Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 31

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (3) (August 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 am asking for clarification regarding my conduct probation and other restrictions, if they apply to what I am asking.

I am currently in a dispute with Ryulong and JPG-GR (listed above) about whether I should put another Power Rangers article for deletion for verification reasons. Both have stated that they want me topic-banned should I put another article up for deletion based on my decision. I have stated that I will put another page up for deletion if I don't find reliable sources. If you want the link to the discussion, it is here (note that since it is a permanent link, the discussion may change).

I am asking the Arbitration Committee to clarify whether my conduct probation or other restrictions hold any jurisdiction over my placing of WikiProject Tokusatsu articles up for deletion. Before I again put a page up for deletion, this needs clarification. I wish for a fast response, though I won't force one. Thank you. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Further comment
Just to make the committee aware, I've taken the discussion to ANI: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. And here is the non-permanent link to the discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Xeno
If we took any distance from eachother, that would only get in the way of us working on Power Rangers and tokusatsu articles. We both work on the same articles, and it would not be a good thing if we had to distance ourselves. It would only make things worse, not better, if distance were to happen. Such a distance is a turn for the worse and not a turn for the better, period. Please look at our contributions for evidence that we edit the same articles. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Ryulong
Let me clarify. This is in absolutely no way of an attempt to find a venue to wikilawyer at all. All I did was ask some random questions regarding a proposal of which I do not wish to get myself involved with. Hopefully that settles it. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to FayssalF
So, in other words, am I forbidden from putting these pages up for deletion? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are clearly instructed to produce a guideline within the scope of the Tokusatsu WikiProject instead of filing articles to AfD. For the sake of clarity, I am producing here the remedy again:


 * In other words, failing to work under the direction of the above remedy while persisting in putting pages up for deletion would be understood as disruption and a complete disregard of the remedy —which would warrant you a block. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So, from what you're saying, until me and WikiProject Tokusatsu produce a guideline, I am indeed forbidden from making further AfDs falling under it, correct? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion discussion
"Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the WP:RS, WP:V or WP:TOKU talk pages;" - Could you please clarify this? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You got no more than 3 pages where you can discuss how to improve Wikipedia in terms of the cited guideline and policy. Please note that you are not allowed to discuss them in AfD pages as my colleague arbitrator Carcharoth may have probably implied. He is free to change his vote if he voted based on my non-explicit term or if he believes differently. Discussing these policies and guidelines at AfD would be contradictory to the spirit of the motion and to what is meant to achieve; you produce collaboratively something positive (which is a guideline in this case) before being allowed to use the AfD. I'll make this explicit in the motion. Now, this may not seem very relevant but it still an important thing to note... all policies and guidelines have been established collaboratively by hundreds of editors with only a tiny few trying to impose their views unsuccessfully.--  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess, with that statement, I will be prohibited from making edits like these following the motion. Is that correct? — Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer has been yes since the closure of the ArbCom case and remains a yes until ArbCom sees a produced guideline which specifies when and how edits like that would be possible. Now, could be the last time answering this question please? --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 19:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I didn't honestly think it was a "yes" since the closure of the case. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, does this motion have anything to do with the conduct probation or are these restrictions that are unrelated? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything in the motion is related to the conduct probation; you have failed the first test. We are not complicating matters... everything is related to the original case and its remedies. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"The AfD restriction is indefinite pending the production of a guideline. Mythdon should respect the terms of the guideline once it is produced;" - I know I'm the only editor explicitly mentioned, but does this apply to the other participants pending the production, or just me? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Answering this would be moot as you are just saying below that you are quitting the WikiProject.
 * A hint for what is worth: No other editor has threatened to mass AfD articles and pursue any kind of a scheduled campaign. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I stated that I will probably quit. I am not 100% sure yet. It's just a plan. It's not in effect yet. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Therefore and as a preventive measure, restrictions apply to all WikiProjects" - Does this change the whole conduct probation to apply to every single Wikipedia article? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Plans
I have made plans to quit WikiProject Tokusatsu due to too much drama. What does the Arbitration Committee think? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is your decision. However, make sure that similar behavior in any other WikiProject would be dealt with similarly. I also have to make sure this is explicit. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not 100% sure yet though. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not resigning. So, please strike out or reword "in the light of Mythdon's resignation from the WikiProject". — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * However, instead of un-striking my user name, I have removed my name from the list. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not playing here! This is ArbCom. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC plans
For the first time ever, I'm actually thinking about filing an RfC on myself, though I don't know how to do so for self-RfC's. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusions are that I will not based on recent thinking. I might start an editor review. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD list
Here is a list of Power Rangers AfD's I started in 2008 and 2009, and here are the results: Most of the AfD's result in the articles getting deleted, but also many were kept. What do you think? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Power Rangers episodes (Result; keep )
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (Result; keep )
 * 3) Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers planets (Result; delete )
 * 4) Articles for deletion/Dark Rangers (Result; delete )
 * 5) Articles for deletion/Power Rangers foot soldiers (Result; delete )
 * 6) Articles for deletion/Ninja Quest (Result; redirect )
 * 7) Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers monsters (2nd nomination) (Result; delete )
 * 8) Articles for deletion/Marah and Kapri (Result; delete )
 * 9) Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (2nd nomination) (Result; keep )
 * 10) Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers cast members (Result; keep / merge )
 * 11) Articles for deletion/List of minor Power Rangers characters (Result; keep )
 * 12) Articles for deletion/Lost and Found in Translation (Result; redirect )
 * 13) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force (Result; delete )
 * 14) Articles for deletion/Power Chamber (Result; keep )
 * 15) Articles for deletion/Sky Tate (Result; delete )
 * 16) Articles for deletion/List of Morphers in Power Rangers (Result; delete )
 * 17) Articles for deletion/Green with Evil (Result; delete )
 * 18) Articles for deletion/King Mondo (Result; keep )
 * This list has been noted while drafting the motion. It bears no big significance since the problem is behavioral. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Without regard to the results? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ArbCom has nothing to do with content. We surely work for the benefit of the encyclopedia but I must be frank with you here. These set of articles are not BLP, science, politics or religious, etc articles. So probably behavior is much more important here as an aspect. You can easily present other articles to AfD once your behavior gets better after working hard on a guideline. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 19:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've decided not to produce a guideline. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing changes then. All restrictions remain in place indefinitely per the motion below. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 01:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Including everything that was for up to a year? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are showing a total disrespect to ArbCom's decisions and people's views so why should ArbCom trust you'd change your behavior and change the terms of teh restrictions? Working on a guideline could be your opportunity to show us that you are here to collaborate and get rid of your radical behavior (you are right and therefore you are going to do this and that according to your principles kicking all other people's ideas against the wall). Well, ArbCom has decided that it won't change anything whatsoever. All restrictions remain as they are with the AfD restriction indefinitely. Ok, now we've got other important things to solve. Your case is over. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 02:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be back to request other clarifications shortly. This clarification thing isn't over yet. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there would be no "others". You must prepare a list of all your questions and ask for a clarification once or we'd be obliged to ignore your requests and consider them disruptive and block your account. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 02:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I'll prepare a list of other questions by the end of the today. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Further requests
Just to get the Arbitration Committee prepared, I will be requesting further clarifications of the remedies after this request is closed. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mythdon admonished"
Regarding this remedy.

In regards to "should Mythdon engage in any harassing behaviour on or off wiki, which includes attempting to seek Ryulong's identity on or off wiki, or attempting to contact Ryulong off-wiki" - Does this mean "limited only to" or "including but not limited to"?—Does it only apply to those explicitly mentioned harassing behaviors, or is it extended to harassment such as not leaving someone alone when they ask you to, threatening, stalking, etc? Minus the identity seeking, is it limited or not limited to Ryulong? Also, does it include trying to find out whether or not a Wikipedia user has a Youtube account, or other off-wiki internet account?
 * It is absolute. No off-wiki contact with Ryulong and no off and on-wiki seeking Ryulong's identity. Any attempt to try to link a Wiki user to an off-wiki person (and vice-versa) should be considered as harassment and people attempting it get sanctioned. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to "then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions." - Will these sanctions be made through a motion by ArbCom or will it be an administrators discretionary sanction?
 * No need for motions for admins to sanction violations of ArbCom case's ruling and motions applied to you. Enforcing administrators do not need to consult us except for very exceptional cases depending on their discretion. Don't forget that ArbCom members can also act as enforcing administrators themselves depending on their discretion. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And, about "attempting to contact Ryulong off-wiki" again - Does this forbid me from responding to off-wiki contact from Ryulong? Is he prohibited from contacting me off-wiki persuant to this remedy? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is hypothetical since there has been no evidence of Ryulong contacting you off-wiki. If he does, don't respond but report it to us so we can pass a motion. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What "motion"? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A new one. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ryulong admonished"
In regards to "for contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions." - Does this forbid him from seeking blocks on editors he is in dispute with, whether he is seeking it on/off-wiki?
 * This is none of your business. He's the one concerned by this and if he got any doubt he could ask it himself. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to "any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." - While I do understand that there is already an enforcement, what sanctions will be placed on him should they occur again? Has this sanction already been chosen, or will this sanction be chosen based on the evidence?
 * This is none of your business. He's the one concerned by this and if he got any doubt he could ask it himself. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to "identifying personal information of Wikipedia users" - What does this mean? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It means what it means. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mythdon strongly urged"
In regards to "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;" - Will this just be done once, or shall I do this on a regular basis?
 * The idea is to get you used to flexibility and accepting other people's input while working for consensus. You cannot achieve that with a single post. The other idea is to get you work hard to establish a guideline with others. Therefore, you are urged to discuss, discuss and discuss it (not 3 or n times literally). You do it until you get positive results that would benefit the project. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to "to enhance his level of communication with editors." - What does this mean? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It concerns mainly the volume of questions you are asking people. You are urged to reduce that volume because people who ask over and over the same questions need to enhance their level of communication in order for them to be able to cope with the level needed for editing collaboratively in Wikipedia. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Conduct probation"
And finally:

In regards to the "edit warring" - Is this a zero-revert-rule, a one-revert-rule, or will administrators block based on their discretion (i.e. block if they think it is preventative)?
 * I am not going to prejudge administrators' discretion but reverting is bad and frowned upon. It would be a sign that you've not learned lessons or that you just here to disrupt and disregard the spirit of the ArbCom's rulings. It is up to you to test the waters. Nothing is guaranteed. Remember that also arbitrators can wear the admin hat and act upon it themselves so please don't discount that option. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, do administrators have the power to place revert restriction on me (i.e. [number]-revert-rule)?

