This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lightbreather (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 8 May 2014 (→Statement by Lightbreather: I second Andy's motion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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: Abortion

Initiated by Anythingyouwant (talk) at 22:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 9

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Information about amendment request

• Link to remedy
• Request: Termination

Statement by Anythingyouwant

This seems like an opportune time to request lifting a topic-ban imposed on me in 2011. ArbCom has just finished a case (gun control) in which my contributions were scrutinized, so making this request now seems timely given that I am fresh on your minds. I was “indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed”. During that case, I repeatedly made very clear to ArbCom that I objected to accusers going over the word-limits, and said that I would not exceed my word-limits to address accusations which exceeded the accuser's word limits, unless given permission by ArbCom to do so, and I was not given permission. I don’t know what your rules say now, but back then they said this:

I made very clear my objections to violation of this rule, and my intention not to violate it.

As to the two accusations back then which I did not address for the reasons described above, they were mostly false. On the first, all I did was quote a book, not realizing that a later edition changed the quote, and I didn't object at all when I was corrected (I was even thanked for correcting a further error made by the person who corrected me). On the second accusation, I made a policy edit merely intended to clarify what the policy already said, it would not have advanced my position anymore than anyone else's even if it had been a new policy requirement, I said upfront that it related to an article I recently edited, and I did not refer to the policy at the article talk page until weeks later (long after other editors had discussed and modified my edit at the policy page, and without having had any intention to refer to the policy---which intention unfortunately cannot be proved).

Even if you regard these accusations and the remedy as legitimate (I don't), then perhaps you might think that several years is "indefinite" enough. I'd appreciate that. If you would like further diffs to substantiate any of this statement of mine, then just ask. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@NYB: Brad, I have not looked at Misplaced Pages’s abortion-related and pregnancy-related articles in several years, so I cannot say how I would be inclined to edit them. I have no desire to dive back in anytime soon, at least not in a big way, that’s for sure. Eventually, maybe I’d start a new sub-article; in May of 2011, I made this comment at one of those pages, suggesting creation of a new sub-article about biological facts that are cited by either side of the abortion dispute (I said "there isn't any comprehensive article on this subject, and it would be good to have one, at least as a sub-article of this Misplaced Pages article"). So, I might want to someday work on something like that. I think the issue that really got me into trouble at the main abortion article (i.e. the real issue) was that I supported keeping an image that had been in the article for a year, showing what it is that is aborted in a typical abortion (which occurs at about 8 weeks after conception/fertilization). So, I might support inclusion of something like that; Misplaced Pages has a no-censorship policy ostensibly, and I think removal of such an image without consensus violated that policy and others (especially when you consider some of the images that Misplaced Pages does allow in its articles). But I have no desire to jump back into this anytime soon. At the very least, I would have to get back up to speed on the subject, and on the coverage that Misplaced Pages currently provides. I certainly am not going to edit any of these articles if I am under a sanction that says "Anyone can topic-ban Anythingyouwant for the slightest bullshit reason." Been there, done that.

