Requests for clarification and amendment

Initiated by Ferahgo the Assassin at 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Race and intelligence 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:

• Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

Note: I am making this request as per the recommendation I received from the Arbitration Committee Mailing List, after having contacted the list with this question. I will repost the relevant bits of the question I emailed them below, with personally identifying information redacted.

I was recently included as a party on a Clarification Request that was declined and closed without my participation. The clarification request concerned the scope of the Race and Intelligence topic ban, which also applies to me. (The current version of my editing restrictions can be found here) My understanding of my topic ban is that I am prohibited from editing articles related to "the race and intelligence topic, broadly construed".

What is covered under "broadly construed"? I am concerned about whether editing pages related to the "heritability of psychological traits” is considered to be a violation, or even the “psychometrics of intelligence” on its own. My understanding since my restrictions were given was that I was only prohibited from editing topics concerning both “race” and “intelligence”.

I should mention that my real-life circumstances have changed considerably since my restrictions were given. I'm now in my second year of the Ph.D program in behavior genetics at a prestigious university. My research specifically involves the heritability of intelligence, which so far has been very well received by my peers. (I sent the mailing list a link to an award I’ve received for my research.) The vast majority of research in my field has nothing to do with race, and most researchers do not want to touch the topic with a ten-foot pole.

It seems arbitrary to prohibit me from editing anything that has to do with the heritability of psychological traits, particularly when doing so would close off major potential improvements that I could bring to the encyclopedia to topics in my area of expertise. I am also currently finishing up a research project on mental chronometry that I plan to present at an upcoming conference, and was hoping that I could finally get around to making major improvements to the mental chronometry article with what I've learned over the course of this research and its background.

Can you please clarify the extent to which my topic ban covers the area in which I am developing professional expertise, and the rationale for which topics are covered?

@ Brad:

I did not think it was worth including & notifying anyone else, since this was intended just to be a request for clarification of what my own topic ban was intended to cover. But here is a brief history of my situation, if it’s helpful:

1. Original topic ban from R&I in October 2010, for violation of WP:SHARE policy, documented here.

2. This was followed by a 1-year site ban, in May 2012, for violation of WP:SHARE, documented here.

3. Suspension of this ban in March 2014 is documented further down, here. My request for appealing the site ban occurred via email, originally sent to the committee on March 6, 2014. In this appeal, I mention that Occam and I no longer share an IP address—and haven’t since (and still don’t).

4. My ban was lifted under the condition that in addition to the topic ban, I was restricted only to articles about “paleontology of birds and dinosaurs” and associated talk and process pages. I appealed this specific restriction in September 2016, and this was rescinded as documented here. Which leaves me under the original topic ban and the two-way interaction ban, as documented in the most recent link.

@ Euryalus:

Appealing my topic ban wasn't my intention in submitting this request, but if Arbcom thinks lifting the ban is the best solution, then I'm happy to have that considered. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Arbcom decides that my topic ban applies to articles about the heritability of intelligence in general, then I'd like to request for my topic ban to be lifted. I know there are plenty of other articles to work on, but I have a unique ability to improve articles about the topic that I'm getting my Ph.D in. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00:

With all due respect, if people want to scrutinize my edits that are 8 years old, it might be good to look at the whole discussion in context before drawing a conclusion. That being said, I think it’s fair to say that my explanation for these edits is simply that they were 8 years ago. My current hope is only that I be permitted to improve articles like Polygenic score and Gene-environment correlation, which are directly related to my research. If you want to see how I can contribute to topics outside this subject, I invite you to look at Specimens of Archaeopteryx and (longer ago) The Origin of Birds (a GA). Grad school has (quite predictably and, I hope, understandably) limited my time and energy for reading on topics outside of my field.

As for the comments about short leash, six month trial period, etc, I have no problem with these suggestions. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no current plans to edit anything about Richard Lynn, his books or his research. Anything I do edit will be fully compliant with both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policy, regardless of whether my topic ban is lifted or not. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00: Again, there isn’t any specific article related to race and intelligence that I’m aiming to edit. My preference is to edit articles on topics I’ve researched or am researching currently. I would start with Mental chronometry, Gene-environment correlation, and Polygenic score. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: Well, any time we do genetic studies, we have to worry about population stratification. I’m happy to go into more detail about my research privately to Arbcom. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new input, everyone. As a very busy grad student without much time to read outside of my research area anymore, I hope that "reasonably active" might be charitably interpreted if we revisit the question in half a year or so. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

@Newyorkbrad:

• Race and intelligence case: Findings of fact 3.5: Ferahgo: counselled, topic-banned and blocked
• Race and intelligence case: Findings of fact 3.6: Ferahgo and Occam are topic banned
• Race and intelligence case: Remedies 2.1: Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam site-banned
• Race and intelligence case: Modified by motion 2: (Ferahgo the Assassin's site-ban suspended)

I believe that covers everything to date. Links to original discussions are in each section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• On the clarification request, since Ferahgo the Assassin claims to now have some professional expertise on the subject of the "heritability of psychological traits", I personally see no problem with her editing in that subject area, very narrowly construed, as long as she doesn't touch on anything whatsoever regarding race, and assuming that her editing is based on citing suitable neutral reliable sources, and not on her own personal knowledge, which cannot be verified, or opinions, which are disallowed as WP:OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• On lifting the ban, I think that would be OK, as long as FtA was made aware that she was on a very short leash, and that the topic ban would be restored at the first sign of a problem in her editing. I think the question that would need to be answered is: in that circumstance (i.e. topic ban lifted, problematic editing, topic ban restored) would FtA's site ban be restored as well, considering the conditions under which the site ban was lifted? [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

I am not supporting that topic ban should be lifted because Ferahgo the Assassin has made just 400 edits on main articles since 2014 and I maintain that it doesn't matter how long ago the topic ban was imposed because I would like to see how FTA can really contribute in topics outside this subject.

I have removed a lot of WP:UNDUE content from Nations and intelligence dedicated to theories of Richard Lynn that are controversial and pseudoscientific. FTA's edits[2][3] related to Richard Lynn show that she probably thinks otherwise. I would like to hear some explanation of these edits and also how she will represent Richard Lynn or his researches whenever she will edit these articles. Capitals00 (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferahgo the Assassin: You still haven't answered my question. I asked how you "will represent Richard Lynn or his researches whenever" you will edit any articles that are related to him. I am waiting for your reply. What is your firm opinion about Lynn and his researches? Tell me which articles you would prefer to edit that are related to race and intelligence once your topic ban has been removed and how do you think you will improve those articles. Capitals00 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferahgo the Assassin: Your answer to the question regarding Richard Lynn and his researches seems satisfactory. I had also asked that "which articles you would prefer to edit that are related to race and intelligence once your topic ban has been removed and how do you think you will improve those articles". Waiting for your reply. Capitals00 (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I wrote Wikipedia:Broadly construed on April 6. Seems timely. Perhaps we can fix this by fleshing that out a bit? Guy (Help!) 17:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

Ordinarily, I'm of the opinion that an editor's real-life academic qualifications (or lack thereof) are irrelevant here. But since Ferahgo presents hers as a central component of her request, I think they're worth discussing.

