Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 38

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley (January 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Abd (talk) at 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Statement by Abd
This restriction, prohibited me from "participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is [I am] not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s)." This remedy was taken from a proposal by Thatcher, and was based on a claim that I frequently intervened in disputes, but without any finding or examples showing that my interventions had been nonconstructive. I did not notice this proposal during the case, it appeared at the end, and I'd stopped reading the Workshop page by that time. I never responded to it. The principle would seem to chill neutral intervention, when that's exactly what is missing, too often, and I'd been successful with such interventions, the community eventually confirming my positions in many cases, and a number of sitting arbitrators know this to be true. In any case, without examples of disruptive interventions, I don't know what behavior, specifically, is being prevented.

The immediate occasion is this statement on the case page. I was definitely involved with the situation under the Climate Change request. My view is that this led William M. Connolley to take an opportunity to ban me, which explains his otherwise puzzling behavior as being based on a grudge. I presented evidence, expanded at, on WMC's wheel-warring at Global warming as part of the subject case. When I'd worked on Global warming, I encountered the very problems that led to the current request, and can provide diffs if needed.

Therefore I considered myself already involved in the substance, hence mentor approval was not needed, even though I was not a formally named party yet. I was surprised, then, to see this objection from Mathsci appear on my Talk. As I have knowledge in depth of the underlying situation, I believed it my obligation to testify, in any case, so I declined to comply. Apparently seeing the discussion, MastCell then filed an Arbitration enforcement request, and a request to a clerk to remove my comment. Mathsci commented extensively,, adding confusion (incorrect about the history, apparently assuming I'd misrepresented it), and continuing after the post had been removed and it was moot.

Then WMC made a gratuitous accusation on AN. When I briefly replied to it, he threatened me with being blocked for the reply, and he removed the reply himself, which is old WMC behavior, matching that during the case.

Mathsci did consent to the closure of the Arbitration Enforcement request, after both MastCell and I agreed on that, but the request was re-opened by WMC, based on the AN incident. This is cute: troll for comment by attacking an editor, then assert the reply as a ban violation. I've noticed WMC's behavior go downhill since his desysopping.

The sanction is being used in an attempt to prevent me from participation where I am already involved, either historically or through a current accusation, and it is being used as a cover to harass me. If the my original statement had been disruptive, in itself, it could have been removed by a clerk with no fuss, likewise any editor believing it to be a ban violation could have removed it without all this mess. I thought I'd send the statement directly to ArbComm by email, a minimally disruptive approach; however, the removal of my comment from AN by WMC and his reopening the AE case made me realize that more was required.

I intend a request to lift the ban, but not yet, and sound policy is to honor ArbComm decisions, even where I may disagree strongly. The mentorship proposal, which seems to have been assumed in the ban, did not pass. Editors may voluntarily take on mentorship, and without a mentorship requirement, and specifically that ArbComm approve a mentor, I would seem to be free to choose any editor willing to accept me. GoRight is, in fact, an experienced editor, one who has survived serious attempts to ban him, and he did offer to mentor me. I did not ask him in advance to approve the comment because I did not consider it violated the restriction; however, post-facto, seeing the edit and the flap, he approved it. But the substance here is not mentor/no mentor, rather what should be behind all our decisions is not compliance with technicalities, but the purpose of all of it, the project. If my statement was disruptive, in itself, aside from the ban, I should have been warned or blocked for that, but, instead, the only objection was purely technical. Wikilawyering, in a word, to avoid the presentation of evidence.

ArbComm may decide to approve a mentor, resolving the ambiguity here. I know that arbitrators are aware of a highly experienced and presumably acceptable editor who agreed to mentor me during the case. Perhaps they will allow this mentorship. GoRight was only offering his support ad-interim. I have not asked permission to file this request, since I'm clearly an "originating party" here.

I appreciate clarification, as well, of the intention behind the restriction, with guidance as to how to honor it where I believe I am, in substance, a party to a dispute, even if not formally named. I put a great deal of effort into the Global warming situation, and AN reports don't formally name disputants. If I am working with editor A on an article, and editor B appears and attacks editor A, and B goes to AN/I, and I have knowledge of the situation, am I prohibited from commenting because editor B did not mention me? Or suppose he does mention me, as WMC mentioned me on AN?

Please look, as well, at the tendentious behavior of other editors around this, most particularly William M. Connolley, and Mathsci's pursuit of an old vendetta, not related to the case in question. [that is, not related to global warming. It is related to the case on which clarification is sought. 04:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)] I have no significant complaint about MastCell but included him because he may wish to comment. --Abd (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LessHeard vanU: Thanks. The remaining clarification needed would address situations where I have a pre-existing involvement with an issue, where I am not an uninvolved passer-by "meddling." Later, I'll ask to address the problem of where I'm neutral, uninvolved, but have evidence to present that might be overlooked. I can present it off-wiki, but wouldn't it be better to present it directly? Maybe not!
 * Mathsci leads with a claim that I've misrepresented various users, but I noticed little variance between my sketchier account, above, and his more detailed account, below, except he adds some mind-reading and speculation as fact. I did discuss mentorship with GoRight before, but did not consult with him before filing the comment in the climate change RfAr, so "pre-decided arrangement" would be an overstatement. Mathsci correctly reports Ryan's comment, which puzzled me, is Ryan in charge of RfAr? I thought the arbitrators were. The only mention of "vendetta" is here, just above. It means that Mathsci has an axe to grind and is grinding it. As to "cabal," what I called the "cabal" in my case was roughly the same set of editors now accused of ownership of the global warming articles. The two cases are closely connected, which could easily be shown. "Cabal" and "vendetta" are not related. Vendetta is personal. Why was that relatively brief statement in the Climate Change RfAr worth all this email to an arbitrator, administrator, an AE request, etc.? I'd say it's obvious. Vendetta.
 * Short Brigade Harvester Boris: Yes.
 * Durova, as usual, hits the nail on the head.
 * MastCell's comment is disappointing. I had no intention to test the limits, I was surprised at all this fuss. Sure, I might have interpreted the ban more tightly, but I have difficulty keeping something in mind that I don't understand, and I don't understand the ban, why it was placed, so I discounted it, thinking that ArbComm couldn't possibly have wanted me to refrain from making a comment where I was so involved.
 * General comment about mentor. I have asked Fritzpoll to be my mentor. He had suggested it previously, and I had accepted, but there may now be complications. I'll let Fritzpoll explain it if he considers it prudent. I did not, however, consult Fritzpoll, not imagining that consulting a mentor for the subject statement was necessary. In effect, with my statement, I consulted ArbComm, it was hardly a hidden action! --Abd (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU
In that Abd is disallowed by Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley from commenting in areas where he is not an originating source of the dispute, without consultation with a mentor, I consider ArbCom may be inclined to consider either extending Abd's parole to instances where either WMC (or Mathsci) unilaterally invoke Abd or the original dispute in unrelated matters, or require WMC (and Mathsci) to refrain from invoking either Abd or the dispute in unrelated matters. It seems to me that the latter would be preferable, in that it might mean less requests for clarification. (Per Abd I am including Mathsci as a party to the original decision, and not commenting on their actions subsequently).

I should note that my response to WMC's comments at AN alluded to WP:NPA and that WMC's later response to me appeared to disregard that they had not earlier commented upon the content User:GoRight's proposal or that I had neither - that I commented to caution WMC for poor faith commentary. It may be outside of the ArbComs remit, but I am concerned that WMC's behaviour is becoming erratic and suggest they may benefit from being required to withdraw further from interactions with Abd. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci


Abd has as usual misrepresented various users. His account of the recent disruptive actions of GoRight and himself does not bear much relation to actual events. Here is my understanding of what happened (New Year's Eve commitments in California do not permit any further detail at this stage, diffs can be provided later if necessary - I've written this in haste without a word count):


 * Abd added a statement to the present RfAr of Tedder.
 * I advised him on his talk page that, since he had not been involved in editing global warming articles in 2009, this probably contravened the editing restrictions placed on him by ArbCom in September following his 3 month ban and that he might consider voluntarily removing the statement himself. I later explained that ArbCom had not recommended a mentor (2 separate proposals were not carried) and that the mention of "mentor" in the editing restrictions was an oversight.
 * I contacted MastCell by email.
 * I contacted NYB by email.
 * Abd and GoRight, in what apparently was a prearranged decision, claimed that ArbCom had imposed the fllowing editing restriction: that Abd had to find a mentor and this mentor could waive any ArbCom editing restriction at his discretion. Apparently GoRight was to be the interim mentor of Abd's choice.
 * MastCell, without having read my email, but having seen my post to Abd and his reply on Abd's talk page, raised the problem of Abd's RfAr statement at WP:AE.
 * MastCell also posted at the Clerks Noticeboard and I posted at Ryan's talk page.
 * Ryan removed Abd's RfAr statement.
 * Rlevse and Coren explained that Abd could not be involved in a possible future ArbCom case on Climate Change.
 * MastCell clarified the editing restriction to Abd.
 * GoRight posted a motion on the RfAr requesting Abd to be included as a party claiming that he was actively involved in WP articles on climate change becuase of his involvement in GoRight's own RfC in 2008.
 * I posted a query about this on the clerk's noticeboard.
 * Ryan explained that Abd could not participate in the RfAr or a future ArbCom case, regardless of GoRight's proposed motion.
 * A few hours later, Abd requested on Tedder's talk page to be included by him as a party.
 * Abd and GoRight started writing posts, presenting Abd as a victim, with extraordinary statements about a vendetta (his new phoney word that presumably replaces cabal).
 * Abd opened this request.

