Revision as of 04:11, 5 May 2014

• WP:ARCA

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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!)

1. 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.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. 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.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

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:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Amendment request: Falun Gong 2

Initiated by  Ohc  at 02:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Falun Gong 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2#Ohconfucius_topic-banned

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2#Ohconfucius subject to mandated external review

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

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

Statement by Ohconfucius

It has been more that 18 months since the case. Since then, I have performed tens of thousands of edits to align date formats, and have also made significant contributions to numerous articles, including developing many DYKs and several good articles. Arbcom can have faith that I can stay away from articles about the movement and from drama relating thereto. I am seeking to remove a topic ban not so that I can go back to editing articles on that sect. The ban no longer serves any purpose except to potentially prevent me from contributing to China articles to the fullest extent and to the best of my expertise and ability, and also to edit a page in my own userspace. In addition, it would be important for me to once again to restored to an editor of good standing. -- Ohc  02:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: The great irony is that once the topic ban came into being, I couldn't do anything to that rant without being in breach of the ban. -- Ohc  16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• @Floquenbeam: @Beeblebrox: I'm fine with that being deleted. I've long gotten over it and see no useful purpose in dwelling over the bitter past history of editors most of whom are no longer active in the project. Falun Gong isn't going to change as a result of my ranting about it, but I've been too lazy to do any housekeeping – not that I could have even mentioned it to anyone, let alone ask for it to be deleted due to the breadth of the TBAN. -- Ohc  02:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• @Beeblebrox: The answer to that is easy. The TBAN states: "Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces." The typical Arbcom "broadly construed" provision is the killer. I am afraid to death of editing any China-related article because of that provision. Jiang Zemin, Bo Xilai are the obvious ones due to their unproven roles in the alleged persecution of FLG practitioners.

  However, the problem is not only China articles where there is mention of Falun Gong persecution, but any article where The Epoch Times or Shen Yun are mentioned; any article where ET is quoted or cited is technically off-limits to me. As an example, I am currently working through Category:CS1 errors: dates yet I cannot correct the cs1 date error in Shen Yun. More specifically and problematically, there are Robocop admins prowling, and I can see myself blocked and/or have my ban extended for technical breaches by making even minor changes to apparently innocuous or unrelated articles such as List of newspapers in Australia and Korkoro. I trust that you can see how the breadth of the TBAN is a restraint for me.

  I now seek to repair my reputation – and this is the most important reason for this appeal. But if it pleases Arbcom, I would add a voluntary undertaking not to edit any article directly connected with FLG. -- Ohc  02:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Heim

For what it's worth, this ban barely passed in the first place, getting through by just one vote. And there's a good reason: It was an exceedingly ill-founded ban. As two arbitrators pointed out, the evidence for Ohconfucius's POV-pushing was weak. Frankly, the rest of the committee erred in forgetting that editing with a POV is not necessarily pushing a POV; sometimes, adding a POV to an article is balancing the article. (Frankly, Misplaced Pages has a serious systemic bias problem with these articles because of the unwillingness of Western editors to consider an anti-FG stance for fear of being seen as pro-PRC, and ArbCom fell into this trap hook, line and sinker.) Either way, if no one can show evidence of recent problematic behaviour, this appeal should be granted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

• Noting, that I changed the title of this request from Appeal request to Amendment request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• No. And the existence of User:Ohconfucius/essay/rant about Falun Gong pages in the user space of a topic banned editor seems unwise, and I'm considering MFDing it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ohconfucius: I can WP:CSD#U1 it if you want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ohconfucius: I'm interpreting your thanking me for the edit above as "Go ahead and delete it, Floq/" Let me know if that's wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse. T. Canens (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• I have two questions here:

