing.

	It is also perhaps worth considering whether the principle in question is overboard, considering the number of occasions that, for example, Tea House regulars, or AfC creators have to remind people of the COI implications of editing articles about themselves, their band, company, product or pet.

	All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 19:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC).</small><br />

	=== Statement by JzG ===
	The key point here is that there are three sides to the real-world dispute, not two. Partisans on both sides tend to paint this as pro-GMO versus anti-GMO, with every comment, fact and edit cast as one or the other, but in fact much of the commentary is neutral science. Science does not, bluntly, give a damn whether a fact supports one side or the other, it cares only whether it's a fact.

	This is of course not unique to GMOs. It also applies to vaping, evolution, alternative medicine and climate change, to name but four of the contentious ones that keep ending up here.

	Science that shows GMOs to be safe is not "pro-industry science", it's just science. Of course it can be manipulated. Of course people will be suspicious when science is funded by one party or another. Sometimes this suspicion is amply justified (e.g. the Séralini rat studies). But science is not an opinion or an agenda, it is a way of looking at the world, and, just like Misplaced Pages, it converges asymptotically towards accuracy.

	Any edit supporting neutral scientific findings that happen to be convenient to one set of partisans, and thus inconvenient to the other, will always inflame partisans and spark exactly the kinds of rhetoric around editor motivation which David Tornheim has displayed and which led to this sanction. While some who do this are wilful contrarians, I think it's fair to say that most are sincere and well-meaning. Evidence of involvement of industry shills is scant. Activists do not see themselves as having a COI, but as bearers of Truth. The results are inevitable, and that's why we have sanctions like this available to us.

	Anyone who thinks this is a new problem needs to study the history of Misplaced Pages - one of the first big blow-ups was around how we handle creationism, and this is precisely analogous. To creationists, evolutionary biology is atheist science. That is true only in the most literal technical definition of atheist, in that evolutionary biology is science that does not include any consideration of supernatural cause. It is not anti-Christian, or anti-God in any sense, it simply includes no consideration of God whatsoever. And that is precisely the problem here: in the same way that a creationist will see an agnostic as functionally indistinguishable from an atheist, so a partisan in most of these disputes will see any finding that undermines their agenda as being part of the opposing "side". That's why ] is being harassed in the real world, and that's why this dispute won't go away on Misplaced Pages.

	Yes we know that there is evidence of industry involvement in the science (both GMO industry and Big Organic, who bankroll organisations like USRTK). That problem is not ours to fix, it is the job of the scientific journals to weed that out. Misplaced Pages should and does follow the science, because science is notionally neutral, and whatever the problems it has on any given day, the process of science is inherently self-correcting and will move always towards the right answer. We may not like the answer. Again, that's not Misplaced Pages's problem to fix, and trying to use Misplaced Pages to "fix" a "bias" which exists in the real world is and always will be a pressing problem.

	False balance is not NPOV. Assuming that every edit is partisan, is similarly problematic.

	Anyone can get heated when they feel passionately about a subject, the best solution IMO is to take a break - and if you won't do it voluntarily then we have to use sanctions. Sorry about that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
	Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
	<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

	=== Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes ===
	:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
	*

	=== Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
	* '''Recuse''' from all things GMO. ] (]) 06:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	* What Lord Roem said. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 11:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	*Ditto. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	*And me (or I guess 'I') ] ] 15:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	* Agree with the above. ] (]) 17:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
	* David Tornheim, you've been editing here for eight years. Stick to discussing the strengths or weaknesses of sourcing and the correlation of material to sources. Casting aspersions or encouraging battleground behaviour will likely bring a topic ban. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	----

	== Amendment request: ] ==
	'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 13:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

	;Case or decision affected
	:]

	; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
	#]

	; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
	*{{userlinks\|Debresser}} (initiator)
	*{{userlinks\|Nableezy}}
	*{{userlinks\|Nishidani}}

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
	<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
	*
	*
	*

	; Information about amendment request
	*]
	:*I request the sanction against me be revoked and the other two parties strongly warned against trying to game the system to push their POV

	=== Statement by Debresser ===
	Two editors with a strong POV in the Israeli-Palestine-conflict area have removed information they consider to reflect negatively on ], and have made other edits to that article, in disregard of serious objections by me as well as uninvolved editors, refusing to participate in discussions, using ever alternating baseless arguments in an attempt to push their POV, filing a baseless 1RR report against me at WP:AE in an attempt to use that forum to remove my resistance to their edits, and making personal attacks or belittling me and other dissident opinions. The report was made after I had made a second revert ''after 26 hours'', . The sanction of a three month topic ban was imposed by Lord Roem in disregard of several editors supporting my point of view and joining my request for ] sanctions against Nableezy (and now Nishidani), and of the fact that only one other admin had expressed an opinion and was clearly against any sanctions, so the sanction is not even supported by a majority of admins. Likewise I fail to understand why Nableezy and Nishidani have not been sanctioned, even though their behavior was clearly POV-inspired, attempting to game the system, stonewalling on talkpage and independent forums, and included repeated reverts as well. I think the sanction is imposed without there being a problem in my editing, without a consensus among admins that there should be a sanction, in disregard of procedure, and in disregard of the obvious attempt to use WP:AE to remove resistance and push a POV, as well as the behavioral problems of the reporting editor himself, Nableezy, and his most staunch supporter, Nishidani, with whom he ]. The coming with ] and the sanction being applied not evenhandedly, are reasons to revoke the sanction. I think that a revert, well after the 24 hours of 1RR was the only way to force Nableezy and Nishidani to break the stonewalling of Nableezy and Nishidani and their refusal to reply to legitimate concerns. Their previous and consequent edits and behavior support that conclusion. I would like to stress that I am an 8 year editor with over 90,000 edits, active in many areas over this project, see ], and I always try to edit neutrally and keep in mind the good of this wonderful project that is Misplaced Pages, see ].

	Editors supporting me at WP:AE: , ,

	Second admin against sanctions: , .

	Using ever changing arguments to push POV: First Sepsis II (who was recently permanently topic banned at WP:AE) used the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 argument against other editors. They when I made the same edit, with improvements, Nableezy tries to say sources are not reliable, which they are, or when good sources are readily available, see ]. They he tries to say it is recentism, and see ]). Then he sees an outside opinion that it is undue, so he plays that card too. If he thinks it is undue, he could have rewritten it in shorter form, but all he has done is remove the paragraph altogether. See also further, that suggestions for a shorter version have been made, but still he reverted. This clearly shows that Nableezy considers all means legitimate, only to remove this information.

	Refusing to participate in discussion or rendering discussion ineffective: When uninvolved editor TransporterMan proposed a compromise on the talkpage, I agreed, but Nableezy rejected the compromise ''based on his personal vendetta against me''. I took this to the ], and Nableezy sabotaged that discussion. Nableezy completely ignored the discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard,, even though I posted it on the talkpage. Recently Nishidani added a new paragraph, and my objections on the talkpage in ] have been completely stonewalled by Nableezy and Nishidani,(1) without any content or policy based reply to my objections based on lack of relevance and reliable sources, and in blatant disregard and falsification of the results of the discussion at the ], which Nableezy opened, and where both independent editors who responded, agree with me that the source is not good for its purpose, while Nableezy and Nishidani post long replies to smother all resistance.

