Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 30

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Digwuren (July 2009)

 * Original discussion

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (notification)
 * (notification)
 * (notification)

Statement by Sandstein
This request arises from Radeksz's currently unresolved appeal, at WP:AE, against discretionary sanctions imposed against him by Thatcher. Inter alia, Radeksz argues that the sanctions are inadmissible because he did not receive a prior warning about possible sanctions. The reviewing administrators (including arbitrator Kirill) disagree about the application of the pertinent clause of the relevant remedy: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

- Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

I ask the Committee to clarify the following: Thanks,  Sandstein   13:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Must this warning be given by an uninvolved editor or administrator? (This issue came up recently in another AE case.)  (Question struck, sorry, the remedy says clearly that it must be an uninvolved administrator.   Sandstein   15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
 * 2) Must this warning be given anew tailored specifically to every incident of disruption for which sanctions are considered, or is one generic warning (to make the editor aware of the decision) sufficient in cases where the counseling provided for by the remedy is not deemed to be necessary?
 * 3) If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning still necessary if the editor at issue is already known to be aware of the decision for other reasons, e.g. through participation in an arbitration enforcement request discussion concerning the same case?
 * 4) If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning posted at the top of a discussion page (such as an article talk page) or in the course of a discussion sufficient, or must the warning be provided individually on user talk pages?


 * Note to Piotrus: This request is not intended to address the merits of Radeksz's conduct or sanctions. I am only requesting the clarification of the issues raised above, which are relevant beyond the specific case. That specific case is currently still pending at AE and will be decided there, unless the Committee decides to hear the appeal itself.  Sandstein   16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: Although Thatcher has – in unfortunately understandable frustration – now lifted the sanctions that caused the discussion that led to this request, I believe that a clarification of the points listed above remains desirable for future cases.  Sandstein   11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to GRBerry: Thanks, that's pretty much what I would have thought, too. Sorry, only upon reading your answer did I notice that the remedy is actually pretty clear about who has to issue the warning.  Sandstein   15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher
For my views on Radek, see my comments at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thatcher 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, if you really want to micro-manage this thing, then all the warnings logged between July 28, 2008 and June 23, 2009 are invalid. The original case remedy #11 General restriction only dealt with "edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", and the warning template (which I wrote) quoted the decision.  On July 28 2008 the General Restriction was replaced with Remedy #12, Discretionary sanctions which are quite broad, and yet no one updated the warning template.  So for the past year, editors have been warned about incivility when they were in fact subject to sanction for a much broader range of problems. Thatcher 14:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to Kirill's characterization of my imposition of the 1RR restriction as expedient, and his characterization of the notification requirement as doing the paperwork seriously deprecates the Committee's finding of persistent and long term misconduct in this topic area. There is clear and convincing evidence that these editors have been engaged in edit warring for a long time. Did Kirill review User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview before he decided that I was being "expedient"? I thoroughly checked the editors for prior involvement in complaints or Enforcement requests that would demonstrate prior knowledge of the case and its remedies. Or, as an experiment, type the name of any editor I sanctioned in the Admin noticeboard search box. Here, I'll make it easy for you. The idea that these editors were not aware that this was a disputed topic under prior Arbcom sanction is ludicrous, and the idea that each editor needs to be personally warned that his own conduct is of concern plays directly to the argument of (nearly) every editor involved that all the editing problems are someone else's fault. I hope I may be forgiven for saying that these editors are some of the biggest crybabies I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. You'd think I was holding their sainted grandmothers hostage in my basement, rather than impose a simple requirement that they not revert each other, and discuss their reverts. I have seen very little acknowledgment of personal responsibility for any part of this dispute, it's all someone else's fault, and now I see Biophys arguing against the very concept of a 1RR restriction (good luck with that).

No one has yet explained how Wikipedia will be a better encyclopedia with the restrictions lifted. However, 13,000 words spent in arguing against an editing restriction imposed as a result of a revert war over the addition of a 2-word category is clearly detrimental. In the interests of paperwork and eschewing expediency, I have vacated my prior findings. Be well, do good works, and keep in touch. Thatcher 11:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the Strict construction of Remedy 12 it requires "a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator", but it does not require a specific wording and does not specify the place the warning must occur. Therefore, a warning given on an article talk page or one of the admins' noticeboards would be, according to the paperwork, just as good. I wrote the template Digwuren enforcement to make it easier to give warnings, but other forms of warnings would be acceptable. There is no formal requirement to log the warning in remedy 12, but it is the only practical way to handle enforcement. Without an easy-to-search list, admins will find it practically impossible to know whether an editor has been previously warned by some other admin. In future Enforcement requests, if you know that an editor has been warned but that warning is not logged, you can provide a diff to the warning in your complaint. Thatcher 12:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Skapperod
 * Skap, the bottom line is that there was no record of any warning, formal or informal, user talk or noticeboard, and no links to warnings by uninvolved admins were provided in the complaint. Therefore, the paperwork was not completed properly.  Now it is. Thatcher 14:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Igny's assumptions about me are amusing. In point of fact, I vacated the 1RR restriction because first Kirill, and now Stephen Bain, have taken the view that a formal notification on the user's talk page is required, even if the user is demonstrably aware of the Arbitration case and the remedies involved. From looking at User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview and the noticeboard and Enforcement archives, it is clear that this "mob" as you say, has been active for a long time, and it is puzzle that no prior admin ever put them on formal notice. But there it is. Thatcher 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Igny

Although I feel we have reached the point of diminishing returns, I think I should point out that GRBerry and Bainer, whom who both agree with, have diametrically opposed views on Sandstein's question #3. Thatcher 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Followup to Carcharoth

Statement by Offliner
Please also clarify the following: Please make this as clear as possible. For example, prior to his sanctions, Radeksz was clearly aware of the Digwuren case as demonstrated by Thatcher. He was also warned for other things, such as edit warring. Does this constitute such a proper warning or not? Offliner (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What exactly is the purpose of such a warning?
 * 2) What exactly should the form of such a warning be? Please be very clear about which form is sufficient and which is not.
 * 3) If sanctions have been placed without such a proper warning, should the sanctions be lifted?

Statement by Loosmark
IMO the remedy is crystal clear and so is what Kirill wrote. Radeksz was clearly never given a warning on his talk page at any point as the remedy requares therefore i don't understand why is Sandstein trying to create confusion. If we accept this bizzare logic that some editor "might have been aware of the warning" then we will end up arguing each and every time whether this was really so. I believe the ArbCom formulated the remedy that way exactly to prevent any ambiguities. Loosmark (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys
There are several general questions that should be clarified by Arbcom to help administrators at AE:


 * 1) Can the sanctions be issued without the warning or without giving a possibility to improve?. According to Digwuren case, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ... if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia...". That means a warning logged in the case, exactly as Thatcher said . That is why Thatcher rushed to issue such warnings to everyone (but forget Radek), and then immediately issued editing restrictions.  The warning is not a "formality" because a user may be unaware that his specific actions (such as rare reverts in Nashi) are subject to the sanctions. After looking at the text of Arbcom decision, I honestly believed that I am only a subject to an official EE warning (but not to immediate sanctions) if my behavior was problematic, and everyone probably thought the same. Once receiving the proper warning, one could stop editing in this area or change his editing habits. However, the sanctions and the official warnings were issued at the same time, without giving users a possibility to improve, which goes against the letter and the spirit of discretionary sanctions. This matter was first brought to AE by Brandmaster:.
 * 2) Russia does not belong to Eastern Europe; this is mostly Asia. Would any purely Russian/Soviet subjects (like article Nashi) fall under these sanctions? For example, List_of_Soviet_agents_in_the_United_States?Biophys (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Can sanctions for edit warring be issued to users who follow 1RR rule?. We need some safeguards here. The 1RR restriction was issued for article "Nashi", although some of the editors (including me and Radek) actually followed 1RR restriction while editing this article. Seriously, I am now afraid to make any edits, because any serious correction can be viewed as a revert. I am also afraid to make any two non-sequential corrections in the same article during a week, because this can be viewed as a 1RR violation.
 * 4) Can an argument about "tag-teams" be ever used to issue the sanctions? Thatcher used an argument about the "tag-teaming". But this is a controversial concept, and it has been de facto rejected by ArbCom during last EE case, although many users tried to bring it there. Indeed, it is very common that several users revert someone else who fight against consensus. Does it mean tag-teaming?

No one suggests to reconsider all AE cases. However, some clarity maybe helpful for the future. Biophys (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus
IMHO the crucial issue here is that Radek was restricted for doing 3 reverts (with edits summaries) in two weeks - in other words for being guilty of respecting all of our policies!

Not warning him first is just adding insult to the injury here... but it is an important issue as well. It is my understanding that warnings serve the preventative function, aiming at reforming a user; restrictions are punitive, aiming at stopping disruptive users who have not heeded warnings. Any user who is not clearly a vandal, per AGF, should be given a warning first, and only if he refuses to change, should than be restricted. Such a warning should also be given on his/her talkpage, since we cannot assume that editors will read the entire talk pages (or even AE or such threads) for all tiny warnings/exceptions/caveats/etc.

Radek, an experienced and constructive user, has followed all of our policies. Advice to use talk pages more often would be enough, particularly as he has shown much willingness to improve his (already within our standards) editing behavior. Yet he was suddenly and without a warning slapped down with 1RR restriction (which he followed on the article in question anyway...), for having the misfortune of editing an article outside his usual interests. This sends a really unhelpful message to all other neutral editors who could help improve the EE articles... "Come, edit those articles and get restricted without a warning for following normal policies anyway" :(

Bottom line is, if the ArbCom endorses sanction on Radek, it will mean that from now on anybody who does (or has ever done) more than one revert on any article in EE subjects, at any time, can be subject to a major 1RR editing restriction (if we restrict a user for 3 reverts in 2 weeks, why not 2 reverts in 3 weeks - or 5 weeks - and so goes the slippery slope...).

(PS. I do support all other recent restrictions by Thatcher, this one seems an unfortunate collateral damage casualty - so I'd strongly oppose initiating any kind of wider review which could undue most of the recent 1RR restrictions, which did indeed bring peace to affected articles - most of whom Radek never even edited...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Radeksz
While I understand that in filing this request for clarification Sandstein's purpose is to clarify a particular aspect of policy and procedure, I do want it noted, per Piotrus, that the fact that proper procedure was not followed is only one of my arguments. There are also others.

However, sticking to the narrow purpose of this request I think it's pretty clear from the text and the past interpretation of the case that the purpose of the warning is not to make an editor aware of the existence of the Digwuren case, but rather, in the language of the case so that the editor has a chance to take "specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" - in other words to make the editor aware that their editing behavior may be problematic. I think this is precisely in there for border line case such as mine - where, since I was following 1RR/Week I really had no idea that I was breaking any kind of rules (as I've said before, this is the first time I've seen anyone get slapped with an accusation of "edit warring" and sanctions in the case of 1 revert per week). I'm also not arguing that a formal warning must be made in each instance - just that there needs to be AT LEAST ONE formal warning.

In light of the above I would also like a clarification on how exactly is the 1RR/Week restriction to be properly interpreted. If following 1RR/Week can get you restricted for edit warring, can reverting vandalisms get counted as a revert and lead to a ban? Of course I know there are clear cut cases, but what about something like this:. I saw it yesterday, thought about reverting it since it looks like vandalism to me ... then thought better of it "just in case". There was no curse words in there, it was sort of on topic, no usual flags of typical vandalism - what if I reverted it and then some administrator decided that that was a violation of a 1RR restriction? And that's part of the trouble here - these kinds of harsh punishments for minor infractions, filed without proper procedures (even IF these procedures require some time to follow) create an atmosphere of paranoia (not to mention disillusionment and frustration) and hurt the regular work that editors do on these pages.radek (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Question for GRBerry

an involved editor on the other side of a dispute - can you clarify what you mean by "other side of dispute"? Does this mean a dispute on a particular article? Does it mean a current dispute or one in recent past? How narrowly is this defined? The wording in the case leaves this open to interpretation and there's been some controversy stemming from that ambiguity as a result.radek (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Formal notice and Digwuren list
The remedy does not require an administrator to place a formal notice on the editor's talk page, as was the case with superceded remedy 11. It only reads "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator" Yet, the formal notice reads that it is not effective unless logged at the Digwuren list. The list is titled: "List of editors placed under editing restriction", and the instruction for administrators below the title reads: "List here editors who have been placed on editing restriction by notice on their talk page, per remedy 11..."

It is not the active remedy (12) which requires a logged formal notice at the editors talk page, but remedy 11 which is superceded. Remedy 12 requires a warning that is only specified as linking the remedy by an uninvolved administrator, and optional counseling.

Skäpperöd (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does the Digwuren list read "per remedy 11" and is still maintained?
 * Why does it list people not subject to an editing restriction, but who only received an adapted formal notice stemming from superceded remedy 11? I have no problem with being formally notified and listed somewhere as such, but I do have a problem with being listed as an editor under editing restrictions when in fact I am not subject to any.
 * Why does the formal notice template generate a header "Notice of editing restrictions" if no editing restrictions are issued, and requires logging at the Digwuren list to be effective?

