Revision as of 20:42, 21 March 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

Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation

Initiated by NE Ent at 01:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Discretionary_sanctions

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

• NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) (I am aware of this request.)
• SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified
• Noetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified via e-mail by SMcCandlish, since Noetica probably doesn't get e-mail notices of talkpage messages)
• Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified (in e-mail also; uncertain if receiving talkpage notices]
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified

Statement by NE Ent

Back in December Arbcom '13 declined an appeal of a warning issued under the existing discretionary sanctions, and my read on the situation is that the committee really doesn't anyone wasting time arguing about whether an editor being notified was actually guilty of misconduct (a reasonable position). In a recent ANI thread SMcCandlish indicated that an arbcom page linking to an accusation that he felt unable to defend himself against was interfering with his ability to contribute to the encyclopedia. Sandstein stated during the December filing "I recommend that the appeal is declined because warnings or notifications are, in my view, not in any meaningful sense subject to appeal or revocation. Their purpose is not to restrict their recipient in any way, but to inform them about future possible sanctions, as required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings." Therefore, to satisfy both SMcCandlish's desire to be free of the badge o' shame and Sandstein's point there be a record of notification, I renotified the four editors with the most neutral statement I could come up with and substituted those notification in the log .

Sandstein however objected to this awesome solution on the AC clerk's board , so it appears that is not the notification which is important but his notification with its finding of fault. So I'm asking the committee to simply decide whether the finding of fault must remain on the case page, or whether a simple drama free neutral notification would do.

Note: if you review the case there's a minor conflict between myself and Neotarf because I screwed up and totally forgot a prior discussion we had had, which is why I put his prior notification back here

Statement by Johuniq

Please re-think this issue because the claim that "it's just a warning" are totally incorrect. A simple solution is available—issue a motion that the original warnings are vacated and are replaced with something new—something which does not declare that the recipients are guilty of a wikicrime. A simple "reminder of the importance of civility" in the motion would be sufficient.

There were exhausting discussions regarding titles, and one editor argued and argued and argued in multiple locations regarding the outcome of the discussions. That editor was not alone in believing that the original decision was flawed and so was encouraged to continue beyond human endurance. Despite the opposition, there was a clear consensus for the previous decision (and a larger consensus that the outcome should not be further challenged because any decision was better than indefinite arguing). The dispute was extremely problematic, but it continued on an on because it was "civil".

As part of the battle, an AE request was brought against an editor: Apteva, 22 January 2013.

A counter-claim followed: Noetica, 27 January 2013.

It was decided that the second claim should be closed with standard warnings issued to four editors: diff + diff + diff + diff. An extremely problematic log of the issue was then made here. The last puts the four editors who were defending the consensus decision in the same public stocks as an indeffed user.

The "warning" is unduly pompous and includes the following text:

against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages

If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic ... blocks ...

The warning strongly implies that each of the four editors had failed to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, and asserts as fact that each had misconducted themselves. That is not a reasonable interpretation of the saga. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

In December 2013, the Committee declined an appeal against these warnings, which I made in February 2013 per current procedure (WP:AC/DS#Warnings) using the then-current version of the standard warnings template. Yesterday, an arbitration clerk, Callanecc, restored as a clerk action the version of the case page that contains these warnings in the form I logged them, after they had been variously changed or removed by NE Ent and Neotarf, as can be seen in the page history. Likewise, a few days ago, an uninvolved administrator closed a, shall we say, slightly overblown ANI thread containing complaints against the same warnings with a finding that they violated no policies. This matter has therefore been discussed (to death) in all possible fora, including earlier ANI threads and ARCA requests, and has been conclusively addressed by the competent functionaries. Continuing to make complaints about these warnings is, in my view, therefore pointless and bordering on disruptive.

In my view, the log entries in the current version correctly reflect the warnings as they were made at the time they were issued. Should the Committee now prefer that the log entries be changed in some way, they are of course free to instruct the clerks to make whatever changes they consider appropriate.

In addition, it is not clear to me what business of NE Ent's (who is neither an administrator nor an arbitration clerk) it is to make any alterations to arbitration logs created by administrators. The same goes, of course, for Neotarf, who has also been editing the case page to remove logs of the warnings at issue. I recommend that the Committee restricts NE Ent and Neotarf from changing arbitration case pages, or that it adopts a general rule of procedure that restricts all but clerks and uninvolved administrators from creating or changing log entries.  Sandstein  11:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: I don't particularly oppose NE Ent's approach, in the abstract. That's why, in view of the repeated changes to the log page, I only asked the clerks to determine how the log entries should read, which they did. I think this places the responsibility for the format of the entries on the Committee and its clerks, rather than on me. What I do object to is the unruly and confrontative manner in which these warnings are contested by some of their recipients, that is, by dragging the issue from forum to forum for more than a year, in a strident and accusatory manner, with unilateral changes to log entries by involved parties and random passersby, generous doses of bad faith and allegations of misconduct on my part, and never taking no for an answer. I am disinclined to take complaints made in this manner seriously, and I think the Committee should be similarly reluctant to – if you don't want to set the precedent that even if the Committee declines an appeal, all one has to do is to make enough noise until they get their way.

In general, I think it's up to the Committee to determine whether and how warnings, notifications and the like should be logged. To date, the Committee has not made any rule about this, but the generally observed practice is to log such actions in a format like "User:Foo warned/notified per AE thread, signature." If the Committee prefers a different format, I think that it should say so and require the use of this format for all log entries, rather than only in this one case. That's also because I consider, as I have said in the many previous proceedings, that particularly in SMcCandlish's case the warning was merited on account of his conduct. I issued it because of his overly aggressive and personalizing comment to the AE thread, in a manner specifically forbidden per WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded, such as: "His (and 's WP:TAGTEAM) tendentious-to-death-and-beyond nonsense". The other commenting administrators agreed that a warning was appropriate. For these reasons, any accusation of misconduct that SMcCandlish believes to be implied by the warning and log entry at issue is, in his case at least, merited.