All discussions have taken place on Abd's talk page, Tedder's talk page, the clerk's notice board and WP:AE.

Abd could have asked for clarification in a straightforward and discreet way, by email to any arbitrator. When I initially suggested this on his talk page, his reply was, "I'm not going to bother an arbitrator with this, their time is precious." Instead he has entered into a WP:BATTLEGROUND spirit, wikilawyering in an unreasonable way about his editing restrictions, even when two arbitrators, one clerk and one senior administrator had given the same unnuanced interpretation of these restrictions. I do not understand his use of the word "vendetta", just as I did not understand his use of the word "cabal". That GoRight is unsuitable as a mentor is not really something which seems open to debate, despite all of Abd's arguments to the contrary.

Abd has broken the terms of his editing restrictions twice (on RfAr and again by posting on WP:AN). His actions have been disruptive. He has attempted to deflect attention from himself by engaging in a smear campaign against his critics. In my case he is attacking an editor in good standing who has no involvement at all in any climate change matters on WP.


 * Ambiguity in editing restriction Since the two separate votes on mentorship did not pass, was the mention of a mentor in the editing restriction an oversight in the redrafting of the final decision?
 * Desired outcome of clarification Please could the terms of Abd's editing restrictions be clarified by ArbCom so that any future repetition of this disruption and intensified wikilawyering over multiple wikipedia pages can be avoided.

NYB indicated to me in an email response that he hoped that MastCell's WP:AE request would clarify matters without ArbCom involvement. Before Abd's surprise public request here, I assumed that things had been clarified to everybody's satisfaction. I apologize that further time has to be spent on what should have been an entirely straightforward matter. Thanks in advance and Happy New Year to all! Mathsci (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LHVU has given a slightly muddle-headed statement. I am not in dispute with Abd, any more than MastCell is. Both of us have been involved in pointing out Abd's contravention of his editing restrictions. Abd has just come off a three month ArbCom ban and so far has shown no sign of returning to normal editing patterns, quite the contrary. As far as I am aware, I am a good faith editor in good standing. LHVU should not repeat Abd's innuendos without checking facts for himself. Abd's account and interpretation are not accurate. His misleading use of the word "vendetta" could not be supported by one diff. Just like the nonsense he wrote about a "cabal". Mathsci (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
I had planned to request clarification and then saw the present request.

There are some loose ends from the Abd-WMC case that need to be tied up. In particular, Remedies 3.2 and 3.6 refer to a mentor but the decision gives no details on how the mentor is to be chosen. It would be helpful if the Committee could provide such details; for example, whether the choice of mentor is solely at Abd’s discretion or if the Committee views itself as having a role in the choice and terms of the mentorship. Abd is of course free to choose whomever he likes as an informal mentor but the question here is the choice of a formal mentor in light of the Remedies. Abd recently has chosen a mentor and the mentor has stated that he is "as official as any mentor is required to be". This mentor has assumed the capacity to authorize Abd's actions as required in Remedy 3.2. Clarification of the Committee's intent with regard to mentorship in this case would help forestall drama.

Statement by Durova
Mentorship is not a panacea. It has its place within Wikipedia and stands its best chance of success when it happens informally. For nearly five years Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee let mentorships occur informally. For slightly over one year ArbCom has taken a more active role in mentorship, using attractive buzzwords such as "structured" and "empowered" that have caused resounding failures. I know of no instance where mentorship has succeeded as a formal arbitration remedy: formal ArbCom interference tends to turn the mentor into a political football and shifts the focus from long range improvement to the equivalent of a traffic cop.

To the new arbitrators: I used to mentor five people. One of them reformed after a long string of edit warring blocks to become a sysop on this site and four other WMF sites. He has become an OTRS volunteer and he serves on the Arbitration Committee of another wiki. Another became a featured content contributor and hasn't been blocked since 2008. There have been other successes. Yet my objections to the 2009 Committee's direction were so strong that I ceased accepting new mentorships and resigned from existing ones.

The most objectionable practice of the 2009 ArbCom was phantom mentorship: writing mentorship into arbitration remedies where no actual volunteer agreed to fill the role. Abd was one of the people caught in that bind. This request for clarification offers a golden opportunity to correct that problem by rewriting the remedy to return mentorship where it functions best: in the background. Durova 390 03:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: MastCell's statement, his cynicism is a case in point for why mentorship becomes so difficult as an element of arbitration decisions. When a mentorship occurs informally the focus is on its results: does behavior actually improve?  Some editors choose mentors well and others choose badly.  That shakes itself out.  The one essential element that can't be forced is mutual trust.  My suggestion is to wish Abd well with his new mentor because that appears to be the only mentor available to him, and either remove mentorship from the formal remedy or rename it, because what it appears the decision was seeking was not a mentor but a screener to preapprove specific kinds of posts.  The latter might be a good idea but it isn't mentorship.  Durova 390 04:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
Abd is testing the boundaries of his editing restriction, as he has with every previous editing restriction under which he's been placed. It's what he does. I can't for the life of me understand how this particular restriction is in any way ambiguous, but here we are.

It would be nice if WMC and others would never mention Abd again. It would be even nicer if Abd would just stay out of disputes where he isn't the originating party, which is after all what the sanction insists he do. No amount of tortured logic can make Abd into an "originating party" in the current Arbitration request, because he isn't one. This seems like a case where clear boundaries have been set, and are being tested. Ball's in your court.

I find it hard to characterize GoRight's sudden self-appointment as Abd's "mentor" in any but extremely cynical terms, but then I think it was a pretty cynical undertaking in the first place, and sort of makes a mockery of the idea of mentorship. If the language about mentorship from the previous decision could be tidied up, and GoRight's "mentorship" addressed, that would probably help. MastCell Talk 03:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GoRight
Any references I made to it having been discussed that I might fill the role of Abd's mentor were references to the discussions that took place during the original Arbcom case. Abd and I had no pre-arranged agreement related to his comment in the climate change request. Indeed, if we had such an agreement it would have made more sense to formalize a mentorship agreement BEFORE he made that comment, not after. So MathSci's implication of impropriety in this respect rings hollow as far as I can tell. In any event I dispute that any such impropriety or prior agreement regarding Abd's comment at Arbcom took place.

I have always made it clear that I was only assuming the role on an interim basis until more formal arrangements were made. This was necessitated by the current climate change request submitted by Tedder so that Abd could participate in a case where he has gained invaluable insights based on his review of the parties involved in my RfC which, unsurprisingly, are essentially the same parties in that case. --GoRight (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion
Given that the language allowing mentor approval is being removed and we are already gathered together, I would ask the Arbiters to consider adding language to the sanction which allows an existing party in a case to specifically request Abd's assistance. In my RfC his assistance was invaluable given his thorough and fastidious attention to detail as well as his clear understanding of Wikipedia policy. New or inexperienced users would benefit greatly from such assistance. I further request that it not be considered a violation of his sanctions to place a single neutrally worded offer of assistance on someone's talk page. --GoRight (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
--Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This motion seems to be the correct way to proceed. Cheers to the committee.
 * 2) The mentorship thing in the remedy was just a leftover that should have been removed in the final draft.
 * 3) I don't think that GoRight is an appropiate general mentor for Abd for learning how to edit better, but that's a different topic that should be treated separate. What is on-topic here is the mentorship regarding the Arbcom remedy, and GoRight is absolutely unsuited for deciding when Abd can skip that restriction.
 * 4) I have refrained from citing Abd as an example (for example, in the ban discussion of an editor that made very long comments with OR, where I was tempted to compare Abd with this editor), and I have refrained from citing Abd as an example of anything. This was in order to avoid giving Abd any excuse to start a long off-topic tirade about how he was unjustly treated by Arbcomm/Cabal/WMC/etc. WMC, Matschi, whoever feels the temptation to refer to Abd, please learn to do the same thing and never mention Abd in topics that are not directly about him.

Statement by JzG
Issues with Abd were identified in two arbitration cases. In both cases the principal issue identified was a strong tendency to beat dead horses. GoRight has much the same problem and is already mired in long-running disputes on climate change, which brings a near-inevitability of interaction with WMC as an expert in the field; GoRight also has long-running dispurtes with WMC. Bottom line: GoRight is not an appropriate mentor; if anything the two of them are likely to reinforce each other's worst traits and both end up banned. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * I believe this has passed at 8-0 with 2 abstentions. (Majority would be 9 if not for the abstains.) - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 06:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is largely our fault for not adjusting the implementation notes and final wording. Motion below to correct the oversight, which should clarify the matter. Vassyana (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I am naturally recusing from this matter due my proposed mentorship of Abd prior to my becoming an Arb. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to GoRight - I would not support such an amendment, as it provides Abd a "back door" into discussions that he has no business being in as soon as any editor says "what does Abd think?". The original restriction was clear enough, and yet we're here being asked to clarify what it meant; I believe given this, such a back door would be frequently used, rendering the restriction null. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion
Remedy 3.2 "Abd editing restriction (existing disputes)" is revised to read: "'Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.'"