Regarding "misrepresentation" of sources, I will not do one little iota of a thing differently, because the accusation in this case was phony. As for editing policy pages, an arbitrator once told me: "This is Misplaced Pages, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals." But I understand now that more care is needed when editing policies based on non-hypotheticals, and would exercise same.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mastcell, you know very well that the user in question denied (repeatedly) that the Nazis were tyrants, and said that they were in a worse category than tyrants. I said repeatedly that I was not accusing that user of having any sympathy with Nazis, while trying my damnedest to disagree with that user's absurd () contention that they were not tyrants. Mastcell, let me just say right here in black and white: you are accusing me of a hideous offense knowing very well that it is false. And I find this entirely typical of you. If people want diffs, I will provide diffs. MastCell dragged me through countless unsuccessful administrative actions in the past that failed because they were frivolous. But he hit the jackpot by exceeding his word limits in this arbcom case. And I fully expect Arbcom to do his bidding again. I say: go for it. I hope it makes you feel proud. You can see that MastCell makes me mad, and if being mad is against ArbCom rules, then go ahead and drop the boom. Your comment below is utterly disgraceful, MC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Arbitrators: Before this case was officially closed, I made further protests regarding the word limits to both the drafting arbitrator (at his talk page) and to ArbCom generally. No one said one word about any misinterpretation of the rules by me, or that they could be circumvented by using talk pages. I am inclined to withdraw this request right now, but instead will let it keep going for awhile more. I don't expect that there will be any further requests from me on this score, so it will be a firm lifetime ban. I note that you have not said a word of criticism about MC's accusation below. So I infer that you are unconcerned about lies and character assassination, which are your necessary tools for controlling Misplaced Pages content.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@AGK. I went and looked at the evidence page for this case, and it says nothing about "1000 words".Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nor did Your manual say "1000" back then. It said "500".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not raising this procedural issue belatedly; I provided diffs today pointing to where I raised the issue in 2011, and I raised it repeatedly. Considering that I raised this issue at least four times back in 2011 at the Arbcom case pages, it might have been nice if someone had, you know, answered. I was not aware that evidence in my own defense could have been presented in unlimited quantities at the evidence talk page (I thought all evidence was subject to the same 500-word limit, and it sounds pretty ridiculous to have a limit that can be exceeded at will). In any event, the evidence presented against me by MastCell was certainly over his 500-word limit, and it was on the Evidence page rather than the talk page. I responded to NYB above, regarding how I would edit the articles if allowed to, plus you can look at my history. But I do think that the bogus nature of the proceedings in 2011 is relevant to whether the remedy imposed was ever necessary. The BS accusation that MastCell makes below is just like the BS accusation he made in 2011. At some point, you have to wonder who you're associating with by editing at Misplaced Pages. You guys and gals have fun.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade, heaven forbid that ArbCom should even slightly frown at someone who goes around falsely accusing me of labelling someone as a Nazi sympathizer. That is the most outrageous accusation I've faced yet at Misplaced Pages, but I guess it's all background noise for you guys. Yes, I combat crap like that. And you combat me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Malke 2010 and Writegeist, thanks for chiming in, I'm grateful that you've watchlisted this page. Arbitrators, I apologize for getting overtly angry about MastCell's accusation, which seems like the latest in an endless string from him. Shrinks say you shouldn't bottle up your feelings, but maybe it's best to do so when dealing with your committee.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@NYB, after protesting violation of word limits with no response, I did finally try to defend myself at the proposed decision talk page without presenting any evidence (because I was not given permission to do so), and that occurred after eleven arbitrators had already voted. I still have not been offered any opportunity to present evidence in my defense, and in fact have been criticized here at this page for "re-litigating" even though I have not presented any evidence at this page about the accusations back then. You have no idea what evidence I would present in my own defense. Moreover, I find your assertion that I misrepresented a quote (by not realizing it had been changed in a newer edition of the book) to be just as inappropriate as your deafening silence in the face of an accusation here at this talk page that I called anyone a Nazi sympathizer. In my life, I have never seen such baseless, frivolous accusations against anyone. Even if you agree with what happened in 2011, you really think that warrants a lifetime topic ban? Sheesh. MastCell referred back in 2011 to the image I linked above (he did so immediately after he obtained the topic-ban against me), and he refers to it again in his comment below. I therefore assume that this is mainly a content dispute, and that the other accusations are basically window-dressing, which explains why no one was ever interested in evaluating them per proper procedures.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@NYB, you folks are never going to accept evidence from me in my own defense, and you are never going to strike accusations presented in violation of your own rules. There is only one editor at this page who has made scurrilous bad faith accusations worthy of a site ban, but you folks have chosen to be most gracious toward that editor, and most unfair to me. Hey, it's your website, so you can do what suits you. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

Brad, you asked what Anythingyouwant would do differently if his sanction is lifted. His statement boils down to one word: nothing. He's still re-litigating the ArbCom abortion case, not to mention his push to include fetal images in the abortion article which began more than 7 years ago. His recent editing in other controversial areas doesn't inspire confidence; while he was not sanctioned in the gun control case, he didn't exactly cover himself in glory either, falsely accusing one case participant of being a Nazi apologist and nearly challenging another to a duel. What basis is there for lifting this sanction? MastCell  03:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Writegeist

