---

Initiated by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? at 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by HJ[edit]

procedure notes: first, I'm not sure who (if anybody) needs to be notified of this but I will leave a link from the discussion at WT:ACN and will be happy to notify any editor suggested if necessary ; second, I've never filed a request for clarification before, so guidance (and patience!) from arbitrators or clerks on any formatting errors would be appreciated.

This request pertains to the December 2011 motion (permanent link) which amended remedy 1 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion.

Having discussed the matter with arbitrators, predominantly on WT:ACN, it seems that this motion is ambiguous in its intent and I fear that what may be clearly implied to administrators currently working in the abortion topic area may not be as obvious to others and may not be retained in institutional memory. The current wording of the motion suggests that administrators may semi-protect articles related to abortion (an option already allowed to them under the Protection Policy) and that administrators may only semi-protect abortion-related articles for a maximum of three years.

Without wishing to speak for the committee, I believe the intent of the motion was to:

• Encourage administrators to apply a lower threshold for semi-protection of abortion-related articles and in particular their talk pages—of which protection is normally discouraged by the protection policy.
• Authorise administrators to pre-emptively protect particular abortion-related articles which are likely to suffer from sustained disruption with potential consequences beyond Wikipedia.
• Provide administrators with the authority of acting under an arbitration remedy in the event that another administrator takes exception to a protection that would not be in "normal" circumstances.

I would also suggest that any amended motion should make clear that uninvolved administrators working in the abortion topic area still have the option of protecting articles under the provisions of the protection policy and that this motion is supplemental. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Coren, Fozzie: I disagree. It may be obvious to you and to those who followed the case closely what you mean, but to somebody who doesn't fall into those categories, all you've done is said that admins can protect abortion-related articles for three years. you haven't told us why that might be desirable, you haven't said anything about the pre-emptive protection which Roger Davies suggested was an important part of the motion, and your assumption that nobody would take this as meaning that it supersedes normal procedures would seem to be flawed, judging by this log entry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem[edit]

First, I'd like to thank HJ for initiating this request. As will be evident from the WT:ACN discussion, I believe that clarifying the reasoning behind this decision and its intent is highly desirable. I recognise that comments below indicate that (at least) Coren and SirFozzie do not see a need for a motion to clarify the semi-protection issue in the abortion area (broadly defined) but I submit that their reasoning is flawed. As I understand it, the suggestion is that no clarification is needed as the remedy is already clear. I have no doubt that it is clear from their point of view, but the issue is whether it is clear from a non-ArbCom member's perspective. As you may know, I work as an academic. When I submit a paper for consideration by a journal I expect to have some issues raised where I believe the manuscript is clear and I need to remind myself that I *know* what I meant and I have to accept that the reviewers are better placed to judge whether a point is unclear. Please, try to step back and ask not whether the remedy is clear to you but rather whether the remedy can reasonably be interpreted in way(s) that you did not intend. Ask yourself how an unusual - or even extreme - remedy with no rationale presented might be seen by those who do not have limitless faith in ArbCom. Truly, a remedy contemplating semi-protection for three years with no accompanying explanatory finding and no rationale is deficient. I know from Risker's explanation that there is very good reason for empowering agressive semi-protection but had I not read that user talk page post I could have easily been wondering what you were thinking. I can easily imagine how the remedy could be seen as ArbCom over-reaching. This remedy will be in force for three years. There could easily be administrators applying it in eighteen months who have yet to even join the project; surely suggesting that you pass a motion to provide a rationale and to clarify what actions you are authorising is not an unreasonable request. EdChem (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• I really don't see a point to further amendments or motions about this. Your reading above is pretty much on the nose, but that's also the straightforward plain reading of the amended remedy as currently written; and there is no way to write a motion in a manner that cannot hypothetically be misinterpreted or wikilawyered around.

  As far as I know, no arbitration remedy has ever been (seriously) read or implied to mean that they replaced the normal process unless it explicitly states that it does; certainly nobody interprets discretionary sanctions to mean that normal blocks or processes do not still apply, for instance. — Coren ^(talk) 04:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Coren. Anyone working in the area doesn't need another formal amendment to understand this is what we mean. SirFozzie (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on a comment by SirFozzie on the mailing list, I think we could make a note on the talk page of the case, and include a diff about this discussion. However, I agree that a formal amendment isn't needed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• My understanding is that the amendment should be read alongside the remedy, in which case it allows admins at their discretion to semi-protect for up to three years certain abortion related articles which they feel may be or are vulnerable, and to do so under ArbCom sanction, logging the action. Other forms of protection, such as full protection or indefinite semi are still available, and can be challenged, though a three year semi-protection done under ArbCom sanction shouldn't be undone without going through the procedures outlined in WP:AE. The amendment removes the necessity of all the related articles being protected regardless of vulnerability, while giving alert admins the liberal power to move swiftly to prevent a problem before it happens. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Anythingyouwant (talk) at 22:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 9

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Information about amendment request

• Link to remedy
• Request: Termination

Statement by Anythingyouwant[edit]

This seems like an opportune time to request lifting a topic-ban imposed on me in 2011. ArbCom has just finished a case (gun control) in which my contributions were scrutinized, so making this request now seems timely given that I am fresh on your minds. I was “indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed”. During that case, I repeatedly made very clear to ArbCom that I objected to accusers going over the word-limits, and said that I would not exceed my word-limits to address accusations which exceeded the accuser's word limits, unless given permission by ArbCom to do so, and I was not given permission. I don’t know what your rules say now, but back then they said this:

“

Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely...Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs....Please reduce your evidence submission to fit within the appropriate limits.

”

I made very clear my objections to violation of this rule, and my intention not to violate it.[7][8][9][10]

As to the two accusations back then which I did not address for the reasons described above, they were mostly false. On the first, all I did was quote a book, not realizing that a later edition changed the quote, and I didn't object at all when I was corrected (I was even thanked for correcting a further error made by the person who corrected me). On the second accusation, I made a policy edit merely intended to clarify what the policy already said, it would not have advanced my position anymore than anyone else's even if it had been a new policy requirement, I said upfront that it related to an article I recently edited, and I did not refer to the policy at the article talk page until weeks later (long after other editors had discussed and modified my edit at the policy page, and without having had any intention to refer to the policy---which intention unfortunately cannot be proved).