That said, Salvio giuliano, if you think that my work at WP:AE does more harm than good, I'm happy to quit it if you would like me to. I'm not interested in helping out where I'm not welcome to, and I really have no time for all of this.  Sandstein  16:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

I certainly don't enjoy wasting my time here, whether writing or reading War and Peace, and I don't want to be accused of being disruptive. But I'm fed up with Sandstein's stonewalling and hiding behind the technicality that once a person cannot be "unwarned" once they have been warned, so I'll just thank Johuniq for summing it up so very nicely. Please Arbcom, don't conflate the warning with the unfair accusatory part that I would like to see withdrawn. -- Ohc  12:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I forgot to thank NE Ent for not cowering to the Mighty Sandstein and for once again bringing the matter here. Yes, I would support expunging the diffs from the "notifications" as suggested, being undoubtedly the simplest and cleanest way about it. The ever elusive apology or retraction would be nice but I'm not holding my breath – I think would be like getting blood from a stone anyway. -- Ohc  08:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

My preliminary reaction to this, if it's not gamed and distorted yet again, is: yes, this will go a long way to resolving the chief concerns we've been raising for well over a year now. I am the very one who proposed this solution to begin with (and kudos to NT Ent for getting this ball rolling). The recent ANI request about this generated simultaneous suggestions to take the ethical dispute with Misplaced Pages to the level of an RFARB case, and the behavioral issues with Sandstein to an RFC/U.

Yet, if Sandstein's falsely accusatory old ARBATC threats/warnings are removed entirely or at worst replaced with neutrally-worded ARBATC notices, like what NE Ent used, the #1 issue all four affected editors have raised is just instantly resolved, painlessly. Regardless of Sandstein's intent, his warning/accusation/threat text demonstrably is being interpreted (not just by the accused) as accusations without proof, i.e. personal attacks, in direct contravention of the very ARBATC discretionary sanction conditions ostensibly being warned about! The clearly reasonable, ethical thing to do is to remove problematic wording like this, no matter why it was put there or by whom.

This fix would not necessarily resolve every issue each of these editors may have with Sandstein (and they differ), but it resolves the very serious problem for ArbCom and for WP more broadly of WP:ARBATC's notification log being misused (inadvertently or not) for blatant character assassination instead of for ARBCOM's case-administration needs. It's wrong to allow a formal WP dispute resolution procedural page like that to be used as an admin dirtlist of accusations of "continue" "misconduct" with no proof (and only against certain specially targeted editors – Sandstein himself doesn't log all editors he formally gives ARBATC warnings to, like these two, and clearly hardly anyone else ever bothers logging anyone there at all. It has set a very bad precedent and cost the project a ton and a half of good-faith, productive editorial contributions. For nothing helpful in any way. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 13:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: While what seems to be a proposal to only remove "continue to" could technically, maybe, sorta fix the wording issue, The proposal to remove "continue to" would fix the wording issue. I think it's clear that it won't really fix the broader make-an-example-of-these-punks attitude issue, which still comes off as attacking. But that's a severable matter. It Failing to address that aspect would not be a resolution in spirit. Aside from fixing the text as you suggest, The real, equitable solution is to just replace the warning/threatening character of the entire log entries with something totally neutral, as NE Ent used, or remove them entirely. I am fairly certain that a failure to treat us with neutrality will lead to one or another of the parties going the RFARB and RFC/U route, because Sandstein being in the wrong in multiple ways on his initial action is actually very easy to demonstrate. I've already done so, several times, in different places. Sandstein was not in a position to issue a "warning" (which automatically implies a finding of wrongdoing) because did not have the facts to determine any wrongdoing. He did not read the prior AN or RFC/U that led up to the AE request. I and others repeatedly pointed him to this evidence of the now-indef'ed user's previous and quite recent cases, and he refused to look at it or consider it, every time. He's bringing a Swiss court procedural rule about evidence admissibility from his lawyer day job, to an informal administrative role on a volunteer website. It's an un-wiki bureaucratic proceduralism that is worse than unhelpful here. Issuing his warning/threat without evidence of wrongdoing – willfully refusing the evidence – is still palpably a false accusation by Sandstein, just one less flagrantly worded. Retaining it here, after all these attempts at resolution, would be kind of like sanctioning civil PoV-pushing simply because it's polite and because you like the guy who's doing it. Also, he applied ARBATC logic about arguing over style/title matters, to a dispute at AE over editor behavior, despite the fact that the ArbCom has said many times that such restrictions, even direct interact bans, cannot be used to deny editors legitimate use of our dispute resolution processes. All discussions at AE (and AN, ANI, etc.) are pre-"personalized" because they're about editing behavior, not content! — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 13:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
PS: Part of why I've remained silent for so long was an expectation that surely ArbCom would just see the light and fix this, quickly. Hasn't happened. "I'll try this week to write some motions to resolve these issues. AGK 23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)" (at ARCA over a year ago). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Revised 14:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Neotarf was active just yesterday and probably would want to comment here, and has been notified. Don't know what time zone they're in. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