In regards to "Ryulong" - Do administrators have the power to restrict me from commenting on or to Ryulong should my conduct towards the user be considered inappropriate?
 * Absolutely... refer to General sanctions. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to "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." - What does this mean? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It means that Ryulong cannot just run to administrators and complain/ask for your block and have administrators blocking you on the spot. That is part of a restriction imposed on him due to the finding of facts reviewed during the arbitration case. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Will the probation be paused or restarted during/after each block or topic ban? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Probation can be restarted as we do usually reset blocks. I've never heard of a pause. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If I were to take a break, would the probation be paused? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. We don't pay for holidays. Take your break whenever you want; the probation period would remain active without a pause. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But if it were a year or longer, then would it be paused? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are planning to go for a wikibreak for 10 years and come back with the same behavior then let me assure to you that you'll be blocked on spot and if you'd encounter me at that time I'd block you for the same period of that break. So, think about that. Don't go for a break to avoid the probation. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do administrators have the authorization to extend the duration of this probation? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just answered your question above saying that administrators have all the powers. Read it before asking! I am not going to clutter this page anymore by providing the same link again. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 16:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Therefore and as a preventive measure, restrictions apply to all WikiProjects;" - Does this change the coverage of the whole probation to cover all WikiProjects? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Look Mythdon. a) I asked you yesterday to prepare a list of all questions at once. You are not respecting it now. b) the answer to this question is just there before it... plain and crystal clear. This is like asking if "yes" really means "yes". Now, you stop asking please or I'll block you for disruption. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 16:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong
Placing a topic ban on an editor is up to the community and has absolutely nothing to do with any editing restrictions placed on Mythdon by the arbitration committee. This is just wikilawyering by Mythdon to avoid the inevitable discussion concerning his editing practices by other users in WP:TOKU.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statements like this by Mythdon show that he is not willing to abide by the arbitration restrictions/suggestions/whichever. He has shown no headway in communicating with WP:TOKU or sister projects or the village pump in working constructively with other users. He has flatly stated that he will send pages to AFD without discussing things with other users, and his comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu show that he was never willing to work with the WikiProject, flatly ignoring mine and JPG-GR's requests that he not act in the way he plans.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, this shows he is not here to work collaboratively.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And this is an example of Mythdon's attempt at finding a new venue for his wikilawyering.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that I wasn't exactly helpful at the later points in the "Search soon to begin" discussion. And how else will further issues be solved without my own input when people only get one part of the issue.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)  originally posted here. Moved here by John Vandenberg (chat) 05:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should I not be able to converse directly with him when he brings up things that he's going to do to the articles? Or respond to his accusations in the wider forum of ANI?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk
The ongoing AN/I discussion is instructive for arbs as to the problem at hand. The general dispute should be resolved by the community but the specific clarification remains a live issue. Does the past case prevent myth's current behavior (as described in the linked thread)? Protonk (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hersfold
The committee issued two findings of fact ("Mythdon's interpretation of policies and guidelines" and "Mythdon stance toward the articles" immediately after) and a remedy ("Mythdon strongly urged") in this case that seem to deal directly with this. In them, it is noted that his interpretation of the verifiability guidelines in this respect is overly strict and at times disruptive. In the discussion Mythdon has linked, he has unilaterally stated that he will be nominating a wide swath of articles for deletion if he can't find sources (which all other three users involved in that discussion have stated he cannot be trusted to do). Mythdon has (as is usual with him) flatly refused to accept any of the suggestions or pointers offered to him in that discussion, and stated that "Requesting deletion at AfD is gaining consensus", which appears to be a direct contradiction to the remedy I mentioned earlier.

Furthermore, I'd note that this is the third request for clarification brought forth to ArbCom by Mythdon, all of which have been characterized by wikilawyering by Mythdon. This is becoming very tedious that every week we have to go through all of this again because Mythdon has felt he's found another loophole through which he can continue his disruptive editing. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno
I recently attended to an unblock request by Ryulong. It was for a stale AN3 report (ended 07:15 in agreement, reported 19:27), which Mythdon reported at ANI 19:41, later attempting to have the blocking administrator increase the length  See also an earlier conversation between Mythdon and the filing party earlier that day  as well as ,. The parent thread to Mythdon's had already run its course on the matter and ended at 08:24.

I haven't reviewed the case in full, but it seems to me that these two editors could each benefit from added distance between them.

(FYI, I conferred with the blocking admin via email and unblocked Ryulong and his dispute partner.) – xeno talk  00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note by Ncmvocalist
I've proposed a restriction on Mythdon at the ANI discussion; if it's imposed, it can be imposed either under the conduct probation from the decision, or as a community sanction. This is more of a courtesy notice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Recused... again... although commenting above. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Request: Could clerks/Arbitrators CE the motion below so it points to requests for enforcement?--Tznkai (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did this help? Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mythdon, you have been asked —among others— to "work on producing a genuine guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the WikiProject Tokusatsu. Project's participants [are] urged to work in collaboration with [you] while seeking outside advice and help." Instead of working on it you've been getting back to your tendentious ways and the behavior which brought you to ArbCom in the first place. Failing to abide by the cited remedy I'd be considering further requests for clarification or mass AfDs as a highly disruptive tactic from your part. This is the last warning ever from my part. I hope this clarifies and answers your request up here. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 16:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also recused. Risker (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is little to add to FayssalF's comment, save perhaps that he is being gentle. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Coren and FayssalF.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mythdon, I am going to be as plain as possible. As part of the remedies pertaining to you - "This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills." Right now you are skating on thin ice. Writing large amounts of material at AN/I and pointedly nominating material will result in conflictual situations very quickly. The ability to edit collaboratively is a prerequisite to editing at wikipedia. If you are unable to do that, and you are seen to play a part in furthering conflicts, admins do have the ability to block you as per the remedy. Spending time at AfD is often highly confrontational. If you wish to risk getting into conflict there so be it, but if an uninvolved admin views your role as disruptive there or anywhere else, you have been warned. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mythdon, because a mentor was not found or wanted, the conduct probation allows for discretionary sanctions to be devised by uninvolved administrators. As a result, any disruptive conduct by you may result in sanctions of any sort.  There is no need for clarification from us at this time; come back when an administrator does impose a restriction, and we may review its appropriateness. You are urged to work collaboratively, and avoid generating hostility.  Nominating many articles for deletion would not be unhelpful.  Saying "My decision is firm, and will remain the same. I will nominate these pages for deletion if no reliable or relevant source can be found, period. No questions asked." is not appropriate in light of Arbcom decision. Ryulong, you should be avoiding participation in any discussions calling for sanctions against Mythdon.  Your extensive involvement in the second half of  this discussion is not helpful, as you are escalating the issue rather than trying to look for solutions other than having Mythdon banned. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, you seemed to be very quick to give your input about Mythdon. If I were you, I would never comment in direct reply to Mythdon unless nobody else has done so for 2 hours.  Only then would you know whether the community actually "needs" your input or not.  However irrespective of whether your input is needed, it is not wanted on threads about Mythdon sanctions. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion
Pursuant to the latest developments related to the recent Arbitration case involving Mythdon and Ryulong and discussions on the Arbitration Committee mailing list, the Arbitration Committee has noted that there has been no changes in the behavior of Mythdon since the closure of the Arbitration case:


 * a) the user has made no effort whatsoever to find a mentor;


 * b) the user has made no effort whatsoever to engage himself in serious discussions to produce a guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the Tokusatsu WikiProject as directed by this remedy;


 * c) the user has targetted another Wikipedia area to impose his stance on verifiability disregarding the ArbCom's view concerning his stance on the matter;


 * d) He recently threatened to mass AfD articles which do not satisfy his standards in terms of reliable sources and verifiability;

Therefore, the Committee has decided to extend the restrictions imposed in order to facilitate more collaboration in the field of conflict and to ensure the smooth running of the project in general and protect other areas in particular. The terms are as follows:


 * a) Mythdon is prohibited from partcipating at any Articles for Deletion discussion which involves verifiability and reliable sources. That includes —and is not limited to— the WikiProject Tokusatsu. The restriction is indefinite pending the production of a guideline. Mythdon —as well as everyone else— should respect the terms of the guideline once it is produced;


 * b) Mythdon is reminded of the importance of participating in a good faith effort to help produce a genuine guideline for the cited WikiProject, including but not limited to verifiability. He is again urged to start working on this guideline;


 * b) Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the talk pages of those guidelines and policies, or at the Tokusatsu WikiProject talk pages;


 * d) all other restrictions imposed during the arbitration case involving him remain in place;


 * e) in the light of Mythdon's resignation from the WikiProject, the ArbCom notes that any similar behavior which had led to this situation would be dealt with similarly. Therefore and as a preventive measure, restrictions apply to all WikiProjects;


 * e) should Mythdon violate the above restrictions, any administrator may block him for a period up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. Any discussion about possible violations should be held at requests for arbitration enforcement;


 * f) any further request on this matter should go through requests for arbitration enforcement beforehand. Administrators there are able to help answer any question.

Once the motion passes, Clerks will update the original ArbCom case accordingly.


 * Support
 * This matter is closed for me. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 13:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Fayssal.  Roger Davies  talk 15:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to leave this to uninvolved administrators, who would have imposed discretionary sanctions only after other approaches had failed, however Mythdon is persisting to seek a committee decision on hypothetical situations that he should obviously be avoiding; as a result he needs to be prevented from causing those hypothetical situations. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting here that Mythdon is not restricted from participating in AfDs, only from starting them. Threatening mass AfDs should not be done without good reason. Working to establish guidelines in a particular area is nearly always better, and less disruptive, than any mass deletion nomination or action. I've also copyedited the motion. Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Striking vote following change to the motion made here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, this has clearly become needed.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 16:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I think some form of increased restrictions are needed, but this goes too far. Mythdon may not be the right person to be raising these issues, but he is not alone in raising them. See, , , and the dissenting opinions at this DRV (still in progress, permalink to page at time of writing provided), In short, I would have, and did, support the restriction on nominating articles at AfD. But I can't support a complete ban on participating at AfD  (or indeed DRV). It is important that areas like AfD remain as open as possible, and not subject to "opponents" in a debate being banned from participating at AfD. The consensus at AfDs should be based on all available input, not restricted in this manner. We should trust admins to discount those opinions that fall a long way outside policies, and not ban minority opinions. There are many at AfD who do argue from places a long way outside policy - we are not proposing to ban those editors from AfD. I think the original restrictions suggested by Fayssal (not the later, more restrictive proposal), or the proposal here, would have been adequate. I also agree with John that Mythdon's repeated requests to ArbCom for clarification of hypothetical situations is unhelpful. Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The behavior shown by Mythdon so far is not suitable to be accepted in AfDs. I am certainly not going to let his usual radical stance be transferred from the WikiProject to AfDs. We do ban and block people on a daily basis, let alone restricting inadequate behavior from venues where their presence would be unhelpful. You produce in a collaborative way a guideline and abide by it alongside other colleagues and get the keys. You refuse and pursue radical behavior as if no prior Arbitration case has taken place and you stay out. It is both encouraging the establishment of a guideline and a preventive measure. I am not prepared to see prolems coming from Mythdon again and I am not going to gamble this time. --   FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain

I've updated the motion based on my recent answers to Mythdon's recent questions. I've explicitly. Arbitrators, please review terms a) and e). I've also left a note at the WikiProject talk page. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussions
 * I don't know if I'm allowed to comment down here, but whatever. Don't bother changing anything that regards Mythdon resigning from anything. He's just doing it to garner attention and see if it will prevent him from being restricted. Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tokusatsu.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are certainly allowed per WP:BURO but you are certainly not allowed to call others "drama queens" per WP:NPA. This is your last warning Ryulong. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 01:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not consider "drama queen" a personal attack.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, ArbCom believes it is. Some people may not see it that way and that's why we have ArbCom to say whether it considers it a PA or not. Please avoid it in the future. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  09:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User:The Wurdalak and User:Manhattan Samurai (August 2009)

