Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 32

Request to amend prior case: Privatemusings (August 2009)

 * Original discussion


 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Principle 3: The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * None, but I include my own userlinks, in case they are of interest.

Amendment 1

 * Principle 3: The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.
 * The word sockpuppet should be replaced by alt account. Sockpuppets are bad things; alt accounts (as this principle admits) can be good things.
 * More importantly, the last sentence should be struck or recast.

Statement by Septentrionalis
The last sentence, italicized above, sets policy. It has been adopted at WP:SOCK, apparently on the basis that ArbCom said so. It is, I think, bad policy, but efforts to amend it while ArbCom's wording continues will be met with this irrelevant argument.
 * It does not describe what Privatemusings did wrong; see a summary of the problem, by JzG, here. Privatemusings had an account which revealed his real world identity; he set up several alt accounts:
 * User:Purple, to do editing
 * User:Privatemusings, to discuss policy
 * and half a dozen others.
 * He then proceeded to discuss policy intemperately, under the assumption that at worst, Privatemusings would be blocked, and Purple would continue unscathed. He also developped most of the abusive techniques that WP:SOCK condemns.


 * JzG suggested the following as an acceptable solution: At this point, had Privatemusings chosen to return to his second account, which is not traceable to real world identity..., but the second account (Purple) was still an alt.


 * The problem here was the abusive editing, and the assumption that alt accounts would not be recognized, so Purple would escape scot-free; not the discussion of policy. If Bishzilla were to discuss policy, nobody would complain, as long as Bishonen stayed out. We are all pseudonyms; it doesn't matter which pseudonym discusses policy, but what arguments they use.


 * It is not what ArbCom actually enforces. Future Perfect was roundly chastized at the late Macedonia case; but his satirical account User:Former Abbreviated Username of Future Perfect at Sunrise, although its sole function was to discuss policy, was not mentioned or condemned.


 * It has led to absurd results, and will lead to more. This effort to get ArbCom to don their asbestos armor and shoot Bishzilla provokes this request. Will it be the last?

Thank you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think Brad's point about deception is fairly well taken; the incorporation into WP:SOCK does not say that, and would be a reasonable policy if it did.

Again, the User:Geogre case, like all the others, concern abuses of alt accounts. To say that that justifies banning them would be like saying that  the number of cases about bad admins justifies abolishing adminship. Tempting though that sometimes is....;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback
I think this is proposed amendment is a bad idea. PMAnderson doesn't present any significant example of the current prohibition has causing problems. The use of undisclosed alternate accounts is tolerated in certain circumstances, but those should be kept limited to those that demonstrably help the project. There is no reason why an editor in good standing should need to use an undisclosed alternate account to discuss or edit policies, or other internal project debates. If that were allowed, there are many problesm that could arise, even by editors who feel they are working in good faith. See the recent matter of user:Geogre for an example of that. User:Privatemusings is another. It is easy to imagine a situation in which an editor is trying to make an edit that may not be allowed by policy. If he made a change to the policy using his regular account then it would be an obvious case of gaming the system. If he uses a separate account it might not raise any concerns. Wikipedia operates on transparency and mutual trust. This would be a step in the wrong direction.  Will Beback   talk    21:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RexxS is correct that the community sets policy, but it does so in various ways. One way is by through consensus on relevant discussion pages, another is by altering the written policies, and a third is by unchallenged interpretations of the ArbCom. This particular matter was discussed by the community before the ArbCom decision, and after the decision the written policy was amended. So all three components of the policy setting mechanism were involved in this.   Will Beback    talk    23:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
I comment solely on the narrow point that "the last sentence should be struck or recast". I believe that ArbCom should take care not to make pronouncements that may be characterised as "making policy". Policy on Wikipedia has always been created by the community reaching consensus on a particular practice. The expression of that policy may then be documented on policy pages; and subsequently may be used by ArbCom to guide their deliberations. It is completely anathematic to our principles when a small group—even one as august as ArbCom—makes a statement that is then incorporated into a policy page and subsequently imposed upon the community. Put simply, that is the wrong way round. If it were to be shown that ArbCom were reflecting an as-yet-unwritten practice (forbidding alternative accounts to debate policy), then I would retract this statement. As it is, I doubt that to be the case, and request ArbCom to reconsider the wording "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates". --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Will Beback: I will have to beg to differ. There is a difference between policy being made and policy being documented. Making of policy occurs by the cumulative actions of our community of editors and enjoys consensus by that very fact. The only exception to that is when an RfC definitively decides on a policy that is contested. Documentation of policy may indeed occur by the three methods you outline, but please understand I am not arguing semantics. You only have to review WP:ARBDATE to see the results that can arise from assuming that changes to policy pages—even those enjoying consensus there—sets policy. The standard required for setting or changing policy is high; and without a strong community consensus, either taken from clear current practice or from a conclusive RfC, you leave it open to challenge at any time. It is exactly for those reasons that I humbly caution ArbCom against making policy statements, unless it is crystal clear that such policy already has uncontested community consensus. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Privatemusings
That bit was always a bit clumsy of a rather grumpy arbcom I reckon - the real problem in my view is folk kidding themselves that they're discussing principles, when really they seem to be looking for policy guns to shoot someone with - sometimes to avoid listening. This isn't really directed at anyone posting here at the mo, mind.

I do get to take this opportunity to point out the delicious irony of the chap rather vigorously condemning me at the time, running his own 'sock' throughout, complete with chat's about policy ;-)

Oh and my first account was kind of tangentially linked to my identity (particularly through other online sites and stuff) - but I'm cool with anyone mentioning it - it's not a 'badusername' ;-) - you can even call me Peter, I won't report you! Finally, I'd like to reiterate that I continue to assert this stuff, wouldn't agree with Sep's write up above (or maybe it's Sep's write up of JzG's statement?) - and though it's rather ancient history, and no big deal any more I'd point out that not a single diff has ever been forthcoming which showed deception in terms of multiple accounts (or much else for that matter :-)

If the silly 'you can't use an alternate account in policy discussion' bit is causing trouble, strike it, otherwise Brad seems spot on, as usual. Privatemusings (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recused  MBisanz  talk 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 01:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse, Privatemusings (under what was then an alternate account) edited alongside me at WP:NPA and related proposed policies. I am considering making a statement in this case. Risker (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of alternate accounts, while tolerated in certain circumstances, is generally not viewed in a good light by the community. The recent events are a clear indication of that.  The use of alternate accounts (whichever name you use) in discussion or procedure, which depends on a clear consensus, is uniformly destructive.  I see no reason to amend.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not an arbitrator when the Privatemusings case was decided in November 2007 (in fact, only one member of the 2007 committee remains an arbitrator). However, I opined on the proposed decision talkpage at that time that the sentence being questioned in this request for amendment was, indeed, an interpolation into the alternate accounts policy rather than a reiteration of it. (See, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision.) In the ensuing discussion, it was suggest that this was simply an interpretation or exposition of the then-existing policy. ¶ Whether "only primary accounts may be used on policy and arbitration pages" is a desirable policy is debatable: on the one hand, we do not need rampant socking and game-playing on these (or any other) pages, and posting to these pages from primary accounts helps others discount a given user's input to the extent that might be warranted by knowledge of that user's own agenda or history; on the other hand, I can readily imagine situations heavy with "wikipolitics" in which a good-faith user would want to participate other than under his or her primary username. In my view, discussion on this issue can proceed on the relevant policy page, rather than seeking to amend this decision some twenty months after the fact. ¶ I would also note, with some dismay that it seems necessary to do so, that the obvious point of the sentence in question was to avoid concealment of the identity of a person commenting on these pages. Some of the instances mentioned above obviously do not, in any fashion, implicate that concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Coren.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a comment related to Privatemusing choice of words. Please avoid calling people with names that don't belong to them (re the chap). That's all for the moment! -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up® 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Initial point, one reason for the inclusion of this wording was to make people accountable for their comments during policy and dispute resolution discussions. If an alternative account is linked by name, disclosure on one of the user pages, or by definitive comments made by the account, then that would satisfy this concern. So several of the examples would not pertain to the particular wording. -FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline Per Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse on all things related to Privatemusings. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Coren et al. Wizardman  21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My views on arbitration decisions and principles being imported into policy or guideline wording have been stated elsewhere before. Such wordings and principles should only be added following discussion at the policy or guideline talk pages, and only if it does in fact represent emerging consensus or current practice. There will be exceptions when there is immediate consensus at the talk page to make a prescriptive change, but such change should be mostly descriptive, though it should always be borne in mind that current practice is not always best practice. In this case, there needs to be a discussion at the policy talk page about what represents current and best practices in these situations. My personal view is that alternate accounts should only be used in limited circumstances, for clearly defined reasons. Most alternate accounts should be clearly identified, by their name, and/or by a template or note on their user page identifying the master account. Simply adopting the same mannerisms, or self-identifying while editing, is not enough - any editor must be able to go to the user page and find out who they are really talking to. If there is good reason for an alternate account to be undisclosed, then it is the responsibility of the operator to keep the two accounts separate, and not edit in the same areas as the main account. Even then, if the undisclosed secondary account encounters someone known to the primary account holder, that can be a problem. As far as terminology goes, the term 'sockpuppet' is used too liberally - in my view, it should be reserved for deceptive use of other accounts. A clearer distinction should be drawn between sequential accounts (retiring one account and starting a new one, but not returning to carry on a dispute started by the original account, obviously!), editing while logged out (either intentionally or otherwise), editing as an IP when blocked, and deceptively operating two or more accounts simultaneously in the same area (socking). There are different reasons behind all these, and conflating them and applying the term "socking" to all of them does more harm than good, in my opinion. Finally, for alternate accounts and arbitration cases, my view is that only primary accounts should be used on such pages. Even using obvious accounts such as "NAME-2" can be misleading, as that splits contributions between two accounts, making it harder to apply scrutiny to all edits. As far as evidence submission goes, though (as opposed to workshop proposals and case discussion pages), I think it should be permitted to be able to submit evidence anonymously. But no-one has really agreed with me on that last point yet. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Scientology (August 2009)

 * Original discussion

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * People who wish to edit or discuss Scientology-related articles through a closed proxy listed in WikiProject on closed proxies for reasons discussed in said WikiProject's project page.
 * Operators of these closed proxies:
 * (notified in this edit)
 * (notified in this edit)

Statement by Damian Yerrick
Remedy 8 ("Editors instructed") requires users "(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration". However, some Internet service providers run all users' Internet connections through a proxy. This includes or included AOL and the only ISP in Qatar (see WP:SIP). Other Internet service providers, such as all ISPs in the People's Republic of China (see WP:TOR), use other forms of connection filtering, and users of those ISPs cannot view or edit Wikipedia except through proxies. On behalf of people affected by an ISP's proxy, I request an explanation of why these people should remain topic-banned.

