Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Shortcut

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Abortion

Initiated by Anythingyouwant at 10:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Abortion arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Anythingyouwant's_conduct
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Anythingyouwant_topic-banned
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
Information about amendment request
  • {{{clause1-request}}}
  • {{{clause2-request}}}

Statement by Anythingyouwant

Rationale for Lifting Topic Ban (about 980 words)….

Over eleven years ago, I was topic-banned from abortion articles.[2] I have faithfully complied with that topic-ban, but it recently slipped my mind; no one objected to my recent edit which did not actually remove or change any material, but rather was part of a series of edits trimming redundant material on a variety of subjects in that BLP. Before I make any more slip-ups, I would like to request the topic-ban be lifted.

I have no plans to edit abortion articles again, but in case I do, I promise to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines just as I’ve complied with the topic-ban (excepting the recent slip-up). Also, if I make any policy edits based upon my experience at abortion-related articles, I PROMISE to never cite those policy edits at abortion-related articles, regardless of whether other editors have approved my policy edits, or whether the policy edits merely make explicit what is already implicit. Also, I PROMISE to carefully make sure that when I quote material, I will check the most recent version of that source. These promises would have prevented the situations that got me in hot water.

Even if ArbCom was 100% correct back then, the promises I’ve made above should prevent this from becoming a lifetime topic-ban. But the truth is that ArbCom was not 100% correct. I will now explain why.

ArbCom cited two specific instances of my editing in 2011: (1) allegedly manipulating sources to present a POV contra sourcing guidelines; and (2), allegedly manipulating policy pages to further a point in a dispute.

Regarding allegation (1), it was imperfect both procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, I objected that “MastCell is flagrantly violating the 500-word limitation on evidence… If there is additional evidence, it can be presented by the thousands of editors who have not yet hit 500 words.”[3] The evidence against me relied upon by ArbCom as to allegation (1) was all in excess of those allowed word limits.[4] I assumed that ArbCom would not rely upon evidence presented in violation of a rule that I and other editors were required to follow, and which protects editors from each other.

As to the substance of allegation (1), I accurately quoted a definition from the 1979 edition of Black’s Law Dictionary that had been a gift to me, and I indicated in my edit the year of that edition; I was aware there had been later editions of that dictionary, but mistakenly assumed that the later editions were directed at adding further words or adding further definitions. That was my mistake, I should have looked at --- and quoted --- the most recent edition, but I was not aware that the newest edition was any different in this respect than the 1979 edition; it was not intentional, and the footnote I gave was accurate. Others made mistakes with Black’s Law Dictionary as well, they thanked me for correcting them, and I did not consider dragging them to ArbCom to be topic-banned. Contrary to MastCell’s accusation, I fully supported and did not object to using the updated definition from Black’s: ”An editor has updated the info to 2009, which of course is fine”. MastCell told ArbCom “AYW now objects to quoting Black's” but that’s wrong, I kept saying we should use Black’s: “it seems like Black's is enough for now”. MastCell instead took a single sentence fragment of mine out of context: I said, “Anyway, putting aside Black's, it seems crystal clear from the Oxford English Dictionary that….” Obviously, I was not remotely suggesting that our Wikipedia article should put Black’s aside; rather, I was digressing at the talk page to talking about another dictionary too.[5]

Regarding allegation (2), the pertinent policy says, “Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits.” See WP:PGBOLD. My policy edit conformed to this rule about bold policy edits: I forthrightly disclosed in my edit summary that the policy edit arose from an article I had been editing that day. Additionally, I edited the policy not because I wanted it to support my own argument at an article, but rather because it seemed helpful to editors everywhere at Wikipedia to make explicit what was already implicit in the policy. From day one I have explained that it was a policy clarification rather than a policy change, and ArbCom has never denied it. Even if it had been a substantive policy change, it was a reasonable one, not made for future use at any particular article. I did mention it at that same abortion article weeks later, when the issue came up again, but I doubt it was the same “active discussion” within the meaning of WP:PGBOLD and ArbCom never addressed this. Also, before I cited the clarified policy at the abortion talk page, another editor had already reviewed the policy clarification and made edits that he thought were sufficient.[6] I was ultimately unable to make the policy clarification because, for example, another editor felt it was already implicit in the policy, i.e. “already adequately covered in the first bullet point of the NOCON section.”[7][8]