 * Original discussion

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

Statement by Jayron32

 * The issue here is whether or not The Wurdalak and Manhattan Samurai are the same person or not. There appears to be strong behavioral evidence to link the two, see Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai/Archive, where a May 2nd comment by Nishkid64 indicated that the case was being handled by the Audit Subcommittee.  A further note by RogerDavies at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Wurdalak indicates that ArbCom is involved in this case.  The third account listed above was one that I thought was a clear Manhattan Samurai sock, but was instead linked to The Wurdalak.  I am thoroughly confused by this, and need clarification on the AUSC's/ArbCom's position on the nature of these two accounts.  Are they believed to be the same person or not?  If they are not, what do I need to look for to know the difference between them.  If they are, can we get the Sock categories and SPI reports merged?  Thanks for the clarification on this!  --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama  16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Thatcher and Nishkid below for clarifying this. It appears that there are, according to the CUs, two unrelated scokpuppeteers here which have similar MOs?  Am I reading that right?  If so, thanks for clearing that up.  --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama  06:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then, now that Thatcher has clarified that Wurdalak and MS are different people, I think I need clarification from ArbCom over reblocking Wurdalak. If he just recently used the Urbanus account, then he is in violation of his ArbCom-placed 6-month block.  To any ArbCom/AUSC member patrolling this request: Should we now extend that six-month block back to indefinite for repeat socking while under that 6-month block?  --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama  02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Respond to Rlevse: This is here because there were notes made to both block logs and talk pages that the block was part of an existing or pending AUSC/ArbCom ruling and I came to ask for clarification on that. Also, this HAS gone through SPI, but the SPI case noted the ArbCom involvement so I brought it here to ask for help in sorting out how ArbCom was involved and how to proceed, and for clarification on the intricacies of these two confused cases.  -- Jayron  32  05:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I have reset the block on The Wurdalak for another 6 months. In the future, if I should run across more of his socks, I will know what to do.  This clarification is now  and can probably safely be archived now.  Thanks to Rlevse for helping clarify the appropriate course of action (and buzzing my talk page to remind me to check in).  Toodles.  -- Jayron  32  02:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher
This doesn't really have anything to do with Audit, other than that Roger Davies of the Ban Appeal committee asked for an independent recheck. Last I knew, Wurdalak's block appeal was in the hands of the Ban Appeal subcommittee and I don't know what the disposition was. and (unblocked doppelganger) are not related to Manhattan Samurai on a technical level and appear to be geographically separated, although checkuser can never rule out the possibility of various forms of collusion and coordination from different locations. The technical findings with respect to Urbanus et instructus are consistent with The Wurdalak, but of course the importance of that turns on the outcome of the appeal. Check with the members of the ban appeal subcomittee on this one. Thatcher 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are likely two distinct individuals involved here. The original question was whether Wurdalak should have been blocked as a sockpuppet of Manhattan Samauri.  Since they are geographically distinct, the block question would then turn on an analysis of edits, and whether this is a case of two distinct people coordinating their editing after one of them was blocked for using multiple sockpuppets. However, it appears from Wurdalak's block log that this has already been sorted out by Arbcom's ban appeal subcommittee, . Thatcher 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nishkid64
I based my findings on Thatcher's well-reasoned conclusion that The Wurdalak was not related to Manhattan Samurai. Since The Wurdalak is currently blocked, and will only be unblocked pending the result of his case before the Audit Subcommittee, I decided to block his sockpuppet indefinitely. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Question and comment What arb case is this a part of? If it's not part of an arb case, why is it at clarification instead of SPI?  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I see now. Yes, this should be here. As the new user is ANOTHER Wurdalak sock, I'd reset the 6-month ban to start anew or indef Wurkalak, I'll leave that to the community admins. And yes, Wurdalak and Manhattan Samurai are differnt, but there is a strong chance they are meats. — Rlevse • Talk  • 14:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: On investigation, it turned out that The Wurdalak and Manhattan Samourai were two different people. However, during the investigation The Wurdalak had also socked on his own account (with various permutations of The Wurdalak, plus Duh Elk At War and Duh Wart Lake) so he was banned for six months. If he has socked since, the ban clock needs to be reset (or indeffed, if appropriate).  Roger Davies  talk 01:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Roger's summary here. To Rlevse, it is not clear where sockpuppet bans should be appealed - should the SPI case be re-opened if someone appeals? Who decides that? At the moment, ArbCom do get a fair amount of these sockpuppetry appeals, so we should work with the checkusers to make sure those appeals with merit do not get rejected. This case had some merit, but that was cancelled out by the socking Roger mentions above. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Roger Davies' summary as well. Risker (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * per Roger Davies. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Roger. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  08:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Roger. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for amendment: Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence (August 2009)

 * Original discussion

This page has been deleted for a year, despte Arbcom promisin to deal with it, and undelete it.

You have been promising to deal with the minor issues raised of someone having changed his name from a non-identifying nickname to another non-identifying nickname, and a page that dealt with him being sanctioned or something under the first nickname having been linked.

Since the arbcom recently saw fit to out me to my real name in their amendment to the Matthew Hoffman case, one would think that this minor issue could be dealt with soon, particularly as a different user, Dana Ullman, who was blocked for a year, has recently returned, and the documentation of all the massive problems he caused last time is going to be important in stopping him quickly should he do so again. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, that's a lie. One person linked to my real name - which everyone knows now, since Arbcom revealed it, so there's no point responding. I linked to - I don't know what it was - but a RfC or sockpiuppet report or something under what the person had said was just a nick he was changing because he preferred the other one, and had no reason to think that the old nick was either identifying or meaningful. Please get your facts straight before making accusations. Furthermore, they do not go back to the start, because most of them were oversighted, and, secondly, the user in question only suddenly claimed that linking to problems he had been involved with before was outing after he had gotten blocked for it, which rather makes one think he was just trying to get people in trouble. Furthermnore, the previous request for clarification said it would be undeleted eventually. If that's not the case anymore, ten the situation isn't the same at all, and the arbcom has repeatedly lied when they assured everyone it would be dealt with. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr. Bainer, please stop making an accusation of bad faith on my part which you cannot back, and which I cannot even defend myself from because the page in question, showing the harmlessness of the link that accidentally outed the user in question, is deleted by the Arbcom. This is a partticularly egregious accusation, because you are well aware that the truth of the matter can only be seen by oversighters. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * NYB: Several of the users in question are back, including DanaUllman. Should problems arise, I would much rather be able to point to the evidence I spent hundreds of hours preparing to show his abuse of sources and so on, rather than have to collect all the evidence over again, particularly as the ban was passed without any mention of the evidence that caused it to be passed. Unless Arbcom thinks "DanaUllman has engaged in advocacy of homeopathy on Wikipedia." - the only finding of fact about him - is sufficient without the  dozens of pages of evidence that led to that decision. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To all the arbitrators: I have asked several times that Mr. Bain withdraw his false accusation. As much of the evidence is oversighted, I would appreciate it being made very clear that this was not (or, at least, since you're not me, that there's no evidence that this was) "Tit-for-tat" or intentional outing on my part, while the other side was edit warring to reveal my name shortly after the Matthew Hoffman case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, after being e-mailed the text, I dealt with the issue in two minutes, following the suggestion of Newyorkbrad, which was also that of FloNight and a few others, as I recall, in the past. Delete it if you want, but you've been talking about doing that for 11 months now, and it's ridiculous that you spent that long complaining about how difficult it was, when it took all of two minutes to do. Now, if you'll deal with Stephen Bain's accusation we can all go home. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Scientizzle
I reviewed the deleted page and I think I found the "outing" done by SH to which Stephen Bain refers. If this deleted revision relates to the general basis of Bain's claims, I think the reasons presented for keeping the page deleted are proverbially overstated. The user in question changed his or her name with a public request at Changing username, the previous name is readily apparent in the current ID's usertalk archives, and the third most recent edit in the current userpage history tab is labeled "moved User:X to User:Y: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "X" to "Y"). I can't find a WP:RTV request by the user in question, so are we to assume the "arbcom/otrs email" cited in the deleted revision was a de facto RTV? If so, it was so poorly done as to make the prior ID of this user astonishingly easy to determine and there are a number of pages that should be deleted. If not, why is a set of public information being used to keep the evidence page deleted? Am I missing something more? &mdash; Scientizzle 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested solution by MastCell
I understand that the GFDL issues are prohibitive here. The main concern on SH's part - the reason for this request - is that some parties sanctioned in the case are once again active. Should these parties repeat some of their earlier problematic behavior, it might be useful to have a record of evidence which was compiled for the previous case.

I would suggest that I, or another admin, simply email a copy of the deleted page to SH. The page doesn't need to be restored on-wiki, and an emailed, offline copy would be sufficient in terms of preserving relevant diffs and evidence should further action become necessary. I don't see that emailing the page to SH violates anyone's privacy, since he is already well aware of the account in question's identity, and as Scientizzle points out, the rename was carried out in such a way that it's not exactly hard to put 2 + 2 together if anyone cares.

I will say upfront that I'm not really familiar with the extent of privacy issues in this case. Given that, and the fact that Oversight is involved, I will not proceed with this suggestion or email anything to anyone unless I hear from the Committee that they think this approach is reasonable and respects the privacy of those concerned. MastCell Talk 17:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I should probably note, since SH has posted an emailed copy of the evidence page, that I have not emailed him. I did not consider the discussion by the Arbs below sufficient go-ahead. No opinion on whether or not it should be posted, but I thought I'd make clear that I did not email it. MastCell Talk 22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested solution by Enric Naval
Ahem, I know that someone said that it was a lot of work, but could some nice arb or admin go to the deleted history of Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence and delete the offending paragraphs revisions? It's not just Shoemaker's problem here, it's also that User:DanaUllman's ban has expired and people is commenting at an ANI thread bout his return without the possibility of pointing them to the evidence page so they can see what were the alleged problems.

Also, an oversighter please confirm that the other user (whoever he is) has oversighted edits outing Shoemaker, and please link to the deleted revisions so we people will not say that they don't exist.

Also, please solve this before Shoemaker hurts himself.

Also, consider telling bainer to not open the topic anymore. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: (in reference to Carcharoth's comment) Well, let's make an author list then. Anyways, editors could only edit under their own section so it's trivial to identify what part they wrote. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * I've retitled this from Request to finally do what you've been promising to do for an entire year: Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence (which is a little too long). AGK 21:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Nothing has changed since the prior request for clarification. Two users - one of whom was yourself, Shoemaker's Holiday - were engaged in outing each other on the evidence page, going back to some of the earliest revisions. As MBisanz said in his comment during the last request, even putting GFDL issues aside, it's not feasible to reconstruct a coherent version of the page. There are only two findings of fact in the case, neither of which suffer egregiously from the evidence page being deleted (the statements, along with article talk pages, largely cover it), so there is no benefit to be gained substantial enough to justify expending many hours of volunteer time on such a task. --bainer (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, arbitration pages are at most courtesy-blanked rather than deleted, but if there is a need for deletion of this page, I don't see how the deletion is causing any specific ongoing harm, so I would urge the requesting party to be more specific if he wishes to pursue this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * MastCell's suggestion might be one possible solution here; another is that any administrators who might need to address issues for the returned editors can simply be pointed to the page and check the deleted revisions (I know that is not perfect, as non-admins couldn't access it, but it still seems reasonable to me so far). I will add, though, that if someone wanted to restore a redacted current version, I don't see any GFDL concern, because all the posts on an evidence page are labelled with the proposer's name anyway, so that's not an issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting here that of the current 14 arbitrators, 10 were not arbitrators in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday, when you file amendment requests to old cases, and comment on the promises or actions of past ArbComs, please bear that in mind. My view is that the evidence should be available, if some way can be found to remove what needs to be removed. Like Newyorkbrad, I don't see the GFDL concern as prohibitive. Constructing an author list is possible in this case, and this is in any case an internal page, not intended for publication. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This request has gone stale and the evidence page seems to have been restored. Unless anyone wants to raise new points here, I suggest this request be archived and any further points or objections be raised in a new request. Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Risker (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (August 2009)

 * Original discussion


 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy "Ryulong admonished"
 * 2) Enforcement "Ryulong and users' identity seeking"


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * (Ryulong)

Amendment 1

 * "Ryulong admonished" (term A)
 * From the current wording: "(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from seeking Mythdon's identity off-wiki, identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt to seek Mythdon's identity off wiki or in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;"
 * Modifying to "(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;""

Amendment 2

 * "Ryulong and users' identity seeking"
 * That this enforcement be terminated.

Statement by Mythdon
I am requesting an amendment to "Ryulong admonished" and the enforcement "Ryulong and users' identity seeking".

Taking a good look at the findings and evidence, there is no finding or evidence that Ryulong was seeking any users identity. Finding "Ryulong discussing the identity of Mythdon" makes no mention of identity seeking, but mentions identity discussion, if anything.

I think it is totally unjust to make a remedy on something that isn't found to had been going on—Trying to solve what is not happening. This is one of those cases. Was there a finding or any actual evidence that Ryulong sought any user personal information? No. Sam Blacketer voted against this enforcement for exactly that reason. Therefore, I request that we terminate this enforcement, and modify the admonishment to only direct Ryulong to refrain from doing what he was found to do. Note that this is not based on my personal preferences, but based on what is necessary for the cases judgment. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Casliber
Well, I am pursuing this because there is no finding of fact or evidence that Ryulong was actually seeking my identity. Arbitration remedies are to ensure that problems don't recur, not to ensure a problem never starts. It is not whether I give him permission to seek my identity, but whether the arbitration remedies serve a purpose. These do not obviously serve any purpose other than, if anything, prevent problems that have never occurred. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg
What I am suggesting is not to make the remedy unenforceable, but to make the remedy fair to the evidence and findings of fact. There is no evidence that Ryulong was identity seeking, which is exactly why I am here. I also have a question, one which should be at Requests for Clarification. Will Ryulong be banned if he violates "identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others"? I'm curious, because you make it sound so. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth
Well, actually, Ryulong does wish for this amendment, and even if he didn't want this to be amended, that doesn't change the fact that this amendment is needed. I will quote what he said here:
 * "In response to Carcharoth, sure why not. I didn't like this restriction or whatever because it was based on the one-off instance when Mythdon was going out of his way to contact me on other websites and I merely relayed the information to another user, which was blown out of proportion by another edit that I did not make."