Statement by OverlordQ
The method currently described by the pages on WP:WOCP has not worked since CentralAuth was enabled, as such mine has never been online, nor had any users. Q T C 16:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Note that the preamble to the remedy 8 rulings limits them to "edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:" — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was inactive on this case, and I may not quite grasp the technical material being discussed here, so I will defer to those of my colleagues that were active on the case, and to those who can answer the technical questions better than I could. Carcharoth (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the purpose of this remedy is to reduce the prevalence of socking and mischief on these articles by ensuring that each editor on the pages edits from only a single account and does not use commonly used methods such as proxying to disguise editing through multiple accounts, editing despite a topic ban, etc. If there is a real issue with the remedy winding up having the effect of preventing non-problematic editors from editing these articles despite having engaged in no misconduct, then a modification of the remedy may be in order. Before doing so, I think we would want to know that the issue is real rather than theoretical, so a more detailed explanation of the affected editor(s)' situation may be helpful to us (this can be submitted via e-mail rather than on-wiki if there are privacy issues involved). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to state outright that I would not interpret that a proxy imposed by a normal, commercial or national ISP is "editing through a proxy configuration" by any reasonable interpretation: that remedy was directed at those who would seek to "anonymize" their editing by circumventing normal IP routing. This does, however, include usage of TOR or anonymizing proxies.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coren. Use of tor or anonymising proxies or other open proxies is not acceptable. Known commercial or national ISPs are not included. Risker (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad frames it well. I also agree with Coren. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up® 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad explains the "why" quite well. However most of the scenarios given are not topic banned.  Here is an overview:WikiProject on closed proxies is not operational, so that appears to be a non-issueprivate customers of ISPs like Qtel are not restricted simply because of the way their network is set up</li><li>editing Scientology via TOR is prohibited, however if someone can demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that they have a valid reason to edit via TOR, such as Internet censorship, we committee will review the request privately.</li></ul> John Vandenberg (chat) 13:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with NYB, Risker, ect. A national ISP is fine, but anonymization is not. Cool Hand Luke 16:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above arbs comments. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above arbs comments. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (5) (August 2009)

 * Original discussion

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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request:
 * Ryulong
 * Viridae
 * Sandstein
 * MBisanz
 * Daedalus969
 * Tiptoety

Statement by Mythdon
Sorry to be making a new request for clarification while the other one is pending archiving, but given the story here, a new section is needed.

Here's the story in a chronology: These are just the basics. More detail should be brought up by the other users soon.
 * I reverted a rollback by Ryulong, citing "reversion of most likely good faith edit without a reason". Ryulong undid my revert.
 * Ryulong approaches me on my talk page.
 * Ryulong reports me to Arbitration Enforcement.
 * User's make comments at Arbitration Enforcement, with Viridae warning Ryulong that if he continued to misuse rollback, that it would be removed.
 * Ryulong's rollback gets removed. Persistent violations:.
 * The removal is discussed on Ryulong's talk page.
 * Sandstein suggests a sanction be imposed on me prohibiting me from reverting Ryulong's edits.
 * Viridae blocks me for 12 hours, to enforce the probation.
 * Ryulong approaches Tiptoety to discuss the undo feature.

While it is without question that it was warranted for me to be blocked for conduct probation term; "edit warring", I am questioning as to whether or not I am forbidden from making such a revert—reverting a rollback due to it being abusive.

After a bit of thought, I probably should have, rather than impose my own preferred action, taken the rollback to WP:ANI and let a discussion go on there. It most certainly would not have resulted in a block.

Should Sandstein impose the restriction upon me, which will forbid me from reverting Ryulong's edits, will this restriction be allowed to remain even after the conduct probation ends, will it end alongside the conduct probation, or will this be determined by the imposing administrator, or the Arbitration Committee?

Thank you for taking the time. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sanctioned
 * Sandstein has now imposed the revert ban from reverting Ryulong's edits here. Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And now Sandstein has changed it to "for the duration of the his conduct probation". Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth
I thought you didn't need prior attempts at resolution to that level before coming here. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "There does need to have been more attempts to talk about something than has happened here.... " - So, in other words, future requests for clarification should be made if beyond a reasonable doubt that it is in fact needed? Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Mythdon, you need to find someone to ask advice from as to whether you should be filing these requests.... " - So, in other words, you're saying that I should find a "Request for Clarification" mentor? Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno
I would suggest some kind of injunction preventing Mythdon from filing further spurious requests for clarifications or amendments. Perhaps requiring him to have a clerk, arb, or uninvolved admin review the desired request at their talk page, with an eye to clearing it up informally or advising them that it is a legitimate request.

And re-stating my previous statement at a previous clarification or amendment that these two editors would benefit from increased distance between them. (So, in essence, I would endorse Sandstein's imposed restriction: If the rollback was indeed abusive, another editor would be sure to see it and take action.) – xeno <font color="black" face="verdana">talk 19:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz
I did comment at the AE thread, explicitly as an involved and recused individual. Since the case ended Mythdon has shown a complete inability and unwillingness to interact with others in a collaborative manner. The endless requests to the Committee appears to serve more to nettle Ryulong and inflate Mythdon's own ego than actually pursue dispute resolution. I would highly recommend to the community/committee that they consider a namespace ban or ban from editing for Mythdon.  MBisanz  talk 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved roux
Rather than any nebulous request for clarification here, can Mythdon simply not be directed to stay away from Ryulong? Wasn't that a sanction previously anyway? → ROUX   ₪  21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
Absent admin opposition, I have imposed the sanction mentioned by Xeno above at. Mythdon's question about the duration of the sanction is now moot because the sanction specifies its duration. Any restriction of Mythdon against filing pointless requests such as this one is beyond the scope of the case's remedies and would need Committee action if deemed necessary.  Sandstein  21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification by Ncmvocalist
See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Recused, and echoing Xeno and NYB's sentiments that the number of clarifications being requested has become ridiculous, and is beginning to cross the line of disruption. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused, commenting above.  MBisanz  talk 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused, again. - Tiptoety  talk 21:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like ill be taking this one then. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 02:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing clerk note This will be closed within the next 12 hours. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 18:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recused, but nonetheless hopeful that someone can induce Mythdon to proceed in a more productive direction very soon now, as this situation is becoming ridiculous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would recuse on this request for clarification if it was indeed a request for clarification of the Arbitration Committee decision. This is not such a request. Risker (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mythdon, you've been directed to the AE for whatever doubt or question you might have. Administrators have the ability to decide on your case. The response to your question can be answered whether by the restricting admin or others who may participate in the AE discussion. Any outcome should be logged. That said, ArbCom retains the right to pass any further restriction/sanction (topic ban, ban) via a motion if needs be. Could a clerk please archive this request? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No action needed by ArbCom. Concur that this is not a matter that needs to be discussed by the Arbitration Committee. While I'm extremely hesitant to block an user from communicating with ArbCom about a matter related to a case where they are a party, I agree with the other user's comments that you (Mythdon) need to put more thought into your requests before you make them. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fayssal/FloNight. There is absolutely nothing for us to look at. Wizardman  21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do here. Mythdon, if you have questions, you need to consider if someone other than ArbCom can answer them (this is why a mentor was suggested - maybe try WP:ADOPT?). To any of the editors who interact with Mythdon, I would ask that you answer questions he has, and then try and politely disengage and let him know if his questioning becomes excessive. Both Mythdon and the editors he interacts with only need to come here as a last resort if discussions fail or misunderstandings continue. Please, try and resolve these questions elsewhere before coming here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you didn't need prior attempts at resolution to that level before coming here" - there does need to have been more attempts to talk about something than has happened here. There is a reason we have arbitration enforcement and talk pages. Just because something relates to the arbitration case does not mean you need to come here every time you have a question. This is exactly the sort of situation where you would go to a mentor and ask them first whether you should come here to ask for a clarification. In this case, they would likely have given you advice that would have answered your questions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mythdon, you need to find someone to ask advice from as to whether you should be filing these requests. Everyone who files a request weighs up the pros and cons of doing so. One of the disadvantages of excessive filings is that you get less attention paid to what you are saying. Less is more. If you must make these requests, save them up somewhere in a draft page in your userspace, and then ask someone whose advice you will respect to have a look, and only then come here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline nothing for us to look at. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fayssal/FloNight. This is getting really old and has prompted an ANI thread to ban Mythdon from arb pages. See my comment there. Mythdon, I strongly suggest you get the hint therefrom.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 10:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Ryulong (4) (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 here to request a fourth clarification on the Ryulong case.

After some thinking, I have found that, even after my long list of questions in the last clarification, that there are still things that have been left unanswered.

I have the following questions:
 * 1) Term (C) of the "new remedies and enforcement"; "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;" - Am I also prohibited from inserting or removing any citation of any article in regards to this remedy?
 * 2) Since the conduct probation was created for reasons that I refused to work with a mentor as directed in its predecessor "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship", is mentorship a sanction that administrators have the power to use as a discretionary sanction to enforce this probation?

If I have any additional questions, I will post them in this statement, though I likely wont have any questions in the future, unless the Arbitration Committee decides to amend the case again as they did in the second and third clarification requests. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Recused... <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused - Tiptoety  talk 00:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused -  MBisanz  talk 22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing clerk note This will be closed within the next 12 hours. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 18:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * First question: Inserting citations is why we are all here. Removing citations —except removing irrelevant ones which incorrectly relate to the cited content— is considered vandalism. Second question: Actually, mentorship is not a sanction. It is a remedy that has benefits for the mentored user (inherently for the community). Now, this is an essay for you to read. Don't take it for granted since it is just an essay. That means that mentorship application would be up to the discretion and discussions of the administrators. Repeating... Any further question should be directed to the Arbitration Enforcement. Note that they may still ignore it/them or warn you for excessive and unnecessary questions based on the 'communication' remedy passed by ArbCom. --  FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I second Fayssal - adding sourced material is good, but removing same is too contentious for you to partake in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fayssal. Mythdon, if you want advice on other types of work you can do that doesn't involve things that you are restricted from doing, I would be happy to make some suggestions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused. Risker (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fayssal et al. Wizardman  21:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (3) (August 2009)

 * Original discussion

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

Questions presented
My first request went something like this: Q1: May editors restricted from interacting with each other (a) unilaterally criticize each other, or (b) participate in meta-matters related to the others' edits? A1: No. (see here) There now seems to be some confusion among Arbcom members, administrators, and non-admin editors alike, on the scope of the "no" answer here, and I have a further concern regarding the stay-away order. I'm therefore asking some follow-up questions: Q2: May editors topic banned from Obama-related articles: Q3: May editors under restriction "not to interact with each other": A: ?
 * file or participate in meta-space discussions of Obama-related content or events?
 * participate in an AFD regarding Obama-related articles??
 * edit list articles about Obama?
 * accuse a group of several editors, including the editor with whom they are not supposed to interact, of bad faith?
 * dispute the good faith of a meta-space participation of an editor with whom they are not supposed to interact? (see above)

Process notes

 * 1) I am wondering whether this should have been brought up as a request for amendment on the one hand, or a request for enforcement on the other? Instead of focusing on what the voting majority of arbitrators may or may not have intended at the time (the answer to which may well be "they were not thinking the same thing" as it is with the sanction durations, below), can we please concentrate on what the topic ban limits should be, and how to best maintain a productive editing environment on Wikipedia?  The post-decision Obama-related incident among the parties to the case that gave rise to this question was clearly not a good thing.  The question here should be: do we want to make clear that it is a violation of sanctions, or do we want to make clear that it is beyond the scope of the sanctions and instead a matter for the community to handle?
 * 2) Speaking of community matters, I note that a new no-contact order has been enacted between Baseball Bugs and ChildofMidnight, not without some disagreement, and with terms that differ from the two no-contact orders issued in the Arbcom case. That would be the second instance - I believe Grundle2600 is also under some community sanctions that exceed his Arbcom sanctions.  As a party to the current incident I believe I am within the bounds of my own restrictions to comment on the wisdom and process of these stay-away orders even though the discussion is occuring at AN/I rather than here.  If anyone has any qualms about that please let me know directly and I'll bring the discussion here instead - or if you want to ban the parties from commenting over their own situations I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good idea. Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Background

 * This is growing a little stale and I don't want to burden the page with so much evidence, so collapsed - Wikidemon (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The first clarification arose over my dismay with accusations by ChildofMidnight on AN/I and his own talk page that I was acting in bad faith, trolling, stalking, and maintaining bias on the Obama talk pages. As the first on the ever-growing list of content editors, passers by, administrators, arbitrators, and Wikipedia founders ChildofMidnight has attacked as vandals and trolls for getting in his way, I seem to be a favorite target for these kinds of made-up claims as to my intentions, frame of mind, and editing history. The difference now is that I was far away from ChildofMidnight, and the two of us were supposedly under a stay-away order. ChildofMidnight's attacking me when I wasn't around was problematic because I couldn't respond to defend myself given our mutual editing restriction, I couldn't file a notice board complaint or request assistance or advice from an administrator (something I assumed would be a sanction violation on my part because it would necessarily engage ChildofMidnight), and I could not afford to let the accusations lie. When it became clear that the accusations would not stop even after I stepped well clear of ChildofMidnight, I asked in this forum for a clarification on whether they were okay. The clear answer in so many words was "no". One administrator commented here that "any further (even mildly) negative ad hominem comments or niggly/baiting/whatever that occur could be at best described as disruptive and a significant block would be in order."