 * Support
 * No mentorship remedy passed, mooting the mentor(s) clause. The inoperative clause is removed. When a remedy is of an undetermined duration, it is normal practice to explicitly define the duration as "indefinite". Also, please note that this is somewhat broader and complete than the standing restriction. Vassyana (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With trivial copy-edit (added "pages" after "any formal or informal dispute resolution").  Roger Davies  talk 11:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support closing this loophole. SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, while noting that this does not restrict Abd from forming an informal mentorship arrangement with whoever may be suitable, but any informal mentorship should be openly disclosed. Also noting here that there is nothing stopping any editor from seeking mentorship for themselves, even those that consider themselves experienced Wikipedians that don't need mentorship. Being mentored is not always (and often isn't) an admission of failings, but more a recognition of a need and potential to improve. Anyone reading this and thinking it doesn't apply to them should think again - this applies to everyone who may lack experience in a particular area, or who may lack the ability to comport themselves with civility and collegiality. Working with someone who has more experience can help any editor. Carcharoth (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Fixes overlooked hanging chad; as Carcharoth mentions, this certainly doesn't prohibit Abd from working with a mentor or any other actions he may wish to use to improve his editing and interactions while at Wikipedia. Shell   babelfish 11:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. KnightLago (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo approves this amendment. - 13:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late vote. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * Recused from all matters Abd. Steve Smith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As Steve Fritzpoll (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator discussion


 * Clerk notes

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (2) (January 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  The Four Deuces (talk) at 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Statement by The Four Deuces
Are Mass killings under Communist regimes, Communist terrorism, Putinism, Eastern Bloc emigration and defection and similar articles included in the topic ban for articles about Eastern Europe? Mass Killings under Communist regimes was originally called Communist genocide and part of the findings of the arbitration was that Martintg had canvassed other members of the list concerning the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide. The article includes mass killings by the Soviet Union including in Ukraine. Martintg says that this article is excluded. However I made a request to Martintg and received no response.  The Four Deuces (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

MKUCR begins "The Mass killings under Communist regimes have occurred in the Soviet Union..." (my emphasis) which is a clear reference to Eastern Europe. The first historical example is the Soviet Union and there is a section about famine in the Ukraine. Communist terrorism is described as a "term... used... to describe... repression... in the Soviet Union (my emphasis). The Four Deuces (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, could you please strike out your comment concerning the "purpose of the complaint". (It is not even a complaint, it is a request for clarification.) You should realize that "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process". In this article canvassing occurred and note that Vecrumba, Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, Jacurek, Hillock65 and Piotrus have all participated in editing, discussion and/or voting in AfDs on this subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles about Eastern European emigres and their organizations
Are these articles included under the topic ban? One article, Lia Looveer is about an individual who was a director of several organizations, like the joint Baltic Committee, that lobbied local governments concerning political relations with the former Soviet Union. Vecrumba has commented on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Martintg
Offliner already asked, see User_talk:Coren, and The Four Deuces is aware of this query. Mass killings under communist regimes has significantly changed since Communist genocide and now is an international topic of general scope that also includes subsections on China, North Korea and Cambodia, as well as a general discussion on communist ideology as a factor. I've attempted to adhere to the spirit and letter of the EE topic ban and have kept well away from any EE sub-topic within this article. On a practical level I would like to expand the section on Ethiopia (having found an interesting book that does a comparative study of the mass killings of both the Cambodian and Ethiopian regimes), in addition to North Korea and other non-EE sub topics. I had previously sought guidance on the case page, with a number of arbitrators offering advice, for example FayssalF stating "What is understood is that editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones", but I have asked Coren for additional clarification and he replied that it is okay to edit non-EE subtopics within Mass killings under communist regimes here, as long as I am careful, as I intend to be. As far as the other article examples mentioned by TFD: --Martin (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Communist terrorism - that's okay since most of the article is international in scope, just avoid the bits related to EE
 * Putinism - obviously not okay since the article is about a peculiar form of Russian nationalism
 * Eastern Bloc emigration and defection - obviously not okay

Response to Steve
Perhaps Steve wasn't aware that Coren was the one who originally drafted these topic bans, so I am some what astonished that he would disagree with Coren's own interpretation of what he himself drafted. Despite the fact that Coren is expressing his own opinion, I would have thought that he would know his own mind when he drafted these topic bans, and thus his interpretation of the remedies he himself drafted after spending several months hearing this case would carry some weight. Why does Steve finds "it is regrettable that this question has been so extensively discussed elsewhere"; it was extensively discussed on the EEML case Proposed Decision talk page, was that not the appropriate forum?

I must say that Fifelfoo's argument, that many other portions of the Mass killings under Communist regimes article can be linked to eastern Europe, stating "One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics" is some what disingenuous. Fifelfoo and his colleges have long been arguing precisely the opposite position in various AfDs, boards and on the article talk: that article violates WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK because there is no linkage or relationship between the various communist regimes discussed in the article, hence their inclusion together amounts to synthesis. I know some people adapt their arguments according to the forum audience, but this 180 degree reversal of position in order to convince the committee to broaden the topic ban against adding material to Cambodian, North Korean or Ethiopian sub sections seems unreasonable.