With that quoted, "sure why not" + "I didn't like this restriction" equals up to statement of desire for the amendment. If you still doubt his acceptance, please take it up with him on his talk page. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Amendment 3

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

Statement by Ryulong
In response to Carcharoth, sure why not. I didn't like this restriction or whatever because it was based on the one-off instance when Mythdon was going out of his way to contact me on other websites and I merely relayed the information to another user, which was blown out of proportion by another edit that I did not make.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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).


 * Recused - <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused - Tiptoety  talk 03:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On reading this, I am open to this. As the underlying meaning isn't changed, but the wording is made more neutral (?) Can I ask why you are pursuing this Mythdon? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, given that the functional result of the wording is actually the same, but the explicit mention of Ryulong is removed, I am open to this one. I'll see what the others think but I think we can run with this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Like Casliber, I'm uncertain as to what the point of all this is. It should be Ryulong filing this kind of request for amendment, not Mythdon. It seems very strange for Mythdon to be filing this request. I am not minded to grant this request unless Ryulong asks for it himself. Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per John, decline. Ryulong should refile if he wants to see these parts of the case amended. Mythdon should refrain from commenting on these parts of the case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline as written. The requested amendment alters a remedy that still refers to an enforcement that is proposed to be terminated.  The result would be a remedy that is unenforcible.  Like Casliber and Carcharoth I am open to an improved wording along these lines, but this amendment isnt it. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused, as I was for the original case. Risker (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline per John. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline per above. Wizardman  15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline per John. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline per John. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: ADHD (August 2009)

 * Original discussion



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

Statement by Scuro
There are several examples of Literturegeek being uncivil during the topic ban proposal. I complained at the time on the project page but nothing came of it. This behaviour continued throughout the whole Arbitration process, particularly in the workshop area. An example was given by me in my evidence section.(In presenting her evidence Literaturegeek is being abusive and uncivil. She states, "This archive is half a megabyte of mostly paranoid obsessive ramblings about conspiracies of scientologists and antipsychiatrists, useless drama, fighting.." or "Manipulative often playing the victim role. This can even deceive administrators and make admins turn on their fellow admins"....) .

Further evidence of uncivilness was given under Stephen Bain's proposed findings of fact. (Literaturegeek and continued uncivilness - this needs to be addressed - She has been abusive during the topic ban proposal, and arbitration and this continued after Stephen Bain pointed out these issues with his proposal. For example she stated;''"as scuro's essentially has been making editors experiences on wikipedia a living death until they give up and leave and still a year later he is getting away with it. What amazes me is the ability of scuro to almost get people hypnotised and manipulate them (like on this admin discussion board for example and else where over the years) that he is an innocent persecuted victim and his opponents who he forces off wikipedia and removes all their contributions are terrible people. But then again I do understand because human beings are the perfect hypnotic subjects but that is another debate for another day. He wants these big discussions to wear people out. I see now Nja is being seen by some as persecuting poor scuro and poor scuro needs a break, I have been seen as the bad party, this is what I meant by scuro being professional in how he disrupts wikipedia and the levels he goes to and why I am willing to invest so much time in this admin noticeboard as enough is enough, years of forcing editors off, deleting anything they add which scuro doesn't like. Scuro knows when to be aggressive and knows when to calm down, it is all manipulative behaviour and he invests an enormous amount of time into doing this but yet admins can't see it as they don't follow it. The only time I have been involved in official wiki discussions was a discussion was when I was being harassed by sock puppets of mwalla, a vandal. I do not enjoy these debates''. She also appears to have an abrasive style and conflicts on other pages". This behaviour and "drama" also continues to date on other pages.|"removing childish bullshit" )

Currently she continues to be uncivil and personalize the talk pages. 
 * 1) Why was her uncivilness not mentioned in the final decision, when her uncivilness eclipsed both documented examples of Doc James and my uncivilness, and this was happening right in the middle of arbitration?
 * 2) What can be done about this continued problem?

Statement by Literaturegeek
I shall not be replying in depth to this, perhaps it would have been better not to use the descriptive adjectives, paranoid, obsessive and rambling etc. It is an arbcom so we submit evidence against a person and their behaviour so it is difficult to criticise a person without "putting them down". Diffs, like childish bullshit and other related links as explained earlier, was due to me being stalked for over a year by an editor who was from an unnamed drug company who did not like my edits on benzos. Anyone followed around having contribs constantly monitored and admins doing nothing is going to lose their temper and ask them to stop "stalking me" on a couple of occasions. This is an old issue years old now. These other disputes scuro has found on my talk page are resolved. The NPOV noticeboard regarding antidepressants was not to do with me as I had not contributed to any great degree to the article, that editor just noticed my username on the talk page and gave me a notice and thanked me actually for helping to resolve the issue. If you read this section, Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder, scuro character assasinated Doc James saying he is advocates xyz and also was rude, barking orders at Doc James. I see no change, the article is being treated as a combat mission and this arbcom filing is more of the same type of thing I feel. I feel the editing environment remains a battle ground hostile environment. Even though I have been trying to make compromises on adhd talk pages, still things like this attacking me pop up. I would like to move on from the ADHD articles but feel this is unlikely with the continuing drama, this on this page here by scuro above being one example of hostility.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Issues concerning behavior on the arbitration pages themselves are water under the bridge. Issues concerning conduct since the case was closed should be resolved by enhanced civility on the part of all concerned; for example, as Literaturegeek acknowledges, some of her adjectives would have been better left unused. It might be best for one or more previously uninvolved administrators to keep an eye on these pages going forward, making sure that the parties to the case comply withour decision, and perhaps bring to our attention if problems involving any of the sanctioned or warned parties continue; but I see no need for further Arbitration Committee action at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Like Brad, I don't think any action is needed here. I would urge scuro and literaturegeek and other parties to the case to work together, rather than trying to test or explore the boundaries of the case decision. I note that one arbitration enforcement request has already been filed. If that is needed, sure, but please try and focus on the article content and its sources, and not each other's behaviour. This was made clear in the case, and should be made clear each time further requests are filed. If large numbers of frivolous requests are filed, indicating that editors are looking at each other's behaviour, rather than working on article content, new restrictions may need to be imposed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse, as I did for the case itself. Risker (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * During the case, evidence was not presented to demonstrate that Literaturegeek has been incivil to warrant a dedicated finding of fact or remedy. Instead the decision includes a reminder to all: "All editors editing within the [ADHD] topical area are reminded to remain civil".  If you feel that someone is ignoring this advice, please report them to WP:WQA, WP:ANI or WP:AE. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues that there does not seem to be anything actionable here at this time. &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with above. Wizardman  21:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse, as I did for the case itself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No action needed by ArbCom. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Date delinking (August 2009)

 * Original discussion

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

Statement by Ohconfucius
In view of the following remedy in the recent ArbCom Date Delinking Case:

"31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions."

I seek clarification as to whether "Editing guidelines" includes the WP:Naming conventions, which is a policy page.

The user has edited the policy page 6 times since the case closed (1 2 3 4 5 6) In the fifth edit, he remove a link to the WP:Manual of Style and replaced it by a link to an article, with a possibly deceptive edit summary.

This undiscussed change may well have been contentious (it has since been reverted) and appears to involve just the scope that Remedy 31.1 refers to

I would ask for the status of the edits to this guideline be clarified in relation to the remedy. The editor has been made aware of this request. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to MBisanz: Maybe I misunderstood the function of this page, but if clerks believe it should be moved to AE, then so be it. The reason I brought it here was because I am only seeking clarification as to what was covered – I am under similar editing restraint and would gladly like to know whether same freedom applies to me. Anyway, I was not specifically after enforcement at this point, not clear as if there had been a breach.


 * Response to Mandy: I guess that the animosity and sarcasm from Manderson is to be expected, bearing in mind our historical antagonism. BTW, I am not one to judge whether the one "outrageous edit" was intended to game the system. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess this thread can be closed - I have now moved this request to WP:AE, per the advice from Matthew. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Pmanderson
What does this have to do with date-delinking? Why am I being dragged back into it?

Ohconfucious appears to have missed this outrageous edit in which I inserted a space between two paragraphs.

As for the edit summary complained of, it says, in full: refer to article, with sources; there are advantages to working on an encyclopedia. There are; these include access to articles on English grammar when we want to indicate what that grammar actually is; they have citations and sources; MOS doesn't.

As Roger Davies wrote, now on the talk page of WP:ARBDATE, topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. The naming conventions are in fact much less contentious; it was with relief that I returned to discussing  them, as I have been doing for years. Applying them is less so, as the recently concluded Macedonia case will show; I have been discussing that also, and its consequences, with several admins and some arbitrators. Nobody suggested that this topic ban applied in any way.

It may indeed be possible to apply this decision mechanically, so that it will amount to a site ban; did ArbCom mean that? (And if so, did they mean it, somehow, just for me, or does it apply to all parties alike?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to MiBisanz: If the arbitrators intend their wording to have anything like this scope, it would be nice if they would say so. But if this is simply moved to AE, would you make sure my response goes along? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Understandable. Sigh. It's another thing to actively watch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Ohconfucius: Why no; I added this line to divide a paragraph into two, as the edit summary (divide paras) says. This made that section uniform with all other sections.
 * The insinuation (Cicero had a term for this figure of speech) that I have been gaming the system is incivility; so is the distortion of my username. I have two; either would be acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz
Without looking at anything beyond the first couple of lines, this looks like something for WP:AE as it does not seem to rise to the level of an intractable dispute between enforcing admins over what a remedy means.  MBisanz  talk 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To Pmanderson
 * I'm recused on this case, so I won't be doing anything clerk-ish or admin-ish with regard to it. Best to ask another clerk.  MBisanz  talk 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Recused  MBisanz  talk 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment No. Naming guidelines, while a policy, are not within "style and editing guidelines" vis a vis the scope of the date delinking arb case. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't naming guidelines as within the scope of the restriction.  Roger Davies  talk 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment AE is a better venue for this request. An admin and other uninvolved editors can decide if the edits are problematic considering the letter and spirit of the editing restriction. In any given situation, it is possible for edits to be considered disruptive or good. For this particular case, I see no reason to automatically increase the range of the topic ban to the point that every edit is reviewed for a potential misstep. But if the edits are tendentious, disruptive, or controversial in other ways then it would make sense for an admin to enforce the editing restrictions in the broadest way. In my opinion, this is best decided at AE. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment; I'll concur with my colleagues here and agree that naming guidelines are not a matter of style, but of contents. Therefore, discussion there does not fall under the restriction's scope.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting here (on the off-chance that any motions are proposed) that I recused on the original case. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per my colleagues, this (a) belongs at the Arbitration Enforcement page, if anywhere and (b) does not appear to fall within the editing restrictions. Risker (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've offered a motion in the amendments section, that if adopted, would probably render this issue moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * per Risker. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Risker et al. Wizardman  04:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Bluemarine (August 2009)

 * Original discussion

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

Statement by Sandstein
In Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine, on 1 February 2008, the Committee decided upon the following remedy: "Bluemarine is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year to run concurrently with the existing indefinite community ban."

On 10 December 2008, the Committee passed the following amendment to that case (permalink):
 * "Limited unblock with conditions:This committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of . Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.
 * Passed 7 to 0, 09:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)."

Yesterday, I blocked Bluemarine for a week following a report at WP:ANI that he had violated these restrictions. The block has since been contested at the ANI thread by Durova and one reviewing admin,, who unlike me believe the restriction(s) on Bluemarine are no longer in effect. As of this writing, there is also an open unblock request at User talk:Bluemarine.

I ask the Committee to clarify: Thanks,  Sandstein   05:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) whether the community ban of Bluemarine as referred to in the remedy and amendment remains in effect,
 * 2) whether the conditional lifting of this ban and the restrictions on Bluemarine's editing as specified in the amendment also remain in effect.