A few hours ago, a stream of such comments did occur. ChildofMidnight jumped into an AN/I subsection I had started to accuse me and two other editors of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NPOV violations, being among "abusive and disruptive editors who will come after you stalking and hounding you until you're blocked if you don't tow the line". "mob rule", censorship, stalking, harassment, intimidation, abuse, and being "abusive trolls". That was before I filed this request and the wider drama surrounding ChildofMidnight's ensuing block; far more creative and vitriolic streams of abuse were hurled at me and a dozen others (I believe he has called one administrator a worm now, another an obscene embarrassment, and a third, "cancerous") after I sought help here.

What happened is that several hours before,, an editor with ongoing editing problems on the Obama articles, filed an AN/I report over "mob and ownership tactics of the band of Obama article protecters" at Public image of Barack Obama, and eventually requesting blocks and bans, after failing in his attempt to edit war into that article March's presidential taunt of the month that Obama is the "teleprompter president". As the first of three editors who reverted this proposal he was clearly referring to me. I offered some evidence and suggested a straightforward least-drama resolution to clear up the matter. Another editor put my comments in a new subsection.  This kind of routine disruption is nothing that the Obama editors cannot handle if left to their own, and basically just requires everyone to chill out.

Unfortunately, we were not left to our own. In his first direct encounter with me since our stay-away order, ChildofMidnight jumped into my new AN/I subsection to accuse us three editors (plus perhaps another editor or two who had joined the AN/I conversation by then) of abuse, disruption, stalking, being trolls, and other nasties.   This caused one editor to declare they were quitting the topic, and inflamed a bunch of others, including, another party to the Arbcom case, against whom ChildofMidnight then filed another AN/I report.  In disrupting the Obama-related AN/I report, ChildofMidnight was not only shielding another editor's bad behavior in an Obama article through groundless accusations of bad faith, he was also furthering a content position on what the article should say.

As with the earlier incident, the combination of ChildofMidnight's unprovoked personal attacks, and the ambiguity in the editing restrictions, left me no viable option other than to seek clarification here. Like Scjessey and a number of administrators, I interpret the Arbcom remedies broadly: not interacting with ChildofMidnight means not commenting about him behind his back, not insulting a group of three editors that includes him, not going to a discussion he starts to argue against his position, and so on - not saying, or reacting, or doing, or having anything to do with him. Similarly, I assumed that Arbcom's topic ban meant what it said, that ChildofMidnight was supposed to entirely avoid editing on the topic of Barack Obama broadly construed, whether it was content, the upkeep of the pages, links, deletions, categories, templates, administrative actions to protect the pages, etc.

ChildofMidnight's appearance in a sub-thread I started, arguing against my content and process position, and accusing me of being in bad faith, left me in an untenable situation. He had disrupted my discussion. I could not respond in any way, not even to say that my position was correct, because I did not want to violate the stay-away order myself. It's analogous to two people subject to a mutual restraining order who find themselves sitting next to each other on the bus. If you value your peace of mind you simply leave, whoever got there first - you don't get into an argument about which one of you has the right to the seat. Here at Arbcom we can discuss the seating arrangements on the bus. But over at AN/I, when ChildofMidnight jumped into the next seat to argue I was part of a pro-Obama mob I had to back far away. Fearful of violating my own editing restriction if I reacted at all, I hatted my own contribution and quit the thread.

Variants of these and other close calls have been occurring regularly for the past month. By some counts ChildofMidnight has violated the Arbcom sanctions six or eight times now, each time with a new twist. Now he refers throughout the encyclopedia to the whole group of editors that includes me, not just me, of being censors, trolls, POV-pushers, etc. with respect to Obama articles (he has done this lately throughout the encyclopedia) without referring to me by name.

As before I was very careful in my initial filing to be neutral, minimize my references to ChildofMidnight, and not to seek any remedy, just an impartial clarification as to what the boundaries are. As before, my filing a careful report has resulted in a fresh volley of insults. I have rewritten my initial report here to be much more specific in discussing ChildofMidnight's behavior, but the block was not my doing. I am after some clear, effective rules going forward.

More possible violations
In the past few minutes, has been:
 * advocating on the talk page of to log a recent but now lifted WP:3RR block against  to the article probation sanctions page at General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions.
 * accusing administrator of one-sidedness
 * accusing Protonk of favoring (regarding a comment about Baseball Bugs Protonk made here), despite a general sanction that he is not supposed to comment on Baseball Bugs.
 * demanding that Protonk recuse himself from Obama-related matters
 * referring to Obama article editors as stalking and harassing him, the Obama article as being "scrubbed" by "POV pushers", article ownership, enforcing admins as "incompetent"
 * rehashing a past dispute with (referring to this)
 * referring to my edits as "a pattern of harassment" (refers to these edits)

If you're following any of this, William S Saturn is the editor whose edit warring to add some disparaging teleprompter material to an Obama article triggered this latest incident, when ChildofMidnight stepped in to the AN/I report WSS filed to accuse me and other editors of abuse, disruption, stalking, trolling, etc (see above). The problem here is that ChildofMidnight is inciting clearly disruptive Obama edits by DSS, while also obstructing the work of admins and nonadmin editors to deal with that kind of trouble on the Obama articles. If you look at the evidence in the case, the very same behavior, and identical accusations, were much of the objection raised over ChildofMidnight's edits in the first place.

Discussion
If warranted I will expand an argument below that: (1) the existing Arbcom sanctions are ambiguous as to whether meta-pages are covered in the Obama topic bans and editing restrictions; (2) the edit warring, name-calling, accusations, etc., necessitating the sanctions, and harm to the project sought to be avoided were identical in article space, talk space, AfDs, ANI reports, templates, and user pages; (3) one cannot realistically prevent disruption to article and talk pages without preventing disruption to the meta-pages that exist to maintain order on those pages - if you disrupt AN/I as a forum for resolving problems in an article, you disrupt the article; (4) in this particular incident and in others in which I was not involved following the end of the case, ChildofMidnight's content disruption and personal attacks were the exact sort of behavior that merited the arbcom sanctions in the first place; and (5) given that a key reason mentioned explicitly by the arbitrators in enacting sanctions was that the conflict had spread to five or six project spaces, the intent of at least some arbitrators was that the sanctions should apply to those spaces. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone really wants to solve this instead of wasting hundreds more hours of people's time in pointless process (which would add to a total in thousands), we need to recognize a few things. First, despite its title the matter here is not Obama articles or article probation. It is the behavior of several editors who happened to be at the same time and place during a 2-day period when Wikipedia was under politically motivated external attack. The attack subsided quickly, the articles maintained a stability, and there has never been a showing that these articles need the special (yet excruciatingly slow, bureaucratic, and frankly, ineffectual) type of attention Arbcom can provide. There is no problem addressed here that could not have been solved far more simply by a willing administrator. Second, once we acknowledge this as a simple behavior issue, there is and always has been only one editor here who has misbehaved to any significant degree. Can we stop this pretense and get real for a moment? If you look at the edit history of every editor involved in this latest incident, can you in all sincerity say that there is any systemic problem here? It is bizarre and dysfunctional to even be discussing the question of whether this peculiar institution we Wikipedians call a "topic ban" applies to one particular page or another, when it's so obvious we have someone acting out and causing trouble, who needs to stop acting out and causing trouble.

But if we must, on the technical question of whether the wording of the existing topic ban includes all Obama-related pages, or just article and talk space, the simple answer is that it is textually ambiguous. "You must avoid doing X in Y, including Z" does not by itself establish whether Y and Z is an inclusive or exclusive condition, or whether you must actually be present in Y to be doing X. It is a fair call to say that ChildofMidnight should not be sanctioned for violating the ban in places where it is ambiguous, but now that we are here as a clarification rather than an enforcement, arbitrators may resolve the ambiguity in whatever way they feel most accomplishes the goals of the project. Whether covered by the ban or not, X was a bad thing to do, and falls on the heels of dozens of other bad things that were done. Can we please get this editor to stop doing X? He has been allowed to do X for nine months now to 30+ different editors and many important articles. It is hurting the project and wasting all our time.

- Wikidemon (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight
This is outrageous. More harassment from an editor whose behavior was so atrocious and inappropriate they had to be banned from further contact with me. I haven't made a single content edit to an Obama article. Stalkers, including the one above, have pursued my contributions to any article they can argue is somehow Obama related. It's a joke. This is a continuation of their campaign of smears and half-truths against me. If I'm not allowed to speak plainly about this editor's behavior and activities then they shouldn't be able to file reports like this. This is absolutely disruptive. This editor has worked long and hard to have me banned and blocked (and I'm not the only one. Diffs available upon request).

It's enough already that Arbcom rewarded their harassment, stalking, and abuse. Put a stop to this. They are not allowed to interact with me PERIOD. I can't be expected not to comment on them if they are allowed to continue to stalk me in this way. Obama articles are Obama articles. I have let the disputes go on periferally related articles and walked away to avoid drama, but Obama comments on lots of issues and topics and the stalking of me and accusations against me need to end. If there's a concern that my editing is controversial or on an Obama article there are plenty of people who can let me know without this kind of smearing attack. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DIFF OF A SUBSTANTIAL CONTENT CHANGE I'VE MADE TO OBAMA CONTENT and I haven't made a single comment on an Obama article talk page.

That this editor is allowed to continue editing the Obama articles despite their behavior and stalking and harassment of NUMEROUS editors is an outrage. That they are also allowed to continue their abusive behavior against me is shocking.

This team effort to abuse editors who challenge their censorship and violations of our core NPOV policy cannot be allowed to continue. The policy states: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable source. These abusive and disruptive editors simply drag their opponents again and again and again through the mud on various boards. Without their activities we could all be contributing constructively to article content.

Arbcom should be disgusted with itself for rendering a decision that encourages this pattern of abusive behavior. As I stated in the Obama arbitration, failing to take action against those making personal attacks and harassing good faith contributors will only encourage the problem to grow. That's exactly what we've seen. More editors have been chased off the articles and off Wikipedia because of this disgusting abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will concede that I should not have added an article link to the list article page. It was a helpful edit and it's not content related or controversial, but it violated my topic ban. I think I didn't finish it (I was targeting it to the appropriate section) because I realized it was a no-no, but I don't really remember. I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time, but I shouldn't have made the edit at all. It was a mistake on my part and I apologize for it. I edit lots of articles so sometimes I may slip up. If someone wants to revert my change, go for it.

1RR on Obama articles would solve all this. I couldn't "edit war" and wouldn't have to keep dealing with this relentless stalking and harassment from these crazed POV pushers trying to find things to attack me with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
I don't follow why this was brought here or what the confusion is. For question 2, the first answer was already given by Wizardman. Such editors may participate in meta discussions and AFD debates purely and simply because it's not a complete topic ban on all pages - it's limited to articles and their talk pages. However, they may not edit a list article that is related to Obama articles - that's, strictly speaking, a violation of the restriction. The diff supplied for ChildOfMidnight's topic ban violation which resulted in the block earlier today is accordingly incorrect.

As for the 3rd question on the comments made by CoM; I'm not aware of any restriction between the interactions of ChildOfMidnight and Unitanode. So there's no violation of some ArbCom restriction in those diffs, unless I'm missing something. However, they certainly have a quality that falls under general misconduct which can result in blocks and other sanctions of their own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC) modified slightly. 08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey
With respect to Q2, I just assumed it was better to stay away from any Wikipedia document that involved Obama, except in processes such as these. It may be a broader interpretation than necessary, but it avoids confusion and it isn't exactly a hardship, is it? Wikipedia is a huge project, and the Obama-related articles can manage just fine without me for 6 months.

