Initiated byRich Farmbroughat12:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Remedy 2

• Terminate the remedy

In a case brought against me some three and a half years ago, it was found that certain community norms had been broken by me, specificallyWP:BOTPOL,WP:5P4 andWP:ARBRFUAT.

I note that in the intervening period I have complied withWP:BOTPOL, been civil and collegial with other editors, and been responsive to other editors concerns, as anyone active in the community will know.

In particular I have continued to work atWP:TEAHOUSE, welcome new users, attempted to smooth ruffled feathers atWP:GGTF, mainly by focussing discussion on substantive issues, provided assistance to other editors both on and off-wiki (a list could be made available if desired). I have continued to work on other wikis with no issues.

I also continue to perform work high community trust, on protected templates, but more importantly on edit filters where, together with others (notably Dragons flight) I have overhauled almost every filter to ensure that the whole system continues to work (it was failing) and new filters can be implemented.

Moreover not only have I been policy compliant, collegial and responsive, I have every intention of continuing indefinitely to be so.

For these reasons I request the Arbitration Committee to terminate remedy 2.

Addenda:

Please note that I am eligible to request termination of this sanction from 15 January 2013. The sanction,qua sanction, is continuing to impact my good name in the community, notably impeding my recent RfA, and so the time has come to remove it.

Please also note that I have suggested a more nuanced approach to complete termination in the past, which has been dismissed by various committee members, with rather unflattering characterisations.

Responses

Thryduulf I would certainly consider you views valuable. I have met with other members of the committee at various wiki-functions. Whether to recuse must be your decision. I would not find fault either way. All the best:Rich Farmbrough,20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thryduulf "editor's future employment prospects" maybe; however they can and maybe should consider the effect on the project - especially if the reasons for maintaining the restriction aren't particularly cogent.

"All automated tasks paused or blocked until..." You may be aware that I offered this as part of a solution in the workshop. (I was under the illusion that a workshop was for co-operating to find a way forward.) And I beleive that SmackBot was the only major bot that allowed anyone (including IPs) to stop it - a facility I intended to reintroduce for Helpful Pixie Bot.

Hotcat: really I would doubt that I would use it more than a few times a week at most.

All the best:Rich Farmbrough,22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Clarification - I am not looking to any of the half-dozen tools I mention to perform masses of edits. I am probably one of the slowest Huggle users there is - because I tend to look in more depth at anything that could possibly be goof-faith. It's simply that these tools are all useful, and most of them can be used by every Wikipdia editor except me. Certainly even an IP is allowed to prepare a table in Libre Office and paste the result on-wiki.

All the best:Rich Farmbrough,22:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Guerillero You must have a reason for saying that, do you mind if I ask what it is?

Gorilla Warfare It's hard to be specific. Indeed I have very little time to put into large scale projects. But even simple things like:

1. This list I created on Meta today are forbidden on en:WP.
2. User:WereSpielChequers has a number of lists that need updating.
3. There is a lot of work withWP:Women in Red that needs doing.
4. User:Carrite was looking for better information on editor activity, which I have acquired the data for, but not started coding, partly because I would not be allowed to upload the results.
5. The correction of theUser:Jagged 85 issues has ground to a halt, partly because I had to load my diagnostics onto Meta
6. It would be nice to be able to use Twinkle, Reflinks and Hotcat
7. I might even do some anti-vandal work with Huggle or STiki

But the main point is the stigma. This affects not just my standing in the community, but my ability to volunteer for certain roles on-wiki, and even my eligibility for employment off-wiki.

All the best:Rich Farmbrough,01:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Seraphimblade What lead up to it? A lot of things, that Ican address here (or elsewhere) if you wish. However what I prefer to address specifically is the negative "findings of fact" which are putatively the committee's take on "what lead up to it." For example one suggested that I was "not responsive". I do not here challenge that claim, I simply point out that since that date I have been responsive. Similarly I have not infringed on BOTPOL. And I doubt anyone could challenge that I have been collegial - indeed my main thrust on the non-content part of Wikipedia has to be to encourage people to work together - and civil. Indeed I have had two complaints about being too civil.

Moreover I can state categorically that I have every intention of continuing to be collegial, civil, responsive and policy compliant.

All the best:Rich Farmbrough,15:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
(Currently watchingWikiConference USA live.)

Corcelles Your response does not provide any useful feedback. I have explicitly invited feedback from Arbitrators on several occasions over the years, which has given you plenty of opportunity to discuss any issues you think remain unresolved. If, of course, you believe that I am an unredeemable case, then no feedback is to be expected, as it would be a waste of your valuable time. Otherwise a more detailed response would be useful.

All the best:Rich Farmbrough,16:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

AGK I am surprised you are not recusing yourself here All the best:Rich Farmbrough,16:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Native Foreigner I am always interested in any wisdom about my actions. I reiterate the invitation to share or discuss them, here, on my talk page, by email, by phone/Skype or in person which I made some considerable time ago.

As to looking into the case, I'm afraid it's a bit of a mammoth, but I find the weakness of the supporting evidence to the findings, and particularly the need to go back additional years quite telling. To take one example, I am under sanctions now, partly for making edits in 2010, which someone has deemed were "too fast" to comply with BOTPOL. And yet there is nothing in BOTPOL of 10 November 2010 about any limitation on assisted editing speed. (Later versionsspecifically exclude speed alone as being an issue.) And the speed wasn't excessive - most editors who do administrative work will have had bursts of comparable speed - for example you edited at 10 edits per minute on 17 July. According to the 2012 committee you should have submitted a BRFA authorisation for that.

Now this is just one part of one finding, and it took quite some research to check the BOTPOL pages for the appropriate dates, check the evidence, come up with a comparator. It is also a nominally objective piece of evidence and a nominally objective policy. For subjective matters like being "civil" and "responsive" the amount of work required to construct a good refutation is much higher. I therefore requested the committee allow me 14 days to put together a response to the proposed findings. This was refused and I never got to defend myself from the very surprising proposed decision, and have been working on-and-off to deal with the problems it has caused ever since.

All the best:Rich Farmbrough,03:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

DGG Perhaps you would like to give an example? We have a lot of tools in our kit-bag to deal with problems, making them mostly trivial to resolve. There are no negative findings about any automated edits. Indeed findingWP:ARB RF EX EX EX states:

He has extensive experience with and expertise in the use of automation...

All the best:Rich Farmbrough,13:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Salvio giuliano Thank you for your positive response. All the best:Rich Farmbrough,18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Doug Weller Thanks for your thoughtful response. It might be of interest to know that I offered to work with a similar halting system during the workshop phase of the case. All the best:Rich Farmbrough,18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure what exactly would prevent Rich from parsing a large data set and posting his results, which he mentions above with regards to analysis of WMF data to draw inferences about the editing population. If anything stands in the way of this, it needs to be set aside, at a minimum. As for the rest, once again ArbCom is looking more than a little stubborn and vindictive here in not allowing RF some sort of path back to full functionality as an editor. Drop his restrictions and restore them by motion if he resumes negative behavior, it seems obvious. I'm very frustrated with the current committee's lack of faith or willingness to take minor risks for the greater good of the project.Carrite (talk)14:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that Arbcom might see an opportunity here merely to clarify the original excessive limitations and allow Rich to use hotcat and reflinks and to generate reports in his own userspace or ideally Wikipedia space. But really the time for such a clarification was three and a half years ago, surely by now it is time to simply lift that sanction.