This topic-ban has been used to help justify other unrelated actions against me, and conversely they may be used to extend this one. All I ask is that people please read the promises I have made above, and if that is insufficient then review the facts of this case described above. If you must consider other unrelated cases, the most recent one was removal last summer of a 4-year TBAN (my two offenses were criticism of another editor at my user talk which I deleted prior to the TBAN, and also enforcement of BLP policy instead of ignoring all rules). Incidentally, I think that I filed a previous appeal in this case several years ago. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilkTork, if ArbCom would like me to revert that, I’m glad to do so, it just seemed simpler to come here and find out if it’s really necessary. I of course try to think about my current topic-ban constantly, but maybe once every 20.000 article edits I accidentally start to think of myself as the same as the unbanned editors around me, sorry about that. I’m self-reporting which seemed sufficient for the time being. Not sure why I should keep in mind actions that expired (or were overturned, I forget which) 15 or more years ago. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Barkeep49, I am genuinely ambivalent about when and whether I would resume editing abortion articles, and that seems light years away from a battleground attitude. Obviously it’s a very sensitive subject, and I would have to study what’s happening there to figure out how much I realistically could contribute; I’m not in any hurry to do that. If the findings of ArbCom about me from 2011 were 100% true, and I were an ArbCom member now, I would be very reluctant to lift the tban, absent a full acceptance of responsibility and genuine remorse. That is why I felt it necessary to discuss whether the correct number might be a smidge less than 100%. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Barkeep49, I can only point you to this sentence in my original post here: “All I ask is that people please read the promises I have made above, and if that is insufficient then review the facts of this case described above.” There’s no need to review those facts if the rest of my request is sufficient. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cabayi and User:Wugapodes, yes, the part of my initial post about “why the 2011 arbitration was wrong” is only a backup argument in case you find my promises and current behavior insufficient grounds for removing the tban. I wouldn’t have mentioned “why the 2011 arbitration was wrong” if I didn’t strongly believe it, but it’s just a secondary argument. Seems kind of silly to keep someone banned merely because they dare to doubt whether the ban should have been imposed in the first place. Anyway, thank you for continuing to consider this matter, if you want some kind of probationary period, that’s fine, although I might not do much during (and after) that period. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Barkeep49, I think ArbCom got it wrong when they topic banned me, but that was a long time ago, I'm ready to move on, and my conduct since a different topic ban was lifted shows I can move on successfully. So I echo what you said. I also explained why “I think ArbCom got it wrong when they topic banned me”. Feel free to hold that explanation against me if you think it was unreasonable, or dishonest, or whatever. But please don’t hold it against me just because I gave an explanation. I even said you needn’t read it if the other parts of my request are sufficient. I hope they are sufficient. You don’t have to worry that I will fill up article talk pages arguing about what was meant on those talk pages from 11 or more years ago, I’ve never done that, and will never do that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wugapodes, if a one-year probationary period is the only way I can get out of this hole I’m in, and the probation assumes that I’d do editing at abortion-related articles, then I could commit to that, so y’all can see whether I make the articles better and contribute constructively, as opposed to stirring up trouble and making other editors miserable. So I PROMISE to use the probationary period to demonstrate good editing at these articles. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it’s okay for me to briefly mention my opinion that I shouldn’t have been topic-banned, but the mere fact of explaining why is reason enough to maintain the topic ban, even if I say that that part of my request can be overlooked assuming the rest of my request is persuasive enough. Seems kind of nutty to me, just like the politics topic ban that was removed last year; four years for criticizing an editor at my user talk and enforcing WP:BLP instead of WP:IAR! Assuming this request is rejected (along with the idea of probation that we’ve discussed) then I expect to just let this present topic ban go for the rest of my lifetime, despite my interest in this subject (I only say this now because it’s been suggested that I come back here in 6 more months). If there are any more very rare occasions when I accidentally violate this topic ban, I will just directly inform an arbitrator via user talk, and you all can then decide what to do about it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Primefac, thanks for making a motion to lift the sanction, and for supporting it. But wouldn’t a probationary period get more support? I’d be glad for either one, but it seemed that probation wouldn’t be asking ArbCom for so much as an immediate lifting of the sanction. I’ve already promised to edit responsibly in the topic area during a probationary period (and thereafter). Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Primefac, I am not afraid of the sword of Damocles, I hope someone will propose it if your motion does not succeed. (But let’s have no more battleground metaphors.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