Re. comments by Anythingyouwant and AGK on the permissible length of evidence. The instruction at the Evidence page is clear: Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. As Anythingyouwant rightly says, he complied with the instruction and his accusers didn't. (And was the rule-breaking evidence from his accusers refactored or removed?) Further, Anythingyouywant says he requested equal leeway and it was not granted. I.e. his disadvantage was not only known, it was actually enforced. So it concerns me to see AGK discount a cornerstone of Anything's submission with "named parties have a 1000 word limit on their evidence (not 500 words as claimed)." If AGK is presenting fiction as fact, I trust AGK will now strike the comments. Otherwise, I await AGK's supporting evidence. There's a strong whiff of kangaroo about an arbitration proceeding that's weighted against the accused by enforcing one written rule for the accused and another, unwritten and contradictory, for the accusers. Writegeist (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Malke 2010

Agree with Writegeist. And I can see why Anythingyouwant is feeling so frustrated. He's not being heard. The accusers should have had any of their evidence over the limit removed as would have been done to anyone else. Anythingyouwant kept to the limit and clearly pointed out where the others had not, yet nothing was done. That would make anyone angry and certainly leave them with a terrible frustrated sense that they'd not been given ample opportunity to defend themselves.

As for the diffs by MastCell, I don't see anything there that the other side wasn't doing. He wasn't topic banned from Gun control for a reason. I think that shows right there he's capable of editing the Abortion article again. As for any concern over his wanting to put photos into the article, he's stated he'd only do that with consensus. He doesn't seem to be saying he'd do as he pleased. There are many articles on Misplaced Pages with necessary photos that don't suit everyone including Anencephaly. An RfC on the question would easily resolve any issue.

I know you're all very busy with these cases and it's sometimes easier to just discount an editor when he gets angry, but as I'm sure you realize, if you ruled against everyone who got angry on Misplaced Pages we'd not have any editors. I think this is worth putting a kettle on and having a second look.

Statement by Collect

Where a process has been used in an unequal manner, the claim that no change would have occurred had the process been handled equally - is weak. The argument that a person who raises this argument is ipso facto going to be found wrong is weaker. And the argument that the complainant was wrong about the 500 word limit is weakest yet. I have no idea on whether the sanction ought to be modified, all I know is the arguments made against it fail to convince me otherwise. Collect (talk) 14:54, 8 May 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

• Considering. Question for Anythingyouwant: If this request is granted, what, if anything, would you like to edit that you can't as of now, and how, if at all, would you edit it differently from how you did previously? Note to newer arbitrators: see also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge (2007 case involving same editor under prior username). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • When we voted on this case in 2011, although I joined the finding of fact, I expressed discomfort with one or two of the specific diffs cited. In retrospect, I might have pressed harder that those diffs not be included. I also regret if there was any miscommunication at the time about the word limit (I've never supported strict enforcement of the word limit that interferes with a party's responding to allegations), but Anythingyouwant did respond to the allegations about sourcing and policy-page-editing to some extent on the proposed decision talkpage, which the arbitrators would have seen. Most important, I don't believe that even if the disputed findings had been omitted, the ultimate remedy would have been any different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Anythingyouwant, I haven't endorsed the misrepresentation finding here. To the contrary, although my memory is not perfect, I believe the diff describing the "misrepresentation of sources" is the specific one I found troubling at the time and would not have included in the decision. I understand now, and understood at the time, your argument in opposition to this finding, which is that you were unaware when you cited the 1979 edition of Black's Law Dictionary that there were later editions (the dictionary has actually been completely rewritten by Bryan Garner over the past few editions, see here) and that the citation from the later edition was actually to an example quotation in Black's rather than the definition itself. In terms of your request to lift the topic restriction, I personally might have been open to some relaxation (though not a complete lifting), but it's a moot point given my colleagues' comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Per discussion on my talkpage, I withdraw "you were unaware ... that there were later editions" and substitute "owned the 1979 edition and didn't believe the definition in question had changed in any later edition." Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. Somehow I get the feeling that lifting this sanction would not lead to an improvement of the editing environment in the relevant topic area. As a side note, since you are fresh on our minds, I'll also add that it's probably a good idea if you choose to voluntarily stay away from contentious articles for a while... Salvio 09:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline, I don't see any persuasive argument for lifting this remedy at this time. Worm(talk) 09:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Unusually, this request is made on the grounds that there were procedural improprieties in the original case, and specifically that the complainant had insufficient space in which to respond to evidence against him. While I am sympathetic to the pressures of being accused from all sides, I reject these grounds because: (A) named parties have a 1000 word limit on their evidence (not 500 words as claimed); (B) rebuttals to evidence can be made on the Evidence talk page; and (C) none of this is relevant to whether the remedy imposed is still necessary. Decline. AGK 11:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline A request like this needs to present a compelling case that if the sanction were lifted the user would be able to provide positive contributions in the areas they are currently not allowed to edit in. This request does exactly the opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• In addition to the history here, the combative attitude shown here does not give me any confidence that allowing Anythingyouwant back into a highly charged topic area is a wise idea. Decline. Seraphimblade 19:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per Salvio. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Gun control#Gaijin42 (topic banned)

Initiated by Lightbreather (talk) at 15:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

"https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Gaijin42_.28topic-ban.29"

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

• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scalhotrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thenub314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gaijin42 and Scalhotrod notified here and here.