	(1) Especially telling of bad faith and gaming the system was the call by Nableezy to Nishidani to revert me after ''less than 4 hours'' of discussion and ''no outside opinions'' at a time he himself couldn't revert because of a previous revert.

	Proof Nableezy and Nishidani ]: 1. by Nishidani, which he then self-reverted to avoid a violation, followed by by Nableezy. 2. Nishidani acted upon Nableezy's bad faith advice. 3. The many talkpage discussions where I have seen them both and ''invariably support each other''. ] (]) 14:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

	Examples of repeated reverts: Nableezy after 1 day and 16 hours, Nableezy after 1 day and 15 hours

	Procedurally request ignored: I asked that Nishidani trim his post of 737 words in order that I could reply to it effectively. That request was ignored, so an essential procedure has been violated and the resulting sanction should be void.

	Example of insult and belittling comments by Nableezy: ""

	Example of insult and belittling comments by Nishidani: , , "", ", "" <s>("Messahge" is "idiot" in Yiddish)</s> <small>Struck after Nishidani explained this was a typo and at most a ].</small>

	I thank Lord Roem for his patience on my ], and his willingness there to reconsider it after a month or even to mitigate the sanction to a 0RR sanction. I think there is no basis in the evidence presented at WP:AE to justify a sanction against me, and/or to not justify a sanction against Nableezy and/or Nishidani. In addition I attest to my good faith, and see no evidence of bad faith from my side at WP:AE. A sanction at WP:AE is a bad precedent, as recent comments have shown, and I willingly take my changes here, as I did before at WP:AE when I (!) undid the withdraw by Nableezy, see the witdraw and my undo. At the same time, I hope that even if editors here will disagree with me, they will be willing to consider mitigating the sanction along the lines suggested by Lord Roem.

	@EdJohnston You suggest I should have posted at WP:AE first. I looked at the ways to appeal at ], where it says "The process has three <u>possible</u> stages". I exercised the first, writing Lord Roem on his talkpage, and when we reached an impasse there, I followed the third, posting here. Nowhere does it say that I have to use the second option of posting at WP:AE/WP:AN. The reason I didn't use it is because the sanction was made on WP:AE, and appeals are not usually made to the same place. I am perfectly willing to post at WP:AE again or at WP:ANI, just wanted to assure you that I followed the instructions in good faith. ] (]) 14:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

	@Lord Roem Both Nableezy and Nishidani are respectable editors, and with both of them I have in the past reached worthy compromises on contested issues in the IP-conflict area. I am, frankly, at a loss to understand why they don't behave in the same respectable way on ]. Perhaps because the subject at hand is too close to them. I am sure we will return to working together amiably in the future. However, how we can establish a "pattern of collaborative editing" in order to reconsider the sanction after a month ''during the time I am topic banned'', is something that is not completely clear to me. ] (]) 13:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

	@Opabinia regalis Confirmed. The main reason I decided not to post again at WP:AE is that at WP:AE only two admins reviewed the case. As a result, in spite of the fact that there was ''only one admin'' who thinks I should be temporarily topic banned, that was the decision reached at WP:AE. In addition, my request to admonish the filing editor for what I consider to be his problematic behavior ''wasn't reviewed at all''. I hope that a larger group of admins from ArbCom reviewing this case will either reach another opinion and decision, or at least I will know that a serious consensus exists that I am on the wrong track. In addition I hope that they will take the time to review the behavior of the filing editor as well, per my request and per ]. ] (]) 18:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Nableezy ===
	Umm, despite Debresser's efforts to paint me as somebody who is a "POV editor" with ever changing arguments to keep negative material about people I dont even particularly like (Abbas), the two sections that he is using to attempt to claim my arguments morph are ] and ] are about two entirely different sections in the article and completely unrelated material. And one follows the other, but not in the order that he writes above. Yes, I had two different problems about two different edits that Debresser made, edits that Debresser edit-warred to restore in a BLP despite good faith BLP objections, despite ] on restoring such material, requirements that Debresser has repeatedly ignored. Ill respond to the rest of that baseless screed if an arbitrator would like me to, but that is a decent example of the type of careless and occasionally reckless editing that Debresser has been engaging in. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)</small>

	=== Statement by Nishidani ===
	It took me 2 days and several hours of time extracting from Debresser, regarding just one edit proposal, based on a high RS source written by the foremost Samaritan authority on Samaritan history, an admission his 3 reverts of that source from the lead were wrong. By simple arithmetic, were I to take the same trouble to parse, analyse through the edit history record, what Debresser wildly claims above, we'd be here till kingdom come. He's a productive editor, with 90,000 contributions, double my own piddling 48,000. Like all of us, he has defects: his is to revert repeatedly on ] grounds material closely sourced from books which, on every occasion, leap the ] high bar, being written by authorities in their respective fields, and published under academic imprint. We have the respective talk pages of ] (), and now ] ( and )to examine the difference in approach. If any close reader can find in Debresser's responses to numerous queries palmary instances of close reading, intimacy with the niceties of wiki policy, wide familiarity with sources and a lucid grasp of the academic pedigrees of authors, their standing in their fields, and endorses his apparent belief that the Bible is a more accurate source for ancient history than scholarship, then by all means, they should call me to order, and ask me to explain myself. I won't defend myself against Debresser's tirade, for obvious reasons. I have no belief he even reads my responses.] (]) 16:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	::Just for the record Dovid, when you cite my edit summary above , as an ’example of insult and belittling comments’ by myself, you missed the fact that I was alluding to a commonplace in the scholarly literature on Israelites and Samaritans., e.g. , ; ; to cite just 4 of a dozen examples. Our conflicts are of this type. I keep citing the scholarly literature, and you keep reacting to the personal implications you read into my edits, rather than to the academic hinterland whose dragoman I try to be. Operatively, it's not me you keep reverting over numerous pages, but the relevant scholarship. ] (]) 20:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	:::Just a note on Amanda's request to Lord Roem. I cannot presume to know the latter's mind (I struggle to know my own, or what remains of it, more times than not). I would only add that the complaint was originally on Debresser's behavior at Mahmoud Abbas. The merits of this complaint that D removed high quality RS at sight, without any visible policy grounds, and couldn't produce them at the talk page, were being evaluated without any clear consensus. Out of the blue, on another page, Debresser suddenly repeated that pattern complained of at another article,]. I.e. while the pattern asserted to exist in his editing Mahmoud Abbas was being analysed, he appeared to confirm it existed by repeating it on another page. I drew admins' attention to this new fact (new evidence supporting the complaint) . Several hours later, Lord Roem with his sanction. My presumption is that the second piece of evidence was read as confirming what, until that point, had only been a hypothesis of uncertain merits: a single-issue complaint became multiple.] (]) 10:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
	=== Statement by OID ===
	Just to comment that my above support linked to by Debresser should only be taken regarding the underlying content issue - I have no comment on the subsequent alleged behavioural issues (which I assume is what led to the sanction) although personally I think the area is ripe for a full case given the amount of POV-laden editing and BLP violations from multiple editors. ] (]) 13:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by EdJohnston ===
	Nothing prevents the Committee from taking this if they want to. But in fact, ] has short-circuited the usual appeal route which is laid out at ]. He had the option of appealing at ] or ] but has not done so. I'm unclear why the appeal is here. In the absence of any special reason being given, I suggest the Committee decline this request and ask him to use AE or AN for the next step. ] (]) 14:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	=== Statement by Lord Roem ===
	I don't have much to add that isn't already linked. If anyone has a specific question for me, please ping me. As the sanctioning admin I do think my short sanction on Debresser is appropriately proportionate. However, I don't see Debresser as helplessly disruptive and will happily lift the topic ban in a month or so if a good pattern of collaborative editing is established. ''']''' ~ (]) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
	Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
	<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