As Rich mentioned he has produced some very useful listsWikipedia:Articles with UK Geocodes but without images being my favourite example. Along with a couple of other editors I've been testing image adding as an exercise for new editors, and we reckon we are ready, we just need this sanction lifted so we can get the report regularly refreshed instead of telling newbies to remove items from the list.

With the loss of toolserver and the problems at labs we have lost many regular reports. Including three areas I've started or been involved in such asDeath Anomalies - which would be the next one I'd ask Rich to consider adopting. The lack of these reports is incredibly frustrating, and seriously holds the project back. You have an opportunity to reduce that problem by lifting or at least reducing the restrictions on Rich.ϢereSpielChequers09:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to move on, and let the Community of Wikipedians take over, rather than Arbcom never letting go and in the process throwing away the Committee's valuable time, which ought to be invested on real risks and divisive harmful issues within the community.

There is no risk whatsoever to Wikimedia projects if all sanctions are now lifted. This long ago became a incomprehensible and bureaucratic punishment, rather than a sanction that can be claimed to be done to "protect the community", or Rich for that matter.

If members of Arbcom wish to advise the Wikipedia community, they might validlysuggest a voluntary restriction like 10 pages per minute. I have no doubt that Rich would subscribe to these suggestions and make a case with the community when he is ready to relax them further. There are plenty of highly active Wikimedians that will help Rich out with advice and reviews of his edits, should they introduce any issues with articles or templates.

Everyone writing here knows that Rich is a valuable contributor who has rare talents to offer our shared mission and he should be supported, encouraged and praised for his astonishing commitment, rare skills and patience during this years long case.

I haven't talked in person to Rich since last year. However we have had several chats about the future of the projects, chapters and the Foundation over the years. Back in 2012 I interviewed him about his experience with Arbcom, this remains unpublished. I expected to write it up once his Arbcom sanctions ended, as I did not want an interview which examined the experience and emotional impact that long punitive cases like this have, to influence the case or later appeals. We had no idea that this would be eating up our time and stopping Rich from contributing in 2015.--Fæ (talk)12:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After three and a half years, it's time to just lift these sanctions. I don't think leaving them in place in any way serves the interest of the project. I doubt very much that Rich is suddenly going to go off into 'La La Land' if these restrictions are lifted. It's time toAGF here and move on. Also, it is reasonable to assume that leaving these sanctions in place will make it impossible for Rich to advance at RfA and be resysopped – thus leaving sanction in place almost seems punitive at this point. Anyway, that's my $0.02. --IJBall(contribs •talk)04:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my support for the sanction to be lifted. Others have said it more eloquently above so I won't try and rehash it. Plus, if I'm honest, I'm still pretty annoyed about the original decision and I'm not sure if writing a few paragraphs criticising the committee would help Rich's case here. Suffice it to say, I think they made the wrong call then and it looks even more wrong three years down the track. Please do the right thing and extend Rich some good faith.Jenks24 (talk)07:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While intuition and gut feeling about something might be legitimate on Wikipedia; in an Arbitration case and with the arbs as with the rest of the community those feelings must be supported by specific diffs of actions which clearly indicate a user cannot be trusted or has not functioned appropriately under a restriction. 31/2 years is along time, and I don't see any specific diffs from that time period pointing to poor editing behaviour or to behaviours which would indicate a restriction is necessary. Arbitrators are held to the same standards we all are and should support allegations with substantive proof for their positions. Arbitrators are not judges or juries; they are the neutral third party in disputes. Here the parties. the members of the community who have concerns and Rich have spoken so the arbs then, given the definitions of their role must indicate why this is not sufficient to undue a restrictions. In my opinion assuming a position on 3 1/2 years of editing with out anything specific or substantive to support that position is unfair and punitive neither which are appropriate.

• Per Thryduulf:

The community is the encyclopedia. They, community and encyclopedia, as I think you are implying are not mutually exclusiveexcept in some instances. Your comment brought up for me an conern I have when I see the statement, "this is an encyclpedia first." It is not an encyclpedia first, it is first a collaboratibe project the goal of which is to create an encyclopedia. Unless the individuals are treated fairly the communithy will eventually collapse and so of course will the encyclopedia. I have great respect for Thryduulf's consistent, deeply thoughtful comments. Thank you. :O)(Littleolive oil (talk)15:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC))Statement by {other-editor}[reply]

Some of Rich statements are extremely encouraging:"one suggested that I was "not responsive". I do not here challenge that claim, I simply point out thatsince that date I have been responsive." and reassuring:"I amnot looking to any of the half-dozen tools I mention to perform masses of edits.". These are countered by argumentation:"There are no negative findings about any automated edits."—Findings of fact are hopefully neutral; and rationale that are not obviouslyfor the benefit of the encyclopedia:"eligibility for employment off-wiki" and"notably impeding my recent RfA".

The blockhas had a positive effect on Rich's contributions and it is extremely pleasing that Rich has built a new niche after the boundaries were made clear—but editors have long memories of the (past) unparalleled disruption caused by self-invented-up AWB tasks, so it's unlikely to be able to find a route that's going to pleaseeveryone thefirst time around. We can see the clearly divided opinions, so something down the middle is probably theleast unpalatable to all.

It is extremely easy to simply say "no", but perhaps Douget al's suggestions oflimited parole in own User space and performing tasksrequested by others (ie. not dreamt-up) in non-article space, are a plausible solution. For theproponents this gives Rich Farmbrough a chance to prove himself, and for the doubters this can be seen asWP:ROPE. Enforcement likely needs to stay atWP:AE with incrementing draconian blocks, because this is the only remedy has worked effectively in effecting behavioural change, with everything else has resulted in endless discussion ("dramaz"). For AE to be effective any new boundaries require equally clear-cut edges so that evaluation can be quantifiable and enforcement can be emotionless—Rich should know where the edges are without the need to feel or push.

Yes, I have [past tense] beenmassively inconvenienced by Rich + bots for several years, half-a-decade ago. I've been watching this and I'm even willing to argue for some level of rehabilitation. Even I'm amazed by that. Support has its limits through; and I would invite Rich to make a clear statement about whether he wishes to go the bot route (here)or the admin route (RfA)—I don't think any combination of trying to do both is either tenable or feasible. Such an undertaking might well be sufficient for even the most resolute doubters to come around. —Sladen (talk)21:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only lingering damage from Rich's automated editing that I'm aware of is that which is part of the history-merge backlog. It's unfortunately acatch-22 that Rich can't repair these without the admin tools. Can anyone with a long memory identify any other issues caused by Rich's automated edits which have not yet been repaired? If yes, I'd ask him to fix those first before granting this request. If no, then I agree that by now it is time to simply lift the sanction. "Probation" can simply be requiring him to promptly fix any damage he creates, and to make limited "trial runs" of any new major repetitive automated edits, thenstop andwait to ensure that there is no negative reaction to it, so that if there is, the repair of such damage will not be exceedingly difficult or time-consuming.Wbm1058 (talk)02:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over 3 years now. IMHO, the restriction should be repealed & Rich given a chance to prove himself.GoodDay (talk)02:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• I'm considering whether to recuse on this, given extensive interaction with Rich IRL at wikimeets and the like. Rich, if you have a strong opinion either way let me know and I'll respect that.Thryduulf (talk)14:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have decided I do not need to recuse here. I do not think that an editor's future employment prospects are something that we can consider (cfWikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Motion Carried re images of sexuality in ancient and medieval times) as our remit is to act in the interests of the encyclopaedia and the wider project rather than the interests of individual editors (where these are mutually exclusive). In contrast perhaps to previous committees I'm tempted to allow a modification to the restriction. As an initial proposal for discussion I would suggest allowing:
    1. the manual use ofWP:HOTCAT at a rate not exceeding a rate of 10 pages edited using hotcat in any 60 minute period. Your hotcat edits should not exceed 50% of your total article namespace edits in any 24 hour period.
    2. the use of automated tools to generate project-space or userspace lists and to maintain those lists if necessary, where these have been asked for by other Wikimedians and have permission granted atWP:BOTREQ.