• Could you give an example of a specific page that you are prevented from editing by this TBAN that you believe you should be able to edit in a productive manner?
• Would you like the "rant" page in your userspace deleted? I'm not trying to put you over a barrel here, just giving you a way to be rid of it without any chance of violating the topic ban by actually editing it. Say the word and I'll zap it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm liking the sound of Salvio's idea below, although I might like it better if it were six months instead of a full year. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to accept the amendment request, albeit in a slightly modified form. Instead of removing the topic ban entirely, I'd go for something along the lines of a "parole": Ohconfucius' topic ban is suspended but, for a year, any uninvolved admin may reimpose it in the event of fresh misconduct within the original area of conflict. After a year of trouble-free editing, the topic ban will automatically expire. @Ohconfucius: would this solution satisfy you? Salvio 09:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• I would agree with SG's proposal of a year's provisional lifting, to be made a permanent removal if no problems occur and be revoked if any do. Seraphimblade 18:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As there seems to be reasonable support for the provisional suspension of the remedy, I'll propose a motion tonight. Would anyone else like to weigh in as to how long the probationary period should last? Seraphimblade 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• I like Salvio's idea of a provisional suspension. I personally feel like one year would make sense to ensure all is well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Motion

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 1 who is recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case 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 Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Misplaced Pages behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. 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 repealed.

Support

1. Seraphimblade 05:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Worth trying. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Weakly. AGK 23:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
5. With the request that Ohconfucius steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

Amendment request: Fæ

Initiated by Fæ (talk) at 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

This restriction is not logged as an action resulting from the Arbcom case. It was added when I was unblocked as documented on my talk page.

A previous discussion in advance of this request was made here in January 2014.

The restrictions were stated as:

1. topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed
2. topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed

Statement by Fæ

I would like the committee to remove the restrictions. They are so broad that they remain blight major barrier to my return to productive work as a Wikipedian editor, my future employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, and ensure I cannot create proposals for, nor take a lead in, future Misplaced Pages projects.

Failing removal, replacing with a narrow and well-specified restriction that is relevant to the original complaint in 2011 (which never went to dispute resolution as it was resolved amicably with the other editor), would prove far less damaging, such as restricted from adding external links on BLP articles to sites featuring sexually graphic material, excluding external links to germane non-profit/charity archives with educational medical or political material, such as the Wellcome Digital Library, British Library or similar respected archive or museum. However even this seems excessive, when there are sufficient members of the Misplaced Pages community closely following my edits to ensure that any problematic link would be rapidly challenged and widely discussed for consensus.

The previous discussion confirmed that members of Arbcom are not of one mind on how to read the restrictions, leaving them interpreted as broadly as technically possible. This stops editing where there would be any way of interpreting the topic relating to sexuality, women's rights, or of LGBT cultural interest. Specific examples included:

• Suffrage in Britain.
• Ancient history connected to gender or sexuality. I have created Assyrian statue (BM 124963) only after reviewing it specifically with Arbcom.
• Women in Science edit-a-thons that touch on sexuality, for example my article on Professor Susan Lea, created before realizing her speciality is sexual assault.
• LGBT cultural initiatives within the Wikimedia LGBT programme.

Specific projects that these restrictions have made impossible, damaging content improvement for Misplaced Pages:

• Educational material to support Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Of the 100,000 images that I have been working with the Wellcome to make available (see demonstration upload set), a significant number relate to AIDS education and ACTUP posters, as well as more general LGBT related historic material. I am free to support these on Commons, but unable to help on Misplaced Pages.
• My proposal with an LGBT archive was withdrawn due to these restrictions. I was hoping to start this project back in February (diversity awareness month).
• I have not applied for Wikipedian in Residence positions in 2014.

In January it was suggested that I create new BLPs to demonstrate my competence (I improved several hundred before the Arbcom case). I have created the following articles in the last couple of months, mostly on living women:

Biographies

• Pat Thane
• Emily Simonoff
• Leone Ridsdale
• Amanda Ramirez
• Barbara Maughan
• Colin Skipp
• Hilary Little
• Cathryn Lewis
• Sarah-Jayne Blakemore
• Veena Kumari
• Elizabeth Kuipers
• Rachel Jenkins
• Khalida Ismail
• Myra Hunter
• ‎Patricia Howlin
• ‎Louise Howard (psychiatrist)
• ‎Laura H. Goldstein
• ‎Philippa Garety
• ‎Rosalie Ferner
• ‎Anne Farmer
• ‎Judith Dunn
• ‎Essi Viding
• ‎Trudie Chalder
• ‎Sarah Byford
• ‎Angelica Ronald

Historical biographies

• Margaret Stefana Drower
• Elinor Wight Gardner
• Helen Elizabeth Nash

Two of these, along with my photograph, were featured on Signpost as part of promoting Misplaced Pages's improvement during Women's History Month.