PS: I think you're forgetting that at least for those of us who edit under our real names here, false accusations that appear to anyone but WP policy experts to be official condemnations by Misplaced Pages for wrongdoing have more than on-wiki potential consequences. For the others, I'm not sure you get to decide what their honor is worth. How would you feel if I ran an online newspaper and one of my journalists wrote a convincing-sounding but made-up article labeling you (even just under your WP username) a sadist who likes to kill kittens , and I refused under some convoluted procedural rationale to remove the baseless accusation, and left it up for an entire year? And people told you were overreacting if you objected? :-) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 15:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Salvio: I support NE Ent's solution (and originated it, as a possible last-ditch compromise), and have issues (noted just above) with the Roger Davies version, however well-intentioned. Your alternative, "we remove the diff of the warning from the log, leaving the rest (i.e. the date and the identity of the administrator who logged the alert)" is even more wholeheartedly supported by me, and I know for a fact from all previous discussions that it's the version all four of us have always asked for (meanwhile, only I have endorsed the NE Ent solution so far.) Given that you're suggesting our original request is actually feasible, to have this controversial accusatory material voided from the log entirely, and given that Sandstein has done everything he can to obstruct resolution of this problem for a year, I formally request removal of the diff of the warnings from the log. That will completely resolve this issue, without any further question, in the most equitable way. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Revised: 14:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@AGK: I hope this gets resolved before you make up your mind on this ARCA request, if you participate in it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 23:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Sandstein's accusations, added to the ARBATC log instead of neutral logging of a notice, were about specific misinterpreted edits made at one place and time. This ARCA is about resolving that; it is not a fishing expedition to see if someone can dig up something elsewhere that Sandstein's accusation might arguably be valid about if retroactively misapplied to it. I understand your concerns about my post in Oct., the tone of which I regret in some places. When I wrote it I was not expecting to return at all, was responding to being personally attacked in grave-dancing ways that triggered someone else to track me down off-WP and notify me about it, and the entire point of the post was to get people in that debate to stop enganging in the very things ARBATC is supposed to be curtailing. My post is also over five months old now, and no one filed a complaint about it then. If someone wants to use old evidence to launch an RFARB about my Oct. post to punish me again for a non-extant dispute, fine (I say "again" because Sandstein and another admin were planning a block/ban against me for a supposed editwar that didn't even happen.) I was, back in March of 2013, boomerang-banned at AE (by Sandstein, no surprise, in a case raising serious WP:INVOLVED and other issues, like misapplication of DS to censure participation and meta-discussion in dispute resolution) for filing a request there based on old evidence and on my claims that a pattern was evident and would continue, as you do with regard to me here. (The user I made the request about and I have recently come to a better understanding, BTW.) It's inappropriate to reverse the principle here just to be punitive toward me, to make sure that my effort to vacate Sandstein's accusation is replaced with a new one, on the basis that I "might" engage in proscribed editing some time in the future. Note that the inappropriateness of "quintessentially punitive" Arb actions is not taken lightly by ArbCom. It's also unfair to make threats of out-of-band punishment for old posts in a narrowly-focused ARCA nearing resolution, where brevity and focus has been specifically requested, as it prejudices the proceedings against me, either by necessitating that I post more in renewed defense than Arbs want to read, or leave accusations undefended and presumptively conceded. I've removed several other issues I raised with your using recent good faith efforts of mine as places to try to dig for something incriminating, to shorten this response. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 08:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@All: There's a surplus of ARBATC enforcement aimed at me, but it's rarely used against anyone in fractious style/title debates, no matter how those rage or for how long. Look how short the logs at ARBATC are, and how much they focus in uncharacteristic detail on punishing me in particular (despite my clean block log) for use of dispute resolution, as Georgewilliamherbert notes below – not content debate on style/title matters, ARBATC's actual purview. Something is not right here. This enforcement is very selective, punitive and personal (i.e. vindictive and "personalizing of style disputes" - ARBATC's enforcement tends to violate what it's supposed to be enforcing). This ARCA should not take any further steps in that direction, especially since it was filed by someone else to resolve a simple matter, not further complicate it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 07:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth:: I appreciate that you're aiming to eliminate the problematic log entries, very much. I also understand your concerns about my Oct. ranting. I cannot apologize "to" a wikiproject, which is just a page editors use to collaborate, not an entity unto itself with its own hive-mind feeling (and in that one, the regular participants don't have unanimity on the issue that was being argued about). I've already cited WP:DICK against myself here in the course of apologizing for that outburst, which was not typical of my output, and won't be repeated (it was a "leave me alone and quit fighting about this crap" message by a former editor, not a normal post). Not sure what else I can do. I'll apologize for my tone in user talk to anyone in that debate who wants me to. I hope that is sufficient. But my post there generated no actual controversy/dispute, ill-conceived and reactionary as it was. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies:: Having read the current DS review material in detail, I've re-thought this, and unreservedly support your solution here, to delete the "continued to" text. It's not a total solution to every issue raised here, but they're severable, and what you mean to do is clearly a necessary part of the set of solutions to the problems. I also continue to support the idea that the DS logs on case pages should be un-diffed, and that these particular log entries be deleted as unsupported accusations. Your and Salvio's and Carcharoth's proposals are compatible, and together form the best solution. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for dealing with this! — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Noetica