	=== Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser: Clerk notes ===
	:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
	*

	=== Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
	* I haven't had time to read this, but on the procedural question {{u\|EdJohnston}} raised: I see no reason {{u\|Debresser}} can't choose to skip the other venues and come straight to ARCA provided he understands that a result here is a final decision, i.e. you can't come to ARCA and then go back to AE about the same thing. I'm afraid that bouncing stuff to AE on a technicality would result in it coming back here again later. ] (]) 22:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	**Aye, per ] ''per saltum'' appeals are explicitly permitted. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
	*** <small>From ]: "The phrase is used in the legal term certiorari per saltum, meaning the possibility of seeking a resolution before a higher court, bypassing intermediate instances" for everyone else who had to google it. --] \| ] 01:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)</small>
	**{{ping\|Debresser}} Can you confirm that you're aware of the above and still want to appeal here rather than AE? ] (]) 20:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
	*This is going to take a while for me to parse through. I admit at this point I haven't read the full ARCA nor the full AE request, but I'd like to start with some preliminary questions. These are purely informational questions not to assign blame or guilt or make any judgement.
	:*{{ping\|Lord Roem}} By looking at the result section of the AE request, I see that your view seems to have progressively changed from no sanction to sanction over time. Could you briefly outline your thoughts/reasoning on the escalation over time to where the behavior became disruptive enough for further sanction? I'm not looking for anything detailed, just some diffs or sections that show things were continuing to escalate requiring enforcement.
	:*{{ping\|The Wordsmith}} Your last comment on this Enforcement was 5 days before it's closure. Could I request your two cents on the new information and result?
	:-- ] <small>]</small> 08:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
	----

	== Amendment request: Scientology ==
	'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 20:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	;Case or decision affected
	:{{RFARlinks\|Scientology}}

	; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
	#]


	; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
	*{{userlinks\|Sfarney}} (initiator)
	*{{admin\|The Wordsmith}}
	*{{userlinks\|Prioryman}}
	*{{admin\|Dennis Brown}}

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''

	*
	*
	*

	; Information about amendment request
	*]
	:*Cancel the Sfarney topic ban


	=== Statement by Sfarney ===
	====Introduction====

	On June 1, 2016, I was Topic Banned from Scientology for one year on the authority of ARBSCI, Clause 5.1 (WP:SPA). <U>The Wordsmith</U> imposed the ban. Though the ban cited ArbCom authority, Wordsmith agrees the foundation for that authority is incorrect. Additionally, Wordsmith concealed a personal conflict of interest on the topic and should not have administered the AE.

	I respectfully ask this Committee to cancel or modify the topic ban.

	====Summary of events====

	#'''Decided May 26:''' I filed an AE against <U>Prioryman</u>. <U>Dennis Brown</U> administered and filed a boomerang advisement against me.
	#'''Decided June 1:''' Prioryman filed an AE against me. Wordsmith presided and sanctioned me under Remedy 5.1, ARBSCI, banning me from Scientology for a year.
	#'''Decided June 6:''' I appealed the ban on ANI; the foundation for the ban was canceled but the ban remains.

	====Reasons to modify sanction====

	'''1. Wordsmith agreed my account is not an SPA''' and struck that language from the ban. When that justification was removed, ArbCom authority was removed, but Wordsmith maintains the topic ban.

	'''2. Sanction was based on evidence that later proved false''' -- the ban was ''significantly'' based on nonpublic information.
	<blockquote>''A significant portion of the ban rationale rests on nonpublic evidence that I have privately communicated to the Arbitration Committee, and consulted an Arb confidentially with the evidence before doing anything. In fact I had forgotten about Remedy 5.1; the Arbitrator I asked for advice suggested doing that ...''</blockquote>

	Later, Wordsmith admitted the nonpublic evidence was not true.

	'''3. Wordsmith's ban was a do-over sanction.''' In the May 26 AE against Prioryman, Wordsmith wrote, "This request seems ripe for a Boomerang … at a minimum an admonishment to the filing editor." Dennis Brown refused to admonish me and filed only an advisement. That action drew an effective line -- the conduct at issue was addressed by admin sanction.

	A week later (June 1), Wordsmith reached into the same timespan for evidence and imposed the topic ban, modifying the sanction imposed by Brown. Brown protested that his advisement was already in place.
	<blockquote>''Some of this is a little bit old. If this had happened after I gave my warning the other day, I would topic ban or block on the spot, but I did give a fairly detailed warning less than a week ago, so behavior since then is my primary focus. Not sure that to do here, would like to hear what other admins think.''</blockquote>

	Thus, Wordsmith's sanction contradicts ''Modification by Administrators'', but Brown agreed to the modification because: "I trust The Wordsmith when they say they have private information that amply justified the action."

	When Wordsmith later admitted the "information" was false, the modification policy implicitly required Wordsmith to notify Brown of the error, and either drop the topic ban or seek permission again to modify Brown's sanction. But Wordsmith did not, and the anomaly was transformed from error to deceit.

	'''4. Wordsmith had personal interest (not Misplaced Pages interest) in the ban.''' Editor Prioryman brought the complaint to AE and canvassed Wordsmith to preside. Prioryman is the name-changed admin ChrisO,, involved and sanctioned in the ARBSCI. An arbitrator selected by one party in a dispute is not appropriate or neutral, and selection of Wordsmith was not random. Wordsmith is personally and deeply involved with Scientology as a leader/organizer of the anti-Scientology group, ].

	Wordsmith provides the evidence on Misplaced Pages pages:
	* Wordsmith lists Project Chanology among the half-dozen pages he has edited significantly.
	* Wordsmith was well-informed on the various Chanology events as they were happening and about to happen.
	* Wordsmith pondered his COI in a private to-do list -- he is aware of his COI problem.
	* The Wordsmith is/was the owner and sysop of the Boston Anonymous forums, a medium where Chanology is/was organized.
	<blockquote>''POSSIBLE COI DISCLOSURE: I own the Boston Anonymous forums and am a sysop, crat, checkuser and oversight on their wiki. Take anything I have to say with a grain of salt, and always verify for yourselves. Firestorm Talk 16:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)''<BR><BR> The word "]" commonly means "bureaucrat", i.e., a manager, ruler. The statement is signed by Firestorm, who was later renamed Wordsmith. See also the header:</blockquote>

	The virulent partisanship of Anonymous/Chanology is told in the group's 2008 founding manifesto video, which promised to destroy and "systematically dismantle" the Church of Scientology. See transcript.