Ferahgo writes: My research specifically involves the heritability of intelligence... The vast majority of research in my field has nothing to do with race, and most researchers do not want to touch the topic with a ten-foot pole. The realist cynic in me can't help noticing that this formulation leaves out a key detail: Ferahgo, does your research touch on race as it intersects with intelligence? MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

I'm not sure I like this. Not only because I'm not a big fan of "I have a unique ability to improve articles about the topic..." because that usually also comes with a unique agenda, but also because the sequence of events that I'm seeing here is disconcerting. Captain Occam returns to Wikipedia. Captain Occam edits in areas that are apparently intelligence related but not race related. Captain Occam gets indef blocked. Ferahgo the Assassin shows up requesting permission to edit in those very intelligence related areas that got the Captain indef blocked. Nope. Not an encouraging chain of events. --regentspark (comment) 08:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements or other input (although it's not clear just who should be notified of this request). Could Feragho the Assassin or someone else please provide more specific links to the prior discussions that led to the topic-ban and site-ban, to the extent they are visible on-wiki, and any other on-wiki material we should review? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Also awaiting any further input, and thought it worth clarifying if this is ultimately a request for amendment as well as clarification? If clarification only, then standard advice: topic bans can never be prescriptively defined, so if in doubt about whether an article is on the border of a ban, assume it is and find something else to edit. The examples referred to above are on the border of the ban; if you edit them I'd say there's a sanctions risk. However your request also has elements of an actual appeal against the ban, including for example your mention of the passage of time and your academic work. There's always a generic case for very old sanctions to be reconsidered, so it'd be worth clarifying if that's a part of this ARCA to make sure we consider all parts of the request. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ferahgo; thanks for the reply - not sure if it's the best solution, just checking on whether its part of what's proposed (in which case it deserves consideration along with the clarification request). If this was just about clarification then I'd say construe the ban pretty broadly and stay away from those borderline topic areas - there's five million articles to work on, and plenty to do in other spaces. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting the comments in this section and by Beyond My Ken, what do people think about suspending the topic ban for (say) six months, with authority for reinstatement by any uninvolved admin if problems arise, but otherwise expiring completely by October if no problems occur? Views particularly welcome from other editors in the "race and intelligence" space, with whom Ferahgo the Assassin would presumably then work alongside. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been here awhile without progress, so views welcome on the following, particularly from @Alex Shih, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Newyorkbrad, RickinBaltimore, and Premeditated Chaos::

1. Interpretation of topic ban: There seems a rough consensus that articles relating to "heritability of psychological traits" and "psychometrics of intelligence" do fall within the topic ban, and that the best way to satisfy "broadly construed" is to edit in entirely unrelated fields. Absent contrary views, suggest we wrap this part up with that outcome.
2. Lifting the topic ban:Separately, there seems no consensus on whether to suspend or lift the topic ban entirely. Per Doug Weller, suggest it stay in place as something to revisit once Ferahgo the Assassin has demonstrated (say) six months of reasonably active and trouble-free editing elsewhere.

Comments welcome, including from the OP. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this request and the previous one basically boil down to a clarification on whether this individual is topic banned from articles about "race and intelligence" (e.g. articles that have to do with both at the same time) or articles about "race or intelligence" (e.g. articles that have to do with race and also, separately, articles that have to do with intelligence). If the former, then editing articles about intelligence as the filing editor describes would generally not be an issue, so long as nothing in the article had anything to do whatsoever with race. Looking back on the case, I think the former was clearly the intent. It's worth noting that the former was the bounds of the topic area originally given for discretionary sanctions, and this topic ban was initially implemented as a discretionary sanction, so I actually don't see how the latter could be correct from a procedural perspective. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• My thoughts mirror Euryalus' genrally - from a clarification point of view, the edits described would be on the edge of the ban and depending on the content and context might well lead to a sanction. That said, looking back at the history, I would support lifting the topic ban which has been in place for 4 years, but I would be interested in hearing community views on that matter. Worm^TT(talk) 19:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• My opinion on the clarification aspect of this mirrors those above - I think the topics you indicate in your request are on the border of the topic ban. Whether they'd violate it would depend on the specific material, but it's risky considering that the general view on topic bans is that they should encourage an editor to work on something completely unrelated, not on something very close. On the appeal aspect - well, I realize that I'm hardly one to be looking down my nose at low activity given my own sluggish editing rate lately, but I do notice that the low number of edits since the 2016 appeal makes it a bit difficult to judge the success of that decision. Still, I'd be willing to consider a suspension given the age of the sanctions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Studies in the "psychometrics of intelligence" often discuss the intersection of race and intelligence, so I would say that is within your topic ban. You mention mental chronometry and again that is an area where people like Arthur Jensen, to quote our R&I article, "have argued that reaction time is independent of culture and that the existence of race differences in average reaction time is evidence that the cause of racial IQ gaps is partially genetic instead of entirely cultural." As for inheritance of psychological traits, intelligence can be defined as a psychological trait and psychological traits are said to be influenced by genetics. But if you are going to stay well away psychological traits linked in any way to race and intelligence, then that might be ok. You probably know that would include for instance avoiding the topic of response time and race. If in doubt, either avoid it or ask. I'm not willing to consider a suspension at the moment, but I might after six months of active editing. I'm sure there are plenty of articles that you can contribute to without coming near to anything related to your topic ban. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reviewing everything that has been presented here, I agree the edits requests are very, very close to crossing the line into the area where the topic ban currently is. I would reconsider a suspension of the ban in six months time, if there was a good faith effort to avoid the areas that led to the topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on what's been presented here and privately to us off-wiki, I agree that the intended edits fall within the topic ban. At this time, I'm not comfortable with a suspension; I prefer Doug's suggestion that this be re-visited after six months of productive editing elsewhere on the project. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• U agree that "heritability of psychological traits” & “psychometrics of intelligence” are in practice so closely related to the R&I topic that they are included in the ban. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Anythingyouwant at 23:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

[4] (AE)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. [5] (my user talk)

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

• Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MrX (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification NeilN
• diff of notification MrX

Information about amendment request

• [6] (my user talk)

• The desired modification is that I am no longer indefinitely topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. A lesser sanction would be less objectionable.

Statement by Anythingyouwant

This is the edit at issue to the Donald Trump article. And this is the edit at issue to my user talk page.

Regarding the article edit, I don't recall that any admins in this case disputed that I was correcting an extremely obvious BLP violation; I also don't recall any of the admins disputing that the BLP violation was biased (3RRNO exempts "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material"). Based on this AE proceeding, I gather that correcting even the most obviously biased BLP violation will not be exempt from sanctions unless the violation is simultaneously very extreme (like replacing Trump's image with that of a chimpanzee), and I promise to infer this from 3RRNO in the future, though I urge that 3RRNO be edited to actually say so. Please note: I took this to the article talk page after citing "WP:BLP" in an article edit summary only once, so it’s obvious I wasn’t jamming the material back in repetitively.

Regarding the comment at my user talk page, I have always known that user talk comments can be blockable if they are nasty or irrelevant enough, but I don't recall getting any civility warning in the past regarding comments at my user talk. Once I realized that my user talk might arguably be subject to the Trump-page sanctions or the post-1932 sanctions (i.e. more than usual civility restrictions) I deleted this relatively mild comment,[7] and told NeilN I had deleted it.[8]