    These would all be subject to the requirement that in the event of any complaints or queries raised about your automated edits by another editor, all automated tasks must be paused or halted at least until the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, or to the satisfaction of an uninvolved administrator if agreement cannot be reached.

  I would not, at this stage, be inclined to allow the use of any automated tools that make any edits to content namespaces (other than hotcat). I do not think that these would lead to the problems that lead to these restrictions in the first place, but would allow Rich to demonstrate he can use automation responsibly.Thryduulf (talk)10:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rich Farmbrough: I intend to try and move this request forward and get an actual outcome, however the Eric Corbett, Lightbreather and Gender gap issues have rather stolen the Committee's time at present so I can't say exactly when that will be.Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)resigning to fix the pingThryduulf (talk)14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not inclined to remove this sanction -- |04:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rich Farmbrough: What kind of bot-assisted edits would you intend to make, should this sanction be removed?GorillaWarfare(talk)01:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rich Farmbrough: What do you understand as the issues that led up to the sanction being placed, and what steps would you take to prevent similar situations from occurring again?Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}13:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I could support a relaxation of the restriction, as I do see the point that Rich's overall style of interaction really has improved. I think I'd want to see how that works out before supporting a parole leading toward eventual lifting. I think the restrictions to non-mainspace for automated tasks are wise, at least initially, and certainly only to preapproved tasks (and any tests necessary prior to approval). For semiautomation, like Huggle and the like, I think we could allow normal use of that, provided that such tools are not used for any unsupervised, fully automated editing in mainspace and Rich is in fact pressing the button for each such edit.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}16:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I will not support removing or loosening this sanction.Courcelles (talk)14:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I would support one and only one relaxation; that being to Rich's own userspace and user talk space.Courcelles (talk)02:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I too would not allow this request.AGK[•]09:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I have serious concerns about lifting such sanctions. That being said I do somewhat concur with the view that occasionally risks must be taken. The action which Rich took were indubitably problematic and I think to some degree he may not fully understand what was problematic about them. I feel, personally, like it may not be prudent. However, we're quite far down the line and to take a risk (or even to do something as minor as allowing bot edits in non content workspaces so long as the bot is reviewed, or perhaps implementing a somewhat more strict mentor or approval process). As my term continues I am growing less and less enthusiastic with the notion of grand packages of restrictions to allow problem editors to stay, although this is primarily within the realm of civility. Nonetheless I think this needs discussion past the point of "I have issues trusting this individual." Don't get me wrong, I have concerns about lifting the restriction myself, but it's been 3+ years and some of the originally identified poor behaviors seem to have changed for the better. The general community support for removing them also bears considering. The individual certainly seems to have more trust with the community than with the members of arbcom, and why exactly this is I am not sure, but it has convinced me I should look more into the case to see if I am missing anything from either side.NativeForeigner^Talk17:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The problems that can be created by any automated editing can be so difficult to resolve, that I'm not prepared to take the risk. DGG ( talk)05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In this case, I support aparole; alternatively, if there is no consensus for that, I also support a relaxation of the restriction.Salvio^{Let's talk about it!}10:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I support gradual relaxation, with the first stage his own userspace and talkpage, work onUser:Jagged 85 if that doesn't involved directly editing articles, and specific requests from users such asUser:WereSpielChequers to do non-article space work (which other editors could then move into article spaceif required). Where appropriate obviously he'd need permission granted atWP:BOTREQ. I don't see any particular risks in such a relaxation and it appears that other editors and indeed the project could benefit from it. I'd include Thryduulf's requirement that "These would all be subject to the requirement that in the event of any complaints or queries raised about your automated edits by another editor, all automated tasks must be paused or halted at least until the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, or to the satisfaction of an uninvolved administrator if agreement cannot be reached." Rich should be given a chance to show that he can use his skills responsibly.Doug Weller (talk)15:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see completely dropping this measure out of the blue, though I do see the community that wishes we'd move on. So that said, a gradual relaxation or something of the sort of things mentioned above is definitely in order. I would start with the userspace first and see where that goes though. I'll ponder some thoughts over the next steps. --Amanda(aka DQ)05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated byCypherPunkyBrewsterat15:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Privatemusings 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Note: This is alegitimate alternative account. I will be happy to reveal my main account to arbcom on request.

In the 2007 Privatemusings case, (Final decision --> Principles --> Sockpuppetry) the following language was used:

"Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates."

This is referenced byWikipedia:Sock puppetry (Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts --> Editing project space) with the language

"Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project."

I created this account after the gamergate arbcom case. In that case, I did not comment on that case using my main account because so many people who have expressed an opinion on gamergate have received real-world harassment off-wiki. I was hoping to use this account if that ever happened again (and, of course, only in cases where I was unambiguously uninvolved.)

Q1: In cases where I have had no prior interactions with anyone named in an arbcom case and had never edited the pages being discussed is using my alternate account to make a statement in an arbcom case a legitimate use of an alternate account?

Q2: Same question, but for ANI, RS noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard, AIAV, COI noticeboard, etc.

Q3: What, exactly, are undisclosed alternative accounts? Is this account "disclosed" by way of my disclosing that it is an alternative account, or do I have to name my main account?

Q4: What, exactly are "discussions internal to the project" and/or "edits to project space"? Are we talking about namespaces here, and if so, which ones?

Basically, I just want clear guidelines on what I can and can not do using this alternative account. I am not disputing any policies or decisions; I just want to know how to follow them.

• ToUser:JzG, who wrote"CypherPunkyBrewster is an account apparently created to advance the cause of climate change denial": You are wrong, and you are failing to assume good faith. This alternate account was created in order to edit articles and participate in discussions related to those articles where there is a significant chance of being branded as pro-gamergate, anti-gamergate, global warming denialist, global warming alarmist, pinko liberal, tea-party conservative, or even swivel-eyed loon. I am well aware of the discretionary sanctions associated with American Politics and Climate Change. I do not believe that I have violated the DS using this account, and I have completely stayed away from climate change on my main account for obvious reasons. If you think that I have violated the DS, feel free to report me at AE (I have no problem with identifying my main account to arbcom and asking them to publicly confirm no global warming involvement.)