Statement by Allstarecho
I'd just like to clarify that Matt Sanchez, aka User:Bluemarine, was under a community ban before his Arbcom ban. His 1-year Arbcom ban did expire in February of this year, which would have been before the 60-day stipulation to end. 60-days would have put him under Arbcom ban until March when the initial 1-year ban expired in February. So technically, there is nothing Arbcom can, or needs to, rule on here as Arbcom's jurisdiction ended in February by the original Arbcom ban or in March by the Arbcom 60-day stipulation - depending on how you interpret the Arbcom ban. What is left to do is for the community to decide whether or not to lift his community ban, which again, he was placed under before his Arbcom ban.

This is all brought about because he made 6 edits yesterday while still under community ban, after having been informed he was still under the community ban back in May when he made edits. In May he was told by Durova not to edit anywhere but his talk page until the matter was resolved. Unfortunately, it went stale and was never resolved then but as he wasn't informed that it was resolved, he should have asked on his talk page what the status was.

As I have agreed with Durova in recent past discussions with her, I support the lifting of his community ban with the stipulations that he is banned from editing his related BLP article or article talk page as well as the same for the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article. In addition, as also agreed with Durova in recent past discussions with her, based on Sanchez's history of vile personal attacks towards other editors, should he lodge any personal attacks, he shall be immediately and indefinitely blocked again. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  07:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jpgordon
Just a slight correction -- at this point I have no idea what the status of ArbCom's restricted unblocking is. It's not clear from the language whether the committee intended it to outlive the committee's original sanctions. A reasonable person could interpret it either way. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova
Recommend remanding this to the community. Bluemarine's arbitration ban has expired. The community could clarify his status and/or impose new restrictions on its own. Durova 284 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect extended toward Newyorkbrad's comment, the basic structure of a new editing restriction is something the community should be able to handle quite well. In about May I made such a proposal (basically a topic ban from his old areas of conflict).  There was a socking concern that got raised, which turned out to be a nonissue, but investigation delayed discussion so the proposal didn't achieve consensus (mainly because the noticeboard was fast-moving).  Shortly afterward Bluemarine went away on business and has had limited Internet access since then.  That's the only reason a second proposal hasn't already gone to the community.  Durova 285 01:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although nobody formally closed the discussion, it appears the community has decided upon a topic ban. Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive555 Durova 293 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Statment by Lar
This user is not worth the trouble, in my view. Their past history is filled with disputes with all and sundry. The word "collegial" is not, in my view, in their vocabulary. Recommend putting or keeping a complete ban in place. Else we'll be here again soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 09:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Blacketer
I was drafting arbitrator on the original case. I also voted to support the amending motion in December, and remember thinking when doing so that it would be good to progressively lift Bluemarine's editing ban in the period leading up to the end of the year ban when he would be free to edit. Obviously any community sanction is administered separately. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight
I suggest that Bluemarine be unbanned along with a stipulation that on the Matt Sanchez article and maybe a few other closely related articles he limit his contributions to the talk pages (per standard COI type concerns). I also think a mentor would be helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Per wp:ani there seems to be a good consensus in favor of revising and updating Bluemarine's statud to the following edit restrictions: Is a more formal vote needed or can we move forward with this as agreed to and supported by his mentor, myself, Allstarecho, and other editors who made comments in the discussion? The only concern was whether Arbcom approval of some sort was needed, but my understanding is that you want the community to make the determination.
 * Bluemarine is banned from the Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages.
 * He is prohibited from editing LGBT article topics and related talk pages, broadly construed.
 * Bluemarine is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial or of personal and emotional investment so as to avoid dispute and confrontations and to gain experience editing Wikipedia collaboratively. As the community is extending good faith, please return it by limiting yourself to the one account and remember that personal attacks will not be tolerated. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked for an appropriate increment of time at the discretion of an administrator.

Statement by Will Beback
I sugges that the ArbCom give some statement on this editor's status, at least on an interim basis, while a final decision is made. At the moment no one is sure what his status is.  Will Beback   talk    01:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc
Looking at the history of this, it would appear that this user has exhausted the community's patience. Clearly an agenda-driven editor whose goals here appear to be completely contrary to a collaborative editing project, at least in politically-oriented articles. Short of an outright ban, a topic ban would be the only other option. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other Jac16888
I was not aware of this arbcom issue, nor am I involved in anyway, but it should probably be noted that I have just blocked bluemarine for 72 hours for this personal attack, -- Jac 16888 Talk 13:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My view is that we should cut to the chase, and decide what editing restrictions, if any are needed for the editor. Once that is enacted, then the past sanctions do not matter. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As it stands there are no more active arbitration remedies, but the community ban remains in effect (the original decision deliberately did not override that). Bluemarine can now either appeal the ban to the community, or appeal it to us. --bainer (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Bainer, with preference the community handle this. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On an initial look, I agree with bainer's comment. I do want to look at this more closely though, so may return to this at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On a closer examination (and following the recent request for arbitration), the community now appear to be handling this, but I share Risker's concerns. Bluemarine needs to disengage from the areas he is topic banned from, and diversify his editing. I've reviewed his editing history, and a vast number of his edits are to the talk page of one article. There may well be good reasons for that, but there are other ways (off-wiki and through intermediaries) to address such concerns other than using an account almost exclusively for a single purpose. Carcharoth (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the best path forward is to figure out what restrictions, if any, are needed going forward, rather than to focus on which past ones technically are still in effect or not. I'm not sure, however, that I agree with the preference expressed above that the community debate the restrictions, since there are sensitive BLP and other issues involved that might best not be addressed on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Stephen Bain. Should Bluemarine wish to appeal his community ban, he can appeal either to the community or directly to the Arbitration Committee. I do take note of Bluemarine's talk page, and remain concerned that Bluemarine's main purpose at Wikipedia is to directly influence a single biographical page; this is something that Bluemarine will need to address in any ban appeal. Risker (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I take note of the current discussion here, where it appears that an administrator has advised Bluemarine that his community ban is lifted (with restrictions), but Bluemarine was subsequently reblocked for personal attacks as mentioned above. While I do not object to the community deciding to lift the ban, I remain concerned about this user, and hope that his behaviour is carefully monitored by several editors/administrators, particularly in view of the activities of recent days. Risker (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Recuse. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the time being, I believe the community can discuss and coordinate with the mentor all the details of any restriction or deal. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  08:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Ryulong (2) (August 2009)

 * Original discussion


 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Enforcement #4
 * 2) Motion 2 (replacement of Remedy #4)


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Mythdon (diff of notification of this thread on Mythdon's talk page)
 * Ryulong (diff of notification of this thread on Ryulong's talk page)

Amendment 1

 * Enforcement #4
 * Desired modification: that Enforcement #4 be vacated and replaced with the heading "Conduct Probation enforcement" and its accompanying paragraph, which is currently found under Motion 2 (which is replacing remedy 4).

Statement by Ncmvocalist
This is pretty straightforward. Although this is not a substantive change to the decision, the enforcement part of a remedy belongs in the enforcement section of a decision; except in the case of temporary injunctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Amendment 2

 * Motion 2 (remedy)
 * Desired modification: that the heading "Conduct Probation enforcement" and its accompanying paragraph, found in the above remedy, be removed.

Statement by Ncmvocalist
This becomes necessary to avoid the potential unnecessary confusion caused (and the repetition otherwise caused by amendment 1). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

Statement by Mythdon
I was actually thinking about asking the Arbitration Committee to remove the mentorship enforcement myself. I, like Ncmvocalist, ask that the Arbitration Committee remove this enforcement as it is moot, and not enforcing anything, and can't be used without the mentorship remedy being in place. Arbitration Committee members, please pass a new motion in which this enforcement be removed. As for the conduct probation enforcement being in the "enforcement" section, I think that it should also be there, strictly for stylistic reasons. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, please. ArbCom, pass a motion. Please. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the Committee's acceptance of this amendment. Please now, one of you, please, please, and I do mean please, propose a motion. Thank you! — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which motion, Mythdon? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A motion to make the modifications desired above. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need to pass a motion for modifications. Please, read carefully what Newyorkbrad and other arbitrators say below. Once this amendment is closed, a clerk will make the necessary modifications at the case page. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't amendment requests close following a motion if accepted? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be true if we were applying strict standards to our applications. It is not the case. Again, please read the arbitrators' views below. They believe this is not a substantive change; it is rather technical. Process must stay fluid and you must avoid instruction creep. You can also have a look at Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy if you got some free time. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  18:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I guess I'll treat the "arbitrator views and discussion" section as though it is the motion and that the arbitrators are in fact voting. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you'll have to treat what will be written (black on white) at the case page itself as the official resolution. The rest is irrelevant.
 * Now, all these excessive questions should have been answered by your mentor. Same for your disruptive requests to a couple of administrators today for testing a block when asking them to block you for nothing —just for the sake of curiosity. That adds nothing to 'building the encyclopedia'. Be aware that an admin may block you for real next time for your highly disruptive attitude. You are walking on thin ice already. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The mentor thing was over when you and your fellow arbitrators passed a motion to replace the mentorship with the conduct probation, strictly for reasons that I refused to work with a mentor. Now, speaking of "excessive questions", I'm thinking about making another request for clarification, but given that it seems you feel that I've done too much of that process, I wont make another request for a reasonable period of time. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong
Kay...— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Indeed. This is no longer needed and it makes sense to remove it now. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a procedural, rather than substantive, correction and I see no reason it should not be done. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, recused. As a general procedural matter, I agree that these types of thing can be handled informally. (In Congressional parlance, "I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to reflect the actions of the committee.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, per all the above. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  17:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Procedural matter, which I believe is well within the scope of the arbitration clerks to carry out. Agree to this. Risker (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Recusing per Mythdon's request on my talk page. Risker (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with John and Coren. Since the request is here, it can be dealt with here, but this is the sort of thing that it is often worth running by a clerk first. If in their judgment, such a change can be made, there would then be no need to come here, unless someone contested the change. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with John, Coren et al.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also agree, let's get it done. Wizardman  21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for lifting of EK3 restrictions (August 2009)

 * Original discussion

Statement by Everyking
In January 2009, I appealed to the ArbCom to lift all the remaining sanctions applied to me as a result of the EK3 case in November 2005. The ArbCom declined to do so, although it agreed to some easing of the severity of the restrictions. More than six months have passed since then, and nothing has occurred with regard to the case; I have not been blocked or warned in any way. The sanctions serve no purpose and exist in relation to a dispute that has been dead for several years, and I once again request that the ArbCom release me from them. Everyking (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why Brad says he wants to maintain my sanctions for reasons he won't state publicly. If he thinks I should be under a perpetual restriction, I'd like to know why. There is nothing pertaining to any of this that I wouldn't want to be discussed openly on-wiki, and I feel like the ArbCom's decision-making on this issue is being based on things that I'm not even aware of, which is unfair. Everyking (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to Roger: you guys voted to lift all the non-Phil restrictions in January, including the appeal limitation. Everyking (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Coren: if this is "an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past", why do you want to keep me under this restriction? It seems inexplicable to say that the restriction serves no purpose while also maintaining that it should remain in place. Everyking (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the comments saying that the restriction is only in effect because I have appealed it numerous times are very puzzling. Some of you seem to be saying that you want to keep me under restriction purely out of spite, because you are annoyed by my appeals. That's like telling a prisoner that the authorities had planned to release him, but since he had the nerve to ask for his release, they've decided to keep him behind bars. I don't understand how such an attitude has any relationship to justice or the resolution of the issue&mdash;clearly it's unreasonable to hold someone's own appeals against them, as if they were doing something wrong in seeking redress when they felt they had been wrongfully punished. Everyking (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Brad: if your objection is based on "the substance of the matter", I'd like to know what that substance is. I don't understand your unwillingness to disclose your reasoning. Shouldn't a person be allowed to know why they are being punished? Everyking (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Dominic: I would be perfectly happy with an expiration date, even one that envisioned a substantial timeframe; perhaps the most grating aspect of this restriction is that it is effectively a lifetime penalty, a scarlet letter that I must wear forever and ever, and it is especially grating that I am singled out for such an extreme treatment when expiration dates are almost always given to others. Everyking (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dominic
I recall very well from my service on ArbCom in 2006 how Everyking's repeated appeals can be exasperating. To some extent though, it's ArbCom's own doing. I think that we have for some reason subjected Everyking to a treatment that other arbitration parties have not had to deal with: the lack of expirations. The idea of some kind of annual appeal allowance misses the point. The reason Everyking even would need to do that is because his restrictions go on indefinitely. My opinion is that rather than considering immediate repealing of restrictions every time Everyking asks, ArbCom should have long ago passed a motion to simply set an expiration date, be it a month or a year from now, on all restrictions currently in place for Everyking. It can still renew the restrictions if the problematic behavior occurs again, of course. It's the same basic treatment nearly everyone else gets. Dominic·t 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cool Hand Luke
Carcharoth: I think Wizardman is right. The original incident might have earned an editor a long restriction, but that has already run for several years. I think the point of the motion it set a definite endpoint. In this case, time served plus one year should be more than adequate.