Neil notes that, "On January 20th they were given a one month topic ban from Donald Trump." Here's a link to that January proceeding at AE. That one-month block was not for any edit I made to any article or any talk page, but rather was for an allegedly inaccurate edit summary, which I honestly and reasonably thought was indeed accurate. Anyway, jumping from that kind of narrow, limited-duration topic-ban at the Trump page to this kind of broad topic-ban is a huge and unwarranted leap under the circumstances. Incidentally and FWIW, I do enjoy editing other non-political areas of Wikipedia, but only in combination with the political ones, so it seems that this would be a lifetime ban from the project. It's rather punitive given that I removed my user talk comment and will consider myself warned about that, and given that I also promise to interpret 3RRNO as exempting correction not of all obviously biased BLP violations, but rather only the most egregious of those violations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Beyond My Ken, you were involved at AE.[9] Am I supposed to also list everyone involved at article talk? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve shortened the list of involved parties per suggestion of BMK. So not everyone who was involved in the AE discussion is now listed here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, you place great weight upon the January proceedings at AE. Here are the two article edits I made: [10][11]. Are you really saying now that I was not fully entitled to make those edits, putting aside what I said in the edit summaries? As best I recall, no one alleged that I was not fully entitled to make those two edits, and if they did allege that then I disagree, because there is no reason why I would not have been entitled to make those two edits. A new section had been added, so I cut and pasted it elsewhere. That's it. The only controversy was because I believed that no one would be entitled to put it back in the original location without consensus per the discretionary sanctions (which forbid restoration of reverted material without consensus). So I tried to indicate that in the edit summaries. User:MelanieN, for example, acknowledged that those two edits were fully permissible, putting side the edit summaries. I am glad to obey the January consensus that moving the material should not be considered a revert within the meaning of the discretionary sanctions, but my moving the material was itself perfectly fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, if you're going to heavily rely upon and quote from the January matter, please at least answer my brief question: Are you really saying now that I was not fully entitled to make those edits, putting aside what I said in the edit summaries? No need to relitigate, just yes or no would be fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, my personal belief that Wikipedia hosts numerous POV-pushers and propagandists, along with many other good people, ought to have exactly nothing to do with the present matter. Your argument would be more plausible if you’d acknowledge that (1) the comment I made was at my user talk, (2) you have not cited any past civility issues or warnings involving me, (3) I deleted my user talk comment immediately when I realized that the Trump discretionary sanctions and the post-1932 discretionary sanctions might arguably apply to my user talk page, and (4) I have consistently advocated reasonable solutions to the systemic bias problem in Wikipedia’s political articles including at the very AE proceeding that is now being appealed. Banning me for believing Wikipedia has a systemic bias problem does not make a lot of sense to me. NPOV violations and BLP violations usually do not happen by accident, and if there are enough editors at a particular article who support those violations then they often succeed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MelanieN, during the January AE proceeding, you said “Anything, I might well have done the move in two edits. But my edit summaries would have said that was what I would [sic] doing: ‘deleting section preparatory to a move’, ‘moving’.”[12] Thus, regardless of what Melanie finds it convenient to say now, she only objected then to my edit summaries. Whether I moved the material in one edit or a series of two consecutive edits (which was easier), I was entirely entitled to move the newly-added material, and entirely reasonable in thinking that removed or moved material could not be restored to its original placement without consensus per the discretionary sanctions. The proceeding in January at AE was incredibly nasty and punitive, including when I was blocked for merely correcting a small typographical error in my own comment at AE (the block was overturned as you can see in my block log). Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MelanieN, if I misunderstood what you were trying to say in January, then I apologize, and I’m glad that I pinged you when I said that you “acknowledged the edits were fully permissible”. But let me say this loud and clear: the idea makes no sense to me that new content inserted into the Donald Trump article cannot be edited or moved merely because it is under discussion at the article talk page where there is no consensus it should remain untouched. The more you repeat this idea, the more perplexed I become. Frankly, I think the whole proceeding in January was a farce, given that editors are free to edit new content when there is no consensus that it should be left alone. Duh. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MelanieN, you say “He still claims that when I said ‘two-step edits are permissible,’ it was the same thing as saying ‘Anythingyouwant’s edit was permissible’.” You either did not read my comment just above this one, or you are lying. Which? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MelanieN, thanks for clarifying which.[13] Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, Neil says here at this page (referring to my edit inserting Trump’s denial): “Anythingyouwant was not sanctioned for that edit....” So there doesn’t seem much point in discussing it further than what I already said above. Regarding the Moore BLP, I agreed with User:GoldenRing: “this is not Anythingyouwant pleading BLP against the whole world; there are other editors in good standing who agree with him and so we should AGF and not dismiss the BLP claim out of hand.... we should not be in the business of sanctioning editors for clarifying that someone has not confessed to a crime.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:My very best wishes, usually I don’t come to ArbCom, because it’s not such an onerous penalty, and anyway (frankly) I don’t have huge confidence in ArbCom. But, as Neil said here at this page, this is “[p]robably the best place for this one as WP:AE would largely be a rehash and WP:AN would likely become a mess.” Anyway, where are your best wishes for me??? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:My very best wishes, anyone can read what the admins said at AE, so I haven't tried to summarize. You on the other hand, have given an inaccurate summary here at this page: "At the end of this AE discussion, two experienced admins agreed with NeilN and one suggested a softer restriction." That's false, and anyone can go see that more than three admins responded to Neil. The admins commenting there were Sandstein, RegentsPark, Masem, Bishonen, GoldenRing, and Fish + Karate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:My very best wishes, if you’re going to alter your comment after it’s been responded to, please indicate that alteration with strikethroughs or underlines, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SPECIFICO, watch out, this page might be just as much under discretionary sanctions as my user talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, please don’t delete comments by other editors.[14] Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators, User:Mastcell says here at this page, "Anythingyouwant is lying. He's lying. To you." I would appreciate an opportunity to respond carefully to that charge, which is very false, and which relates to events of January 2018. I have to get some sleep now, but hope you will give me time tomorrow to briefly prove Mastcell wrong. As for the pre-2018 events that Mastcell cites (none of which Neil brought up), I'm not sure that ArbCom is interested or willing to hear anything I have to say about them; Mastcell omits a great deal, just like Neil has declined to address or acknowledge here any facts that might not work in his favor. So, unless ArbCom indicates willingness for me to address pre-2018 events (including when I have successfully invoked the BLP exemption, and also Mastcell's own involvement in some of the matters he has mentioned), I won't. But I do plan to address Mastcell's false accusation that I am a liar, which I find extremely offensive, and which relates to events of January this year. That accusation by Mastcell is apparently designed to inflate a relatively tame comment at my user talk page (Neil explicitly says he is not disputing the BLP exemption) into an indefinite and broad topic ban. I almost hope that ArbCom endorses Neil's indefinite topic ban, so that my Wikipedia nightmare will be over. For now, I must sleep. Then I will disprove Mastcell's accusation, which I find very typical of him. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators, okay, since you have not indicated willingness for me to address pre-2018 events (including when I have successfully invoked the BLP exemption,[15] and also Mastcell's own involvement in some of the matters he has mentioned), I won't. Anyone who is interested can read about how MastCell and I long ago began our conflict here. Anyway, I will rebut MastCell's current false and hurtful accusation ("Anythingyouwant is lying. He's lying. To you.") within the hour assuming I'm not forbidden. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell wrote at this page: "[L]ook at Anythingyouwant's behavior in this request:

• He invokes MelanieN, claiming that she "acknowledged that those two edits were fully permissible, putting side the edit summaries".
• In fact, MelanieN called the edits in question "a 'cute trick', a two-part move based on attempts to game the DS sanctions".

These two statements can't both be true; either MelanieN 'acknowledged the edits were fully permissible', or she called them out as an attempt to game the system. Anythingyouwant is lying. He's lying. To you."

MastCell is wrong. Here is a link to that January proceeding. Unlike MastCell, I will describe this matter chronologically. MastCell is correct that MelanieN called my two articleedits “a ‘cute trick’, a two-part move based on attempts to game the DS sanctions.” She did so at 01:21, 23 January 2018.[16] I then responded to MelanieN:

Coffee said "I fully understand using the two edits to have to copy then paste", but you attribute the two separate edits to conniving and scheming on my part. Would you have done it in one edit or two? Obviously, it was much easier to do in two edits. Please, I have no problem considering them as one single edit for purposes of retrospective analysis, in which case my same rationale justified the edit summary: I was reverting the insertion of this new material by moving it, given that "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Please, a week-long ban for a mere connotation via edit summary? I can't believe you seriously think that's appropriate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Then Melanie answered:

Anything, I might well have done the move in two edits. But my edit summaries would have said that was what I would doing: "deleting section preparatory to a move", “moving”. I would not have claimed that the first one was challenging content by reverting it, as you did. As a matter of fact, in discussion at your talk page you doubled down on that claim, insisting to me that your “main objective was to remove disputed material”,[11] because it was “riddled” with “biased POV-pushing” that you would rather have removed from the article.[12] One minute later you restored that horribly biased section back into the article, while proclaiming that nobody else could restore it because … well, because one minute earlier you had challenged the content as so biased and POV that it shouldn’t be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday, here at this page, I said, “User:MelanieN, for example, acknowledged that those two edits were fully permissible, putting side the edit summaries.” MastCell says this last statement cannot be true while MelanieN's statement at 01:21, 23 January 2018 is also true. MastCell surgically omits that I disputed that statement by MelanieN at 01:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC), and surgically omits that she then answered at 04:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC): “I might well have done the move in two edits. But my edit summaries would have said that was what I would doing.” MastCell has cherrypicked a statement by MelanieN without telling ArbCom that her statement was followed by further discussion. The admin who brought that charge against me in January has left the project;[17] and MastCell’s accusation now that I have lied is absurd. It is also very characteristic of MastCell's tactics once he sets a goal for himself. I also still disagree with Melanie that there’s anything inconsistent about moving a section lower down in an article, while arguing that the material in the section ought to be selectively scattered chronologically throughout the article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MastCell, my statement that you are repeatedly and shamelessly calling a lie was that MelanieN “acknowledged the edits were fully permissible”. Do you know the difference between “permissible” and “acceptable”? Of course Melanie disagrees with my edit, and I’ve never said otherwise. But both she and the admin who accused me acknowledged it was a permssible edit. Why the hell wouldn’t it be permissible to move new content down? And what the hell is unreasonable about thinking it couldn’t be moved back up without consensus? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from AE: “Wikipedia’s most effective means of censorship is not to directly modify content, but rather to get rid of editors. You can judge for yourself how true that is.“ Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mdann52, I strongly object to your removal of evidence presented that I am a civil editor. On what grounds do you remove it? User:SPECIFICO specifically thanked me for restoring that useful and pertinent information. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mdann52, thanks for your reply. When an editor makes a personal attack in the midst of a larger statement, I think it's much more appropriate to redact the personal attack rather than delete the entire larger statement, as you did. For the record, you deleted the following opinion of User:SPECIFICO: "Dear Arbcom: I've said this at AE, but now I get the chance to say directly to you. Anythingyouwant, who is reasonably civil and emotionally stable....". This seems very credible coming from someone who has such a low opinion of other alleged aspects of me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why I cannot get an answer to my question here, nor why the outrageous personal attack against me on this page by User:MastCell has been met with complete silence thus far. So sorry to be inconvenient. So sorry to question the limits of discretion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN

I'm going to copy some of my rationale for the topic ban here: "...I had another look at Anythingyouwant's editing history. On January 20th they were given a one month topic ban from Donald Trump. On January 27th they took a break from editing. They returned on April 13th and went back to Donald Trump a couple days after. On the 19th they started the attacks that landed them here. This indicates they will simply wait until their topic ban expires and then continue their disruption. When reading their "discretionary sanctions applies to user talk pages? really??" comments above, I was struck how similar this was to their behavior outlined in the last case here. Same gaming, same wikilawyering. I don't think a short block will work here based on their Jan-Apr editing history but an indefinite topic ban might. Let them edit in other areas to show they can contribute non-disruptively and have them appeal rather than having the ban simply expire. I'd go with a blanket American Politics ban."

No admin agreed that Anythingyouwant's edit could claim the BLP exemption and there is a civility restriction on the article, making their comments both on their talk page and at the AE request unacceptable. I originally proposed a three month topic ban on Donald Trump but their subsequent comments, along with those of other participants in the request, changed my thinking. In particular, Anythingyouwant asserts and continues to assert above that his one month topic ban "was for an allegedly inaccurate edit summary". Looking at the appeal, members will see that admins unanimously rejected this thinking, with Timotheus Canens stating, "We have indeffed people for shenanigans like this". Given Anythingyouwant had approximately fifty-sixty edits in total between the time the topic ban was imposed and the start of the enforcement request in question, and that they simply stopped editing for over two months, I believed the sanction should not be time-limited so it could be simply waited out but rather indefinite so any appeal had to be bolstered by evidence of constructive contributions in other areas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: I'm not going to re-litigate the January enforcement action and appeal unless the arbs indicate I should do so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden:

1. Yes.
2. Yes with strong caveats. The "yes" is not an invitation to claim BLP until every section, paragraph, and sentence is perfectly balanced to an editor's satisfaction. This is not reasonable.

Anythingyouwant was not sanctioned for that edit but for stating, "Wikipedia is the biggest propaganda outfit on Earth, thanks to folks like [MrX]" soon after their return. Hours of editors' time, numerous enforcement requests, and pages and pages of discussion have resulted in the current version of the article. If Anythingyouwant believes that it's blatant propaganda then their view of NPOV is decidedly at odds with the general community and they shouldn't be editing in the area. If it was hyperbole, then the attack came almost immediately after they returned to the area after being forced to take a one month break. If that is acceptable then we might as well revoke the civility restriction and get rid of decorum. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Appeal instructions say this is a possible venue. Probably the best place for this one as WP:AE would largely be a rehash and WP:AN would likely become a mess. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: Are you really arguing that user talk pages are anything goes zones where behavioral expectations don't apply? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mr Ernie: As SBH suggests below, the sanctions were levied for an ongoing pattern of behavior. I stated as much in my initial comment in the request: Given the past sanctions, I am disinclined to overlook "Wikipedia is the biggest propaganda outfit on Earth, thanks to folks like you". This is much like when an editor gets blocked for WP:3RR, reverts immediately after their block expires, and gets blocked again. That single revert in isolation did not earn them the second block - continuing the past behavior did. I've cautioned SPECIFICO about making inappropriate comments in the past (recently, in fact) but if you think enforcement action is needed, open a request at WP:AE. However since this is an Arbcom page, presumably they or their clerks will take action if needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

I commented on the AE related to the fact that while one can argue that the edit was resolving a BLP violation, 3RRNO does not consider it the type that is exceptional under 3RR or for any article under a edit-warring DS concern. While I fully agree with the edit, 3RR is pretty clear that edit warring over it was not appropriate. Some type of action was necessary, and AYW's prior record here (the previous 1 month ban in the area) does warrant a longer one That said, the jump from a suggested 3 month topic ban to indef makes little sense based on the AE discussion, particularly given that the edit AYW did was eventually accepted and added to the page after talk page discussion. I feel this is punishing AYW for having a certain POV, which from their edits seems difficult to necessarily identity, outside of the fact they end up not disagreeing with the majority of editors in that space. I do agree their behavior at their previous appeal [18] feels like gaming and agree with how that closed, I'm just not seeing anything like that here. They felt omission of a certain statement violated BLP, did a 1RR to retail it believing they were right per 3RRNO, and then went to the talk page. That's not gaming anything. Some short topic ban is needed, but not an indef. --Masem (t) 23:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the past issues with AYW that MastCell brings up, which includes twice trying to claim 3RRNO exemptions, I think I have to agree an indef in the area is proper at this point. They should know their judgement of what 3RRNO related to BLP does allow from both of those, this case was more of the same. That unfortunately edges on gaming. I will express concerns that nearly all of AYW's BLP concerns are very much valid and important issues (at least three of these cases is where it seems the consensus of editors readily do not want to include denials or refuting of allegations made against BLPs, which BLP policy is pretty explicit about their inclusion), but again, 3RRNO does not have the allowance in there to edit war about. Those BLP issues are for a discussion well outside of AE/ARBCOM. --Masem (t) 05:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Since I have never edited Donald Trump [19], and I have never edited User talk:Anythingyouwant [20], I have no idea why I'm listed as a party to this request. Unless something tying me to this dispute can be presented, I would ask that my name be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I did comment on AYW's AE action below, but commenting on an AE discussion doesn't make one a party to the dispute which is the subject of that discussion. Allowing AYW to include everyone who commented there is a very bad precedent to set, as it could have the effect of inhibiting people from commenting freely. I would suggest that everyone thrown into the list of parties for that reason alone should be removed, and AYW trouted for adding them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved. I am removing myself from the parties list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MelanieN