Statement by Floq

I'd recommend against removing the topic ban. First, a battleground attitude permeates this request. A big chunk of the request is re-litigating how the previous decisions were unfair. I'd have considered the request more convincing if the last 5 paragraphs of the initial appeal had been completely left off. Second, I note it morphed (in a singles sentence) from "I have no plans to edit abortion articles again" to "but in case I do...", and then lists how they will edit abortion-related articles. So the first sentence can be roughly translated as "I plan to edit abortion-related articles again". Third, it seems likely they will bring this battleground approach with them when they re-enter the area, subjecting other editors to a more difficult collaboration environment. We should be imposing more topic bans on editors who can't seem to prevent themselves from taking a battleground approach, not removing them. Keep the topic ban, and make clear that once every 20,000 article edits, we'll be understanding if they accidentally violate it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

As one of the drafting arbs in that decision, I would like to support this. Goodness knows 11 years is a huge amount of time, and I would expect that all of us have grown and developed since then. Still, I agree with Floquenbeam's point on how the request is worded, and thus cannot support. Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2023 (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.

Abortion: Clerk notes

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

Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • User:Anythingyouwant, I see no problems with the edit (removing duplicated material), but I am curious as to how, after a community ban, and two ArbCom cases, that it slipped your mind that you were restricted regarding abortion material. Also, after remembering that you were restricted, I'm curious as to why you didn't revert yourself rather than coming here to announce that "no one objected". SilkTork (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not comfortable with aspects of the appeal, such as the relitigating of the last ArbCom case, but that the community lifted a topic ban 9 months ago, and there appears to have been no issues since (if people are aware of issues, please speak up!) is a positive sign. There is much that I would prefer Anythingyouwant had done differently: revert themselves before coming here, not relitigate the case, not be so unclear or uncertain on if they want to / will actually edit abortion articles, but I'm not completely against the appeal. Interested to hear what others say. SilkTork (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading other views, and looking over Anythingyouwant's appeal again, including the relitigation aspects, I'm OK with lifting the editing restrictions with or without a probation period. However, I doubt, because of the way the appeal was written, that we will reach a consensus. It may be more useful if Anythingyouwant tried a fresh request in, say, six months time, taking on board the comments here, such that they do not relitigate, show they understand the concerns that people have, and explain why those concerns are no longer relevant, and explain clearly that they do wish to edit abortion related material (otherwise there is no point to the Committee considering lifting the restriction), and how they will ensure that no future concerns will arise. SilkTork (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts largely align with Floq's. The incidental and accidental violation is no big deal but this appeal does not show a mindset of someone ready to return to the topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anythingyouwant I do not doubt your ambivalence about returning to the topic area. It's why your choice to appeal based on relitigating the appropriateness of the original tban is such a red flag for me. It is just a remarkably different approach than what you did in your successful tban appeal to the community. If you'd just written the first and last paragraphs here I would probably be joining Silktork in making favorable noises about repealing. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anythingyouwant "I think ArbCom got it wrong when they topic banned me, but that was a long time ago, I'm ready to move on, and my conduct since a different topic ban was lifted shows I can move on successfully" also questions the original topic ban but would have been a lot more successful. So, for me, it isn't because [you] dare to doubt whether the ban should have been imposed in the first place - which not for nothing I think was correctly imposed on you. It's because the way you went about disagreeing with that ban now doesn't inspire confidence in me that that you could negotiate the types of situations that got you in trouble in the past today. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want so support this, but the way this is written is like a case study in not to appeal a sanction. There are two reasons to appeal an old sanction: One is it is no longer necessary, the other is that was wrong to begin with. You shouldn't try and argue both at the same time, and if you are going to argue that the sanction was entirely wrong to begin with, it should be really easy to make that arguemt, or it probably is not valid. However, it is also worth considering that this topic area is likely to be one that is under the umbrella of what we now call "contentious topics" basically forever. This means that if Anythingyouwant were to cause issues in this area at any point in the futrure, they can be reported at WP:AE and a topic ban can be re-imposed by admins there that still has the authority of this committee behind it. So, I'm not 100% on one side or the other here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not comfortable with removing the restriction at this time. 10 years is a long time, especially without incident - but I have no confidence that the behaviours that lead to Arbcom sanctioning Anythingyouwant on multiple occasions would not reappear if the topic ban were lifted. WormTT(talk) 08:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looked so much like a good argument for removing the sanction, right up to the point where the request swerved into "This is why the 2011 arbitration was wrong". The swerve shows that the sanction is still serving a preventative purpose. As Beeblebrox noted, the sanction could be immediately be reimposed at WP:AE under the contentious topics regime. I'm not averse to swapping one for the other, but nor do I see a pressing need to do so. Cabayi (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not as concerned by the appeal as my colleagues. I'll go out on a limb and guess Anythingyouwant probably has an interest in law; the appeal here reads like an actual legal appeal. In those kinds of documents, you usually put forward multiple potential arguments in the form of "I should win because of reason A, and if you don't think I should win because of A, then I should win because of reason B..." and so on and so forth until you run out of arguments. I'm going to guess from ATYW's comments that they intend their argument to be "My TBAN should be removed because it's not needed, and if that is not convincing, then it should be removed because the original ban was improper". I think it's a bad way to write an on-wiki appeal, but I'm willing to chalk it up to confusing ArbCom for a court.
    With that in mind, I'm ambivalent on removing the TBAN. ATYW seems to be editing constructively in the topic area of American Politics which isn't known to be easy for editors with conduct issues, and as others have pointed out, they can can be TBAN'd under CT quite quickly if they cause a problem. On the other hand, I haven't thoroughly reviewed their AP contributions so maybe I'm wrong there, and often when we rescind a TBAN editors can hesitate to report them and administrators can be hesitant to reimpose it for a while after. Maybe the solution is lifting with some kind of probationary period? — Wug·a·po·des 20:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your good faith read of what I also saw as a legalistic style appeal. How would a probationary period work that CT doesn't already authorize? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The TBAN is a different remedy from the CT designation. Presumably the probationary period would allow an administrator to re-implement remedy 9 (their TBAN) as needed rather than create what would technically be a new TBAN under remedy remedy 4.1 (CT designation) and its related procedures. With the former, it would again be indefinite and appealable only to this Committee, whereas with CT any such restriction would be appealable elsewhere and after 1 year could be removed as a regular admin action. Regardless, it's maybe a bit moot at this point. The claim I might not do much during (and after) that [probationary] period doesn't inspire a ton of confidence in me that the probation would be useful. — Wug·a·po·des 22:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not comfortable lifting the topic ban at this time --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I'd be looking really closely at the bureaucracy misstep, but I think I'm actually fine with this appeal, even so. Being able to work in AP2 gives me some faith that removal of a 10 year TBAN that has been (mostly) observed isn't going to cause further damage. A full removal or a WP:AE probation would be fine with me on the point. Izno (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think our procedures don't allow us to close this, as the rough consensus appears to be in favor of some kind of probation/relaxation of the block. As enacting this would require a motion, it can't be closed under procedures. So I'd encourage one of the arbs who is in favor of this to draft something for consideration. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Anythingyouwant, this particular motion passing or failing does not prevent a similar motion from being made. If one of those opposed feels that the sword of Damocles would give them a more satisfactory outcome, they are welcome to propose it. Having multiple motions that basically do the same thing often end up muddled with no clear outcome, and from my experience over the last three years folks who end up on probationary status make it to the end of that period anyway, so why go through the extra paperwork? Primefac (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Topic ban lifted