As noted on this page, I have retired from editing Misplaced Pages. I thank SMcCandlish for informing me by email of the present action.

For myself, I am indifferent to the outcome here, having from the start of this sordid and desperately mismanaged affair noted Sandstein's intransigence and systematic failures of insight. I understood immediately, and said explicitly enough, that the best response when he is involved is to withdraw to another environment where reason, balance, and natural justice prevail. That was easy for me, and I have left Misplaced Pages well behind. If vindication were needed for this stance, the evidence is right here on this page, or linked from it (astonishingly insensitive statements so far by Sandstein, Roger Davies, AGK, and Carcharoth).

No, I am here for the editors who innocently spoke up when I was taken to WP:AE by a vindictive and now indeffed editor (Apteva) who caused immense wastes of time for dozens of Wikipedians – aided by deeply involved ex-admin SarekOfVulcan. The editors and admins who spoke up for me were ignored. Three editors were sanctioned when they spoke up for me (I had overtly withdrawn from my own defence, so manifestly and hopelessly biased was the WP:AE process, as were involved admins who commented in the guise of uninvolved admins, turning the decision against me). I feel a responsibility to speak plainly about the matter now, when it may help editors who suffered at Sandstein's hands.

I wholeheartedly support the idea of "an un-diffed log", so that Sandstein's mistake is removed as an embarrassment to the Project and a continuing slander on hard-working Wikipedians – or indeed, on those ex-Wikipedians whom Sandstein has casually swept from the Project in the interest of simplistic obedience to simplistic rules (his own, essentially) and a superficial appearance of good order. I may one day consider returning to offer my expertise: if Sandstein is removed as an admin, or shows recognition of his errors and apologises without reservation for his mistakes and relinquishes any connection with WP:AE work. (Other well-known admins could be named as culpable in connection with my brief brush with Sandstein's Star Chamber; but we all know how futile that would be, also. In this present forum. ☺)

Noetica (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth:

You write: "As far as I can see, the only one of the four editors whose conduct definitely warrants a note on the record is SMcCandlish." And I answer that you do not see far enough. Sandstein's unjust and out-of-process warnings that are the topic of the present action were imposed months before "that October 2013 edit". It is ludicrously unjust to continue here the hounding of SMcCandlish (initiated by Sandstein) that was then already well in train – and that provoked some poor behaviour for which he seems already to have apologised. Who else, by the way, has apologised for anything at all? Where, by the way, is your interest in warning or sanctioning Sandstein (whose actions you endorse reversing)? It is such egregious failures to separate issues and deal rationally and fairly with each of them that threaten the reputation of this forum. In light of such of a lapse of process, and of judgement on your part, I am moved to ask that you recuse from consideration of this action forthwith. For the record, I hereby request that my own original notification remain, if anything like what you propose for SMcCandlish is left on his record. Noetica (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Neotarf

Why was a topic-banned user even permitted to file an AE case, much less against the very editor who drafted the “motion to close” of their topic ban RFCU? Contrast with this clarification request, where a user with an interaction ban was immediately blocked. Looking at both the case against Apteva and the case against Noetica, I see no evidence that the closing AE admin took this topic ban into consideration, or was even aware of it. The case against Noetica should have been closed as obvious retribution.

@Sanstein: Please be accurate. I did not "change or remove any warnings in the form you logged them", I removed changes made by NE Ent, who is not an admin, and who changed them out of process, as I noted both in the edit summary and on the talk page. And the conclusion of the ANI thread was not that "the warnings violated no policies", it was "I haven't seen any evidence that Sandstein has actually violated any Misplaced Pages policies." They didn't see any evidence about you, because whether you have violated any policies or not, I have not accused you, which is more consideration than you have given me.

@Roger Davies: If the current discretionary sanctions review is going to provide some thing that will "help deal with the current situation" why hasn't it been presented yet? It has been three months since that was promised at my RFAR, and six months since the beginning of the review. The last DS review, completed in in 2011, took two years. The current proposal says none of the new policies will be retroactive.

This argument is being used in a circular manner, refusing to resolve my situation because of the ongoing review, and being callously dismissive of any of my statements at the review because my current situation has not been resolved. This makes for neither good policy nor good encyclopedia building. And it makes it look like the policy review is being conducted in order to cover up Sandstein's controversial actions. Better to lose some of us to the project, than to make a policy that does not address the needs of the project as a whole. Chances are some of us may not edit again no matter what you do.

@Carcharoth: "...what is most damaging the reputation of some of the users notified is their (by now) over-reaction to the notification, which will be remembered long after the original dispute has been forgotten.

The accusations, from over a year ago, are being made over and over again. And it's not true. But there is nothing, nothing, nothing I can point to when someone throws this in my face, to prove that it is not true.

@arbs: What would be the rationale for leaving our names on the case record? Does anyone really believe we are not aware of WP:ARBATC and need to be "notified" that it exists? All four of us participated in the case (it was my 30th edit ever, as a new user). There was plenty of chance to present diffs and to look for any problems in our editing during the case, but the committee did not see fit name any of us in the final decision. How then can AE see fit to add our names to the case decision without warnings, without diffs, and without giving us a chance to defend ourselves against the accusations? If the arbs think it's such an insignificant thing to have your name on such a list, would they be willing to add the names of ALL the editors who participated in that AE case, and not just a few of us non-admins, selected at random? Would they be willing to add their own names, and that of Sandstein as well to the list? —Neotarf (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• For the umpteen time, a review of DS is underway that will prevent this kind of situation arising in the future and help deal with the current situation. Constant sideshows are simply reducing my time to try to move the review on. In the interim, I suggest that Sandstein replaces, as a gesture of his commitment to resolving this swiftly, the current warnings with neutrally worded notifications, and updates the log accordingly. If anyone wants more than that, we would need to hear from them directly as we only hear such requests from the principals.  Roger Davies 08:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • On second thoughts, I'd like to hear from SMcCandlish. There's no point in my making any suggestions to move this forwards if they are going to to be unacceptable to him.  Roger Davies 08:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Gathering my thoughts on this a bit. All we need at this point from SMcCandlish is a brief statement setting out the issue and requesting a remedy. It does though seem to me that all this drama is about the underlined words "If you continue to misconduct yourself" as the rest of the complained about notice is in general terms. If my understanding is correct, I'll propose a motion shortly,  Roger Davies 12:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Removing the diff(s) from the log works for me too as the simplest and less bureaucratic route forward. It seems that my colleagues are moving towards consensus here so, unless someone objects and wants a formal motion, we can probably implement this sometime later today.  Roger Davies 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • SMcCandlish My choice became the de-diffing option a couple of days ago. Which has now been implemented. As far as I'm concerned, we're done here.  Roger Davies 20:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Noetica, you misunderstand. I am proposing removing the notification from Sandstein for all four of you (including SMcCandlish) and effectively replacing it with a reiteration of the reminder in the case that was applied to all the parties. None of you should need reminding, but from what I've seen some of you at least do. I agree that if more is done, that matters should be handled separately for the four of you as you have all reacted and handled yourself in very different ways following the notifications. It was trivial on scanning back through SMcCandlish's edits over the past year (apart from the recent flurry, there were not many of them) to see the ones where he added large walls of text. There are other examples beside the one I pointed out. And no, he has not gone to the talk page of that WikiProject to apologise for the tone of what he said there. SMcCandlish, unlike the other three of you, has actually been sanctioned, with a topic ban (for one month, since expired) and a current restriction that is still in force. I don't buy the argument that his conduct deteriorated after Sandstein's actions. SMcCandlish was put on notice but carried on anyway. Given what Neotarf posted to my talk page, I'll hold off on any motion for now. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear from the involved parties as well, but, from what I've read elsewhere, it appears that SMcCandlish does not object to NE Ent's solution. If that's the case, then said solution seems to be the best way forward, in my opinion. Salvio 09:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarifying a bit my position, @Sandstein: I have probably already told you this, but I think that your approach to WP:AE is overly formalistic and bureaucratic and, speaking personally, I consider this a problem. This case is a good example of your approach; you warned a couple of editors who apparently have a problem with the way the warning was worded. Now, there are two possible solutions: a. we remove the diff of the warning from the log, leaving the rest (i.e. the date and the identity of the administrator who logged the alert) or b. we follow NE Ent's solution. Both solutions, in my opinion, solve the problem, in that the new notification (or the old now-"undiffed" one) meets the requirements of form for alerts and also satisfies these editors' request not to have what they reasonably perceive as an allegation of misbehaviour on an officially-looking Misplaced Pages page. Yet you oppose NE Ent's solution. Why? I mean, what's the concrete problem it would cause? As I said, this looks the best way forwards to me... Salvio 13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• I've got to say I rather like Salvio's idea of having an un-diffed log for these cases... Worm(talk) 14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• As there has been no objection from the rest of my colleagues, I have implemented the suggestion agreed by the arbitrators above. To my mind, with the discretionary sanctions review nearing completion, this clarification request is therefore resolved. AGK 16:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with the action that has been taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Doncram