Even if you regard these accusations and the remedy as legitimate (I don't), then perhaps you might think that several years is "indefinite" enough. I'd appreciate that. If you would like further diffs to substantiate any of this statement of mine, then just ask. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB: Brad, I have not looked at Wikipedia’s abortion-related and pregnancy-related articles in several years, so I cannot say how I would be inclined to edit them. I have no desire to dive back in anytime soon, at least not in a big way, that’s for sure. Eventually, maybe I’d start a new sub-article; in May of 2011, I made this comment at one of those pages, suggesting creation of a new sub-article about biological facts that are cited by either side of the abortion dispute (I said "there isn't any comprehensive article on this subject, and it would be good to have one, at least as a sub-article of this Wikipedia article"). So, I might want to someday work on something like that. I think the issue that really got me into trouble at the main abortion article (i.e. the real issue) was that I supported keeping an image that had been in the article for a year, showing what it is that is aborted in a typical abortion (which occurs at about 8 weeks after conception/fertilization). So, I might support inclusion of something like that; Wikipedia has a no-censorship policy ostensibly, and I think removal of such an image without consensus violated that policy and others (especially when you consider some of the images that Wikipedia does allow in its articles). But I have no desire to jump back into this anytime soon. At the very least, I would have to get back up to speed on the subject, and on the coverage that Wikipedia currently provides. I certainly am not going to edit any of these articles if I am under a sanction that says "Anyone can topic-ban Anythingyouwant for the slightest bullshit reason." Been there, done that.

Regarding "misrepresentation" of sources, I will not do one little iota of a thing differently, because the accusation in this case was phony. As for editing policy pages, an arbitrator once told me: "This is Wikipedia, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals." But I understand now that more care is needed when editing policies based on non-hypotheticals, and would exercise same.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mastcell, you know very well that the user in question denied (repeatedly) that the Nazis were tyrants, and said that they were in a worse category than tyrants. I said repeatedly that I was not accusing that user of having any sympathy with Nazis,[11][12][13][14] while trying my damnedest to disagree with that user's absurd ([15]) contention that they were not tyrants.[16][17] Mastcell, let me just say right here in black and white: you are accusing me of a hideous offense knowing very well that it is false. And I find this entirely typical of you. If people want diffs, I will provide diffs. MastCell dragged me through countless unsuccessful administrative actions in the past that failed because they were frivolous. But he hit the jackpot by exceeding his word limits in this arbcom case. And I fully expect Arbcom to do his bidding again. I say: go for it. I hope it makes you feel proud. You can see that MastCell makes me mad, and if being mad is against ArbCom rules, then go ahead and drop the boom. Your comment below is utterly disgraceful, MC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators: Before this case was officially closed, I made further protests regarding the word limits to both the drafting arbitrator (at his talk page) and to ArbCom generally. No one said one word about any misinterpretation of the rules by me, or that they could be circumvented by using talk pages. I am inclined to withdraw this request right now, but instead will let it keep going for awhile more. I don't expect that there will be any further requests from me on this score, so it will be a firm lifetime ban. I note that you have not said a word of criticism about MC's accusation below. So I infer that you are unconcerned about lies and character assassination, which are your necessary tools for controlling Wikipedia content.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK. I went and looked at the evidence page for this case, and it says nothing about "1000 words".[18]Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did Your manual say "1000" back then. It said "500".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not raising this procedural issue belatedly; I provided diffs today pointing to where I raised the issue in 2011, and I raised it repeatedly. Considering that I raised this issue at least four times back in 2011 at the Arbcom case pages, it might have been nice if someone had, you know, answered. I was not aware that evidence in my own defense could have been presented in unlimited quantities at the evidence talk page (I thought all evidence was subject to the same 500-word limit, and it sounds pretty ridiculous to have a limit that can be exceeded at will). In any event, the evidence presented against me by MastCell was certainly over his 500-word limit, and it was on the Evidence page rather than the talk page. I responded to NYB above, regarding how I would edit the articles if allowed to, plus you can look at my history. But I do think that the bogus nature of the proceedings in 2011 is relevant to whether the remedy imposed was ever necessary. The BS accusation that MastCell makes below is just like the BS accusation he made in 2011. At some point, you have to wonder who you're associating with by editing at Wikipedia. You guys and gals have fun.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade, heaven forbid that ArbCom should even slightly frown at someone who goes around falsely accusing me of labelling someone as a Nazi sympathizer. That is the most outrageous accusation I've faced yet at Wikipedia, but I guess it's all background noise for you guys. Yes, I combat crap like that. And you combat me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Malke 2010 and Writegeist, thanks for chiming in, I'm grateful that you've watchlisted this page. Arbitrators, I apologize for getting overtly angry about MastCell's accusation, which seems like the latest in an endless string from him. Shrinks say you shouldn't bottle up your feelings, but maybe it's best to do so when dealing with your committee.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB, after protesting violation of word limits with no response, I did finally try to defend myself at the proposed decision talk page without presenting any evidence (because I was not given permission to do so), and that occurred after eleven arbitrators had already voted. I still have not been offered any opportunity to present evidence in my defense, and in fact have been criticized here at this page for "re-litigating" even though I have not presented any evidence at this page about the accusations back then. You have no idea what evidence I would present in my own defense. Moreover, I find your assertion that I misrepresented a quote (by not realizing it had been changed in a newer edition of the book) to be just as inappropriate as your deafening silence in the face of an accusation here at this talk page that I called anyone a Nazi sympathizer. In my life, I have never seen such baseless, frivolous accusations against anyone. Even if you agree with what happened in 2011, you really think that warrants a lifetime topic ban? Sheesh. MastCell referred back in 2011 to the image I linked above (he did so immediately after he obtained the topic-ban against me), and he refers to it again in his comment below. I therefore assume that this is mainly a content dispute, and that the other accusations are basically window-dressing, which explains why no one was ever interested in evaluating them per proper procedures.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB, you folks are never going to accept evidence from me in my own defense, and you are never going to strike accusations presented in violation of your own rules. There is only one editor at this page who has made scurrilous bad faith accusations worthy of a site ban, but you folks have chosen to be most gracious toward that editor, and most unfair to me. Hey, it's your website, so you can do what suits you. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, I withdraw this request. The topic-ban is now for life, because I have no intention of ever coming back here. The project is worse off for ArbCom's toleration of, and apparent reliance upon, malicious and hateful accusations. It is worse off for picking and choosing which policies and rules to enforce and against whom. Anyway, it's been interesting. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell[edit]

Brad, you asked what Anythingyouwant would do differently if his sanction is lifted. His statement boils down to one word: nothing. He's still re-litigating the ArbCom abortion case, not to mention his push to include fetal images in the abortion article which began more than 7 years ago. His recent editing in other controversial areas doesn't inspire confidence; while he was not sanctioned in the gun control case, he didn't exactly cover himself in glory either, falsely accusing one case participant of being a Nazi apologist and nearly challenging another to a duel. What basis is there for lifting this sanction? MastCell ^Talk 03:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Writegeist[edit]