I believe the broad restriction was partly in place out of concern for my welfare. My interactions on controversial LGBT topics, LGBT safety rating for Wikimania bids and Ticket:2014033110012549, show that I can handle difficult discussion on LGBT topics and BLPs without inflaming debate.

@AGK: I am sorry that you read my request so negatively. I have removed the word "blight", which I meant in a technical sense (I am used to the word being used in a legal context), this may have set the negative tone you were reading into my statement. I am presenting the relevant impact the restriction is having, which includes employment prospects. My intent is not "martyrdom", but to ignore the facts would seem odd, particularly if a concern of the committee was to place restrictions as a means to protect me, or to protect Misplaced Pages from me. --Fæ (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Responses to questions:

1. This is Arbcom's call, I have no issue with a gradual approach if they feel it is helpful.

2. First choice would be LGBT biographies and cultural images so I can support Misplaced Pages:Wiki Loves Pride 2014 next month and may be able to renegotiate the LGBT archives proposal I had to withdraw. The contested site back in 2011 was part of a legal case, adding a link to that website without a community consensus was a serious error in judgement. I have learned a lot about how to interpret policies both here and on other projects with regard to respect and dignity of the subject in the years since then. That case is quite distinct in my mind to the projects I have mentioned above where I can support Wikimedia with relevant illustrative historic images from respected sources, or images from public events illustrating contemporary LGBT culture.

3. I suggested a refined form of words above, though I wonder if rather than spending time debating a technical form of words better to define a restriction, a probationary period for BLP editing and images relating to "sexuality" would be pragmatic, perhaps running a log of articles as evidence of review during probation in preparation of restrictions being removed.

Statement by AGK

Fae's statement implies that the committee decision is affecting his real-life employment. This does not mean the ban was unjustified, and I am not impressed he would claim otherwise (or by the tone of his statement in general). As this subtextual martyrdom is the same sort of conduct that led to Fae's ban in the first place, I question whether he has reformed. AGK 07:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

The Committee is explicitly required to act in the best interests of the English Misplaced Pages - it is not in their remit to consider how their decisions may or may not affect someone's personal life. In my opinion, this amendment request should succeed or fail solely on the basis of whether the Committee believes that removing or relaxing Fæ's restrictions will be a good or bad thing for the Encyclopaedia. Whichever they decide though, it is important that the reasoning is explained so that all parties may understand why that decision was reached. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fæ: Given that at this point a complete removal of your restrictions seems unlikely but a partial relaxation has not been ruled out, it might be helpful if you could offer some thoughts around the following questions:

1. If you were offered a partial relaxation, would you accept one (depending on the exact terms) or would you reject it in favour of an all-or-nothing approach?
2. If you do want a partial relaxation, is there one area you'd prefer to see relaxed first?
3. Again only relevant if you do want a partial relaxation, but if the partial relaxation doesn't take the form of narrowing the scope, is there any looser but still realistic and practical form of restriction that you would be happy with and that you think would allow you to demonstrate to the committee that you are ready to return to full editing?

I guess input from the Committee other interested people about questions 2 and 3 might be useful to. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

The question that ArbCom needs to address is how they are to manage restrictions on editors. If the intention is that certain editors are to carry restrictions forever, then be honest and say so. It is cruel to offer false hope and the editor affected at least can make a decision on whether they wish to continue editing at all under those restrictions or whether they will channel their energies into something else.