I am an involved editor with regard to the Donald Trump article. I am commenting here since I was pinged by Anythingyouwant. I would like to set the record straight. Anything’s description of my input at the January discussion is incorrect. He claims that I found his two edits “fully permissible” and disapproved only of the edit summaries. The truth is that I described his two edits as a “cute trick” and an “attempt to game the DS sanctions.” His goal was to move material within the article - a move that had been disputed at the talk page and consensus had not been not reached. His method of moving it was, first to delete it as a “challenge by reverting,” claiming the material was riddled with bias and POV pushing - and then to immediately re-add it, without any changes, to the location where he wanted it to be, with an edit summary saying that nobody could put it anywhere else in the article without consensus. I regarded this as basically fraudulent and said so. The fact that he is now trying to re-litigate that situation by blatantly misrepresenting my input does not argue well for a relaxation of his sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. OK, I’ll respond to Anythingyouwant one more time. For starters, when he describes me as having said his move was “fully permissible”, that is not what I said. What I did say is that, generically, making a move in two steps is permissible. (He had been trying to change the subject to “making a move in two steps,” as if that was the only thing people had objected to.) I certainly did not say that his specific move in this case was permissible, because it was not. Whether to move that section, “Public profile”, was under discussion at the talk page, and there was not yet any consensus to move it. If he had simply gone ahead and moved it at that point, he would have been in the wrong. The move would have been immediately reverted and he would have been scolded for making the move while it was still under discussion. So instead he tried to justify the move with deceptive edit summaries. First, he deleted the whole section, claiming that he was “challenging the material by reverting it.” In other words, he was stating that in his opinion the material should be removed from the article. He later doubled down on that claim, saying that his “main objective was to remove disputed material” because it was “riddled” with “biased POV-pushing”.[21] [22](Oh, and I almost missed this: He is now claiming that his real intent was to have the material “selectively scattered chronologically throughout the article.” That’s a new one! I wonder how many more versions of what he was trying to do he can come up with?) But he immediately exposed the “challenged, biased, POV, must be removed!” nonsense as a lie, since he restored the entire section to the article one minute after deleting it. Come on! Either he thought it shouldn’t be in the article, or he thought it should; he can’t have it both ways. Apparently he really thought he could get away with pretending to object to the section one minute, then restoring it somewhere else the next, as a way of carrying out a move that would otherwise have been impermissible. He even thought he could impose his will on the article by invoking the DS to say that nobody was allowed to move it back. This whole episode was worse than gaming the system; it was an attempted scam. The fact that he is still - STILL! - trying to litigate it or justify it shows his true nature and intent. Clearly he is always going to continue with this kind of shenanigans, he will always deny it, he will appeal and appeal, and we will be here again and again, until the community finally gets tired of it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t believe he’s still at it. He still claims that when I said “two-step edits are permissible,” it was the same thing as saying “Anythingyouwant’s edit was permissible”. Which I have clearly and unequivocally stated was not the case; it was not permissible because of the ongoing discussion which he was violating, quite aside from the deceptive edit summaries. His logic is like saying “Crossing the street is permissible, therefore it was permissible for me to cross the street against the red light.” Or how about “It is permissible for me to swing my arm, therefore it was permissible for me to swing my arm and hit you in the nose.” Folks, at this point Anythingyouwant is his own best evidence of the need for sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone missed it, here was his response to me: [23] [24]. I rest my case. --MelanieN (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC) ...and [25] --MelanieN (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And another cute one by Anythingyouwant: In the "Statement by SPECIFICO" section, Mdann removed SPECIFICO's comment as a clerk action. Anythingyouwant then selectively restored part of the first sentence of SPECIFICO’s comment - namely, the part that was a little bit complimentary.[26] Is it permissible for an editor to write in another editor’s section like that, and to manipulate that editor’s comment for their own purposes? Just wondering. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC) P.S. I guess not since Mdann has now reverted it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I am not a party to this dispute, but I did comment at the AE discussion, have made a total of 7 edits to Donald Trump since September 2017, and have participated on the TP of that article. I much prefer editing equine articles where the whole horse is the topic. ^[FBDB] I did request leniency for Anythingyouwant at AE as evidenced by this diff, and will repeat the crux of my comment: "My perception of AYW's attempt to add the denial to the lede was that it was a GF edit based on NPOV and BLP. AYW did go to the article TP in an attempt to discuss the inclusion. I don't think irritating another editor at a TP justifies a block or TB. My interest in this case is more focused on the NPOV argument which I see as being inseparable from BLP. Prior to this case being filed, I posted a tough question on the TP of TonyBallioni hoping to get some thoughtful input. The diff I used in that same discussion included AYW's edit as an example." I quickly learned that AP2 articles can be highly controversial, so stepping over the DS restriction line is not unexpected; however, in this case, I truly believe it was done inadvertently. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent points, James J. Lambden. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good question, Volunteer Marek - perhaps AE and DS are not the best options, especially if it opens the doors to gaming, and stifles improvement/expansion of articles that may have fallen into the clutches of dominant OWN behavior, which almost always has a negative impact on editor retention. It is extremely difficult to save a political article from a dominant POV despite trying to strictly adhere to NPOV. I think a big part of the problem is the ever-present ambiguity in some of our policies and the varied perceptions of editors. I empathize with our admins and what they have to deal with - it is not an easy task to decide who/what is actually at the root of the disruption when one lives under RL time restraints which afford them just enough time to see a limited view of the whole picture. I understand that disruptive behavior is not conducive to a collegial editing environment, and action must be taken. I also understand that it typically stems from content issues. Admins do not focus on content issues so what we really need are content admins (wishful thinking); however, I'm still of the mind that we need to focus more on the root cause rather than the resulting symptoms which may/should open the doors to a bit more leniency. Our job at WP is to maintain the quality in our articles and per NPOV, to assure that significant views are included in our articles, the latter of which has been an effort that is barely a centimeter shy of being a root canal. TBs and blocks to end disruption may have inadvertently favored one POV, an opinion strictly based on appearances, but the results seem to support it. Please prove me wrong because the fence post I'm sitting on is very uncomfortable. Perhaps this data collation will shed more light on this issue. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, so I was thinking the BLP edit was the reason for Anythingyouwant's indef TB from AP2 but now realize that it was for telling another editor to stay off his TP per this diff, adding what NeilN said above that triggered an indef TB from AP2. Quite frankly, I have been the target of far worse and no action was taken against the offending editors, but that's beside the point. What I don't understand is what justifies an indef from AP2 for something he said on his own TP?? How is it even related? Are we subject to AP2 DS civility sanctions on our own TP? ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading MastCell's well-researched conclusion and Masem's decision in support of it, both of whom I look to for guidance and mentoring on difficult topics, I can now see that this case is much more involved than I first thought and far above my pay scale. While I believe editor retention is important, the indef does not prevent AYW from being able to edit other topic areas which will enable him to turn a new leaf and establish that he is capable of collaborating without disruption. My advice to him at this point is to withdraw this case, respect the indef and work in other topic areas to demonstrate that he is capable and willing to be a productive editor. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden

Today in an AE complaint against editor "KEC" one of the responding administrator said:

"I think KEC's belief that the edit was supported by consensus was at least defensible and reasonable, even if it's possible it was mistaken. I don't see a need for any action here."

To assist those responding in offering informed commentary, can administrators who commented here (or in the original complaint) please clarify:

1. Whether in their opinion Anythingyouwant believed he was correcting a BLP violation
2. Whether in their opinion such a belief is defensible and reasonable

Thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

First, this isn't a "Request for Clarification and Amendment". Is there something unclear about the sanction (which would need clarification) or self-contradictory (which would require an amendment)? No. This is a straight up APPEAL of the sanction. And the place for APPEALS is WP:AE itself.