Re. comments by Anythingyouwant and AGK on the permissible length of evidence. The instruction at the Evidence page is clear: Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. As Anythingyouwant rightly says, he complied with the instruction and his accusers didn't. (And was the rule-breaking evidence from his accusers refactored or removed?) Further, Anythingyouywant says he requested equal leeway and it was not granted. I.e. his disadvantage was not only known, it was actually enforced. So it concerns me to see AGK discount a cornerstone of Anything's submission with "named parties have a 1000 word limit on their evidence (not 500 words as claimed)." If AGK is presenting fiction as fact, I trust AGK will now strike the comments. Otherwise, I await AGK's supporting evidence. There's a strong whiff of kangaroo about an arbitration proceeding that's weighted against the accused by enforcing one written rule for the accused and another, unwritten and contradictory, for the accusers. Writegeist (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, hereby noting Newyorkbrad's prejudicially ambiguous misrepresentation—"[Anythingyouwant] owned the 1979 edition and didn't believe the definition in question had changed in any later edition" (my emphasis)—of Anythingyouwant's assertion at NYB's talk page [19] that he was "unaware that any later edition might have changed the definition in question" (my emphasis), which of course is very different, as any fule kno. Noting also that NYB omits mention of Anything's reminder to NYB that when corrected he welcomed the correction and acted on it. Noting also that NYB's comments, and other committee members' apparent collective deafness to significant issues here, may well be viewed as part of a pattern first seen at the Evidence page and now again here (not least in AGK's apparently deceptive assertion referenced above, which AGK still allows to stand despite my request to strike it or support it with evidence): a pattern of impropriety that put Anythingyouwant at a disadvantage and thereby substantially underpinned the sanction and its continuation. Writegeist (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All moot now, as I see Anythingyouwant has just withdrawn his request. Writegeist (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malke 2010[edit]

Agree with Writegeist. And I can see why Anythingyouwant is feeling so frustrated. He's not being heard. The accusers should have had any of their evidence over the limit removed as would have been done to anyone else. Anythingyouwant kept to the limit and clearly pointed out where the others had not, yet nothing was done. That would make anyone angry and certainly leave them with a terrible frustrated sense that they'd not been given ample opportunity to defend themselves.

As for the diffs by MastCell, I don't see anything there that the other side wasn't doing. He wasn't topic banned from Gun control for a reason. I think that shows right there he's capable of editing the Abortion article again. As for any concern over his wanting to put photos into the article, he's stated he'd only do that with consensus. He doesn't seem to be saying he'd do as he pleased. There are many articles on Wikipedia with necessary photos that don't suit everyone including Anencephaly. An RfC on the question would easily resolve any issue.

I know you're all very busy with these cases and it's sometimes easier to just discount an editor when he gets angry, but as I'm sure you realize, if you ruled against everyone who got angry on Wikipedia we'd not have any editors. I think this is worth putting a kettle on and having a second look.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect[edit]

Where a process has been used in an unequal manner, the claim that no change would have occurred had the process been handled equally - is weak. The argument that a person who raises this argument is ipso facto going to be found wrong is weaker. And the argument that the complainant was wrong about the 500 word limit is weakest yet. I have no idea on whether the sanction ought to be modified, all I know is the arguments made against it fail to convince me otherwise. Collect (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {yet another user}[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Considering. Question for Anythingyouwant: If this request is granted, what, if anything, would you like to edit that you can't as of now, and how, if at all, would you edit it differently from how you did previously? Note to newer arbitrators: see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge (2007 case involving same editor under prior username). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we voted on this case in 2011, although I joined the finding of fact, I expressed discomfort with one or two of the specific diffs cited. In retrospect, I might have pressed harder that those diffs not be included. I also regret if there was any miscommunication at the time about the word limit (I've never supported strict enforcement of the word limit that interferes with a party's responding to allegations), but Anythingyouwant did respond to the allegations about sourcing and policy-page-editing to some extent on the proposed decision talkpage, which the arbitrators would have seen. Most important, I don't believe that even if the disputed findings had been omitted, the ultimate remedy would have been any different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anythingyouwant, I haven't endorsed the misrepresentation finding here. To the contrary, although my memory is not perfect, I believe the diff describing the "misrepresentation of sources" is the specific one I found troubling at the time and would not have included in the decision. I understand now, and understood at the time, your argument in opposition to this finding, which is that you were unaware when you cited the 1979 edition of Black's Law Dictionary that there were later editions (the dictionary has actually been completely rewritten by Bryan Garner over the past few editions, see here) and that the citation from the later edition was actually to an example quotation in Black's rather than the definition itself. In terms of your request to lift the topic restriction, I personally might have been open to some relaxation (though not a complete lifting), but it's a moot point given my colleagues' comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per discussion on my talkpage, I withdraw "you were unaware ... that there were later editions" and substitute "owned the 1979 edition and didn't believe the definition in question had changed in any later edition." Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Somehow I get the feeling that lifting this sanction would not lead to an improvement of the editing environment in the relevant topic area. As a side note, since you are fresh on our minds, I'll also add that it's probably a good idea if you choose to voluntarily stay away from contentious articles for a while... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, I don't see any persuasive argument for lifting this remedy at this time. Worm^TT(talk) 09:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Unusually, this request is made on the grounds that there were procedural improprieties in the original case, and specifically that the complainant had insufficient space in which to respond to evidence against him. While I am sympathetic to the pressures of being accused from all sides, I reject these grounds because: (A) named parties have a 1000 word limit on their evidence (not 500 words as claimed); (B) rebuttals to evidence can be made on the Evidence talk page; and (C) none of this is relevant to whether the remedy imposed is still necessary. Decline. AGK [•] 11:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline A request like this needs to present a compelling case that if the sanction were lifted the user would be able to provide positive contributions in the areas they are currently not allowed to edit in. This request does exactly the opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to the history here, the combative attitude shown here does not give me any confidence that allowing Anythingyouwant back into a highly charged topic area is a wise idea. Decline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per Salvio. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Haymaker (talk) at 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

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

[20]

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

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

Statement by Haymaker[edit]