• ToUser:Rich Farmbrough, who wrote"Of course that is a matter for the community, not the committee, though their comments would undoubtedly have some weight", because the 2007 Privatemusings case is cited at the sock puppetry page, I strongly suspect that any attempt to start a community discussion on this topic would quickly devolve into multiple comments telling me to go to arbcom, so I did that first. Also, depending on how one answers my questions above, I could very well beforbidden from starting a community discussion on this topic. It would be, after all, a "discussions internal to the project".CypherPunkyBrewster (talk)03:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ToUser:Seraphimblade (regarding the entire comment), That makes perfect sense to me, and I will have no problem following the clarification you posted. Thanks! On reflection, I see the wisdom of using the alternate account only for article editing and dispute resolution directly related to those articles. I will stay away from discussions of project policy, requesting sanctions against other editors, or general participation in dispute resolution or audited content processes when not related to articles I am working on with my alternate account. And of course I already knew that the main and alternate account must keep strictly clear of editing in the same area, and all the other "don't do that"s listed in the sock puppetry policy. I will note that I made one edit that I now know was not allowed.[1] I apologize for that and assure you that it will not happen again. Again, thanks for the clear explanation.CypherPunkyBrewster (talk)04:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ToSalvio giuliano, If another case like gamergate ever hits arbcom, I would like to comment as an uninvolved editor (revealing my main account to arbcom so you can verify that I am not involved), but not if it means revealing my real-world identity. Some of those involved in gamergate have done some nasty real-world harassment against those who disagree with them. Let me know if you think a majority of arbcom agrees with you and I will post an RfC at the sock puppet page. I have never made a gamergate edit using either account, but assuming that I had edited gamergate using my alternate account, as I understand it it would be OK for someone to name me as being involved, followed by my revealing my main account to arbcom so you can confirm that the main account has never edited gamergate. So let's say that happens and I end up being blocked (not likely, BTW; my main account is over five years old with over 10,000 edits and no blocks or editing restrictions and I don't intent to abuse this one either). It would seem reasonable in that case to block both accounts, but how to do that without revealing my real-world identity? In my particular case I know the rules about block evasion and would cease editing using my main account until the block was lifted on my alternate account, but I doubt that this would be a good solution for the more aggressive editors who end up at arbcom. So how do we handle that situation? --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk)17:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ToGorillaWarfare, is it even allowed for an alternate account like mine to make a clean start while the main account stays the same? I kind of assumed that that wouldn't be allowed. Unrelated question; I do want to give people confidence that I am not violating our sock puppet rules, so if I put a notice on my user page saying that any and all checkusers can look at my account for any reason, would that override the usual checkuser restrictions? Is there any way my waiving my privacy in that way could compromise the privacy of someone else?CypherPunkyBrewster (talk)17:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Related question: Again just asking about what this particular arbcom decision does and does not allow, and of course assuming that the other legitimate sock puppet restrictions are obeyed, is an alternate account allowed to ask questions at the teahouse, reference desk, or help desk? I think that we have already established that this is allowed if in support of an article the alt account is working on, but how about generally? Some questions might be of a personal nature. How about answering questions posted by others? I saw a recent rrefdesk question where one of the answers mentioned that the person answering was transgender. That might not be something you want to be published on the internet about yourself. --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk)20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I urge the committee not to accept any requests from this account until there is apublic declaration of the editor's primary account.BMK (talk)20:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Guy's comment below, I concur that CPB's edits do indeed seem to be pushing that agenda. I have asked CPB on their talk page to reveal what account they are an alternate of, but if he or she refuses or ignores the request, I strongly urge the committee not to proceed without CPB revealing to the committee what that account is, and an evaluation being made to see if any aspect ofWP:SOCK is being violated. Alternate accounts may not be used to avoid scrutiny, and the climate change area is certainly one in which there has been a significant amount of sockpuppety and other disruptions.BMK (talk)22:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a Climate Change Discretionary Sanctions notice on CPB's talk page.BMK (talk)22:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So on his talk page - as well as personally attacking me and my motivations - CPB says that he wants to use this account to edit contentious subjects, such as Gamergate, Climate Change, and American Politics. But there is a standard in place for editing Gamergate - since we don't knowwho CPB is, how is that standard of time/edits to be applied? Certainly the CPB account wouldn't qualify.

In any case, from CPB's description on the talk page, it appears to me that what he wants is a "get out of jail free" card, where his "legitimate" alternate account can raise hell in contentious and disputatious subject areas, and his primary account can merrily edit without suffering any consequences, or scrutiny from other editors.BMK (talk)03:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since anything the Arbitrators say here is simply advisory in nature, and since CypherPunkyBrewster has outed his other identity ([2]), perhaps this ought to be closed.BMK (talk)22:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: Blocks are forpeople, not for accounts.BMK (talk)02:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note for the record that admin Swarm has rev del'dor oversighted the self-identification I referred to above, I'm not sure under what theory.BMK (talk)05:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I also note that the AN/I thread which Guy Macon opened about this issue has been moved by Swarm[3] to Archive 901, and then was rev del'dor oversighted from that archive by him[4].BMK (talk)05:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: There is no reason to "rejoice in one's own cleverness" when the master account discloses their identity and then attempts to deny it, instead of simply standing mute. Seeing hyprocrisy such as that brings joy to nobody.BMK (talk)16:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has always seemed to me an invidious limitation of legitimate socks. If someone wants (for whatever reason) to use different accounts for different subject areas, then to suggest that those accounts be banned from "project space" discussion is not useful. Certainly crossover should be minimised. I have always imagined that this was an unintentional broadening of the proscription regarding creation of false impressions of support.

Of course that is a matter for the community, not the committee, though their comments would undoubtedly have some weight.

All the best:Rich Farmbrough,21:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Addendum

This is a clarification request about:

1. A previous ruling
2. Opinion on policy

Clearly if it constituted trolling and was also deemed not useful, then the Committee would be very likely to speedy close it one way or another - and in the very unlikely event that the trolling nature was obscure, posting evidence to that effect would be legitimate.

However this seems a perfectly good faith question - and the fact that there is difference of opinion, and legitimate hemming and hawing from respected editors indicates that it is one that needs to be taken seriously.

In this context neither attempted outing nor tarring the interlocutor with the brush "climate change denialist" are necessarily useful.

All the best:Rich Farmbrough,15:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Salvio - I think NE Ent is perfectly correct. Editing while blocked is of course blockable, and generally leads to block extensions. It would certainly verge on self-outing if a block of the alternate account/extension of block resulted in people putting two and two together. Of course there would still be no need for anyone to, rejoicing in their own cleverness, comment on the identity of the main account.All the best:Rich Farmbrough,16:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

CypherPunkyBrewster (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) is an account apparently created to advance the cause of climate change denial. Given the arbitration cases in that are already (both American Politics and Climate change), it would seem like areally bad idea to let this alternate account edit in project space.Guy(Help!)21:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If one account gets blocked, the editor simply doesn't use other when the block is in place.NE Ent19:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way I've handled the main account blocked and alt account issue is leaving the alt account unblocked, then if it evades the block on the master's account blocking it for block evasion (without saying more) or asking another admin (a CU when it happened) to block the alt account. That way the two blocks are either separated by time, or, even better, by different blocking admins. If you wanted to block both accounts for the duration of the block the same principle applies, one admin blocks the main account and another blocks the alt account (with a different, but similar block summary).Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)05:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is asking a long string of hypothetical questions. Some of them are brainteasers and not without interest. But the editor has not identified any special hardship that causes them to need relief from thesockpuppet policy. Since there is no valid grievance here there is nothing to adjudicate. My suggestion is that Arbcom should close this request with no action. Changes in policy can be proposed elsewhere.EdJohnston (talk)02:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• As Rich Farmbrough says, this is a matter of the sockpuppetry/alternate accounts policy, but it was also brought up in the Privatemusings case. The idea behind it, I think, is quite clear. Some editors, if they, for example, edit articles on sexuality, politics, or other "hot button" areas, may not want those edits to be associated with their main account. Provided that the main and alternate account keep strictly clear of editing in the same area, and the alternate account isn't being used to behave badly or otherwise avoid scrutiny, that is permitted. But the alternate account is not to be used in areas outside of article editing. Article editing, in my view, would generally be composed of the article and article talk spaces, any dispute resolution processes directly related to those articles such as mediation if you're reasonably a party to such a process, and other areas directly related to article content editing such as featured article/good article/DYK candidacies related to articles edited by the alternate account. So at least in my view, it wouldn't be entirely bound to a given namespace. Rather, it is bound to a purpose, content editing. It wouldnot, therefore, include discussions of project policy, requesting sanctions against other editors, or other such internal processes. Nor would it allow general participation in dispute resolution or audited content processes when not related to articles the alternate account is working on. The editor would need to pick a single primary account to use in such internal discussions, and use only that account for them. If you'd prefer that the primary account not be associated with such discussions, your option would be to avoid participating in them.