The problem with broadening these topic bans to include topics like Communist terrorism, is where now do you draw the line. It turns an easily interpreted boundary into a fuzzy line which is open to interpretation. That currently about a third of Communist terrorism is devoted to EE is more a function of WP:BIAS than anything else, the remainder is unrelated to EE and in need of expansion which would greatly increase the proportion of non EE content within the article. Is Pacific War now off limits because the Soviet Union was a part of that war for the last 3 weeks of WW2? Is it now the mere existence of 20, 15, 10 or 5% of EE content within an article that puts it off limits? --Martin (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Fifelfoo
If you believe there is no central theory linking the various regimes together and thus the article is a synthesized coatrack, how is it possible that you "find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage"? Either you can argue the article is a coatrack and hence the subsections can be alienated from each other, or you can argue that the subsections are related and cannot be alienated from each other (hence it is not a coatrack) and thus I should be banned from editing those subsections. But you cannot have it both ways. --Martin (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that you are already on record as believing the article to be synthesis, I can only imagine the kind of mental gymnastics involved in maintaining that belief in the numerous forums and boards where you promoted the article's deletion while coming here to state "I find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage". --Martin (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Commodore Sloat
There was no "locus of dispute" determined in final decision. The closest thing being this, which stated in part that certain members of the mailing list perceived those editing from the Russian nationalist viewpoint as opponents. There was nothing in regard to "ideological agenda" or "anti-communist agenda" as Commodore Sloat falsely claims. Nor was Communist terrorism ever discussed on the maillist, its AfD occurred in 2008, well before the maillist was even created. It is sad that those who hold pro-communist viewpoints attempt to exploit reductio ad EEML arguments in order to expand these EE topic bans to all those they perceive as their anti-communist opponents just because one former EEML member (myself) has an interest in communist related topics. --Martin (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo
This is an important clarification. One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics. (but I do await seeing the theorisation in the Ethiopian-Cambodian study you mentioned) Another is that article content has barely changed since canvassed AFDs despite title change. A third is that article process which impacts on EE subtopics is stewed, and any involvement with process will be involvement in EE process (for example the theory only versus subtopics argument). Similarly participating in an AFD would be impacting on the EE components. Moreover I find it a curious argument that subportions of an article could be separated out. So please make a clear determination.
 * Regarding the need for clarification of extent, Martintg is currently participating in broad article process at MKUCR, and the discussion of who to solicit on the topic of the appropriateness of an AFD is ongoing. The issue is pertinent and current and needs resolution. 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "at least two failed AfDs," there were three, and they were No Consensus rather than keep which doesn't seem quite like a failure of the AFD process. Regarding the EE content of MKUCR, 2 1/3 units are clear EE, 3 1/6 units are clear non EE, 1/2 unit is mixed, 3 units are refs lede and toc (units being a screen length in front of me).  Of the body content, the article is about half EE, or, of the entire article about a third is EE.
 * To Martintg, "Fifelfoo…[has] long been arguing precisely the opposite position in various AfDs". Actually, I have systematically argued that the article should be supported out of sources which theorise all the events listed as linked by a cause inhering in their communist nature: a general theory.  A general theory will thus necessarily cover Asia, Africa, Europe (including EE), South America, etc.  An RSed general theory would remove the COATRACK and SYNTH (as long as not-covered events were deleted).  This has been a consistent and fixed position of mine, that the article must exist on the basis of an RS that theorises communist mass killings[etc] as linked and as caused by a common feature of communism.  I'm not particularly interested in a broad or narrow restriction, but a definitive one; but I do find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage. 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If its a COATRACK and alienable, the article shouldn't exist at all, as it would be OR. If it isn't a COATRACK then it must have a general theory to over come SYNTH/OR, and thus its sections are inalienable.  I don't want to push the article at AFD (yet again) until the article is in the best possible state it can be in (I measure this time in months), which means searching for a general theory to justify its existence (and believing that the article had a cause to exist as persuaded to do so), which is precisely what I have been doing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect
Time to put down such use of ArbCom, ANI etc. See with same complainants clarificants. same complainants clarificants. And the multiple quick-order AfDs on the article. Tznkai said "Also, I may start censuring people for throwing around EEML like Colonial Americans used to use the word "witch"--Tznkai (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)"  The purpose of this complaint clarification is to remove editors with whom the complainants clarificants have a content dispute on any basis that they can find - including by going to every notice-board and process available. Use of ArbCom in order to have it get involved in content disputes is verging on abuse. Six bites at the apple should have been sufficient, no? Collect (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck out a word objected to by The Four Deuces. Collect (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To igny: I am totally uninvolved in the EEML arbitration. Clearly if I make a comment here, I am "involved" if that is your criterion.   is my major edit in the article, which, I submit, is quite non-controversial.  I made zero substantive edits to the article, so I find your claim of me being clearly "involved" regarding EEML to be rather unimportant.   Collect (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba
I am commenting only because Four Deuces solicited my presence. Dialog would be better served without observations contending collusion: "In this article canvassing occurred and note that Vecrumba, Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, Jacurek, Hillock65 and Piotrus have all participated in editing, discussion and/or voting in AfDs on this subject" which propagates the meme that the editors named were impotent to find the article on their own or express their own opinion. I stated clearly what I thought "Communist genocide", the article, should encompass at the start of the brouhaha. The Cold War meme is that the Soviet Union was behind the spread of all Communism (capital "C"). The reality is that more than one despot perverted communism (small "c") to their self-serving purpose. Where the article in question here and others are concerned, it's up to the editors currently topic banned to show good judgement. It's also up to their editorial opposition to similarly show good judgement. Lastly, to request clarification for hypothetical edits which have not occurred ultimately only invites continued rhetoric. As for myself, I am looking forward to putting my sources regarding Russia to good use outside the area of conflict. I suggest closing this and opening a request for clarification if and when required based on an actual edit (and not open a request for enforcement, which is more often than not an act of bad faith assuming bad faith, i.e., guilty until proven innocent).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A better mechanism might be for ArbCom to review editor contributions periodically, say monthly, rather than editors generating a potentially endless stream of requests for clarification or enforcement. Or contending Aspic is an area of geopolitical strife.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I regret my perception of Nsk92's below that seems to paint the EE conflict as exacerbated by the editors sanctioned as the result of the EEML procedings. Rather than dwell on possibilities of bad faith actions (gaming et al.), I suggest the periodic review to insure keeping heat out of the system in 2010.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Nsk92
I think it would indeed be useful for the Arbcom to explicitly clarify the scope of the topic bans in this case, given how much poking around the edges has already occurred and in order to prevent matters from getting out of hand. In my personal view, the topic bans in this case should be interpreted as broadly as possible, to cover any articles and project-space pages that are in a significant way related to Eastern Europe (and not just pages/articles on EE subjects as such). Thus articles like Communist terrorism and Bering Strait ought to be covered by this topic ban, even though only parts of them deal with EE-related matters. Moreover, again to avoid confusion and to prevent gaming attempts, it should be made clear that if the topic ban applies to a page, it applies to the entire page and not just to sections of it that are EE-related. Basically the informal test should be something like: if you even need to ask, then the page is covered by the topic ban. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of the underlying topic bans, which is to prevent the spread of the kind of POV pushing and WP:BATTLE activities on EE-related subjects that led to the underlying arbcom case in the first place. Also, it should be made explicitly clear that the topic bans cover EE-related discussions at user talk pages. For example, non-sanctioned users should not be trying to engage the users under the topic bans, at the user talk pages of the latter, in EE-subject related discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Biruitorul
Of course, Nsk92's statement (just like the bans themselves) sort of ignores what was actually happening. POV-pushing and WP:BATTLE activities were not happening at Bering Strait, or at Bărcăneşti, Ialomiţa, or at The Good Soldier Švejk, or at Mikhail Lermontov, or at Valdis Zatlers, or at Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Varna. Nor are they ever likely to. Trouble was generally confined to Alexander Litvinenko, Nashi (youth movement), Anti-Estonian sentiment, Vladimir Putin, Putinism, Human rights in Russia, Anna Politkovskaya, 2008 South Ossetia war, Mass killings under Communist regimes, Russian apartment bombings and at most a couple of dozen other hotspots. The current topic bans are both punitive and damaging, and do nothing to address the underlying issue. The Committee was offered a constructive solution: find mediators to work with both "sides" to minimise conflict at those articles by referencing them thoroughly with high-quality sources. Instead it chose to decimate a slew of productive contributors who generally behave well, while neither addressing the wrongdoing by the other "side" nor proposing steps to defuse conflict at that group of articles. Personally, I believe the Committee would be wise to revisit the bans and retrieve the baby it has discarded with a few cups of bathwater. - Biruitorul Talk 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Igny
This group of editors as well as the related case were called the EEML only because most of them (not all) came from the Eastern Europe, not because they edited the EE related articles exclusively. Some of them were placed under the EE topic ban with a wrong premise that most of the conflicts in which they participated originated from Eastern Europe, and that is also only partially true. Rather than restrict these editors from contentious areas (such as ideological information wars or wars over propaganda issues) the ArbCom chose to ban editing of obscure EE related topics (which are not all problematic as pointed out by many). Moreover, only parts of the article directly related to EE are covered by the ban, not the article in general.

Hence a question. If only part of the article is related to Eastern Europe, are the restricted editors allowed to participate in AfD process (say, due to irreparable POV issues of the article in general and the EE related part in particular) of these articles?

And, Collect, you are not uninvolved with regard to disputes over Mass killings under Communist regimes. (Igny (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Statement by Radek
I was not going to get involved in this but in light of Steve and Fritzpoll's comments below I find it necessary to make a reply.

Ok, let's get things straight here:


 * NOBODY here thinks that Putinism does not fall under the ArbCom topic bans. The ArbCom doesn't think so, those under the topic bans don't think so, Four Deuces doesn't think so. It's covered, everyone knows this. Likewise, Eastern Bloc emigration and defection pretty much falls under the topic bans, for the most part. Except that NOBODY, AFAIK, has any interest in editing that article anyway (article history - can anyone find any one related to arb case in it?). So why is it being brought up here? Why are we even discussing the obvious cases that everyone agrees on (as Steve points out)? Why is Putinism - an obvious case - being brought up here for that matter? And what makes those two articles different from the other two; Mass Killings and Communism Terrorism?


 * Basically Four Deuces includes these two articles along with Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism simply to create an association between articles which are obviously clear cut cases of falling under the topic ban with those which aren't. It's a cheap manipulative trick, mixing in one with the other, in the hope that it can be sold as a wholesale package. And judging from Fritzpoll's comment, it's working (hence this reply).


 * Furthermore. What else makes "Putnism" and "Eastern Bloc emigration" different from "Mass Killings" and "Communist Terrorism"? Well, the first two - the clear cut cases - are NOT being considered as candidates for deletion and no one is interested in deleting them. But, the other two - the ones that don't have much to do with Eastern Europe - are. In fact, if you check the talk page for "Mass Killings", this whole "request for clarification" arose after somebody there said "[|"Should we try again to just delete the article?"] - and it is important to note that this "request" was made after the question was already answered by the arbcom here, here and here. Of course the answer provided wasn't the one that Four Deuces and Co. wanted, so now we are presented with this instance of Forum shopping. Stick with what the arb com already said - no need to start of the New Year with ArbCom schizophrenia.


 * After a bit of discussion the relevant parties realized even without any EEML members (ex or otherwise) voting, they probably STILL would not suceeed in deleting the article (if they tried that would have made it the fourth AfD nomination in five months!). This isn't surprising since there've been at least two failed AfDs which saw no or very limited participation from anybody on the mailing list.


 * So csloat came up with the bright idea (Mass killings talk page, again) to try and delete the article Communist terrorism instead. You know, when at first you don't suceed, try to game the system and try somewhere else. As such, this is just an attempt at putting one's (or actually, several) thumbs on the scales before the AfD can commence (and hopefully that AfD can be flown under the radar so that nobody except the right people show up). Yes, this is disruptive and bad faithed which is why I'm being frank about what's going on here.

Bottom line:
 * Yes, Putinism and the Eastern Bloc emigration articles are covered by the topic bans. But no one ever thought otherwise.
 * No, Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism are not covered by the topic bans, as already stated by Coren and articulated by Flo Night and others. Yes, the topic bans are "broadly construed" but obviously there are limits to what "broad" means in this instance, otherwise these would've been site blocks not topic bans. In particular, "broad" does not mean "theyz banned from MAH articlz!"
 * Yes, this is a bad faithed "request for clarification" as a) this question has already been asked and answered, b) it seeks to misrepresent the situation by mixing obvious cases with wrong cases in an attempt to 'sneak by' the ArbCom some articles with a view towards POV pushing on them and c) it aims to manipulate the consensus by anticipating the AfD process and through a pre-emptive exclusion of those who are expected to disagree.

As such (while personally I wouldn't mind seeing some slaps on the wrists to those involved in orchestrating this little charade) the proper course of action here is to AfD-ban the two articles in question (rather than those involved in orchestrating this little charade). Mass Killings should be put on a 6 month AfD restriction - seriously that many failed AfDs in such a short period of time sets some kind of a record, and the repeated re-listing of it at AfD is VERY disruptive to any improvement work that is attempted at the article (as even some "opponents" of the article, like Igny or Paul Sieber, recognize). So let the article breath. In similar vein, Communist terrorism should likewise be restricted from being AfDed in the same way that an edit warrior is still censured for edit warring when they move from one related article to another in order to avoid violating 3RR while carrying on the fight.

Bit of clarity here, please.

radek (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Steve
Oy, Steve, I realize that it is very difficult to get someone to change their mind, especially once they set out their original position in writing, in the full view of the public. So please keep in mind that no less an authority than John Maynard Keynes has said that changin' ones mind is often the right thing to do.