Initiated by SarekOfVulcan (talk) at 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 5

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Doncram notified by Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Information about amendment request

• Remedy 5
• I would like to have the ban removed

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

During my last RFA, the interaction ban was a reason for at least one of the opposes. It has been in place for a year. I would like to establish that this ban is no longer necessary before running again, so I ask that it be removed so I can work on establishing a track record.

@Beeblebrox - over the past year, I've adapted to a much less confrontational style of editing. I'd like to be able to prove that the ban isn't needed anymore, but the only way to do that is to try it and find out. I'm sure there are more than enough people out there who will be happy to alert you if I'm mistaken. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not asking for the ban to be removed so that I can interact with Doncram - just so that I can establish that I can avoid him without being forced to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Candleabracadabra - yes, I was asking for the ban to be removed, not to be changed to be one-sided. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth - That sounds like a good plan. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Worm_That_Turned - oh, there were definitely other issues at play there. This was the only one that I couldn't affect by just changing my behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Doncram

No way, if it is up to me, unless it is part of a complete revocation of all restrictions against me, including a ban on my editing in NRHP area, and unless there is an explicit promise by SarekOfVulcan that he shall not follow and combat me, and that should be enforceable (i.e., in effect be a continuing interaction ban). The interaction ban was a result of arbitration begun by SarekOfVulcan, following long campaign of following my edits and combatting which dragged down my reputation, including multiple ANIs and AFDs and discussion at Jimbo Wales Talk page, and so on, and which I and some others perceived and still perceive as unjustified bullying, and the interaction ban was the only good outcome of the case. SarekOfVulcan has not communicated any meaningful apology for his actions, publicly or privately; his comnents in recent RFA were patheticly inadequate. I cannot see what he could say publicly or privately that would be adequate, either. --doncram 18:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Candleabracadabra

I think that Doncram has done an impressive job of abiding by very biting restrictions on his editing. I urge the Arb committee to lift these sanctions so he can return to making positive contributions. The restrictions have been a loss to Misplaced Pages and his fellow editors. I oppose a one-sided removal of restrictions. As Doncram has noted, the problems were in large part a result of Sarek's combative behavior. Sarek promises that he has learned form past mistakes. Doncram has been punished long enough. And the NRHP editing environment has gotten worse without his presence, enormously useful contributions, and assistance to fellow editors. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify per Sarek's response, if you can avoid engagement with Doncram his editing restrictions as well as the interaction ban should be removed. If you hadn't pursued the conflict with him the ban on his editing and the ban on your interacting him would BOTH not be in place. You are requesting to remove your interaction ban so you can further your political aspirations on Wiki without moving to assist him in having his full editing priviledges restored. The loss of his ability to work on NRHP subjects has been very bad for his fellow editors and for Misplaced Pages. You should work to resolve that issue if you want your restrictions lifted and think you can be an effective administrator. Doncram masde enormous contributions to an area you r involvement in the dispute got him banned from. I don't think you should be allowed to "move on" without helping to end the dispute and helping to restore this hugely constructive editor to good standing in the article area where he did SO MUCH good. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Orlady

I tried to refrain from commenting here, but here I am, anyway. Seeing that it's been a full year since this arbcom case closed and both parties have apparently successfully abided by the mutual interaction ban, I think it would be timely to remove the imposed ban on mutual interaction and replace it with a voluntary agreement to avoid interaction.
I call your attention to some prehistory of this case that I believe is relevant background on the interaction ban: ANI discussion from July 2012. SarekOfVulcan started that discussion by expressing concern about several statements that Doncram had made about me that Sarek (and I) deemed to be serious personal attacks. That discussion led to a (temporary) voluntary moratorium on interactions (between Doncram and both Sarek and me). The voluntary moratorium was proposed by User:Cbl62 in a comment that stated, in part: I really don't care to get into a "blame" or "fault" game, but the relationship between these good people has been very negative for more than a year. ... I don't see reacting with similar venom except toward Orlady and Sarek. Given the past history, any criticism he receives from Sarek and Orlady is received with extreme sensitivity. As I see it, the principal reason for avoiding interactions between Sarek and Doncram (and between Doncram and me) was and still is Doncram's "extreme sensitivity" to interactions with Sarek (and me) -- and his history of displaying that extreme sensitivity by reacting in an uncivil fashion. Arbcom's decision to apply an imposed interaction ban (in lieu of a voluntary "ban") between Sarek and Doncram seems to have been motivated mainly by the fact that Sarek had deliberately edit-warred, violating 3RR. Given the apparent nature of Doncram's perceptions of and reactions to Sarek (and what appears to be a more severely negative perception of and reaction to me), it is understandable that Doncram would oppose any relaxation of the ban. However, both of these editors are grownups who should be able to regulate their behavior and their emotions without a ban. If the year-long interaction ban was not long enough to allow Doncram to "get over" the effects of edit-warring that occurred in 2011, that does not bode well for any future requests he might make to vacate other restrictions that resulted from this case.
I believe that both parties would abide by a voluntary agreement, and if they do so, the history of success possibly could help Doncram support a future request to review the other restrictions. --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Sarek, I have to say you haven't give us much to go on here. You want to establish that the ban is not necessary so you can run for RFA again. You wanting to be an admin again is not a reason for the committee to do anything. In other words, I would want to see something a little more compelling that "it's been a year" to reassure that the problems of the past would not happen again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• For the interaction ban to be totally removed from both parties (as SoV is requesting) so that SoV can demonstrate that he is able to avoid commenting on Doncram, we need to assess whether the same applies to Doncram (whether Doncram can exercise sufficient self-control). If Doncram can demonstrate that they have reached a point where they can move forward as regards the interaction ban, then I would consider reducing this to both being informally 'bound over to hold the peace' with a full lifting a year later, otherwise I would only consider reducing this to a one-way interaction ban (with SoV informally agreeing not to interact with Doncram for another year - equivalent to being bound over to hold the peace). The difference is that breaches of an interaction ban can lead to a block. Breaches of an informal 'bound over to hold the peace' type arrangements would lead to re-imposition of the interaction ban (at WP:AE) rather than a block. The issue of Doncram's topic ban should be raised separately and filed by Doncram himself (if he wishes to do so) rather than raised by others (as above). Carcharoth (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Years ago, while discussing an IBAN proposal on ANI, someone (can't remember who) wrote this is an interaction ban, not an interaction blame, to emphasise that interaction bans do not necessarily presuppose misbehaviour on the part of either user, but rather they are imposed when two or more people have demonstrated that, for whatever reason, they are unable to interact in a productive fashion and their interactions usually result in a massive waste of time for everyone. For that reason, even if an interaction ban is lifted, it's generally a good idea for both parties to continue to avoid each other.