  For your specific hypothetical scenarios, then: In an ArbCom case, the alternate account should be used only if it is a named party. If you'd like to jump in on a case you're not a named party to, use your primary account. (If the alternate account is a named party, it would be wise to inform the Committee privately of the situation.) AN(I) and other administrative boards, generally not (though I personally wouldn't care if you reported blatant vandals to AIV with it.) Content discussion boards like RSN, NPOVN, etc., yes, so long as the discussion there is directly related to the alternate account's edits. So, discussing content yes, discussing editors no. For your third question, "disclosure" in this sense would mean publicly and clearly disclosing what primary account the alternate account is linked to (you can seemy public terminal account for what that looks like), not just disclosing that it is an alternate. I think your fourth question is answered by the above.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}22:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: You bring up some additional good points. In the case that an alternate account is engaging in poor or sanctionable behavior, I would see it as entirely justifiable for an administrator to indef the alternate account as a "bad hand" sock. Alternate accounts arenot meant to engage in poor behavior without that reflecting on the primary account, and the sockpuppetry policy already forbids that type of misuse. The conduct of the alternate account must be absolutely above reproach. So far as areas like Gamergate where editing restrictions apply, if the alternate account doesn't meet the requirements to edit there and isn't clearly and publicly linked to an account that does, well then, that account can't be used to edit there. Admins need to be able toverify that the editor is eligible to edit there; a vague handwave that "Oh, I have a different account that does meet the requirements" doesn't cut it. Nor is private disclosure and verification in that instance. Even when feasible, that would be too much of a timesink.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}11:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My interpretation of current policy is as follows:
  • Q1: In cases where I have had no prior interactions with anyone named in an arbcom case and had never edited the pages being discussed is using my alternate account to make a statement in an arbcom case a legitimate use of an alternate account?

    No. Participating in "discussions internal to the project" on an alternative account is explicitly prohibited byWP:SOCK, and ArbCom cases qualify.

  • Q2: Same question, but for ANI, RS noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard, AIAV, COI noticeboard, etc.

    Same as above; these are internal to the project.

  • Q3: What, exactly, are undisclosed alternative accounts? Is this account "disclosed" by way of my disclosing that it is an alternative account, or do I have to name my main account?

    No. Publicly disclosed alternative accounts are accounts that are identified by name and clearly linked to the main account. For example, if User:Foo stated clearly that they had registered the account User:Foo(public) for use on unsecured networks, it would not be a breach of policy for them to comment on internal discussions, as this account would be clearly linked to the primary account. Simply stating that an account is an alt is not sufficient.GorillaWarfare(talk)00:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Q4: What, exactly are "discussions internal to the project" and/or "edits to project space"? Are we talking about namespaces here, and if so, which ones?

    I'm hesitant to say concretely that alternate accounts can only edit the Main and article talk namespaces, because there are plenty of exceptions. I think Seraphimblade is correct to instead identify edits that are not directly related to improving article content as inappropriate.

I do think there is an interesting issue here, though. People who have accounts that are clearly traceable to real-world identities may not be comfortable participating in situations like the Gamergate case, where there is a real risk that people will try to retaliate. These people are effectively barred from participating in these discussions, as alternate accounts cannot be used in projectspace discussions even when used to protect privacy. The only real way for a user to get around this is aWP:Clean start, which comes with its own host of problems.GorillaWarfare(talk)00:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Sorry if that was unclear. You would not be able to "clean start" with an alternative account—you would need to abandon the primary account in this hypothetical.GorillaWarfare(talk)02:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts on this are essentially the same as Seraphimblade's. One way to allow alternate accounts used for the purposes of protecting privacy to participate in internal discussions would be to allow disclosure to the Arbitration Committee (possibly with some safeguards to prevent abuse of this). However, this would require amending both the sockpuppetry policy and the Privatemusings case. I would be amenable to the latter, but only if there is a community consensus for the former at an RfC or equivalent. Until that happens though, alternate accounts that arenot publicly disclosed may not participate in arbitration cases, etc. to which they are not a party and that are unrelated to article content they are working on.Thryduulf (talk)09:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally speaking, I tend to agree with my colleagues, with one exception: for me, alternative accounts disclosed to ArbCom cannot be considered "undisclosed alternative accounts" for the purposes ofWP:SOCK. Then again, this is only my opinion and we are being asked to clarify a policy, rather than one of our decisions, so I don't know how much weight our collective opinions carry here.Salvio^{Let's talk about it!}10:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an editor has good reasons to desire to participate in an ArbCom case with an alternative account, he can try sending us an e-mail, explaining those reasons to us and if we're persuaded, we may grant an exception. That doesn't need an RfC.

    It would seem reasonable in that case to block both accounts, but how to do that without revealing my real-world identity? [...] So how do we handle that situation? I'll have to think about this a little more before I can give you an answer...Salvio^{Let's talk about it!}19:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is important to understand that principles reflect policy and generally-accepted best practices at the time they were written; principles are not in-and-of-themselves binding if community norms or policies change after the fact. It is not clear to me that any action is required on this matter.L19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated byWaenceslausat16:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Longevity topic related articles

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Longevity topic related articles

• Kind request of the user Waenceslaus to get un-topic-banned in the field of longevity.

Greetings, I am a Wikipedian from Poland since June 17, 2014. My main area of interest is the study of extreme longevity. I have been topic banned in August of 2015 on the basis of misunderstanding regarding the consideration of reliability of sources used for the topic related articles. Being unaware of new settings, I reverted a destructive edit which removed a source that has always been considered as reliable and as a result my account was topic-banned for all the longevity related articles. I consider this decision as very unfortunate for the reason that it has been forced too fast so that I didn't have an opportunity neither to say anything in my defense nor explain the position I took. Over the past year of my activity in this area, I have made many constructive edits as seen in mycontributions' page. Furthermore, I have created many new articles related in the topic area such asList of Polish supercentenarians,Aleksandra Dranka,List of Czech supercentenarians,List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary,List of supercentenarians born in the Russian Empire,List of supercentenarians from the Nordic countries,List of supercentenarians from Asia,List of supercentenarians of the Caribbean,List of supercentenarians from Oceania,Maria Pogonowska. I believe that I brought much for this branch with my work and I am still willing to contribute further. Therefore my kind plea. Sincerely,Waenceslaus (talk)16:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appeal should go elsewhere. The ban was *not* under discretionary sanctions. SeeWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#Topic ban for Waenceslaus.