	An owner/leader/organizer of a group sworn to promote or destroy the subject cannot neutrally administer the article(s) or involved editors. It is a clear COI. When I suggested Wordsmith had a COI, Wordsmith evasively denied he has a COI because he is "not a Scientologist": <blockquote>''Firstly personal experience is not relevant to WP:INVOLVED, but I will state for the record that I am not a Scientologist, have never been a Scientologist, and none of my family or close friends are Scientologists. I merely take an active interest in their history, policies and doctrine to consider myself a subject-matter expert, which is why I made that comment on the first AE.'' </blockquote>

	The statement changes from evasion to deceit with these words: "I merely take an active interest ..." In addition to owner/leader/manager/crat of the Chanology forum, Wordsmith was apparently theorist and ideologue of Chanology:<blockquote>''It is safe to say that I'm probably the most well-versed Wikipedian on the topic of Scientology, moreso than most actual Scientologists.''</blockquote>

	'''5. Supplementary info:''' Another editor has submitted a letter to ArbCom with supplementary evidence on this and related matters. I have forwarded that letter to ArbCom as well to ensure it is linked to this case.

	====Conclusion====
	I respectfully ask for the Arb who recommended the ban to recuse from this appeal.

	As shown above, the ban was imposed without reason, authority, or justification. It was based on a false issue and false evidence, and administered by an admin who had a significant hidden COI on the topic. I ask for the ban to be cancelled.
	====Subsequent comment====
	*This appeal shows that the sanction violates points 1, 2, and 3 of ], a text of which I was not previously aware. ] ] 21:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	*The "community" in the community appeal did not see the improper COI and involvement of Wordsmith. Conferring discretionary powers presumes impartial judgment. The information above impugns that impartiality and shows that discretion was compromised.
	*<S>The community also did not know that Prioryman was ChrisO sanctioned in the original ARBSCI for abuse of admin trust on the same topic.</S>
	*Process: the community did not understand that the ban was imposed ].
	*Process: The text ] lists three levels of appeal. It does not say that the levels are mutually exclusive, as Thomson argued, and it does not say that level 2 obviates 3, as Brown suggests. ] ] 22:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	*A caring reader will find a remarkable contrast between the evidence I have provided and Wordsmith's current statement of involvement in Chanology.<br>'''Wordsmith then:''' "I own the Boston Anonymous forums and am a sysop, crat, checkuser and oversight on their wiki."<br>'''Wordsmith now:''' "I will acknowledge that I was involved with a local group affiliated with Project Chanology, a minor capacity running their internal wiki ... my role so minor that I had forgotten about it." (below) <br>The arbitrators will decide whether that meets Misplaced Pages's standard of admin integrity. ] ] 05:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	*Addressing the comments from Salvio: To consider abuse of discretion, one must consider the circumstances and the conduct for which the ban was imposed. But none of that has been discussed here, so how could anyone be "satisfied" that discretion was not abused? That satisfaction must rest on the discretion and integrity of the admin imposing the ban, and as you are shown here in Wordsmith's own words, that integrity is well worth questioning. ] ] 18:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	*{{ping\|Salvio}} On 17 May 2016, less than two weeks before sanctioning me with a topic ban, Wordsmith deleted a private page named "COI". I cannot recover the contents of that page, but maybe you can, and maybe you will find it relevant to the credibility of Wordsmith's claims of forgetting about the year he spent owning and operating the Chanology forum. Wordsmith linked to that page in 2010 and 2011 comments about Scientology edits and issues, so it was on his mind at that time.
	*Wordsmith has a history of shoot-from-the-hip accusing other editors of being "OSA" (Church of Scientology employees), then apologizing and backing down. Such he did with me (see "nonpublic information" above), apparently GLEANED from an anti-Scientology chat page comment that appeared about the same time that he filed his nonpublic evidence with Arb. () Are these random accusations consistent with proper demeanor for an admin? ] ] 20:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	*Let us never forget that this whole incident stems from my requirement that a Scientology article follow standard Misplaced Pages editing and sourcing practice, as I have required in multiple other articles on multiple other topics. That is all that I have ever demanded. For this I am sanctioned by the partisans. I have shown irrefutably that Wordsmith is among the partisans, and that his representation of his role in Misplaced Pages and the world at large is not completely truthful. No one can say that I have broken any of the canons of Misplaced Pages except that I refused to accept canvassed consensus to violate Misplaced Pages policies. ] ] 22:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	*The web page says "The arbcom-l mailing list ... can also be used by any user as a means of contacting the Committee privately". But the autoresponse states, "The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list". One of these statements may be in error, and hopefully it is the latter. ] ] 00:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
	*On 11 August 2009‎, Misplaced Pages Commons User:Thrawn was renamed to User:The Wordsmith.

	=== Statement by The Wordsmith ===
	There are a number of factual errors and misrepresentations above. However, I will acknowledge that I was involved with a local group affiliated with ], in a minor capacity running their internal wiki (as I was the only one familiar with MediaWiki software) for a few months from 2008 to 2009. I must commend Sfarney, as he keeps better track of my own past than I do. The site (and indeed, the entire movement) had been defunct for years. I hadn't mentioned it because it was so long ago and my role so minor that I had forgotten about it. Does minor participation in an activist group 7-8 years ago open up issues of ]? I'll leave that to the Arbitrators to decide, and will respect that decision.

	However, I do still believe that my topic ban was based on sound judgment and not bias. Consensus at AE and again at the noticeboard agreed with it. Sfarney's hostility and poor behavior in both instances further reinforced that belief. I stand by my sanction, and I do believe that the community has already heard this appeal and upheld it on the merits. I don't see what another bite at the apple is gong to achieve, but I welcome input. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 01:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

	*{{ping\|Sfarney}} Your aspersions are without merit. The diffs you link are from before I was an Administrator, and there was in fact a rather large sock farm manipulating article content at the time. The user subpage you mentioned contains nothing of interest that I haven't already acknowledged, and I deleted it at the same time as a number of other subpages. I hadn't used it in years, and it contained some personal information that I did not want publicly available. Further, I do not visit or use WhyWeProtest, and had no idea it was still running. That thread had no bearing on events onwiki. I also find the depths to which you are plumbing my years-old editing history in a poor attempt at "opposition research" to be highly disturbing, and I think it telling that all you have been able to dig up is a few diffs of mildly rude comments from 2009 before I was an admin (and when the wiki was a very different place, and ] and ] found that there actually ''were'' Scientologists attempting to manipulate content) combined with casting some unfounded aspersions. Your increasingly-desperate attempts to link me to some bizarre conspiracy is extremely troubling, to say the least, and you seem to be justifying the sanction further with every edit. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 21:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Prioryman ===
	=== Statement by Dennis Brown ===
	I don't expect to comment further unless ''this'' account is pinged by an arb. I doubt it will be needed.