In the case of Q3, it doesn't really apply to me. I've had no contact with ChildofMidnight, apart from occasionally commenting on the same AfDs, RfAs, etc. I intentionally avoid articles where CoM participates. I'm well aware of CoM's continuous stream of accusations against other editors (particularly the use of terms such as "POV pushers"), including in these ArbCom-related discussions, but I prefer to just ignore them. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Guilt by association problem
This is partly a response to Wikidemon's "proposed motion". In the original case, proposed amendments and clarifications, discussions about me (and the sanctions placed upon me) have always been "lumped together" with ChildofMidnight. Except in the obvious case of the interaction sanction, I formally request that matters concerning me are treated completely independently from those concerning ChildofMidnight. Our editing histories, both prior and post the ArbCom case, could not be more different. Since the resolution of the case, our Wikipedia activity has been markedly different. I do not wish to be constantly associated with ChildofMidnight, because I am concerned that my efforts to be a better Wikipedian are being tarnished by what I view as guilt-by-association (both in the original ArbCom case, and the subsequent amendments and clarifications). This is not an unreasonable request, and I ask all parties (involved or otherwise) to give this matter due consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace
I think it's necessary for one or the other of Wikidemon's first two motions (or something like them) to be passed. The scope of the topic ban needs to be better defined, but I think that's completely up to the committee. As I previously mentioned to Wizardman, I had been interpreting the ban as something to be construed widely, akin to Wikidemon's first proposed motion. The question of how to think about the scope first came up in late June, and I was basing my thinking at the time on these comments from Arbs in a then-active request for clarification (the discussion had been linked to by another admin and it seemed very germane to the Obama topic bans). Reviewing those comments may or may not be useful as Arbs consider this matter.

I may well have been operating under a false impression of the scope of the topic bans and that's basically fine/partially my bad (though no one was blocked by me for violating a "broadly construed" topic ban), so long as it can be clarified here one way or another. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Jtrainor
I urge the Arbcom to stomp all over this complaint fast and furiously, with big, wooden clogs that have cleats strapped to them. CoM is absolutely correct that there are people that have been following him around Wikipedia and attempting to both provoke him and wikilawyer his restrictions to cover as wide an area as possible. Jtrainor (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by CIreland
I have previously applied the remedies in this case to prevent ChildOfMidnight from discussing Obama-related matters in project space (in particular, in deletion discussions). I did so on the basis of this recent Request for Clarification in which the arbitration committee explained that topic-bans which prohibited both discussion and article editing applied to all namespaces. CIreland (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed motions
- Proposed by Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The text of remedies no. 9 and 10 are amended as follows:
 * [user] is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages. The ban is to be construed widely, to include Obama-related subjects within articles and associated talk pages whether or not the articles themselves are primarily about Obama, and pages in all namespaces (other than proceedings before Arbcom) pertaining to such articles.
 * 1) (alternate) The text of remedies no. 9 and 10 are amended as follows:
 * (9 and 10): [user] is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages. The ban is to be construed narrowly, to include only articles and associated talk pages primarily about Obama, and not pages in other namespaces.
 * 1) The text of remedies no. 11 and 11.1 are amended as follows:
 * [user1] and [user2] are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. For purposes of this remedy, negative comments about edits or behavior of the other, or procedural opposition to the other, in any namespace, whether by name, reference, or as a member of a small group of editors, (other than proceedings before Arbcom) shall be considered interaction. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Question by Mythdon
Does the motion reset the clock of ChildOfMidnight's topic ban? -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. That's what the "timed to run from the date the case closed" bit is for. Still six months, just a widening of the range of the restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you! ChildOfMidnight could most certainly use this clarification, while I have no use for it, as it doesn't affect me, but, again, thank you. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  19:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment: As written, I interpreted the ban to be just the articles and article talk pages. Granted, you still have to be courteous if discussing it on the project space, that's just common sense. I'll defer to how the other arbs interpreted these remedies, and if they would like to make a motion modifying them. Wizardman  21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Scjessy here: "With respect to Q2, I just assumed it was better to stay away from any Wikipedia document that involved Obama, except in processes such as these. It may be a broader interpretation than necessary, but it avoids confusion and it isn't exactly a hardship, is it? Wikipedia is a huge project, and the Obama-related articles can manage just fine without me for 6 months." I would urge CoM to do the same and find other things to do for 6 months. If he continues to get involved in Obama-related discussions, bringing more heat than light, such a broad interpretation of his ban may need to be formally passed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have proposed a motion below to address the continuing conduct problems resulting from this case. The other clarification request from Wikidemon (about "editors under restriction not to interact with each other") may require a separate motion, but no arbitrators have addressed this yet, so awaiting further comments and discussions on that. Carcharoth (talk)
 * I'd interpret a broader interpretation. If we need to enshrine as a motion maybe we'd better do that now. Tinkering around the edges with ongoing conflict is not a good thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1

 * There are 11 active arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed): "is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces."


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Noting that Scjessey is voluntarily holding to this extended level of restriction ("the Obama-related articles can manage just fine without me for 6 months"), and as the only other editor fully topic-banned in this case, I suggest Scjessey holds to that voluntary level of additional self-restriction. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 01:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Moving a dispute elsewhere is not an appropriate response to a sanction.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Carcharoth's additional comments. Risker (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 09:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 08:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Recuse
 * Wizardman 16:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong (September 2009)

 * Original discussion


 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Six month topic ban to User:Olaf Stephanos from Falun Gong and related articles.


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Amendment 1

 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
 * Removal of topic ban.

Statement by Olaf Stephanos
I hold the view that the evidence presented in this arbitration enforcement case does not warrant such a sanction.

I agree that my tongue has been too sharp in some discussions; I have occasionally breached WP:CIVILITY by writing what I thought were seen as humorous remarks and stand corrected. I now understand that Wikipedia is not the forum for witty satire; my sincere apologies to all concerned parties, especially User:Colipon. I promise to treat others with more respect in the future and abstain from quirky metaphors.

However, in my opinion, a six month topic ban without a single warning of inappropriate behaviour does not seem fair. Also, I disagree with User:Shell Kinney's allegation that I would not know how to "write for the enemy". I feel my case has not been evaluated in the proper context – the extremely complex and long-lasting content disputes surrounding the development of these articles, the scars left by the ultra-hostile environment that lead to the previous arbitration case, the behaviour of other involved editors, and the signs of progress that are now unfolding, thanks to fresh outside input. As seen on the related talk pages, I have been very much favourable towards the recent mediation case, and have tried my best to develop these articles together with formerly uninvolved editors. I would also like the ArbCom to evaluate my recent edit history.

I feel that User:John Carter's opinions were decisive in imposing the ban. Contrary to what he says here, I do not believe that I have a severe conflict of interest in editing these articles; I am not a member of any related organisation, and can get no financial or other benefit whatsoever by taking part. I am merely interested in truthful, transparent coverage of a highly challenging subject, and I have always endorsed the use of peer-reviewed academic sources. See a comment regarding another editor on the CoI noticeboard: I also do not recognise myself from his characterisation of "being opposed to content which I beli[e]ve wikipedia content guidelines demand". In my discussions I have frequently raised questions about reliable sources and due weight, and I have never opposed to taking matters to community noticeboards. Furthermore, no diffs were produced as evidence of such an attitude.

My honest belief is that the diffs presented in this arbitration enforcement case were essentially dealing with legitimate content disputes, not "POV pushing". Even if a brief glance may lead to a different impression, several of them had been approved on the community noticeboards. I hope that the ArbCom will be able to examine the evidence point-by-point, juxtaposed with my own statement. Also, I would ask for a contextual review of the "sound bites" that have been brought forth as examples of my incivil comments to evaluate whether they were mostly proactive or reactive.

As a final note, I'd like to say that I was involved in some discussions (such as this one) whose outcome depends on my ability to continue the work. I am almost certain that editors who have taken an opposing position in these discussions may support the ban, because they would no longer have to deal with such hard-to-refute arguments. Even if my style on the talk page has been regrettably harsh in some cases, I feel that my contributions to the content-related discussions have been largely beneficial. By toning down my speech and reflecting on my weaknesses, I believe that I have all the skills to play a significant positive role in this workgroup.

---

P.S. Despite explicit requests, User:John Carter has failed to produce evidence to back up his allegations that I have violated the content policies. I have never tried to "stifle criticism of Falun Gong in the content" merely on the basis that it is critical. I have been very clear on this. For example, see this thread where I disagree with Dilip Rajeev's edit: "''[...] I consider it counterproductive and unprofessional. By Wikipedia standards, Encyclopaedia Britannica is a valid source. The same policies and guidelines must apply to everyone. Your reasoning could be used against any material "our" party tries to introduce, and then it will only lead to endless edit warring (you should know) and anomie. Furthermore, the article will not appear credible to any third-party observers if everything "critical" is deliberately removed. [...] If we assume that nearly every subject has a "majority view" and a "significant minority view", and that they're two different things, what would you call the "significant minority view" on Falun Gong and how should we include it in the articles? [...] Even if you feel something shouldn't be in the lead, you should not entirely remove it but perhaps replace it in another section, as long as it's reliably sourced and verifiable.''"