This was a regular community topic ban imposed byUser:Future Perfect at Sunrise in August, 2015. It's been entered inWP:RESTRICT. The editor wasnotified here on user talk. There are discretionary sanctions provided under the Longevity case but FP did not use them. So unless Arbcom thinks there was something abusive here, there is nothing forUser:Waenceslaus to appeal in this forum.EdJohnston (talk)17:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Decline as a valid community sanction -- |18:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Valid community sanction, that even if wecould overturn, I see absolutely no reason why itshould be.Courcelles (talk)20:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically, this is the wrong venue, as appeals of community sanctions should go toWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case; then again, as far as I'm concerned, there's no point in moving this thread there, since I don't see any reason for us to overturn the sanction.Salvio^{Let's talk about it!}21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. While theoretically we can review community sanctions, we would only overturn them in cases where there were very serious issues. Even if filed properly, there isn't any chance we would overturn this one.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}00:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Ed Johnston. On the basis that there wasn't anything abusive,decline.NativeForeigner^Talk11:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per Salvio.Thryduulf (talk)11:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline.L21:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DeclineDoug Weller (talk)18:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per EdJohnston. --Euryalus (talk)15:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Shall I even pile on? --Amanda(aka DQ)05:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated byHullaballoo Wolfowitzat15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Site-ban

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

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) (initiator)
• Lightbreather (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [5]

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Site-ban

• That an exception be made to Lightbreather's sanctions, allowing her to respond on-wiki to on-wiki criticisms, paralleling the exception advocated for Eric Corbett, making an exception to his topic ban allowing him to respond on-wiki to off-wiki criticisms

Lightbreather has been subjected to innuendo, aspersions, derogatory comments and personal attacks in connection with the discussion of the recent block and unblock of Eric Corbett. There is strong community sentiment that, despite his topic ban, Corbett should be allowed to comment on-wiki about comments and accusations made against him off-wiki. Given that no one was been sanctioned or warned for their attacks on Lightbreather, and no comments have apparently been removed or suppressed, it is only fair that she be afforded the same opportunity to respond on-wiki to on-wiki attacks and criticism, especially since much of that commentary rests on assertions made without evidence. It is anomalous that such comments may be freely made about Lightbreather while statements made about themale editor (not Corbett, to avoid any confusion) accused with evidence of sexually harassing Lightbreather on-wiki and off-wiki have regularly been expunged. Therefore, an exception should be made to Lightbreather's sanctions affording her a decent, reasonable, and adequate opportunity to respond to these sustained on-wiki comments and aspersions.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk)15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter andFæ: Are you arguing that female editor Lightbreather needs to ask for equal treatment when male editor Corbett didn't have to ask for the exception that seems to be being made, and the male on-wiki sexual harasser didn't have to ask for suppression of criticism and comments? Do some editors receive such grace as a matter of course, while others must go hat in hand to beg for fair treatment? Are some of the animals here less equal than others?The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk)16:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: This is not a ban appeal. This is a request for consistent treatment, which would not have been necessary if Wikipedia had been willing to afford the same rights and protections that other editors enjoy. Being site-banned does not paint a target on Lightbreather and authorize free fire with no ability to return it.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk)19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: How can you maintain that I have introduced concepts like "male" and "female" into a matter that already involved serious sexual harassment?The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk)19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very much like a bit of a nonstarter to me. Lightbreather is currently not even able to edit her user talk page. That makes it extremely difficult for any statement by her to be presented anywhere, except, perhaps, by e-mail to the committee. That being the case, it would presumably be reasonable for her to e-mail the committee to request this herself. Also, honestly, it would be useful to know whether Lightbreather had any intention of returning, which, without a visible comment from her, is at best theoretical, at least to those of us who don't see the presumptive e-mail she might send. Lastly, she was site-banned in July of this year, and as perWP:UNBAN she might not be capable of even appealing that ban until next July. All that taken into account, even given the presumption of the best of intentions by the person making the request, this very much seems to me to be something that would require input which can't be made, at least visibly, here.

Having said all that, if there is a basis for believing this individual has allegations here she wishes to address, it might, maybe, be possible for theWikipedia:Signpost to interview her, and maybe others, regarding the current brouhaha about the Atlantic article, which I am going to presume is the proximate subject of discussion here. In fact, I even suggested such coverage myself at Jimbo's talk page recently.John Carter (talk)15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to HW, I am saying nothing of the kind, I think a reading of my comment above would demonstrate that, and I rather strongly object to the presumption that I might be. And I find the introduction of "male" v. "female" arguments nothing less than appalling. Lightbreather, for better or worse, is sitebanned for a year. Eric is not. "Sitebanned" vs. "not sitebanned" is the more appropriate differentiation here.John Carter (talk)16:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to GoodDay below, Lightbreather had her ability to edit her own user talk page at the same time as the site ban was imposed.John Carter (talk)16:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: you introduced them to this particular discussion, which honestly is about the lifting of a ban of a sitebanned editor, not about anything about men or women. And that editor was not banned because of any issues related to sexual abuse, but rather gross misconduct in the topic of gun control and still-private evidence ofWP:OUTING, which is at best tangentially related to any issues of sexual abuse. By so doing, it could reasonably be seen that you are attempting to basically distract from the more central issue, about lifting a siteban implemented on the basis of gross misconduct, to a marginally related issue, that the individual involved is a woman. That woman has recently taken advantage of her ban by providing information for a rather embarrassingly bad article off-site. And you did it on the basis of that individual being subject to "innuendo, aspersions, derogatory comments and personal attacks in connection with the discussion of the recent block and unblock of Eric Corbett," seemingly ignoring that Eric Corbett has been subjected to outright lies in the same article, and her own history of OUTing others, which, honestly, are probably more important. The central issue is about the lifting of the siteban, not the gender of the person sitebanned. Having said that, I would support with some reluctance lifting the talk page ban, with perhaps the understanding that if the individual in question abuses the privilege of editing that page that doing so will almost certainly be considered a factor in any appeals to lift the broader siteban.John Carter (talk)18:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This amendment would only be relevant if Lightbreather has written to Arbcom expressing an interest in correcting the record and/or expressing a viewpoint from their experience.

Though it may be felt that Lightbreather is free to email Arbcom with any issue, at the same time is easy to understand why this would not be a realistic process to follow to have corrections or commentary posted on-wiki. Should Arbcom be minded to accept this, I recommend the parties consider taking advantage of a trustedinterlocutor, perhaps an interested Arbcom member. This would reduce the chances of a "misspeaking" moment resulting in iterations of further controversy. --Fæ (talk)16:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HW, I have made no statement on whether there is equal treatment on our projects, in fact I would not be comfortable expressing my uncensored views in this place... My comments are limited to the request made above and are based on my experience of relying on an interlocutor when being part of an Arbcom case. --Fæ (talk)18:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone through a 1-year siteban, I believe (or remember) one is only allowed to post on one's own talkpage & only then, about one's siteban. AFAIK, Eric Corbettis not sitebanned & so there's a difference.GoodDay (talk)16:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JC, I recommend that LB's talkpage privillages be restored. Although again, as I understand it, LB would be limited there to discussing her siteban.GoodDay (talk)16:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question for HW - Are you making this request per Lightbreather's wishes & consent?GoodDay (talk)19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend arbitrators reject this request. It appears the request hasn't been made via proxy & the requesting editor seems to have abandoned it.GoodDay (talk)15:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thispost at Lighbreather's talkpage doesn't quite make sense to me. I can't tell if HW's is getting consent from LB to make this request or not.GoodDay (talk)02:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of many comments that have been made on wiki in recent days, this is an obvious and necessary step; I am ashamed that I did not propose it sooner and thank the proposer for realizing its urgent necessity. Many editors assert that this right of reply is a matter of Wikipedia custom or one of human decency; until and unless ArbCom definitively refutes those contentions, this is demanded by fairness and equity. It is imperative, moreover, that this motion be granted promptly, in light of active discussion in the case request, Signpost, and elsewhere; fairness delayed in this case would indeed be fairness denied.