	This is all moot. The community upheld the ban, any cause of action has to be about that ] confirmation, where the community essentially took possession of the ban. Unless you can show fault in ''that'' discussion, there is nothing to talk about. Speaking as someone who tried DESPERATELY to not topic ban you, who choose an admonition the first time you were brought to AE, and has watched you implode since then, I suggest simply waiting the ban out. The community upheld the ban. That the process was sloppy doesn't really matter, we aren't a bureaucracy. ] (]) (aka:Dennis Brown) 21:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Ian.thomson ===
	I have to bring up {{u\|Robert McClenon}}'s that "continuing to appeal is ]." Yes, editors should be allowed to appeal bans but ] and ] answer "yes, one year is still one year" every few weeks ]. ] have been allowed since 2012, the ban was converted to that, and uninvolved community consensus affirms that ban. To try to appeal on a technicality that has already been ironed over is nothing but ]. Honestly, at this point, the only room I'm seeing between modifying the ban (which I can't see happening) and blocking Sfarney is Sfarney withdrawing this ASAP. ] (]) 21:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
	Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
	<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

	=== Scientology: Clerk notes ===
	:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
	*

	=== Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
	*'''Uphold''' --] \| ] 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	*A couple of comments. First, a person appealing a sanction before us may argue that the original sanction was flawed, even if upheld at AE or AN, because ArbCom retains final jurisdiction over all actions taken ]. However, the standard ArbCom has historically used when reviewing appeals has been that of abuse of discretion. Therefore, the relevant question is, was The Wordsmith's imposition of a topic ban an abuse of discretion? At first glance, it does not appear that was the case. The fact that he based his topic ban on remedy 5.1 rather than on remedy 4 (authorising DS for the topic area) has no bearing on the validity of the sanction itself, because, assuming there was evidence of sufficient misconduct to justify the imposition of a discretionary sanction in the first place, then such a mistake should be considered a mere clerical error, which can be rectified without any formalities. On review of the ] and of the ], I am satistied that there is enough evidence of misconduct to justify the imposition of a topic ban.<p>The question then becomes whether The Wordsmith was involved. Again, historically, when involvement has been argued on the basis of off-wiki conduct, the bar has ben set rather high, for various reasons, including a desire to prevent both opposition research and a chilling effect on admins. In this case, in my opinion, that high bar is far from reached.<p>For all these reasons, as far as I'm concerned, this appeal should be '''rejected'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 16:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	*Just noting that the "supplementary info" {{u\|Sfarney}} said was sent by email to arbcom does not seem to have arrived, although it would have to be very compelling indeed to change my opinion based on the public evidence already posted here. Sfarney, could you resend ASAP so we can wrap this up? Thanks. ] (]) 22:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
	**{{ping\|Sfarney}} We received your emails, thanks. You got that message because the mailing list holds posts from non-subscribers for moderation. ] (]) 16:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
	----

	== Amendment request: ] ==
	'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 17:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

	;Case or decision affected
	:{{RFARlinks\|Infoboxes}}

	; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
	#]
	#]
	#]

	; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
	*{{userlinks\|John Cline}} (initiator)




	; Information about amendment request
	*]
	:*Without modification, clause one currently reads:<blockquote>Misplaced Pages works by building ]. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary ...</blockquote> The wording wrongfully implies that discussion is a required component of consensus building. Policy does not support such a notion where, at ], normal editing is said io be the "usual" manner of consensus building across Misplaced Pages. It also says: "when editors do not reach agreement by editing, <em>discussion</em> on the associated ] <em>continues the process toward consensus</em> ." I request the wording of this clause be changed, so as not to circumvent policy, but to compliment it instead. Perhaps, for example:<blockquote>Misplaced Pages works by building ]. This is usually done through ] and, at times, through the additional use of polite ]—involving the wider community, if necessary ...</blockquote>
	*]
	:*Without modification, clause two currently reads:<blockquote>Misplaced Pages works by building ] through the use of polite discussion. ...</blockquote>Implications are again that consensus can not be achieved except through discussion. Consider the following example, where consensus through editing is also shown:<blockquote>Misplaced Pages works by building ] through ] and, at times, through the additional use of polite ]. ...</blockquote>
	*]
	:*In as much as clause three reflects ], and currently reads, without modification:<blockquote>... is determined through ] at each individual article.</blockquote>It should instead say<blockquote>... is determined by the ] at each individual article through ] and, when agreement is not reached by editing alone, through ] on associated ] as well.</blockquote>

	=== Statement by John Cline ===
	I recently participated in ]. It held that consensus can not exist for a matter unless there had been a discussion on the matter itself. Although consensus through editing was clearly in place, upheld by longstanding assent, those dependent on the premise cited the Arbcom rulings from this case as grounds to stand fast; and do continue.

	Failing to mention consensus through editing, in the clauses I've shown, is an oversight of consequence! It has given some editors a false empowerment of misinformation, and undermined its own charge of resolving the infobox dispute by instead, strengthening disagreement within already fractured ranks.

	The modifications requested here are easy to do and self evidently more policy compliant. I do not see where reason could lie for wanting to exclude mention of our foremost manner of consensus building and hope the requested measures to amend can be realized by minimally intrusive means. Therefore, I have not named anyone "party" as nothing about it involves user conduct, I will, however, notify each of the editors involved in the RFC I mentioned, in case they are interested enough to opine. My thanks to the Committee for considering this request.--] (]) 17:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

	;Addendum
	:To correct the inclusion of an unintentional synthesis, the modification requested for clause three has been changed from saying "on the article's talk page" to instead say, "on associated talk pages". With good reason, ] is deliberate in its choice of words and this request endeavors to remain faithful with policy regarding suggested modifications.--] (]) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

	;Point of Order
	:Please be considerate of the process and apportion your voice in succinct terms that focus on this Arbcom request. Intentionally withhold inclusions of superfluous excess and extraneous clutter. Currently, the overwhelming majority of expended effort has been spent on the latter while the request itself has seen barely a mention. Please be proactive in reversing this trend and consider redacting any out of scope commentary your statements may contain. Above all else, do comment on the specific elements of this request which are starving for your regards.--] (]) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

	;Rebuttals
	:{{ping\|Littleolive oil}} - I am fairly certain that I have not misunderstood policy, or spoken of it beyond the context of its intent. I did not commingle policy on consensus with policy on dispute resolution; just because discussion overlaps the two, the links I've provided are policy links on consensus building measures; I'll display them in long form for you here.
	# Can consensus exist through editing alone, without discussion? ] says it can; "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."
	# Is discussion, in the context of this proposal, a dispute resolution measure or a continuation of consensus building? ] says: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion." ] says: "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus."
	# Have I ever said, in this request, or anywhere else, that a reverse application of "consensus through editing" could achieve consensus for not doing a thing because it had not sooner been done? No I have not! I have said consensus can exist without discussion, never that consensus can exist without editing.--] (]) 07:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Sfarney ===

	* Consensus in legal and common speech includes ''implicit consent'', whereby the lack of objection implies consent. The statement requiring discussion is incorrect and should be changed. ] ] 17:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