I find his reference to Jennifer Zeng's suffering extremely insolent and disparaging towards me as a rational subject, as well as towards the experiences of Zeng in the hands of her torturers. Even though he just recently used "Bestiality is good" as a "humorous" example of something that would be placed in the criticism article if it were found in Falun Gong's teachings, I would never have expected to see the persecution exploited as an argument in this amendment case. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  20:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I have requested User:HappyInGeneral to strike out some of my comments on the talk page by this explanation. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  07:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum 2: Just to give you one more example. I have been 100% consistent with my views regarding "critical" sources: "Now we're talking. Let's incorporate that stuff. Can you offer some quotes, so that we can find start discussing their placement? We probably need to redesign the structure of these articles as well. As long as the sources are alright, the most serious obstacle has been removed, and I will be more than happy to cooperate with you. It's about time to move from discussion to actual work. [...] I don't stand in opposition to critical voices per se, as long as the material complies with the Wikipedia standards. When I talked about transparency, I meant it. A rational reader will be able to come to his or her own conclusions, as long as the articles conform to WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR." &#10004; Olaf Stephanos  &#9997;  14:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
It is hard to convey to anyone just how bizarre the above comments strike me. Olaf seems to have been one of the primary parties to the arbitration which placed the article on probation, as per here, and yet he tries to convey that somehow he wasn't aware of the sanctions. Any reasonable person would, I think, understood that he was notified of the sanctions then. It is also true that at least one editor has indicated on the article talk page that Olaf's recent egregious violations of even the most basic etiquette as per here are to my eyes sufficient to conclude that what in fact happened was that Olaf forgot the sanctions might apply to him as well. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that Olaf probably thinks of himself as being "witty" and "sarcastic". I remember when I was a college kid too, and I thought much the same thing about myself. The terms "arrogant", "abrasive", "abusive", "condescending", "egomaniacal", "insulting" and "completely unacceptable" were the terms other people used. In my case, "gutter humor" was included as well, and I think some similar phrase probably applies to Olaf as well. I am not myself saying that I necessarily agree with the length of the topic ban, and think that if Olaf displays over the next several months behavior without these concerns in the remainder of the wiki there is a very real chance that the length may be shortened. And if someone wants to begin enforcement proceedings regarding others, they are free to do so, but that would still be a different matter. While Olaf may have some grounds to see that the ban might be excessive, I'm not sure the circumstances he puts forward are cause to amend the ruling. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A few comments. Personally, I think HappyInGeneral's comments about how all editors involved should be giving a warning is a good one, but that the existing sanctions template on the top of the page already serves as such a warning. Regarding my contention that Olaf may have a conflict of interests regarding this subject, I have read in the Booklist review of Jennifer Zeng's book Witnessing History, which I have not yet added to the article in question, how she had to "come to terms" with the "painful conclusion" that, by signing a document saying she would no longer practice the tenets of Falun Gong, which was required for her to be able to flee the country, she had violated a central tenet of Falun Gong regarding "compromising with evil". Olaf has more than once proudly indicated that he too is a practicioner of Falun Gong, and thus, presumably, supposed to adhere to the same tenet. His actions and comments have certainly fairly regularly been of an totally uncompromising type. The viewpoint of the Chinese government, for instance, is I think clearly that of a significant minority, and thus deserves reasonable coverage, although he has I believe repeatedly objected to such information and indicated that adding such information would only serve or enhance the position of the Chinese government, when in fact it would, I believe, be what policy and guidelines demand of us. It could also be said that by trying to stifle criticism of Falun Gong in the content Olaf is himself guilty of "attempting to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy", which is one of the reasons for banning other parties in the extant arbitration ruling. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have expectedf to see Olaf indulge in the same sort of personal insults and attacks on this page as he has regularly done elsewhere, and can honestly imagine few better reasons to sustain the existing ruling than continuation to indulge in such clearly inappropriate behavior. Regarding his objection to what I at the time saw as being a clearly obvious, if lame, attempt at humor, he may have a point, but would suggest he pay more attention to his own failings in that regard first. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have I regret to say had no luck finding the link to the discussion, given the remarkable number of edits Olaf has had in recent days, so I am obliged to withdraw the statment until and unless I find it. Having said that, I also wish to state that I find Asdfg12345's misrepresentation of my earlier comment attempting to establish that any practicioner of Falun Gong would be obliged to adhere to what has been said to be a fundamental tenet of the faith in the way he did c0mpletely and utterly uncalled for and indicative of either very poor reading skills or some sort of willful intention to misrepresent the statement of others, either of which would be a very bad reflection on his character or ability as an editor. John Carter (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is merely a comment regarding some information I have recently discovered. I've only been involved at all with this topic for a few weeks. Olaf, who says on his user page that he has completed a masters degree and that he's been an editor here for over four years, could possibly be expected to in that time have consulted Stephen Jones' The Encyclopedia of Religion regarding Falun Gong, considering that I myself have found to be included in the reference section of every reasonably sized public or private library I have been to, and even online at the Gale Research website. It is, basically, the most highly regarded recent reference book on the subject of religion in general. This book contains a number of pieces of information which some might consider critical of Falun Gong, and it seems to me from his edit history that he has in general opposed addition of such information. It is possible that he never consulted this generally highly credited source, of course. It is also possible, at least potentially, that he did, but for whatever reason chose to not indicate as much, and, if he did know of it, and continued to oppose the inclusion of information he knew to be included in what is among the most reliable sources on the subject extant, I think that might speak very poorly of him indeed, were it the case. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Olaf has subsequently commented to me that he himself had not consulted this source, and I have no reason to doubt his word in this matter. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Colipon
This proposed amendment is not reasonable on any grounds. This plea is but another attempt to "outwit" the system. The WP:COI concern is very real. Despite what this user may otherwise claim, his edits and presence on this encyclopedia appear to only serve one purpose - to present Falun Gong in a positive light and to supress any criticism of the movement. Linking to a few superficial diffs of supposed "constructive edits" do not stand up against the vast array of evidence that suggest a very apparent pro-Falun Gong agenda (which has already been presented on WP:AE and do not need to be reiterated).

In addition, his disruptions on the article talk pages have been pervasive and on-going, and there were many warnings from the mediator, myself, and other uninvolved editors, which he now suddenly claims doesn't exist, using the pretext that "there was no warning" to justify his case. This is absurd. He claims to know a plethora of Wikipedia guidelines and policies yet somehow when this applies to himself, he is suddenly ignorant. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an extremely interesting, if ineffective way to go about what is by nature an arbitration amendments case. First, Olaf apolgizes. Then he characterizes the case as "unfair". Then two other editors come onto the page and flood it with text supposedly "defending" Olaf, but in reality just making more ad hominem attacks. Except this time, attacks on me was not enough, so they have now extended these attacks to several other good faith editors, non-involved editors, labelling us as a collective ("cabal"), and even John Carter, who came to the discussion only as an observer on invitation, is now being targeted.


 * It is regrettable that such charges can be laid upon so many users in such a short space of time, especially when in the course of this discussion, noticeable improvements are happening with all Falun Gong articles - with very direct input from a wide range of participants. I once again ask the users that are levying these personal attacks to stop, in the interest of focusing on the topic at hand, in the interest of our arbitrators, and dedicate more energy into the articles' contents, which should be priority. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If anything, the amount of negative and inflammatory commentary on these pages actually call for a longer, more serious ban, not a lifting of the current one. Olaf's intellectual maneuvering has now placed John Carter at the heart of this amendment case, even though it was I who filed for it, and another user that carried it out. Notice how he subtly shifts the burden of proof for "content violations" to John Carter, a good faith editor who a mere week ago was not involved in these articles at all. In a case like this the burden of proof is firstly on myself, and then on Olaf, and in a case of amendments, it should be placed on the arbitrator who placed the ban. How John Carter suddenly becomes the centre of focus is quite evidently another game being played by Olaf to crawl through some logical wormhole. This is a grossly misleading characterization of the entire situation. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to caution the arbitrators looking over comments of "User:FalunGongDisciple". I have a feeling that this may be in fact be a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet - more attempts to play games the system. The user's sudden appearance in an arbitration enforcement case like this is extremely disconcerting. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Asdfg12345
[ec] Basically he has just been making clever and cocky remarks in discussions about content--well, give a warning and tell him that if he continues to do it there will be a ban. His edits to the actual articles are not particularly problematic; this is essentially a content dispute, with disagreements as usual. Just banning outright for such a long time seems to neglect the wider context. Smarmy remarks and personal comments have been a feature of the editing experience on these pages for some time now: Olaf's case should reinforce for everyone that this has to stop, but banning him from the topic just like that is definitely going about it the wrong way. Actually looking through the diffs shows he's only guilty of being a smart-arse, and that doesn't warrant a ban. Having realised the need to change attitudes, I'm sure you'll see a very amiable and civil editor emerge.

Just an addendum, given Colipon's remarks. As my mother said to me: "When you point the finger, there are three pointing back." Can we then say that Colipon is dedicated to "present[ing] Falun Gong in a negative light and to supress any positive comment on the movement"? Can we say that Colipon has done any edits that portray Falun Gong in a positive light? I'd like to see them. What about Ohconfucius, PerEdman, Mrund? Let's see their history of edits that portray Falun Gong in a positive, rather than negative, light. Such a consideration is not even within the scope of AE, really, because these should be rulings on behaviour, not content. Olaf's disputes, anyway, have always been about reliable sourcing, not about the content itself; i.e., just because something is critical of Falun Gong is no grounds for removing it, it's about whether that source is reliable or not. Unfortunately, since some people peddle sub-par sources critical of Falun Gong, some editors have gotten confused sometimes (like with the Rick Ross sources...).

Olaf hasn't disrupted the talk pages any more than others. What are termed here "disruptions" are the regular course of discussion/argumentation about the subject matter and sources. His remarks are no more disruptive than Colipon's. This is basically a clash of viewpoints that has been taken to AE, there is no real evidence of editing that violates wikipedia content guidelines. ScienceApologist has gotten away with far worse remarks about other editors. A lot of the complaint about Olaf just used words like "arrogant", "cocky", etc., which are well and true, but shouldn't affect the ruling. Olaf has basically just played the same games as the others, except he's played them quite well. Tell everyone to stop and things can move on; we'll get a civil atmosphere with no personal remarks, and strict, dead-pan content discussions; when there are disagreements they go to community noticeboards, and there will be no more of this nonsense. 2cents -- Asdfg 12345  20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Colipon is far from neutral on this subject. He is a declared sympathizer with Samuel Luo who has refused to retract his words, and has exhibited decidedly anti-Falun Gong sentiments during discussion, even when he has disagreed with the Communist Party viewpoint. His complaints about the current state of the pages always refer to their apparently positive representation of Falun Gong, and not to whether they are based on reliable sources. The only difference is that Olaf has always strictly referred to content policies and guidelines, while Colipon has felt that strict enforcement of such rules is just a real hassle and impediment to his agenda. Like this line: "After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary." -- great, reference to and argumentation from policy becomes wikilawyering, and instead let's just ban the pro-FLG guys. This whole AE case is obviously about eliminating a perceived opponent. Can whoever looks at this case please confirm they have checked Colipon's 20 points against Olaf's 20 points, and can they confirm any fault other than smart-alec remarks? -- Asdfg 12345  21:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I hope those who investigate this will note the fact that, as Dilip points out, the only findings of substance in the diffs provided by Colipon relate to uncivil talk page remarks, and not to editing. Contributions are to be judged by the policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS etc.; Olaf's contributions meet these requirements. If there were a claim that Olaf's contributions violated NPOV, since they clearly do not violate RS, that would have to be proven out. Presumably we are not saying that one particular editor cannot add sources which express a particular viewpoint, given they meet V and RS. If that is the basis on which Olaf is to be sanctioned (as in, because he has added sources which, for example, argue that the anti-cult movement has been a "lackey" to the Chinese Communist Party's campaign against Falun Gong, or which talk about the persecution suffered by Falun Gong adherents in China), expect a lot more AE cases. Would it mean that every editor has to make one "positive edit" for every "negative edit"? Will we have someone assessing whether edits are advocating one or another point of view, then tally them up? Most edits don't fit neatly into these categories, and a range of opinions and views should be respected.

The examples than Shell Kinney shows of Olaf's remarks fail to take into account the context in which they were made. For example, they were supposed to be "funny," there was a silly picture hyperlinked, and the word "your" was struck out; so the remark became "Ideological struggle blah blah blah" rather than "your ideological struggle blah blah blah" -- whatever the case, they're stupid remarks, but it's still important not to misrepresent them. Again, they are only talk page remarks, and I've seen far, far worse on wikipedia without a ban. The real issue here are the contributions, and I have not yet seen evidence of this user violating wikipedia's content guidelines. Everyone has a point of view on this subject, and their editing will reflect that, whether they like it or not; that's not a crime. The key is that people play by the rules and treat each other with respect. Any investigator of this case should be far more concerned with the recent blankings of sourced content on Falun Gong, despite protests and reversions.

