This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 100 | ← | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 13:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
HotCat is a JavaScript program that helps registered users easily remove, change, and add categories to Wikipedia pages. It has a suggestions list that will propose existing categories for auto-completion. It can be activated via Preferences so no reason to prohibit this one.
Beyond My Ken, I think the "similar tools" is a very vague definition. HotCat can be used to add/remove categories and change sortkeys. Since this does not make any visual change I would like to avoid people using the ArbCom "similar tools" defintion to complain that I use automated tools. HotCat is a semi-automated tool. Some may claim that Visual Editor (VE) is also a semi-auomated tool since using VE I won't directly edit the wikicode but I think the community agrees that using VE to edit a page is accepted and does not require any extra permision. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Mkdw, my question is actually about HotCat. If you think, for saving time, that the clarification can be more general to include more tools please do.
Xausflux said that "don't start making hundreds of edits an hour with it though". I don't plan to but since all the discussions we had were, from my part, mainly about multiple editors editing habbits and how to form a strategy for that in the future, I would like to comment on that. I don't recall any restriction to my editing rate. Recall that from the last case the editing rate was never said to be an issue. Moreover, adding categories (using HotCat or any other tools) is a commonly accepted behaviour.
Last thing: It's true that HotCat does not allow multiple page editing so it won't affect my edit rate in that manner. It just makes life easier for editors. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The full text of the sanction involved is below.
I'd like to ask Magioladitis what kinds of edits he envisions making using HotCat, and why not being allowed to use HotCat at present is inhibiting his current editing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I was slightly involved with this issue previously, and would like to note that while prior use of tools such as AWB provided the means for contentious editing, the method of placing any individual edit was never a cause of concern for me. What I did see as an issue was the effects from the way these tools were used, when used in a rapid and continuous manner. That being said, I'm in general support that using tools to help improve the project can be beneficial and support relaxing this restriction. I would also caution that should this lead to a return to high-speed, repetitive editing - especially of a cosmetic nature - it is likely to end right back in the tedious dispute resolution systems. So for HotCat - sure, go make things better - don't start making hundreds of edits an hour with it though. — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think any motion is needed here, just a clarification that HotCat is not AWB-like. It most definitely is not. It doesn't pull up lists of pages, cannot be used to make cosmetic-only changes, and doesn't do any type of general fixes. It only adds categories as directed by the editor. Magioladitis is able to use it under his current restrictions, as far as I'm concerned. I do applaud him for coming here to seek clarification on that point before he gets started, though. That's a rather major departure from previous behaviors that led to the sanctions (ask for forgiveness, not permission). If that new trend continues, I would probably support starting to cautiously reduce the restrictions in the near future. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Hell in a Bucket at 18:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I was put into an I-ban with a banned user some years ago [ [1]]. This ended up with the other user being site banned and to my knowledge they have not returned and will not. I'd like to take ownership for my part in escalating that case. My intentions were good, they were based on what I viewed as the best for our encyclopedia. I do with the benefit of hindsight see that while that users behavior was inappropriate in many things legitimate harassment did end up happening to her and taken on the whole it would be pretty overwhelming for anyone. I think in the end every single editor walked away being dirty and not clean even those who had nothing to do with the actions that lead to other site bans. I took a wikibreak (technically retired a while) and that did the trick of helping me completely disengage not only from that but the entire Dramah Boardz in general. I was completing a few degrees and I had reason to take a class on gender and the psychology surrounding it and I can only express my regret on my ignorance of how pervasive gender bias can be. I learned that while I do not have a hardcore sexist view I would fall into a benevolent sexism. I mention that because in self reflection I realize how big of an issue it can be and why all editors here should work to make this a gender neutral platform. I intend to support that in whatever way I can while at the same time avoiding contentious debates. I do not see much use in an active sanction anymore when I've shown that for years I can leave the site and I have well and truly dropped that stick. Many many people tried to explain to me some of the above but because of my level of engagement I didn't see that. I will voluntarily not engage that user if she should ever come back and I would also make the following commitment. Lightbreather as I understood it mostly took issue with me calling out the sockpuppetry , calling her a liar and general willingness to be call out repeatedly confront what I percieved to be problems rather then walk away even in situations I was not involved directly. I understand these actions helped make the problem worse. I will not look for that user, I will not interact with them if I suspect sockpuppetry nor file public reports (let me be clear that would be an extra-ordinary thing and would have to be in my face, on my page otherwise with little to no edit overlap I doubt I'd ever come into contact with that user again). I would send a private message to an arbitrator to have them address that situation. I don't even have plans to rehash the incident here on wiki with anyone, it's done. I wasn't perfect, I've learned and attempted to make the best out of a situation that will help me grow as a person and editor here. Lastly I apologize to those editors that may have believed I was doing this purely based on a person gender, that to me was not my intention and I will work very hard to make sure no one on this site will ever think or have reason to think differently.
@ User:GRuban it would prohibit me from a fresh start and yes it can be used as a weapon too against me. I am not looking for a fresh start, my record is what it is warts and all, but if ever I should want one it would be sockpuppetry if I did and it would at least help rehabilitate my record a little. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 17:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
So we've got two possibilities: (1) Lightbreather stays away, so removing this sanction does nothing. (2) Lightbreather returns, at which point we have to ask why we removed this sanction without even asking her opinion.
Why don't we leave this up, and should L return, ask her how she feels about it? -- GRuban ( talk) 16:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@ GRuban: I think most editors consider an IBAN as a mark against another editor's record. If Hell in a Bucket went for an RfA, this would come up as a significant black mark, and I dare say there are other venues that I can't think of. If both editors are active, then the ban can be appealed, and, if accepted, this will show up on relevant logs. Furthermore, sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. This IBAN is serving no further purpose. Admittedly, repealing it serves no effective purpose, but it may serve a purpose in the future. I don't see any reason to prevent editors from appealing IBANs when the other party has behaved in such a problematic manner that they've been sitebanned. All this means is that editors who are more likely to have been goaded into a conflict have no way to "get their record expunged". ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I am still in contact with Lightbreather. If Arbcom is requesting a statement from her, I could ask. It might also be a good time to review her site ban as well and possible vacate it. It's been years since this case, both editors have had time away.--v/r - T P 18:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Vacate the iban. Both parties have atrocious block logs (although most of Hell's blocks are quite old), and both of them violated the ban at least once, but the request here is eminently reasonable and seems to reflect some real introspection into why this was needed and why their own behavior was not acceptable. (I would also say that as far as I can recall I've never seen such a request where an opinion from a banned user was solicited, and whether Lightbreather's ban remains in place is an entirely seperate issue and her opinion on this is not necessary to come to a decision) Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
As a drafter of the Lightbreather case, support the proposal to vacate this iban - was necessary at the time and is redundant now. Separately, seems reasonable to review Lightbreather's siteban if it turns out that they're interested in coming back. But understandable if they have better things to do given the deeply unpleasant offwiki harassment they experienced at the time. -- Euryalus ( talk) 08:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
No particular thoughts for or against the request, which is one that I could equally propose in relation to an old IBAN that lies against me where the other party has also gone. However, regarding the point that TParis makes, I think Lightbreather is still pursuing the same agenda off-wiki as got her into trouble on-wiki, so suggesting that her situation be revisited is probably not going to be helpful. Unless, of course, the blogs, social media etc I am thinking off are not in fact her but some sort of impersonator. I'm not linking to them so please don't ask. - Sitush ( talk) 11:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Tend to agree with Euryalus and the requester. In more detail, an extant I-ban implies there is an ongoing problem to prevent, but there is not. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and all that. If a restriction no longer serves a purpose it should be vacated, since we all know these things have a Scarlet Letter effect.
I also agree with TParis's suggestion that LB should be asked directly to comment, and that whether restrictions against that editor need to be retained at this stage at all is worth examining. Remedies are supposed to be preventative not punitive. If LB were to return and re-engage in the same disruptive behaviors, then another site-ban would likely ensue on the double, so this seems very low-risk. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The Lightbreather fiasco probably marks the nadir of the recent Arbitration Committee regimes, where a committee majority actually voted at one point to direct women sexually harassed over their Wikipedia editing not to fight back. [3] One of the reasons given for site-banning Lightbreather was that she made off-wiki attempts to confirm the identity of the person who was engaging in sexually harassing her off-wiki. [4] She suspected a Wikipedia editor seh had an ongoing dispute with and was eventually proved correct. As I recall, some of the information off-wiki included a picture of the harasser he had posted himself to Wikipedia (to compare to a picture of himself the harasser had posted to his userpage on the sexsite involved in his off-wiki harassment). Lightbreather acted with considerable restraint: The harasser had posted his real-world identity to Wikipedia, and it was easy to track down information about his family , his job, and his membership in an organization quite important to him. She could easily have massively disrupted his personal life. She didn't. There appears yo be no evidence she did more than act to stop the harassment.