I was edit-warring on this topic back in the day and was topic-banned by the above Arbitration Case. I'm not really interested in this topic any more and I have kept my nose clean for the last 2+ years. I would like to not have this decision hanging over my head and when I see cases of clear-cut vandalism on my watch-list, clean them up. I asked the admin who notified me of the topic ban and he said this was the place to go to ask about this. Haymaker (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NativeForeigner: All things being equal, I'd like to be out from underneath them all together. I noticed that in the past some users had sanctions lifted for a probationary period of time. If a full reprieve seems like a bridge too far at this time, would a probationary trial be possible? Haymaker (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thryduulf[edit]

There is a slight difference between reinstating a suspended topic ban (as proposed by Salvio) and topic banning again under discretionary sanctions if required (as proposed by WTT). That difference is that in the event of a topic ban being necessary in future, Haymaker will have had one ban under Salvio's proposal but two bans under WTT's. I am unaware that this would make any practical difference (and I think it unlikely the Haymaker will cause further trouble, making this is completely academic) but even more minor differences have turned out to have practical implications down the line. This is therefore just a heads-up for others to be aware the two proposals are not identical. I don't have an opinion on which I prefer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

• Moved a comment by Haymaker to their section from the arbitrator section below. Please make comments only in your own section, ping people if necessary. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Adjusted majority to indicate AGK being inactive on this item. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Are you asking for us to fully abandon it, or to make an exception for minor/trivial edits? NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And yes, I agree with Salvio. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:BANEX, reverting obvious vandalism is already an exception to a topic ban; that said, considering you have not been blocked for over two years and that, in general, I'm in favour of second chances, I'd be amenable to supporting the standard provisional suspension, i.e. the topic ban is lifted, but for a year it can be reimposed by any admin in the event of fresh misconduct within the original area of conflict. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also support a provisional unban, like Salvio suggested. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Haymaker[edit]

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

For reference, the current restrictions on Haymaker (talk · contribs) is:

Proposed:

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

• Enacted --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Proposed. I've left out the information regarding the probation as Abortion is still under discretionary sanctions so Haymaker can be re-topic banned with ease. I would support this if anyone wants to put it in though. Copy edits or changes welcome. Worm^TT(talk) 10:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. That's a good point about the discretionary sanctions. I'm willing to support this without the explicit probationary period. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worth a try. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. I understand Floquen's concerns but think that with the Abortion DS also in effect reinstating the topic ban will not be a difficult issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. While I understand and sympathize with every word Floq has written below, the discretionary sanctions already in place make the risk minimal. If Haymaker doesn't behave themselves in this area they'll be kicked back out of it soon enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per him and him and her and him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. For some reason the word "vacate" sticks in my craw, but at least I can recognize I'm being too picky and overcome it. Something more difficult to overcome is my cynicism about "I'm no longer interested in this topic, but this topic ban is hanging over my head"; we've seen that recently, and believed it, and grey areas were almost immediately explored when the topic ban was lifted. Looking at the sheer quantity of abortion-related edits before the case, and the 45 edits made in the last 2+ years since then, I find it too hard to believe that resuming editing in the abortion area is not your intention. I don't believe this topic ban is a significant hindrance to your editing other topics. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

• I hate myself for becoming the type of person who asks this kind of question, but... is "vacated" really a good word for describing this? Doesn't that imply the previous decision was wrong? Would "lifted" (or something else) be better? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (Supposedly inactive now but I can't help myself.) I think "terminated" would probably be the best word to use here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also my understanding that "vacated" indicates a defect in the thing being vacated, and that "terminated" works the best due to indefinite not meaning permanent. I've made the change; if anyone strongly disagrees feel free to revert me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "...from abortion-related topics is terminated"? Can we keep trying? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably not my place to re-word something I['m opposing, but I've changed it to "lifted", due to the unfortunate unintended double meaning (as someone noted in one of the mailing lists). Even "vacated" would be better than "terminated" here. Happy to be over-ruled with something better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Point well-taken on the entirely inadvertent double meaning of terminate. (Compare Judge Posner's jibes at the off-found law-review phrase "Roe and its progeny.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 19:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected:

WP:ARBAB

Link to relevant decision

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

Statement by User: Robert McClenon[edit]

There is edit-warring in progress at Crisis pregnancy center. My question is whether the article is subject to Discretionary sanctions under the WP:ARBAB decision because a major objective of these centers is to discourage abortion, and whether the edit-warriors can reasonably be alerted of the discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved EvergreenFir[edit]

The wording on the ruling makes it pretty clear that yes, it is. CPCs are related to abortion even narrowly construed. 4.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages† articles related to abortion, broadly construed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 19:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

WP:ARBAB: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• EvergreenFir is correct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• What he said, this is pretty obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with my colleagues. AGK [•] 12:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Crisis pregnancy centers are inextricably linked to the abortion issue, and are absolutely covered under the corresponding sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• What they said. LFaraone 18:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by Anythingyouwant at 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Previously known as User:Ferrylodge) (This began as a clarification request but an amendment request was added.)

Case or decision affected

Abortion 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Anythingyouwant[edit]

According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed." The reason I ask now for clarification is because today I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard."[21] Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know. Am I supposed to avoid these types of pages altogether, or are these types of pages not included in the ban, or does it depend upon which parts of these pages I edit? I have made lots and lots and lots of edits to this type of page over the past four years without saying anything remotely related to the A-word.

I assume that this topic ban is a lifetime ban given the reaction of ArbCom members to my May 2014 request for amendment, and given my firm position on the matter, and therefore whatever response you give to my present request for clarification will presumably be part of this lifetime ban.

• @User:Bishonen, thanks for referring me to WP:TBAN which I had not been referred to and had not read before. According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed." It would have been very easy for them to say "topic area" or "edits" instead of "pages", and easy for them to wlink to WP:TBAN. If you are correct (which you very well may be), I'd like ArbCom to confirm it. Thanks. I don't know if clarification requests are affected by an editor's level of contrition, and so explaining that level was the purpose of the rest of my initial comment here. According to plain English, a page is either abortion-related or it isn't, and, if it is, then plain English seemingly dictates that I may not edit it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, how about waiting until things get out of hand? I sincerely want to know whether, as Bishonen suggests, I am perfectly free to edit abortion-related pages as long as my edits are not about abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my replies to the comments of others have been hidden. You guys are too much! Perhaps you will allow a reply to Thryduulf....Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)The comments have been moved out of the little hidden box.[reply]