Reply to Thatcher's reply to Skäpperöd
Exactly. I am not arguing against the formal notice itself and against a logging, how else would admins be able to keep up with who they warned, just that notice and list are maintained under the label "editing restrictions". I fully share your interpretation that a formal warning is not needed, and that there is no need for any additional warning if awareness of the remedy is evident. I had made that clear on your talk already, and my argumentation above was rather to point out that the whole "formal notice" concept in its current form is a remnant of a meanwhile non-existing remedy and must not be mistaken as a formal requirement. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry
Sandstein posed four questions (in italics here), here is my understanding of the proper answers to them from the period when I was active at Arbitration Enforcement. These answers apply to all cases where discretionary sanctions are in force, not merely to this specific case.
 * 1. Must this warning be given by an uninvolved editor or administrator? (This issue came up recently in another AE case.)
 * It is best if it is given by an uninvolved administrator. Administrators who are working enforcement for the case are uninvolved.  It is worst if it is given by an involved editor on the other side of a dispute.  However, the fundamental purpose of the warning is met no matter who gives it.
 * 2. Must this warning be given anew tailored specifically to every incident of disruption for which sanctions are considered, or is one generic warning (to make the editor aware of the decision) sufficient in cases where the counseling provided for by the remedy is not deemed to be necessary?
 * Absolutely not. The discretionary sanctions exist because editors in the topic area have such a problematic history that they are skating on thin ice.  They don't get guaranteed Nth chances, the first warning tells them that they cannot expect as much leniency as they would get elsewhere.  If an admin working enforcement believes that counsel will work better than a sanction, the admin will use counsel.
 * It has also long been understood that anyone that was a party to the case is already warned by the case closing message simply from having been a party and no further warnings are required for case parties. This precedent establishes that individual incident warnings are not required.
 * 3. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning still necessary if the editor at issue is already known to be aware of the decision for other reasons, e.g. through participation in an arbitration enforcement request discussion concerning the same case?
 * No. (Especially not for someone saying that another editor should be sanctioned under the case.)  Such an editor has demonstrated awareness of the special rules and need to demonstrate the best possible behavior, a formal warning would not be of benefit to them.  A logged warning may be of benefit at a later date so that it is obvious that they are aware, but that benefit comes from the logging and accrues to an admin enforcing the case, not to the editor warned because they gained no new knowledge from the warning.
 * 4. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning posted at the top of a discussion page (such as an article talk page) or in the course of a discussion sufficient, or must the warning be provided individually on user talk pages?
 * I don't like the idea of a notice at the top of a talk page; the one situation I was involved in where that was tried didn't work very well, but that was also trying a non-standard approach in an extreme battleground area, and I'm not certain which, if any, non-standard feature caused it to work poorly - it might have been the particular editors instead, as I know it the approach and talk page message worked fine in a different topic area.
 * In general the question is whether an editor is aware of the special conditions and need to be on the best possible behavior. This can be presumed to be the case if the warning was posted to their talk page.  This really can't be presumed for a warning on a talk page or in the midst of a discussion; we all engage in tl;dr at times.  Talk pages, especially on disputed topics, can have screens of templates at the top that we just scroll by without reading.  And a comment in the middle of a discussion may not be noticed, especially if the discussion is fast moving, as is common for disputed topics.  So user talk page warnings are far more likely to be seen by the editor and thus generate the required notice - but this remains irrelevant for an editor that is demonstrably aware of the data that a warning would provide.  GRBerry 14:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Igny
Despite the fact that I was affected by this restriction, I am actually saddened that Thatcher gave in to the pressure and vacated the restrictions from this particular bunch of editors (yes, including radek and even me). With all due respect to Thatcher, I think he lacks teaching experience to deal with a bunch of editors upset by the punishment. From my teaching experience, I always expect students who are upset by the grades they receive and who claim unfair punishment and who demand, often without a compelling reason, a better grade or something. In fact, if I teach a big course, I expect to be flooded by those demands.

It is an absolute rule for a teacher not to give in to such demands (unless there are really really really exceptional circumstances), any exception from such a rule may have severe consequences and undermine the authority of the teacher. Next time, expect even bigger outcries from the punished editors who will cite plenty of different reasons and precedents, including the precedent of this case.

Thatcher mentioned the tens of thousands of words spent on this simple case, but that was to be expected when you deal with what essentially is a mob. Despite what individual editors may claim or feel, the tag teaming does indeed take place in Wikipedia on many controversial topics. It is hard to judge individual contribution to the tag teaming, or determine guilt of any particular participant without doubt. That is why I was actually glad with Thatcher's decision to punish all the involved editors and thought that finally someone decided to do something about the problem. That is extremely unfortunate that under the pressure of the mob the decision was overturned. (Igny (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Like the purpose of warnings under general policy, the purpose of warnings here, in relation to the discretionary sanctions, is twofold. Obviously the primary purpose is to ensure that editors are aware of the existence of the discretionary sanctions before they can be made subject to them. This is particularly important in this case because the discretionary sanctions were not part of the original decision. The secondary purpose is so that editors know that their behaviour is being scrutinised and that they personally may be subject to sanctions, to allow them an opportunity to modify their behaviour. That the remedy comprehends this purpose too is apparent from the mention of counselling editors in addition to warning them, and from the list of factors in the third paragraph.
 * To answer Sandstein's three remaining questions:
 * The minimum that is required is that the editor is provided with a link to the discretionary sanctions section within the final decision, as the remedy states. Once an editor has been warned of the existence of the discretionary sanctions, they do not need to be warned again (though editors who were only ever warned of the existence of the original general restriction would have to be warned of the discretionary sanctions).
 * The terms of the remedy say fairly plainly that a warning is required. I would agree that if someone has been commenting in arbitration enforcement threads concerning the discretionary sanctions they can be taken to be aware of them, but the second purpose remains.
 * A talk page banner is not sufficient, no. A message on the user's talk page is the best method.
 * --bainer (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - agree with GRBerry and bainer here. Having said that, I do have a great deal of sympathy for admins who work in the area of arbitration enforcement. There were movements afoot to reform this area, including a request for comments held earlier this year (WP:AERFC). If proposals made there would improve things, no-one should be shy of attempting to implement any needed reform, and asking for guidance if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank-you, Thatcher, for pointing out that point about Sandstein's question 3. My view is that it depends on the case and editor in question, but user talk page messages are nearly always best to avoid any potential confusion or defence. It might seem like paperwork, but leaving a user talk page message ultimately reduces paperwork (and discussions like these) later. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Ryulong (2) (July 2009)

 * Original discussion

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

Statement by Mythdon
I have additional questions regarding my mentorship ruling.

In regards to term A, it says:
 * Mythdon is urged to find a mentor within a month of the closure of this case, and is free to get a mentor of his/her choice. Mythdon is directed to inform the Committee once the mentor is selected. In case no mentor is found within 1 month, Mythdon will be assigned a mentor by ArbCom;

In the recently closed Mattisse case, there is ruling of mentorship there as well stating that Matissee shall be assigned mentors by the committee within 15 days of that decision. But, also, unlike mine, there is a ruling here that directs Mattisse not to edit Wikipedia if the "plan" is not accomplished within the 15 day period without Committee permission. Because of that, I have this question; Since my month long time limit to find a mentor is up (it's been up since approximately June 24), am I prohibited from editing Wikipedia at all until the appointment or am I just prohibited from making edits that require the mentor approval?

In regards to term B, it says:
 * Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior. Inability to work constructively with a mentor may be a sign that a user has continued difficulty in collaborative editing and that stronger sanctions are required; successful editing during the mentorship may demonstrate that the opposite is true;

I am having a hard time understanding the beginning sentence of that term "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I do not know what is being meant by "consult". Does it mean "consult your mentor when you're unsure of whether an edit is legitimate?" - My suspicion is "yes".

Since I'm not 100% sure as of this moment, I need further clarification on this case ruling. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana
In response to: "Why have you not acquired a mentor? Have you had difficulty finding someone to agree? Were you unsure of where to look or how to approach the matter?" - To answer these first three questions, I'll respond to those all in the same answer; I intentionally have not found a mentor yet. The first reason is because I don't feel like doing so, and the other is because I'm not interested in having a mentor.

In response to: "...what areas do you feel you need the most guidance in?" - I don't feel like I need any guidance in any area. I feel that I've worked functional enough in the areas I've worked in before the remedy was put in place. I don't think I need any guidance from a mentor.

In response to: "What sort of advice would be most helpful for you?" - I don't think I need any advice. I think that I know how, what, where, and when to do something without advice from a mentor. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional question(s) from Mythdon
In regards to term D "Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.", am I allowed to revert any post Ryulong makes on my talk page? Since the case, I have either reverted or ignored any post he's made on my talk page, but I think it's about time this gets clarified.

During the mentorship, can the committee pass a motion to place a site ban on me for a period of time through a simple majority vote if the committee has any reason to believe it is the only approach? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Ryulong
The answers to your question is here. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments/questions regarding motions
In response to the motion.

In response to; "This includes, but is not limited to, incivility, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution." - Could an arbitrator please clarify why "incivility" is part of this probation? I don't engage in incivility.

In response to; "Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation." - I'm not really planning on editing the pages during the probation. After all, since before the mentorship remedy finished voting, I have been making plans not to edit Wikipedia during the one year period. If this probation motion doesn't pass, and if a mentor is appointed, I will consider not editing for the period. I do not feel that I should edit if such a situation were to occur. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In second response to; "This includes, but is not limited to, incivility, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution." - And what else? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would to ask what the committee will do with term (C); "During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor. The mentor will be asked to assist them in understanding community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary." - What will happen to this with the motion? Will I still be prohibited from making these edits? What will happen? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What would count as "abusive warnings to users' talk pages"? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One warning should be enough. More than that would be counted as abusive. The rest should be dealt with by admins. I hope this helps. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So in other words, I may still post rollback warnings, but only one per user? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what the motion means by "better communication skills"? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything related to this issue has been discussed in depth at the Arbitration case in question. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 19:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where? How? By who? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be very familiar with the decision of the case which involved you --> Requests for arbitration/Ryulong. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 20:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess (B) would be replaced with your motion should it pass. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. What would be replaced with the motion is "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship" -a remedy which doesn't mention communication at all. I am also noting here that you are turning a blind eye to A) "To take his specific concerns about the verifiability of the articles to a wider venue such as Wikipedia:Village Pump, other sister WikiProjects or the Verifiability policy talk page itself and consult his views with others. He is then advised to report the views of others to WikiProject Tokusatsu for discussions". Here you are again into it without making any effort whatsoever to take your issue to the broader community. Please consider this a formal warning that any further persistence in your ideas and stances (ignoring discussing them with the wider community) which were dealt with by the arbitration case will lead to harsher measures. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the mentorship will be terminated with this. The discussion you link [has changed since then]. Even if the discussion were to end? Would dispute resolution still be necessary, or just move on? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Look Mythdon. We are here to discuss and clarify your mentorship. The rest of the decision doesn't change. What has to change is your approach and I don't believe that is negotiable. Your approach, documented by the arbitration case and the link we are discussing here, has been wrong. Change your habits and move on. What you've just done is forget about the Tomkasu articles and targetted other sets of articles. The habits are the same; nothing changed at all. We are not playing so don't tell me that the discussion will be ended. Forget about your past problems. Failing to do that would lead to harsher measures. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 20:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that the discussion ended. All I said was that a few comments were made to the discussion since then, and asked that if the discussion were to end, would dispute resolution still be necessary? It's a simple question. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion itself is part of the dispute resolution process. If the discussion at your user talk page were to end and still believe the dispute is still not resolved then you should pursue mediation. Again, and according to the said discussion, you seem to be taking a firm and not so flexible approach in total denial of the arbitration case remedy (see point A above). All what I am seeing there is you being back at your old habits and I don't believe mediation would help out if you don't forget about those habits which were addressed at the arbitration case. I hope this is clear. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First let me start by saying something a bit unrelated. Back in May 2009, I started this discussion at the Village Pump as I felt it would do what the ruling wanted me to do, and people voiced their views in the Village Pump. However, it wasn't until a month later that I notified WikiProject Tokusatsu of the discussion, with the discussion already archived by the time of the notification. In the Village Pump discussion, I make no reference to the case remedies, but I do bring up the remedy in the notification. That's all I'm going to say again for the moment. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Ryulong's "Addendum #2"
In response to this addendum.

First let me respond to: "I asked him in the past if he even watched the shows, and he replied that he did not" - Only twice have I made any reference to whether or not I've watched the shows. Here's the first example when I say "Well, I haven't seen the show either" as part of the statement in that diff. "The show" refers to Power Rangers: RPM in this statement. Secondly, in February 2009, Ryulong asked me if I watched Power Rangers: Mystic Force to make a judgment of a merge proposal and I told him that I did.

More responses may come soon. Thanks. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to "Seeing as he is not bringing his issues to the attention of WP:TOKU, banning him from editing these pages will be a much more effective way to curb his behavior" - The reason I haven't done this lately is due to mentorship term (D); "Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.". This restriction only mentions commenting about, but former arbitrator Kirill Lokshin clarified in June 2009 that I was also restricted from making any comment to Ryulong as well, clarification here. At WT:TOKU and its archives of 2008, you'll see many comments of Ryulong replying to more than 95% of my comments on talk pages. Please take the May 24, 2009-onward comments to me more seriously. Also, take a look at Talk:Power Rangers, where Ryulong responds to a post I make after May 24, 2009 (see here). — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong
I've only had a few things to say to Mythdon since the close of the case on his user talk. The first one was removed without comment, the second and third were removed referring to the arbitration proceedings. I know that he's restricted from commenting about me but I really doubt he's restricted from communicating with me entirely. There is no way he and I can constructively contribute in the same topic area if he continues to ignore my statements after I have to clean up after him being overly strict with content policies, simply being entirely unknowledgable in the topic area, or treating aspects of the project more bureaucratically than they should be.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum
I would like the arbitration committee to be aware of this discussion on Mythdon's user talk with three other users concerning his strict application and reading of various policies. It seems that he has moved onto other topic areas with his requests for every sentence to be referenced and whatever cannot be referenced (sans common sense or other pages) should be deleted.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum #2
In the past several hours after seeing this edit, I've seen Mythdon, as usual, removing words, statements, or entire paragraphs of content on Power Rangers and other related pages without bringing anything up for discussion. As I cannot (apparently) leave him any sort of message concerning issues I have with his editing practices, I've been advised to append my statement here. Diffs are included below (in no particular order). Everything in these are supported by the fictional media themselves. I asked him in the past if he even watched the shows, and he replied that he did not. I cannot understand why he continues to edit in this topic area if he does not even bother to follow the media in any form. He cannot contribute constructively in this topic area (anything under the umbrella of WP:TOKU), and frankly a topic ban would be much more worthwhile (in my opinion) rather than sticking him under various new restrictions that he will take the verbatim reading, as has shown in his knowledge of various Wikipedia policies. I understand the pages are not perfect, but there's no way that Mythdon has ever improved them.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Long before the arbitration case was filed, I've wanted to get Mythdon banned from the topic area, but I could never initiate the ban (or discussion) because of my deep involvement in dealing with Mythdon. Seeing as he is not bringing his issues to the attention of WP:TOKU, banning him from editing these pages will be a much more effective way to curb his behavior.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum #3
Really? I want a one sentence answer from him and he won't do anything because of how he's interpreting the restrictions placed on him.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And I won't get an answer. Even when I didn't even put the question on the page, he undid my null edit. This is getting fucking ridiculous.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, now it is fucking ridiculous.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 07:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recused from the underlying case (albeit not for reasons relating to Mythdon), so I'll leave it to someone else to answer Mythdon's questions. But if I may make a suggestion, would a non-recused arbitrator volunteer to communicate directly with Mythdon to address these issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In lieu of a motion or indication to the contrary, I would expect you to be free to edit for the time being. However, I would recommend staying as far away from controversy as possible and walking away if you find yourself in a conflict. That said, I have a couple of questions. Why have you not acquired a mentor? Have you had difficulty finding someone to agree? Were you unsure of where to look or how to approach the matter? On another aspect, what areas do you feel you need the most guidance in? What sort of advice would be most helpful for you? Answering these questions will help us move forward from this point and arrange a mentoring relationship for you. --Vassyana (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With regret in response to the above, in the spirit of Fayssal's comments below, I am proposing a motion to replace the mentorship arrangement. It is clear that Mythdon will not work collaboratively with a mentor. --Vassyana (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Recused also from the underlying case, but I will ask the clerks to (a) link to the correct case in the title please, and (b) ensure that Ryulong is notified of this request. In view of this interaction, some further discussion may be appropriate here. Risker (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Following the answer(s) above by Mythdon to Vassyana's questions, I'll be asking my colleague arbitrators to pass a new motion in which Mythdon will be assigned a mentor by ArbCom. The answer(s) are/is a sign that Mythdon is not here to work collaboratively according to Wikipedia rules, guidelines and ArbCom's rulings. It appears that Mythdon has learned little from the ArbCom case. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1
Requests for arbitration/Ryulong is vacated and replaced with the following: Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, incivility, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution.
 * Mythdon is placed under conduct probabtion

Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. Acting administrators are encouraged to apply sanctions tailored to the circumstances and context. For the purposes of enforcing this measure, any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review.
 * Conduct probation enforcement


 * Support
 * Proposed. --Vassyana (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Any actions taken pursuant to this motion must still be logged on the case pages to allow later review. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice.  Roger Davies  talk 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * Alternative motion below. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Recused:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As noted in a portion quoted by Mythdon, a demonstrated inability to work with a mentor may result in other sanctions. Mythdon's response to my questions illustrates that he is unwilling to accept the guidance and advice of a mentor. Rather than impose a broad topic ban that would severely impede his ability to contribute to the project, I propose this measure. It is explicitly intended to cover a broad range of behavior within the specific areas of dispute. It authorizes and encourages administrators to use their discretion to address the specific situation and context. The closing portion regarding Ryulong is a modification of the "any uninvolved admin" clause, based on the context of the arbitration case. This should permit Mythdon to continue contributing, while providing the project administrators with the tools to resolve any issues quickly and appropriately. --Vassyana (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Motion 2

 * Motion enacted - Tiptoety  talk 19:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ryulong is vacated and replaced with the following: Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. Mythdon will still be restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages.
 * Mythdon is placed under conduct probabtion

Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. Acting administrators are encouraged to apply sanctions tailored to the circumstances and context. For the purposes of enforcing this measure, any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review.
 * Conduct probation enforcement


 * Support
 * FayssalF  - Wiki me up® 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First choice.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First choice.  Roger Davies  talk 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this level of detail is needed, first choice. --Vassyana (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recused
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This alternative motion addresses Mythdon's response and questions concerning the above motion. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Request to amend prior case: Prem Rawat 2 (July 2009)

 * Original discussion


 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 4 - Mediation encouraged.


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (mediator)
 * Involved parties


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Article talk page)

Statement by Steve Crossin
I will keep it brief. I'm conducting this MedCab, once again, and I think that in the interests of mediation, and freer discussion, that the committee bestow this mediation case with the same protection that MedCom cases automatically acquire, that the contents of the mediation are priveliged, and cannot be used in other DR proceedings, such as ArbCom.

Last year, I observed this sort of behaviour quite a lot, and while I can't provide diffs (they've been lost in time), I observed that it had a stifling effect on the mediation. People would often hold their tongue, and not express their points of view on certain areas of the dispute, out of fear of retribution. This, as well as other things, caused the mediation from last year to have limited success.

I've thought this out quite a bit, and I do think it would be in the best interests of this case to pass a motion somewhat similar to this. Adjust it at your will.

4.1) The contents of mediation proceedings in disputes related to Prem Rawat will be priveliged, and cannot be used in other forms of dispute resolution. However, deliberate attemps to game this remedy, such as delibeate bad behaviour, will not be looked upon kindly, and may be dealt with, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee.

Obviously, there will be some conduct issues within the case, but that's inevitable, and it's something that I am able to deal with myself. I have the means and the methods to do so. But making the mediation priveliged would allow freer, more candid discussion, and I think that's for the best. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 23:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Newyorkbrad

It's long-standing policy that cases mediated formally by the Mediation Committee are protected from use in other dispute resoltuion proceedings. This request is basically asking for the same protection. I'm mediating this in a formal manner, quite like how a case would be mediated at MedCom. I'm happy if this is voted in with a simple motion that doesn't set any precedents, but I feel that this would be for the best. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 04:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Jayen466

The wording of the motion was meant to make clear that the mediation would be protected by the same privelige that MedCom cases get, however attempts to game this privelige would be looked upon unkindly, and may be dealt with. I think Coren is thinking along the same lines as I am. In response to Wizardman, I'd like a motion to be written up, if possible. The wording in my motion isn't quite up to scratch. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Seddon

I'm not suggesting that all medcab cases be granted the standard privelige that MedCom cases get, only this case. It's a contentious area, and i wish to remove the eggshells, so to speak. But i'm happy if arbcom notes this is a one-off, which won't set precedent. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional statement by Steve Crossin
There's something else I want to address. Two matters, one, relatively simple, the other, somewhat controversial. One, it's been suggested that all the Prem Rawat articles be blanket semi-protected, for an indefinite duration. As an outsider, I can see the benefit to this. While, yes, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's not the encyclopedia that anyone may edit. The fundamental principle of the wiki is that anyone can edit it's articles, however it doesn't give anyone the right to do a drive-by edit, repeatedly, without discussing their reasoning, which has happened, on several occasions. This has obviously caused some disruption, and I'd suggest an additional motion (no idea where it would go in the RFAR) be added, to note that all the articles related to Prem Rawat, are semi-protected, either indefinitely, or liberally at the discretion of administrators. I'm not really sure, but I think it's unfair that users in this mediation will agree to refrain from editing disputed content while it's under discussion within mediation, and anon users don't have to abide by this agreement, which would undermine the mediation process. I guess this needs to be discussed more.

Secondly, this is somewhat more controversial, but I think it might be wise if this mediation is given a little more teeth. The problem that I've observed over the past 15 months or so is that, due to the fact that mediation, in any form, is not binding, when discussions within last year's mediation achieved a clear consensus and were implemented, any new user could just say "I don't like this", make large changes, and dig their heels in when reverted. I'm not suggesting that the result of this new mediation, when achieved, should be permanently binding, but I would like to see some clause included that once issues in this mediation had a clear consensus, there needs to be a clear consensus before significant changes to that content are made. An exemption to the 1RR rule has also been discussed, but I guess this is for the committee to discuss. I realise that the committee normally won't involve themselves in content disputes, in any shape or form, but this is a long-standing dispute on Wikipedia. Numerous attempts to solve this dispute, in prior times, have proved mostly fruitless. Some "teeth" is required, to help solve, in part, this dispute. The other part of solving, or at least, managing this dispute, would be providing long term mediation of the article. Perhaps article mentorship might be a good idea, as well?

I know what I'm asking is complicated and somewhat controversial, but this hasn't been something I've rushed to thinking about. I've considered it for a day or two before deciding what I'd say here, and how I would say it. Please do consider this carefully, as I think this would make a great improvement to the prospects for this article to succeed at mediation, and we all want that, right?

There was somethnig else...but I've forgotten it. For the time being, I'll leave it at this. Regards, Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 10:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466
I think the wording needs to be tweaked. It says "cannot be used in other forms of dispute resolution", but then says, "may be dealt with, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee". On the face of it, that seems contradictory. Also, it should be clear that the arbitration remedies will continue to remain enforceable during mediation.  JN 466  12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seddon
Speaking as both a mediator on MEDCOM and as a former coordinator at MEDCAB, I must say that extending the priveleged nature to MEDCAB, across the board, would be a mistake. The privileged nature is a tool in mediation rather than something that should be used regularly. This applies to Prem Rawat as a whole too. It would be better to state that if a mediator wishes for a case to be exempt from future DR, that he apply to arbcom.

In addition to that, Steve Crossin isn't going to be the only mediator in this area and wont be around forever himself, and I consider it unwise for unexperienced mediators (like at medcab) to be using this priviledge. Steve has a decent level of competence, but it is worth considering having a fresh set of eyes to help him out on this. I do not believe that he nor anyone could handle this by themselves.

May I also point out that the priviledged nature which is applicable at MEDCOM exempts the mediation from being used in Arbitration cases and given the nature and size of this dispute, anything less is worthless in my opinion. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel
I was going to make a statement last night, but didn't get around to it. Pretty much, I fully agree with Seddon - extending this to all MedCab cases would be a mistake and lead to gaming (as there's very little screening of MedCab cases, nearly anything could therefore qualify for privilege simply by having one of the parties file a case). However, I agree with Steve and Seddon that extending the privilege to this case as an individual exemption would be worthwhile. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback
I do not believe that a lack of candor was a problem with the last mediation, nor do I expect it to be problem with future mediation. However, this dispute needs all the help it can get and if this helps even a little it is worth trying. There are even more significant problems that we face and I expect Steve or another editor to bring additional amendments to the ArbCom for consideration.  Will Beback   talk    09:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
I have multiple comments to make (from my position up here on the peanut gallery) - which I hope will be of some use.


 * On extending the 'privileged' nature of mediation to all mediation cabal proceedings: I do not think that would be a good idea, and so would agree with Seddon and Daniel (above). If a case is problematic enough to be ripe for arbitration (and thus for it to be at all likely that the mediation privilege would be exercised), then I should hope that deferring the dispute to formal mediation would be a step that would have been already undertaken. Consequently, there seems to be no need to accord the privileged nature of mediation to cabal cases. (I am, of course, aware that Steve is requesting no such thing; I am commenting in response to requests below for input on this issue.)


 * On this application to extend the privilege: I suppose I am minded to support this application for a one-off extension of the privilege to Steve Crossin's MedCab case. If the resolution of this dispute is being hampered by a reluctance on the part of many participating in the proceedings to engage in discussion because of a worry that what they say will be used as evidence against them in a future arbitration case, then I suppose there is no option but to extend the privilege. However, I would ask that we consider whether a number of the reluctant parties are simply seeking a license to act without checks on their conduct – or, in other words, to disrupt.)


 * On why the privilege exists only for formal mediation: Taking a flippant attitude to the privileged nature of mediation would be unwise. The mediation committee is a formal institution of Wikipedia (inasmuch as such things can exist on this project), lead by an appointed chair and staffed by vetted editors. Consequently, it can probably be trusted to play sensibly with the privileged nature of mediation. MedCab is by no means a 'free-for-all', but it does operate a more informal role. As an organisation, it is simply not subject to enough oversight to make it wise to extend to all its cases the privilege. I never thought I would say this, but there are some things that only a committee should handle. (Additionally, upon the MedCab's establishment, nobody actually instituted the privileged nature of mediation - unlike the creation of the MedCom.)


 * On Steve Crossin as the sole mediator: Steve has considerable experience with the Prem Rawat dispute. To my mind, he is a suitable mediator for these proceedings. As I have elsewhere opined, however, I think this dispute to be one that is too complex and on too large a scale to have only one mediator staffing it. I would like to see additional mediators—from the mediation cabal's regular team or elsewhere—join Steve in guiding this dispute through mediation. Resolving this disagreement is undoubtedly not going to be an easy process, and fresh eyes would be of value. (I may, in the end, put my money where my mouth is and offer to assist Steve, but for now I'll settle for directing a plea to others.)

AGK 14:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse. I have had some involvement in the Prem Rawat dispute (as a third party and as an advisor to the mediator), which I think would make it sensible for me to defer all paperwork on this topic to another clerk. AGK 13:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The general principle that conduct during a mediation convened by the Mediation Committee cannot be cited in arbitration proceedings, although it has not actually been an issue in any case that I can recall since I've been arbitrating, is recognized in the Arbitration Policy. The suggestion here is that that the same "privileged" status should be accorded to this mediation even though it's being run under the auspices of the Mediation Cabal rather than the Mediation Committee. I am not as familiar with the history of MedCom and MedCabal as I am with that of ArbCom, so I can only speculate on why this distinction is currently made. I invite comment on this broader issue as well as the narrow proposal offered by the mediator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd favor expanding the protection afforded to the Mediation Committee to the efforts of the Cabal as well&mdash; good faith efforts to solve a dispute should not be used as bludgeons in later dispute resolution. I would make certain, however, that the wording isn't inclusive enough to cover behavior outside the actual mediation or gaming disruptive to it: paying lip service to mediation as a license to misbehave in the disputed area should be strongly discouraged.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the medcab mediation being privileged; if a motion needs to be written i'll put one up. Wizardman  15:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the comments of the people most familiar with the difference between the Mediation Committee and the MedCabal, I agree that extending privileged status to all MedCabal case is not a good idea. I see no reason that in individual situations that all parties to a case and a mediator could not agree to using this model for that situation. I would honor such an agreement that was put in writing and signed by all parties and the mediator whether it was some done through the MedCabal or another informal mediation in a different venue. My suggestions get agreement from all parties and the mediator and sign a statement to that effect. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sunray, thank you for updating us. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Flo.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been adequately resolved. I endorse the outcome here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Acceptance of case by Mediation Committee
In response to Steve Crossin's request and in light of discussion here and on the MedCom list, MedCom has agreed to accept this case with a MedCom member assisting Steve. As a MedCom case, privilege is automatically extended to the participants once they agree to the mediation. This decision is specific to this case only and was based on the long history and circumstances of this dispute. Sunray (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Request by Grundle2600 to end topic ban (July 2009)

 * Original discussion

I was topic banned from editing political articles becuase I had created new political articles that, while very well sourced, were deleted based on consensus. The deletion discussions for these articles was wasting the time of other wikipedia editors, who otherwise would have been spending their time on better, more productive ways to improve wikipedia. I now realize that just because a subject is well covered in the media, such as Michelle Obama's arms, or Barack Obama swatting a fly, does not, in and of itself, justify the creation of an article on that subject. When I created those articles, I thought I was following Be bold. However, I now realize that I was being too bold. As an example of how I have learned my lesson since then, after Michael Jackson died, I thought about creating Death of Michael Jackson, but then I decided not to, because I realized that just because the subject was heavily covered in the media, it did not necessarily justify it having its own article. Eventually, somoene else created the article, which is why it is blue instead of red. I have learned my lesson, and I am being much more restrained when it comes to creating new articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * You filed this as an amendment. There is nothing for arbcom to amend as arbcom had no role in this. Have you use the prior steps in WP:DR? Based on current evidence, this repeal of the topic ban should be handled by the community, such as at WP:AN, rather than arbcom.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rlevse here. Go to the community first, and only then come back to us if you feel you need relief from this topic ban. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with above, arbcom has no role here. Wizardman  15:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, all of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Ancient Egyptian race controversy (July 2009)

 * Original discussion

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

Statement by Panehesy
I have been banned from editing for a period of six months by User:Ice_Cold_Beer for 1. POV pushing. 2. Personal Attacks 3. Contributions without citations. This is the latest in a pattern of POV administration in the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I request that, of course, my ban be lifted, as I was not given proper administrative warning, nor was I properly communicated in the manner. I also did not engage in POV pushing. I frequently reminded the contributors to not engage in turning the article into a referendum on another related issue Afrocentricism, which was becoming a habit. At one point, an editor put in comments about how Afrocentricism tried to change the European heritage (which has nothing to do with the article).