I'd also note that the harasser made efforts to turn up real-world identifying information about me, and implicitly tried to enlist other users to help, made off-wiki communications prompting a porn performer to make legal threats against me, then posted links to the threats on Wikipedia, and made palpably dishonest and abusive comments about me and other users, yet nothing was done to him for such behaviour -- until he went far beyond the pale in his attacks on Lightbreather. Even now, although he's been been WMF-banned, his confirmed identity as Lightbreather's principal harasser hasn't been reported here.
ArbComm ought to vacate the entire Lightbreather decision, except for the sanctions against Lightbreather's offwiki harassers, and institutionally apologize both to Lightbreather and to the community for its misguided actions. Removing a "cloud" from users tainted by aa horrifically flawed a decision as this should not be so selectively as to further demean the editor most unfairly treated by it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 00:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
As long as Lightbreather remains site-banned, this request seems pointless to me. I'd ask Hell in a Bucket this question: as long as Lightbreather remains site-banned, what is there to gain from this interaction ban revoked, or what is lost by having this interaction ban in place? If the answer is "nothing", why change the status quo? We can worry about this if and when Lightbreather is unbanned; until then this might as well stay in place. Banedon ( talk) 01:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Semantic note only. To the arbitrators, the best word to use for “the sanction was good at the time but we’re ending it now” is probably “terminated.” Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The interaction ban between
Hell in a Bucket (
talk ·
contribs) and
Lightbreather (
talk ·
contribs) enacted taken over in
the Lightbreather case is vacated rescinded.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Can I have my page creation and page move restrictions removed please. I have made more improvements to article as was pointed out in the previous review. I have expanded User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish and also created User:Crouch, Swale/Risga. I realize that it is important to create articles which are notable and have a good amount of content. At User:Crouch, Swale/To do I have identified pages that need creating, although not all have been identified as being notable, thus I won't necessarily be creating them all. I therefore suggest that as I have had these restrictions for a year now, I should have them removed with the same conditions as the July removals (per WP:ROPE), that they can be reinstated if needed, although I don't think that will be needed. I have discussed with Euryalus ( talk · contribs) this appeal to get advice, however unfortunately Nilfanion ( talk · contribs) hasn't been active here since July. My priority is to finish of creating the missing civil parishes in England, of which I should (at least for the villages) be able to add location, distance, population, Domesday Book, name origin, surrounding parishes and church. I have contributed sensibly to naming discussions, although I have had a few disagreements, I haven't received any warnings about it and the main purpose of RM is to discuss controversial (or at least reasonably likely to be controversial moves). I have also contributed (and initiated) some non-geographical moves such as Talk:Attention Seeker (EP) and Red Meat.
I have serious concerns about this user's level of competence, clue and ability to communicate reasonably based on recent interactions, so I'd advise against lifting the restrictions based on that. The user has needlessly and irrationally obstructed reasonable, uncontentious editing on my part. I had PRODed The Students' Union at UWE with the rationale that the subject was not notable and was already sufficiently covered in the parent article. This was, by all accounts, an uncontentious situation, but the user stonewalled attempts to have the article deleted anyway, first via PROD, when they apparently wanted a merge but failed to state any rationale or follow the proposed merge process, and then subsequently at AfD, where they continued repeatedly insisting on a merge, yet failed to, in any way, to present any argument against, or understanding of, my assessment that a merge was unnecessary due to the relevant content already being in the parent article. As an admin I often encounter this kind of obstructionism in users with problems with collaboration or OWNership, and this kind of conduct thoroughly discourages users, and if I were just some random newbie just trying to contribute to the project in good faith, and then encountered this kind of bizarre obstructionism from someone who won't even acknowledge my arguments, I'd probably be thoroughly disillusioned. My experience suggests a lack of ability to communicate and/or resolve disputes reasonably and effectively, and those are essential in the areas the user is asking to be unrestricted from. Regards, ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I would like to ask Crouch, Swale to explain their statement:
Re "If the [ WP:RMTR] page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area": Just for the record, contested RMTR requests are often (perhaps in the majority) contested by non-admins; anyone can contest a speedy rename, in which case it goes to full RM discussion. It's more of a consensus thing than an admin judgement thing.
As to the request, I agree that a ~30% failure rate at RM is iffy. (I don't have any particular opinion otherwise; I don't recall interacting with Crouch much, and while I'm frequently active in RM discussions, it's not often about placename disambiguation.)
I'll also add that I learned the hard way (with a three-month move ban several years ago) that returning to manual, one-editor's-judgement page moves in the same topic area in which one's moves have been deemed controversial is a poor idea. It is best to use full RM process (or RMTR when it seems very unlikely to provoke any objection from anyone) in such a case, not only for drama reduction, but to actually establish a solid consensus record for the pattern being proposed for those articles. Even if some of the opposition seems to be personal rather than fact- or policy-based. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
point about my question of the existence of a place is– I think it helps us to understand the quality of your judgment as an editor in this topic area.Thank you; but I understand what contributions you are making (eg renaming articles so that the place is disambiguated in the title). The point is that, so far as I can see, these contributions are not always helpful. Granting your amendment request would involve giving licence to do more of that. Would you please comment on this? AGK ■ 13:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The restriction on new article creations imposed on Crouch, Swale ( talk · contribs) as part of their unban conditions in January 2018 is modified as follows:
Enacted - Mini apolis 17:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by FkpCascais at 00:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians, for the ones that don´t know me, allow me to shortly introduce myself. I am 39 years old proud Wikipedian from Portugal, with Serbian and Czech parents who grow up in Mexico. As only child, encyclopedias were my company since I remember. When I discouvered Wikipedia it was love at first sight. I have been around for more than a decade and I have created over 900 articles. Although I work on something completelly different, my main hobbie has been editing football here on Wikipedia. My passion for football has nothing to do with hooliganism or tendentious editing towards teams I support, but rather about history of football, specially in Yugoslavia and Austro-Hungary, with lists and statistics, and with migration of footballers. I also edit history, aviation and automotive industry, ammong others. I got involved in a content dispute at Talk:Skanderbeg#Skanderbeg_origin,_sources. I presented numerous sources to back my point. My intention was just that the view expressed in those sources was properly added in the article, not even highlighted, but just not dismissed as obscure theory as it was pretended by the other editors. When the other editors decided to dismiss my concerns, I tried to ask for help at ANI ( diff of the end). User:Deb had an extremelly constructive approach, however User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, with which I had several disputes in the past, made a total turn and sugested boomerang, which was imposed by Sandstein. I can admit I could had been more patient, I could have dropped it earlier, I even troughout the ANI showed regreat. It was a content dispute, I had numerous reliable sources, it was just needed someone to help us solve it. I believe I was punished too severily. I asked several times Sandstein to at least allow me to edit football during the 6 months, an area I never had problems and had nothing to do with the issue in hand here, he denied me that as well. This was a content dispute basically solved by punishing me for not giving up. And the punishment is way too excessive, 6 months in which I am forbiden to work on the numerous projects I am working at. I ask please the community to reconsider what happened here.
I have sockpuppets making fun of the situation at my talk page because I was the editor who fought against their insertion of POV edits. Wikipedia cannot deal with socks of indef-banned users, but decides to ban me for 6 months. Thank you for showing how litte serious this project is. I will not edit chinchillas. Good bye. FkpCascais ( talk) 22:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I recommend declining this appeal.
Insofar as the topic ban as a whole is contested, the comments by FkpCascais in the original AN discussion and in the appeals to me (I remember several, but can now only find this one) and to AN leave me with the impression of a person who is more emotional and impulsive than most other editors, and who is set on portraying Balkans history from a particular point of view. As such, they are not well-suited to edit in this tension-laden topic area.