Statement by Lightbreather

Yesterday, Scalhotrod removed a "See also" link three times from the Gun politics in the U.S. article, as documented here: , (scroll down), and . Rather than then make a fourth revert, he unilaterally moved/renamed the article, as documented here: (I reverted it and asked him to talk about it first, but he moved/renamed it again.)

Within hours of these edits, this discussion was posted on Scal's talk page by Gaijin42. I don't know what the Wiki-term is for this, but it seems like coaching to me. It's not specifically about gun control, but it's related to material Scal had been warring with me over off-and-on for five days. Is this kind of behavior OK?

@Beeblebrox @Seraphimblade @Salvio_giuliano et al. - I took this off my watch list earlier but just now realized that Scalhotrod has started making comments about my behavior here. Should I be responding to these? Because, of course, there are at least two sides to every story and I will defend myself if this is the place to do it. Else, could you ask him to please stop commenting about my behavior in inappropriate places? I'd honestly prefer that he start something specifically about me if he has a beef with me and my edits in general. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I second Andy's motion to reconsider Gaijin's ban. Lightbreather (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42

I provided a direct quote to a policy/guideline. Something I do for many users, including Lightbreather, for which she has specifically thanked me for. including her mentioning my helping her with policy multiple times during the ArbCom case. In this case, I did not edit any page or talk page of gun control, and did not discus any edits, arguments, or editors involved.

I had planned on asking for a clarification of the topic ban myself, but was going to wait for things to calm down first User:Gaijin42/GunControlArbClarification Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Gaijin asked for the following to be copied to this page:

"I asked for clarification of the ban just above. That request had a specific reference to the SYG article. The edits were not "boundary testing". They were made in good faith that either the ban did not apply (because SYG is not a law that in any way addresses "governmental regulation of firearm ownership"), or that if it did WP:BANEX would apply as the content removed was both a copyvio and a BLP violation (WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME) to GorillaWarfare if the scope of the ban is anything related to guns, including second or third order effects, please clarify the scope for me, like I have asked for multiple times. A ban on "guns" is much broader than "gun control" and if that is the way it is interpreted, I am particularly concerned that the "people and organizations associated with" bit is effectively a ban on all governments and politicians. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)"

• (Iselilja (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC))

Statement by thenub314

(edit conflict with above)

I found the move frustrating, because it was clearly the type of edit that people would like to discuss first. But there was no discussion and it seemed to be a somewhat heated move that was directly in response . I admit my knee jerk reaction was to move the article back and start a discussion but I found I lack privileges to move over redirects. In hind sight that probably saved me from a heated edit. But the unlevel playing field also adds to the frustration. But I too find the coaching (or appearance thereof) concerning. Thenub314 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Malke 2010

Agree completely with Beeblebrox's comment. Gaijin42, a lot of admins came to your defense and asked that you not be site-banned. I also supported you. It's disappointing that you are persisting with this. My best advice is for you to take everything associated with this topic off your watchlist. Find some other topic area on Misplaced Pages and start improving that area. Getting involved with something else will make a difference.

Statement by ArtifexMayhem

The following edits were made after five arbiters here advised the editor not to test the limits their topic ban,

• 00:40, 8 May 2014
• 00:41, 8 May 2014
• 00:43, 8 May 2014

I am at a loss to understand how the editor could possibly think that editing the Stand-your-ground law article would not be a gross violation of their topic ban. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc

I have blocked Gaijin42 for two days for breaching the topic ban with these edits which blatantly relate to the interaction of gun control and the stand-your-ground law. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