I have notified one other user User:AncientObserver who is directly affected by the ban itself. As I am relatively new to this process, I am under a disadvantage as I am going linearly through the administrative hierarchy, and trying to navigate through these processes to get a remedy that allows the article to be complete. This article, as I understand it is almost like a sandbox in itself to prevent editing in the Ancient Egyptian article. For example, all the images shown in the Ancient Egyptian article exclude those which display Ancient Egyptians with negroid characteristics. Please advise. --Panehesy (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ice Cold Beer
I would like to note that this is not the proper forum for such a complaint and the complainant has not formatted this request properly. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification by William M. Connolley
P has been banned from the article and talk only. P is moving far too fast - he hasn't even noticed that he has turned the article into a redlink. It should be Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I fixed up the link to ICB though. The article itself is an edit warring disaster and a mess of socks, probably best erased William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've noticed Incidentally William M. Connolley who was looking over the article unlocked it immediately after our banning leading me to suspect that he had no intentions whatsoever of honoring the consensus of the talk page to return the article to a more recent version by AO. Yes I unlocked it after the banning, and in response to it. Because after that, there seemed a good chance that the edit warring might well be over (and I think that has proved to be true). I explained why I'd unprotected the article, though it would have been more helpful of me to point to Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether the bans are a good idea, though I've enforced at least one. As to honoring the consensus of the talk page I've not been following closely enough to know if there is such a thing as a consensus there - whenever I look it just looks like a mess - and I'm not really sure how I would "honour" it anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

@CoM: Large parts of your statement are wrong. I protected it for reasons that I had long forgotten but have now dug up : I simply took over the protect from User:Hiberniantears to avoid tedious legal wrangling. I have no interest in the article contents. I've reverted once, to a version suggested by GoRight, mostly for the amusement of agreeing with someone I rarely agree with. finally banning four editors with whom they disagree - pardon? I haven't banned anyone. Have you mistaken this for Cold Fusion? Thank you for your offer to engage in constructive discussion and editing but I'm afraid, as I said, that I'm not interested in the article William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Dbachmann
It is perfectly unclear why I am listed as "involved" here, since I have not taken any administrative actions in this area for a very long time. Not that this matters, since this is a painfully obvious case of a user banned for excellent reasons who just won't stop wikilawyering about it. Nothing to see here. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka
I have also been banned with five other people including Panehesy Log of blocks and bans from contributing to this article for six months by User:Ice Cold Beer. I am very much surprised by this decision since I have received no warnings and also since User:Dbachmann who in the first place brought disruptive edits to the article is not banned. I suspect an abuse of power by adm Ice Cold Beer and ask that the ban be lifted.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by AncientObserver
I too am one of the banned editors. I was also not given a warning before being banned, only a message by Ice Cold Beer saying I was banned for "POV-pushing fringe theories". This came as a surprise to me because as far as I knew I was contributing constructively to the article and the talk page where ongoing discussion took place on the direction the article would take once it was unprotected. When I asked this Admin for clarification and evidence for why he banned me he explained what it meant but refused to provide evidence in the form of diffs, claiming that all of my edits to the talk page in general fit under the category of his justification for unilaterally banning myself and the others. I came to his talk page and asked him directly for evidence that I was pushing fringe theories on the article. He provided a diff of one of my edits for example but did not clarify what was wrong with it. The edit was relevant to the discussion and provided reliable sources on the topic. Incidentally William M. Connolley who was looking over the article unlocked it immediately after our banning leading me to suspect that he had no intentions whatsoever of honoring the consensus of the talk page to return the article to a more recent version. If this isn't the appropriate location to air our complaints and if the format isn't correct I will look into how to do it properly but we might as well inform someone of the situation. I think this definitely qualifies as abuse of power on Ice Cold Beer's part. I request that we be unbanned, Ice Cold Beer blocked from making decisions on this article and that the article remain unprotected so that we can restore it to a more recent version and let civil discussion on the talk page about content resume. I also believe that Dbachmann should be banned from the article because his disruptive edits are the source of this entire conflict. There hadn't been edit warring on the page for months before he showed up to cause trouble and he has been warned about his behavior before.

Comment by Wdford
I too was banned out of the blue by User:Ice Cold Beer. There were no warnings given, the process per WP:Banning policy was not followed, and there was no prior discussion at all. As far as I can tell I do not appear on any list of banned editors. Per policy admins are only allowed to impose bans "to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." However the article was actually functioning smoothly, with the isolated exception of the disruptive edits by Dbachmann, and many editors contributed constructively to challenge and remove points on either side that were POV or unsupported. The claimed rationale for the banning of POV-pushing is ridiculous, since the banned editors were arguing opposite sides of the coin, and all we have in common is a desire to have the controversial material properly explained rather than simply suppressed. It is quite revealing that those who failed to follow WP policies themselves now complain that this is "not the proper forum", and accuse the wronged editors of "wikilawyering". I ask that the higher authorities review the actions of User:Ice Cold Beer, and lift the ban. Wdford (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Vassyana.
 * At WP:AE it says in the Big Red Box that “Arbitration Enforcement is not the place for anything other than enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling.” This issue does not involve the enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling, rather it involves the unilateral ruling of a lone admin. Accordingly, that portion of your advice is seemingly incorrect. The issue has already been thrashed out at WP:ANI without success, and its clear that the huge corpus of WP:Everything does not include guidance on how to deal with an improper ban imposed by a lone admin. This grey area in WP:Everything is now being abused, and we are seeking redress as best we can. Its also clear that a number of admins who were happy to put their oar in to help stop the article are not prepared to go further and help solve the problem, as their POV holds that the true solution is make the article disappear. They are not prepared (or able) to explain why, and this is itself part of the problem. Do you have any other ideas where this issue should be appealed, as WP:AE seemingly is not the place? Wdford (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Slrubenstein
Ice Cold Beer questions suggests this is not the appropriate venue to request clarification; I believe it is, given the fact that in banning user:Ancient Observer, instead of edit differences providing evidence of disruptive editing, Ice Cold Beer simply refered to the ArbCom article probation ; thus, the question is: does the probation justify the ban? I personally think that it does not. I think that Ice Cold Beer is using the probation to prop up a ban made as an administrator that would not otherwise be sustained by the community.

User dab questions why he is a named party. My reading of the disputes on the article talk page is that they either began or were seriously fueled by dab's tendentious edit in which he identified the controversy with Afrocentrism. This is an underhanded way of changing the topic of the article from a controversy over the racial identification of ancient Egyptions, in which there are at least two, if not several, sides, to a controversy over Afrocentrism. Of course, the controversy over the race of ancient Egyptians is a far more complicated controversy - between Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists, and between racial essentialists and social constructioniss. I am not trying to ask ArbCom to involve itself in a content dispute; I am explaining why, in the context of this content dispute, dab's comment was tendentious.

I do not think dab should be banned. But for the same reasons, I do not believe that those editors who disagree with him should be banned either. At least some of the banned editors have made good faith efforts to reach compromises. Banning them is counterproductive.

I admit I could be wrong here, but given that Ice Cold Beer has not provided edit-diffs for evidence (at least not on the article talk page, or the talk pages of Ancient Observe and others) how else am I to understand what appears to be hasty and ill-conceived bans? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 03:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Sandstein
Reply to Newyorkbrad: The more recent decisions tell us that appeals against discretionary sanctions are to be directed to either the ArbCom or to the relevant administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE). This older case does not contain such a provision. I recommend that the arbitrators clarify that this appeals procedure is applicable to all older discretionary sanctions remedies. Panehesy and the other complainants will then have the option to make an appeal to either WP:AE or to the Committee (by e-mail, I suppose, because there is no dedicated subpage for appeals).  Sandstein  13:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user User: deeceevoice
I've skimmed slRubenstein's comments above, and I agree with him.

I haven't been substantially involved in this article for some time, so I suppose that qualifies me as "uninvolved." If I had been involved, I suspect I would have been banned along with the other editors. This appears to be just another attempt at censoring a non-Eurocentric viewpoint at Wikipedia. The article banning of the above parties appears no different from the content ban precipitously and unjustly imposed on me at Afrocentrism - which subsequently was overturned. Dbachmann is at it again. The bans should be overturned and the article locked down in the interim. Bachmann & Co. drastically changed the article from a version that was arrived at after months of wrangling and negotiation to a highly POV and astoundingly inaccurate mischaracterization of the nature of subject matter, and now it seems these editors/admins have conspired to enforce their contorted and inaccurate version of the article by locking out those with whom they disagree. This isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Either you're willing to work collaboratively to hash out differences, or you're not. And I think it's quite clear to everyone involved, and those who are uninvolved, that collaboration and compromise are not Dbachmann's strong suit. That's not a slam on Bachmann; that's just stating fact. deeceevoice (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:ChildofMidnight
There has been atrocious policy violating behavior by Dbachmann, Ice Cold Beer and William Connolley. Dbachmann has a strong POV about how the article should read as shown here in this rant full of personal attacks such as the very first sentence that says "Slrubenstein quite obviously has no idea what he is talking about." 

Without appropriately assessing the situation Connolley and Ice Cold Beer have sided with Dbachmann and engaged in inappropriate reversions and protections in support of their preferred article version, finally banning four editors with whom they disagree. Ice Cold Beer has refused to provide a single diff in support of the ban despite repeated requests from several editors. These admins also fail to understand and appreciate that their view is not the only one that's valid. An article that was edited constructively and collaboratively by numerous editors with varying points of view over a period of several months was gutted by them because they didn't like it.

Dbachmann and Dougweller have been pushing one particular perspective, setting up Afrocentrism as a straw man and knocking it down, ignoring that there are many other perspectives in the history of the debate and investigation into who the Egyptians were. Their bias against Afrocentric approaches does not entitle them to launch a smearing attack on that approach or the editor who chooses to add content reflecting that perspective (most of the editors are not advocating that point of view, a fact that the admins involved seem unable to grasp which is good evidence of their refusal to properly investigate and their failure to understand the situation). This is not how we do things on Wikipedia and the situation needs prompt correction.