	* {{ping\|GRuban}} You wrote: ''I don't like the assumption that any kind of consensus can be established by inaction and silence.'' Please clarify. Are you saying that '''no''' kinds of consensus can be established by silence? Or that '''some kinds''' of consensus cannot be established by silence? If the latter, I agree. If the former, permit me to gesture to the process on the majority of scientific and technical articles, monitored by perhaps scores of people who quickly scan daily changes and nod silently (or mentally) to each change, silently consenting. To require explicit consent would be burdensome and counterproductive. If the tools do not currently provide, I suggest a simple tool would scan the Encyclopedia and provide a list of pages that are monitored by less than a quorum of editors -- maybe 5 or some magic number. Operation Stepchild.<BR>Articles with a full quorum of monitors are presumed to have a chorus of implicit consent to changes. ] ] 22:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by RexxS===
	It is acknowledged that in certain small walled-gardens in Misplaced Pages, infoboxes are contentious, even though they are accepted as an expected element in most areas. ] arose because of the intractable disputes that occurred in those areas. The current guidance at ] and the consequent ArbCom findings reflect that contention over infoboxes. While it is perfectly reasonable to see consensus established by normal editing in the absence of prior consensus, it is also reasonable to expect that discussion should take place in order to change any existing consensus that has been explicitly established. In other words, you need a fresh debate to overturn the outcome of a previous debate. This is the same sort of expectation as at the ]: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."

	Nevertheless, this request is not about the means of establishing consensus through editing; it is an attempt to justify a claim of consensus through '''not''' editing, and the addition of hidden comments to articles to enforce that fallacious consensus.

	We can all see value in having a hidden comment that says something like {{xt\|"Before adding an infobox, please consider the discussions at "}}. It gives a new editor notice that an existing consensus is in place on the article and directs them to the issues already discussed. Such a notice also complies with the guidance at ].

	However, this request goes much further than that. It has been the practice by the infobox-haters to mark their articles with a hidden comment along the lines of "{{tq\|please do not add an infobox: see ]}}", breaching ] and ]. John Cline wants to engineer a situation where an editor can use a hidden comment to forbid others from adding an infobox, despite ''there being no previous discusion whatsoever''. The infobox-haters want the ability to revert any addition of an infobox without giving reason other than the spurious claim that because the article doesn't have an infobox, there must be an implicit consensus that it shouldn't have one. That would be as nonsensical as saying "The article doesn't have an image, or it doesn't have a navbox, therefore there is an existing consensus against including those elements."

	ArbCom should be supporting the right of uninvolved editors to make edits that do not breach policy; they should condemn the practice of a small group of editors of forbidding others to make particular edits without any prior debate; and they should make it clear to that small group that a complete absence of debate really is a complete absence of consensus. --] (]) 20:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
	:
	: {{reply to \|SchroCat}} It is ownership, not stewardship. The difference is explained at ]: {{tq\|"a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not indicate an "ownership" problem, if it is supported by an edit summary referring to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit."}} When an editor {{diff2\|732196762\|removed the hidden comment}} ("per ]"), he should not be {{diff2\|732235988\|reverted}} with a pointer to ]: "Providing information to assist other editors in preventing a common mistake" implying that adding an infobox is a common mistake. That is discourteous and a clear example of an ownership mentality if the editor in question actually believes that. The relevant section of ] guides against {{tq\|"Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing policy against that edit."}} There is no existing policy against adding an infobox to an article - most emphatically when there has been no prior debate about the issue, as in this case. --] (]) 16:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by GRuban===