Insofar as an exception for football-related edits is sought, I am of the view that it should not be granted, at least not initially, because football in the Balkans is often a focal point for political tensions. As I wrote in the ban message, I would like to see a relatively long period of collegial, productive editing by FkpCascais in other topic areas before I am open to relaxing the topic ban, first as relating to football and then entirely. Sandstein 11:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to note, an appeal of this ban was filed by FkpCascais at WP:AN on 22 December. [10] It was archived without being closed. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
It's difficult to defend this editor based on those sandbox posts, but they have contributed positively to the football WikiProject over the years, and I see no reason to extend the ban that far. As many of the users on the ANI thread supported not blocking football articles, I would modify the TBAN to any Balkan-related topics (any topic relating to: Slovenia; Croatia; Albania; Bosnia & Herzegovina; Serbia; Montenegro; Albania; Macedonia; Kosovo; Bulgaria; Greece; Turkey; and Romania - and if I missed anything obvious, my lack of listing that country is not an excuse) with the exception of any Serbian-related football article for an arbitrary amount of time, possibly shorter than the six-month TBAN (in which case any football article would be fair game for editing.) Historical Yugoslavian articles would be okay as long as the player or team is Serbian; edits on Yugoslavian leagues or cups would be okay; edits on any non-Balkan league, player, or cup would be okay. as they would be currently. Any violation of this restriction during the time frame would result in a full ban for disruptive editing. SportingFlyer T· C 06:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Ferahgo the Assassin at 22:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I would like to formally appeal my topic ban from the “race and intelligence” topic area. I believe it is appropriate for this ban to be lifted for three main reasons: 1) The topic ban is quite old now, and I have engaged in no contentious or otherwise inappropriate behavior since I returned to editing four years ago; 2) I am now acquiring professional expertise in an area adjacent to this topic, which has been considered under the ban, and 3) I have fulfilled the requirements given to me by the arbitration committee when I first appealed the topic ban about nine months ago. Details below:
Last April, I made a request for clarification about the bounds of my topic ban. I made this request in order to understand whether I could use my professional expertise in behavioral genetics—as I am now more than halfway through a Ph.D. in this area—to improve the encyclopedia. ArbCom concluded that I should not be editing articles about intelligence or behavioral genetics in general, even if they don’t involve race, as long as I'm under a "race and intelligence" topic ban. They also weren't willing to lift my topic ban at that time, but said they would reconsider the request after six months of productive and issue-free editing in unrelated topics.
I have now met these requirements: It is over eight months hence, and during this time I have made over 500 edits, mostly to topics related to paleoartists and especially to the Paleoart article, which I have recently raised to "Good Article" status.
It has been quite difficult to research and improve these articles while simultaneously studying an unrelated topic in graduate school. My graduate work has involved doing research, attending conferences, and publishing papers related to behavior genetics and intelligence research, with others in press (please let me know if you’d like to see examples of my research privately). I humbly submit that with my topic ban removed, I could help to improve many articles in these areas that have been off-limits to me since before I began my Ph.D.
For example, one of my projects, just completed after 2 years of data collection, relates to mental chronometry. Wikipedia’s mental chronometry article is one of the articles that I was told last April not to edit as long as I’m topic banned. I wrote the first half of it in 2010, beginning with the early history of MC, and left the article in an unfinished state when I was topic banned in October 2010. In the time since then other editors have made minor additions, but the article is still in substantially the same state that I left it in more than eight years ago, because no one else has had the ability and motivation to add a complete summary of modern MC research. For a long time, the article was tagged as being in need of being updated.
I think that when considering the necessity of a topic ban, ArbCom should take into account the effect that an editor’s absence has on encyclopedic coverage of topics that only a few people are both motivated and knowledgable enough to write about here. Other examples I provided last April of articles in great need of improvement include gene–environment correlation and polygenic score, both of which are also topics on which I’ve done research.
Happy to answer questions, provide detail of my history in this area, and further credentials if requested. Thank you for your consideration.
@ Ferahgo the Assassin:, last year you mentioned a prestigious award, which I believe was from the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) which on the face of it is a respectable organisation. But our article doesn't tell the whole story. For instance, this book [13] mentions its 5th conference in 2004, saying
Of course that's just one author discussing something that occurred 14 years ago. But then there's the lifetime achievement award given to Arthur Jensen, [14]For much of their time the attendees listened to talks about how general intelligence might differ in men and women, blacks, whites, and Asians.
a major figure in Race and intelligence. And then there's an article this year in the New Statesman [15] about the "London Conference on Intelligence" held several times at University College London and now being investigated at UCL. [16] which led UCL's President and Provost
to commentThe New Statesman article saysI personally have no support for eugenics and I regard it as complete nonsense. I am appalled by the concept of white supremacy and will not tolerate anything on campus that incites racial hatred or violence.
The article is worth reading. The involvement of Linda Gottfredson and the Pioneer Fund, Richard Lynn is to say the least not encouraging. I'd like to know what you think of their views. It would probably help if you could give us details of any other awards or grants you've received.The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field. Yet Richard Lynn, who has called for the “phasing out” of the “populations of incompetent cultures”, serves on the editorial board of Intelligence, along with fellow director of the Pioneer Fund Gerhard Meisenberg, who edits Lynn’s journal Mankind Quarterly. Two other board members are Heiner Rindermann and Jan te Nijenhuis, frequent contributors to Mankind Quarterly and the London Conference on Intelligence. Rindermann, James Thompson, Michael Woodley of Menie and Aurelio Figueredo, all heavily implicated in the London Conference on Intelligence, helped to organise recent ISIR conferences. Linda Gottfredson, a Pioneer Fund grantee and former president of the ISIR, famously authored a letter in the Wall Street Journal defending Charles Murray’s assertion that black people are genetically disposed to an average IQ of “around 85”, compared to 100 for whites.
(in this section, because I am no longer an arbitrator)
The question of differences, particularly intellectual differences, between those groups of people who have ben traditionally called "races" is a question to be determined by scientific evidence. It can be settled not by people's prior conceptions, but only by the analysis of data. . There are those who have misused scientific evidence in the past, to form one particular conclusion, and many of them did it for racist motives (racist not just by current views, but at the time also). I am among the great majority here who hope very much that the scientific conclusion will be that there are no such genetic differences. Many people who think this way, "believe" that this will be the conclusion, or think the scientific matter is settled. I think they are letting themselves fall in the trap of thinking the world is as they would like it to be. Ruling out with possibility of one particular side of a scientific question being right in the absence of firm scientific evidence is prejudice. We have no business asking questions to determine any editor's beliefs, nor do we have any business in even discussing what the beliefs of an editor may be.
In editing WP one should not let one's personal beliefs enter the editing. If one does let them interfere, and the result is disruptive , one can and should be blocked, regardless of whether these beliefs are socially approved or disapproved. If an editor were to edit the relevant articles and expressedthe view that those on one side were prejudiced and the other not, they would be displaying bias, and a display of bias is likely to cause disruption. This is equally true whether the majority of us do or do not share the bias. There is no reason to ask anyone for a statement of what they think the state of a particular scientific question is. The only possible matter of relevance here is whether they have edited disruptively.
I therefore think the above discussion of her views , or where she has received grants, or whether or not her views are associated only with fringe scientists is inappropriate.We can only be concerned with someone persistently injecting their personal views into an article, or using their personal views to inhibit discussion, and I feel we are under a moral obligation to judge that without regard to whether or not the majority, or even the great majority, of the community agrees with the views. The only acceptable way to avoid articles being biased by racism is to include proportionately all the views, just as the only acceptable way of dealing with racist academic views is to do work that disproves them.
Here is the real problem: I am fully aware that in practice the community has taken a different attitude to this depending upon whether or not they agree with the views experessed, but I think that is wholly illegitimate and an example of blatant bias. We should be trying to prevent this, not join in it. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
In any case, I guess I'm on the skeptical end. I recognize that this ban appeal is likely to succeed, and that's fine, but... there has been a history of apparent deception in the use of this account. And there's a weird pattern where Captain Occam emerges, gets sanctioned, and then Ferahgo immediately pops up asking to have her sanctions lifted. I can't escape the feeling that we're being played.
I'm also not particularly reassured that we've seen the end of the efforts to use Wikipedia to promote the idea that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites. Sure, mental chronometry seems like a harmlessly esoteric subject, and I know next to nothing about it. But it was apparently a hobbyhorse for Arthur Jensen, whose efforts to prove the inherent inferiority of blacks were notoriously funded in part by the white-supremacist Pioneer Fund. So that's enough to give me pause. Anyhow, it looks like a done deal, so I guess here's hoping I'm wrong. MastCell Talk 00:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
AGK ■ 18:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Although I opposed it, I'm happy to note this motion has passed (8–2) and received votes from all active arbitrators. After another day or so, absent any vote changes – would a clerk kindly implement at your earliest convenience?
The editing restrictions placed on Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk · contribs) as unban conditions in March 2014 and modified by motion in September 2016 are modified as follows:
These modifications will be subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the former editing restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the above modifications are to be considered permanently enacted.
Enacted - GoldenRing ( talk) 10:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Sandstein at 11:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The Rambling Man is subject to a Committee-imposed civility restriction. By motion of 13 December 2018, the Committee decided that, if "in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block, or other sanction, is warranted a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA." Such a request is hereby made.
On 29 January 2019, Vanamonde93 made an arbitration enforcement request against The Rambling Man, linking to various diffs in which The Rambling Man violated their restrictions. I identified additional violations in my assessment of the request. Enforcement action is therefore required.
The Rambling Man has previously been blocked for up to two weeks for similar conduct, and this has not deterred them from now continuing to engage in such conduct. A block of 48 hours or less would therefore, in my view, be ineffective in preventing further misconduct. By the terms of the motion previously referred to, the decision about which action to take is now the Committee's. Based on the generally accepted principle of escalating block lengths, I suggest a block length on the order of a month.
Because there is no indication that The Rambling Man understands, or is willing or able to abide by their restrictions, I also suggest that the restrictions should be lifted because they are ineffective. They should either be lifted entirely, or be replaced by a topic or site ban of a scope and duration to be determined by the Committee. Sandstein 11:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Words fail. The last time we were here it lasted months and ended in an amendment that was voted on while it was being reworded and that then failed at the first time of asking. I suppose if Sandstein keeps this up, eventually the result he is searching for will be delivered, infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters and all that. The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
AGK, do you mean the sanction whose wording was modified during voting last year? Is that the one? If so then quite probably yes, it could be interpreted that I questioned the competence and motivation of editors who had suddenly started editing those items which were on my watchlist. Mea culpa. But that Sandstein can comment on the AE, then close the AE himself after little time, and then start this ARCA, when the previous ARCA has not been enacted even once... well it speaks for itself. AWiley has it spot on. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde, which would have been fine until Sandstein got involved on his continued quest to escalate the block despite the last ARCA. I do note you have been editing around areas that coincide with me lately, you'd never edited Warnock even once until you undid my revision, but I'm certain that's a coincidence. Perhaps you received off-wiki notification? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Drmies, as noted, happy to avoid you entirely (and have actively tried to do so actually), but when you made your first edit ever to the Warnock article with an edit summary that said "How is that a controversy? also, who cares", if you had known anything about the situation, you'd have known that quite a few reliable sources did consider it controversial and thus many, many people did care, for myriad reasons. Sorry for the harsh edit summary but you were very wrong on both counts of your own edit summary. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Arbcom, please can we address the issue with Sandstein's overt lack of alignment with the community and his involved stance, in particular here where he commented on this sanction, then closed the discussion prematurely, then opened an ARCA discussion prematurely? Time after time it has been demonstrated that he is too involved here to be independent enough, and his involvement clearly has a chilling effect, hence the lack of commentary on the prematurely and incorrectly closed AE report made by involved admin Vanamonde. If this is not addressed, then we will be here at ARCA once again as soon as Sandstein sees fit to make the same involved and incorrect decisions. The Rambling Man ( talk) 23:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Doug Weller, indeed, that Sandstein both got involved at the AE, then unilaterally (and incorrectly) closed it while opening this wasteful ARCA at the wrong time, needs further investigation. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that Sandstein should recuse himself from cases involving me, and these are just further examples that it appears he cannot take an independent role in such matters any longer. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Joe Roe, you're entitled to that view, but that effectively renders the months of debate the previous ARCA went through completely obsolete. Is that really what you're saying, that the previous ARCA was a complete waste of time? You wouldn't be alone in that. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd love it if Arbcom were to withdraw sanctions. The last time it was discussed wasn't very long ago, so I suggest this discussion is premature.
Can I offer anyone any WP:TEA? It tastes better than a one month block. And especially if one month blocks are your staple diet. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why the standard block was not imposed. In this one single incident there were 8 violations of TRM's sanctions:
and now more:
So that's not just one violation, it's eight nine twelve violations.
Either the ArbCom sanctions should be enforced, or they should be reworded, or they should be removed entirely. There are no exemptions or exceptions to the sanctions as currently written. Softlavender ( talk) 11:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC); edited 22:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@TRM: Sandstein opines on and closes the majority of AE requests. He appeared to follow your Civility restriction, which reads at the very top: "Where an arbitration enforcement request to enforce a sanction imposed in this case against The Rambling Man has remained open for more than three days and there is no clear consensus among uninvolved administrators, the request is to be referred to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA." [33], although he closed the AE after 2.5 days rather than 3, so that was an error which should not be repeated; the AE should have remained in place for at least three full days in accordance with the terms of the restriction. Softlavender ( talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Diff-19/24, as linked by SL, is a clear-cut violation. I though think that blocks (48 hrs./1 month/6 months/whatever) won't make an iota of difference to TRM's attitude and this has just manifested into a recurrent time-sapping drama. Either the sanction needs to be vacated outright or he be banned from the site, in entirety. I was thinking about a one-way-IBan with V93 and/or Drmies but that will near-certainly shift his line-of-fire to someone else or give rise to even more time-wasting about whether he did violate the IBan or not. ∯WBG converse 13:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Look, it's pretty clear that TRM has a very, very long-term problem with civility, spanning a very long time, a whole bunch of other editors, and with dire consequences. Therefore, we should not talk of withdrawing the sanctions, and instead enforce them vigorously. I would recommend that TRM be blocked for at least a month, and considering his intransigence and how many violations have piled up, perhaps considerablylonger. TRM is not indispensable to this encyclopedia; we've gotten along with him when . he was blocked before and we can do it again. Frankly, we need to stop believing he's indispensable because it's just made his behavior worse. p b p 14:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I just left a note for Sandstein, thanking him for closing the ARE thread. I don't know what might come out of this; I do know that the "low-level baited crap" was in TRM's edit summary of his revert. He didn't have to revert me, he didn't have to make it so personal in that summary. As someone said above, with some sort of iBan he might shift his focus to other editors/admins, but for my peace of mind it would certainly be nice not to have to worry about him. As I said at ARE, I don't look at his edits, I don't revert his edits, I don't usually look at his talk page, I stay away from the pages he frequents. I once tried to help him with something and it bit me on the ass, so I'm not doing that again; he does some good work, and there are plenty of other admins with whom he gets along (I suppose) who can do the things he needs doing. So I leave him alone. If he were to extend the same courtesy to me, that'd be nice. Drmies ( talk) 15:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
How long is it going to be before someone at ArbCom runs out of patience with Sandstein's vendetta against TRM? Last time we were here (when an ArbCom member embarassed themselves too) Dweller, Nov 18 331dot, Nov 18 etc, etc, et bloody cetera. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
If I block TRM for standard 48 hours can we skip this exercise and go back to editing? ~ Awilley ( talk) 16:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I really REALLY hate how established members of the community get a light touch with rules and sanctions just because they're "valuable" to the encyclopedia, while newer accounts can get permanently blocked very quickly for similar conduct. I hope that SOME kind of sanction starts getting enforced regularly, because this whole thing where older editors get to openly flout the rules is an extremely toxic thing for the community. Jtrainor ( talk) 18:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
We have almost unanimous agreement on two things here:
We don't have agreement on whether a sanction for 1 is appropriate in the light of 2.
I think the best way to resolve this would be for everyone who, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, baited any user into violating a restriction imposed on them would automatically get the sanction instead of the user with the sanction - in this case that would be a 48 hour block. That would quickly put an end to much of the sniping around TRM (and others in unrelated disputes). Thryduulf ( talk) 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Please be more specific, Thryduulf; which edits do you consider baiting, and who are you proposing to sanction? Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The last part of the edit summary to Drmies was IMHO very disrespectful and should not have been said, That aside Vanamonde's very first edit to that article was to revert TRM [34] - Vanamonde made no edits to that article prior to the revert so IMHO their revert as well their talkpage replies were all tantamount to baiting,
IMHO this should be declined. – Davey2010 Talk 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Drive-by comment: It's been shown time and time again that definite-duration blocks have little long-term effect on "civility". In my opinion, this is at least partly because each individual outburst is an isolated incident (editors sometimes get frustrated and lose their temper and say things that are unwise; I don't condone this, though I've been guilty of it myself). A one-month block will not make TRM any more or less irritable. My suggestion would be to quickly impose a short block for ech incident to remove TRM from the situation and thus de-escalate it without all the wasted energy on ARCA requests. If no block is issued within 12 hours of a violation and TRM is no longer escalating escalating the dispute, the matter should be considered stale. Rinse and repeat for every violation. This strikes the balance between Something Must Be Done™ and turning the whole thing into a carnival while making the point that the community does not condone TRM engaging in the conduct covered by the restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
What's up with an IP adding text that becomes the subject of an edit war and then removing that same text during the edit war?
How often do you see an editor on both sides of an edit war? Leviv ich 03:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The recent motion re TRM can be found here. Just to remind everyone, the relevant bits are here:
"In remedy 4, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.
and the third paragraph is amended to read:
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block, or other sanction, is warranted a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA.
The following provisions are added in the Enforcement section of the case:
1) Where an arbitration enforcement request to enforce a sanction imposed in this case against The Rambling Man has remained open for more than three days and there is no clear consensus among uninvolved administrators, the request is to be referred to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. 2) Appeals of any arbitration enforcement sanctions imposed on The Rambling Man that enforce a remedy in this case may only be directed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The Rambling Man may appeal by email to the Committee if he prefers. This provision overrides the appeals procedure in the standard provision above."
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 100 | ← | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 13:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
HotCat is a JavaScript program that helps registered users easily remove, change, and add categories to Wikipedia pages. It has a suggestions list that will propose existing categories for auto-completion. It can be activated via Preferences so no reason to prohibit this one.
Beyond My Ken, I think the "similar tools" is a very vague definition. HotCat can be used to add/remove categories and change sortkeys. Since this does not make any visual change I would like to avoid people using the ArbCom "similar tools" defintion to complain that I use automated tools. HotCat is a semi-automated tool. Some may claim that Visual Editor (VE) is also a semi-auomated tool since using VE I won't directly edit the wikicode but I think the community agrees that using VE to edit a page is accepted and does not require any extra permision. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Mkdw, my question is actually about HotCat. If you think, for saving time, that the clarification can be more general to include more tools please do.
Xausflux said that "don't start making hundreds of edits an hour with it though". I don't plan to but since all the discussions we had were, from my part, mainly about multiple editors editing habbits and how to form a strategy for that in the future, I would like to comment on that. I don't recall any restriction to my editing rate. Recall that from the last case the editing rate was never said to be an issue. Moreover, adding categories (using HotCat or any other tools) is a commonly accepted behaviour.
Last thing: It's true that HotCat does not allow multiple page editing so it won't affect my edit rate in that manner. It just makes life easier for editors. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The full text of the sanction involved is below.
I'd like to ask Magioladitis what kinds of edits he envisions making using HotCat, and why not being allowed to use HotCat at present is inhibiting his current editing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I was slightly involved with this issue previously, and would like to note that while prior use of tools such as AWB provided the means for contentious editing, the method of placing any individual edit was never a cause of concern for me. What I did see as an issue was the effects from the way these tools were used, when used in a rapid and continuous manner. That being said, I'm in general support that using tools to help improve the project can be beneficial and support relaxing this restriction. I would also caution that should this lead to a return to high-speed, repetitive editing - especially of a cosmetic nature - it is likely to end right back in the tedious dispute resolution systems. So for HotCat - sure, go make things better - don't start making hundreds of edits an hour with it though. — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think any motion is needed here, just a clarification that HotCat is not AWB-like. It most definitely is not. It doesn't pull up lists of pages, cannot be used to make cosmetic-only changes, and doesn't do any type of general fixes. It only adds categories as directed by the editor. Magioladitis is able to use it under his current restrictions, as far as I'm concerned. I do applaud him for coming here to seek clarification on that point before he gets started, though. That's a rather major departure from previous behaviors that led to the sanctions (ask for forgiveness, not permission). If that new trend continues, I would probably support starting to cautiously reduce the restrictions in the near future. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Hell in a Bucket at 18:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I was put into an I-ban with a banned user some years ago [ [1]]. This ended up with the other user being site banned and to my knowledge they have not returned and will not. I'd like to take ownership for my part in escalating that case. My intentions were good, they were based on what I viewed as the best for our encyclopedia. I do with the benefit of hindsight see that while that users behavior was inappropriate in many things legitimate harassment did end up happening to her and taken on the whole it would be pretty overwhelming for anyone. I think in the end every single editor walked away being dirty and not clean even those who had nothing to do with the actions that lead to other site bans. I took a wikibreak (technically retired a while) and that did the trick of helping me completely disengage not only from that but the entire Dramah Boardz in general. I was completing a few degrees and I had reason to take a class on gender and the psychology surrounding it and I can only express my regret on my ignorance of how pervasive gender bias can be. I learned that while I do not have a hardcore sexist view I would fall into a benevolent sexism. I mention that because in self reflection I realize how big of an issue it can be and why all editors here should work to make this a gender neutral platform. I intend to support that in whatever way I can while at the same time avoiding contentious debates. I do not see much use in an active sanction anymore when I've shown that for years I can leave the site and I have well and truly dropped that stick. Many many people tried to explain to me some of the above but because of my level of engagement I didn't see that. I will voluntarily not engage that user if she should ever come back and I would also make the following commitment. Lightbreather as I understood it mostly took issue with me calling out the sockpuppetry , calling her a liar and general willingness to be call out repeatedly confront what I percieved to be problems rather then walk away even in situations I was not involved directly. I understand these actions helped make the problem worse. I will not look for that user, I will not interact with them if I suspect sockpuppetry nor file public reports (let me be clear that would be an extra-ordinary thing and would have to be in my face, on my page otherwise with little to no edit overlap I doubt I'd ever come into contact with that user again). I would send a private message to an arbitrator to have them address that situation. I don't even have plans to rehash the incident here on wiki with anyone, it's done. I wasn't perfect, I've learned and attempted to make the best out of a situation that will help me grow as a person and editor here. Lastly I apologize to those editors that may have believed I was doing this purely based on a person gender, that to me was not my intention and I will work very hard to make sure no one on this site will ever think or have reason to think differently.
@ User:GRuban it would prohibit me from a fresh start and yes it can be used as a weapon too against me. I am not looking for a fresh start, my record is what it is warts and all, but if ever I should want one it would be sockpuppetry if I did and it would at least help rehabilitate my record a little. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 17:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
So we've got two possibilities: (1) Lightbreather stays away, so removing this sanction does nothing. (2) Lightbreather returns, at which point we have to ask why we removed this sanction without even asking her opinion.
Why don't we leave this up, and should L return, ask her how she feels about it? -- GRuban ( talk) 16:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@ GRuban: I think most editors consider an IBAN as a mark against another editor's record. If Hell in a Bucket went for an RfA, this would come up as a significant black mark, and I dare say there are other venues that I can't think of. If both editors are active, then the ban can be appealed, and, if accepted, this will show up on relevant logs. Furthermore, sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. This IBAN is serving no further purpose. Admittedly, repealing it serves no effective purpose, but it may serve a purpose in the future. I don't see any reason to prevent editors from appealing IBANs when the other party has behaved in such a problematic manner that they've been sitebanned. All this means is that editors who are more likely to have been goaded into a conflict have no way to "get their record expunged". ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I am still in contact with Lightbreather. If Arbcom is requesting a statement from her, I could ask. It might also be a good time to review her site ban as well and possible vacate it. It's been years since this case, both editors have had time away.--v/r - T P 18:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Vacate the iban. Both parties have atrocious block logs (although most of Hell's blocks are quite old), and both of them violated the ban at least once, but the request here is eminently reasonable and seems to reflect some real introspection into why this was needed and why their own behavior was not acceptable. (I would also say that as far as I can recall I've never seen such a request where an opinion from a banned user was solicited, and whether Lightbreather's ban remains in place is an entirely seperate issue and her opinion on this is not necessary to come to a decision) Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
As a drafter of the Lightbreather case, support the proposal to vacate this iban - was necessary at the time and is redundant now. Separately, seems reasonable to review Lightbreather's siteban if it turns out that they're interested in coming back. But understandable if they have better things to do given the deeply unpleasant offwiki harassment they experienced at the time. -- Euryalus ( talk) 08:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
No particular thoughts for or against the request, which is one that I could equally propose in relation to an old IBAN that lies against me where the other party has also gone. However, regarding the point that TParis makes, I think Lightbreather is still pursuing the same agenda off-wiki as got her into trouble on-wiki, so suggesting that her situation be revisited is probably not going to be helpful. Unless, of course, the blogs, social media etc I am thinking off are not in fact her but some sort of impersonator. I'm not linking to them so please don't ask. - Sitush ( talk) 11:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Tend to agree with Euryalus and the requester. In more detail, an extant I-ban implies there is an ongoing problem to prevent, but there is not. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and all that. If a restriction no longer serves a purpose it should be vacated, since we all know these things have a Scarlet Letter effect.
I also agree with TParis's suggestion that LB should be asked directly to comment, and that whether restrictions against that editor need to be retained at this stage at all is worth examining. Remedies are supposed to be preventative not punitive. If LB were to return and re-engage in the same disruptive behaviors, then another site-ban would likely ensue on the double, so this seems very low-risk. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The Lightbreather fiasco probably marks the nadir of the recent Arbitration Committee regimes, where a committee majority actually voted at one point to direct women sexually harassed over their Wikipedia editing not to fight back. [3] One of the reasons given for site-banning Lightbreather was that she made off-wiki attempts to confirm the identity of the person who was engaging in sexually harassing her off-wiki. [4] She suspected a Wikipedia editor seh had an ongoing dispute with and was eventually proved correct. As I recall, some of the information off-wiki included a picture of the harasser he had posted himself to Wikipedia (to compare to a picture of himself the harasser had posted to his userpage on the sexsite involved in his off-wiki harassment). Lightbreather acted with considerable restraint: The harasser had posted his real-world identity to Wikipedia, and it was easy to track down information about his family , his job, and his membership in an organization quite important to him. She could easily have massively disrupted his personal life. She didn't. There appears yo be no evidence she did more than act to stop the harassment.
I'd also note that the harasser made efforts to turn up real-world identifying information about me, and implicitly tried to enlist other users to help, made off-wiki communications prompting a porn performer to make legal threats against me, then posted links to the threats on Wikipedia, and made palpably dishonest and abusive comments about me and other users, yet nothing was done to him for such behaviour -- until he went far beyond the pale in his attacks on Lightbreather. Even now, although he's been been WMF-banned, his confirmed identity as Lightbreather's principal harasser hasn't been reported here.
ArbComm ought to vacate the entire Lightbreather decision, except for the sanctions against Lightbreather's offwiki harassers, and institutionally apologize both to Lightbreather and to the community for its misguided actions. Removing a "cloud" from users tainted by aa horrifically flawed a decision as this should not be so selectively as to further demean the editor most unfairly treated by it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 00:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
As long as Lightbreather remains site-banned, this request seems pointless to me. I'd ask Hell in a Bucket this question: as long as Lightbreather remains site-banned, what is there to gain from this interaction ban revoked, or what is lost by having this interaction ban in place? If the answer is "nothing", why change the status quo? We can worry about this if and when Lightbreather is unbanned; until then this might as well stay in place. Banedon ( talk) 01:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Semantic note only. To the arbitrators, the best word to use for “the sanction was good at the time but we’re ending it now” is probably “terminated.” Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The interaction ban between
Hell in a Bucket (
talk ·
contribs) and
Lightbreather (
talk ·
contribs) enacted taken over in
the Lightbreather case is vacated rescinded.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Can I have my page creation and page move restrictions removed please. I have made more improvements to article as was pointed out in the previous review. I have expanded User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish and also created User:Crouch, Swale/Risga. I realize that it is important to create articles which are notable and have a good amount of content. At User:Crouch, Swale/To do I have identified pages that need creating, although not all have been identified as being notable, thus I won't necessarily be creating them all. I therefore suggest that as I have had these restrictions for a year now, I should have them removed with the same conditions as the July removals (per WP:ROPE), that they can be reinstated if needed, although I don't think that will be needed. I have discussed with Euryalus ( talk · contribs) this appeal to get advice, however unfortunately Nilfanion ( talk · contribs) hasn't been active here since July. My priority is to finish of creating the missing civil parishes in England, of which I should (at least for the villages) be able to add location, distance, population, Domesday Book, name origin, surrounding parishes and church. I have contributed sensibly to naming discussions, although I have had a few disagreements, I haven't received any warnings about it and the main purpose of RM is to discuss controversial (or at least reasonably likely to be controversial moves). I have also contributed (and initiated) some non-geographical moves such as Talk:Attention Seeker (EP) and Red Meat.
I have serious concerns about this user's level of competence, clue and ability to communicate reasonably based on recent interactions, so I'd advise against lifting the restrictions based on that. The user has needlessly and irrationally obstructed reasonable, uncontentious editing on my part. I had PRODed The Students' Union at UWE with the rationale that the subject was not notable and was already sufficiently covered in the parent article. This was, by all accounts, an uncontentious situation, but the user stonewalled attempts to have the article deleted anyway, first via PROD, when they apparently wanted a merge but failed to state any rationale or follow the proposed merge process, and then subsequently at AfD, where they continued repeatedly insisting on a merge, yet failed to, in any way, to present any argument against, or understanding of, my assessment that a merge was unnecessary due to the relevant content already being in the parent article. As an admin I often encounter this kind of obstructionism in users with problems with collaboration or OWNership, and this kind of conduct thoroughly discourages users, and if I were just some random newbie just trying to contribute to the project in good faith, and then encountered this kind of bizarre obstructionism from someone who won't even acknowledge my arguments, I'd probably be thoroughly disillusioned. My experience suggests a lack of ability to communicate and/or resolve disputes reasonably and effectively, and those are essential in the areas the user is asking to be unrestricted from. Regards, ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I would like to ask Crouch, Swale to explain their statement:
Re "If the [ WP:RMTR] page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area": Just for the record, contested RMTR requests are often (perhaps in the majority) contested by non-admins; anyone can contest a speedy rename, in which case it goes to full RM discussion. It's more of a consensus thing than an admin judgement thing.
As to the request, I agree that a ~30% failure rate at RM is iffy. (I don't have any particular opinion otherwise; I don't recall interacting with Crouch much, and while I'm frequently active in RM discussions, it's not often about placename disambiguation.)
I'll also add that I learned the hard way (with a three-month move ban several years ago) that returning to manual, one-editor's-judgement page moves in the same topic area in which one's moves have been deemed controversial is a poor idea. It is best to use full RM process (or RMTR when it seems very unlikely to provoke any objection from anyone) in such a case, not only for drama reduction, but to actually establish a solid consensus record for the pattern being proposed for those articles. Even if some of the opposition seems to be personal rather than fact- or policy-based. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
point about my question of the existence of a place is– I think it helps us to understand the quality of your judgment as an editor in this topic area.Thank you; but I understand what contributions you are making (eg renaming articles so that the place is disambiguated in the title). The point is that, so far as I can see, these contributions are not always helpful. Granting your amendment request would involve giving licence to do more of that. Would you please comment on this? AGK ■ 13:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The restriction on new article creations imposed on Crouch, Swale ( talk · contribs) as part of their unban conditions in January 2018 is modified as follows:
Enacted - Mini apolis 17:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by FkpCascais at 00:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians, for the ones that don´t know me, allow me to shortly introduce myself. I am 39 years old proud Wikipedian from Portugal, with Serbian and Czech parents who grow up in Mexico. As only child, encyclopedias were my company since I remember. When I discouvered Wikipedia it was love at first sight. I have been around for more than a decade and I have created over 900 articles. Although I work on something completelly different, my main hobbie has been editing football here on Wikipedia. My passion for football has nothing to do with hooliganism or tendentious editing towards teams I support, but rather about history of football, specially in Yugoslavia and Austro-Hungary, with lists and statistics, and with migration of footballers. I also edit history, aviation and automotive industry, ammong others. I got involved in a content dispute at Talk:Skanderbeg#Skanderbeg_origin,_sources. I presented numerous sources to back my point. My intention was just that the view expressed in those sources was properly added in the article, not even highlighted, but just not dismissed as obscure theory as it was pretended by the other editors. When the other editors decided to dismiss my concerns, I tried to ask for help at ANI ( diff of the end). User:Deb had an extremelly constructive approach, however User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, with which I had several disputes in the past, made a total turn and sugested boomerang, which was imposed by Sandstein. I can admit I could had been more patient, I could have dropped it earlier, I even troughout the ANI showed regreat. It was a content dispute, I had numerous reliable sources, it was just needed someone to help us solve it. I believe I was punished too severily. I asked several times Sandstein to at least allow me to edit football during the 6 months, an area I never had problems and had nothing to do with the issue in hand here, he denied me that as well. This was a content dispute basically solved by punishing me for not giving up. And the punishment is way too excessive, 6 months in which I am forbiden to work on the numerous projects I am working at. I ask please the community to reconsider what happened here.
I have sockpuppets making fun of the situation at my talk page because I was the editor who fought against their insertion of POV edits. Wikipedia cannot deal with socks of indef-banned users, but decides to ban me for 6 months. Thank you for showing how litte serious this project is. I will not edit chinchillas. Good bye. FkpCascais ( talk) 22:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I recommend declining this appeal.
Insofar as the topic ban as a whole is contested, the comments by FkpCascais in the original AN discussion and in the appeals to me (I remember several, but can now only find this one) and to AN leave me with the impression of a person who is more emotional and impulsive than most other editors, and who is set on portraying Balkans history from a particular point of view. As such, they are not well-suited to edit in this tension-laden topic area.
Insofar as an exception for football-related edits is sought, I am of the view that it should not be granted, at least not initially, because football in the Balkans is often a focal point for political tensions. As I wrote in the ban message, I would like to see a relatively long period of collegial, productive editing by FkpCascais in other topic areas before I am open to relaxing the topic ban, first as relating to football and then entirely. Sandstein 11:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to note, an appeal of this ban was filed by FkpCascais at WP:AN on 22 December. [10] It was archived without being closed. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
It's difficult to defend this editor based on those sandbox posts, but they have contributed positively to the football WikiProject over the years, and I see no reason to extend the ban that far. As many of the users on the ANI thread supported not blocking football articles, I would modify the TBAN to any Balkan-related topics (any topic relating to: Slovenia; Croatia; Albania; Bosnia & Herzegovina; Serbia; Montenegro; Albania; Macedonia; Kosovo; Bulgaria; Greece; Turkey; and Romania - and if I missed anything obvious, my lack of listing that country is not an excuse) with the exception of any Serbian-related football article for an arbitrary amount of time, possibly shorter than the six-month TBAN (in which case any football article would be fair game for editing.) Historical Yugoslavian articles would be okay as long as the player or team is Serbian; edits on Yugoslavian leagues or cups would be okay; edits on any non-Balkan league, player, or cup would be okay. as they would be currently. Any violation of this restriction during the time frame would result in a full ban for disruptive editing. SportingFlyer T· C 06:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Ferahgo the Assassin at 22:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I would like to formally appeal my topic ban from the “race and intelligence” topic area. I believe it is appropriate for this ban to be lifted for three main reasons: 1) The topic ban is quite old now, and I have engaged in no contentious or otherwise inappropriate behavior since I returned to editing four years ago; 2) I am now acquiring professional expertise in an area adjacent to this topic, which has been considered under the ban, and 3) I have fulfilled the requirements given to me by the arbitration committee when I first appealed the topic ban about nine months ago. Details below:
Last April, I made a request for clarification about the bounds of my topic ban. I made this request in order to understand whether I could use my professional expertise in behavioral genetics—as I am now more than halfway through a Ph.D. in this area—to improve the encyclopedia. ArbCom concluded that I should not be editing articles about intelligence or behavioral genetics in general, even if they don’t involve race, as long as I'm under a "race and intelligence" topic ban. They also weren't willing to lift my topic ban at that time, but said they would reconsider the request after six months of productive and issue-free editing in unrelated topics.
I have now met these requirements: It is over eight months hence, and during this time I have made over 500 edits, mostly to topics related to paleoartists and especially to the Paleoart article, which I have recently raised to "Good Article" status.
It has been quite difficult to research and improve these articles while simultaneously studying an unrelated topic in graduate school. My graduate work has involved doing research, attending conferences, and publishing papers related to behavior genetics and intelligence research, with others in press (please let me know if you’d like to see examples of my research privately). I humbly submit that with my topic ban removed, I could help to improve many articles in these areas that have been off-limits to me since before I began my Ph.D.
For example, one of my projects, just completed after 2 years of data collection, relates to mental chronometry. Wikipedia’s mental chronometry article is one of the articles that I was told last April not to edit as long as I’m topic banned. I wrote the first half of it in 2010, beginning with the early history of MC, and left the article in an unfinished state when I was topic banned in October 2010. In the time since then other editors have made minor additions, but the article is still in substantially the same state that I left it in more than eight years ago, because no one else has had the ability and motivation to add a complete summary of modern MC research. For a long time, the article was tagged as being in need of being updated.
I think that when considering the necessity of a topic ban, ArbCom should take into account the effect that an editor’s absence has on encyclopedic coverage of topics that only a few people are both motivated and knowledgable enough to write about here. Other examples I provided last April of articles in great need of improvement include gene–environment correlation and polygenic score, both of which are also topics on which I’ve done research.
Happy to answer questions, provide detail of my history in this area, and further credentials if requested. Thank you for your consideration.
@ Ferahgo the Assassin:, last year you mentioned a prestigious award, which I believe was from the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) which on the face of it is a respectable organisation. But our article doesn't tell the whole story. For instance, this book [13] mentions its 5th conference in 2004, saying
Of course that's just one author discussing something that occurred 14 years ago. But then there's the lifetime achievement award given to Arthur Jensen, [14]For much of their time the attendees listened to talks about how general intelligence might differ in men and women, blacks, whites, and Asians.
a major figure in Race and intelligence. And then there's an article this year in the New Statesman [15] about the "London Conference on Intelligence" held several times at University College London and now being investigated at UCL. [16] which led UCL's President and Provost
to commentThe New Statesman article saysI personally have no support for eugenics and I regard it as complete nonsense. I am appalled by the concept of white supremacy and will not tolerate anything on campus that incites racial hatred or violence.
The article is worth reading. The involvement of Linda Gottfredson and the Pioneer Fund, Richard Lynn is to say the least not encouraging. I'd like to know what you think of their views. It would probably help if you could give us details of any other awards or grants you've received.The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field. Yet Richard Lynn, who has called for the “phasing out” of the “populations of incompetent cultures”, serves on the editorial board of Intelligence, along with fellow director of the Pioneer Fund Gerhard Meisenberg, who edits Lynn’s journal Mankind Quarterly. Two other board members are Heiner Rindermann and Jan te Nijenhuis, frequent contributors to Mankind Quarterly and the London Conference on Intelligence. Rindermann, James Thompson, Michael Woodley of Menie and Aurelio Figueredo, all heavily implicated in the London Conference on Intelligence, helped to organise recent ISIR conferences. Linda Gottfredson, a Pioneer Fund grantee and former president of the ISIR, famously authored a letter in the Wall Street Journal defending Charles Murray’s assertion that black people are genetically disposed to an average IQ of “around 85”, compared to 100 for whites.
(in this section, because I am no longer an arbitrator)
The question of differences, particularly intellectual differences, between those groups of people who have ben traditionally called "races" is a question to be determined by scientific evidence. It can be settled not by people's prior conceptions, but only by the analysis of data. . There are those who have misused scientific evidence in the past, to form one particular conclusion, and many of them did it for racist motives (racist not just by current views, but at the time also). I am among the great majority here who hope very much that the scientific conclusion will be that there are no such genetic differences. Many people who think this way, "believe" that this will be the conclusion, or think the scientific matter is settled. I think they are letting themselves fall in the trap of thinking the world is as they would like it to be. Ruling out with possibility of one particular side of a scientific question being right in the absence of firm scientific evidence is prejudice. We have no business asking questions to determine any editor's beliefs, nor do we have any business in even discussing what the beliefs of an editor may be.
In editing WP one should not let one's personal beliefs enter the editing. If one does let them interfere, and the result is disruptive , one can and should be blocked, regardless of whether these beliefs are socially approved or disapproved. If an editor were to edit the relevant articles and expressedthe view that those on one side were prejudiced and the other not, they would be displaying bias, and a display of bias is likely to cause disruption. This is equally true whether the majority of us do or do not share the bias. There is no reason to ask anyone for a statement of what they think the state of a particular scientific question is. The only possible matter of relevance here is whether they have edited disruptively.
I therefore think the above discussion of her views , or where she has received grants, or whether or not her views are associated only with fringe scientists is inappropriate.We can only be concerned with someone persistently injecting their personal views into an article, or using their personal views to inhibit discussion, and I feel we are under a moral obligation to judge that without regard to whether or not the majority, or even the great majority, of the community agrees with the views. The only acceptable way to avoid articles being biased by racism is to include proportionately all the views, just as the only acceptable way of dealing with racist academic views is to do work that disproves them.
Here is the real problem: I am fully aware that in practice the community has taken a different attitude to this depending upon whether or not they agree with the views experessed, but I think that is wholly illegitimate and an example of blatant bias. We should be trying to prevent this, not join in it. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
In any case, I guess I'm on the skeptical end. I recognize that this ban appeal is likely to succeed, and that's fine, but... there has been a history of apparent deception in the use of this account. And there's a weird pattern where Captain Occam emerges, gets sanctioned, and then Ferahgo immediately pops up asking to have her sanctions lifted. I can't escape the feeling that we're being played.
I'm also not particularly reassured that we've seen the end of the efforts to use Wikipedia to promote the idea that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites. Sure, mental chronometry seems like a harmlessly esoteric subject, and I know next to nothing about it. But it was apparently a hobbyhorse for Arthur Jensen, whose efforts to prove the inherent inferiority of blacks were notoriously funded in part by the white-supremacist Pioneer Fund. So that's enough to give me pause. Anyhow, it looks like a done deal, so I guess here's hoping I'm wrong. MastCell Talk 00:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
AGK ■ 18:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Although I opposed it, I'm happy to note this motion has passed (8–2) and received votes from all active arbitrators. After another day or so, absent any vote changes – would a clerk kindly implement at your earliest convenience?
The editing restrictions placed on Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk · contribs) as unban conditions in March 2014 and modified by motion in September 2016 are modified as follows:
These modifications will be subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the former editing restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the above modifications are to be considered permanently enacted.
Enacted - GoldenRing ( talk) 10:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Sandstein at 11:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The Rambling Man is subject to a Committee-imposed civility restriction. By motion of 13 December 2018, the Committee decided that, if "in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block, or other sanction, is warranted a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA." Such a request is hereby made.
On 29 January 2019, Vanamonde93 made an arbitration enforcement request against The Rambling Man, linking to various diffs in which The Rambling Man violated their restrictions. I identified additional violations in my assessment of the request. Enforcement action is therefore required.
The Rambling Man has previously been blocked for up to two weeks for similar conduct, and this has not deterred them from now continuing to engage in such conduct. A block of 48 hours or less would therefore, in my view, be ineffective in preventing further misconduct. By the terms of the motion previously referred to, the decision about which action to take is now the Committee's. Based on the generally accepted principle of escalating block lengths, I suggest a block length on the order of a month.
Because there is no indication that The Rambling Man understands, or is willing or able to abide by their restrictions, I also suggest that the restrictions should be lifted because they are ineffective. They should either be lifted entirely, or be replaced by a topic or site ban of a scope and duration to be determined by the Committee. Sandstein 11:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Words fail. The last time we were here it lasted months and ended in an amendment that was voted on while it was being reworded and that then failed at the first time of asking. I suppose if Sandstein keeps this up, eventually the result he is searching for will be delivered, infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters and all that. The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
AGK, do you mean the sanction whose wording was modified during voting last year? Is that the one? If so then quite probably yes, it could be interpreted that I questioned the competence and motivation of editors who had suddenly started editing those items which were on my watchlist. Mea culpa. But that Sandstein can comment on the AE, then close the AE himself after little time, and then start this ARCA, when the previous ARCA has not been enacted even once... well it speaks for itself. AWiley has it spot on. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde, which would have been fine until Sandstein got involved on his continued quest to escalate the block despite the last ARCA. I do note you have been editing around areas that coincide with me lately, you'd never edited Warnock even once until you undid my revision, but I'm certain that's a coincidence. Perhaps you received off-wiki notification? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Drmies, as noted, happy to avoid you entirely (and have actively tried to do so actually), but when you made your first edit ever to the Warnock article with an edit summary that said "How is that a controversy? also, who cares", if you had known anything about the situation, you'd have known that quite a few reliable sources did consider it controversial and thus many, many people did care, for myriad reasons. Sorry for the harsh edit summary but you were very wrong on both counts of your own edit summary. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Arbcom, please can we address the issue with Sandstein's overt lack of alignment with the community and his involved stance, in particular here where he commented on this sanction, then closed the discussion prematurely, then opened an ARCA discussion prematurely? Time after time it has been demonstrated that he is too involved here to be independent enough, and his involvement clearly has a chilling effect, hence the lack of commentary on the prematurely and incorrectly closed AE report made by involved admin Vanamonde. If this is not addressed, then we will be here at ARCA once again as soon as Sandstein sees fit to make the same involved and incorrect decisions. The Rambling Man ( talk) 23:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Doug Weller, indeed, that Sandstein both got involved at the AE, then unilaterally (and incorrectly) closed it while opening this wasteful ARCA at the wrong time, needs further investigation. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that Sandstein should recuse himself from cases involving me, and these are just further examples that it appears he cannot take an independent role in such matters any longer. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Joe Roe, you're entitled to that view, but that effectively renders the months of debate the previous ARCA went through completely obsolete. Is that really what you're saying, that the previous ARCA was a complete waste of time? You wouldn't be alone in that. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd love it if Arbcom were to withdraw sanctions. The last time it was discussed wasn't very long ago, so I suggest this discussion is premature.
Can I offer anyone any WP:TEA? It tastes better than a one month block. And especially if one month blocks are your staple diet. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why the standard block was not imposed. In this one single incident there were 8 violations of TRM's sanctions:
and now more:
So that's not just one violation, it's eight nine twelve violations.
Either the ArbCom sanctions should be enforced, or they should be reworded, or they should be removed entirely. There are no exemptions or exceptions to the sanctions as currently written. Softlavender ( talk) 11:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC); edited 22:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@TRM: Sandstein opines on and closes the majority of AE requests. He appeared to follow your Civility restriction, which reads at the very top: "Where an arbitration enforcement request to enforce a sanction imposed in this case against The Rambling Man has remained open for more than three days and there is no clear consensus among uninvolved administrators, the request is to be referred to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA." [33], although he closed the AE after 2.5 days rather than 3, so that was an error which should not be repeated; the AE should have remained in place for at least three full days in accordance with the terms of the restriction. Softlavender ( talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Diff-19/24, as linked by SL, is a clear-cut violation. I though think that blocks (48 hrs./1 month/6 months/whatever) won't make an iota of difference to TRM's attitude and this has just manifested into a recurrent time-sapping drama. Either the sanction needs to be vacated outright or he be banned from the site, in entirety. I was thinking about a one-way-IBan with V93 and/or Drmies but that will near-certainly shift his line-of-fire to someone else or give rise to even more time-wasting about whether he did violate the IBan or not. ∯WBG converse 13:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Look, it's pretty clear that TRM has a very, very long-term problem with civility, spanning a very long time, a whole bunch of other editors, and with dire consequences. Therefore, we should not talk of withdrawing the sanctions, and instead enforce them vigorously. I would recommend that TRM be blocked for at least a month, and considering his intransigence and how many violations have piled up, perhaps considerablylonger. TRM is not indispensable to this encyclopedia; we've gotten along with him when . he was blocked before and we can do it again. Frankly, we need to stop believing he's indispensable because it's just made his behavior worse. p b p 14:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I just left a note for Sandstein, thanking him for closing the ARE thread. I don't know what might come out of this; I do know that the "low-level baited crap" was in TRM's edit summary of his revert. He didn't have to revert me, he didn't have to make it so personal in that summary. As someone said above, with some sort of iBan he might shift his focus to other editors/admins, but for my peace of mind it would certainly be nice not to have to worry about him. As I said at ARE, I don't look at his edits, I don't revert his edits, I don't usually look at his talk page, I stay away from the pages he frequents. I once tried to help him with something and it bit me on the ass, so I'm not doing that again; he does some good work, and there are plenty of other admins with whom he gets along (I suppose) who can do the things he needs doing. So I leave him alone. If he were to extend the same courtesy to me, that'd be nice. Drmies ( talk) 15:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
How long is it going to be before someone at ArbCom runs out of patience with Sandstein's vendetta against TRM? Last time we were here (when an ArbCom member embarassed themselves too) Dweller, Nov 18 331dot, Nov 18 etc, etc, et bloody cetera. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
If I block TRM for standard 48 hours can we skip this exercise and go back to editing? ~ Awilley ( talk) 16:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I really REALLY hate how established members of the community get a light touch with rules and sanctions just because they're "valuable" to the encyclopedia, while newer accounts can get permanently blocked very quickly for similar conduct. I hope that SOME kind of sanction starts getting enforced regularly, because this whole thing where older editors get to openly flout the rules is an extremely toxic thing for the community. Jtrainor ( talk) 18:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
We have almost unanimous agreement on two things here:
We don't have agreement on whether a sanction for 1 is appropriate in the light of 2.
I think the best way to resolve this would be for everyone who, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, baited any user into violating a restriction imposed on them would automatically get the sanction instead of the user with the sanction - in this case that would be a 48 hour block. That would quickly put an end to much of the sniping around TRM (and others in unrelated disputes). Thryduulf ( talk) 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Please be more specific, Thryduulf; which edits do you consider baiting, and who are you proposing to sanction? Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The last part of the edit summary to Drmies was IMHO very disrespectful and should not have been said, That aside Vanamonde's very first edit to that article was to revert TRM [34] - Vanamonde made no edits to that article prior to the revert so IMHO their revert as well their talkpage replies were all tantamount to baiting,
IMHO this should be declined. – Davey2010 Talk 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Drive-by comment: It's been shown time and time again that definite-duration blocks have little long-term effect on "civility". In my opinion, this is at least partly because each individual outburst is an isolated incident (editors sometimes get frustrated and lose their temper and say things that are unwise; I don't condone this, though I've been guilty of it myself). A one-month block will not make TRM any more or less irritable. My suggestion would be to quickly impose a short block for ech incident to remove TRM from the situation and thus de-escalate it without all the wasted energy on ARCA requests. If no block is issued within 12 hours of a violation and TRM is no longer escalating escalating the dispute, the matter should be considered stale. Rinse and repeat for every violation. This strikes the balance between Something Must Be Done™ and turning the whole thing into a carnival while making the point that the community does not condone TRM engaging in the conduct covered by the restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
What's up with an IP adding text that becomes the subject of an edit war and then removing that same text during the edit war?
How often do you see an editor on both sides of an edit war? Leviv ich 03:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The recent motion re TRM can be found here. Just to remind everyone, the relevant bits are here:
"In remedy 4, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.
and the third paragraph is amended to read:
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block, or other sanction, is warranted a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA.
The following provisions are added in the Enforcement section of the case:
1) Where an arbitration enforcement request to enforce a sanction imposed in this case against The Rambling Man has remained open for more than three days and there is no clear consensus among uninvolved administrators, the request is to be referred to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. 2) Appeals of any arbitration enforcement sanctions imposed on The Rambling Man that enforce a remedy in this case may only be directed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The Rambling Man may appeal by email to the Committee if he prefers. This provision overrides the appeals procedure in the standard provision above."
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.