The appropriate action at this point is to ban Dbachmann from the article. He has caused enough disruption there. Ice Cold Beer and William Connolley should refrain from any admin actions related to the article, but they are welcome to engage in constructive discussion and editing. The four good faith editors should be apologized to and immediately unbanned. Their patience and restrained response in the face of this admin abuse has been extraordinary and should be commended. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Doug Weller and clarificiation in support of my statement: Wow indeed. Here's the consensus version of the article worked up by many editors over months . Here's the version of the article reverted to by William Connolley (and previously protected by him) . This is also the version being pushed by Dbachmann. If someone wants to argue that this version doesn't focus (almost solely) on Afrocentrism, setting it up only to debunk it, then I have serious concerns over his or her reading comprehension skills. The series of actions leading up to and including the ban are an outrageous abuse of admin tools and need to be corrected ASAP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Dougweller
Wow. This is getting more and more surreal, I thought we had enough drama, but evidently I was wrong. The discrepancy between what I have written on various talk pages and what CoM claims I've said is a deep chasm (CoM, why do other people have to provide diffs but you seem to think it is ok to make personal attacks without providing them?). Among other things, I already made it clear to you that it is not true that the article only discusses Afro-Centrism and nothing before that school of thought developed, albeit only summarily, and I'd be surprised if you could have have anywhere that I said no other perspectives should be included, although you will find me saying that they should be included. Claims like this just make the whole issue even more of a quagmire. And I have seen very little 'good faith' in this debate, mainly a lot of bad faith. Sometimes your actions are very constructive, but I'm afraid not this time. Perhaps you would consider removing the personal attacks above? Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Second statement by user:Slrubenstein
A day has passed in which I have spent considerable time trying to sort out what has happened, and have given opportunity for various parties to respond to my requests for information. At this point i have to say, all I see is a massive abuse of administrative powers by user:Ice Cold Beer. It is true that there is a content dispute at Ancient Egyptian race controversy and in my own opinion several users are clearly making disruptive edits. But at least two of the banned users, user:AncientObserver and user:Wdford have sought out compromises and have strived to comply with our content and behavioral policies in their edits. What I find most upsetting is the complete lack of due process. I have seen no evidence, no edit-difs, provided to support banning these two users. I asked Ice Cold Beer for evidence and was told to look at ANI and FTN. I was not provided with specific links, but I searched and found the archived discussion at ANI, and FTN. ''At neither place was any evidence provided to support a ban of Ancient Observer or Wdford. At neither place was there a poll or even a discussion among mny administrators concerning banning Ancient Observer or Wdford.'' In short, Ice Cold Beer has made a unilateral decision to ban these users, without any evidence or discussion. I find it hard to believe that an ArbCom Parole is meant to deprive editors of the most basic and simple forms of due process. I would like to see the bans rescinded. Even here, Ice Cold Beer refuses to be held accountable for his actions. He seems to believe that this matter should have been handled at ArbCom enforcement - yet, Ice Cold Beer never brought this up at Arbcom Enforcement. Ice Cold Beer should be reprimanded for his mishandling of this case. If he believes he was enforcing an ArbCom decision, he should have opened up a case at ArbCom Enforcement, named the policies that were violated, and provided edit-difs. As is, editors like Ancient Observer and Wdford have nothing to defend thmselves against, because they are being denounced by a rogue admin. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A ban established through ArbCom enforcement would be, logically, a form of ArbCom enforcement. But a block made at AN/I is, like any other administrative block, one that any other administrator may overturn. I have approached Ice Cold Beer twice asking for supporting evidence for his ban. Since he has not provided it, I feel satisfied that this ban can be overturned. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Vassyana
I am inactive on current requests, but I felt I should comment here. More appropriate venues were suggested at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551. Almost no real attempt has been made to take that advice or otherwise persue normal dispute resolution. (Slrubenstein's attempts to discuss the matter with ICB is one of the few and limited exceptions, as an example.) While there may or may not be a problem with the administrative actions taken here, the manner in which this is generally being persued is disruptive, only serving to further increase the drama. I recommend that if editors persist in rejecting sensible suggestions for resolution, while continuing to make noise and drama over perceived wrongs, that the behavior be treated like any other disruptive conduct. While I am sympathetic to Slrubenstein's concerns, as administrators are expected to be prepared and willing to justify their actions, I do take partial issue with his statement about "depriv[ing] editors of the most basic and simple forms of due process". He may certainly have a valid point, but the lack of "due process" in this situation has at least as much to do with failing to persue repeatedly suggested avenues of recourse as with any failing on the part of the acting administrator. The failure to accept and follow up on that advice is illustrative of a core issue in this topic area, as well as other problematic topic areas. If this was raised at WP:AE for review as suggested, with possible companion requests at WP:FTN and/or WP:NPOVN to clarify the content assertions that cut to the core of the issue, we wouldn't be here right now and this situation would be resolved or on the way to resolution. --Vassyana (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one of the most ridiculous and innaccurate statements I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The issues were raised on the respective admin's talk pages repeatedly by various editors. The issues were brought up at ANI where the editors were sent off to Arbcom. The issues were raised on the discussion page here. And now that numerous editors have taken the time to make statements and engage in good faith discussion with the arbitration committee, you ball them out for not jumping through the right bureaucratic hurdle in the right bureaucratic place? What a disgrace. It's no wonder so many people in the community are fed up with Arbcom's arrogance and insularity. If this isn't the right place why don't you help move it where it belongs? Aren't we a collaborative Wiki? How many different places do these good faith editors have to be sent before they get some help. How ridiculous! And the cherry on top is your disgusting threat that further efforts to get resolution and redress will be considered disruptive. If this discussion isn't in the right place why don't you MOVE IT where it belongs. Believe it or not most good faith editors and contributors don't hang out at Arbcom all the time so they're not experts on navigating all your pages. Maybe try to be a little more editor friendly instead of taking such a nasty and unwarranted stance against editors who are already facing incompetent asdministrative abuse. Thanks so much. Further incivility and threats on from you after this pointer will be considered disruptive and treated accordingly. And if someone care to move this comment, I know they can move this whole discussion where it belongs too. Thanks in advance.    ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A BIG thank you to Vassyana for taking the time to move the request over to Arb Enforcement. Given some of the broader issues involved, I might have preferred a wider venue to review some of the admin actions and to consider possible sanctions, but if the editors involved can get a fair shake and at least have their bans reviewed and considered (until very recently Ice Cold Beer refused to provide a single diff of evidence in support of his bans) I'll try to live with that. Thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder, User:Vassyana if the process had been followed consistently, the users would not be banned in the first place, but instead your very suggestions, if tried, would result in resolution BEFORE banning. I was banned without warning, without any kind of actual violation. I did not engage in edit warring, my contributions if anything have been among the most helpful. I also had to deal with contrary editors adding in stuff out of chronological order, reinserting debunked claims, and using illogical thinking. For example, one user suggested that skin color over generations can naturally go from white (Like European) to black (like black Africans) or vice versa over a few thousand years. His citation: Pure speculation. But that was something to be taken in consideration because the notion that original black inhabitants of Egypt were the primary ancestors of the great legacy of the Dynastic period (basically a resurgence of the Dynastic Race Theory. And you have to ask, what does that have to do with the article? Nothing. That user is engaging IN the debate, rather than citing the history OF the debate. It was after I removed that by reminding them of the purpose that I was banned. --Panehesy (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Followup comment by User:Vassyana
Briefly, I strongly disagree with the manner and tone of CoM's response, and also feel that ANI and the clarificaiton talk page discussion clearly and repeatedly pointed to better venues. However, he does have a valid point in the spirit of sofixit. In that spirit, I will raise the matter for review at WP:AE, perma-linking to this request, the ANI thread, and other places where discussion has taken place. I will also cross-post an invitation to review the AE thread to WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN, to attact the attention of editors experienced with neutrality and fringe theory considerations. Additionally, I offer my assistance as an informal mediator, or to help acquire another mediator from MedCab or MedCom, to assist on the content side of things. If there is any other way that I can help move things forward constructively, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Vassyana (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Update. I have filed the AE review request (Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement) and asked for the input of the regulars from WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN . I have notified Ice Cold Beer, the five sanctioned editors, and other editors that commented here . --Vassyana (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Muntuwandi
I won't reflect on what has happened in the past but instead propose a possible solution. For all of us involved, we should have two long term goals. Firstly, to produce a well written article. Secondly to establish a system of self regulation, in which the need for administrative intervention in the article is minimal, and the editors themselves do most of the policing for content that violates Wikipedia's policies. In other words, it would be ideal if this article was like any other good article, and that the article, in the long term, should lose its "special" status.

For this to occur, the editors have refrain from pov-pushing, original research and other poor editing behaviors and agree to monitor the article for such violations. Because if the established editors don't police the article, administrators are sure to intervene.

I therefore propose that the banned users provide some form of assurance to the administrators about editing behavior. On the other hand, Ice Cold Beer should consider lifting the ban he imposed on them. This is a quick solution to the problem. It avoids the need for further escalation, additional bureaucracy and spamming of talk pages and noticeboards. Should this issue be escalated, say to the arbcom, the atmosphere is likely to become more unpleasant. Specifically, there is the possibility of administrators disagreeing with each other. If users agree to take responsibility for the article, then it is within Ice Cold Beer's power to avoid these unpleasantries.

Some of the banned users are new to Wikipedia, in terms of longevity or edit count and this is a new experience for them. I think that having been banned for a few days, they all have a better understanding of how to deal with controversial articles. If they are unbanned they are likely to be more cautious. In addition, bans can always be reimposed if editors violate Wikipedia's policies. I think its worth a try. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Vassyana : I think it's commendable that Vassyana has offered to be an informal administrator. I suggest that his offer be seriously considered. The only concern is that any mediator should be prepared to put aside any preconceived notions about the subject in order to gain the trust of all involved. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Panehesy
Finally, based on the block itself, Ice_Cold_Beer violated the terms of enforcement

Enforcement by block 1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans. Passed 12 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not blocked for a week, but for six months. There was no indication that I had violated any restrictions before the first block. SO again, I reiterate, that the method of enforcement is very biased, and only helps one POV of the entire issue, for any article relating to Afrocentricism, Ancient Egypt, Race, and Black people. Please end this flagarant violation of neutrality by firstly unbanning me (I cannot even add the citations now requested in the article), and unbanning everyone else. Then proceed to address POV concerns by ALL sides. Thank you. --Panehesy (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Second statement by Panehesy
Enforcement by block Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann 1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, '''up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase...

You are banned from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page, per [1], for a period of six months for POV-pushing, adding unsourced content, and personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

One week has now passed. I am observing the enforcement by block as termed here Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann. My block time has passed. I do not see anything indicating that an editor may increase blocks for additional time. I was not cited in Wikipedia's general terms for any violation, but only here specifically for this article. Therefore, there is no provision for me to be blocked further than one week, you, the higher administrators have instructed. When I edit, everyone, please note the reactions of the editors. This will be very helpful, either way, once or if, any further action is taken against me for contributions at that point, within Wikipedia's and the article's policy. --Panehesy (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)--Panehesy (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Arbitrator views and discussion
Well Brad, if you're not sure, them just imagine how we feel. As it happens the policy on appealing against a ban by a lone admin is not so clear and user-friendly, so your guidance would be gratefuly received. May I request you to assist us by finding out to whom we should be appealing, and that you then cut-and-paste this issue and its existing comments into that forum, with due notification etc of change of address, and with due regard to Ignore all rules, so that the matter can progress efficiently and free of drama. Please? Wdford (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm asking that we just lift the ban. Bring an administrator on who is not so knee jerk against the black side of the issue, and lets stop using procedural methods to limit a legitimate POV on the subject matter. For example, the Tut picture. SOmeone fought again and again to prevent the three variations of the picture from being posted, His logic "it just wasn't needed". Ok, this is about the controversy, and all three pictures were needed. Not one Admin involved in that article ever said anything. The contributors banned are frustrated with the lopsided approach and the uncivility against them. And how when that uncivility is only matched only they are banned. --Panehesy (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Greyyschwartz
Dbachman and Dougweller had me blocked last year on the basis of "Afrocentricism" Before that I complained about him on Admin notice boards for some strange reason every notice was removed my on of his "friends". Dougweller How ironic, that you post here about good faith under a noninvolved user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Statement_by_User:Dougweller. You also posted this [] About Panhesy comment on some one elses page. Is that asumming good faith? The truth is User:Dougweller you have left many comments about other users edits to User:Dbachmann and most of it is relates to black people and Egypt. Just like during the time Dbachman decided to remove most of the information on this page Black_(hieroglyphic_'km')with no explanations and changed the name. Starting with this edit on June 10, 2009 4 other edit followed one on top of the other all with no explanations and because of it, an edit war erupted. You went and left Dbachman this message asking him to make your reverts for you because you didn’t want to violate 3RR []. These people are not even half of the people how have been blocked wrongfully by these gang of administrators. I took a look at your block logs and just recently you blocked this editor User_talk:Bottracker on false accusations all because another editor User:Polly asked you to do so when he left this message on your talk page claiming there were issues concerning the editors images and that he did not want the editor to be able to upload images again [] you left a message telling Polly that you have given the editor a warning because you have to {]. And in a few minute after that warning you blocked the editor indefinitely from ever editing on Wikipedia based on nothing other than a request to do so. Some one just leaves a message on their friends page and their friend do their dirty work for them and hide under the fact that he or she is an administrator. The administrator abuse on Wikipedia by Dbachman and his “friends” and the cry of afrocentricism for every thing have gone one long enough something needs to be done. Greyyschwartz (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm not sure whether this belongs here for review by the arbitrators, or in the enforcement section to seek a consensus of the admins who are active on AE. I'm not trying to be a procedural pain-in-the-neck here, but it's just happenstance that the sanction was levied by an administrator directly and review was sought here, rather than the issue having been raised through a request on AE, in which case comments would have gone there. What do people think is the most efficient, drama-free way to address this type of issue? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a general principle, appeals of individual sanctions imposed by admins are probably best at AE as that is normally where contemplated sanctions would be discussed. This I suppose is analagous to the initiating action against individuals at WP:ANI and also seeking review there. Certainly, other routes should really be explored prior to bringing it here.  Roger Davies  talk 02:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * recuse. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Go to AE — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, this has gone to arbitration enforcement. Carcharoth (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Obama articles (August 2009)

 * Original discussion


 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Findings 7 through 15
 * 2) Remedies 4, 5, 10, 10.2


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Username2 (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
 * Username3 (repeat above for all parties)

Amendment 1

 * See below. Sceptre (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre
The recent passing of remedies in the Obama articles case presents a worrying outlook on how Wikipedia policies and guidelines are enforced, and of the current Committee. There are really several points that need to be made, so forgive me for overstepping the five-hundred word limit: So, what am I proposing, exactly? Basically, I am requesting: Thank you, Sceptre (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP enforcement: the Arbitration Committee has, in past cases (most notably and controversially, Footnoted quotes), held that BLP enforcement should be encouraged and thus editors should be given wide leeway in enforcement. However, the remedies passed make no recognition of BLP enforcement although the findings of fact implied that it was needed. This is related to the following point...
 * Sanctions: the sanctions do not reflect prevention of any problem at all. Were this a case where BLP enforcement was considered, the sanctions would be vastly different, if not one-sided. I have a gut feeling that these sanctions may have been motivated by an effort to avoid the appearance of a "liberal bias". Furthermore, the findings of fact, especially mine, were criticised: the word "fuck" does not an attack make (I refer the ArbCom to George Carlin's infamous routine about the word), and the diffs regarding my reversion of Stevertigo outside of the Obama articles was intended to combat disruption (indeed, one of the two diffs provided shows me reverting an action that the ArbCom mentioned in the previous finding of fact!). This leaves only the edit war. Which I admit, I did get confrontational on that FAQ. However, the remedy for an edit war in aid of BLP enforcement should not be a twelve-month 1RR/week sanction. It should be a simple admin protection. Other remedies for both sides vastly exaggerate the problems in the FoFs, which themselves vastly exaggerate the actions described therein.
 * Restrictiveness: the remedies passed are too restrictive on the parties of the case they are applied too. Again, I'll use myself as an example: as one of the Doctor Who WikiProject's more prolific editors, I find myself editing related articles a lot. And these are verifiably popular articles; the articles Eleventh Doctor and Matt Smith (actor) were in the top two spots of for several hours of 3 January 2009, so, understandably, there's a push-and-shove effort in trying to maintain article quality. In fact, it's not strange for an editor to revert more than three times in 24 hours after an episode airs, but such behaviour isn't met with blocks as it's not edit-warring in the spirit of 3RR. Luckily, this has not affected my editing too much; normally, the end of June comprises the Doctor Who season finale, but this year is a "rest year" for the show and as such all that is happening wrt Doctor Who this summer is the currently airing Torchwood serial Children of Earth, but, come winter, given what we know is going to happen then, it will be an uphill struggle to maintain article quality and normalcy and will need as many hands as possible. Even if I don't take an active role in combatting the inevitable disruption, the ruling would effectively lead me unable to edit the articles properly until several weeks after the episodes air, affecting the usually high turnover rate in article writing (which, for articles about fiction, is a Good Thing). So these sanctions do not prevent disruption; quite the opposite, they make it easier!
 * And finally, communication: the case really highlights the lack of communication between the arbitration committee and other users. Wizardman left only two days between posting on the workshop and on the proposed decision page, and most of us didn't notice until the latter occurred. Even so, the Committee made no visible effort in reading the workshop, the talk pages, or otherwise listening to users, despite the fact there was a considerable opinion by both sides that the proposed decisions were flawed. This is a problem that, while only peripherally relevant to my argument, needs to be countered for the sake of the community.
 * A complete re-examination of the findings of fact and removal of any material which exaggerates or mis-characterises an editor's actions (hence why I've listed all nine editors for which findings were passed, although some may need not be edited).
 * The vacation of any sanctions applied to myself and Scjessey, and the editing of Stevertigo's sanction so that it applies only to Obama articles, not a project-wide restriction (because Steve's really not a bad guy).