• @User:Thryduulf, since you now suggest arbitration enforcement action against me regarding this matter, is there anything I can do at this point to avoid such action? I have carefully avoided abortion-related articles like fetus and pre-natal development and feticide and the like for four years just to be careful. But I understand from Bishonen's comment below that it's fine for me to edit pages like those as long as I don't bring up abortion. I would like ArbCom to confirm that now, because I do not want to land at arbitration enforcement for editing articles like those.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Thryduulf said "you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit." That is painfully obvious. Am I allowed to edit fetus and pre-natal development and feticide if my edits are not about abortion? That seems to be what Bishonen was saying about Political positions of Jeb Bush.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Thryduulf, you seriously want to respond to this request for clarification by essentially saying: "We won't tell you whether you can make non-abortion edits to articles like Political positions of Jeb Bush and feticide and pre-natal development except to say that you shouldn't if you're unsure"? Sheesh. Let me put it this way: only a nutcase would think that a non-abortion edit to any of those articles violates my topic ban, and so I intend to feel free to make such edits unless you advise otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:DGG, you object to a long quotation that I put in a footnote. Not to worry! I now understand from WP:TBAN that I shouldn't have made the edit at all. Finding out about that was the main purpose for me coming here, and now I know. I sincerely apologize for this inadvertent error, and it will not happen again. Before coming here I did not realize that I am totally free to make non-abortion edits to articles like feticide, but barred from making abortion edits to articles like Political positions of Jeb Bush. Now I know, and can therefore comply more fully and completely with your [expletive deleted] topic ban. Incidentally, I'm a big fan of long quotes in footnotes; see, e.g., the footnotes in the lead of Carly Fiorina. YMMV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:Bishonen, it seems to me that Pre-natal development and Political positions of Jeb Bush are both abortion-related to some extent. But both also have lots of material that is not abortion-related, and I have come here with the express purpose of finding out whether I can edit the latter. So far, arbitrators say "don't edit it if you're unsure". Well, I am sure that a reasonable person reading my topic ban and WP:TBAN would say that a non-abortion edit to either article is okay. Is it wise for me to use a "reasonable person" standard? I think so. The Bush article has a whole section titled "Abortion" but the fetus article does not, so why do you think I'm completely banned from the latter but not the former?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:Seraphimblade, User:Doug Weller, User:Bishonen, per your comments, I will construe my topic ban as pertaining to "any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion" unless the consensus of arbitrators changes. That was the language in the sanction that this committee imposed on me eight years ago, and is apparently what you wish the most recent topic ban said too.[30] As always, you folks meet my expectations. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:Guy Macon, you have posed this question for me to answer: "You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know whether an edit in a section labeled 'Abortion' with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban?" No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban. I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it. Anything else?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Guy Macon I see that you have revised your question: "You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still didn't know when you opened this discussion whether an edit in a section labeled 'Abortion' with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban?" I think you know perfectly well that the answer to that revised question is also no. The reason why I opened this discussion is because I knew at that time that the matter might raise an issue. I hope you ask better questions of other people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Everyone, I have restored the section in question to exactly how it was before I touched it yesterday.[31] Some one edited the section since then, and so I explained and apologized to them.[32] I don't see what more I can do about it. Ever since 2007, you people have assumed the worst possible faith on my part. There was never any possible way I ever could have gotten out from under. It doesn't matter how many years go by without blocks and without the slightest violation of the topic ban, and of course not one word that I say matters because I am presumed to be a venal liar. So sanction me all you want for making a possible mistake and immediately coming here for clarificaton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:DGG I didn't ask for any guidance here about whether it's generally wise or unwise to include long quotations or short quotations or no quotations within footnotes, and I intend to keep on editing articles outside the scope of this topic-ban just as I have always done because I do not consider anything in this proceeding to be a warning not to do so. My own opinion is that extended quotations from reliable sources (within footnotes) are often fine at Wikipedia when they neutrally provide useful information to readers about a subject. The mere fact that a Wikipedia article might discuss one subject using an extended quotation and another subject without using an extended quotation is no ground for objection, IMHO. I chose to add a long quotation from Bush that supplemented other material in the section; the site I used was very easy for anyone to access by themselves, but it's very often convenient to provide quotations and other information in a Wikipedia article even though readers could instead access it via other websites. I write such footnotes all the time, and I just want to make it clear that I do not understand anything in this proceeding as a warning to stop.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:GorillaWarfare, I said above: "According to plain English, a page is either abortion-related or it isn't, and, if it is, then plain English seemingly dictates that I may not edit it." That's why it was unclear to me what the rules were regarding the Political positions of Jeb Bush. If that's an "abortion-related page" then the plain language of the topic ban indicates that I can't edit it in any way. If it's not an "abortion-related page" then the plain language of the topic ban indicates that I can edit it like any other article. So now I've come here and been told that Political positions of Jeb Bush is an abortion-related page if I make abortion-related edits to it, but is not an abortion-related page if my edits are not abortion-related, and furthermore articles like fetus are abortion-related even if my edits have nothing to do with abortion. None of this was apparent from the plain language of the topic ban, and so now it is apparent which is why I came here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:GorillaWarfare, I have not requested an amendment here, as indicated by the heading I chose. Frankly, I do not anticipate that an amendment will ever be granted (given the information that has been hidden above), and so I don't plan on ever asking for one. Yes, I agree that my ban (as clarified here) extends also to pages and sections of pages that relate to abortion. And a question for you: do you want the topic ban to extend to pages that say or imply nothing about abortion, like pre-natal development? Another arb said below that it does extend to all pregnancy-related articles, which seems kind of weird given that the topic-ban could have easily said so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @@GorillaWarfare: Given the stuff that's hidden above, will it be futile for me to ever request that this topic-ban be lifted?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @GorillaWarfare: Thanks for the reply. I am only human, and I cannot promise to never make innocent mistakes such as when I cited a dictionary definition that I did not realize had been revised, and such as when I obeyed ArbCom limits on evidence even though the accusations were 100% beyond those limits. I am never going to admit to ArbCom's accusation that I "manipulated" a reliable source. I already explained that I would be more careful about editing Wikipedia policy, but will never agree with the ArbCom accusation that I had some nefarious intent, and have explained why I did what I did. These were the only two items that ArbCom cited against me in 2011 as far as I recall. I cannot even recall the details from 2007 anymore, but I note that every single one of the AE actions against me from 2007 to 2011 (that I linked in the hidden section above) resulted in no action against me, and very probably should have resulted in action against those who made unpersuasive accusations. So please remove the topic ban, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @GorillaWarfare: I don't know whether you are considering my request (bolded just above) to remove the topic ban, or not. I don't know whether a reply to that request will be forthcoming, or not. Please let me know. Not only am I willing to avoid the behaviors that led to the restriction, but actually the many exonerations at Arbitration Enforcement from 2007 to 2011 (linked in the hidden section above) prove that willingness. So does the lack of blocks since 2009. Although I am willing to avoid "the behaviors that led to the restriction", I cannot guarantee that I will be successful in avoiding garden-variety unintentional errors that are made all the time by Wikipedia editors. I just made an error like that today.[33] I apologize for making them, including using the outdated definition from a dictionary that was cited against me by ArbCom in 2011. But if you're waiting for me to confess to an intentional manipulaton of sources, then that wait will have no end; the error was completely unintentional, other editors make errors like it all the time (as did the editor who revised this particular outdated definition that I inserted), those errors get corrected through a collaborative editorial process, and then everyone hopefully moves on. In the future, if a particular article prompts me to edit a policy, then I won't later cite the revised part of the policy at the same article even if years and decades have gone by, without first consulting with an admin to make sure that it's okay (this was the other specific charge that ArbCom made against me in 2011).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bishonen[edit]