	Without focusing on infoboxes specifically, I don't like the assumption that any kind of consensus can be established by inaction and silence. There are two possibilities: either, yes, most people editing the article are in agreement that we shouldn't have an X, or, most people editing the article haven't really thought about it, and might be perfectly fine with having an X. We can't know without discussing. --] (]) 22:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
	:{{Ping\|Sfarney}} No, I'm afraid silence is just that, we can't assume everyone who has an article on their watchlist agrees with every edit. It's more than likely they just didn't look. That is all that is needed to make an edit, that no one objects, but it is not enough to assume that anyone actually noticed. --] (]) 00:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by WhatamIdoing ===
	* It would doubtless be instructive for ArbCom members to read the RFC discussion that prompted this proposal before considering these technically accurate, but possibly loaded, proposals. This might unfortunately get interpreted as "This hidden HTML comment has been on the page for years, so there is currently consensus for it".
	* Back in the ArbCom case, I encouraged the then-members to explicitly and directly address the question of hidden HTML comments in articles that directed editors of an article to respect the preferences of a small group of editors. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to do so. ] (]) 09:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by Thryduulf (re Infoboxes)===
	I was not involved in this situation, indeed I was unaware of it until seeing this request to arbcom, but having reviewed the RfC I have to endorse what RexxS says. Some members of the classical music project believes that infoboxes are an incredibly Bad Thing and should be kept as far away from "their" articles as possible, and some will argue tooth and nail to keep "their" articles without them. This ] behaviour was permitted in the first Infoboxes case, over the objections of everyone who could foresee the problems it would bring, and no committee since has had the courage to admit that it was the wrong decision. This affair regarding hidden comments is an attempt to expand the reach of the OWNERSHIP by saying "you must get the permission of the Classical Music project to add an infobox here.", regardless of the wishes of the editors at the article or of any other relevant Wikiprojects. I recall at least one article where the author supported the addition of an infobox by someone else, and had to persuade the Classical Music project editors that their project was not the primary one for this article before consensus was even considered relevant. Alas I'm unable to find the article in question at the moment, but will provide a link when I do. ] (]) 10:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	:{{replyto\|Sfarney}} There is a page, ], that lists pages with no and very few people watching it, although only administrators can see this (for hopefully obvious security reasons). Also, there is a link on the history page for an article that lists the number of people watching that page. For example ] appears on 134 watchlists and 30 of the people who have it on their watchlist visited recent edits. Certainly this first number is not reported precisely to non-adminstrators below a certain threshold (I forget what the value is), again as a defence against spamming and malicious editing. ] (]) 10:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	:
	:I endorse ]'s suggestion of discretionary sanctions for the topic of infoboxes, explicitly including discussions about them generally and discussions about their inclusion or otherwise on a specific article. ] (]) 15:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by SMcCandlish===
	I '''strongly support something like this, but explicitly focused on visible content edits''' (i.e., hidden HTML comments do not count, but a long-standing presence of an infobox does, and so does long-standing removal of one that was there before, but simple absence of one is meaningless – Wikipedians add content and features, not studiously avoid adding anything that was not already present, or WP would have no content at all). I also '''further request that discretionary sanctions be enabled''' for infobox-related discussions (per normal ], etc., process). ] has been utterly ineffective at curtailing "infobox warrior" behavior, and the civility levels have again fallen through the floor. The very locus of the original case, the classical music wikiproject, remains the topical source of most ibox-related disputation, and it proceeds as if ARBINFOBOX never happened. I was about to lodge a pair of ] enforcement requests (not regarding any parties to the original ARBINFOBOX case), diffing a consistent pattern of aspersion-casting, personal attacks, and tendentious battlegrounding in a tagteam manner, but find that I apparently cannot, because DS doesn't apply to ARBINFOBOX yet, so there is seemingly no action for AE to take or basis for any action. I'm not sure there's any recourse at all other than the usual ] drama, which rarely seems to result in action. (I'm skeptical that it would because the community itself is divided on infoboxes – though in about an 80:20 ratio in favor, at this point – so it's apt to devolve to one "party platform" against another instead of looking at user behavior). This really has to stop; it's been going on for years, and is marked by ]-style campaigning by a handful of editors who oppose infoboxes with a passion, but cannot actually defend their position logically or with policy, only ''ad hominem'' verbal abuse and ] behavior. Maybe they're ultimately right that WP should not have infoboxes, but the ends do not justify the means. (And there are opponents of infoboxes who do not exhibit these problems at all; it's an individual editor behavior issue, not a "wiki-political faction" matter.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 13:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	:In response to SchroCat: It may well be that proponents of infoboxes sometimes present fallacious arguments and engage in civility lapses; that doesn't give their opposition license to double-up on it to outdo them in a contest of who can the be most disruptive. I observe a large number of ibox-related discussions, and participate directly in quite a few of them. Over the last year or so, I note only a single pair of editors, almost always appearing together to post back-to-back (see if you can guess whom I mean) who are consistently relying on a combination of ] plus unfiltered, personalized hostility. They happen to be against infoboxes (at least in some topical areas; I don't monitor their edits in particular, across different topics), while in the original case it may have been the other way around. Two wrongs don't make a right, and none of this would be happening (for very long) if DS had been authorized the first time around. It's a consistent behavioral problem that will be addressed one way or another, and it doesn't matter what side of the great wrong/right they're on. But perhaps I'm blind, and SchroCat is right in suggesting that the pro-infobox crowd are equally uncivil; if so, that's double the reason to impose ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 14:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	:I agree with Thryduulf's DS scope suggestions. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 16:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	:I concur completely with RexxS's policy analysis of OWN, STEWARDSHIP, and HIDDEN, and would further cite ], ], ], and ], as well as the aforementioned FAITACCOMPLI. No wikiproject or other gaggle of editors is ever in a position to assert or imply exclusive scope over an article or other content, and then try to stake claims that policy doesn't actually entitle them to, e.g. with "thou shalt not"-style HTML comments that attempt to limit others' editorial rights . There's a huge difference between using an HTML comment to refer to policies or to previous consensus discussions, versus to issue commandments with no basis but the preference of some project or of one or a few editors who believe themselves "]" at a particular article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	:Re: Montanabw's comments: A strong admonishment to not engage in ] behavior (if I may summarize), and application of DS, are essentially the same thing, except that the latter can be enforced without coming back to ArbCom again. It should be handleable by admins without invoking further drama/process. Agree that an RfC should not be mandatory in every case; we do not need some spacial "legislation" here, and standard WP operating procedure is fine, though I don't object to Montanabw's RfC-specific wording suggestion. Gist: RfCs are used when regular discussion fails to resolve a matter. Also agree that the discussions all tend to be essentially the same, but that's par for the course on a lot of editing matters (see ], every single day for a dozen different sorts of examples of this phenomenon). When people get tired enough of it – when the community is willing to decide whether or not infoboxes should become a standard feature by default or usually be avoided – then there'll be a big site-wide Village Pump RfC on it, or consensus will just quietly shift, but we don't seem to be there yet. When we are, I would expect some guidance to evolve similar to ], with criteria for when to include an i-box and when not, and what should be in it, etc. The Sinatra compromise could be part of such a model, used as an example. What's not acceptable is unilaterally nuking the long-standing ] infobox on the bogus excuse that was offered for doing so, then editwarring to retain the deletion after multiple editors have objected to the removal (still unresolved last I looked). This "my way or the highway" filibustering behavior needs to put to bed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 19:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by SchroCat===
	* I speak as an editor who is not a member of the classical music project (or any project, given that);
	* There is way too much misleading hyperbole in many of the comments going on ("small walled-gardens"? "infobox-haters"? The obvious accusations of OWNERSHIP - all utter balls: try ] from those willing to update articles and who safeguard it from vandalism and sub-standard edits, unlike the passing ships of the IB warriors)
	* Much of the misleading hyperbole posted above, may or may not have a grain of true, but if it is, it can be equally applied to both 'sides'. (e.g. "{{tq\|it's been going on for years, and is marked by ]-style campaigning by a handful of editors who hate infoboxes with a passion, but cannot actually defend their position logically or with policy, only ''ad hominem'' verbal abuse and ] behavior.}}" Spin that round and you'd have exactly the same level of validity in the accusation.)
	* Whereas those who have a more open mind to the inclusion or exclusion of an IB tend not to spend their time sytematically removing IBs, the same cannot be said of those with a less flexible approach ''do'' go round adding them in great numbers. This is particularly true of the the hard line of ] the articles where the use of the IB has been previously considered.
	* There are 5 million plus articles .en, most of which are in desparate need of work: I am not sure why the same group of people are frequently attending the same articles to force the issue of formatting on the top right-hand corner of articles.
	- ] (]) 14:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	*I have no wish to discuss anything further here, particularly given the snide and ill-judged comments of others who bring the luggage of previous and unconnected disputes with them. - ] (]) 14:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by Montanabw===

	This situation arises in the context of the law of unintended consequences. Here, the issue was removal of a hidden text comment that had reflected a prior position of a group within the Classical music wikiproject that ultimately resulted in WP:ARBINFOBOX. The comment should have been removed years ago when the decision was handed down, as, to oversimplify, the ArbCom decision clearly held that the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of the classical music projects was, essentially, irrelevant, and that every single article had to make an infobox decision on a case by case basis. So, as {{u\|RexxS}} said, while a hidden comment that notes a prior consensus and links to the discussion may be well-advised so as to not waylay an innocent drive-by editor who makes an infobox addition (or removal), to have a general statement of a project "consensus" is clearly contrary to the ArbCom decision.

	But, the larger issue is now, in every case where the infobox question is raised, we essentially are having the same argument, over and over again. Even though we are asked to discuss the merits for individual articles on individual merits, the bottom line is that the issues really ''are'' almost the same for every article within any given genre, and at the end of the day, it is the same core group of people (I am among that group) with the same basic ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT arguments (each well-reasoned with links), and I haven't seen a new argument anywhere on either side in over two years. It is most unlikely that anyone is going to change their mind.

	The problem is that both sides are getting fatigued, and as a result, some people have let their manners slip and are becoming uncivil and at times engaging in personal attacks. While I personally am of the opinion that the incivility problem lies more on one side than the other, I also think that finger-pointing isn't going to help matters here. I only raise it to avoid the false equivalency of the "you are all at fault so I'm just going to give everyone detention and not bother to sort things out" approach that usually settles nothing. Here, as at each article, we need to focus on the issue and not the personalities.

	The vast majority of infobox disputes occur in the classical music articles, with a few at an occasional literary article or the occasional movie star biography (notably the ] and ] FACs). Most often, the dispute begins by someone who posts at talk that they want to add an infobox, or a drive-by editor simply is bold and adds one. Less often, the dispute arises over removal of an infobox, often one that has been there for many years (as in the two actor articles noted here).