Reply to Vassanya
You misunderstand my comments to indicate an "willingness to edit war". Edit warring is born from a dispute where a set of editors continually reverting each other where there is a legitimate content dispute. With regard to the Doctor Who articles, this is not the case. The WikiProject has formulated a policy-compliant manual of style and uses that and related policies to maintain article quality. Think: breaking the letter of the 3RR after an episode air is almost never "punished"—except in the case of disputes about non-free images—because it is not edit warring in the strictest sense. There was also no legitimate content dispute regarding the existence—or lack thereof—of a criticism article; as it has been shown, the vast majority of people complaining were single-purpose accounts. Reversions of BLP violating material, which was commonplace in March when the case was open, are explicitly not edit warring as it's not a legitimate content dispute. And reversions of, for example, Stevertigo on WP:IAR or WP:DRV was not edit warring. Why? Again, there was no legitimate content dispute. No person would seriously suggest, for example, that IAR be marked a historical policy, at least without a solid rationale, which Steve lacked by miles. Additionally, the reversion of disruption must never be considered edit-warring, as it sends a negative message to editors that they can gain more from trolling than doing actual work. RickK quit in June 2005 because good editors were given less respect and assitance than those who wanted to disrupt, and it's saddening that four years on, it appears to continue.

Regarding your comment about communication, I fail to see how your description of the process matches up with what actually happened. Of course, in theory, what you say is correct. But I feel there was a lack of communication in practice. On the PD talk page, only one arbitrator of the seventeen we have, John Vandeberg, took an active job in answering most of the questions, and even then little appeared to be done. An example is my objections to remedy #5, which got no reply from an arbitrator on that talk page, despite three weeks elapsing between the question being asked and the closure of the case.

And finally, I must disagree with your comment about the sanctions. As the evidence shows, while not limited the Obama pages, all of the edit warring given derives from the Obama dispute. If there was no Obama dispute, Steve would not have edit-warred on, say, DRV or IAR. It's more that tempers were a bit heated then because of the dispute. Hence why I suggested the restriction on Steve be only on Obama articles; other than the Obama articles, he has not shown a history of continual edit warring (based on the WP:EW-backed description above, rather than the erroneous "reverting is automatically edit-warring" belief, although he was desysopped in 2005 for edit-warring). And it can be shown with most editors for which findings were passed, they have no history of continual edit warring outside the Obama dispute before or after. I was going to suggest a similar change in the restriction for Grundle2600, but his recent topic ban indicates that he does have an edit-warring problem. This appears to be an exaggeration on ArbCom's part, extrapolating a small, limited-time dispute as evidence of a massive behavioural problem and passing according remedies. At the very most, all the arbitration committee needed to do with the editors in this case was to give them an admonishment for misbehaving and warn them not to do it again. If the ArbCom wanted to pass a 1RR/week restriction that didn't look foolish, or at the least, strange, to an outside observer, they should've shown in the findings of fact that there was a sustained problem, with several more diffs (as plenty were offered in evidence). But the findings of fact indicate that, in reality, there is not, and thus the sanctions do no work in preventing disruption of Wikipedia and instead serve to punish editors for a minor offense that would've, under any other circumstances, resulted in just a 24-to-48 hour block or a protection. Sceptre (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Second reply to Vassanya
EW, like other policies, requires application of common sense on top of the letter of the policy. While there are only a few exceptions listed in the letter of the 3RR policy, it does not mean they are the only exceptions. Admins often overlook breaches of the letter of the 3RR if a) the spirit has not been broken (i.e., no harm has come to the wiki or the wiki process), or b) there is no "tangoing". Whether reverts in aid of article maintainance is a violation of the spirit of EW is debatable; while arbitration cases and edit warring reports have indicated that it is, the content assessment process generally takes the view that it is not; or, at the very least, it is not sufficient enough to warrant opposition to a page's asssessment as GA/FA for being unstable. The whole article maintainance argument is peripheral to the main argument, in that, at least in my case, there is only one edit war shown, and any other reverts were performed in aid of combatting disruption to the project. If we are at a stage that reverting disruption is considered edit warring, it presents a very bleak outlook of the Wikipedia community, and it would be unfitting for an arbitrator to hold this belief too. Sceptre (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Wizardman
My accusation of bias is only a "gut feeling", and it's a known fact intuition is a double-edged blade. However, the rulings do imply a new bias in ArbCom, or at the very least, a departure from the pro-BLP-enforcement bias from the ArbComs of old. I don't know if it's a conscious decision, or unintentional from a desire to purge the cause or experimentation. As an aside, it's obvious the new ArbCom have been more deliberative and experimental, as opposed to last year's pro-active and brisk ArbCom. The problem is, both are problematic. By the end of May, I had pretty much forgotten about the case. I was talking to a clerk about COM's statement below, which dovetailed into a discussion about the case and how problems such as this could be prevented, or at least minimised. One idea that we discussed was having laymen serve as advisors and/or safety valves: i.e., if a ruling appears too weird or strict or lenient to them, they could give a nudge and say "this doesn't look right". Perhaps it could be a subject for discussion on arbcom-l... but I digress. Sceptre (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the motions: I'd be willing to settle with the current proposal, with possible re-examination in fall/winter, though I would prefer to see mine and Scjessey's completely vacated. I'm a bit wary of editing restrictions 9.2 and 13, though, as Grundle and CoM haven't shown any cessation of disruption, to the point that Grundle was topic banned. Sceptre (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon
I respect the wisdom, hard work, and decisions of the committee, even if I don't fully agree with some parts of the outcome. They say that a good decision leaves everyone a little unsatisfied, so that's probably what's happening here. I'm pretty sure that every finding of fact and every sanction was thought through and made deliberately, so there's no mistake to correct. The case took a lot of time and effort, and the arguments among parties grew unpleasant at times. The outcome includes a couple of no-interaction orders among the parties, which I think have done some good in terms of calming tensions and getting people back to productive work. I don't think those are up for discussion, but opening the case again nevertheless brings us all back to the same page, and brings some potential for renewed friction. The Obama articles have been very quiet since the case was decided, and for the past couple of months overall. So all in all I just don't think it's worth re-opening that proverbial can of worms.

Although I don't want to re-argue the case, I do see the merits of Sceptre's point. A few of the editors on whom revert restrictions were placed have never shown editing problems outside of politics articles, so in their case the restriction would seem to be overbroad. However, in theory that shouldn't be much of a burden because we should all be at 1RR all the time... The arbitration findings deal mostly with the behavior of a small subset of the editors over a short span, four months ago now, and largely gloss over the larger issue of article probation. There seems to be no movement to convene the Obama article probation working group contemplated in the decision, much less to review the workings of probation or suggest improvements. But again, the articles have been stable and calm, so if I may be permitted one more cliche: "If it isn't broke, don't fix it".

Statement by Grundle2600
I agree with the part that says, "the remedies passed are too restrictive on the parties of the case they are applied too." All I have ever done here at wikipedia is add well sourced information to articles. This punishment makes wikipedia worse, not better. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc
I would agree that more consideration and leniency should have been given to those who were working to combat the incessant wave of single-purpose account, obvious/egregious POV-driven editors and the like. The reputation and representation of of public figures here and the WP:BLP policy that governs their treatment should be of the highest consideration, and those that work to uphold that singularly-important policy should be given a bit of support during what amounted to an off-Wiki orchestrated and fabricated attack. Civility is important as well, and admonishments were properly handed out there, but the findings of fact that those working to uphold BLP policy were edit warring should be toned down or stricken. Scjessey has noted that the restriction outside of Obama-related articles would impair his ability to edit in other areas, and I feel that that is a sound argument.

I am not so sure about others, however. ChildofMidnight has tested the edges of the topic ban twice now, once a mild reminder as it may have been unclear if AfDs were within the scope, and the second one like would've earned a block in the opinion of that admin, if a formal WP:AE report had been filed.

Grundle2600's restrictions from the committee were lesser than some of the others, but since then has earned a topic ban for 3 months for "clearly problematic editing issues, and [his] general approach".


 * Response to ChildofMidnight: Honestly, as long as you're going to continue with both attacks against me and the anti-cabal missives, i.e. "misleading statements and trumped up evidence presented to Wizardman", you're only going to put yourself in a worse light. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Vassanaya: At the very least, I would say that the 1RR in non-Obama related areas should be lifted. IMO the spillovers, i.e. WP:IAR were unfortunate, but were not severe enough to warrant such a heavy restriction. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on the process
I found the arbitration process to be a disappointing experience. I had expected that there would be a healthy dialogue between arbitrators and named parties that would lead to a resolution, and I was surprised by the lack of communication that took place. I had assumed that the arbitration committee would focus on trying to create a productive editing environment in the Obama-related articles by offering advice and guidance. I had imagined it would examine the conditions that created the difficult environment and make suggestions about revising and enforcing related policies. I thought the committee would investigate the effectiveness of article probation and offer opinion about how it could be improved. In particular, I expected specific commentary and rulings on BLP-related issues and agenda-driven editing. Instead, the committee appeared to focus solely on meting out punitive measures that seemed to take into account what was happening, but not why it was happening.

Almost all of the disruption surrounding these articles stemmed from agenda-driven editing, and this problem was not addressed by the committee. It is a huge problem on Wikipedia, particularly on articles related to politics or religion, and it isn't going to go away with the imposition of a few topic bans and editing restrictions. ArbCom will continue to face cases such as these as long as this matter remains unaddressed.

Thoughts on the sanctions
The 6-month topic ban I was given had no effect on me, as I had already withdrawn from editing Obama-related articles 3 weeks before it was imposed. The restriction on interaction with User:ChildofMidnight has proved somewhat awkward, because I have to keep checking the history of an article I am about to edit to make sure I am not treading on any metaphorical toes - not really a big deal, but aggravating.

I have found the "one revert per page per week" sanction to be extremely restrictive. It does not impede my ability to make minor edits across a large number of articles, but it makes it largely impossible for me to focus my attention on any articles in particular. Reversions are a necessary part of the editing process, and 99 times out of a 100 they are uncontroversial reversions that could not be described as "edit warring" (in spirit, at least). I believe the scope of this restriction was over-broad and based on a mischaracterization of my editing contributions, and it left me with a strong impression that some members of the arbitration committee may have based their decisions on what parties said happened, rather than what actually happened.

Note about Wizardman's motion to redefine the scope of editing restrictions
I'd like to comment about Wizardman's proposal to limit the scope of the edit restriction to just Obama-related articles. Although it would make it much easier for me to be a productive editor in other articles, such a change would make the restriction only come into effect once my 6-month topic ban expired. I'm perfectly okay with that, but it does seem like a peculiar situation.

Let me take off my defendant's hat and try to think like an arbitrator for a second. It would seem that the topic ban has been an effective punitive measure with the happy side effect of instantly diffusing the hostile editing environment in the Obama-related articles. I think that measure should definitely remain. The editing restriction, however, has been a purely punitive measure with no obvious benefit to Wikipedia. I would think a better solution would be a "suspended sentence" with some form of probationary period. Editors who have learned from their mistakes would be able to remain fully productive, but those who "violate" their probation could have the full, Wikipedia-wide restriction applied.

Statement by ChildofMidnight
I support a lessening of the sanctions on the good faith content contributors and article builders who were and are subject to the well documented harassment, personal attacks, and POV pushing from the self-appointed "patrollers" and "protectors".
 * Baseball Bugs and PHGustaff have repeatedly come trolling on my talk page since the Arbcom decision harassing me incessantly by posting numerous unwelcome and unhelpful comments that have nothing to do with article building or the discussion of article content.
 * Tarc continues his incivility and attacks on article talk pages, refusing to focus on content and pushing his personal POV in violation of our core neutral point of view policy. He's continued to threaten editors and to try to delete content he personally disagrees with.
 * As Wikidemon points out, the articles have been stable and as the good faith contributors who have created many articles and added a lot of content on these subjects have been banned and blocked. Improvements won't be made until the ill-considered bans are revoked.

The enforcement and encouragement of bias and censorship by this committee, based on misleading statements and trumped up evidence presented to Wizardman even after his mistakes were pointed out to him need to be corrected. The encyclopedia is severely damaged and its integrity has been violated by the actions of this committee. I welcome a review of the sanctions on the good faith contributors who have worked diligently on improving Wikipedia's coverage and who have demonstrated a willingness to collaborate across a broad range of article subjects.

Their efforts have been stymied long enough by this ill-considered decision and moronic remedies. Obviously I'm not talking about Sceptre, who has made no effort to clean up his history of abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Baseball Bugs
I stopped interacting with CoM on July 8th, and he's presenting the above as if I were still interacting with him. He also failed to inform me that he's taken my name in vain here. That is typical behavior on his part. He accuses others of POV-pushing on Obama, when in fact it is he that is the POV-pusher. His early complaint about the Obama articles was that "there's not enough criticism". Hardly the complaint of someone with a neutral point of view. He threw the gauntlet down to me on the night of March 8/9 with this offensive, insulting essay wherein his biases became all too clear, as he took the side of a brigade of POV-pushers from WND. Any alleged "harassment" of him by me is because I won't let him forget about his obnoxious behavior on that March night - from which he has not backed off one iota, of course. He wants the sanctions lifted for one reason only, and that is so that he can resume his tendentious, POV-pushing editing on the Obama articles. I strongly urge the committee to keep all sanctions in place as originally prescribed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that his complaints about "patrollers", i.e. editors who watch pages to try to keep them the way they should be under wikipedia standards, aligns with his ordering me to stop watching his page (which I have done) - he wants to be able to edit however he feels like, pushing his anti-Obama biases, without anyone watching him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In looking through his history, it seems CoM was taking verbal shots at anyone who disagreed with him, including Mr. Wales which is why it was around that time (March) that a topic ban on CoM re:Obama was first being discussed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I should point out that it was PhGustaf who tipped me off about CoM's backstabbing here, otherwise I would not have known about it. CoM has made it clear that I am not worthy of CoMmunicating with him, but apparently that goes both directions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WRONG - Sceptre did indeed inform me of this page. I responded that I wanted nothing more to do with the subject, or with CoM in particular. However, tonight I was alerted to the fact that I was being maligned by CoM, so I thought I should come here after all and see what this is about. I say again: The original topic-ban should stay in place - or at least certainly it should for CoM, as he has not changed his tune at all since March, and will continue to be a tendentious editor on the Obama topics. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So this makes twice now, at least, that CoM has thrown down the gauntlet to me. The first was in March. If not for that nonsense, he would likely not have come to my attention. And now this. He wants me to leave him alone, yet he continues to dredge my name up. I would not have come here tonight except for his backstabbing. I want nothing more to do with that guy, who I consider to be a disgrace to wikipedia. Yet he keeps trying to drag me back into the argument. I'll make him a deal: If he never mentions my name again, then I'll never mention his name again. Even when the inevitable vote to ban him from wikipedia comes, which he is slowly working towards, I will refrain from voting on the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PhGustaf
It concerns me that Grundle's and CoM's statements suggest that neither has considered, even for a moment, that the pickles they're in are in any manner their fault. I suppose that in this sense the sanctions have failed. It seems very likely that they'll both go back to their old ways immediately once the sanctions lapse, and it would be wise for the arbitrators to let them know that they will be on short leashes indeed. PhGustaf (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. CoM, next time you malign me in a venue where I'm not otherwise involved, please mention it on my talk page. PhGustaf (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh again. I checked, and I've made only a half dozen edits to CoM's talk page ever. We once had a very pleasant chat about clams.  I hardly consider that "trolling" or "harassing".  Till now, CoM has never suggested I was unwelcome on the page. PhGustaf (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Amendment 2

 * Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
 * Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
 * This can be put into effect now too. — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Wikidemon's comment is fairly persuasive. In addition, I do not see an convincing rationale to revisit this decision, even in the absence of Wikidemon's observations. Addressing Sceptre's points: Regarding BLP enforcement, the edit warring was by no means limited to BLP enforcement and implications to the contrary are blatantly misleading. Regarding sanctions, I reiterate that point. Also, edit warring (as a whole in the case) took place across six namespaces. Warnings, article probation, and other extant measures failed to sufficiently modify and/or restrict the problematic behavior, thus the sanctions do indeed serve a preventative purpose. Regarding restrictiveness, I do not find the argument raised convincing. On the contrary, the willingness to edit war is deeply concerning and reinforces my perception that the restriction is needed. Tying back to the BLP enforcement point raised, the 1RR restrictions still permit exceptions (as per normal policy) for clear cut vandalism and BLP violations. Regarding communication, I can understand the concern that it may have moved too quickly from the workshop to the proposed decision page. That said, the concerns raised are not overwhelming, convincing, nor entirely accurate. The proposed decision and voting lasted over three weeks, providing plenty of time for feedback and comments. Arbitrators did respond to posts on the PD talk page. I know that I and a number of other arbitrators were aware of the PD talk page and workshop comments, taking them into consideration. Additionally, I do not agree with the characterization of the comments' breadth and substance. All that said, the editor histories and conduct issues presented in the case seem to support the sanctions issued. For example, it is suggested that Stevertigo's restriction be more limited, but his edit warring was not limited to the scope requested. --Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In reply to Sceptre, it seems from my perspective that you are essentially arguing more against policy than with ArbCom's decision (which is based on policy). WP:3RR leave very few exceptions to the general rule and even goes so far as to note that even acting under those exceptions could still be considered edit warring. If you wish to see other exceptions granted, or wish to document exceptions commonly granted by the community, a broadly advertised discussion at WT:EW is the appropriate route. I will not endorse exceptions that are contained neither within the letter nor spirit of the policy as currently written and presented, especially when multiple arbitration cases and numerous edit-warring reports have rejected the rationale that enforcing style and presentation standards is not subject to the edit warring rule. --Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Tarc, in the context of presuming sanctions are warranted and necessary, what alternative sanctions that are better targeted would you recommend? Please bear in mind that while the dispute centered around the Obama articles that it was exported to other areas of the wiki and that much of the edit warring bore little to no relation to BLP enforcement. --Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In my votes on the proposed decision, my opinion was that several of the adopted remedies were too harsh, and so I agree that there is a case to be made for modifying some of them. But given that on many of the paragraphs I was the sole dissenter, I suppose I am not the one that the editors seeking an amendment need to persuade. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the argument for the complete 1RR restrictions being too harsh is a valid one to at least look into. Yes, my proposed remedies were very harsh, and given the climate that's what was needed. If lightening this will keep the obama articles from falling into the old patterns and help out the affected editors, then it's a possiblity. Granted, saying I'm encouraging bias and censorship when I did the best I could with a very hard case given the feelings of the editors does not help one's case at all. Wizardman  00:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Vassyana. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Noting here my inactivity on the original case, expressed as an abstain on the motion below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion

 * There are currently 13 active arbitrators, making 7 a majority.

1) The remedies 4, 5, 9.2, 10.2, and 13 are rewritten as follows: (User) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, User is subject to an editing restriction for one year. User is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should User exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Support
 * In retrospect, the remedy was awfully harsh, so I'll lower it for those that received it. Wizardman  16:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the change being made here is to apply the 1RR restrictions on the specified editors only to reverts on Obama-related articles, as opposed to all articles as currently stated. Given that I opposed these remedies as overbroad insofar as they were not limited to Obama-related articles to begin with, I support the motion. The editors affected are Stevertigo, Sceptre, ChildofMidnight, Scjessey, and Grundle2600. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that as I read it, this motion does not alter the topic-bans against those editors who were topic-banned, as those were contained in separate paragraphs of the decision, not mentioned in the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed by arguments that anyone needs to be able to revert casually even in less disputed areas, but the objective of the remedy was to stop the warring on those articles specifically and I see no great harm in focusing the remedy there. I should remind everyone touched by this restriction, however, that bringing the behavior that led to this case to other venues after this has been modified would be viewed very dimly indeed.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, per preceding. I am prepared to reduce the scope to Obama-related articles. Like Coren, though, further infractions would be viewed with past history in mind. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Casliber and Coren.  Roger Davies  talk 11:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I was inactive in the initial case, I have since read it through. I concur that the 1-RR restrictions beyond the initial articles is too restrictive and interferes with normal editing processes, particularly on pages where a small number of editors are active.  Risker (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * I feel the spread of the dispute among six namespaces justifies the broader restriction, but I will not impede this amendment if my fellow arbs feel it is appropriate. --Vassyana (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that modifying the editing restriction for all the named users is for the best. But if we are not going to do individual motions then I don't want to stand in the way of some users getting their restrictions altered. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I was inactive on this case, so I will defer to those of my colleagues who were active on this case and know the background here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (5) (August 2009)

 * Original discussion


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)

Amendment 1

 * That my editing restriction be replaced by an admonishment

Statement by John

 * Basically the editing restriction on me was punitive, unnecessary, and far too harsh given the extremely minor degree of "edit-warring" demonstrated. I take particular offense at being subject to the same restriction as (see here), when the nature of our respective involvements and our editing histories and block logs are so very different. Newyorkbrad was the only arbitrator to oppose the sanctions, though three others abstained. It is not clear to me that those arbitrators who voted against me before I had the chance to defend myself, actually read the evidence I subsequently presented. Verdict before evidence seems an egregious breach of natural justice.


 * Many editors and admins who I respect have come out, both on and off wiki, and stated that they find my restriction to be over-harsh, which is why I am minded to make this request. I received an email today from yet another editor who I have had no previous dealings with asking if I planned to appeal. Without wishing to be over-dramatic, let me be clear that I have no interest in contributing to improving articles, when doing so would expose me to the very real risk of a block. I'm proud of never having been blocked and wish to be able to edit without this unwarranted and unnecessary threat hanging over me.


 * If this appeal is unsuccessful it is unlikely that I would continue to throw shit around the place; it is more likely I would just leave, and take away a very poor impression of our community's dispute resolution process. Even if I do leave, I still believe that my service to the project entitles me to a fair hearing, and a proper explanation of just why these restrictions are deemed necessary. To minimally restore my faith in this current Arbcom, if this appeal is unsuccessful I request to see proper rationales from those opposing it. Obviously I would prefer to return without any restriction as there are several articles I would dearly love to improve. I hope I am not asking too much. Thanks for your consideration.
 * (See User:John/ArbcomAppeal for a longer treatment.) --John (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lar
Strong support for this request. I have worked with John a long time and have nothing but the deepest respect for him. The finding and sanction were misguided and far out of proportion to any actual harm caused the project by John's wikiGnoming. He showed at the time of the case that the allegations were unwarranted, and I sincerely believe he intended no harm whatever. Unlike some of the editors sanctioned in this case, John is the sort of editor we want more of, not less of. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Septentrionalis/PMAnderson/(??) - You say "That editors should not willfully distort other usernames"... I'm not sure I understand the relevance of that request by you to the request here before us to vacate the unjust sanction on John. However, I must ask, what exactly do you mean by that request? What is your username or desired appelation? I confess I have no clear idea of the latter. You sign as "Septentrionalis PMAnderson " ... is your desired appelation "Pmanderson"? "Septentrionalis"? Something else? How is one to know? I think you should consider having your username be what you want people to call you, and then sign using that username, or else not take any umbrage if people don't call you exactly as you like. My username is "Lar" (long A, short for Larry) but people call me "Lars" a fair bit. Rather than getting upset I just point out my desired username is singular, not plural, and they should be glad there's but one of me about, and everyone has a smile and that's that. No worries. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NYB had asked for time to allow others to comment (until Monday, was my read)... It's now (early) Thursday. Has everyone commented that NYB expected? Is there more to be done before arbs can vote on the motion presented? I'd like to see this not peter out without a resolution, or drag on for weeks or months while we wait for someone to make some contribution or another... I've had that happen and it's no fun at all. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Either Pmanderson or Septentrionalis will do; wiki-friends have nicknames. But "Mandy" or "Manderson" are intentional pinpricks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that, helps indeed! (I leave it to a clerk to decide if that response needs to be moved to Pmanderson's section, it is less disjointed here but... the forms must be obeyed :) ) ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos
I strongly support this application for vacation of the remedy imposed on this user. John made a few reasonable edits which fell into a broad category that was much later determined to be controversial. The edits did not violate any policy and none of them were recent, and as Lar says above, appear relatively harmless. Additionally, an investigation of John's broader contributions reveals a high-calibre, dedicated editor with solid content contributions - we are not talking about a disruptive editor or one who needs to be contained or curtailed here. The edits he made are similar to several hundred I made at around the same time using a script (also in good faith, and not one of them challenged or reverted) following the MOS change, and yet myself and others who edited in the same area and even commented and voted on the issue were never mentioned in the case - I am unsure why John was even identified. John has also identified issues of due process/natural justice with regards to his late addition to the case and that voting commenced before he could present a defence.

The "preventative, not punitive" mantra of actions on Wiki should firmly apply here - this sanction prevents no disruption at all, restricts John from editing in the forums where he is of best use to the project and has been very useful over a long period of time, and has simply had a chilling effect for good-faith contributors in what it communicates: if they do anything at all, ArbCom could come back 6 months or a year later, rewrite the rules (which is perfectly OK in and of itself - they needed to be rewritten) and unfairly restrict the user for no better reason than that somebody names them on an evidence page and provides a few diffs out-of-context. Of all the sanctions imposed in the case, this one (identical to that given to editors in the same case who had aggressively edit-warred for months, attacked fellow contributors and wantonly obstructed community processes) genuinely shocked a rather large number of admins and editors.