On the other hand, if Arbcom believes that no-one is irredeemable, then it would make sense to encourage whatever processes of rehabilitation are considered suitable. For infinitely banned users we have the standard offer, but I am unaware of any similar guidance for indefinitely restricted users. Were I in your position, I would be looking for clearly defined milestones that a user could aim toward in order to show that they no longer need restrictions to be able to edit productively and without undue conflict. If you are serious about bringing editors back into 'normal' editing, then you ought to be marking out timescales and expectations for targets that restricted editors could achieve to demonstrate their progress. Simply leaving them without any direction and having to guess how to demonstrate their progress is just not good enough. If that's too much work for ArbCom - and heaven knows your workload is heavy enough - then find some reliable way of delegating the tutoring of restricted editors back into full editorship. --RexxS (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand ArbCom's desire to ensure that our BLPs are as free from problems as possible. I would therefore suggest in this case that someone - an ArbCom member, a clerk, or an uninvolved admin - assemble a collection of diffs of problematic BLP editing by Fae and enter into a dialogue with him on how he would avoid such problems in the future. That should give you a lead on what he must do to demonstrate that he has moved forward. Obviously, the more diffs he is given to address, the more time and effort he'll need to undertake in order to illustrate his progress. That would at least be a step forward in clearly defining the problems that need to be solved. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Question by Cla68

Has Fae ever fully disclosed every single one of his sock accounts to the Committee as he was required to do? If so, please tell us that he has so the community can let that matter drop. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Changed to an amendment request as it is asking for a past decision to be changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse. AGK 07:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• No. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'm still considering this, but I will comment on RexxS's point. There are editors that I have come across since I have been on Arbcom that I would say should never have their restrictions relaxed, just as there are a small number of editors who I would be reluctant to unban under any situation, even OFFER. I will say the area I'm least keen on relaxing restrictions is on BLPs where there has been previous problematic editing.

  Now, I'm open to a relaxation, but not a removal at the moment. I will need to think about what relaxation would be appropriate - and would be interested in hearing from other committee members to see if one is even worth proposing. Worm(talk) 07:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• If there were to be any relaxation, given that BLPs are involved and with the previous issues in the BLP area, it would have to be very, very gradual. I would be categorically opposed to a total removal of the ban, but might be willing to consider a narrow exemption for some particular purpose to gauge things, with an understanding that any problems will lead to that exemption being revoked. Seraphimblade 18:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Per the above comments, I do not think a wholesale removal of restrictions is what we want to do here but I might be persuaded to support a more gradual reduction on a trial basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Tea Party movement (Malke 2010)

Information about amendment request

Initiated by Malke 2010 at 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

Tea Party movement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 1
2. Finding 2
3. Remedy 3

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement#Malke 2010 topic-banned
• Details of desired modification:

Statement by Malke 2010

This is a request to lift the topic ban on Tea Party movement. I abandoned the article in December 2010. After that I made rare talk page comments. One of the comments lead to my inclusion in the case. During the case, I participated in the moderated discussion and made positive contributions there. Before, during and after the case, I continued to write articles. The list is here, almost all of them on viruses. I've written 120 in 12 months.

If the topic ban were lifted, I would continue on as I've been doing, focusing on virology and virology related topics, avoiding political articles and politicized articles. These seem to attract editors more interested in engaging in battle for battle's sake, and I've no interest in that. Occasionally, I do vandal patrol and I would continue with that, and the welcoming committee. I'd like to help expand WikiProject:Viruses, but that will have to wait until much later in the year as RL is very busy at the moment.

• @Worm That Turned:, I do have a specific reason. As I said above, I'm not really interested in political articles, especially the issue based, politicized ones, like Gun control, etc. They're time sinks. But I do have a particular interest in Hillary Clinton in 2016, as I sure most women in America do. I created an article on Buffy Wicks, who is taking part in the run up to Hillary declaring her intention to run. Before I wrote that article, I researched carefully to make sure the Tea Partiers had not taken exception to her in any major way (because of the Walmart thing) so I would not get caught up in something untoward. In doing so, I realized, that unfortunately, the Tea Party movement touches all areas of the American political process. It's ubiquitous, like dog-poop on a New York City sidewalk. They also have an especial dislike of Hillary. It's inevitable that I could come across an article and not knowing, end up in big trouble. That would put me off doing any editing on any articles relating to her campaign, etc.