I note that most of the comments in the 'Arbitrator views and discussion' section pre-date the above statement by Callanecc concerning a further clear violation of the topic ban. Accordingly, I ask that those ArbCom members who have not yet done so reconsider their position, in the light of this evidence. It seems to me self-evident that #Gaijin42 is unwilling to comply with the topic ban (the edit being clearly within "the social, historical and political context of regulation") and accordingly must face the sanctions that were made clear to him when it was imposed - namely, that he be indefinitely site-banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. His assertion that he was asking for the scope of the topic ban to be clarified prior to making the edit can hardly justify his actions - if he didn't understand the scope, the onus was clearly on him to get clarification first, not to make an edit, in the hope that it was out-of-scope. This was not the action of a person acting in good faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: "tangentially gun related as best"? Really? The edit in question involved the word "shot" five times, along with "shooting", "bullet wounds", ""threatened... with a gun" and ""licensed to carry a gun". That doesn't look 'tangential' to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: I have no idea what you are trying to prove by linking diffs to Gaijin's edits. I have clearly already seen them, since I have pointed out the gun-related content in my above post.

Regarding WP:BANEX, I could see the merit in Gaijin's claim that WP:BLP was being violated - but that wasn't what he said in the edit summary. Instead he made vague statements about 'vandalism' (which is clearly not relevant if one takes Misplaced Pages's understanding of the term) or a 'hoax'. Given that he knew that any gun-related editing was going to be contentious until the scope of the topic ban was clarified, the onus was surely on him to make it entirely clear that he was citing WP:BANEX to justify his edit. It should also be noted that Gaijin made further edits to the article, where WP:BLP was irrelevant - in an article that discusses firearms, and laws relating to their legitimate use. An article which Gaijin had explicitly mentioned in his request for clarification over the scope of the topic ban: as he himself wrote, the subject is 'often associated with gun rights/gun control, so may be covered by the "social context" clause'. Common sense says that having asked for clarification, and having explained why he thought that the article might be in scope, to carry on editing it anyway might result in sanctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Scalhotrod

I have several comments to make about this issue. First, this "clarification request" is in my opinion the result of WP:Wikihounding by User Lightbreather as indicated by her comment here. Second, I personally fail to see how an article related to self-defense is anything but tangentially gun related as best. The last way I would characterize Gaijin's actual edits to this article as a "gross violation" of his topic ban (see list above). I disagree with the Andy's extremely broad application of the banned subject. The article in question is far more about legal and civil rights issues than "guns". Gaijin has asked repeatedly for this exact clarification. Third, the accuser (Lightbreather) in this case has begun to openly allude to her bias or viewpoint towards gun related articles and the associated editors here and here. In the absence of the topic blocked editors, this User gone on what I would describe as a "gun related article binge" that is leading myself and others to question the neutrality of the edits. This has been observed by one User here along with an outright accusation of WP:OWNERSHIP activity here. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, reply

• 00:40, 8 May 2014, edit summary "unsourced, possibly vandalism/hoax additions", removal of a completely unsourced section titled "Questionable cases" that appears to be copyright vio content from here
• 00:41, 8 May 2014, edit summary "citation needed", tag added, nothing to do with "guns" in the content
• 00:43, 8 May 2014, edit summary "already discussed in first sentence of this paragraph. This statistic is limited to one study in florida, not represented correctly", again - nothing to do with guns

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• It is obvious front he way that Gaijin's staement on the talk page was framed that he was aware he was skirting the edges of the TBAN. This is unfortunately all too common in the first weeks of such a ban and our reply in the first instance is generally to inform the user that if we see further testing of the limits of the ban it may become a siteban. Gaijin's cute little explanation here is as transparent as the ham-handed phrasing of the original post.