Second, this is becoming a pattern. Fairly recently another user - Dheyward - also got sanctioned, then appealed to like fifteen different venues (yes, that is a purposeful but illustrative exaggeration), then finally came here and you guys granted his appeal (though it's not really your job to do so, except in extraordinary circumstances). I warned you then this would happen. Anyone who gets sanctioned at WP:AE will now come running to ArbCom with an appeal - if they can't get one anywhere else - which sort of defeats the whole purpose of WP:AE in the first place (which was, if any of you where around long enough to remember, precisely so that ArbCom wouldn't have to deal with this kind of stuff and could concentrate on the "big stuff"). If you persist in second guessing admins at WP:AE (and god knows they make mistakes), what's the point of having WP:AE? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, sure, it is "possible". Still bad practice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the "the user believed it was a BLP issue" issue - I can't recall of the top of my head, so I'm not going to say it was Anythingyouwant specifically without double checking, but there have been users who have tried to WP:GAME both the standard 3RR restriction as well as imposed discretionary sanctions by claiming BLP many many many times before and it didn't fly. Presumably the admins at WP:AE already took into consideration whether or not it was really a BLP issue or whether the user is just making up an excuse. This, in my opinion, is NOT a clear cut BLP issue, it's a judgement call. I see no reason for ArbCom folks to second guess AE admins here. Appeals, if they're going to be heard by ArbCom - since this is what this is - should focus on review of potential procedural errors (was the user notified of DS, was there reasonable consensus of admins, etc.), rather than a re-litigation of the underlying issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, here it is. At least one previous instance where Anythingyouwant tried to do the exact same thing, claim BLP to get his way, when in fact it was pretty clear he was trying to just GAME the DS restriction: "Since Sandstein has asked that I handle this, and there does seem to be agreement that this was not BLP exempt and that Anythingyouwant knew what they were doing, I'll go ahead and resolve this: Anythingyouwant is placed on 0RR for 1 month on Roy Moore and any topic related to the United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017, broadly construed. ". Closed by User:TonyBallioni.

Now, given that this exact sequence of events unfolded before (sans winding up here) what do you think are the chances that when Anythingyouwant made their latest-DS-violating-edit that led to their ban, they were thinking "gee shucks, I can't possibly be violating discretionary sanctions here because this is such an obvious BLP issue no one will ever object by golly!" The dude did exact same thing before and got sanctioned for it. He was trying again (you got to ask him why he though it'd work this time). It didn't work this time either. Hell, if anything he deserves another sanction for trying the same game twice (points off for lack of originality!), just as a lesson to be more creative about his WP:GAMEing in the future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

The issue here is not the diffs provided by Anythingyouwant in their statement, but this AE discussion about Anythingyouwant. Was anything improperly done by admins? At the end of this AE discussion (at the very bottom of the thread), two experienced admins agreed with NeilN and one suggested a softer restriction. No doubts, such sanctions are always a matter of personal judgement (the "discretion"), and the judgement can be different. According to current rules, such sanctions do not require a consensus of admins. Thinking logically, everyone who has been sanctioned on AE should complain to Arbcom in a hope that the consensus of Arbcom administrators will be different from the good faith judgement by a few or a single AE administrator. But of course not everyone runs immediately to Arbcom, because at least some people tend to admit their own mistakes and value time of other contributors.

Should such complaints be encouraged? Yes, if there is an obvious error of judgement by an AE administrator. However, when it happens, the most appropriate way is to make an appeal directly on WP:AE. In this particular case, I think Anythingyouwant knew that his appeal on WP:AE will not be granted because the sanction was a reasonable judgement by several admins, and it would be harder to argue his case here after the decline of appeal on WP:AE. Therefore, Anythingyouwant went directly to Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. @Anythingyouwant. Yes, sure, several other admins also took part in this discussion. I never said they did not. There was strong consensus on WP:AE that you made a violation of the editing restriction for the page, but opinions about remedies were partly different, as frequently happens during such discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

Sanctioning administrator User:NeilN makes it explicitly clear above that AYW was sanctioned for a comment on his talk page. However, since that talk page is not under discretionary sanctions, then the sanction placed as “arbitration enforcement” seems out of process. Many editors, including a couple who have commented here, have certainly made somewhat uncivil posts recently. Are we really going to be sanctioning editors on this basis? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN no that's not what I meant. But the way I understand you, you sanctioned AYW for a comment on his talk page "I am tired of you and your POV pushing." The same type of comments as User:SPECIFICO writes below - "One of the most dogged and resourceful POV pushers and disruptive presences," "diehard...activist," "poster child for NOTHERE editing," "relentless POV-pushing wikilawyer," with "years of misbehavior." Tell me how this isn't a double standard. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

I don't know why so many people seem to think that user talk pages are somehow exempt from DS, but, while yes Anythingyouwant's entire talk page isn't under DS, certain edits are per: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Thus, Anythingyouwant's edit on his talk page was certainly about American Politics, and thus under the discretionary sanctions, and under the many other policies we have.

Even beyond the wording, the point of DS is reduce this sort of crap — bad faith accusations of POV pushing, subverting the rules etc— and to instead have have decorum where we can constructively build the encyclopedia with civil discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Removed by clerks - feel free to rewrite per talk. Mdann52 (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO

The edit that led to this was soon added anyway to the article by consensus decision. Anythingyouwant erred here and has erred before as have many of us so it seems to me the penalty was excessive.--MONGO 03:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazed the character assassinations going on here, with editors like Mastcell calling Anythingyouwant a liar, saying he's lying, etc., "Anythingyouwant is lying. He's lying. To you. Right here, in the course of trying to convince you that he shouldn't be sanctioned for deceptiveness." and SPECIFICO with their personal attacks as well, stating clearly above that Anythingyouwant, "most dogged and resourceful POV pushers and disruptive presences" "Anythingyouwant is a poster child for NOTHERE editing. He is a relentless POV-pushing wikilawyer." Very odd that some of the people Mastcell seems to call good faith editors I might not feel the same about. Very discouraging.--MONGO 12:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mastcell:, Anythingyouwant addresses this very issue above in their section. I am almost always inclined to agree with your general assessments but this instance could also be a general misunderstanding of MelanieN's meaning during that exchange. Feel that its bit of a stretch to denigrate outright, but I have been wrong before.--MONGO 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

Several editors have stated that sanctions at issue were imposed because of one or two specific edits (one article edit and possibly one talk page edit; see AYW's original post to this appeal). The admins who assented to the sanctions also cited other factors including "the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and continued jibes on display here" (User:NeilN), "AYWs long history of battleground editing, and for the 'one of the anointed ones' crap" (User:Bishonen), "the aspersions and general battleground attitude on display is deeply unimpressive" (User:GoldenRing), and so on. The impression is that the sanctions were levied for an ongoing pattern of behavior and because briefer or less severe sanctions had proven ineffective, rather than a single edit (or two). But I could be wrong so you Arbcom folks might want to ask the admins themselves. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant:, that was a copy-paste accident. Apologies. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

First review some of Anythingyouwant's relevant history:

• Found by ArbCom in 2007 (2007!) to have "a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion".
• Indefinitely topic-banned by ArbCom in 2011 from abortion-related pages because he had, among other things, "manipulated sources to present a POV" and "manipulat[ed] policy pages to further a point in a dispute."
• October 2016: Topic-banned from American politics until the completion of the 2016 US Presidential election, for inappropriately abusing the BLP exemption to edit-war. ([27])
• November 2017: 0RR sanction on the topic of the 2017 US Senate special election in Alabama, for intentionally abusing the BLP exemption ("there does seem to be agreement that this was not BLP exempt and that Anythingyouwant knew what they are doing")
• January 2018: 1-month topic-ban from American politics for "refusal to understand the proper use of the page restrictions, and for a clear attempt to game them".
• Topic ban reduced to 1 week after Anythingyouwant ostensibly acknowledges fault, but then restored to 1 month after Anythingyouwant tried to game his sanction for gaming the system.