• @Newyorkbrad: sorry about the analogy, I didn't mean they were dog-poop, just that they are everywhere like dog poop in NYC. No offense intended on New York City.

• @AGK: There is nowhere in my editing history after 2010, where I engaged on topics involving the tea party or any other other political arguments, or any arguments on any topic for that matter. There's no temptation there for me, as can be shown by my history. I'm a good editor on Misplaced Pages and am not focused on political topics. I'm not saying it's wrong for others to have that focus, but your argument seems to suggest that I've always been in the thick of those matters, and I've not been. You can easily see by my record on the moderated discussion, that I was collegial and always looking to compromise and settle arguments. I did not cause problems and did not engage in edit wars or get blocked or restricted, as many of the others did.

• @Worm That Turned: What should an editor demonstrate in order to have a topic ban lifted?

• @A Quest For Knowledge: I'd abandoned the article in December 2010. I didn't see the point in it anymore. Also I was finishing graduate school, so I used the time I did have for Misplaced Pages for other articles. But about once a year after that, I'd stop by the talk page to see what the others were doing. It was always the same arguments. I'd make suggestions. Nothing changed. I'd leave again.

The last time I stopped by was in February 2013. After I'd left a comment, another editor made an incivil reply, which I ignored. Another editor came along and took it up and got into an argument with an admin over it. It looked to me like the incivil editor had asked her to come to the talk page so I made a comment to the admin about that.

Next thing I knew I was at ANI, then at ArbCom.

What went "horribly wrong?" Got caught up in the stream.

What would I do differently? I'm assuming you mean, going forward? I'd continue doing what I'm doing now. Not getting involved in those types of articles, and of course, don't comment on the editor, comment on the comment. And pay careful attention to WP:RS and policy. If you stay within those bounds, there shouldn't be a problem. And don't argue over it. Something is either RS or it's not, and you either have consensus or you don't. I wouldn't edit TPm again. The movement has evolved into something toxic.

• @Rich Farmbrough: Yes, it was a toxic environment. Some of that is due to the topic and the rest is due to the mix of editors. And on, "broadly Republican," articles, no, not interested in those.

• @David Fuchs: That's fine. I'd still like my topic ban lifted. I'd like to not have that on my record. I've been a very good editor and made significant contributions to Misplaced Pages writing and improving articles. Even when I was editing TPm, I was not contentious. I initiated dispute resolution and worked to achieve consensus. I didn't edit war or display any disruptive behaviours. I was never blocked for any behaviour problems on that article.
• @Seraphimblade: I'm not going to be editing the TPm article or any related articles. I'd like my topic ban lifted. I'd like to get that off my record and also prevent any possible unknowing breach of the topic ban.

@ARBS: Can someone please explain to me why none of you seem to be reading anything I've written here? I'd like to know what does it take to get the topic ban lifted? What specifically do I have to do/demonstrate to get this ban lifted? Thanks.

• @EdChem: Thank you, Ed. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Worm That Turned: Thanks for getting back, WTT. Yes, you're right, it should be a much longer period of time. Okay, I'll try again next year.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Having reviewed the case Malke's main error was extending SYTH and OR to third party sources. We absolutely expect, and need, reliable third parties to perform SYNTH and OR.

As Killer Chihuahua commented "The environment is toxic." and I believe that given that environment one might, in retrospect, be more forgiving of confrontational behaviour.

I believe that if the committee is not minded to grant the request, there is scope for a progressive statement making it clear that editing articles on broadly Republican (did I get that right? - ) issues is no longer within the scope of the topic ban as long as editing with respect to TP articles and TP sections of articles is avoided.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC).