Unfortunately I get the sense that you're relying on users' statements here rather than looking at the actual articles themselves. Communist_terrorism has hardly anything in it about Eastern Europe aside from a mention of the Soviet Union in the lede (which statement should probably be removed anyway - and of course a statement about the Soviet Union can be inserted into almost any article. Those Soviets, they got around you know). The article is instead about organizations in Peru, Columbia, Malaysia, Phillipines, Greece (not EE), Basque region, United States, Germany, Nepal, and India. Not Eastern Europe. Yes, there is a section about general "Marxism" and "Leninism" but please see FayssalF's clarifications on the arb com pages where he answers to a similar question with "No. We are talking about a global ideology.". And anyway, I think everyone under the topic ban has a pretty clear idea that if a section has anything to do with Soviets or something similar it's off limits.

Likewise, the mass killings article is to a good extent about Cambodia and China. Yes, there is a good chunk about Soviet Union, but again, it's not a problem for anyone to avoid that section, to continue participating in talk page discussions as to the viability of the article as whole - in particular since most of the ongoing controversy is centered around Valentino's work which has nothing to do with Eastern Europe.

For myself, I'm staying away from that article just for the sake of my own sanity. But these kinds of cheap tricks that are being tried here are pretty noxious.radek (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See also: Framing effect.radek (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve, thanks for the clarifications. I still disagree but I appreciate you taking the time to carefully consider the question.radek (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to csloat
My belief that you are not acting in good faith is simply the result of your (voluntary) participation in the ArbCom case. There's nothing incredible about this, given the comments and the attacks you made during the case. It is reasonable and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines to assume good faith in regard to editors one hasn't encountered much before. It is unreasonable and in fact not required by Wikipedia guidelines to continue assuming something which has been demonstrated to be false by a user and his actions.

Please note that you share roughly the same position in regards to these two articles, and possibly other issues, with editors such as Igny, Fifelfoo and Paul Siebert, and I have no problem assuming good faith on their part - they have never given me a reason to believe otherwise. You have. So it's not your POV that causes me to assume bad faith on your part, but the way you have acted in promotion of this POV.

The article on Communist Terrorism was never discussed on the list, AFAIK. There was no "EEML disruption" on it. I had no idea that you voted to AfD in 2008, despite the fact that it is very well sourced, but that doesn't surprise me. MKUCR, back when it was Communist Genocide, was mentioned (in fact people disagreed on it) but it's been such a lightning rod and such a highly visible article that pretty much anyone who's voted on its AfDs or took part in discussion on it did so of their own volition and would have done so regardless.

And there's no "ideological agenda" here - either by me or by people who were on the list - except to ensure that reliable sources are used, fringe theories and authors are treated as such and that folks who actually DO HAVE an ideological agenda don't go around trying to sneak through article deletions based solely on IDON'TLIKEIT grounds.radek (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Csloat, I am not violating the AGF guideline (not policy). The guideline simply doesn't state what you think it states. In particular the guideline is clear about the fact that "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." I think your actions and comments in the past definitely fall within this provision (without which, this'd be a really dumb policy as it's impossible to require people to assume something that they know not to be true).

And what makes this "controversial" is that previous statements by some of the ArbCom members indicated that these articles would not be covered by the topic ban - hence, this being an instance of forum shopping.radek (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys
The restriction was clearly formulated as anything about Eastern Europe. Any sections about Eastern Europe in articles like "Mass killings" are obviously covered. Any sections about China (or whatever is not Eastern Europe) are not covered, obviously. If you said: "anything related to Eastern Europe", then one could not contribute even in articles about Jack London because he was the most popular American writer in the Soviet Union.Biophys (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Since you are talking about Communist terrorism, here is the diff between my last edit and the current version. Obviously, a lot of materials about terrorism by the communist states and organizations have been removed, even though they were sourced to books by notable historians. Is it better now? That is what you are going to achieve with sanctions. And you will not even notice anything in many other articles because you do not edit Russian history.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I agree that all specific articles mentioned by Steve fall under the topic ban restriction (and some of them are garbage), an arbitrary interpretation of the sanctions allows blocking the editors for almost anything. If that is what you want, then fine.Biophys (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Commodore Sloat
Umm, this is weird. I am only commenting here because I have been named by in a most inappropriate way. He says "So csloat came up with the bright idea (Mass killings talk page, again) to try and delete the article Communist terrorism instead. You know, when at first you don't suceed, try to game the system and try somewhere else." This is an example of the incredible amount of bad faith assumptions that EEML members continue to bring to Wikipedia discussions. I am not a party to most of the discussions that the EEML people were found to have disrupted; the discussions on communist terrorism and mass killings under Communist regimes, and their surrounding AfD debates, were the exception. However what I saw on the arbcom list was truly appalling. The fact that they appear to continue wikilawyering even after sanctions from arbcom is alarming. In any case, I did not "come up with the bright idea" of AfDing Communist terrorism in order to "game the system." I originally voted to AfD communist terrorism back in 2008, and I pointed out that this article raised the same issues. Radek surely knows this as the point was obvious in my comments; his blatant distortion of my comments here is troubling.

The biggest problem with this discussion is that people are focused on clarifying the topic area "eastern europe" without reference to the history of these articles. The question shouldn't be "is 'eastern europe' covered geographically by articles about 'communist terrorism'?" but rather, "does this article fall within the rubric of articles that the EEML has chosen to disrupt?" In this case, both articles should clearly be covered by the ruling because both articles not only fall within the ideological agenda these editors single-mindedly pursued in violation of Wikipedia rules, but in fact these were articles they actually did collaborate to disrupt in a demonstrable way, at least during the AfD process. csloat (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

response to responders
Unbelievable. I would think that users who have been sanctioned by ArbCom would make it a point to follow Wikipedia policies to a T rather than continue to flout their abuse of those policies. Both Radek and Martintg blatantly violate WP:AGF, with Radek even stating boldly (and without any rationale) that he will always and only assume BAD faith when dealing with me. He claims this assumption started when the EEML case started, but anyone familiar with the evidence (e.g. 20090821-0105) can see clearly that is a blatantly false statement. Martintg absurdly calls me "pro-Communist" when I have said nothing of the sort. If you want to pigeonhole me for my participation on these particular articles, my stance would be "anti-synthesis violations" or, simply, "pro-Wikipedia." I have never claimed to be "pro-communist" and only an absolute refusal to read my actual arguments would lead to such a conclusion. Both martin and radek are likewise distorting my claim above about the Communist terrorism article. The fact is that I participated in AfD in 2008 on this article because it was a hotbed of WP:SYN violations and WP:FRINGE theories elevated to the status of fact. The vote was indecisive primarily because of significant collaboration by members of the EEML, whether or not it was actually discussed on list (we don't know, since the archive doesn't go back that far). But we do know that the Communist genocide article suffered the same fate from many of the same players, and that there was a "call to arms" published and discussed on the EEML list (see 20090806-526 for example) on the communist genocide AfD; there was a similar call to arms on related articles on nuclear terrorism where at the time there was a discussion of some other WP:SYN violations created by another EEML member. (see 20090817-1427). This was all spelled out by multiple commenters on the evidence page of the arbcom case. I also think these guys misunderstand my point completely -- nobody is calling for further sanctions here; the point is just that the sanctions we do have should be interpreted broadly as Arbcom explicitly called for, and that articles where the EEML members have shown themselves likely to engage in objectionable off-wiki coordination should definitely be covered by the sanctions. I don't see how this is even a controversial point here. csloat (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting more statements, and noting that two of the parties listed are currently serving bans. I would ask them to e-mail ArbCom, but a period of disengagement from Wikipedia may be better, and they can bring themselves up-to-date on how the topic bans work out in practice when their bans expire and other conditions associated with their bans are met. Of the other parties listed, five have yet to comment, as of the time of writing this comment. Carcharoth (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This may be premature. Can we have a list of any arbitration enforcement threads that have been filed since the case closed? Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse due to prior involvement. Shell  babelfish 11:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my view that a wide construction of the ban's scope, as prescribed in the remedies, would include all of the articles mentioned (and especially Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection—I cannot fathom an argument that those are not related to Eastern Europe). The purpose of prescribing a broad construction of the ban in the first place is to avoid situations like this. Steve Smith (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging Radek's comments, and affirming that the inclusion of Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection in the request did not affect my views on Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism. Both of those articles, as Fifelfoo notes, have substantial chunks devoted to Eastern Europe, and many other portions of both articles can be linked to eastern Europe as being in some ways offshoots of the cold war (though Vecrumba's point that Communist highjinks != USSR is well taken).  There is a case to be made that the articles (or at least significant enough portions of them) are not eastern Europe-related.  But there is also a case that they are eastern Europe-related, and in light of the "broadly construed" portion of the remedy, I find the latter case more persuasive.  While I thank Radek for providing the link to Coren's earlier answer of this question (I was not hitherto aware of it, having somehow missed Martin's link), that answer was provided on the talk page of an individual arbitrator, and all I can say is that I disagree with Coren's answer there.  As for the proposed "AFD-bans", those are outside of the scope of a request for clarification, and I don't see the need for ArbCom intervention on those subjects for the moment. Steve Smith (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A few scattered points in response to Radek: first, I can assure you that if you watch all arbitration pages, you will see me change my mind at least once before the end of February; I'm very unreluctant to do so. Second, I don't see how you can say that Communist terrorism has little Russia-related content: the single largest section deals almost entirely with Russian communists.  Third, I acknowledge that both articles have substantial chunks unrelated (at least on the surface) to eastern Europe, but a broadly construed topic ban means that the editors subject to it should not be poking around the edges of the topic, which editing non-eastern Europe sections of an article having substantial eastern Europe content qualifies.  Fourth, it is regrettable that this question has been so extensively discussed elsewhere, because that's created confusion.  This page is where we clarify things.  Fifth, the topic-banned editors appear to have been operating in good faith; we're not talking about sanctioning them, we're just talking about clarifying the ban's scope so parties know what will be considered sanctionable in the future.  Fifth, after a review of the articles' histories and related discussions, I am as suspicious as you are about the inclusion of Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection.  If they were included in an attempt to affect arbitrators' perceptions on the other two articles—and it looks very much as though they were—The Four Deuces is advised to knock it off. Steve Smith (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with Steve - these articles clearly fall within the broad scope specified within the case. In general, my advice would be that if you feel an article is pushing the limits of the ban definition, then it is probably included in the scope of that ban.  Fritzpoll (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I should note that this is exactly what I meant by "they hover close", and that Steve Smith is correct that my own opinion is exactly that: my own opinion of the interpretation of the remedy and not a statement from the committee. Fritzpoll's advice seems sound: play it safe by staying away if there is a genuine question.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Broadly concur with Steve Smith and Fritzpoll. Vassyana (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The best way to handle topic bans is to think "Will anyone credibly think, no matter how mistaken, that editing this article will fall under the topic restriction?" And if the answer is not an immediate, unequivocal "No".. don't do it SirFozzie (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Steve. KnightLago (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. These are unquestionably covered by the topic ban. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, agree with Steve here. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Steve Smith and Fritzpoll.  — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues' comments. I would add that in voting on the remedies in the case, I favored substantially narrower topic bans than voted by the majority, but several of these articles would have been covered even under my proposed language. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: ARB9/11 (Thomas Basboll's topic ban) (January 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Thomas B (talk) at 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :

Blocks, bans, and restrictions
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


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

--Thomas B (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request.

Modification of topic ban

 * Link to log of sanctions
 * My request is that the indefinite topic-ban I am currently under be changed into a two-year topic ban, to expire on April 21, 2010.

Statement by Thomas Basboll
On December 8, a topic-ban against me that had been implemented under the 9/11 ArbCom ruling was suspended for a trial period of one-month. (See discussion archived here.) My original request, however, had not been to lift the ban immediately, but simply to define an end date. AE decided on a trial period which is now coming to a close. I hadn't expected to return to editing so quickly, but I've tried to do some work that might indicate what sorts of thing I'd like to do if I returned. On that basis, then, I am simply restating my original request to let the ban run out in April.--Thomas B (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Answering Roger and Shell's questions and concerns would open a very long discussion. If you really want to have that discussion we can, but my solution seems simpler and more forward looking. Acknowledging that the ban is in hindsight difficult to explain, and that my trial period has not seen gross violations of WP policy, just convert the indefinite topic ban to one that has a fixed period. Then let me return under the already tight editing restrictions that the articles are subject to. I promise to edit in the spirit of what you have seen over the last few weeks. Also, Henrik is right about my conflict with MONGO, which is actually the most worrying thing about letting me return. For my part, I am committed to settling our differences of opinion about content in a civil manner. Again, the ArbCom restrictions in this area don't really allow us to do it any other way.
 * But to attempt a short answer: this is a time-consuming area and I am one of the few people who has committed to working in it in a civil and (I'd insist) moderate way. In addition to my basic interest in (i.e., curiosity about) the controversy, it is precisely because I have narrowed my focus that I don't lose my patience and can remain civil in the face of the usual suggestions to include OR of various kinds. If I had to double my time commitment (as Roger seems to suggest), I'd probably get as frazzled as everyone else.--Thomas B (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With Risker and Hersfold's comments, I think I'm getting the gist. Last time I appealed this ban I had decided to try to get it overturned, i.e., to clear my name of the charge of POV-pushing. I presented this as a condition that might get me to return to editing. I was, understandably, told that this wasn't a constructive approach, but my pride and stubbornness demanded that I try. Well, time has a mellowing effect, and I have now returned without that demand. That is, I am now proposing to return without reassessing the wisdom of the original ban. The arbitrators, however, seem to be as stubborn as I was. They will not let me return without first re-affirming that the topic-ban was justified. If they hold to that uncompromising position, which is their right, then I will not edit any more. Lift the ban or don't. If you want me to edit here (John and Henrik seem to see that there is some value to be derived from it), let me do so with a modicum of dignity, friends. This time, a modicum is all I ask.--Thomas B (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what Vassyana has in mind, but it was my understanding that Roger wanted this to be decided by the committee, not the community. That's why I brought it here. If AE, not ArbCom, lifts the ban, there is the danger that other members of the community will simply return here with the arguments you are already hearing. Carcharoth's proposal has the virtue of being unequivocal. And if I am to remain banned on that principle, then I would suggest amending the ARB9/11 ruling accordingly. That is, it could be stipulated that SPAs and new users are not allowed to edit the articles. As I said to Carcharoth, the benefit of this approach will be that one source of controversy will likely be removed. In my view, the trouble stems from the clash of newbie (or at least anonymous SPA) conspiracy theorists with vested debunkers. If the first group did not show up (or were simply topic-banned when they did on formal, quantitative grounds), neither would the second. I think this would greatly reduce frustrations among editors like Tom Harrison. I certainly think that such editors, if spared the usual drama, could produce very good articles in this area. Such an amendment would also formalize the conditions under which I might return, which there seems to be consensus about among the arbs: if I want to edit these articles I simply have to make some substantial (but uncontroversial) edits to other parts of Wikipedia. Once I have done so I could presumably request that the topic-ban be lifted at AE. That suggestion is not new, of course, and I have always acknowledged that I might, one day, do exactly that. But the immediate consequence of putting this restriction on my return is that WP will have to do without my contributions for the time being.--Thomas B (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This might be informative. It has been suggested that my overall effect is to "slant" the articles in the direction of conspiracy theories. Here is the article on the Collapse of the World Trade Center  immediately before I made my first edit in July of 2006, after my last edit before being topic-banned in April of 2008, and at the close of the suspension of the topic ban in January of 2010. It is of course possible that it would have been even less conspiriatorial and very much better without my involvement. But I am pretty confident that my presence will not be found to have been disasterous.--Thomas B (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Henrik
I was involved in the AE process which instituted a one month trial period as an admin who happened to patrol the page at that time. During the trial period, I continued to watch this user's editing and found it unproblematic and in line with our content policies (npov, fringe, and so on). He has been unfailingly polite and communicated well.

The main cause for concern is Thomas Basboll's insistence on only editing articles very closely related to 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracy theories, despite repeated suggestions by multiple arbs, admins and users that he by broadening his scope, even slightly, would demonstrate that any concerns were unfounded. Instead he chose to stop editing when the ban was imposed.

Naturally, while being interested in only a single topic is not in itself a problem, we have bad experiences with single purpose users in problematic areas and letting an unyieldingly polite POV pusher (which his critics claim is a fair description) into his area of interest could potentially cause much unnecessary work and slant towards fringe views in one of our traditional problem areas.

I tried looking into the original reasons for the topic ban (imposed by Raul) but didn't uncover any obvious smoking guns, nor did I find obvious evidence of the type of problematic POV pushing that has been attributed to him. Perhaps I missed it, or it was too subtle to detect for someone not an expert in the subject area. The worst I found was a relatively unpleasant conflict with MONGO.

In the end, I would advocate something in between continuing a total topic ban and a complete lifting of restrictions, perhaps a longer probationary period. I don't see any reason why waiting until April would improve matters however. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  12:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg
Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52 is the discussion where Henrik un-topic-banned Thomas for a month. (The people who commented there should be notified of this amendment request.)

The resulting contribs are 25 content edits and 30 talk edits, all to Collapse of the World Trade Center except for one recent comment to 7 World Trade Center.

Thomas appears to be working towards pushing Collapse of the World Trade Center to GA status*, and his involvement appears beneficial. If the other editors currently involved in that article do not mind his involvement, I think the topic ban should remain suspended wrt this article at least.

However, I think the general topic ban should remain in place until Thomas has worked on articles besides these very high importance/significance articles in the 9/11 topical area. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai
If I recall correctly, the trial suspension was my suggestion, so I should probably speak as to my thinking:

Unblock and unban discussions tend to be speculative and irritating, and its often impossible to separate the baggage from the actual predictive evidence. This seemed a good opportunity to short circuit the existing norm (a lot of declarations and haranguing between supporters and opponents) and do something more useful. A suspension, in addition to moving an editor back towards their natural state (anyone can edit) more importantly functions as a diagnostic tool - in this case a month of recent editing patterns to give good facts for decision making.

This is not to say that a month of good behavior is necessarily sufficient however, and we are best served by multiple persons from the affected topic areas giving us their own impressions and reactions. If there is not enough reason to give confidence of an absence of problems indefinitely, another, longer, trial period is the natural next step.

As a final thought, the ban appears to have been logged as a discretionary sanction - and thus is subject to discretionary review. ArbCom has been invited to decide, but it need not accept that invitation.