  Also, since interaction bans are reciprocal in nature and are meant to protect both editors from the negative effects their interactions usually have, they should be lifted only if a. both editors agree or b. there is a very important reason to do so. The desire to run for adminship, for me, is not reason enough to override Doncram's objection. Salvio 09:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's annoying when you've written your thoughts down, only to have another arb edit conflict with you and say it better. Salvio. In summary, interaction bans are there to stop the disruption caused by two people interacting - there's so much history there that the interactions are never going to be productive. I really don't like one-way interaction bans for that reason, and agree to them only in exceptional circumstances. Having looked at the RfA in question, I don't believe the issue was the interaction ban, but rather how Sarek handled questions regarding the case. I do not see that lifting the interaction ban would be helpful, especially with Doncram's objection. Worm(talk) 10:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with the above so far as the interaction ban removal is concerned; that being that if one party to the IBAN objects to lifting it, we would need very good cause to overrule that, and "I want to file an RfA" does not meet that burden. Sarek is not barred from filing an RfA by the sanction and could explain the ban in the candidate statement if so desired. Modification of any other sanction imposed as a discretionary sanction should go through the normal appeals process for DS. Seraphimblade 16:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline, per Seraphimblade et al. AGK 16:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Cirt and Jayen466

Initiated by — Cirt (talk) at 04:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

Cirt and Jayen466 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 1
2. Remedy 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Information about amendment request

• Remedies: Remedy 1 and Remedy 2
• Details of desired modification: Narrow exception to engage in quality improvement projects for pages previously brought to quality levels, listed at User:Cirt/Contributions.

Statement by Cirt

1. Hello, I'm asking the Arbitration Committee to consider a narrow modification to remedies (1) and (2) from the case Cirt and Jayen466.
2. I'd like to be able to maintain and improve further in quality articles I'd previously helped bring to high levels of quality.
3. In the interim since the closure of the case I've been placed under the mentorship of The Rambling Man and under this guidance, successfully taken a page approved by the Arbitration Committee, to Featured List quality. See: (Motion by Arbitration Committee) and (promotion of page to Featured List quality)
4. In addition I've focused on quality improvement projects to bring articles to higher levels of quality -- this has resulted successfully in three (3) Featured Article promotions, seven (7) Featured Portal promotions, twenty (20) Good Article contributions, and one (1) Featured List.
5. Specifically I'd ask the Committee to amend the case Cirt and Jayen466 by motion, so that I would be permitted to maintain articles I'd previously improved to high levels of quality, and embark on quality improvement projects for pages listed at User:Cirt/Contributions, to further improve them in quality to WP:GA or WP:FA.