The motion should not merelypermit LightBreather to participate but should activelyinvite her participation and offer the committee's assistance, as needed, to facilitate this.MarkBernstein (talk)16:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some commenters here and in the Case Requests page have denounced Lightbreather and@GorillaWarfare: for granting an interview toThe Atlantic, claiming that Wikipedians should not give interviews about Wikipedia. Before sanctioning Lightbreather for doing this, ArbCom would have to sanction itself, since it not only granted an interview but actually distributed a press announcement during the Gamergate case.Wikipedia is not Fight Club: the first rule of Wikipedia is not that editors may not talk about Wikipedia.MarkBernstein (talk)19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light ofrepeated calls to censure Lightbreather for granting an interview to The Atlantic, which constitute a large portion of the so-called evidence in this motion -- I believe we require an affirmative ruling from ArbCom indicating whether or not Wikipedians may be punished for discussing Wikipedia in books, newspapers, or journals. Otherwise, Wikipedians (and outside observers) reading the evidence will conclude that commenting on Wikipedia to the press will be punished by its arbitration committee, especially if the committee or foundation dislikes the way those comments are used.MarkBernstein (talk)14:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf:@Euryalus: With regard to "why anyone thinks [it] is a possibility" that someone would be censured for granting an interview, see "evidence" sections above by Rich Farmbrough and Mangoe, and statements in what we're now calling Arbitration Enforcement 2[6] Case Request phase by Black Kite and many others. Clearing this up unambiguously is clearly desirable, lest the many calls to censure LB and GorillaWarfare in this matter be taken by the general public to reflect the community’s position or Arbcom’s acquiescence.MarkBernstein (talk)16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be simply unkind to refuse Lightbreather the courtesy of being able to gravedance on-wiki at the time of her figurative execution of her arch-nemesis. Anything that can be done to liven the festivities by rolling back editing restrictions upon her or any other banned editors should be done most expeditiously. This is a fantastic idea and hopefully a lasting precedent for future ArbCom circuses...Carrite (talk)00:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather has been plenty free with responses in the comments on theAtlantic article, so I don't see why we have to reopen a venue just for that. And as far as I can see (not wanting to read everything from the old case) this is pretty much an invitation to bring the dramafest from Disqus over to here. We are here to write a reference work, not to provide a forum for these discussions.Mangoe (talk)13:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I would welcome Lightbreather back to editing, I have concerns that they have been unable to drop the stick.

Lightbreather is solely their Wikipedia identity and they have left the project several times (as well as - and before - being banned) claiming to be here only for the sake of the the ArbCom case.

However they have continued the dispute off-wiki through a dedicated website and Twitter account. Enablers on-wiki have assisted promulgation of inaccurate narrative, in support of doubtless worthy goals.

This is not, historically, a new tactic - however it is one that is abhorrent to most encyclopaedists. Truth may be the first casualty in war, but if it is a casualty in building this encyclopaedia, we loose all credibility and may as well put fire sale signs on the servers.

All the best:Rich Farmbrough,14:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

• Decline. This has not, in any way to my knowledge, been requested by Lightbreather, and we don't consider third-party ban appeals.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}17:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse, as this is directly related to the Eric Corbett discussions from which I am also recusing.GorillaWarfare(talk)22:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per Seraphimblade. Also, GoodDay is correct when he says that the only reason a blocked or banned editor may edit their talk page is to seek clarification of or appeal their block/ban.Thryduulf (talk)21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @MarkBernstein:. Arbcom has not, and is not proposing to, sanction Lightbreather for giving an interview.Thryduulf (talk)21:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @MarkBernstein: It's no different to a self-published source - if they out or harass another Wikipedia editor then obviously sanctions, up to and including a ban, will be considered. If they merely express an opinion, however controversial or unpopular, then there will not be a reason to consider sanctions. In all cases though the full circumstances will be considered, and nobody is going to get sanctioned because someone else misquoted them for example (although if the misquoting is deliberately intended to harass, the person doing the misquoting may themselves face sanction). To be explicit about the case in hand: Nobody will be sanctioned for what they said in this piece in The Atlantic.Thryduulf (talk)15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Tangentially related but worth saying here in case it comes up, a Wikipedia editor should not quote themselves in a content namespace (no matter their expertise or the reliability of the source) without discussing it first on the talk page (or centralised discussion space if appropriate).Thryduulf (talk)15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline - talkpage access is only restored under certain circumstances, and offering evidence in case pages related to other editors is not one of them. If anyone (including banned editors) want to send evidence to the committee via email on any current case, they can do so. Separately, anyone who uses case pages to engage in personal abuse of other editors is likely to be sanctioned for it. And +1 to Thryduulf's second comment above - to the extent that this was a genuine query, there is not the faintest prospect of an arbcom sanction for anyone who offered their opinions in the Atlantic article. I really struggle to see why anyone thinks this is a possibility. --Euryalus (talk)15:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: Hopefully the responses in this section help address the concern. --Euryalus (talk)19:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated byHell in a Bucketat02:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Banning Policy arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Banned users
2. [Recidivism]

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

• Hell in a Bucket (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) (initiator)
• Smallbones (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Sitush (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [7]
• [8]

Information about amendment request

• Banned users

• I'd request verification that banned users mean site-banned users.

• [Recidivism]

• Enact a 1rr restriction on Smallbones for reverting or removing registered account comments not site-banned or Arb restricted.

Smallbones is acting as judge jury and executioner on Jimbos page with editors in good standing. The rationale for edit warring to removeUser:Sitush comments is that [[9]] and when further asked he used [Jimbos comment about TheKohser] as a justification for his removal as well. The reverts are [[10]], [[11]], [[12]] and a fourth I previously missed [[13]]. Now after I left two nicely worded non templated warnings [[14]] for refactoring or removing a non banned user's comment and on the 3rd revert a 3rr warning [[15]]. His last response after the 3rr warning was ["Read the case again"]. Now I miss things quite often and because a central part of wikipedia isdiscussing and coming to a consensus I asked what part? His response was to disinvite me from his talk page with the bad faith accusation that I just wanted to argue. Everything, literally everything I have said in this discourse was amiable and very civil. I contested his removal, Sitush contested the removal but as you can see the only judge that Smallbones is willing to listen to is JImbo and that basically he can do what he pleases [[16]]. I think a 1rr restriction on registered users unless a clear BLP issue or vandalism is warranted due to past history and doesn't effect his ability to revert actual ban evasion if needed.Hell in a Bucket (talk)02:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum the recent comments really highlight why Smallbones should take the break.

• "I thought his bringing the case and his handling of it was frivolous, just like his current request is. If he wants to bow out of the case, he should do it forever."The pages on arbitration state very clearly that if a person is having difficulty maintaining composure they should take a leave. I did that, nowhere does it state an editor renounces any right to act on problems relating to that issue later. It also certainly does not crown him as the sole wielder of the Jimbo talkpage sword of justice either.
• " I remove comments by trolls and banned users because I believe they are trying to prevent myself and others from calmly discussing the issues."Refer to sole wielder of the Jimbo talkpage sword of justice
• "If Jimmy disagrees with my moderation of his talk page, I'll gladly stop."Refer to comment that Jimbo is the judge of his actions, not the community that was in place on that page

I certainly think that there are issues if Smallbones find these issues to be completely reasonable reactions when his opinion holds no more weight then mine or Sitush's but when multiple people disagree it is time to rely on the others around you in the community to help enforce those, especially in controversial actions such as this.Hell in a Bucket (talk)03:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User: Euryalus, I considered the 3rr board as a possibility but choose this venue as this apparently was the venue thatUser:Smallbones preferred. In last years case a warning was issued to both SB and myself. Read the [here]. So needlessly [inflammatory rhetoric] confirmed (also a BLP violation) and I've illustrated there are at least 4 occasions with just this one incident where there was the edit war. Smallbones stated that the banning case established he was well with his rights to revert established editors and when asked which part his response was ["Read the case again"]. I followed his request to elevate it to the appropriate noticeboard and as he was claiming this was covered under this case the clarification became nec. and also combined with the rhetoric, intransigence and the edit warring behaviors, a sanction may be needed. I thought that maybe it might be time to restrict his actions to a 1rr for established editors that are not banned. No one is stating that he should lose his ability to revert banned users.Hell in a Bucket (talk)01:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hawkeye7, I have no disagreements with this statement you made "editors have been blocked by admins for violations of this". I asked quite clearly [take the issue to the appropriate noticeboard]. Smallbones is not an admin, hopefully he will never be, but until that time when multiple editors say the same thing maybe it's time to involve one. I attempted to do this without involving anyone but Smallbones as was right and proper.Hell in a Bucket (talk)01:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be quick here, and will put in diffs later if requested.User:Hell in a Bucket requested the case last year and then disappeared from it stating in essence "Give me any sanctions you want, I don't care."[17] I thought his bringing the case and his handling of it was frivolous, just like his current request is. If he wants to bow out of the case, he should do it forever.