Statement by JzG
Why can't Thomas just leave these articles alone? We have millions of articles he could edit, and a handful where his interaction has caused massive stress. There's no evidence that his strong opinions have changed, so I think it's highly unlikely that allowing a return to unrestricted editing of these articles is going to produce anything other than the same old problems. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison
Are there diffs or evidence that, during the trial un-ban, Thomas Basboll has tried to slant the article? No, of course not. Given the arbcom's scrutiny, anyone but a raving loon would be on his best behavior, and Thomas certainly isn't a loon. But then his individual edits were almost never problematic. The problem was that over time they slanted the presentation in favor of 'controlled demolition'.

Along with the natural state in which anyone can edit, is the actual state, in which people don't want to edit, at least in that area. Because of the constant pov pushing, endless demands to assume good faith and compromise with conspiracy theorists, repetitive talk-page discussions, et cetera, I've chosen to spend my time elsewhere. I no longer follow those articles, and won't be working with Thomas Basboll, so take this for what it's worth. Tom Harrison Talk 18:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * The previous discussion on this matter wasn't on the case talk page where I expected to find it. I've dug back into the page histories and archived it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. Side-note to any arbitrators reading this, I incorrectly said (by e-mail) that Basboll filed that request, when it was Tom harrison who filed it. Could a clerk please notify all those who were involved in the previous discussion, and anyone else who needs to be notified. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could a clerk notify members of the AE thread, if this has not been done already?--Tznkai (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment: This is little point in deferring this until April. The POV aspects can be resolved by suspending the topic ban and authorising any uninvolved administrator to reinstate it, after giving due warning. However, I also share Henrick's concerns about Thomas Basboll's exclusive focus on 9/11. Perhaps the solution here would an editing throttle, where Thomas Basboll can make one edit to 9/11 in exchange for one comparable edit in an unrelated topic. What does Mr Basboll feel about this?  Roger Davies  talk 12:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to hear from editors you've been working with during this trial and I share Roger Davies's concern about such a narrow focus, but I do see a lot of excellent, thoughtful and non-heated talk page discuss from during the trial. I think that's a good sign.  Echoing Roger, what are the chances of branching out from this topic area?  In my experience, editors who are too focused on a particular subject tend to unconsciously spiral in on themselves and I'd hate to see you end up back on a topic ban. Shell   babelfish 13:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nobody is asking you to double your time commitment; we're all volunteers here. The purpose of an editing throttle of the type Roger suggests is to encourage a branching out of your editing abilities, because as noted by Shell single-purpose users do often have difficulty pulling themselves away from controversial situations and are more likely to be subject to editing sanctions. It may reduce the amount of time you're able to spend on 9/11 topics, but it's likely to be beneficial to your return. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to hear other comments, although I am not pleased with Thomas's refusal to step away from this area, nor his apparent refusal to understand why we're asking him to step away. This is not indicating to me that removing the topic ban will be a good thing. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am very much disappointed in Thomas Basboll's unwillingness to step away from the same place he's haunted since first registering. Being polite isn't enough; being politely tendentious and repetitive can be as bad as being rude and tendentious. I'd like to ask editors who worked with Thomas Basboll before to review the recent edits to see if he has returned to put forward the same proposals as he had in the past, those which were considered fringe, or POV, or inappropriate for the article into which he wished to insert them. Risker (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Risker, I'd like to hear from other editors about the course of the trial period before making any further determinations. Vassyana (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for ArbCom to step in here. Community review got us here and I see no reason why it cannot continue to move this matter forward. I see no indication that this is beyond the reach of reviewing administrators and the community to resolve. Vassyana (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize to Thomas Basboll and others involved for any miscommunication that may have led to this amendment request. However, this is a community imposed sanction that was undergoing community review and should continue undergoing community review. I am opposed to ArbCom short-circuiting or circumventing that process and will oppose any motions or measures as an individual arbitrator on that basis. Vassyana (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Per Risker and Vassyana regarding the desire to hear from, for want of a better term, "adversaries". Would also welcome comment on why this ban, imposed as an arbitration enforcement measure rather than as an ArbCom remedy, merits a request for amendment.  Thomas has kindly pointed out that this latter point was blitheringly idiotic, though he was more diplomatic. Steve Smith (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As Roger has pointed out, I (and possibly other arbs) would be more sympathetic to the request if the editor actually has made broader content contributions outside of this scope. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I remain of the opinion that those focused totally or almost exclusively on a single topic should diversify their editing to come to a broader understanding of how Wikipedia works. This applies to both non-expert editors and experts as well (here, by experts I am referring to topics such as climate science and medical topics such as homeopathy, or science in general, where some science or medical experts feel no need to edit outside their areas of expertise). Self-taught or actual experts won't be able to be as deeply involved or authoritative on other areas, but that is a good thing, as it gives a taste of what it is like at different levels. When editors first arrive at Wikipedia, I think they should be allowed to be "single-purpose accounts" up to a point, but beyond that point, they need to diversify. I think Basboll reached that point long ago, and his refusal to edit in other areas is not helpful, so I would not lift the topic ban. In effect, this approach is what I would advocate for any new account that arrived at a controversial article: "this is not a good article to learn how Wikipedia works - you need to build up a track record elsewhere in uncontroversial areas of Wikipedia" (and then topic ban that new editor). Unfortunately, one type of response to new editors turning up on controversial articles and making controversial edits is to indefinitely block them as disruption accounts or "obvious" socks. I favour the "topic ban" approach as one that avoids collateral damage. When the editor has built up a track record elsewhere, they can apply to have the topic ban lifted. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse per my practice on disputes relating to the events of September 11, 2001. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Asmahan (2) (January 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Supreme Deliciousness at 18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Arab Cowboy is aware.

Amendment 1

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Remedies
 * Remedy on Arab Cowboy - requesting that Arab Cowboys becomes permanently banned from Asmahan.

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness
Arab Cowboy has been caught using a sockpuppet. He created this puppet on the 17th november while the arbitration case was processing, 3 days after the admins posted proposed remedys that would ban the both of us from changing the nationality or ethnicity of persons:  He used it during the case while choosing not to answer the remaining questions. He has used this sockpuppet to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction (look at all the edits he has done) and he has also used it at Asmahan. This shows his true intentions. It shows what kind of respect he has to wikipedia, what kind of respect he has to the arbitration case, and what he planned to do (and also did) at the Asmahan article.

I am now requesting that Arab Cowboy becomes permanently banned from editing the Asmahan article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Response to Steve Smith: The arbitror John Vandenberg said: "I've read all of the Evidence page a few times, and reviewed all of the contribs of both the main parties. I have chosen to not incorporate all of the past problems into these proposals because I think you are both new users who are learning quickly, and will be good users if you both avoid identity disputes." Arab Cowboy created his sockpuppet two days later. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Vassyana: the enforcement says that a user can be blocked to one year after 5 violations of restrictions and blocks. Arab Cowboy not only violated his restriction and ban more then 5 times, but created a sockpuppet do do it with. This is a greater violation, and therefor the topic ban for 5 months is not sufficient. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to John Vandenberg: Arab Cowboy first attempted to deny the connection: It wasn't until after he admitted it. Arab Cowboy made posts with the Medjool account at the Asmahan talkpage without saying it was him, making it look like it was another user supporting the edits he had edit warred over with his Arab Cowboy account. See for example his reply to number 2 when he says with his Medjool account "P. 36 is not viewable online (at least I could not see it), so how could your claim be verified?", while at the workshop Arab Cowboy talked about what it "said" on page 36: and he has talked about p36 before at the talkpage 1c:... this alone shows that he was pretending to be someone else with the Medjool account. A WP:CLEANSTART attempt is "create a new one that becomes the only account you use." which is not what he did. After he created the Medjool account he simultaneously continued to use the Arab Cowboy account editing articles and making posts at talkpages with both accounts. WP:CLEANSTART also says: "This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit." Arab Cowboy had a ban on him which he violated  repeatedly with the Medjool account, and he used it in the same article that the old account edited. Arab Cowboy got restricted and topic banned on the 14th december:  He used the Medjool account to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction after 14th december. So how can you say "there was no problematic edits in the first place" ?? This involves more then 1 revert per page per week  and changes with the respect to the ethnicity or nationality of people which he is not allowed to do. So how can you even suggest that the discretionary sanction should be lifted?


 * Here are some of the diffs Arab Cowboy made with his Medjool account after 14th december when he was topic banned and restricted:


 * Changes with respect to the ethnicity or nationality:


 * More then 1 revert per page per week: and  --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Carcharoth: Why are you even mentioning WP:CLEANSTART? If it was a WP:CLEANSTART, why did he edit articles and make posts at talkpages with both accounts at the same time?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg
There is a bit more to this. I'll provide a statement as soon as I can. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.

has admitted on their talk page that they were . It was an attempt at a WP:CLEANSTART.

Medjool's edits to Talk:Asmahan were definitely not a violation of the arbcom restrictions.

Medjool's edits were not a clear violation of WP:SOCK. If anything, there is an element of "avoiding scrutiny" to the edits to Talk:Asmahan. The main problem here was that the edits to Talk:Asmahan resulted in the CLEANSTART hitting the rocks. Please read and understand those edits in order to understand why Arab Cowboy made those edits.

"Medjool" was a violation of Arbcom's motion requiring that they are informed of changes of account name by restricted users, however WP:SOCK does not mention that! Also, at the time that Medjool was created, Arab Cowboy was not a restricted user.