Thanks for your consideration,

— Cirt (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: I'd of course welcome a full lifting of the restrictions. But I'd also most appreciate this narrow exception so I could both maintain articles I'd brought to WP:FA in the past, and hopefully bring other articles I'd brought to WP:GA to higher levels of quality. I'll let the Committee consider either one of those options. And thanks very much to Lquilter and Carrite for your most kind comments about my content work and quality improvement efforts. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Thank you for recognizing that it's been several years. I'd appreciate any lessening of restrictions at all, full or otherwise, that would result in my being allowed to expand my quality improvement projects to include past WP:GA and WP:FA contributions. — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: I certainly didn't mean for that statement to apply to my Featured Content contributions. I do feel badly that I had problems in those topics in the past. As for my Featured Content contributions -- I'm fortunate that my quality improvement projects that I've successfully helped improve to Featured quality are all due to collaborative cooperation and feedback from multiple contributors at multiple stages of review. — Cirt (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Thank you for mentioning my WP:FA quality improvement effort on the film about freedom of speech and censorship, Fuck (film) -- I found it most interesting that after all that discussion, the WP:TFA-day, itself, went by with more of a whimper than a bang, and didn't cause much controversy on the day of the Featuring of the article itself. My goals if the restrictions were removed would be to further improve in quality pages I'd previously already worked on at User:Cirt/Contributions. These include several non-controversial articles, such as the articles I'd previously raised to WP:GA quality: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) -- I'd like to improve those to WP:FA quality. — Cirt (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: You mentioned Fuck (film) -- so if you haven't noticed from my user talk page post about it, I'm currently working on a quality improvement project for the article on the book, Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. Both the film and the book deal with the history of the word as related to freedom of speech and censorship. So it's kind of the second WP:FA-level quality improvement drive for me along a theme of freedom of speech and censorship related to the word. And second FA-level quality improvement drive on a book about freedom of speech -- as a follow-up to Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. Thanks for your interest in my quality improvement projects, — Cirt (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Thank you for this specific request. Examples of specific articles I'd like to work on, that I can't now because of the restrictions, fall into two categories: (1) Articles I helped bring to WP:FA that fall within the topic of new religious movements, and (2) Articles I helped bring to WP:GA that I'd like to be permitted to improve to WP:FA. A specific example of the former includes 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack -- I noticed a bot left a note on the talk page back in 2011 that there were now dead-links in the article -- this has remained unaddressed by the community in the years since then. Specific examples of the latter include: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) -- I'd like to improve these to WP:FA quality. Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) are all novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard that I took to WP:GA quality. Hopefully by working on further quality improvement on these articles, I can demonstrate to the community that I am capable of NPOV high-level quality improvement within the topic. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: Thank you for this specific request. (1) WP:GAs I'd like to work on include the following: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) (novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). If the Committee wishes to expand this further, I would be more than honored in their trust in my motivation to perform quality improvement projects to bring additional WP:GAs from User:Cirt/Contributions to WP:FA. (2) Per your request, I've notified Jayen466 (diff). — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Yes I nominated Fuck (film) to WP:TFAR. But I thought I mostly left others to speak on those issues at the TFAR discussion itself. I certainly was not trying to raise a "degree of controversy" from the featuring of the article on the Main Page -- I was merely trying to have a discussion and let the community decide whether the article should be featured on the Main Page. The community had that discussion. The community decided, per the assessment of the close at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film), by a final tally of 52-25, to feature the article on the Main Page. I am actually quite glad that no significant controversy of any kind arose from the featuring of this article on the Main Page. And I would have been glad that a dialog was stimulated about freedom of speech and censorship related to the documentary and its discussion of this taboo word. Please, Carcharoth, don't penalize me for my high-quality Featured Article work, outside the topic ban on another topic, bringing an article to FA on a subject of freedom of speech. I tried to comport myself with civility during the discussion which resulted in a majority of the Misplaced Pages community deciding for featuring the article on the Main Page. I don't think I should be penalized for utilizing community processes at multiple stages of review, including GA Review, Peer Review, FAC, and yes, WP:TFAR as well. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Thank you for those quality improvement suggestions, improving the "core" or "vital" type pages of freedom of speech and censorship would indeed be most ambitious tasks. I don't think I've ever tried before to embark on a quality improvement project for a "core" or "vital" page on Misplaced Pages. I personally enjoy working on more focused topical articles, that way I know that in the course of my research, it is actually possible for me to read literally all of the secondary source coverage about a particular topic. That's what I did for my most successful WP:FA drive for Fuck (film), it's what I did for Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, and it's what I've tried to do in the process of research for my most recent WP:GA quality improvement project on freedom of speech and censorship, at Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth. Carcharoth, specific films and books as opposed to the general main "core" articles on a topic also have a defined beginning, middle, and end, so it's comforting to know that once my research is completed into certain articles they will be a near complete representation of scholarship on those topics. I certainly hope my WP:FA contributions on freedom of speech could help serve as models for quality improvement for other articles on the topic. — Cirt (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Maybe we should ask David Fuchs to improve the article Video game to FA status instead of Super Columbine Massacre RPG!. Personally I commend David Fuchs for all of his WP:FA quality contributions. If you look at Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, it doesn't look like David Fuchs has contributed FAs on "core" or "vital" articles like Video game, itself. I think this is for similar reasons as I described, above. That is, it's easier to read the majority of secondary source coverage about a niche topic rather than a wider topic, and then be assured that a quality improvement project on that article covers the majority of all of the secondary source coverage on that topic. I'm grateful for the Wikipedians at Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations that have improved core vital articles on Misplaced Pages, but also quite thankful for those at Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations that have improved to FA status more niche articles as well. — Cirt (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@AGK: I understand your concern that you feel the request was problematic. In response to other Arbitrators' comments, I stated specifically that WP:GAs I'd like to work on include the following: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) (novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). Hopefully the more specific request makes things less problematic to consider. — Cirt (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I understand your concern that you feel the request was problematic. In response to other Arbitrators' comments, I stated specifically that WP:GAs I'd like to work on include the following: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) (novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). Hopefully the more specific request makes things less problematic to consider. — Cirt (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Guerillero: / @In actu: I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope I can demonstrate to you and to the community my desire to improve articles to WP:FA quality within the topic. I'd like the Committee to consider allowing me to embark upon quality improvement projects for WP:GAs including: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel). I previously successfully took these articles to WP:GA quality, and I'd like to have a chance to further improve them in quality further. — Cirt (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Lquilter

• I didn't follow this original issue, but came upon it while working with Cirt on intellectual freedom issues over the last few months. A few comments:

One, I'm not sure why the original order seems so unbalanced: Cirt's alleged misdeeds seem relatively minor, and characterized more by sloppiness than ill-will. But they got two perpetual bans on content editing -- one very, very broad! all political-related bio articles -- AND status change (de-sysopping). The other editor's alleged misdeeds I personally find more troublesome, and there was very little remedy attached -- just a warning. Both users appropriately were restricted from interacting with each other.

Two, the original order is overbroad -- the restrictions on Cirt are not time-limited, and they're really broad.

Whatever the reasoning behind the original order, I suggest that in light of the time passed, and its breadth, that it should be reconsidered. Cirt is, in my experience, an exemplary editor, who has contributed a lot to Misplaced Pages content. From conceiving of the Intellectual freedom portal, bringing it to fruition, advancing it to "Featured" status -- and doing the same with a lot of content in that section, Cirt has been an awesome (in the sense of inspiring awe, rather than in the Bill-and-Ted sense) contributor to Misplaced Pages.

Cirt just asks for a minor modification. I have no idea why. The content restrictions should be completely lifted, since they should have been time-limited in the first place. The desysopping is already time limited, because it can be re-added with a request. User interaction orders could reasonably be perpetual, and I express no opinion about the ones at issue here.