The main item of contention last year IMHO was how Jimmy wanted to handle his talk page. My understanding of the final result was (in my words) "Everybody's talk pages are subject to Wikipedia rules, but editors are given wide latitude on their own talk pages. Jimbo should have especially wide latitude on his talk page and he leaves moderation of that page to others." This fits with what Jimmy said in his opening statement to the case, and it fits with what he said yesterday and today atUser talk:Jimbo Wales#Bans

The only mention of this in the final decision last year was

Findings of fact

Jimbo Wales' talk page

1) Jimbo Wales has stated that issues can be raised at his talk page without the user's being accused of forum-shopping[18]. Between July 2012[19] and August 2014[20], his talk page stated that he had an "Open door policy". He has also often left moderation of his user page to others.[21]

Today Jimmy stated (all this is on Jimmy's talk page, same section)"I generally support the idea that if people have a problem, they should be able to approach me here without getting into trouble for "canvassing" and the like. But there are limits, and we are not required to have unlimited patience for people who are not prepared to behave in an appropriate manner. I acknowledge the difficulty that GorillaWarfare identifies and the main thing about it is that no one is going to get into trouble for removing trolling from my user page. As another example, anything from "Mr. 2001" should be deleted immediately - he's not here to build an encyclopedia, he's here to wage his nearly 10 year obsessive campaign against me."

That seems entirely clear to me.

Today Jimmy told Sitush "Please go away then" and last year Jimmy saidI have asked Sitush to behave better or stay off my talk page.

It appears to be the case that Jimmy thinks that Sitush is trolling on his talk page. I think that as well.

Please note that I do not claim any special status onUser talk:Jimbo Wales. I am not trying to protect Jimmy - he can do that himself. I remove comments by trolls and banned users because I believe they are trying to prevent myself and others from calmly discussing the issues.

If you have any questions on whether this is consistent with what Jimmy wants for his talk page, I'll suggest you contact Jimmy (probably email would be best), which is what he suggests on his talk page.[18]

"if anyone wants to remove them (the comments), I won't complain and will defend that action as being consistent with maintaining this page as a useful forum." - Jimbo

(I added (the comments))Smallbones₍₎13:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Jimmy disagrees with my moderation of his talk page, I'll gladly stop.

HIAB's request is entirely frivolous.Smallbones₍₎03:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay andJohn Carter: If you want to tell Jimmy what he must do, you can tell Jimmy himself on his talkpage. If you want to make a request you'll probably get a better reception. His talk page is also the place to do this, but you do understand, I hope, that if you make a request it implies that you will accept his decision.

Perhaps it would be better to try to convince arbcom what you think Jimmy must do; and have them impose that decision on him. But I think they will keep their current hands-off policy there.

So that pretty much leaves us to follow what Jimmy has actually said. I'm almost certain I'm correctly interpreting what he's written, but Jimmy can tell me himself if he thinks I'm misinterpreting it.Smallbones₍₎20:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible deniability: Jimbo's specialism is evident in this confusion. Smallbones assumes a certain reading of his words that in fact are ambiguous. There is a significant conditional with theor in one statement and a peculiar contextual use ofthen in the other. In between times, he completely misread the events leading up to the first statement - my use of the word "hysteria" as a descriptor, which was blown by others into a ridiculous full-on misogyny claim - and he failed to respond to an email after some discussion on my talk page.

Smallbones, despite their assertion, is scarcely neutral when it comes to determining who is or is not "trolling". They're at the heart of the GGTF stuff and, well, they cannot parse the English language let alone spot the cultural differences. I've never trolled in my life and am not going to start doing so now. Back off Smallbones and let Jimbo do what he should be doing. If he hasn't got the time or inclination to do so (he often disappears due to other commitments at what might sometimes be considered convenient moments) then that is just more support for my opinion that his talk page here should be deactivated (full protected) and if necessary moved to Meta. Arbs have in recent cases expressed concern about how he uses that talk page - he needs to be told this explicitly because he is using people in a way that is detrimental to the project. They are just either (a) not seeing it or (b) in cahoots with the Master Plan that is "Friendly Space". This is an encyclopaedia project, not a social engineering project. -Sitush (talk)01:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO,only Jimbo Wales should decide as to who can/can't post on his talkpage.If he has authorizedothers to make that decision? then clarification is required on that authorization.GoodDay (talk)16:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Again,if Jimbo has authorized others to remove posts from his talkpage? Then clarification from him, would be helpful. BTW, it's GoodDay :)GoodDay (talk)20:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Jimbo what he wants done on his talkpage, concerning this issue.GoodDay (talk)20:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not unreasonable to have some indications on Jimbo's talk page regarding matters of conduct, including removal of posts, there. I know over atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention after some recent matters a number of editors, myself included, were specifically told that we could act in a similar way regarding counterproductive posts there. I think it would be in everyone's interests if@Jimbo Wales: were to designate, in one way or another, editors who have his authorization to perform maintenance edits on his talk page.John Carter (talk)17:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that anything I said here or on Jimbo's talk page could be seen as indicating that I think he "must" do anything, and rather object to the implicit presumption in that statement.John Carter (talk)20:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PerWP:NOBAN:If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request. Traditionally, we have permitted users to ban other users from their talk pages (WP:NOBAN), and to remove comments as they see fit. (WP:REMOVE) Editors have no right to comment on other users' talk pages, and editors have been blocked by admins for violations of this. This case is entirely without merit.Hawkeye7 (talk)00:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Everyone: apologies, am not clear in what you're seeking here. If you would like Arbcom to set some rules for the use of Jimbo's talk page by blocked/banned editors, then i would argue todecline as the current circumstance seems clear enough - Jimbo is happy to allowsome latitude for good-faith and uselful comments by blocked/banned users but not including obvious trolling or harassment, and not including any specific editor like Mr 2001 that Jimbo directly declares unwelcome. If you're seeking action over a specific instance of overly aggressive removal of comments, the stifling of discussion and/or an action against consensus, it's something that might more directly be addressed at ANI than here. This is not an opinion on the rights or wrongs of this incident, it's a comment on the request that Arbcom resolve it rather than any other forum. Overall, absent any further advice from Jimbo himself I'd say the retention or removal of comments on his talkpage depends on the discretion of individual editors, which cannot be satisfactorily codified in an Arbcom decision and breaches of which should be taken through the usual dispute resolution channels. But if I've missed some key point, please let me know. --Euryalus (talk)20:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia arbitration
• Wikipedia requests

• Wikipedia move-protected project pages