So it's well-documented that Anythingyouwant has a recurring issue with trying to game the system, and that he knows, or should know, that his judgement is poor when it comes to invoking the BLP exemption for edit-warring. In that context, his indefinite topic ban (for, again, misusing the BLP exemption to justify editing violations) seems proportionate and appropriate, if not long overdue.

Now look at Anythingyouwant's behavior in this request:

• He invokes MelanieN, claiming that she "acknowledged that those two edits were fully permissible, putting side the edit summaries".
• In fact, MelanieN called the edits in question "a 'cute trick', a two-part move based on attempts to game the DS sanctions".

These two statements can't both be true; either MelanieN "acknowledged the edits were fully permissible", or she called them out as an attempt to game the system.

Anythingyouwant is lying. He's lying. To you. Right here, in the course of trying to convince you that he shouldn't be sanctioned for deceptiveness.

I see MelanieN also called this out above, more politely than I have, but there is no polite gloss for this, and it's part of a pattern of behavior (which I've linked, in part, above). I don't know why Anythingyouwant seems incapable of engaging forthrightly with his fellow editors, but I'm not sure it matters. This sort of behavior is poisonous to the editing environment, and good-faith contributors deserve to be protected from it. MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: I choose my words carefully, and I don't use words like "lying" unless I feel I can justify them. I provided an example in which Anythingyouwant lied. There is no credible, innocuous explanation for his misrepresentation of MelanieN's position. (Yes, he's doing his usual gamesmanship thing to try to spin it, but seriously; no reasonable person would read MelanieN's comments and come away honestly thinking that she found those edits acceptable.) If someone is lying, then pointing out the lie, with supporting evidence, is not "character assassination". Personally, I'm more bothered by dishonesty than I am by strong language. Does it bother you that Anythingyouwant lied? Or do you not believe that the statement in question was a lie? As for other situations where you feel I'm off-base, you are welcome on my talk page anytime if you'd like to discuss further. Seriously. MastCell ^Talk 20:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fish and karate

I was messaged by AYW, asking me to come here as a party to the dispute. Not a party, I just commented at AE (and I do see this has already been addressed, and AYW has amended the list of parties). I think a topic ban is entirely appropriate, although I would suggest NeilN may wish to avoid closing AE sanction discussions and implementing the outcome when he has been participating in the discussion. In this instance, it would not have made much difference, as AYW does need to be restricted from editing in areas where he is mentally incapable of maintaining a neutral approach to editing, such as politics; I think indefinite is more than I would have gone for, but it's within the realms of reasonableness, and so the ground for appealing this AE sanction are very shaky. Note that I don't care about the incivility on the talk page, which is a red herring, that should not have been a reason for the sanction, and shouldn't have been listed in the AE submission by MrX, as it just muddied the waters. But we are where we are. This edit was sufficient for the article editing restrictions to be triggered. Their previous shorter-term sanctions clearly did not induce AYW to amend their behaviour, and so a longer-term measure is appropriate. Fish+Karate 09:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

I have read some of this incredibly lengthy thread; I'd recommend the committee simply take up American Politics 3 if they feel this appeal has merit. As a separate suggestion, perhaps a "post-2000 American politics" topic area would be beneficial? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 30 April 2018 (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.

Anythingyouwant: Clerk notes

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

• @Anythingyouwant: Primarily for the reason that you should not be editing another users evidence. If SPECIFICO wishes to amend or rewrite their statement, they are more than welcome to do so themselves. Mdann52 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Decline. Outcome was not outside the scope of reasonable admin discretion at AE. Btw, while this is one possible venue for this kind of appeal, per the AE instructions you'd be better off appealing this kind of thing there. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. I've read over this a few times now. Ultimately, like Euryalus, I don't see the sanction as being outside of AE discretion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by GoldenRing at 22:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Civility in infobox discussions 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:

• GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification Sandstein]
• [diff of notification SchroCat]
• [diff of notification Cassianto]

Statement by GoldenRing

This case introduced infobox probation, which restricts an editor subject to it from making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. A recent AE request has been closed with a sanction imposed on Cassianto because he commented three times in an infobox discussion on Mary Shelley (diff, diff, diff) and twice in an infobox discussion on Stanley Kubrick (diff, diff, diff).

Whether this closure is correct turns on whether "more than one comment in discussing the inclusion of exclusion of an infobox" means more than one comment in such a discussion, or more than one comment which directly addresses the inclusion or exclusion of such an infobox. I and another admin (Sandstein) have taken the former interpretation, but others have taken the latter and it does seem there is some ambiguity in the wording. It would therefore be useful if the committee could clarify what is the intent of this wording.

Statement by Sandstein

I interpreted the sanction the same way as GoldenRing above and Euryalus below. In this regard, it seems clear enough to me. Sandstein 05:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SchroCat

As I stated at the AE request, this restriction really is poorly phrased. As it was written and voted on, Cassianto is "indefinitely restricted from ... making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article".

The comments made on Shelley and Kubrick are not about "discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article", and so bringing measures against him for a supposed breach is a very poor step.

Now, if the aim of the committee was to make sure Cassianto made no more than one comment in an IB discussion, then the restriction is poorly phrased and should be ditched or re-written to actually say what you meant it to mean. Given the restriction wording is so imprecise, and given Cassianto has not breached that wording, I struggle to see how action can be taken against. Bad law leads to bad decisions, and that is just as true when it is an ArbCom restriction. - SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ power~enwiki: while it may have been what the restriction was "supposed to address", it is atrociously written, if that is the case. When I first read the proposal, my first thought was as I have outlined: that it doesn't stop multiple comments, if those comments are not about the IB. It's nonsense to hang a man on such a spuriously phrased diktat, and if ArbCom can't hold their hands up and say 'yes, we screwed up on that, let's fix it' (and Euryalus' comments suggest at least one member can't), then I see nothing but the restrictions being twisted however someone wants it, rather than addressing the problem.

@Euryalus: Well done on finally realising that one of the problems with IB discussions is the "reopening recently closed infobox debates": something that has been raised time after time, and something I emailed a couple of Arbs about directly, and they agreed it was a problem. What ArbCom did is to almost completely ignore the pushing, the ongoing grief time after time on the same articles (by the same individuals, many of whom were pushing for a pound of Cassianto's flesh here and at the case). It's something that is completely obvious to anyone who has looked at a couple of the threads and archives. It's a shame this simple step wasn't undertaken by ArbCom, because—as we've seen on a couple of articles already—it doesn't matter what ArbCom decided, there is still the ongoing ignoral of any consensus by users as long as the question is raised again and again and again (and yes, often with the use of IPs and sock puppets). And when people like Cass get frustrated at the ongoing pushing, it's the lazy and easy way to crucify him, rather than look at the root problem of the pushers. To be entirely honest, all the ArbCom decision has done, is to hand the pro-IB brigade an easier way to badger and push people to overstep a nebulous line and allow any of the more heavy-handed admins to put another notch on their block stick.

I suggest that you, and your colleagues, gather the strength to say that you messed up on the wording here ("indefinitely restricted from ... making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article" is crap and means two things – and you can't just say 'we didn't mean that, so we'll just hang anyone out to dry we don't like'. You should have done something like: "indefinitely restricted from ... making more than one comment in a discussion about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article".)