You make it seem as if motion 3 has only been proposed to get rid of Everyking. I happen to know that he doesn't appreciate it, and neither do I. Cool Hand Luke 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth: I agree. The best place for Everyking to negotiate this is on Wikipedia. This is his request, and if he really thinks that it would make him worse off, he should discuss why that is. I am recused, and intend to remain recused on matters involving WR regulars. Cool Hand Luke 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

 * 1) An editor who is "in good standing" but for an editing restriction is not really in good standing, at least for any non-Orwellian definition of good standing.
 * 2) If this is not about the principal, and Everyking really wants to attack Phil again, is it reasonable that he would hang fire for four years, waiting for the approval of a body that he does not respect, or is it more likely he would have found a more immediate outlet, such as sockpuppets, blogs, or other web sites?
 * 3) Granted that Everyking's constant appeals, raising of hypotheticals and rare situations to test the bounds of the remedy, and so forth, are annoying as hell.  Why not just lift the restriction, so he has nothing more to complain about?
 * 4) As each of Everyking's restrictions has been lifted, he has not suddenly gone on a rampage of bad behavior (uninformed criticism of admins, Ashley Simpson, etc).  Why not assume that this really is a matter of principle and that he has no intention of attacking Phil?  With no special language or remedies, he can be held to the same standard of communication and conduct as any other user or admin. Should he prove to be unworthy of the good faith assumption, you can close the door on him once and for all.
 * 5) Are you worried about appearing to have given in to pressure based on persistent annoyance?  (That if someone annoys you enough, you'll do what he wants to get him out of your hair?)  Neither Arbcom nor Everyking has handled this especially well over the past four years.  Here, as in many other struggles, the side to let it go first will probably come out the winner. If Arbcom lets go first and Everyking proves unable to constrain himself under the usual standards of conduct toward his fellow editors, whomever they may be, then Everyking loses and Arbcom wins.   If Arbcom lets go first and Everyking behaves himself, everyone wins. Thatcher 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * notified per request of Arbitrator Risker. Daniel (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I am not quickly locating an archive of our most recent discussion in which most of the restrictions on Everyking were lifted; could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a link to that discussion, and could a Clerk please make sure it is archived properly. My recollection, though, is that the only restriction that remains in effect is that against Everyking's interacting with Phil Sandifer. Is that correct? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Paul August has been kind enough to point me to the motion we adopted earlier this year. (It probably should still be archived more prominently.) This confirms that the restriction against Everyking's interacting with Phil Sandifer ("Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner"), a ruling that is to be construed reasonably, is the only remaining restriction on Everyking that is still in effect, even though the request above repeatedly uses the plural. I am not inclined to lift this sole remaining restriction, for reasons that I do not believe it would be in anyone's interest (including Everyking's) to go into again on-wiki. No inference of any current misconduct by Everyking should be read into that position. If this matter is to be pursued further, Phil Sandifer must be advised of this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By way of clarification of at least my vote, my position that we properly lifted all other restrictions but that there is reason to retain this one, is based on the substance of the matter and not merely on consideration of the timing or repetition of the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be voting and commenting on the motions by tonight. I had expected to get to it yesterday, but got sidetracked by The Rambling Man discussion on BN and the resulting motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse on this request to ease Everyking's concerns that past arbitrators unfairly influenced past decisions about him. Hopefully, the recusal will make it easier for him to accept the decision one way or the other. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to amend this. If Everyking has no intention of interacting with Phil Sandifer, then the restriction has a net effect of absolutely zero.  If the objective is to gain permission to resume interacting with Phil, then that permission will not be forthcoming (nor is it likely that it ever will). If Everyking is simply hoping for a declaration that he is "an editor in good standing", then I am glad to reiterate it; that remaining restriction in now way reduces any standing he may have in the community.  In fact, it would be an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past were it not for the fact that Everyking himself persistently raises it at regular intervals.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I meant that this would be an old and forgotten issue if it wasn't being raised at regular intervals. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with my colleagues. I also note that Everyking may appeal the restriction annually and July 2009 is well short of the next review date, January 2010.  Roger Davies  talk 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No Why so soon after the last one? <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am lost, what other sanctions are you referring to (i.e. non-phil one(s))? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said last time: "'...suggest some thought is given to when and how any future appeals on this remaining sanction should be heard (i.e. to prevent excessive and repeat filings of appeals over the coming year). One other thought has just occurred to me. Despite this remedy remaining in place, would a motion saying that Everyking is a Wikipedian in 'good standing' be possible or make any sense? The protection that Phil desires would still be in place, while Everyking would get his wish to be considered 'in good standing'.' - Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)" We didn't in the end explicitly restrict Everyking to appealing once a year, but we should have done. There are certain editors who appeal their restrictions again and again and again. In the end, they do their own cause far more damage by that, than any of the original actions could have done. Suggest a motion be proposed to set the date of the next appeal at January 2010, and once per year after that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Phil Sandifer has been notified (and has edited at least once since notification), and a reasonable amount of time has passed since notification, I am now going to propose three motions to try and sort things out here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke, if Everyking has objections to these motions, I am more than willing to discuss them with him here. On a technical matter, could you confirm whether you are recused or not, as that will affect the majority for the motions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much reiterating what others have said, the only reason anyone might be holding you to this issue is because you keep bringing it up over and over. I'm also not convinced that if this restriction were appealed, it would be the end of it. Is this appeal really just to remove this restriction and this being the end? Wizardman  21:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am leaning toward Dominic's opinion. That said, since this issue originates from years ago I wouldn't care about the frequency of appeals. However, I need to know from you Everyking the reason why you feel the remaining restriction would be ended; is it because you are planning to contact Phil Sandifer some day in the near future or because it is merely a matter of justice (i.e. an editor in good standing)? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  05:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1
Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the remedy, titled "Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner", is lifted, effective immediately:


 * There are 13 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.


 * Support:
 * On long consideration, I have come to the conclusion that this sanction no longer serves a purpose, and is nothing more than an irritant for Everyking while doing nothing to protect the community or the encyclopedia. The original ban on commenting on Phil Sandifer, taken in context, was reasonable; its continuation is less so, given the context of Everyking having changed many of his editing practices since that time. In January 2009, Everyking stated that he has no intention or desire of interacting with Phil Sandifer, and he noted that an off-wiki attempt at reconciliation had been unsuccessful. I do not expect Phil Sandifer to "forgive" Everyking for his past actions. At the same time, I expect Everyking to keep his word to continue to avoid direct interaction with Phil Sandifer, and Everyking can expect that he will lose much of his regained reputation if he fails to do so. Risker (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already got the answer to my question above... Per Risker: In January 2009, Everyking stated that he has no intention or desire of interacting with Phil Sandifer and [Risker] expects Everyking to keep his word to continue to avoid direct interaction with Phil Sandifer). -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After rethinking it, this is my second choice. It has been a long time now. Wizardman  21:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Proposed to complete the range of options. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuing to oppose this option, although Thatcher makes an excellent point that the lifting of previous sanctions hasn't resulted in resumption of the restricted behaviour by Everyking. However, I would still like to hear that from Everyking himself. As regards Thatcher's fifth point, "If Arbcom lets go first and Everyking proves unable to constrain himself", that is not a win for ArbCom. We will be rightly criticised for having lifted the restriction, and it will be a loss for the hypothetical editors that feel the effects of that lifting of the restriction. What I see motion 3 as being is ArbCom letting go, and then Everyking letting go, and then the restriction expiring naturally. That would be a true win-win situation. Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like a period of quiet as noted by option 3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still very much unimpressed by the argument that such a restriction places a pall over an editor after such a long time. In fact, were it not for the fact that it gets trumpeted by Everyking himself whenever it falls off the front page, it would have been long forgotten by the collective memory (unless, of course, negative interaction with Phil were to take place).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Recuse
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke (as stated above)

Motion 2
Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, and that Everyking shall be limited to an appeal once per year, with the next appeal due no earlier than a year after this motion is enacted; with subsequent appeals separated by an interval of one year:


 * There are 13 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Second choice compared to motion 3. Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Equal second with (3)  Roger Davies  talk 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer 3 or 4. Wizardman  21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FayssalF -  Wiki me up®  14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many appeals but they are not excessively often. A better restriction would be one requiring the raising of novel reasons in support of any new appeal. --bainer (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Reminiscent of what we have already, which feels a bit like going round in circles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favor that a declined appeal cannot be repeated unless new grounds (such as evidence of change, or new information) can be presented. "I didn't like the previous decision" is never valid grounds for appeal.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Recuse
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke (as stated above)

Motion 3
Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire two years after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date of two years will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction:


 * There are 13 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.


 * Support:
 * Proposed (with thanks to Dominic for the initial suggestion). First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Equal second with (2)  Roger Davies  talk 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Second, prefer #4. Wizardman  21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Second, prefer #4. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In second place to 4. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Would prefer to lift this entirely; if it is not revoked entirely, then I do not support extending it any longer than one year. Risker (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FayssalF -  Wiki me up®  14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After further thought, I agree with Risker. Wizardman  21:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Recuse
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke (as stated above)

Motion 4

 * Motion enacted - Tiptoety  talk 00:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire one year after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date of one year will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction:


 * There are 13 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.


 * Support:
 * I was going to support the two-year deal until something hit me. Even when we ban users from Wikipedia for being terrible, we only do it for a year. It's awfully rare of us to go beyond a year, so in principle I create and support this one. Wizardman  21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice to #1. Risker (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First choice.  Roger Davies  talk 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am okay with this one too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I am unconvinced that it is necessary, or desirable, to remove the restriction in the first place; but if Everyking can drop the matter for a year then letting the restriction lapse is not something I would oppose. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection, switching to support. A year to allow this to quietly lapse is probably enough. I may even support full lifting of the restriction, but am reluctant to do that without hearing further from Everyking (who did say "I would be perfectly happy with an expiration date") and Phil (who may have objections to an immediate lifting of the restriction). If Everyking wants a shorter expiration date, or has good arguments for why a full lifting is preferable to the 'setting of an expiration date' solution to this that he seemed willing to accept, then he should say so soon. Similarly, Phil should comment soon if he has objections. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * There needs to be an extended period when this matter is not raised at all, before it can expire. One year is not enough in my view. The normal limit of a year for a ban should not apply to less onerous sanctions, such as "non-interaction" restrictions. Two years to wait for a restriction like this to expire is more than reasonable, given the events that prompted the restriction to be put in place. Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FayssalF -  Wiki me up®  14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Recuse
 * FloNight (as stated above)
 * Cool Hand Luke (as stated above)