Lquilter (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• PS: An Arb asked for an example of articles Cirt can't work on. Marjorie Heins, a First Amendment lawyer and scholar, is one such example. I came to this discussion because in seeking additional eyes on the Marjorie Heins article, I was told by Cirt that he couldn't work on that article because of the content restriction. So that's my perspective -- Cirt is doing really good work on the First Amendment / free expression sections, but can't work on the biographies in that section. In looking at the original remedies, it seemed obvious that (a) the remedy was really broad -- over-broad in my view; and (b) it should have been time-limited to begin with. --Lquilter (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

I urge that the editing restrictions against Cirt be totally lifted. I think the original action against him was a vendetta, that the matter was decided wrongly, and the resulting punishment mindbogglingly draconian. Cirt has lost tools and done his time in the penalty box, time to return him to valuable content work. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement The Devil's Advocate

This request should either be for a full lifting of the topic ban or identify specific topic areas where he wishes to resume editing. Any granting of the request as framed would be little different from granting Cirt the ability to resume editing in all the areas where his prior activities were a problem. If Arbs feel he can be trusted with those articles then they should presume he can be trusted with any articles in those topic areas. Should they feel he cannot be trusted with those articles then it should be a question of whether he can be trusted with some topic areas he is banned from or none.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

I don't see any compelling reason to allow Cirt to touch anything related to Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard unless we want to be back here in a year or two you yet another RfArb. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• At first blush I'd agree with TDA that drawing a bunch of narrow exceptions seems like hairsplitting at this point; either the restrictions en bloc should be appealed or single, article-by-article exceptions granted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• That's my impression as well. It's been several years. If the restrictions are no longer needed for some articles they should no longer be needed at all and Cirt should be able to keep himself out of trouble. I'm not 100% convinced that is the case just yet but I don't think lots of little modifications to old sanctions is a route we want to go down at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• I'm getting a sense of deja-vu here, I'm afraid. Five or six years ago, there were serious issues with your editing. You declared these fixed as a result of mentorship by Durova. While it is true that you did much featured work, it is also true that these included many articles on books and film which were critical of Scientology. In these, by your own admission and against policy, you placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices. If these now need work, it is probably better, for the foreseeable future at least, if that work were done by someone else. I cannot support this request.  Roger Davies 23:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Cirt, for providing the summary Brad requested. May I trouble you to produce a complete list of prohibited articles that you'd like to work on, with a short descriptor for each indicating which part of your restriction it's covered by? For example L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology); Typewriter in the Sky (Scientology; L Ron Hubbard novel); etc. Incidentally, have you yet notified Jayen466 (the other party to the case) about this request?  Roger Davies 18:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Cirt, one of the things I look for in people coming off topic bans or site bans is an ability to work quietly and avoid areas that may be potentially controversial. In that vein, I noticed your comments relating to the request to feature Fuck (film) (one of the articles you worked on) on the Main Page (your TFAR request - after that rather heated discussion, this article ran on the main page on 1 March). If the restrictions were removed, would you actively seek out potentially controversial areas (and engage in discussions about the response to the article within Misplaced Pages and in external media), or would you make a conscious decision to edit quietly? Carcharoth (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Cirt, I think you've misunderstood what I was getting at with my comment. When I talk about someone editing quietly, improving articles and putting them through review processes can be done relatively quietly. Nominating an article to appear as TFA is different again, and draws more attention to a topic, and attention of a different sort. What I'm saying is that I'm wary when I see an editor topic-banned in one area nominating their work on other articles at TFA and at the same time taking an interest in the degree of controversy that may arise from the featuring of those articles on the main page. It feels a bit too much like part of the motivation was to see what the reaction would be (I suspect the effects of filters and blocking software may have skewed any reaction). I would prefer to see an editor that was topic-banned finding a quiet area to edit in that they have a moderate interest in and can be dispassionate about, rather than returning to areas they are passionate about. Hence I would be reluctant to grant the request as it stands. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Cirt, one way to stimulate a dialog about freedom of speech and censorship would be to work to get those two articles to featured article status. That is much harder than working on narrow, specific topics. But it also gives people a wider view of the topic area, rather than focusing the topic through a specific film or book (such as the one you mention: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties). Anyway, I'll leave it there, as the focus of this amendment request should be elsewhere (if you want to follow-up on my talk page, feel free). Hopefully we will have an update for you in a few days time. Carcharoth (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• My gut instinct is to be hesitant about a removal of editing restrictions since, as Roger says, we've all been here before. Fool me once, etc, etc. The description of the scope of the proposed relaxation, while marketed as a limited relaxation, is not that far away from blanket removal; Cirt says he wants to "embark on quality improvement projects for pages listed at User:Cirt/Contributions", which is a very long list, containing many articles in subject areas that have previously been a source of problem and conflict. And, as David Fuchs says, it's probably better to either grant article-by-article exceptions, or just remove the restrictions.

  Remedy 2 (the BLP restriction) specifically says "if Cirt conforms his future editing to applicable policies and the principles set forth in this decision and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs, he may submit a request for amendment after one year from the date of this decision seeking a relaxation of this restriction". It's been 2 1/2 years. It's time to either relax it, or admit that suggesting how it could be relaxed was a mistake.

  After some thought, I believe I support revising Remedy 1 so that it only prohibits editing articles related to Scientology, and undoing Remedy 2. I would suggest instead something more tailored to the Finding of Fact, such as "Cirt is prohibited from placing undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs, and from following poor sourcing practices. If he is determined to be doing so at WP:AE, original Remedies 1 and 2 can be reimposed by any uninvolved admin." Or something to that effect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Cirt, can you please give examples of specific articles you'd like to work on, that you can't now because of the restrictions? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• The drama and trouble caused by a restriction tends to rise in proportion to the number of exceptions and clauses added to it, especially when they are added some time later. Also, I find the framing of this request unsatisfactory. What, for example, exactly are the articles "previously improved to high levels of quality"? That list, impressively long though it may be, is not iterated here. More worryingly still, "Pages listed at User:Cirt/Contributions" is a list with contents determined by the sanctioned editor himself. We cannot have a topic ban with a scope decided by its subject. I would deny this request. AGK 00:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Given the history here, I would for the moment prefer to see Cirt request to edit one or a few specific articles with plans to improve them, and might be disposed toward granting such a request. I don't see the request for a complex modification as workable, though, and am not prepared at this time to support lifting the restriction wholesale. Seraphimblade 23:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)