Now I have pointed out one of the many errors in the original decision (there are others that I am sure I'll have to point out at later clarifications), and given you better wording, it's time for you to put your collective heads together, to lift the sanction on Cassianto, and implement the new wording, which is more than sufficient. I have no doubt that ArbCom will try and slither out of what is quite clear and obvious, but hope—while not springing eternal—does still flicker that you can do the right thing at last. – SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Euryalus: "endlessly reopening infobox discussions" isn't a content issue, any more than behaviour within those discussions is a content issue. The behaviour of constant disruptive re-opening of discussions on the same topic and ignoring a stated consensus is squarely within the behaviour side of things, which is something ArbCom should have looked into. Otherwise you're giving carte blanche to the status quo of users pushing over and over in order to push editors over the rather nebulous line of "acceptable" behaviour. ArbCom have enabled and supported such bad behaviour by putting all the onus into punishing people using rude words out of sheer frustration, rather than POV pushing while (just about) remaining within what someone else decides is "civil". - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Euryalus: I'll also add that this could have easily been headed off; the two pages where Cassianto didn't breach the restrictions as they are currently written are heavily watched (and it's fairly obvious that Cassianto's edits are "tracked" by a few people too) - yet when the "discussions" were initiated again and again, no admin, let alone Arb, thought to promptly step in and quieten it? Not even the issue of the friendly (read intimidating, we are waiting to block you) DS alerts to the 'new' editors? How many of the stalkers, admins and members of ArbCom thought of stepping in to threaten advise the POV pushers on those pages that they were being problematic? Or were the IB warriors and Cassianto-haters just sitting back, with their supply of popcorn at the ready, waiting for the moment when frustration at the endless pushing from socks and logged out editors reaches boiling point? And people wonder why I get cynical about this place and the behaviour of those who should know better. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cassianto

Incompetent, corrupt, malicious, and biased. The entire case summed up rather succinctly, I think. Cassianto^Talk 23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Euryalus, ArbCom didn't deal with the infobox issue as it was too difficult to deal with. Sanctions could've been imposed on both sides of the argument. Instead, they name a case with the word "infobox" in it - presumably to kid themselves that they are dealing with it - vote that the case isn't about me, and then impose sanctions on the very person the case is not about, whilst at the same time ignoring the title of the case by not dealing with it. Also, whatever happened to the DS alerts? They seem to have died a death too. Or maybe, like infoboxes, they are also in the "too difficult" box. Cassianto^Talk 08:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Banedon, well arn't you a charming individual. So not only do I receive sanctions for a case that has nothing to do with me, but if you had your way, I'd also receive sanctions in case I break sanctions in the future. Do you have anything constructive to say, or are you here just to troll? Cassianto^Talk 09:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TRM

I think this point of clarification sums up the futility and stupidity of the original ruling. The Committee seem quite incapable of pulling together unambiguous sanctions, and this has been the case for quite some time (i.e. many ex-committees managed to foul up sanction wordings too). I wonder if we should lodge a case against Arbcom for rendering such hopeless and badly-phrased sanctions. Perhaps some training in how to write such proposals would be a good idea (I have considerable experience of this, should Arbcom wish to solicit my advice). Write down, in bullet form if it makes it easier, precisely what this sanction means. Leave no room for ambiguity. Essentially Arbcom are writing laws, or at least diktats here, and they should be bullet-proof. Go back to the drawing board and relate to the five pillars, don't create a stupid "one comment only" ruling which is absurd and unhelpful to just about everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

The "One comment" rule is utterly stupid and should never have been added in the first place

We're basically saying "You cannot add, delete, restore or collapse infoboxes and you also cannot discuss it either"

It's one thing banning someone from infoboxes but it's another to also ban them from so much as discussing it either,

Delete the pointless rule, Untopic ban Cass and close this case. –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Moxy

Perhaps best the wording is modified...dumbed-down if you will. Or a qualifier added. The current wording is lawyerish in nature and maybe confusing to some. Most will understand it's one comment per talk section about inclusion or exclusion. But there may be some that see it as one comment about the info box. ...and thus are free to post again about some other topic (for example claiming shock puppetry during the discussion). I am sure we all agree the spirt of the ruling is to suppress this type of behavior .... not leave the door wide open to posts about personal actions or behavior patterns.--Moxy (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Banedon

Maybe add an extra sentence at the end: "...making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. This includes the entire thread and all subthreads, even if they are not directly related to infoboxes."

Having said that I interpret Cassianto's statement above as implying that he will reoffend, in which case it might be time to change the sanction to something harsher. Banedon (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

I have to wonder at what point Sandstein's contributions to AE are no longer useful. As seen many times before, Sandstein is quick on the trigger with a (usually) harsh sentence, without waiting for input from other admins. I thought best practice was to wait for input, especially with editors with as many valued contributions as Cassianto. It appears that Sandstein regularly receives so many questions about his AE actions that he had to create a FAQ. Surely this isn't the best we can do. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

I agree with TRM that "infobox probation" is needlessly complicated; particularly compared to the alternative of a straight TBAN from infoboxes. While I found the wording of "one comment" fairly clear, apparently others did not; I have no suggestions as to how to improve that wording.

The problem of Cassianto over-reacting to (potentially bad-faith) new users discussing infoboxes was EXACTLY what the recent case was supposed to address; regardless of the exact wording of "infobox probation", imposing a topic ban under Discretionary Sanctions is a reasonable action here.

The ability for admins to make unilateral actions is the very essence of discretionary sanction as currently written; I'd advise those editors upset with that to suggest replacements for the wholesale replacement of DS, rather than making (IMO spurious) complaints about the specific action here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eric Corbett

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Ernie that Sandstein's involvement in these discretionary sanctions is a negative and unduly harsh one, and in this particular case I find his interpretation of what is certainly a poorly worded sanction to be completely without merit. Mixing trigger-happy administrators and incompetently worded sanctions is a recipe for disaster. I too have suffered from this kind of stupidity, enabled by the infamous "broadly construed" catch all. What the hell is that supposed to mean? How broadly? Eric Corbett 09:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coretheapple

The wording was clear, but if you want to change it? Sure, go ahead. This is just the beginning. There will be more of this wikilawyering and hair-splitting going forward because Arbcom failed to act effectively by issuing a ban though it was more than warranted, and showed compassion in the face of contempt.. So get used to it. Whatever you decide will be tested further. Nothing ever will be clear. Coretheapple (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Civility in infobox discussions: Clerk notes

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

• Recuse obviously. GoldenRing (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civility in infobox discussions: Arbitrator views and discussion

• The aim of the restriction is to prevent those on "infobox probation" from endlessly re-engaging in the debate and helping turn it into a slugging match. So yes, the restriction has been breached in this case - Cassianto should have commented once in these discussions, at whatever length, and then left it to others to carry it forward. Separately, is this a good and popular sanction as written? No - but the alternatives of outright blocks or bans were worse and there were no other very useful proposals on the table. Worth noting that while the case had remedies for individual editor conduct re infobox discussions, regrettably it didn't have anything on what to do when editors breach the second sentence of WP:CCC by reopening recently closed infobox debates, as we're seeing on some of these pages. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, agree re the need for a rewording. The aim is to prevent more than one contribution to any infobox discussion. No need to parse the content of comments: those with the restriction should post once in the entire discussion (comprising the thread and any subthreads), share their views on anything and everything they think relevant, then leave it alone. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Agree. I imagine the simplest remedy for infobox warfare would be: a) a rigid civility standard in infobox discussions, enforced by blocks, and b) a ban on relitigating consensus for or against any article's infobox for a period of (say) twelve months after the previous discussion closed. That'd bring the current nonsense to an end, but the first would also cost Wikipedia some excellent content contributors and the second is outside Arbcom's authority. So we're left with this current somewhat tortured outcome. As always, alternative proposals welcome, and if they're any good let's put them in place of what we have. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Arbcom didn't impose a ban on endlessly reopening infobox discussions because it's a content issue and Arbcom isn't authorised to decide it. It's my personal view that the community should impose exactly that restriction, to stop the current pointless nonsense of new editors wearing everyone out by proposing exactly the same infobox inclusion or removal as the person two weeks before them. If someone proposed this restriction in an RfC I reckon there'd be strong support. It's a major missing piece in resolving the infobox conflict - it just needs the community to get it under way. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]