Arbitrator views and discussion of motions

 * Posting here with some further thoughts on this:
 * (1) If the motions above had not been posted, it is likely that the entire request would have been archived within a week as stale, and the status quo would have prevailed. Thus whatever objections anyone may have to the motions, at least these motions are moving things forward rather than leaving this issue unresolved to come back in a few months.
 * (2) It is worth reading through the history to this, which is what I did before posting the motions. Brad, above, stated that the most recent motion is found here and should be "be archived more prominently". However, the motion was archived at the time: see here. The subsequent discussion was archived here. As I said, I found the previous motion and the accompanying requests on the case talk page. The archival links to those two requests are here and here. Everyking, please read through both those earlier requests you made, and look at the collapsed details box where I trace some of the history of your appeals. Also, note the statements made by Phil Sandifer at each of those two most recent requests.
 * (3) It is the points raised at the previous requests by Brad and Phil Sandifer that led me to make an extended period of quiet about this whole matter a condition for the restriction being lifted. Everyking's repeated appeals of the restriction are, in my view, raising the matter again and again, and this shows an inability to let go of the past and move on. That is directly relevant to a restriction of this nature. If Everyking can demonstrate that he has previously been able to go a whole year without raising this matter on-wiki, then I will likely support motion 4.
 * (4) In general, the matter of repeated appeals has become a problem for ArbCom. This may be because there are lots of previous decisions that were poor or could be improved, or it may simply be because of the large history of decisions that has been built up over the years, or it could be because some restrictions lack expiration dates. One way to tackle this might be to have pre-appeal considerations, where an appellant indicates how long it has been since the previous appeal (or since the case in question), indicates what new material there is for consideration, and then ArbCom takes a preliminary vote on whether to hear the appeal. If the appeal is rejected out-of-hand as "too soon" or "nothing new here", then the appellant should be given a date by when they can re-appeal, and guidance as to what is needed (the problem here being that many people are not willing to listen to ArbCom or work with them - those that do, tend to get their restrictions lifted). Either that, or expiration dates should be built into all restrictions. That would avoid both the situation of repeated appeals being filed too soon, and appellants being unjustly penalised for excessive appealing, and it would also avoid the situations where indefinite restrictions have to be appealed, rather than the sanctioned editor having the option to wait it out while doing productive work elsewhere.
 * In other words, I am aware that Everyking has been able to restrict himself to only filing appeals for the past 4 years. I am also aware that he does lots of good work on Wikipedia, and is (as I have said before) in good standing. What I would like to see is Everyking demonstrating that he can restrain himself from filing appeals for at least a whole year, and just let the restriction quietly expire, thus demonstrating that he is truly able to move on from this. As I've said before, I would be more inclined to support motion 4 if Everyking raised his objections to the motions here, with us. I'm sure he has many questions, and I (for one) would be more than happy to answer them here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

 * Original discussion


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

Amendment 1

 * That my editing restrictions be replaced with a restriction to have no involvement in the mass delinking of dates nor changes to WP:MOS or WP:MOSNUM (and their associated talk pages) regarding the formatting and linking of dates for a period of four months.

Statement by Greg L
What ArbCom did here with me isn’t right. Even though there were admins aplenty on WT:MOSNUM, some of whom were hip-deep in the date delinking debate, I was never once blocked for incivility towards another involved editor in the date-delinking debate, nor was I once blocked for edit-warring, sock puppetry, deleting others’ RfCs or posts, nominating others’ pages for MfDs, or any sort of *creative disruption* or malfeasance in connection with date delinking.

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. The debate on WT:MOSNUM has developed a direct, “gloves-off” style where admins who frequented the associated venues didn’t see a need for a block. So it seems wrong for ArbCom to later employ a 50-power retrospectoscope, review months-old, cherry-picked “evidence” slung about by one’s adversaries, and come back not with an appropriate-length first block to wake up an editor and correct his or her behavior, but to instead issue months-long and even indefinite restrictions on a broad range of issues. Such ArbCom actions have a chilling effect, is harmful to the mood of the community, and lessens respect for Wikipedia’s institutions.

If administrators didn’t once step in to protect Wikipedia from me in connection with the date de-linking debate, 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 (or better yet: what the community thinks is befitting). It is simply not right that there be two standards: one that passes for months or years with administrators who are right there watching it all and see no reason to block an editor, and yet another that ArbCom thinks ought to be the gold standard of civility—but only after a metric ton of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Greg L (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Having slept on the above post, I realize I should add some important points that speak to ArbCom’s thankless job and what I need to do from hereon. I certainly have the capacity to learn; I seldom make the same mistake twice. During the course of the date de-linking debate, I had been taken to WQA with charges of incivility. The consensus of that WQA was that the allegations were being blown out of all proportion and it was all just a “content dispute.” So nothing came of it. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia. Between this experience and the fact that no administrator ever felt the need to once block me for incivility regarding date linking (and there was a fair-minded administrator who shepherded WT:MOSNUM), I perceived that there was nothing wrong with my conduct on that issue. I can certainly see that ArbCom has an utterly thankless job of trying to keep Wikipedia, which is a purely collaborative writing environment, from decaying into a morass of uncivil bickering. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Osama bin Laden himself was POVpushing on 9/11 attacks and you gave him an indefinite ban from the article, you would be severely criticized from some quarters. I had gotten swept up in the wikidrama of the debate for a few months and allowed myself to assume the worst of intentions from the opponents. I promise to not allow that to happen again. Greg L (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. I have nothing further to say on this subject, Newyorkbrad. I want to go back to the unencumbered editing of science-related articles and contributing to science-related discussions on WT:MOSNUM. I have no stomach whatsoever for the backdoor quid pro quo politicking and back-scratching that can be at times helpful for editors in situations like this. Wikipedia is as much a social experience for deeply entrenched editors as it is an encyclopedia to which one can contribute. I am interested in the latter part, and hope to never get so entrenched that I can pretend to fully fathom the former. You simply have my pledge that I will be at all times civil. I am done with my editing my appeal here. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
I think that Greg will acknowledge that administrators would be wrong to block an editor with whom they are involved in conflict, so failure of those admins to block him needs to be taken in context. Nevertheless, at some point ArbCom will need to revisit the indefinite topic bans. Greg has now made a pledge not to allow himself to be caught up in drama in future, so it is pertinent to ask what sort of evidence of good behaviour, over what timeframe, might ArbCom require to rescind the indefinite topic ban? With that in mind - and considering all of the other parties who received indefinite sanctions - would the arbitrators be minded to at least reduce the breadth of some of the sanctions to areas directly related to date-delinking? If affected editors are unable to participate in a relatively normal way, it may be difficult for them to demonstrate the desired modifications to behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Motion: Brad has suggested a very reasonable amendment that should meet many of the concerns raised here, but I find it disappointing when arbitrators vote without indicating any reason. There seems be little in the "Arbitrator discussion" section that helps the reader to understand. I do appreciate that arbitrators are busy, but I would hope that the spirit of WP:Arbitration/Policy should encourage them to be a little more forthcoming. Indeed, an understanding of the rationale behind a decision goes a long way towards avoiding repetitive requests. Again, I am grateful to Brad for indicating a timescale before further requests for amendment may be made, but I would still be interested to learn what period ought to be observed before the indefinite topic bans might be reconsidered? --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dabomb87
Like most editors, Greg deserves a second chance. He has valuable knowledge on scientific topics, on which discussions frequently arise on MOS talk pages. I will remind ArbCom that unlike other parties of the case, Greg did not engage in mainspace edit warring over date links, so the restriction on mainspace editing is a little strange. On a more practical level, I think there are two choices WRT amendments: 1) For all editors restricted from certain discussions, the scope of the restrictions is reduced to date linking/autoformatting, broadly interepreted; or 2) Greg's (also applying to other editors who are similarly restricted) topic ban is given a cut-off point, and from then on, he is put on a 0/1RR for the guidelines themselves and put on some sort of parole (not necessarily related to civility) for discussion pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1
Per RexxS and Dabomb87. Tony  (talk)  11:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski
Support what's been written above. Why are no arbs responding to this? And why has the motion below (relating to the same case, and apparently uncontroversial) still not been passed? --Kotniski (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth
Making a statement here partially to explain my recusal, and partly to comment (as an editor and admin, not an arbitrator) on the proposed amendments. Part of the reason for my recusal was because I have participated at Manual of Style talk pages in the past (though not extensively so), and am intending to do so again in the future (or as the need arises). The other part of the reason for my recusal was interactions with some of the parties to the case, so I want to keep my comments here as general as possible. But I will be frank here and state that part of the reason I disengaged from one of my forays into the Manual of Style pages was the reception I got. It is possible that I arrived at the wrong time, when tensions were running high, and I was just on the receiving end of a backlash. But the intensity of some of the feelings being expressed still surprised me, and I had little motivation to go back. Ever since then, I've been wondering how many other editors had the same experience that I had? I should have stated this on the case pages while it was open, but decided not to do so, as the evidence being presented and the outcome was (at first glance) adequate. However, now that it is being proposed that some of the restrictions be relaxed, I would like to ask (again, as a fellow editor and admin, not an arbitrator) that those parties who return to activity in some of these areas to please not let things get to the stage again where the environment becomes off-putting to editors (both experienced and new) who arrive at the talk pages of the Manual of Style. I might not have time to participate there, but I would hope that anyone who did would find that the atmosphere was a lot more welcoming and less acrimonious. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I'd also like to ask if the arbitration committee could clarify a few points about this amendment.
 * Further points
 * (1) Could there be a list of all the remedies and parties this proposed amendment applies to, and could they all be notified? For reference, there were 32 remedies. I think the only ones the proposal does not apply to are: the one that has already been amended (for User:John), the Arthur Rubin admonishment, the Locke Cole ban, the Kotniski reminder, the The Rambling Man admonishment, the Ohconfucius limitation to one account, the Ohconfucius automation limitation, the Lightmouse restriction to one account, the Lightmouse automation prohibition, the Lightmouse ban, the Date delinking bots remedy, and the "mass date delinking is restricted for six months" remedy. That is 12 remedies, leaving the other twenty (20) remedies that this amendment would affect, and which concern sixteen (16) users. I really do think it would be clearer what is happening here if the new and old remedies were written out side-by-side for each party (one of the remedies expires in about a month, for example).
 * (2) The proposal states that "all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision" were considered. There are five such appeals (excluding this one) listed on the talk page of the case. I believe that all except one have been addressed by this proposal. Brad, can I ask if you re-considered the ban appeal made on behalf of Locke Cole and decided not to include that in this proposal?
 * (3) On re-reading the decision, I noticed "Stability review 3.1) If the Manual of style has not stabilised within three months after the close of the case, the committee will open a review of the conduct of the parties engaged in this battle and hand out permanent MOS bans to any parties who have actively prevented the manual of style stabilising on a version that has broad community consensus." - are there any plans to reset the date for this assessment for stability in light of the proposed relaxation of restrictions? Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Update
 * As there has been some confusion, I thought explicitly providing the new wording for each remedy that changes are being proposed for would help. I did a draft here. That is an unofficial page, not approved by any active arbitrators. I do hope, though, that it helps clear up some of the confusion. As far as I can see, Tony1's restrictions are not increasing. I do think it would be polite for a clerk to contact all 16 of the users who are affected by this proposed amendment, though two of them are currently banned. Would there be any objection if I asked a clerk to contact all the users affected by this amendment, or did so myself? Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Notifications
 * Actually, I've looked into the issue of notifications of the users affected by this proposed amendment, and it is more complicated than it seems (for various reasons). I've sent an e-mail to the arbitration committee with details, as it is not my place to sort out how these notifications should be handled. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Continuing failure to notify
 * By my count, only 5 of the 16 editors the proposed amendment would affect have commented here - the presumption being that the other 11 have not been notified (or have left Wikipedia or are serving a ban). Despite my requests above for notification to be given to these other editors involved, and an e-mail sent Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:20 PM (BST) to the arbitration committee, titled "Lack of notification in date delinking case", nothing further has been done on this. Given that the proposed amendment will restrict further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, and given that one of the editors involved left me a note here, to which I replied here, can I ask that the Arbitration Committee or its clerks please notify the other editors involved as a matter of urgency? It is not right to propose and vote on an amendment without notifying those who it will affect. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Notifications have been made
 * Many thanks for making the suggested notifications. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis (Pmanderson)
Carcharoth said:
 * ''But I will be frank here and state that part of the reason I disengaged from one of my forays into the Manual of Style pages was the reception I got. It is possible that I arrived at the wrong time, when tensions were running high, and I was just on the receiving end of a backlash. But the intensity of some of the feelings being expressed still surprised me, and I had little motivation to go back. Ever since then, I've been wondering how many other editors had the same experience that I had?