	Although {{u\|SMcCandlish}} suggests discretionary sanctions, I think this can be handled more gently: Enforce existing policy, particularly ]. The decision can be amended to strongly admonish all users to avoid any personalized comments, to have no personal attacks, and notably to avoid casting aspersions on any other editor. Accusations of any sort of nefarious motives or actions are likewise not helpful; most of us simply have strongly and sincerely held positions on the issue.

	The approach of using RfC to conduct these debates might be helpful to bring in non-involved parties, but it would be unwieldy to mandate it in all infobox disputes, as some are not very contentious. Perhaps the decision could be amended along these lines:
	{{prettyquote\|Where an infobox dispute cannot be resolved by talkpage consensus within one week, the user seeking a change from the status quo shall institute a RfC to draw in outside viewpoints. All participants in the discussion are advised to remember to focus on content, not contributors, to avoid attributing motive to any other user, to avoid personal attacks, and cast no aspersions on any other user.
	}}

	Maybe I'm a dreamer, but if we can all just keep it professional, it would go a long way. Each side will win a few and lose a few; occasionally (as at Sinatra) a compromise will be achieved. Maybe someday we will figure out a solution that's a win-win for everyone. And if it works, we can all hire out to go negotiate peace in the Middle East. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by Olive===
	I'd suggest that ] as described by John Cline here is taken out of context and perhaps misunderstood. The context for "Consensus" is for, if and when normal editing fails, and is further followed by a description of dispute resolution. The reverse is not true, that is, normal editing is a consensus situation and I don't see anything in our policies and guidelines that suggests that it is. We cannot write policy here and I believe the changes suggested would allow editors to argue that any past edit has a consensus, certainly not true in any kind of editing situation.

	Do we need some kind of community wide agreement on info boxes that will remedy the same old back and forth I have been watching and involved with in a peripheral way. Yes.(] (]) 00:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC))

	=== Statement by Gerda ===
	I said a lot in the RfC already and try to be brief and simple. I think to talk about hidden messages, and if something undiscussed can be a consensus, is curing symptoms. The basic disease is that - for reasons I didn't find in four years - the ''addition'' of an infobox is not regarded as the attempt to cater ''also'' to certain users (who are sometimes called idiots), but as an attack. (Look at the discussion just on the Holst page to learn more eloquent descriptions such as "the Info-box Panzers".) Many comments on the Holst talk and elsewhere read as if an infobox would ''take away'' from the article, while I think it just ''adds'' structured information, for those readers who may want it. Compare ]. --] (]) 12:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

	: @]: both you and ] link piped to a list which I began during the infoboxes arbcase: ]. It lists articles where infoboxes where reverted, because that is what the case was about (or rather: should have been about). Once started, I kept updating it when I noticed new cases. - A list of "infoboxes added" (but not article names, too many) is a bit higher on the same page: follow the link to an infobox template and click on "What links here", for example . - You say that not every infobox is welcome, yes, sure, then it is ] and reverted, and I will try to avoid a repeat. It could be so easy. --] (]) 14:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

	: As ] said - and the above link said already: I am a member of QAI. I am also a member of projects Classical music and Opera, where we had ]. Smerus will also be able to confirm that I didn't come up with infoboxes for his opera articles, - if I know the preferences of an author I respect them. - Smerus and I have been seen as antagonists in the Infoboxes case, - plain wrong. We share enthusiasm for classical music and collaborate. --] (]) 07:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	: back to the request: ] (who is on vacation this month, so can't speak herself)) said in the discussion on the talk of Opera: "... '''there is no need for anyone to ask permission to add infoboxes anywhere on Misplaced Pages''' ...". --] (]) 07:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by Collect===

	A few notes:

	First is that the Arbitration Committee specifically can neither make nor alter Misplaced Pages policies. To that end, the statements which appear to delimit ] made by the committee ''should not have been stated as they were, and, in fact, do not make changes to ].''

	Second is that "solutions in search of a problem" including all "Gordian Knot solutions" are intrinsically a bad idea, and the committee should avoid using them at all, and likely should abrogate all such prior decisions sua sponte.

	Third is that once again the issue of whether precedent has any value for the Arbitration Committee is again raised. The committee ought well either adopt some sort of "stare decisis" system, or state that prior decisions have no effect on current decisions. The current "decision by Limbo" system fails.

	I note also that, contrary to the "official rules", a great deal of the prior discussion here deals with making claims about motives and behaviour of individual editors, which, as far as I can tell, will help no discussions about "Infoboxen" at all. (vide asides about "infobox haters" etc.) In sad point of fact, no case has been presented here for re-opening the original decision as such.

	To that end, the committee should simply state that the principles adopted in any case which refer to any policy do not replace any stated policy, and do not in any way amend any such policy. ] (]) 12:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


	===Statement by We hope===

	I think the issue needs to be reconsidered as the previous case really didn't provide any permanent solutions. The restrictions imposed previously are no longer in effect, but the problem continues. A discussion about an infobox for ] spilled over to my talk page recently, where I stated my .

	I don't see a group of editors going through Misplaced Pages removing infoboxes because they don't like them or starting discussions at talk pages of articles they don't normally edit for removal of the article infobox. However, I have seen people adding them without a thought for prior consensus, old discussions about it and some editors of articles need to discuss the issue again. I also don't see those who don't care for infoboxes keeping an organized list of articles where infoboxes have been added, but there is one for those which have been .

	Everyone isn't pleased to see the ; the continuance of discussion on top of discussion at certain articles is because no one can do much that's productive; time is being taken up by the need to discuss the subject of whether article X should or should not have an infobox. As long as infoboxes are optional, those who elect not to include them in articles should not be repeatedly involved in defending their choice. ] (]) 13:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by Tim riley===
	The comment by We hope, above, seems to me very much to the point. The present brouhaha arises because a group of editors, mostly known for insisting on info-boxes in all articles, have descended ''en masse'' on featured (and other) articles in which few of them, if any, have shown any previous interest. They demand a box. Full stop. Those, like me, who think boxes are excellent for some articles but not all, cannot I believe be similarly charged with invading established articles to which we do not contribute, demanding the removal of i-bs. My view is that where there is a discernible ''status quo'' and general practice – for or against an i-b – it should not be overturned without consensus. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.05em;">]]</span>''' 16:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by Smerus===
	This amendment request is headed 'infoboxes'. But the proposals of John Cline (save for the third) do not mention infoboxes. All three proposals simply seek to demote the priority of polite discussion in the editing process. I infer that John Cline feels that polite discussion is somehow out of place or of secondary importance when infoboxes are an issue. I cannot concur. Polite discussion should be at the heart of all editing issues where there is principled disagreement. --] (]) 05:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	By the way, as regards transparency: I am a member of ] and ]. Messrs. Arendt, McCandlish and Montanabw are members of ]. I can't speak for other editors here.--] (]) 06:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	=== ]: Clerk notes ===
	:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
	*

	=== ]: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
	*

	----

Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024

Shortcut

WP:ARCA

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Categories: