Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 16:52, 5 November 2016 (→Amendment request: Doncram: fix numbers and enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia   14 June 2025 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due


Indian military history (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 08 Jun 2025 22 Jun 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Doncram [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Doncram: Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (rescinded)|Motion]] (orig. case) 30 September 2016
Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons none (orig. case) 19 October 2016
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 none (orig. case) 30 October 2016
Clarification and amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 5 November 2016

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Doncram

Initiated by Doncram at 01:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Doncram arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. May 2016 motion that Doncram "is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed."
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • May 2016 motion
  • Request rescindment of the restriction.

Statement by Doncram

I request complete release of a very old restriction on my creating new articles in mainspace. Specifically, remedy 2.3 of the Doncram arbitration case, passed 12 March 2013, restricted me from creating new pages in article space, and allowed for appeal after one year. I waited to appeal until April 2016, and this Arbitration committee voted in May to partially release the restriction. (Technically, the committee rescinded the entire new article restriction and simultaneously imposed a new one for NRHP articles alone: motion passed in May 2016 (version just before archived), i.e. the 'Motion, that "The following remedy is added to the case: Doncram (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed".) However it is framed, I have abided by a restriction not to create new NRHP articles directly in mainspace for 3.5 years, while still contributing actively. I request this restriction be dropped.

During March 2013 to April 2016, as I noted in April, I created 800 new articles, mostly new NRHP place articles. [All those NRHP articles were created in the first six months, up to when an NRHP topic ban was imposed in September 2013, all by using the AFC process. The first was this, created 2013-03-12, #15 on this reverse chronological list of all 9,400 articles ever created by me; the last was this created 2013-09-16, #774 on the reverse chronological list. Consistent with Tazerdadog's comment below, there were just one or two cases where AFC editors questioned notability or otherwise balked. All 750 or so promoted articles used at least two references and evidently met AFC editors' concerns about article adequacy. I then took a 2.5 year break from the NRHP area, during which I created only about 50 non-NRHP articles. In April 2016, I requested removal of all restrictions. There was discussion of frustrating situation for me in which I had said something unnecessary, which I regretted, and that was talked out. I shared that "I consider the 3 years since the arbitration to be more than a pause in contention. The time allowed me to disconnect from the area...", and more. This sitting arbitration committee, in this amendment rescinded the topic ban, rescinded general probation, and partway rescinded the article creation restriction. Since May, I have been free to edit in NRHP area and to create new articles, with just the edit restriction (not a topic ban) that in practical terms meant I needed to use AFC to get new NRHP articles into mainspace. I have mostly chosen not to create new articles, and instead mostly edited NRHP articles created in 2012 and before. --doncram 05:26, 12 October 2016] Since the amendment in May 2016, I have created 51 new articles: 12 new NRHP place articles, 8 new architect articles, 14 disambiguation pages, and 16 are other non-NRHP articles. The new NRHP place articles were promoted by the Articles-For-Creation process or by other editors. I'm not sure what the continued restriction for new NRHP articles is intended to accomplish, exactly, but, if there's concern about my new articles, it is most relevant for arbitrators to browse some or all of the most recent NRHP articles; these are listed here.

Since opening the April-May amendment request, approaching 6 months ago, I believe there have been no serious problems and any other general concerns should be lessened.

About my future intentions:

  • To reiterate from the amendment request, I have no intention to antagonize editors focused upon stub articles in the NRHP area. I do not intend to create what any NRHP editor would call "context-free" stubs. I hope this addresses an arbitrator's concern below that I address issues that led to this NRHP article creation ban; I certainly do not wish to have concern about my NRHP articles be an issue again. (To be clear, I am not subject to any topic ban; the only restriction is a process one.)
  • About title-warring as a concern expressed in the April-May amendment request, let me say or reiterate that I fully expect to continue to use the proper wp:RM process for any potentially contested moves and to participate constructively in sorting out best names to use (as I believe I pretty much always have). Since May, I only recall one substantive name change I requested or participated in: this RM that I opened, which closed without consensus to make the move I wished, and that took care of that.
  • In general I do accept that consensus can go against a view that I have, and I do not insist that my opinions are always right, and I make concessions and do apologize as a matter of practice. This is an example of where an editor disagreed with me in the WikiProject NRHP forum and I responded with concession.

At this point I see no purpose served by the restriction, and I wish to be released from it so that:

  • this particular cloud over my editorship may be removed (the restriction was in fact cited negatively one or more times, for example within this long ANI statement [not NRHP-related, and which was soon closed])
  • I might participate in AFC in reviewing and promoting others' articles in the NRHP area, rather than being a burden on AFC's editors who must review my own new NRHP articles;
  • the arbitration case may be considered finished, and I might just get on with things, and also so that no future arbitration committee needs to review the 2013 arbitration case. This is the last substantial restriction remaining that I expect to appeal. (The only other remaining restriction is an interaction ban which may remain in place permanently.) I could have waited until six full months had passed, but I hope evidence available now suffices and that the committee would also like to have this wrapped up. --doncram 00:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC). Revised, 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Notice of this amendment request given by me to NRHP wikiproject, on 1 October. --doncram 18:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under the May outcome, I applied myself to removing sources of some others' dissatisfaction, making myself work through tedious worklists of old NRHP articles cheerfully, which I likely would not have done if I were put under NRHP topic probation. To remove the cloud over my editing, I might have simply avoided the area for six months (to let the clock expire, to avoid possibility of any random conflict, or simply out of discouragement). Instead I did not avoid the area, and gave the committee new data: many edits in NRHP area (>200 in List of courthouses in the United States, >200 old NRHP place articles improved, participation in the wt:NRHP forum, creation of new NRHP articles, without serious problems. At this point I don't see why a narrow edit restriction should be replaced by a broad probation; I have effectively been under a six month probation already and acted constructively. Sincerely, --doncram 18:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion by JzG

Too soon, IMO. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tazerdadog

I have reviewed likely hundreds of Doncram's AFC submissions on NRHP topics a couple of years ago, and found exactly one to be objectionable. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Doncram: Clerk notes

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

Doncram: Arbitrator views and discussion


Doncram: Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (rescinded)

Point 4 of the motion in May 2016 regarding the Doncram Arbitration case is rescinded.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Proposed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice given that the other motion at least relaxes the restriction now and hopefully there will be no reinstatement of it. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • First choice now after reading Doncram's comments made last night about the width of the probation. Doug Weller talk
  5. Only choice. There ius no evidence of current problems. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ok with this. could argue either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I'd prefer to first try a parole. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As I said above I'd prefer a suspended sanction / parole / probation (whatever it's being called now) (something along the lines of this). Salvio giuliano: I'll propose a suspended version, would you prefer it to be for 6 or 12 months (my preference is 6 months). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I prefer 12, but I am fine with either. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. prefer, below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer suspension. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. kelapstick(bainuu) 16:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Recuse

Doncram: Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (suspended)

Point 4 (Doncram restricted) of the the motion in May 2016 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the National Register of Historic Places topic area, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Proposed. Given that there is support for rescinding it immediately hopefully this is an acceptable middle ground. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Only choice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FirstSecond choice. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. only choice --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fine with me. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ok with this. could argue either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Something we've done many times before. Courcelles (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. kelapstick(bainuu) 16:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. There was no violations, and he's been under semi removal already. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The complete removal of the restriction is my only choice. This is not necessary, because a sanction can be reimposed in any of several ways. . DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Recuse

Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

Initiated by The Wordsmith at 22:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Editing of Biographies of Living Persons arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by The Wordsmith

Motion 6 (WP:NEWBLPBAN) authorized Standard Discretionary Sanctions for BLP content. This precludes WP:INVOLVED admins from acting. The older WP:BLPSE had a similar clause.

However, it seems that this contradicts WP:BLPADMINS, which states that "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved."

In an apparent conflict between policy and Arbcom decision, which prevails? My own opinion is that involved Administrators are able to block, but not log it as a Discretionary Sanction and the block would be subject to the lower standard for reversal that we use for other blocks. There isn't a specific incident I'm thinking of, but I could see it becoming an issue in the future and would like clarification on how that might be handled. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: I'm asking the Committee to clarify both of those things, what options (regular, DS etc) are and are not available to an administrator who is involved. For example, if you added a blatant BLP vio to an article I already participate in, is blocking you allowed? Is blocking you as a Discretionary Sanction allowed? Is a topic ban allowed? I believe the first but not the latter two are correct, but I'd like the Committee to clarify where the line is drawn. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Clerk notes

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

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • WP:INVOLVED says that admins should not act in disputed cases but can act (use admin tools) in "straightforward cases" when "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". This is entirely consistent with the BLP policy which states that admins when involved may act to "enforce the removal of clear BLP violations", however "in less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator". Involved admins can, therefore, use normal admin tools in clear cases. However, discretionary sanctions grant individual admins much more power and authority (in comparison normal admin tools when involved can be overturned by any other admin) so should only be used when the circumstances are absolutely clear and the admin is neutral. To answer the question more precisely, an admin can block or protect as a normal admin action but not impose a discretionary sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Callanecc notes above DS gives a lot more latitude to administrators than the normal BLP policy does. When using that extended latitude (AC/DS), administrators are expected to not be involved. In regards to normal actions, there are also many administrators on this site and as the committee has noted before no perception of an admin thinking they are the only one enforcing things gives them the ability to act where policy wouldn't allow it. Doing so could result in DS or sanctions for that administrator. I know that's not claimed here, but felt the need to add it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Callanecc said. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Callanecc and Amanda said. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Callanecc about DS, but think that there is almost never any reason to use the admin tools oneself when one is involved , and "clear" is not sufficient guidance. Rather, it's an open invitation to doing it and trying to defend it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Callanecc said it well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Shrike at 08:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Shrike

According to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 any edit done by new account in the area could be reverted according to ARBCOM decision.Recently I stumbled in two cases:

  1. AFD created by a new account Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force_(3rd_nomination) (talk)
  2. Article Issa Amro (talk)

What should be done in such case?Should they be speedy deleted according to G5 or there are some other procedure?

Statement by Thryduulf

The provisions of 500/30 allow, but do not require, edits by users who do not meet the threshold to be reverted or removed. If the edit in question benefits the encyclopaedia (I haven't looked to see if the listed ones do or not) then it seems silly to revert for the sake of reverting. At most a friendly note on the user's talk page informing/reminding them about the 500/30 restriction seems most appropriate.

For any AfD I think following the guidance at Wikipedia:Speedy Keep point 4 is best: If subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's [...] status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I believe this came up at ANI, and it was a bit of a strange case, with the HumanRightsUnderstanding account coming out of nowhere (and disappearing back into that void). In both cases I'm with Thryduulf, which means that, in essence, I completely trust the community in taking care of these issues on their own merits. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation

Initiated by Darkfrog24 at 04:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment and clarification are requested
  1. Accusation of gaslighting by Darkfrog24
  2. Block of Darkfrog24
  3. Topic ban of Darkfrog24
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request



Information about amendment request
  • Accusation of gaslighting by Darkfrog24
  • Reject/repudiate
  • Block of Darkfrog24
  • Unblock
  • Topic ban of Darkfrog24
  • Revisit

Statement by Darkfrog24

I request that discussion, if any, of SMcCandlish's misconduct take place in a separate thread.

Part I: Gaslighting

This is first because it is necessary.

Is it Wikipedia's position that I tried to gaslight SMcCandlish?

Gaslighting is the attempt to convince someone that they're crazy using systematic psychological harassment and torture.

Here are the accusation and links cited: [1] [2] [3]. Last summer, he was acting weird, like something bad had happened off-Wiki. I asked another editor to go easy on him. I asked him (on his talk page, not in front of everyone) if he was okay. I dropped the matter immediately after reading his reply. That is not gaslighting; that is what people should do.

Why this accusation

  • It's extremely serious. Gaslighting isn't just misconduct. It's real-world evil. You'd have to almost not be human.
  • It's similar to the other accusations in that, for it to be true, I would have had to have meant the exact opposite of what I said and my accuser offered no proof of this.
  • Kindness is cruelty because it came from me? This is wrong on every level.

Why this is worth ArbCom's time

In addition to the harm this has done me personally, Wikipedia is bleeding talent and the #1 reason people give for leaving is the toxic environment. The idea that editors can be punished for being nice to someone on the other side of the aisle is the second worst thing I've seen on Wikipedia. We're supposed to be a community.

If you do think that I actually did this, say so.


Part II: Block

Other activity

I come bearing zero attempts at block evasion and, per instructions at Meta-Wiki, months of meaningful contributions to other parts of project Wiki.

I have translated much of Category:Euryarchaeota into Spanish and added new content to most articles, with corresponding updates to Wikidata. Any content disputes were resolved through discussion.

As a result, I was sponsored for autoverificado status, unsolicited. (not the same as autoconfirmation)

I've also worked at Idea Lab, participating in the June anti-harassment drive and other projects. [ I have been thanked].

Solution

I had a slightly different text ready, but a recent conversation gave me some highly useful perspective.

Clarify: 1) I was blocked for volume, not for "talking about other users." The reason I can't figure out why you think my February post to Thryduulf violates WP:BANEX is because you don't. 2) You consider asking about how topic bans work, which I did several times, and attempting to renegotiate my topic ban, which I did once to be the same thing or at least to draw from the same well, the way some employers combine sick and vacation days but others consider them separate. Is that it?

Here's the problem, though: I was targeted by a complaint with excessive volume. 10,000 words is not hyperbole. I did not even get to finish reading it before I was sanctioned, and when I did, I found it was heavily falsified. I don't think anyone here believes "Accusers get as much time as they want to write statements as long as they want and say whatever they want and if the accused can't handle that in days, into the trash with them" is okay. That will only invite abuse. There's got to be a non-disruptive place between my actions and not being allowed to climb out from under the bus.

...that place is clear guidelines for long complaints, and I am in a very good position to be part of that solution. I've worked out some strong ideas:

  • Reject without prejudice all accusations over a certain limit (the come-back-with-something-shorter rule).
  • Allow qualitatively different complaints to be filed consecutively. Instead of rolling eyes at accusers who file a second complaint if the first one fails, encourage it. Admins could spread the weight, and it would be much easier for sanctioned editors to figure out why they were sanctioned. From what I've seen at AE "You were guilty of WP:X but not WP:Y" is often what really happened anyway and saying so makes the accused less likely to think something fishy is going on.
  • Give the accused sufficient time to prepare a response, perhaps with a stay-off-the-page-in-question-in-the-meantime requirement for all parties and commit to reading the whole thing. EDIT: Since drafting this appeal, I've seen Bishonen and Sagerad work out something similar [4]. I'd say at least a day and a half per 500 words of complaint (mine took a month). Downside: This one is the most work.
  • More.

I wasn't ready for a complaint twenty times the limit, and I can believe the AE admins weren't either. Over this year, there's been a growing awareness at AE that the accused shouldn't be expected to respond on the spot. Those efforts should be supported.

Part III: Topic

The source of confusion here is that the AE admins issued the ban for the reasons Thryduulf gave in February, none of which are true and some of which can be easily disproven, but the Committee upheld it for a completely different reason, discussed over email last April. Again, it looks like the issue with my actions at project MOS is closer to volume than to content, and you would consider qualitatively similar participation acceptable so long as there were less of it, per SlimVirgin and my own voluntary offer back in January (NOTE: At the time, I thought "1RR" meant "one talk page post per day.")

I request that you state this. "Darkfrog24 is topic banned for [phrase as you prefer] and nothing else." I would like it if you explicitly rejected the other accusations: "Darkfrog did not call people names, battleground, falsify ENGVAR claims, push POV..." but that's what I want. What I need is up top.

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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

Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=747984605"