MoS is always like that; that's why I supported, and support, civility restrictions; and why I am not planning to return for a while, even if this amendment passes. The worst offenders in this regard were not all involved in the date delinking debacle, but Tony (see my evidence in the original case), Ohconfucius (compare his behavior on the date delinking workshop page), and Greg L (see WT:MOSNUM archives) have been among the worst. To be fair, when I was asked to look at a question on WT:MOS, what I saw of Tony's behavior had markedly improved; he does not appear to have discussed his feces in the last few months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

On the whole, however, I support this amendment - if only because I have been asked unrelated MOS questions in the interval, and would like to be able to respond to them there. More Arbitrators voting on this (even if they must decline to amend, with reasons) would be a service. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon consideration, this appears to be endemic at MOS; someone comes up with a protest that it does not (usefully) describe English, and this is normally met with ridicule and revert-warring. For example, it was protected for two months, after the conclusion of WP:ARBDATE, because of the persistent edit-warring over "logical" punctuation - most of the date warriors were therefore uninvolved in this one.
 * One cause of this disregard is the number of people who edit it without, for example, recognizing the English subjunctive (see this edit and edit summary); but there is a clear cultural problem.
 * I would therefore suggest an admin be requested to watch the MOS pages without involving himself (Carcharoth was missed during the delinking case), but empowered to impose mandatory mediation when such things occur (anybody who declines mediation could, for example, be banned from MOS and its talk pages for a month, while the rest work it out). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you; please let us know if the present majority puts the amendment into effect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From my experience with other requests, it doesn't go into effect until the motion is closed and enacted and announced at WP:AC/N and the case pages updated and the editors informed on their talk pages that their restrictions have changed (I hope that last step is still done for all motions that pass - just the initial notification is not sufficient in my view). The delay at the moment will be to allow other arbitrators time to vote. At some point, a clerk should make a note on the motion saying that it will be closed in x hours, and it will then be closed and enacted at that point. In other words, I'd advise patience for the paperwork to be done. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Question by HJensen
Thanks for the notification about this motion. As I mentioned in my own, failed, amendment case, I never understod why I should be punished at all. I will probably never receive an explanation (it didn't help as the case was archived two days after Carcharoth solicited inputs from fellow arbitrators=. Nevertheless, now the restriction moves away from something completely tautological to something very specific (still, it is a punishment which I am very unhappy to receive). A specific question occurred to me. Will an edit like this be prohibited, as it involves unlinking of dates? --HJensen, talk 07:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which date did you delink?
 * Did you revert in the process? (i.e. was it unlinked originally?)
 * If not, you should be fine, according to Carcharoth's wording (which seems clearly the effect of the amendment on you) - although if it's the change it looks like, cite news is probably better for ESPN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I now see that my example is both bad and great. Bad because seen today, the cite templates work in a way where "accessdate = 2007-04-30" does NOT result in a blue-linked date anymore. But when I made the edit it did, so by changing towards "30 April", I effectively delinked the date (here with the purpose of making the date format consistent within the article). The example, on the other hand, is great, as it shows that how one acted one year can look completely different another year, making much of the history digging conducted here of dubious use. For example, the few instances I delinked some dates, were at the particular time I did them (around September 2008) in full accordance with the prevailing Maunal of Style. But viewed in a February 2009 optic by some (well, one), they could suddenly be framed up as part of some big "tag-team edit warring scheme" leading to an ArbCom ruling. Interesting, but also quite scary. In any case, I don't think I reverted anybody in the process. (PS: Yes, the cite web versus cite news was not entirely consistent there....).--HJensen, talk 20:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a shock when people first realise that the use of transcluded templates that change later can severely invalidate what past versions of pages are showing. Maybe one day the software will be clever enough to load the version of the template (or transcluded page) that was present when the page version in question was saved, but even then there are problems. Renames, for example, of both editors and pages, can confuse things tremendously, as can fiddling with redirects. Hopefully most people checking evidence are aware of this, but it can be easily forgotten. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm responding here to be sure that HJensen will see it. Yes, I know the usual rules about threaded discussion on this page; I also know that the format of our new requests for amendment template is making it impossible to find anything (we need to fix that). ¶ HJensen, I think you are aware from the /Proposed decision page of the original case (and I believe from my comment on your amendment request as well) that I opposed both the finding and the remedy against you as unwarranted and excessive. If other arbitrators were to agree with that position, then I would be glad to move to vacate the remedy against you in toto. However, unless other arbitrators have changed their view, there is little value to my offering a motion only to have the original decision reaffirmed. ¶ My best suggestion is that you abide by the suggestion offered in the amendment proposal that further requests for amendment may be filed in a few weeks. I know that this is an imperfect resolution for you, but the fact remains that my take on the case was a minority view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your input! I appreciate your current and previous position on my case a lot. I know that yours was a minority view ex post, but as I state in my essay, I experienced the original voting process as very flawed; e.g., the Arbitrator who handled the case presented new evidence (in my favor) along the way leading to a new, "last minute", motion where I was "only" restricted for three months. Only a few saw that or even voted on it (for or against). Also, it was peculiar to experience that my request for amendment was only looked upon by four arbitrators. Forgive me for getting the impression that the majority of arbitrators just vote summarly on a case, and then never look back. --HJensen, talk 05:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sub statement by Mattisse
HJensen is a fine editor with whom I worked over a period of time, specifically on his FA Frank Zappa, a much vandalised article. At no time did I ever see him edit war, or even be impolite, and never when the circumstances were trying. It shakes my faith greatly that he was included in this remedy for a matter in which some editors did behave egregiously. I do not think he was involved in arguing about style change issues or would edit war over MOS principles. Please right this wrong. I do not think any editing restrictions are justified in his case. He has basically not edited since this ArbCon ruling. Regards, &mdash; mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

 * Awaiting further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, to clarify for Greg L., I meant that I was awaiting further statements from other editors over the next couple of days after which I will review your appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In case I don't visit the amendments page for a few days, and motions are posted, please could my colleagues or a clerk mark me as recused in any motions either here or at clarifications, relating to the date delinking case. Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see input from other users, especially those not involved in the dates edit wars, which went on for years.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion

 * Motion enacted - Tiptoety  talk 03:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are 13 active arbitrators and 3 are recused/abstained in this decision, so a majority is 6.

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:


 * (1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";
 * (2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";
 * (3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;
 * (4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Annotations and clarifications:
 * (a) There is no intent by this motion to increase the sanctions against Tony or any other user, and I don't believe the wording as proposed has that effect.
 * (b) Carcharoth's chart appears to me to correctly summarize the intent of the motion, and I propose that we treat it as being a valid implementation of the motion as passed (if it passes) unless anyone identifies any specific discrepancies or issues within 72 hours from now.
 * (c) I agree with Coren that the intent of the motion is that these editors may resume any non-date-related activities but are to do so while displaying good behavior. If it is called to our attention that any user covered by this motion is replicating the problems of the date delinking dispute in other areas, I'd be open to reinstituting the remedies against him or her. I sincerely hope that nothing like that would become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those remedies were drafted broadly to make certain that the dispute, which was long lasting and acrimonious, did not spill in other areas of style. I am not fundamentally opposed to their being focused more tightly, but I should point out that there will be very little patience towards renewed hostilities.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Coren. Risker (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Coren. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I'll let the other arbs handle this. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Recuse
 * But have entered a statement above. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused in datedelinking case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Awaiting any modifications by Newyorkbrad prior to voting. Risker (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No further modifications anticipated to this motion at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification?
Does that mean I would no longer be "prohibited from editing policy pages related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page"? I was the only party so restricted. Tony  (talk)  16:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was meant to be picked up in "(or any similar wording)", once I decided to make the wording of the motion generic rather than incorporate a list of usernames. Of course, we'll see what the other arbitrators have to say about my proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To make that second sentence true, can you encourage your fellow arbs to explain the reasons for their votes (particularly any opposes, since the reasons in favour of this change have been set out ad nauseam)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick point for overworked arbs: a highly significant technical matter (image sizes) is under consideration at MoS talk. It is not a particularly personal or controversial debate, delightfully. Greg L is covered by the blanket topic ban on styleguide talk pages; yet he has potentiallyl valuable input. He wants to post this, but cannot, and I can hardly post it for him, lest I be guilty of the back-door breaching of a remedy:
 * "A default for thumbnails of 180 is too small. Also, pictures with less-than-typical aspect ratios (such as twice as wide as tall) end up being way too small. Portrait-orientation pictures tend to be too big. I often have many pictures and they tend to walk all over each other unless I stagger their placements left and right and/or force the size issue. Kilogram uses a mix of thumbnails and forced."
 * It is frustrating that the project can't benefit from such input, which has absolutely nothing to do with date linking; Greg has already shown (and declared) that he's intent on playing the civility game. Thus, I urge arbs to consider narrowing the ambit of the remedy in question, as embodied in NYBrad's motion, which would focus the remedy on "protecting the project". Tony   (talk)  04:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to point out that the motion will result in an increase in the restriction on me. It is very odd that at this stage, without evidence of anything but utter compliance with the remedy that applies to me, that I should be subject to a harsher restriction in any area. Is there evidence of damage or potential damage to the project under Remedy 9.3 that ArbCom decided on for me? 9.3 did not restrict me from discussing any issue, although uniquely I was banned from editing policy and template pages related to article and editing style (as a kind of quid pro quo, I guess). That is, ArbCom decided that I should not be restricted WRT discussing date linking/unlinking. Now, it appears, I will be further restricted by not being able to discuss date linking/unlinking.

It's not that there is much discussion on that topic nowadays, but I have gone out of my way to comply with the remedy and with all policies and guidelines of WP, and a further restriction, without explanation, seems to be arbitrary and unproductive: in what way will the project be protected by banning me from such discussion from August 2009 onwards? I have raised this matter at NYB's talk page, but he is off-wiki until Friday. Tony  (talk)  10:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, Tony. It cannot be right that everyone else's restrictions are becoming fewer and yours are becoming greater when you do not seem to have been doing ANYTHING remotely controversial. I do hope the Arbs take note of that, and modify the amendment accordingly, or perhaps better if another amendment was drafted to cover your particular case. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misreading, but I don't see how the proposed amendment would impose any new restriction on Tony.--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But, on further reflection, it probably means that Remedy 9.3 ("Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page.") is modified to: "Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates".
 * In addition, I presume that if this motion passes, the parties may edit, for example, MOSNUM, MoS and WP:LINK except for the parts dealing with "the linking or unlinking of dates"—and that the modified remedy would not involve the whole of those guidelines, just because they partly cover the linking and unlinking of dates.
 * I would be grateful if both presumptions were confirmed or otherwise. Tony   (talk)  12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it helps, my interpretations of what is being proposed are here (I agree with Kotniski that your restrictions are not increasing). That is totally unofficial, mind you, and you will need to check with Brad and the other arbs who are actually voting on this case, as to whether I'm interpreting the proposed changes correctly, or not. I did notice that you were the only party to have policy mentioned in your restriction, which I thought was a bit strange. My interpretation leaves the word policy in there, and your interpretation removes it. You might want to ask what Brad's intention was there, as there are other possible interpretations as well. I still think the best thing is for Brad to prepare his own page detailing all 20 proposed changes and to check that the wording tallies with what he intended. However, having just spent a long time preparing such a page myself, I can understand why he didn't. It is very tedious. But I do think explicitly writing out the new remedies is needed to avoid confusion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Carcharoth; I guess "policy" and "template" are the quid pro quo. I await Brad's advice. Tony   (talk)  02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See some comments under my vote on the motion, above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe what Tony is questioning is the wording using the terms "policy" and "template" (he was the only editor so restricted). I suggest Tony file a separate clarification on this issue, either now (to avoid the pending 30 days restriction) or after those 30 days. Unless Brad or others want to clarify it now? Brad, while I'm writing down here, are you able to answer the other questions I had (numbered 2 and 3), and have you had a chance to consider the problems regarding notifications that I raised in that e-mail I sent to the arbitration committee? Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my clarification that no broadening of restrictions is intended in any case, should be sufficient to address Tony's concern. If you don't think that it is sufficiently clear, please propose a specific modification of the motion. ¶ The motion does not address the situation of Locke Cole. I don't think there is a consensus among the arbitrators to lift his ban at this time, but if any other arbitrators think the matter should be discussed, I'd be happy to look into that request again. ¶ As for item 3, I haven't really focused on that either; perhaps Jayvdb, who wrote the decision, should start discussion on it by providing his input. And I'll look for your thread on the mailing list; as you know, I've been offline this week and am way behind on arb-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brad. Not your fault, as you were away. The thread is titled "Lack of notification in date delinking case", from about a day ago. Please also note what I have posted here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)