Corrected alignment. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

@AGK:

1. "The dust has barely settled" - the case closed in September of last year!
2. The evidence in the finding you refer to is very weak. KC makes it clear in the last diff of their evidence that they think this is minor, "if you simply say words to the effect of "yeah, could have been more civil, will be in the future" I don't forsee any action being taken regarding your actions". It is doubtful whether Malke even warranted being sanctioned over this - there are links to other matters that suggest problems in the past, but not relating to TPM.
3. If you focus on the purpose of the request, it can easily fit in with former amendments/clarifications to the case, and draw the line around TPM a little more tightly than the well known problematic "broadly construed" - for example "Articles about the TP or TPM, sections of articles when that section mentions the TP or TPM".
4. Note that even this is probably unnecessary. Malke has been editing without problem as far as I can see for some time, and mistakes of fact or misreading of policy are easily corrected and should in no way be subject to any form of sanction.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC).

Question by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

Malke 2010, can you please tell us what went so horribly wrong last time that it required that you be topic-banned and explain to us how you plan to avoid such problems in the future? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Observation from EdChem

@Malke 2010: This finding was passed by ArbCom without dissent, including support from several still-serving Arbitrators. Whether you agree with it or not, the Arbitrators who supported it are likely to believe it is true and other Arbitrators are likely to start from the same assumption. Whether you think it is fair or not, arguing that it was flawed is almost certain to get you nowhere. Strategically, demonstrating a balanced use of academic sources and avoiding incivility in areas of controversy (ie. not near the (I presume) largely uncontroversial virology area) are more likely approaches to being given a second chance than is arguing the case was wrongly decided with respect to you. Even if ArbCom is wrong (about which I take no position), the chances of them admitting it is very low, and fighting for a reversal of their finding has the potential to be seen as battleground behaviour. You may see the topic ban as a badge of shame, and so want it removed, but the way to achieve that is to demonstrate that the reasons given for it do not apply now and leaving aside the question of whether they ever applied... that is, in my opinion, your best chance for achieving relaxation and ultimately removal of your ban. You don't have to declare that the finding is correct, but you do need to accept that it will be the starting point in their thinking. EdChem (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Malke 2010, you don't seem to mention the reason you want the topic ban lifted - is there any work that it's specifically keeping you from? I'm generally reluctant to lift topic bans without a good reason, as there are many other articles available for you to edit. Worm(talk) 14:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  I may be naive here, but neither Hilary Clinton, nor Buffy Wicks would come under Tea Party Movement, which you are topic banned from. Therefore, whilst there may be parts of the articles which link through to the TPM and you should stay away from those. You should also exercise extreme care during editing those articles, but given the fact they are about to become very controversial, you should be doing that anyway. At the moment, I'm not seeing the need for any relaxation. Worm(talk) 14:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  @Malke 2010: I apologise for taking so long to reply, I've been away for a few days. Topic bans are not dished out lightly, they are used when an editor has shown themselves to be problematic in an area. I will only consider removing them slowly, after a significant time period and with evidence of good work elsewhere. I'd also like to see good reasons for the topic ban to be removed. Now, at the moment, I've seen the good work, but not the good reasons or the significant time period. Worm(talk) 07:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Allowing a couple of days for statements from any other editors with relevant knowledge before reaching a conclusion here. My initial inclination is to allow for some relaxation but not a total lifting of the topic-ban. (A restriction against flippantly analogizing any political movement to dog poop would probably remain in place. :) ) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Decline to make an exception for H. Clinton 2016 or to amend the topic ban at all. This topic area is the object of irresistible, ongoing controversy and dispute; relaxing topic bans willy-nilly is not what we need right now. AGK 22:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• In reply to @Malke 2010:'s latest note: the onus is on you to convince us that this finding no longer poses a concern. Your request here, when the dust on the arbitration case has barely settled, does not – to my mind – do any such thing. AGK 23:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with my cohorts--if the area is likely to become one of serious potential disputes, the best option is to back off. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• I would also not see Hillary Clinton or Buffy Wicks as off limits in their entirety, though of course any portions of the article relating to the TPM would be covered under the ban. Given that the controversy over articles like these will only heat up over the coming few years, I do not believe removing the ban to be a good idea at this time. Seraphimblade 03:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• No. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)