I believe the WP:TBAN policy makes it clear what a topic ban is and what it applies to: "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Italics in original. In other words it's fine for you to edit most of the article Jeb Bush, but not fine to edit any part of it broadly related to abortion, such as the sentence you inadvertently inserted (in a section called "Abortion", yet). I don't see that there's any doubt about that, and that's what you request clarification of, in your first six sentences. The rest of your text above seems to be about something else — not really about clarification at all. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• @Anythingyouwant, you seem to have read my policy quote quite selectively, since you think I said your topic ban doesn't cover pages such as fetus and pre-natal development and feticide and the like. Of course it covers them. In their entirety. It seems you focused so hard on the words "as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" that you actually missed the first part, "a topic ban covers all pages… broadly related to the topic". Fetus, Pre-natal development and Feticide are "pages broadly related to the topic", as you know, since you yourself refer to them as "abortion-related articles". Please read all the green words carefully and in their context, and avoid tunnel vision.
• @L235, it seem obvious that you shouldn't have collapsed Anythingyouwant's replies to me and Boris with the other stuff. Those replies were relevant to the clarification request. I'm tempted to move them out of the box myself, or send bold superclerk Bishzilla to do it, because I'm pretty sure you simply made a mistake. The responses weren't indented (as IMO they ought to have been), which perhaps caused you to miss that they weren't part of Anythingyouwant's original irrelevant text. Please fix. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Anythingyouwant again: I'm done trying to explain to you, because it seems you prefer not to understand. You're starting to remind me too strongly of Ferrylodge's lawyerly demeanour in this RFC a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I'll not address you again. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]

Editors under sanction are allowed to show their displeasure and let off some steam, but this isn't the place. Suggest this be closed as unactionable before things get out of hand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Guy Macon[edit]

Anythingyouwant, you don't have to agree with the decision to topic ban you -- in fact you can continue indefinitely maintaining that Arbcom was completely wrong -- but you do need to show two things. First, you have to agree to abide by the decision whether you agree with it or not. From your comments here, I believe that you have done that. Second, you need to have the ability to understand the topic ban well enough to abide by it. This is the part I am having trouble with. In this edit, you posted a comment under the section heading "Abortion" that contained a link to a page titled "Much of the Republican 2016 Field Has Actually Moved to the Right on Abortion" and a quote about defunding Planned Parenthood.

Despite the above edit being clearly about abortion, in your statement above you blatantly mischaracterized your edit with this description:

"I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard." Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know."

Seriously? You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know and still didn't know when you opened this discussion whether an edit in a section labeled "Abortion" with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban? Competence is required.

My recommendation is that this be brought to AE and and that AE impose a one-to-three-month block and a stern warning that the next time you post any edit about abortion the block will be far longer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Anythingyouwant's reply in his section ("No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban. I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it. Anything else?") I have rephrased the question above. Anythingyouwant needs to have the ability to tell that this edit was about abortion without having to ask. If an admin thinks he really had a doubt, then the only logical conclusion is that he lacks the competence required to abide by the topic ban and needs to be indefinitely blocked. If an an admin thinks he knew that the edit was a violation of his topic ban (this is what I believe) then a one-to-three-month block should suffice to convince him that we will not tolerate such behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing[edit]

IMO AGK hits the right note here. Yes, a breach of the ban. But the guy did the right thing, owned up and asked what he should do next. What do you want him to do, self-report to AE? Everyone should take a deep breath, step back from the brink and move along. @Anythingyouwant: I'd advise that you don't do it again. GoldenRing (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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.

Abortion: Clerk notes[edit]

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

• @Bishonen: I was directed to leave the first two paragraphs but hat everything else, so that's what I did, but I see I should've exercised a bit more discretion. I'll move the replies outside of the collapse in a second. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• The policy as quoted by Bishonen is perfectly clear. Editing a section of an article called "abortion" for a reason not listed at WP:BANEX is a clear violation of a topic ban from abortion, doubly so given the content you edited was directly related to abortion. You are not appealing your topic ban, so there is nothing to do here and it should be closed quickly with no prejudice to raising anything at WP:AE about this matter. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anythingyouwant: you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit. If you edit those articles in future you may be sanctioned at AE. I do not "suggest" you be sanctioned for this breach of your topic ban, I am simply saying that this clarification request does not prohibit anyone initiating a discussion if they so choose, nor should it prejudice the outcome if such a discussion is initiated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Anythingyouwant: I do not know how I could make it any clearer than what Bishonen has said - if it is related to abortion you cannot edit it, if it isn't you can. If you are not certain whether something is covered by your topic ban, assume it is - stay clear, do not test boundaries. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree that BishoIen has expressed policy clearly, but apparently it isn't yet clear that you can not edit any part of an article related to abortion, or anything or section related to abortion in an article which doesn't focus on abortion. If you have any doubts, don't do it. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Anythingyouwant: Nor was the material added in an altogether neutral manner. I think it was appropriate to add material showing his current view (the other material in the section was older); the three references you added were suitable (2 of them from sites generally considered liberal, one neutral) But you chose to add a long quotation from Bush that partially repeated other material in the section. (Other refs in the article do not have a quote in the ref, and the site you used was very easy for anyone to access by themselves, rather than being , for example a paid or print-only site.) DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, I am saying that there is a purpose in our general position that topics bans should be being interpreted broadly--it is difficult to retain a truly neutral POV even in what one thinks to be unexceptional edits. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So far as articles like fetus, feticide, etc., those are far too close to the subject. Yes, edits of those articles would be violations of the topic ban. On Political positions of Jeb Bush, on the other hand, it would be alright for you to edit parts of the article that cover his positions on, say, taxes or foreign policy. It would not, however, be appropriate for you to edit any page in any manner related to abortion, including any political figure's political statements or positions on it, except under the exceptions as provided by WP:BANEX. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraphimblade --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This was plainly a breach, though I respect the user for bringing it to our attention themselves on this occasion. For that reason I would be minded to excuse this one violation alone, on the understanding that our guidance here was perfectly clear and that it won't happen again. AGK [•] 23:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty much exactly per AGK. Hopefully the scope of the TBAN is now more clear. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This is quite clearly a breach; I am somewhat confused as to why this was not clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anythingyouwant: I understand how you may have misunderstood that previously, but now that Bishonen has provided the "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." quote from WP:TBAN, do you agree that your ban extends also to pages and sections of pages that relate to abortion? If so, it seems that no explicit amendment would be necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if "amendment" was unclear—I meant that if you agree with what seems to be the general interpretation, amending your original topic ban to explicitly include this doesn't seem necessary. Regarding pre-natal development, there are edits you could make to that page that don't involve abortion (for example, the content of the fertilization section as it currently stands is fairly removed from the abortion topic). However, other edits to that page could very easily fall within the topic area. Generally your best bet is to steer clear of anything that could be interpreted to relate to abortion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think just about any restriction can be successfully appealed if the appellant is willing to avoid the behaviors that led to the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be willing to try the standard "parole" here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The course of this discussion has made it very clear to me that the restriction should stand, and be interpreted to mean any matter that relates to abortion or that might be relevant in any way to the debates on the subject. It very certainly includes information about a politician's views on the subject. I would not be willing to try any form of parole; the only change we might want to make is to see if we can make the wording stronger and more inclusive, but I think that's not necessary, because our discussion here has already said it. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by RGloucester at 16:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Abortion 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:

• RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification EdJohnston
• diff of notification Bbb23

Statement by RGloucester[edit]

I'm here to request clarification on a technical matter related to sanctions enforcement for this arbitration case.

According to remedy 4.1, the previous community discretionary sanctions for abortion-related pages were superseded by ArbCom standard discretionary sanctions. All existing sanctions issued under the community regime (1RR and otherwise) were then added to the new log for the ArbCom regime, and labelled "inherited". Despite this, administrators have continued to log 1RR violations at the old community sanctions log, and not at the log created by ArbCom. In January of this year, I was confused by this situation. A discussion between administrators and myself led to no firm answer, but I had no time to pursue the matter. Therefore, I have filed this request.

My two questions are as follows:

1. Should 1RR-related sanctions issued after the abortion case was closed be transferred to the AC log, in the manner that those issued before the case were?
2. Should the community log be marked historical?

I am much obliged for you assistance in this clarification. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Callanecc: I agree that the 1RR violations should be logged at the main case page, as they are not discretionary sanctions. It is clear that ArbCom did take over (or intended to take over) the 1RR, given that the community sanctions issued for 1RR up until the case were labelled "inherited" and added to the main case page. It is possible that some kind of procedural error occurred here in the drafting of the case. RGloucester — ☎ 14:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @EdJohnston: Topic wide 1RR is not part of DS. It is a revert restriction. Both revert revert restrictions and DS are types of general sanctions. DS allow administrators to institute 1RR on specific pages in a topic area, but that's not the same thing as an ArbCom or community revert restriction. They have separate regulations, depending on the case. If 1RR violations are to be recorded in the DS log, the name should be changed from "DS log" to a broader "general sanctions log" (including all types of topic wide sanctions) or "sanctions log" (including editing restrictions), depending upon how the Committee desires to expand its scope. For more information, see WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 15:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

The four arbitrators who have replied so far think that these 1RR violations should be recorded in WP:DSLOG. That seems fine to me. It is logical that the abortion 1RR restriction should be viewed as a discretionary sanction. One nuance should be raised. We are used to discretionary sanctions requiring an alert before use, but 1RR doesn't fit precisely into that paradigm. People are routinely blocked for 1RR even if they haven't been explicitly notified using ((alert)). As authority for this, you can see (for example) WP:TROUBLES: "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." I've noticed that the admins who block for these 1RR violations (on Troubles, Abortion or ARBPIA) generally use Template:uw-aeblock, which means they see themselves as blocking on Arbcom authority, not the community's. Making it a routine practice to put 1RR violations into DSLOG will make all these actions consistent. EdJohnston (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23[edit]

My gosh, RGloucester, you have a long memory. I'm impressed. I don't have much to add to what was said on EdJohnston's Talk page back in January. From my comments there, it's obviously not clear (to me). Apparently, it wasn't clear to Ed, either, who is more involved in AE than I. Although not a big deal in terms of enforcing the Arbcom decision, this seems like an ideal request for clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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.

Abortion: Clerk notes[edit]

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

• Procedural note here, it looks to me like the Committee, in the Abortion case, took over only the community imposed discretionary sanctions, not the community imposed 1RR. Therefore the community sanctions page appears to be the correct venue to record 1RR vios until/unless the Committee takes over the 1RR restriction, in which case they'd be logged on the main case page as they aren't discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RGloucester: That may have been a misinterpretation from the clerk or admin who created it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• There should be only one log being used, and IMO, it should be the central DS log created earlier this year. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course - and mark the community log historical. Doug Weller (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Courcelles and Doug. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ed, I'd agree with your adding the 1RR violations in there too, and I doubt anyone on the committee would object. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 21:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Abortion 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [34]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader[edit]

It appears in 2011, the community added sanctions for the entire abortion topic area. This included a topic-wide 1RR.

ArbCom later took over the Abortion sanctions in WP:ARBAB. They authorised DS for the topic area.

In 2015, a clarification request was made asking whether 1RR was to be made a case remedy, as it was enacted by the community. 5 arbs agreed to this. I don't believe that was a majority at the time, and there was no motion made, and there remains no amendment to the original WP:ARBAB case to specify 1RR exists for the topic area, and if so, what the scope of 1RR should be. Thus I don't believe that ARCA duly resulted in any change to the status quo. At the time, a clerk (Callanecc) noted that ArbCom did not take over the 1RR.

I have brought this to ARCA following advice from clerks at their noticeboard. The talk notice, ((ArbCom sanctions - abortion)), and the editnotice ((AbortionGSEN)) indicates the 1RR is a ArbCom remedy. However, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion/Log says it has been superseded, whilst Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Arbitration_Committee-authorised_sanctions says "See this November–December 2015 clarification request, whereby the previous community 1RR was incorporated into the ArbCom DS". A topic-wide 1RR can't really be part of a DS?