Re John Carter's recent remarks, where is the evidence of the claim that this editor has opposed appropriate placement of material from the Chinese Communist Party? Apart from that, the spurious connection between Olaf's beliefs and the Zeng book are simply ridiculous.-- Asdfg 12345  20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: sorry for leaving such long notes!! That's embarrasing...-- Asdfg 12345  20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PerEdman
A very strange counter-case. Olaf Stephanos is obviously aware of his own behavior and that it has taken place in a probationary article. If he wants to show others how well he has learned from these realized mistakes, he has plenty of time to do so in articles on all other subjects than the one on which he has hitherto failed. The Falun Gong pages are indeed showing signs of improvement, which is another reason why Olaf Stephanos, considering his past behavior, should not be allowed to be active on those pages at this time. PerEdman (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Because Olaf has added a final note to his statement since my statement, I add that the discussion he uses as an example above reflects badly on us both.. That discussion needs resolution, but I do not believe it will benefit from Olaf Stephanos' presence. PerEdman (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to statement by Olaf Stephanos : The behavior exhibited on this page is in line with the behavior that lead to the Arbitration Request. The articles are improving with freer discussions and boldness, so please do not repeal this ban. / PerEdman  21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to statement by FalunGongDisciple : I would urge admins to ignore this brand-new user for now. Something decidedly fishy is going on and I don't know who thinks there is anything to gain by doing it. / PerEdman  17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with PerEdman, please ignore this new user, his edits are not constructive under any standard. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius
The sanction was clearly not focussed on the content, but on some rather toxic behaviour of Olav. Already, I am happy that the sanction seems to have brought Olav down a peg or two from this very arrogant comment, and elicited an unprecedented outpouring of contrition (albeit measured), above. The sanction may look like a 6 month block for a WP:SPA, but it's only a topic ban which covers about a dozen articles, so I think it is acceptable and appropriate bearing in mind there are nearly 3 million articles now on en:WP; Olav could gain immensely from working unrelated articles and with a wider pool of editors. I look forward to working with him when the topic ban is lifted in six months. It goes without saying that we will expect a high standard of behaviour from him then. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to comment on this edit here by Olav. I see great significance therein, as he qualifies his absence of conflict of interest, effectively owning up to a potential lack of objectivity. Of course, he is also correct in saying he is not a member of any related organisation even if he was a practitioner - we are frequently reminded that the concept of membership is inapplicable to Falun Gong. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would add that I am displeased at how some of the comments in this amendment appear another unacceptable character assassination of Colipon. Some comments now include bitter attacks on myself (without mentioning me by name), and all those newcomers who do not align themselves with the Falun Gong; there are also assorted red herrings to deflect the blame for the toxic behaviour of Olav. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney
(Perm link to AE report)

On reviewing the report at WP:AE, I felt that the diffs given showed a pattern of strong POV pushing and incivil talk page commentary that created a hostile environment. As Olaf Stephanos was a party to the arbitration case, I didn't believe further warning was necessary in this case.

Samples:
 * The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose
 * I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil. If you weren't peacocking around with phrases like "neutral-minded editors calling on the pro-FLG side to adhere to NPOV", there would be no need to point out your double standards. Why don't you start playing your cards openly?.
 * "Guys, guys, here's a handkerchief to wipe your foaming mouths...
 * In my eyes you have come across as one raging anti-FLG bull.
 * regarding your comment about what I "insist", perhaps you'd better check your eyesight

However, I have no objections to ArbCom modifying or removing the ban as they see fit if they feel there's a better way to handle the situation. Shell  babelfish 09:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HappyInGeneral
Olaf has had a significant role in the discussions, and he has been taking part actively, with substantiated arguments, based on policies that drive value into Wikipedia. Given that several editors have engaged in breaches of WP:Civility, not just one. if we single out one participant the problem remains with an empowerment to those who issued the AE. In order to restore WP:Civility I think that the best practical approach is to issue warnings to all parties that engage in WP:NPA, followed by a topic ban if this does not help. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dilip Rajeev
While I certainly agree that Olaf needs to tone-down his commenting style, pay attention to his conduct on talk, put things across in a manner more appropriate for discussion on an encyclopaedia article, and refrain from resorting to his "carnivalesque" style of commenting, I am of the opinion the contributions he has made to these articles should also be taken into consideration.

I'd request the arbitration committee to give due weight to the fact that Olaf's contributions to these articles themselves have, it may be verified from his contrib history, always been well sourced, well-written and adhering to wikipedia policies.

Among the 20 arguments presented by Colipon in making the case against Olaf - the only ones with any basis are those pertinent to talk page comments( this may be verified by considering the context of the edits, the sourcing of material added by the user, etc. ). Olaf makes this apparent in his response to these allegations. Further,on the talk page, other editors, including User:Colipon, have been equally, if not more, acerbic- calling for bans on all editors not agreeing with his POV, labeling legitimate changes "blatantly POV", etc. These attacks are harder to see through - as they do not involve blatantly acerbic language on the surface - but baselessly accuse and attack editors to promote a personal agenda.

Another major concern I have is what Olaf points out here. An activity, which, as far as my limited understanding of Wikipedia policies can tell, is in blatant violation of WP:CABAL. And the activity is happening on articles placed on probation by the ArbCom. There have been very serious and problematic issues in edits by these users, in terms of content removal etc. One such very recent instance is here, a revert of a stable article to 1 year old version, on the basis of demonstratably misleading claims, in the process deleting several paragraphs of content sourced to mainstream academia, a centrally relevant image, and adding material from CCP propaganda sheets.(I consciously refrained from reverting the disruptions, to avoid a revert war, and hoping the admins will take notice.) The same user who reverted the article blanked out 20 K from the stable main-article claiming to make a "bold change", based on a comment by "Seb az86556."

I realize this is not the place to get into such discussion, but it seemed appropriate that I point out such behavior - particularly since these very users attempt to inculpate Olaf for talk page comments, while themselves demonstrating a pattern of editing, on the articles themselves, that is, to say the least, extremely disconcerting.


 * Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..."
 * Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?"
 * Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)"
 * Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you."

Clearly, the editors who started this campaign have a rather strong agenda of their own. How does a few haughty talk page comments even compare to rallying for "total war", outside of wikipedia, on articles placed on probation by the ArbCom?

Regarding the agenda held by the above editors, I consider it at least peripherally relevant that User:Colipon  has identified himself as a supporter of User:Samuel_Luo and has not retracted his comments.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223
The only agenda that Colipon, Ohconfucius or anybody else, has on this issue has been an honest and earnest attempt to make the FLG articles have some semblance of neutrality. Sorry, I don't want to go into an extensive discussion on the matter but, the record speaks for itself.Simonm223 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Seb az86556
One example of the progress that's been made since the imposition of the ban can be found here: New Proposed Outline Seb az86556 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana
This appears to be part of a move from away from the long-standing dysfunctional environment, which includes a failure to utilize appropriate resolution options and pervasive personal accusations in article talk. Complaints about behavior were moved away from the article talk to an enforcement venue. An uninvolved administrator with significant experience and a solid reputation concluded that the evidence supported a commensurate sanction. Regardless of individual opinions, an appropriate process and review was utilized to address the disputed conduct. While this matter is an arbitration enforcement, unless arbitrators believe Shell Kinney has seriously erred or that the process was misused/gamed unduly, they should leave the matter to the enforcing administrators and community. Reversing the proper utilization of appropriate venues would be seriously damaging to the (slow but still substantial) progress being made in the topic area. There may be conduct issues involving other editors, whether it is accurate accusations of misconduct or problematic behavior by way of spurious accusations. However, there is no need for ArbCom to address those issues at this time. Other complaints can be similarly handled by the complainants and community through discussion, a request for comments, and/or enforcement venues. Vassyana (talk) 19:17, 14 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 yet another editor
I do no think that Olaf should be banned. He is such a great editor who fights against communist CCP agents. Letting Wikipedia enlighten the people on the greatness of Falun Dafa will be beneficial to all.

I think we should change the topic ban to ALL the CCP AGENTS. They are being disgusting.

Falun Gong must be shown not as a cult either. Nor should it be called a religion. It is just the ultimate spiritual practice that nothing else can compare. It has no political agenda either. Please reconsider Olaf's case based on the fact that Falun Dafa is the Great Law.--198.85.228.129 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC) --FalunGongDisciple (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the ban be removed because Olaf is not a bad editor. He can be a great help to the Falun Gong articles.--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Does anyone else want to make a statement? Will aim to review this tomorrow or the day after. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the delay - will aim to review this today - and will ask other arbitrators when/if they intend to comment. Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the comments so far below from Casliber, Coren, Risker and FloNight. They've all said this better than I could. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uphold sanction. Vassyana's comments and others are noted. We are not talking about a total ban from WP, the editor has an opportunity to show they can edit in a constructive manner elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to alter the sanction; the behavior on display certainly does not encourage it and, as Casliber has correctly pointed out above there are millions of other articles where one can contribute constructively. Someone unable or unwilling to contribute outside a specific issue should probably give serious thought to whether they are here to build an encyclopedia, or to evangelize.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see any reason to alter the sanction, either. This was a reasonable response taken in a measured way based on a good analysis of the situation. Risker (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No action needed by the Committee at this time. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Coren, no action needed. Wizardman  21:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (2) (September 2009)

 * Original discussion

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

Statement by Bigtimepeace
The issue here is a straightforward one which can be corrected quite quickly. The committee recently altered several of their remedies in the Obama case such that 1RR restrictions on several editors applied not to all articles but rather only to Obama-related articles. The problem is that two editors, ChildofMidnight and Scjessey, are also under a topic ban for these articles. The revised remedies now seem to conflict with that as worded. For example remedy 9.2 says that "ChildofMidnight is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles" for one year, except that for the next few months C of M is not supposed to be editing Obama articles at all. This was apparently cause for confusion as discussed on ChildofMidnight's talk page here.

ChildofMidnight now understands that the topic ban is still in effect, but it would probably be better if the language were clarified, or if an Arb simply made a statement here about how to interpret the remedies in question. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fayssal, I'm sorry but I find it highly illogical that the 1 year, 1RR restriction begins after the topic ban has ended. I don't think that can be true. For one thing, as Scjessey pointed out, the proposed decision specifically said "To run concurrently" (or at least that's what Wizardman said). There's no sign in the final decision that that had changed.


 * Additionally, we need to bear in mind that the original 1RR restriction (for Scjessey, ChildofMidnight, Sceptre, Grundle2600, and Stevertigo) was for all articles. Three of those editors were not hit with a topic ban, and obviously their restriction began immediately (indeed the whole reason that the original remedies were superseded was that one of the editors complained that the restriction was too harsh, so clearly it was in effect at that time and the committee treated it as such when it superseded the restriction with a narrower alternative). As far as I know there was no comment anywhere from the Arbs that the 1RR restrictions for Scjessey and ChildofMidnight were different, or that they were beginning in 6 months (again, that would have been bizarre, as the 1RR was not just for Obama articles, but rather for everything&mdash;why would it have not started right away and run alongside the topic ban?).


 * Additionally, despite what you are saying now, clearly all those in question believed they were under a 1RR restriction and I think myself and all other admins familiar with the case believed that as well. So they've already been abiding by that, but now you seem to be saying they have not even started serving their time (so to speak). That's a problem.


 * Finally, the whole point of switching from 1RR for everything to 1RR for Obama only was, I assume, to relax the original sanctions. While this has happened for the three editors who were not topic banned (they are not 1RR limited in non-Obama topics), your suggestion that the 1RR restriction does not go into effect for Scjessey and ChildofMidnight for 6 months has the effect of strengthening their sanctions. The original remedies clearly sanctioned them for a year, but now they have a year and a half of sanctions, which strikes me as rather excessive.


 * So I'm wondering if Fayssal maybe just got it wrong here. Regardless, the situation is in far more need of clarification than I thought. The committee needs to be much more clear about where we stand, and at this point that may actually require a further amending of the remedies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight
As I seem to have been the only one who was confused, I don't think a clarification is needed. I'm straightened out now. Frankly, I hadn't realized Scjessey and I were the only ones topic banned and had, indeed, read the new remedy as allowing me to edit Obama articles as long as I limited myself to 1 revert a week and discussed any reverts (an proposal that seems pretty reasonable). That would be a more appropriate remedy, but I see that the other "remedy" is still in place, and I'm sure that any requests for modification would need to be filed in a different venue and queue. Anyway, I don't see any need for action or clarification. If the committee believes a 6 month ban serves a purpose aside from benefitting the censors and POV pushers camped out on those articles and the harassing stalkers who continue to use any sanction against me at every possible opportunity, then that's their priviledge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Fayssal's reading of the sanctions. 18 months? But whatever. The various policy violations engaged in by arbcom, their punitive punishments, and their lack of willingness to work collaboratively with editors to solve problems speaks for itself. I have noticed some improvement in response times which is nice. We waited months to get the monstrosity of a verdict you rendered in this case, and of course it's done nothing but perpetuate and aid the continued animosity, hostility, and abuse dished out on the Obama articles. But you guys are the captains of this ship, so who am I to yell ICEBEEEEERG!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The day there'd be no ANI reports and all what comes with regarding a conflict then I'd be able to accept an appeal to reduce the restrictions' period. We do that all the time. From the part of ArbCom, that only necessitates a round of discussions and a motion being drafted. From the part of the concerned parties, that needs dedication; more work. The periods are less relevant ChildofMidnight. Everything can be amended. Now, it is up to the parties to show ArbCom some progress. It is up to you to avoid the iceberg, we are not captains... you are the captains as we have just given you the ship and asked you to give it back to us without any damage. The sooner, the better. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is utter bullshit and shows you have not the slightest understanding of the nature of how POV pushers, stalkers, and harassment works on Wikipedia. The day arbcom assists good faith content contributors like Giano, Malleus, Badagnani, myself and others, instead of aiding and abetting those who abuse the noticeboards to disrupt our work, will be a true triumph for Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Mythdon
It's indeed very clear that the topic ban on ChildOfMidnight is still in place. The topic ban, from my calculations, lasts until approximately December 21, 2009.

I really actually have no involvement in this honestly, and have not reviewed the evidence of this case, and do not edit Obama articles, but without regard to that, anyone reading the remedy will know that the topic ban is still in place.

While it's clear that the topic ban is still in effect, my assumption is that the 1RR restriction on ChildOfMidnight with respect to the Obama articles takes effect once the topic ban ends. Is this true? If so, it would make sense to reword the restriction to that effect. The same clarification should also be done for Scjessy's 1RR restriction, and if it's the same case with Scjessy, a rewording will be needed for that 1RR too. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Question (on unrelated issue) by Wikidemon
May we please have a clarification of the new remedy duration as well? The original 1RR per week restrictions were one year from the date they were issued, June 21 2009. The modifications also mention a period of 1 year, but are dated August 2, 2009. I would assume the intent was not to reset the end dates, i.e. the new remedy applies until June 21, 2010, not August 2, 2010. To avoid conclusion it may help to make that clear. I mentioned this to User:MBisanz as clerk but have not heard back. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per FayssalF, below, the 1 year 1RR periods run successively rather than concurrently with the 6 year topic bans, a possibility I had overlooked. If that is indeed the intent, maybe it is best to add some text like "...after the conclusion of the foregoing sanction".  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey
I am a little confused. It was my understanding that the sanctions were to run concurrently (as indicated in the proposed decision that was written by Wizardman). I do not recall anyone suggesting that these sanctions were to run successively. If this is indeed the case, it seems an extraordinarily harsh measure (even with the recent amendment). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The set of the articles in question belongs to the BLP area and we all know how that specific area is sensitive. That said, —and for now— you can still consider my view as that of an individual arbitrator; we are still waiting for the views of my colleagues. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc
Checking in from Margaritaville even tho I was trying to avoid teh internets. Ah well. Anyways, I'd thought this all was pretty crystal-clear, as several users were given 2 prohibitions;
 * 1) a 6-month ban from Obama-related topics and talk pages
 * 2) a 1RR/page/week project-wide.

Number 2 was rescinded on appeal for all, leaving only #1. This is now the 4th time that one, ChildofMidnight, has violated Prohibition #1. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Allstarecho
Whatever is decided here, Editing restrictions should be updated to reflect such. This would help with any confusion.

Comment by Ncmvocalist
Why not review at a more appropriate time - specifically, 6 months after the topic ban has expired? Whether there is a need, or not, for the extra 6 months of 1RR to continue in the area of conflict, can be clarified at that time (when it's more relevant). I don't understand why there is a sense of urgency to know now, when it's possible that it (or a harsher or a less restrictive sanction) potentially may be re-imposed closer to that time anyway. Alternatively, closer to that time, there might not be a need for it. On the ever-growing list of things-to-do for ArbCom, this probably is one of the simplest ones to answer: no action until 5 months after topic ban has expired. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If merging remedy 9 and 9.2 together (also 10 and 10.2) would help then I'd not have a problem. Whatever is the case, ChildofMidnight and Scjessey are both topic banned from all Obama-related articles for 6 months. After the 6 months are expired then both users are restricted to not revert more than 1 revert per week for a whole year. Both restrictions cover 18 months. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the rest of my colleagues. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  04:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer the question on the dates, they're not reset, so they still started at the end of the case. On this one, I doubled checked and actually wrote it as meaning to be concurrent, i.e. topic ban and 1rr 6 months (in case the former was lifted), then 1rr the next six months. I will defer to my fellow arbs on how they interpreted this restriction though. Wizardman  15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While I did not actively participate in this case, I have since reviewed it in detail. It is the usual practice that remedies run concurrently, not serially, unless specified in the remedy itself. I concur with Wizardman's interpretation. Risker (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the time period would be concurrent, with the 1rr happening for 6 more months after the topic ban ends. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree with Fayssal, agree with others. Such restrictions, unless specifically stated otherwise, run concurrently, not sequentially. Carcharoth (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Wizardman, Risker, FloNight, and Carcharoth. However, I would remind all parties that we have the ability to lengthen or increase the sanctions if the parties' continued conduct were to warrant it. I hope this will not become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong (September 2009)

 * Original discussion

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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request:
 * Ohconfucius
 * Dilip rajeev

Statement by John Carter
Requesting clarification of whether or not the terms of probation on Falun Gong related articles allow for uninvolved administrators to place a block or ban on the basis of the terms as is currently being requested at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I'm not sure if I have to notify all the other parties who have already commented on the request for enforcement there, but will do so if such is requested. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius
I would just point out that in January 2008, Dilip rajeev was topic banned for 3 months without coming to AE; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. Olaf Stephanos was also given a 6 month topic ban recently here at AE for just such a violation. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please also note that I have amended the sanction requested from indefinite ban from wikipedia to indefinite topic ban from all Falun Gong related articles and talkpages, construed widely. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I was the one to first raise this question, and refer the Committee to my comments at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I would also appreciate a clarification of this point. In reply to Ohconfucius, any previous sanctions do not by themselves constitute sufficient authority for new sanctions; it may well be that these previous sanctions were themselves unauthorized under the remedy.  Sandstein  09:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana
This has been generally treated as a standard article probation with an additional option for ArbCom review. Please note the examples above and listed at the case log, as well as Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. If this is inccrrect, I expect that ArbCom, individual arbitrators, or enforcement admins would have long-ago corrected the misuse of the remedy. A clarification to explicitly state the status quo handling of the remedy should not be necessary. It should suffice for arbitrators to uphold the standard interpretation, as they are doing in Olaf Stephanos' specific case. If it is really considered necessary to deal with this by way of formal clarification, then please resolve the matter by motion ASAP to prevent this from becoming an in for all previous and standing sanctions to be wikilawyered. --Vassyana (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noting that John Carter has requested Kirill's input, per NYB's request.

Statement by Kirill Lokshin
The intent of the remedy, as written, was to both (a) place the article on standard article probation, which allows administrators to enact topic bans on their own discretion and (b) provide an explicit provision for further review should the probation prove unsuccessful. I see no reason to believe that any of the arbitrators voting for this remedy believed its meaning to be different from this. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'd appreciate if someone could ask Kirill Lokshin for his thoughts on this request, as he drafted the decision. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Kirill's interpretation is consistent with the decision and the intent of the arbitrators who voted for it. If other arbitrators agree, hopefully this will be a sufficient clarification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Brad and Kirill. Would note, however, that the issues being discussed in another case (Abd-WMC, in the final stages of voting) impact on the issues of article probation, and discretionary sanctions, and whether admins have the discretion to impose topic and page bans outside of probation or discretionary sanctions (this is not the case here). If anyone commenting here thinks there is the potential here for inconsistency in ArbCom rulings from case to case, then that needs to be clarified urgently. Carcharoth (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this comment is well-taken. I think this may help demonstrate the need, not only for us to be clear as to the Arbitration Committee's own interpretation of policies and practices in this area, but for the community to develop a policy in this area as discussed in the Abd-WMC proposed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (3) (September 2009)

 * Original discussion


 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) (I'll let the clerks interpret what is requested for amendment)


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

Amendment 1

 * (See below)
 * That all decisions that refer to Mythdon by the singular they be reworded to refer to Mythdon as a male.

This includes:
 * Findings of fact: "Mythdon's interpretation of policies and guidelines", "Mythdon stance toward the articles"
 * Remedies: "Mythdon admonished"

Statement by Mythdon
All other decisions that refer to me refer to me as a male (which I am), while the above decisions just use the singular they. This is inconsistent wording that needs to be addressed to make the decision wordings consistent. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:00, 7 September 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 2

 * "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship"
 * That the strikeout of the text be replaced with the templates collapse top and collapse bottom, with the heading text being "superseded remedy".

Statement by Mythdon
In Arbitration Cases of today, this format has been used for amended decisions. The conduct probation replaced the mentorship remedy. This will allow for consistency with the other ArbCom cases. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Amendment 3

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

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by Mythdon
As with the second amendment request which was made by Ncmvocalist, this will address the inconsistency issues in the formatting of case. I will be drafting my third request in the amendment request in a while. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this request. Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Mythdon is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month probationary period, to run under the current restrictions." - What will be done with the conduct probation, if the motion, or a similar motion passes? Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk response Its fairly obvious that it will be superseded. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 04:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Scrub that last comment, I misread what you wrote, or at least interpreted it a different way to what you actually mean. I presume what you mean is, will it restart or will it simply be carrying out the remainder of what time is left? Is this a correct assessment? Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 04:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok scrub that, the point has been clarified. It will be reset to six months after the end of the ban. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 04:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...also, if the conduct probation is removed and replaced with a new probation, what will be done with the restrictions that were imposed upon me under the conduct probation that was imposed in July? Will this "conduct probationary period" be the same conduct probation as the current one? Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * to run under the current restrictions... Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 05:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that means. Can an arbitrator please clarify? Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Should the ban motion pass, I'll be wondering whether I'll return at the conclusion of the ban period. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Though this isn't within the Committee's control, I just want to let the Committee know that I also have an account on the Simple English Wikipedia. Basically, whether the ban motion passes or not, I'll still have some involvement with Wikipedia for the next six month, but the only difference that would be made with the passing is that I won't be at the English version. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the Committee basically saying that I should take a break with the ban motion? Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Hersfold
However, we're still awaiting possible clarification. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Replies to FayssalF / Questions regarding motion
"During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions. " - So, in other words, the discretionary sanctions imposed under the current conduct probation will end at the conclusion of the period? Would the "new remedies and enforcement" expire at the date in question? While the motion to impose the "new remedies and enforcement" was in progress, you stated that it had everything to do with the conduct probation. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, would this probationary period be the same type of conduct probation that is imposed right now, or will this be a different probation? Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What will be the terms of this "conduct probationary period"? Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If the current conduct probation is replaced with a new conduct probation (i.e. different terms, etc. ), will "Mythdon will still be restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages." under the current conduct probation still apply? Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Following your clarification here, I have to ask this. At the end of the conduct probation, which is it: Though much of these questions are probably a repeat of question #1 in this section ("So, in other words, the discretionary sanctions imposed under the current conduct probation will end at the conclusion of the period?Would the "new remedies and enforcement" expire at the date in question?"), this needs to be clarified. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The discretionary sanctions imposed under the terms of the conduct probation end no later expiration of the probationary period.
 * 2) The discretionary sanctions imposed under the terms of the conduct probation can be of any duration, even if they remain in place after the expiration date.
 * 3) Whether to lift/amend the remaining discretionary sanctions at the end of the probation will be decided by a review by ArbCom.

Reply to Steve Crossin
I do not agree with your mentorship suggestion. This very reason the conduct probation was imposed was because I refused mentorship. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong, which explains the amendment. After an amendment like that for that reason, I doubt ArbCom would accept your proposal anyway. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A message to the Arbitration Committee
Before the ban becomes effective, let me say these things.