Proposed:

The indefinite topic ban of Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) from abortion-related pages is lifted.

Support
  1. For what it's worth I support because the principle behind the appeal is solid, even if the appeal and the circumstances that led to it are less than ideal. SilkTork (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As proposer. I am not overly thrilled with the appeal, and the opposition from the community was initially adding to my hesitation to support, but I do have to admit that a decade of not breaking a topic ban is impressive in and of itself and lends some significant credit towards the support column. Recidivism can be dealt with at the usual location if necessary. Primefac (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. On the plus side it's been many many years since the tban was imposed and this editor appears to have edited without issue since their other tban was lifted. On the other hand I see nothing in this request to indicate any skills in being able to navigate conflict should it arise. I also think that in reality admin are reluctant to reimpose something ArbCom has lifted even if we say "go ahead, reimpose". If something goes wrong I don't think it'll be as easy to correct as I suspect some of my colleagues do. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although my requirements for removing a topic ban reduce as time goes on, I'm not sure that simply waiting it out should be an option. Since it took multiple arbcom cases to impose this sanction and since Anythingyouwant is acting well outside the area - combined with the way of wording the appeal, I'm not willing to remove at this time. WormTT(talk) 15:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per Barkeep and WTT --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 11:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments by arbitrators
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=1142122018

Leave a Reply