Can the Committee please clarify:

• Has the Committee terminated the 1RR remedy from the community's 2011 abortion sanctions?
  • If yes, has it been replaced by an ArbCom topic-wide 1RR remedy?
    • If yes, should a motion be passed to amend WP:ARBAB, adding such a remedy and deciding on its scope?
    • If no, (but the 1RR from the community is still terminated), then I presume 1RR should be applied on an article-by-article basis? And in such a case, what's to happen to any 1RR enforcement blocks/sanctions prior to this ARCA?

Just a note that split logs overlapping with an ArbCom DS aren't completely abnormal, e.g. WP:GS/IPAK. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Worm That Turned indeed, but what about any 1RRs after the case?
  I don't believe it's possible for that topic-wide 1RR to be a DS, as I think Thryduulf's statement implies, since (as the ARCA above is suggesting) 1RR case remedy and 1RR DS have totally different requirements. Even if that difference is desired here, it would not be compatible with the community authorisation. DS is somewhat the opposite of NOTBURO in general, such a decision needlessly complicates the system even more and creates inconsistencies with eg IPAK imv. I don't feel like this question should be overcomplicated: do we need a topic-wide 1RR for abortion or not? If so, please just amend the case and make it a normal 1RR like every other case, for consistency and clarity, rather than make abortion a special case. If we don't need one, then some kind of collective statement clarifying that ArbCom doesn't have a 1RR in place would seem helpful to put the matter to rest. Personally, considering WP:AELOG (zero topic 1RR sanctions in 5 years; two DS 1RR sanctions in 2019), I feel the 2nd option is better.

Statement by Callanecc[edit]

This is hazy in my memory but my thinking is something like this. In the case, ArbCom didn't mention the community-imposed 1RR restriction but did take over the community-authorised discretionary sanctions (number 2 in the ANI proposal). The Committee needs to take affirmative action to override the community and they didn't in this case. Additionally, they also imposed 1RR on individual editors which wouldn't have been necessary if they took over the 1RR restriction. The clarification request from 2015 asked where community-imposed 1RR violation be logged and the agreement amongst the arbs was that only 1 log should be used (for simplicity and NOTBURO). I see three options for the Committee here: (1) take over the community-imposed 1RR restriction (effectively as a drafting slip from the original case), (2) vacate the community-imposed 1RR restriction (effectively taking it over as a drafting slip in the original case, then vacating it as no longer needed), or (3) leaving the status quo (1RR stays as a community-imposed restriction but is logged at WP:AELOG for simplicity (and NOTBURO)). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nosebagbear[edit]

Personally I find it amazing that the ARBCOM at the time felt they had the authority to make retroactive decisions with regard to general sanctions, but that's neither here nor there.

The question might be worth asking, but I would note, that if ARBCOM has not implemented a 1RR remedy, then I'm not sure they have the authority merely to terminate a community one as a sanction. There is of course a question against this that they could have implemented one in 2015, and removed it now, which would have had the same effect. However, they missed that boat: just doing it at once is akin to ARBCOM just deciding they felt a community sanction was a bad idea and canning it, rather than as part of a conduct method. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

The 2015 clarification request asked a very specific question - where should violations of the 1RR be logged. The five arbs who answered (I was one of them) said in the central DS log. This, and the other comments in the discussion, imply that everyone was, and should continue to, treat it as a discretionary sanction under the provisions of the arbcom-authorised discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be worth making explicit that any existing specific remedies placed under the DS authorisations, including 1RR restrictions applied to specific articles are not affected and that it also does not preclude the placing of any new 1RR restrictions in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other editor}[edit]

Abortion: Clerk notes[edit]

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

Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Is the community-authorized 1RR restriction still necessary? A look through WP:AELOG for the past number of years shows 1RR applied to certain articles as a discretionary sanction (such as Talk:Abortion in the United States), but it doesn't show anyone being sanctioned for violating the general 1RR restriction. I suspect that this blanket remedy is no longer being used, and if my assumption is correct, perhaps we should vacate it for simplicity and consistency. – bradv🍁 23:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Hm, this is a bit of complex question. The way it reads to me is that the ArbCom replaced the general sanctions with discretionary sanctions, but did not address the 1RR. Therefore I would say community-imposed 1RR in the topic area remains in place. The clarification request was about where sanctions should be logged, and it seemed to be agreed that the DS log made sense so there weren't two separate logs for the same topic area, but I wouldn't say that as a result of that clarification request the ArbCom took over the 1RR—that would have to be done more formally, I think. As for what to do now, the ArbCom could either decide to formally take on the 1RR restriction as an amendment to the abortion case, or we could leave it as is. Given the general disuse, I'm leaning towards the latter. However I would oppose us vacating the community-imposed 1RR, as I think that's a decision that should be left to the community. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• To my eyes, The discretionary sanction remedy states All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization. I would therefore have thought that the 1RR application should be considered under the Arbcom banner. What's more, as DS are in place, I would prefer a blanket 1RR is removed, and applied where needed. Worm^TT(talk) 08:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have a strong view on the specific clarification that is being requested, other than to suggest we not do anything that makes the rules governing discretionary and general sanctions any more complicated than they already are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Abortion[edit]

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted - Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Proposed, in the absence of any evidence that this is still required or commonly used. – bradv🍁 15:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per bradv. No indication that DS is not sufficient. Regards SoWhy 18:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. we seem to be the right place for determinng conflicts between procedures like this one. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Maxim_(talk) 19:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. The procedural question (whether we have the authority to vacate the 1RR restriction or whether the community should be asked to do so) is a close one, but based on the history that's been summarized above, I think the ArbCom decision is broad enough to allow us to make this change. I would be hesitant to do something that could even arguably be construed as overruling the community if the 1RR rule were still being actively used, but it seems that it isn't and that this is more of a "clean-up" request than anything. If any problems recur, 1RR can be restored as needed under the authorization for discretionary sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. I understand the logic of the opposes but I basically agree with NYB, this is more along the lines of cleaning up an old mess, as opposed to overruling community will. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. I understand the position of those opposing, while recognizing there have been no additional concerns raised following a note to AN about this open motion. –xeno^talk 12:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
8. weakly (I nearly voted in the oppose column) but it strikes me as simplifying things slightly by taking over the 1RR Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
9. I also see this as uncontroversial tidying, and it's cleaner if we do it. – Joe (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
10. I believe this was the intention and reasonable housekeeping Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Per my above comment, since this was imposed by the community I think the decision whether to vacate it should be left to the community as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with GW in this instance. If it's a community sanction they can remove it themselves. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Should we should note at WP:AN that this is being considered? –xeno^talk 14:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good idea. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (clerk) I've gone ahead and left a note. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---