I have not even made a single attempt to produce a guideline for WikiProject Tokusatsu articles, as advised in "Participants at the WikiProject Tokusatsu", and emphasized in "new remedies and enforcement added by motion". I haven't even considered doing so

I might make further requests for clarification or amendment following the ban, whether it is with respect to the Ryulong case, or any other Arbitration Case (please note that "any other Arbitration Case" would most likely be a case that I would be an involved party). However, I do hope that it doesn't result in future bans like the one that will be imposed soon

If the Committee feels the need to impose the reformatting that I requested before withdrawing the request following statements by MBisanz, etc, I strongly urge it to impose it

I still have no intention of being mentored, though that part was over when the conduct probation was imposed, this is being said in case the Committee has any intention on imposing any mentorships. This is hinted a few hours ago, with one of my previous comments

If the Committee has any intention on lifting "new remedies and enforcement added by motion" at any point in my tenure on Wikipedia, please note that if I still feel the same way that I do now, that I would restart my campaign of applying verifiability and reliable sources policies/guidelines, by removing statements inconsistent with those policies and sending articles to AfD to apply such policies. If "Participants at the WikiProject Tokusatsu" were to be lifted alongside "new remedies and enforcement added by motion", and if my topic ban from WikiProject Tokusatsu (imposed by Fritzpoll) is not present, such enforcement would take place on WikiProject Tokusatsu as well

Since I am forbidden from applying verifiability and reliable sources policies and guidelines, for the past few days, I have thought to myself that I would apply other policies/guidelines in Wikipedia and start a campaign to apply such policies and guidelines

Just wanted to send a message to the Committee before my six month site ban takes effect. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz
Could the Committee please consider an amendment banning Mythdon from making requests more than once a year? This really has gone on long enough.  MBisanz  talk 02:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in light of, maybe just a site ban for 6 months would be sufficient.  MBisanz  talk 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hersfold
I second MBisanz's motion. This is getting ridiculous, and this request is nothing but pedantry that once again wastes the time of ArbCom and the clerks. Mythdon's behavior here is becoming severely disruptive, and that fact that he is back here again after a clear warning not to return the last time shows he has absolutely no intention of stopping. Mythdon needs to be banned from ArbCom pages at the very least, however I don't believe a site ban would be out of line considering MBisanz's diff above and Mythdon's predilection for similar disruptive by-the-book-ness elsewhere. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Mythdon
I believe "to run under the current restrictions" is fairly clear; it means the editing/conduct/whatever restrictions that are currently applying to you as a result of the Arbitration case would be restarted following your ban, to last for six months. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 05:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel
What they said. This has gone beyond ridiculous. It will be particularly humourous if it gets to the point where all the clerks have commented to express their opinion, and have hence recused, and therefore there'll be no-one left to process the absurd number of amendment and clarification requests he files. Daniel (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Steve Crossin
Normally I wouldn't comment, but with recent interaction wiu Mythdon at the Lapsed Pacifist workshop page, and my talkpage, as well as the repeated amendment requests, that Mythdon may be obsessed with arbitration, or at the very least, he has lost touch with our focus - building an encyclopedia. This happens to all of us now and again, but editors can be offered a spare clue, and get their eye back on the ball. Mythdon seems to have rejected several offers of clue, so a siteban may remedy this. A lot can be learned from a site ban - I know from experience. It seems this motion has already passed, and I note that Mythdon intends to edit at Simple Wikpedia. They are a welcoming community, and I wish Mythdon the best of luck there, but warn him to not repeat his mistakes here. <font face="Forte"> Steve Crossin   <font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking.... 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
To do a bit of a backflip on above, but being banned is truly awful, it carries a stigma for years, and I liken it to being a caged, muzzled animal in a zoo, with people poking you with sharp sticks. It's horrid. Perhaps an alternative could work? Let's say, a ban for 6 months to a year from RFAR, his current restrictions to last a year. Additionally, he could be placed under a mentor, and have to complete a structured program, to the satisfaction of the mentor, before he can resume normal editing. Perhaps Mythdon could be offered 2 options. A) Compulsory mentorship, ban from rfar and current restrictions, where a violation would result in a siteban of one year, or b) refuse mentorship, 6 mth ban. The mentorship option offers a way of reforming his behaviour issues, where a straight out ban does little but isolate the issues, rather than actively fix them. I'm happy to do this myself, I happen to have a structured mentorship program already built. I feel reform is preferable to simply solitary confinement, which is basically what a ban is. <font face="Forte"> Steve Crossin   <font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking.... 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Mythdon
Well, to put it plainly - you're a fool to think you don't need mentorship. If you really think that there's nothing wrong with your behaviour, and you intend to file more requests once the below ban expires, then I question as to what purpose a six month ban would serve. What are you going to learn from the ban, or is it simply going to be a time-out period, where things will resume as before after the timeout period is over? <font face="Forte"> Steve Crossin   <font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking.... 00:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Atlan
I'll echo Steve Crossin and wonder what purpose a 6 month ban serves, other than to keep Mythdon from bothering everyone with inane questions for half a year. Even as the current motion has apparently passed, Mythdon still keeps asking questions all over the place and states his intent to continue to do so and to continue to file requests for clarification and amendment, after the ban. Furthermore, he continues to reject any kind of solution offered. Now, he's either mind-bogglingly clueless, or taking everyone for a ride (I suspect the former). Either way, a 6 month ban seems pointless.--Atlan (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You aren't alone in your view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recused  MBisanz  talk 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused once more. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused. Daniel (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1

 * There are 11 active arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month conduct probationary period, to run under the current restrictions.


 * Support:
 * Mythdon has exhausted the patience of both the community and committee, this is now needed. Tweak if necessary. Wizardman  04:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added "conduct" to "probationary period". -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  04:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly not interested in building an encyclopedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 06:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mythdon, examine the edits you have made in relation to the case, since the case closed, and ask yourself why you kept pushing the boundaries and repeatedly asking for clarifications and amendments when you were told that this was wasting both your time and ours. You were told many times to accept your sanctions and move on and develop other interests. I would still give you the same advice, but to develop interests outside of Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Recuse
 * Recused. But I am sorry it's come to this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Arbitrators' discussions
 * To clarify for once. The six-month conduct probationary period starts right after the end of the ban (from March 2010 to September 2010). During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions (details of restrictions can be found at the updated case's page). -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  05:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What will be the terms of this "conduct probationary period"? --> Nothing would change at Requests for arbitration/Ryulong except the period of 1 year which will be superseded and become 6 months starting from March 2010. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  22:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (October 2009)

 * Original discussion

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChildofMidnight&diff=prev&oldid=315112492)
 * (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikidemon&diff=prev&oldid=315112529)

Statement by your Tznkai
Following this thread, on AE, it was pointed out that the mutual restriction remedy does not clearly mention administrator notice board and arbitration enforcement reports. 11.1) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

This seems to be an unintentional oversight, as reporting on eachother is at the very least, against the spirit of do not interact bans, and a bad idea besides. As noted by the committee before (See this motion) administrators are expected to use reasonable discretion and to make public interpretations, while the arbitration committee should make formal clarifications. Pursuant to that, I have posted my own interpretation that I will operate under. So long as sufficient warning is given, ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon are not to report, or reply to reports about the other user. Such actions are considered "replies" as described in the Obama article remedies. I ask that the committee confirm, reverse, or modify my actions as needed.--Tznkai (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural request by Wikdiemon
Can we please hold off on this? I've asked Tznkai to withdraw it for now until we know where the discussion is taking place, because the exact same issue is under consideration at Arbitration/Requests/Case. Who may speak before Arbcom seems to be an issue for arbitrators to decide, and they are already discussing it there. Thanks,  Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley (October 2009)

 * Original discussion

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

Questions by 99.27.133.215
What is the "purpose of Wikipedia" referred to in the "Discretionary sanctions" remedy? The excerpt in question reads:


 * "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an affected article if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

In particular, is the purpose of Wikipedia congruent with this statement?


 * "[ Cold fusion ] needs to conform to the encyclopedia's reliable source criteria, not some measure of how much popular press individual articles in the peer reviewed literature have received, or any other arbitrary exception to the rules. There shouldn't be any exceptions to the reliable source criteria, not for articles on physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, religion, politics, voting methods, race, or any other subject. If there's a controversy, it should be settled in accordance with the best peer-reviewed secondary sources, not the opinion of persistent editors with an axe to grind, not by persistent editors with a conflict of interest, not by paid editors, and not by anyone who isn't qualified and willing to review the best peer-reviewed literature available on the subject. That's what we mean by 'the purpose of Wikipedia.'"

If not, in what way does the purpose of Wikipedia diverge from that description? Thank you for your consideration of these questions. 99.27.133.215 (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite
Are we going to have to deal with "new user" IP's alledging a history of malfeasance on this article even after sanctions have been declared on it? Is there anyone brave enough to actually enforce the sanctions placed on the article? Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem
Two observations... 1) I suspect that, by Purpose of Wikipedia, ArbCom means exactly what they have said under that title in numerous previous decisions, namely:
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

2) Hipocrite raises an important issue. Since the case ended, there have been several IP users suddenly appear, making comments showing a clear familiarity with WP processes and with the case.  Whilst it is theoretically possible that he / she / they have been lurking and have chosen this moment to contribute, it seems to me to be much more likely that one or more existing users are choosing to post anonymously.  This is seriously unhelpful to the goal of high-quality content development.  If there is not already basis to take steps to address the situation (whether with semi-protection or checkuser or other) under the discretionary sanctions, then perhaps ArbCom might pass a quick motion to rectify the situation.

By the way, I would like to register my appreciation to John Vandenberg for his helpful post at talk:cold fusion removing the resurrected section from the archives. EdChem (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley
Can someone please CU this IP? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by wholly uninvolved roux
Lo! Forsooth! 'Tis the sound of ducks.

I trust ArbCom won't waste their time with this. → ROUX   ₪  13:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Question by MastCell
This is obviously not a request for clarification, but a continued litigation of the case. But since we're here... could I ask for clarification on how the sudden influx of dynamic IPs advancing an agenda should be dealt with? It seems that the discretionary sanctions should simply the handling of this sort of editing in spirit, but they are quite legalistic in letter. I do think this latest iteration of the same old problem should be nipped in the bud, but I'm not ready to go to WP:AE only to hear that a given IP address had not been formally notified of the discretionary sanctions. Or maybe I should just leave the poor Wikipedians who have to actually try to edit this article to their fate, but I thought I'd ask first. MastCell Talk 23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia". That's the purpose.  Everything else is a means to an end, and as flexible as it needs to be in order to reach that purpose.  Being an encyclopedia implies that accuracy, reliability and (by conscious choice in the case of Wikipedia) neutrality are important objectives.  One "fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" when one compromises those objectives in the pursuit of a purpose other than making an encyclopedia; therefore things like advocacy, evangelism, and vandalism have no place here. The quoted statement is, fundamentally, not inaccurate but looses sight of the purpose (the encyclopedia) by focusing blindly on one aspect of the means.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Coren. Articles can be semi protected from IP disruption. IPs that are likely socks can be reported to SPI. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * maybe I should just leave the poor Wikipedians who have to actually try to edit this article to their fate - please do not do that, especially if anyone intends to do that to prove a point. There are plenty of ways to deal with this. If you are not familiar with the ways to deal with such things, please follow the advice given by Rlevse, though the IPs in question seem to be editing the talk page, not the article (semi-protecting talk pages should only be done in cases of extreme disruption). If anyone posting to this clarification is involved in the editing of the article, please deal with this by posting to a noticeboard to get uninvolved editors and admins aware of the situation. And if new editors turn up who have experience of other areas of Wikipedia, please take the time to explain things to them and treat them with more patience than you would a new editor or IP editor who you suspect of pushing an agenda. Agree with Coren on the clarification of the main point. Would also like to note that, as far as I can tell, no talk page FAQ has been written or started yet. If there is a FAQ, then new editors posting to the talk page can be pointed to that, instead of the lengthy and chaotic archives of the cold fusion talk page, or (worse) repeating the same arguments over and over again. Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons I like and use semi-protection. I think that it is warranted here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)