I urge ArbCom to reconsider this penalty. Orderinchaos 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Rlevse - While I don't wish to undermine any measure to relieve the sanctions on John, is there any serious suggestion that he has edit-warred, or deserves admonishment as against any number of people (eg Lumos3, and *many* others) who failed to be mentioned at all in the case? Orderinchaos 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Added note: I also believe that both the HJensen and Kotniski cases raised earlier, both of which were somewhat left hanging and now have both been archived without conclusion, should be considered in a similar vein - although their cases were slightly different as unlike John they were actual disputants rather than Wikignomes caught in the crossfire, they were not significant disputants and any alleged behaviour stopped well before it became problematic, and sanctions on these two users serve no clear preventative purpose and impede them in assisting the project productively. Orderinchaos 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sarah
I was shocked to see John added to this case, so I spent many hours reading through this case and the related diffs, evidence etc and I find the findings and remedies against him alarming and I urge, as strongly as I possibly can, the committee to reconsider their decision in respect to this user. I have known John and worked with him since before either of us became administrators and he is a user for whom I have an immense amount of personal and editorial respect. I believe John made all edits in good faith and with the best of intentions and not as a participant in any kind of ideological dispute or edit war and I find the evidence of "edit warring" unconvincing at best and insufficient to even justify his inclusion in this case over many other people who have made similar edits in the past. Let's be honest, those edits would not be sufficient to justify a charge of "edit warring" against an editor on the noticeboards or anywhere else on the project. While I'm sure this decision was written carefully and with the best of intentions, the reality is it is punitive, unnecessary and profoundly unfair and overly harsh, and this is the case above all others that has turned me into a fierce critic of this committee. It also happens to be a case that could easily be brought against many of us, and I'd wager a lot more than just one administrator or arbitrator would be vulnerable to a retrospective cherry-picking of their edits months, years after the fact in an evolving culture. This is why this decision is so alarming and it leaves a chilling effect as editors have good reason to fear edits made in good faith may be censured retrospectively months, possibly even years later and bring them into disrepute in the eyes of the committee. As an established editor and administrator who has never previously been blocked, cautioned, reprimanded, or sanctioned, John deserves to be treated better and not to be branded as an "arbcom restricted user" because of some strangely overly broad casting of fishing nets. This isn't protective or preventative in any constructive sense; it's damaging the project as we lose an experienced, intelligent, educated and well-meaning editor and administrator. As others have said, John is the kind of editor we need more of around here, not the kind we want to drive away. I urge the committee to rescind all findings and remedies against John and allow him to return to us as an unrestricted user in good standing. Sarah 04:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dabomb87
I largely echo the comments above. Like most people, I was surprised when I saw John included in the list of "victims". Compared to the "evidence" collected for the original parties of the case, the evidence for John is sparse and very suspect. That he should receive the same degree of punishment (because that's what it is) as me is a travesty. According to our blocking policy, blocks should only be used when the editor's disruptive behavior is "persistent", or "lesser measures are inadequate". I see no evidence that John was persistently disruptive or that lesser measures, such as an admonishment, would have not sufficed. Compared to the original parties, John's participation in the date linking discussions was much less, and he was probably not aware that the issue was so controversial and had spawned so much ill will and disruptive editing. An admonishment would do much to remind him to make sure his edits follow consensus (and it could be argued that they did, although it was hotly disputed at the time). Instead, the Committee assumed that he had made like the others and was disruptive, slapping him with a 12-month restriction. Now, the Committee may not think that the restriction is much, but when WikiGnoming and copy-editing (I dabble in both), it is quite absurd to not be able to correct others' good faith edits (superior word choice, sentence structure, MOS issues that have clear consensus). The Committee has the power to do as they wish, and should know that the chance of retaining an excellent editor and administrator is at hand. I will remind them that while good users are not indispensable, they are certainly not inexhaustible. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz
A kindly reminder from a recused clerk that if an arb is even considering an amendment, it is best to post the motion as soon as they think of it. Many of the these threads go stale because the arbs keep saying they want to do something, but no one ever posts a motion, or by the time they post a motion all of the other arbs have read the thread and don't come back to vote. Just a suggestion to NYB that you get a motion on the ground as soon as you know what general thing you are contemplating as a change.  MBisanz  talk 15:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HWV258
Agree that the restrictions are unduly unfair towards John. A handful of reverts and no history should not have landed John with the same restrictions as applied to someone such as Tennis Expert who made over 750 reverts and had a related block at the time. I believe that even admonishment is over-the-top in this case.  HWV258  01:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius
My own transgressions should not disallow me from making yet another impassioned (yet reasoned) plea on behalf of John, who as seen from the statements already posted, is a dedicated editor with an unblemished record. There are elements in this case where justice has not been done, and/or has not been seen to be done. John's case is perhaps one of the most obvious travesties of justice (I would mention en passant that I believe the admonition of TheRamblingMan would also fall into that category). We all agree this has been a long and complicated case, and even Jayvdb admits the inquisitional work was incomplete (reference to the edit warring by Lumos3 which was not even mentioned in the judgement). Based on that, and on my own observations, other instances of reverts or deliberate re-linking of dates also escaped detection. I am not saying that Lumos and others should have been hauled in and sanctioned, but rather that Arbcom should have remained focussed, instead of trying to be exhaustive.

The restrictions placed on John are out of proportion to others whose disruptive behaviour was manifestly deliberate and of a scale several orders of magnitude beyond those of John. I feel that any accusations that he had not acted in good faith (and edit warred) were rather tenuous. His handful of alleged tag-team edit-warring, if applied to ordinary everyday situations, are completely within the realms of reasonable editing behaviour, and yet he is suffering because of some arbitrary decision to include him after he was found, completely by accident (per Jayvdb), to have delinked a few articles more than once. The remedy does nothing to prevent future disruption, yet gives further opportunity for wikilawyering by editors who may be in dispute with John, for whatever reason. It would place him at a great risk of blocking although there is nothing in his dealing with others which would suggest he has disruptive or tendentious editing traits. Most importantly, as John stated above, he was not given adequate time to defend himself - the late motion to impose remedies on him left him little time to prepare his defence before Arbs voted. The decision against John should be quashed, and John's name cleared. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. HJensen's appeal deserves to be considered favourably too. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
Now that the heat of the case has dissipated, I believe sufficient time has elapsed to review the sanction placed on John. I would ask arbitrators to judge whether the sanction is commensurate with the offence. Please consider in particular the comments linked here. I stand by my view that, through his wikignoming, he was caught up in a dispute that he was never part of. His only offence was to revisit a very small number of articles and perform the same cleaning-up that had been blindly reverted. He has accepted that, and has apologised for it. I can understand the ArbCom's desire to modify behaviour, but in this case, I do not agree that the sanction against John is helpful: the stress of this case will have surely made its point already, and a continuing sanction does nothing but embitter a valued, productive editor and admin. I can also understand ArbCom's intention to reduce the tension over date-delinking, by placing preventive restrictions on the parties: my view is that John was not a party, but a victim of the collateral damage this conflict caused, and sanctions on him in no way further that intention. I urge arbitrators to now reconsider the value of this sanction, and to vacate the restriction placed upon John. --RexxS (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to PMAnderson: I believe you are mistaken. In each of those three articles, prior to OhC's edits there was a mixture of dmy and mdy. He did not change the entire format wholescale as the dmy dates there were untouched. I agree he has almost certainly chosen the wrong format to regularise to, and you are entitled to point that out. If, on the other hand, you are complaining about editors who are amending articles with a mixture of dmy and mdy to a single format, then please make that clear. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Greg L
What ArbCom did here with John isn’t just. He was never once blocked with even a three-hour warning block for incivility towards other editors involved in date-linking debate. He wasn’t once blocked for edit-warring or sock puppetry or any malfeasance during the course of that debate.

It is not right that ArbCom later goes in and uses a far more critical litmus test for determining who is good editor and who is a bad editor that “Wikipedia needs protection from” than was ever required of editors during the debate. Such ArbCom actions have a chilling effect, is harmful to the mood of the community, and lessens respect for Wikipedia’s institutions. ArbCom’s actions are seen as tantamount to the “nanny squad” going to a construction site where a high-rise is being built and saying “oh my goodness, that construction worker over there said ‘damned’ on two occasions while trying to get a beam to fit into place.”

If administrators didn’t once step in to protect Wikipedia from bad-ol’ John, then perhaps Jimbo, ArbCom, and the Bureaucrats need to huddle and think about how to modify the behavior of administrators so they start enforcing the standard of conduct ArbCom thinks is befitting Wikipedia. It is simply not right that there be two standards: what passes for months or years with administrators, and what ArbCom thinks is right using their 50-power retrospectoscope when reviewing months-old, cherry-picked “evidence” slung about by one’s adversaries. This is no way for any organization to run. Greg L (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Colonies Chris
Of the many bad outcomes from the whole date delinking case, this was the worst. It simply looks as though ArbCom were determined to punish everyone however distantly involved in the dispute, without bothering to make any discrimination. ArbCom has a choice here - they can embitter and drive away valuable editors with years of conflict-free work behind them, or they can regain some respect by addressing this appeal sympathetically (and also HJensen's, whose appeal appears to be languishing in limbo). Colonies Chris (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis (PMAnderson)
I have no personal comment on this proposal. I do recall some discussion on this matter suggesting that John was more involved in this quarrel than he now admits, but I cannot find it.


 * If WP:ARBDATE is going to be amended, I would suggest the narrow wording: the restricted editors are not to discuss the linking of dates or (perhaps, as another wording) the formatting of dates. As Ohconfucius' persistent question makes clear, the broader and vaguer language may not make this decision easier to enforce.

(Would some Arbitrator please comment on his question, asked here and, originally, here: were these restrictions ever intended to apply to the Naming Conventions?)

I would also appreciate consideration of the following limitations:
 * That editors should not willfully distort other usernames, as in this edit (I say willful to exclude typoes, which this is not). Ohconfucius and GregL have picked up this minor obnoxiousness from Tony, who seems to have reformed.
 * A restriction on changing format in dates between "July 17, 2009" and "17 July 2009". This is most of what some editors have been doing in article space; it was the only merit of date autoformatting that it squelched this sort of thing, which is as silly as the yogurt/yoghurt war. MOS expressly disapproves such changes between permitted formats (with a narrow and reasonable exception for strong national ties; Gordon Brown should be formatted in the present British system, and Barack Obama in the American).


 * I have listed three undesirable edits below, from a large collection; I have reverted a couple others, which seemed to me unusually bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich of Russia (1856–1929)
 * Nicholas Alexandrovich, Tsarevich of Russia
 * Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia


 * You dramatically referred to one of my edits as 'date warring'. On such an occasion, I am not afraid of repeating myself: I would point out that my primary mission with those particular edits of mine, as has been for some months now, has been the alignment of dates within articles. Someone has drawn my attention to the fact that I may have chosen the wrong date format to unify to. I would say that the choice of format was inadvertent, as I did not bother checking the earliest version. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because it is; you changed the entire format wholesale from one style to another. See the jguk case for ArbCom's opinion of this practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the process of finding this link, I find that WP:MOS is (again? still? does it matter?) protected for revert-warring, although it was unprotected when ARBDATE closed. Now that the Macedonia disaster has been dealt with, it is the worst snake-pit on Wikipedia. ArbCom may wish to consider much the same remedy: empower a few uninvolved admins to ask of each provision "Is there any consensus for this? Does it in any way serve the encyclopedia?", which would include "Is this what English actually does?" I have doubted for some time that most of MOS would pass either test, but let neutral admins find out.


 * The most impressive piece of evidence for this is this curious comment, in which one editor shows that he supports one style of punctuation in order to get back at the liberal arts professors who downgraded him for using the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How do any of these points relate to John's request for relief? If you wish the general case amended, open your own proposal under its own heading to do it. Orderinchaos 05:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, the first sentence does; there was discussion of John's deeper involvement, even if I don't care enough to find it. I have extended to other suggestions because NYBrad suggested that I make such points on this page, rather than his talkpage; NYBrad is considering a proposal for sweeping revisions, which would also relieve John, but should have community input; and the last thing the arbitration pages need is another locus for discussion of the date-delinking case (Ohconfucius's unnumbered one makes how many (six, I think?) already, and his went unobserved for days). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I got the impression (although NYB is free to correct me) that re "sweeping revisions" he meant with regards to the individual remedies on a number of users. That would be fair, given some of the users were not terribly culpable (or in John's case, really culpable at all). One can leave the principles unchanged while varying the specific findings of fact and remedies; any change to the principles or on generally applicable FoFs or remedies would need to be considered on its own merits, hence my suggestion of opening a new heading to address it. Orderinchaos 16:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He asked for ideas. The second paragraph here, which I will make a bullet-point, would seem a reasonable restriction for several editors (including Ohconfucius and myself). If he doesn't want a broader proposal, that's up to him; I will consider whether to make it myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that PMA continues to edit the Naming convention guidelines in recent days: 1, 2, 3, 4, and pending clarification evident from Arbcom, I would ask him to desist. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ArbCom has clarified, and Ohconfucius' request at AE has been archived until he restored it himself. If this harassment continues, I shall consider whether an amendment request of my own is called for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Earle Martin
The arbitrary and vindictive nature of some of the punishments handed out by the members of the Arbcom in this case (with the notable exception of Newyorkbrad) have greatly reduced my respect for them as an institution. The treatment of John is a case in point. In this case, I can only concur with every single statement made above. -- Earle [t/c] 15:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski
What Earle said.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim
I couldn't believe it when I saw that ruling. The ruling was arbitrary. Essentially the message is that if anyone performs a couple of edits with one theme, then maybe a few years and a score or so thousands edits down the line if a related theme gets heard by ArbCom and your edits are spotted, you can have your name blackened and your editing restricted. How much sense does that message make? ArbCom is here to solve intractable disputes, not to seize on any opportunity presenting itself to tarnish the reputation and editing ability of good users. How exactly does this ruling help solve an intractable dispute? The ruling in question has done ArbCom's credibility a lot of damage btw, you should use this appeal as an opportunity to fix your mistake. I hope you do, though honestly I'm not that optimistic. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1
Per RexxS. Tony  (talk)  11:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Heimstern
OK, it's well past "the beginning of next week", as it was at the time NYB wrote that. Could we have some, like, votes? Like, enough to settle this matter? I don't see why in the week since this motion has been open we've had only three arbs get around to voting. There appears to me to be strong community opposition to the restrictions on John, and yet the committee as a whole is dragging its feet and giving neither yea nor nay. This is exactly the sort of thing that causes negativity toward the committee in the community. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recused  MBisanz  talk 12:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Passes, please put motion into effect, archive, notify, etc. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting further statements. However, at present I believe that our decision was much too harsh with respect to this user, and my preliminary view is that I would grant the application. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would any other editors with comments please submit them within 48 hours (i.e. by Friday evening UTC), after which I will decide whether to offer a motion. The motion, if offered, may or may not apply more broadly than to this individual appellant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By way of update, I've received a request to wait until early next week before proposing anything, as someone who wants to contribute to the discussion has limited availability until then. I will accede to that request, and therefore, anyone with comments should try to provide them by then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur, motion below. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Noting that I'm aware of this thread and the motion but awaiting further comments per Newyorkbrad's explanation. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting here my recusal in the motion below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1
The ruling restricting User:John, Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking, is vacated and replaced with " is admonished for edit-warring to remove the linking of dates."


 * There are 12 active arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.


 * Support
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough (the 12 month restriction was overkill) Wizardman  16:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I had planned to comment further and possibly to offer additional motions, but have spent more time than I expected tonight on other items on this page, so that will follow tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This motion is carried. I will offer an additional motion over the weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the original restriction was that harsh, but there is a good argument of lightening it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Coren. As written, I will accept this as an substitute. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse
 * Carrying over here my recuse from the original case, so as not to affect the voting (merely saying nothing would count as an oppose). Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As much of the appeal is directed against myself. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)