Gaijin, you are topic banned from this area. What this means is that the committee has determined that the project would be better off without your involvement in this one area, but that you are valued as an editor otherwise. So, I strongly suggest you simply take any page even remotely related to gun control off your watchlist and just leave it alone. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Essentially what Beeblebrox said. A topic ban means to stay entirely away from the area, not to stand on its sidelines and shout suggestions to other editors involved. It is clear that Gaijin42's message was posted in response to an ongoing debate in the area covered by the topic ban. If this type of behavior continues, I expect blocks at AE or further consideration here will be the result. Being banned from participation in the area does not mean to find clever ways to remain involved and pretend not to be, it means to stay well clear. Seraphimblade 03:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Salvio. "Stand your ground" is a legal regulation which in the vast majority of its invocations covers the use of a firearm. Many of the laws even mention various points about firearms specifically. It is, as such, clearly and unambiguously covered by the topic ban, yet Gaijin42 edited there right after being cautioned that further boundary testing would be met harshly. (I don't consider SYG to even be on the boundary, it fits the wording of the topic ban very closely indeed). I'm very strongly considering whether we need additional action here. Seraphimblade 20:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with my learned colleagues. Gaijin, further instances of boundary testing will probably lead to sanctions. Salvio 09:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe that a two-day block for Gaijin's most recent violation of his topic ban is much too lenient. The restriction in question was imposed as a last chance. In the week following the closing of the case, Gaijin first tested the boundaries of his sanctions, was warned in no uncertain terms that further instances of such conduct would not be tolerated and what did he do? Befire this request was even archived, he blatantly violated his topic ban again. In my opinion, a much harsher sanction is needed. Salvio 15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed with all three above. Decline. AGK 11:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with my colleagues. T. Canens (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Reiterating the warning and suggestion to remove gun-related articles from your watchlist, and declining the request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• No action needed. Re Salvio giuliano's point, your history is correct, but I don't think we need to do anything further, as much harsher sanctions will follow inevitably in the event of any further violations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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.

@Beeblebrox: @Worm That Turned: and all Arbcom members that have found my mention of future paid projects offensive. I apologise for mentioning this in my statement. It is completely irrelevant to this request and I have struck it. It was never my intention for this to be read as a criticism of the Committee. I understand how this was read as an attempt at manipulation of the Committee or a way to make a martyr out of myself. I hope the Committee can now ignore it. --Fæ (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In the light of views for keeping a core restriction and gradual relaxation, I would like to suggest a simple amendment to relax the topic ban to introducing sexually graphic images or adding new information about living people's sex lives or sexual identity to articles unless there is an existing consensus to do so. This would enable expansion or creation of LGBT related articles and BLPs, including adding portraits or images such as the Wellcome Library's posters, historic images such as my restoration of an 1869 Park and Boulton photograph or cultural illustrative photographs as part of the forthcoming Wiki Loves Pride. As a good practice, I intend to stick to 1RR for both BLPs and topics related to sexuality. After six months, I would hope to appeal this remaining restriction for further amendment or removal. --Fæ (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

Worm that Turned, acknowledged as resolved. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 12:47, 6 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)

  I've had a little while to think about this and have a few ideas on a possible relaxation. However, @Fæ: I have been struggling with your request due to the way you've framed it. AGK may have used evocative language but his point is well taken - if the ban is affecting your future livelihood, then that is unfortunate but should not be relevant to the Arbcom's decisions. It should not be down to the Arbitration Committee to ensure your livelihood - if you insist on tying your income to Misplaced Pages, you make damn sure to follow the rules. Raising the issue of future employment appears to be an attempt at manipulating the committee, similar to the behaviour which landed you in the situation in the first place.

  On top of this, you've implied that you are restricted from areas that you don't appear to be. Suffrage, for example, is about gender, not sexuality - and if you cannot tell the difference between those terms, you should not be working in either area. LGBT cultural outreach should not require you to be editing the BLPs. If you are leading by example, there are many non-BLP LGBT articles. The Assyrian statue you checked with us that it was outside the scope of the restriction, we agreed. There wasn't confusion there, no Arbs suggested it was a problem.

  @Cla68: per this, Fae needed to pass the committee a list of his accounts prior to being unbanned. I, for one, was satisfied with his disclosures and consider the matter resolved. Worm(talk) 12:08, 6 May 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)

Fully agree with Worm's statement above. Sorry Fae, the best interest of the project, not your paycheck, is our bottom line. We already do the worst job here and we don't get a penny, so forgive my lack of compassion for your alleged inability to make money from your involvement with this volunteer-run non-profit organization. Now, if you want to drop the martyr act, show a little humility, and discuss ways in which your sanctions might be slowly eased back on a provisional basis, I am still open to that, but if you want to just appeal to our sympathy with your inability to get a Wikipedian in residence job, well, that's your own problem and your own fault. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the preceding comments. There is a core of restriction that should stay in place for now, but the boundaries may sweep too broadly. I have no interest at this stage in the issue raised by Cla68. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Worm That Turned that "sexuality" is quite different from "gender." Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Worm That Turned's statements above, but I am not yet sure if I agree with some of my colleagues that the restrictions should be relaxed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)