As such, it is a long stretch to use these edits as justification for discretionary sanctions; that wasn't their purpose, and there was no warning (because there was no problematic edits in the first place). And now that Medjool's prior account is disclosed, this discretionary sanction should be lifted.

At the SPI case, action was taken before Arab Cowboy/Medjool could reasonably respond. From start to finish, it was done in 7 hours, on new years eve. And it was only 2.5 hours from the time that SD had finished presenting the case to the time that Medjool was blocked.

Arab Cowboy has indicated that they would like to continue editing as Medjool.

I ask you all to consider the JohnWBarber case, which has similar issues wrt CLEANSTART and that user was allowed to continue editing under their new username, despite the fact that their CLEANSTART had failed.

John Vandenberg (chat) 02:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare
I forwarded an email to the Arbitration Committee (on what gmail says is 1 Jan 2010 13:04:56 -0500; I am assuming that is either 13:04 or 18:04 UTC) that is of relevance to this discussion. Any arbitrators looking over this request for amendment probably should look over that email first. Best wishes, NW  ( Talk ) 17:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that John believes that my actions were not warranted under the terms of the discretionary sanctions that were voted upon in this case. However, I believe that violating the clean start policy (invoking it while you are in an active ArbCom dispute is a violation of the spirit, if not the wording, of the rule) by editing the same article you were restricted on, would count as disruptive editing, which the article probation is meant to prevent. It does not matter what the edits were, but the fact that he was trying to influence content by posting in response to SD on the talk page without revealing his old account was troubling. I believe that merited a formal topic ban at the very least. However, I would have no problem with the Arbitration Committee or a group of editors on a WP:AN or WP:AE reversing my action if they feel that it was excessive. NW  ( Talk ) 10:57, 14 January 2010 (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.}

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * has topic-banned Arab Cowboy from all articles under the scope of the case until June 15. I see no reason to turn that long-term topic ban into an indefinite ban as requested; a lot can happen in five and a half months. Steve Smith (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Awaiting more statements as promised above. Can the clerks please ensure everyone who needs to be notified has been. Carcharoth (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to tell editors at arbitration that WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply to them? Agree with Vassyana that there are problems here. Suggest that one account is selected, and that account used to negotiate an unblock with conditions (such as a lengthy topic ban), but a straight unblock is not warranted here, and any action can be taken by administrators if any are willing to take action. Carcharoth (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Awaiting further statements, but I note NuclearWarfare's actions and wonder what further action is needed from ArbCom. Vassyana (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Analysis. Upon review, this is not simply a failed clean start inhibited by innocent mistakes, but rather a clear violation of our sockpuppetry principles. There are edits regarding ethnicity and cultural identity that display a strong, clear POV. This is highly relevant since Arab Cowboy's conflicts have been over cultural identity and ethnicity. The edits to Talk:Asmahan are clearly problematic as it is a return to conflict with an editor that has had extensive conflict with Arab Cowboy. The very first talk page edit is a bad faith accusation. Using the Medjool account, he defends his own edits made as Arab Cowboy. Both are clearly over the line. The account was used at least twice to circumvent the 1RR restriction imposed on Arab Cowboy. (1, 2, 3 within 5 days. Another 1, 2, 3 within 5 days.) In total, I see an account that was used to promote a strong point of view, continue disputes under a new guise, and circumvent editing restrictions. Vassyana (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sock block and extended topic ban seem perfectly warranted in the above context. Contrary to concerns about excessive or punitive measures, I see the results as rather lenient given the circumstances. I do not think ArbCom needs to be involved further at this juncture. If uninvolved administrators and/or the community still feel stronger measures are needed or that this matter needs further review in some way, I am confident that it can be resolved at that level. Vassyana (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm going with Vassyana's viewpoint here. WP:CLEANSTART does not allow you to come back in and have another go, which is what Arab Cowboy/Medjool did here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong (January 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   Sandstein   at 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong (remedy 1)


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * No other specific editor.

Amendment 1
I ask that remedy 1, Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong, be vacated and replaced by a standard discretionary sanctions remedy, such as e.g. WP:ARB911.

Statement by Sandstein
Remedy 1 provides for "article probation" for all articles in the area of conflict. But article probation, as specified at WP:GS ("Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages") only allows article or topic bans. However, in some situations, administrators may wish to impose less drastic measures. For instance, in the open enforcement request at WP:AE, I think that a revert restriction would be more appropriate, at least initially, than a topic ban. Although one might assume that, a maiore ad minus, the authority to impose a strong sanction such as a topic ban implies the authority to impose lesser sanctions, it is preferable (for the avoidance of doubt and wikilawyering) that such authority be expressly provided for.

I make this request as an administrator active in WP:AE (again since January 1, having confidence in the new ArbCom), and have no involvement in the original case or in any other disputes concerning Falun Gong.  Sandstein  22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana
I have reviewed the editorial history of this topic area in some depth. Fulfilling this request would be immensely helpful to the editors trying to help resolve the disputes. This will be encouraging to administrators already trying to make headway in the area. It will also encourage more administrators to intervene, especially those who may have been ambivalent about the more limited enforcement options. This will also be beneficial to editors in the area, with the conditions and sanctions better tailored to the situation. The resulting improvements and normalization of the editing environment will allow dispute resolution efforts a great deal more traction and success. The long-running and intractable nature of the overall dispute in the topic area should justify the expanded measures. Vassyana (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
Discrectionary sanctions would be good, to fine tune sanctions. (I think that this request was raised for the wrong reasons, but that's a different topic)

Statement By Simonm223
Quite frankly I shouldn't even be given a revert restriction for protecting the neutrality of the FLG articles from blatant efforts to insert a strong POV. Notwithstanding that this is still a good idea. Simonm223 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by HappyInGeneral
No matter what the outcome may be, will you in the end have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts? As I see it this is the only way to ensure to improve Wikipedia. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The latest example (food for thought):
 * Here is the section to discuss point by point 14 changes Talk:Falun_Gong comment added at 15:29, 14 January 2010. In these changes Asdf put some effort, 14 diffs, and if any of those would be objectionable it could be pointed out, it can be clearly pointed out.
 * However, even though request for discussion was clearly expressed on the talk page, and in the edit summaries there where 3 reverts, , and no discussion about the actual changes.

In my understanding Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia where we should evaluate the merit of the edits, not blindly push forward or defend a certain view. And that is why I would like to know if you consider to have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I cross posted the above here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (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.}

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse. I wish to remain uninvolved as an arbitrator, because I have been involved in the past as an outside editor/informal mediator and wish to engage the area on that basis. I will make a brief statement as a regular editor. Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable and uncontroversial; I'll make the appropriate motions. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Motions
1) Imposition of discretionary sanctions
 * Motion enacted - Tiptoety  talk 07:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Falun Gong decision is modified as follows:
 * (a) The article probation clause (remedy #1) is rescinded.
 * (b) Standard discretionary sanctions (Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) are authorized for "Falun Gong" and all closely related articles.
 * This modification does not affect any actions previously taken under the article probation clause; these actions shall remain in force.


 * Support
 * 1) As proposed. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Steve Smith (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Mailer Diablo approves this motion 21:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Sandstein's rationale above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Shell   babelfish 01:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Sandstein's rationale fits here. Folks working at AE and to follow up these things need all the support the Committee can give them. SirFozzie (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) KnightLago (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (January 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Biruitorul Talk at 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Statement by Biruitorul
Do the topic bans handed out here cover obvious vandalism? To give one example: three days ago, this guy, with four edits, vandalized four articles (vaunted BLPs no less). Vandalism has lain uncorrected in three of those. I, with 63,031 edits, over 99.8% of which have been constructive and positive contributions to the project (indeed, one of those articles was written by me), can do nothing about it. And I'm also the only one who seems to care. Doesn't the Committee find this state of affairs a bit odd? - Biruitorul Talk 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Martintg
Carcharoth laments "There has to be a way to get others to revert vandalism like this", well there isn't. Most of EE is obscure to the majority of Wikipedians and they simply don't care to the point that sneaky vandalism goes undetected. There is only a small number who do care enough, but you topic banned most of them, the majority with 99.9% good contributions. And if something as simple as vandalism goes unattended, then certainly something more complex like content creation and expansion will be even more so neglected for 12 months while these editors serve out their topic bans. A 12 month ban on participating in AfDs or move discussions given the FoF on canvassing and a 12 month 0RR restriction to cover the co-ordinated edit warring would have been sufficient. The current broad topic bans are both punitive and damaging to the project, there were no FoF in regard to inappropriate content creation or vandalism. --Martin (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski
Any uncontroversial edits (reverting vandalism at the very least) should be exempt from topic bans. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not run a penal system, and it is a very well-established principle that rules (which I hope includes ArbCom decisions) can be ignored if they stop you from improving Wikipedia. This should be made clear by ArbCom and the community in all the appropriate places, to avoid the need for this sort of question to be asked.--Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I fully agree with Martin's comment above. I hope this year's ArbCom will see, where last year's so often failed to see, that "remedies" ought to be targeted specifically at the problems identified.--Kotniski (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Most editing policies and restrictions inherently include an exception for obvious vandalism, blatant BLP violations, and clear cut copyright violations. I would be surprised and disappointed if edit warring rules, editing restrictions, or other boundaries resulted in sanctions for reverting such edits. Vassyana (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall an earlier clarification on a different case that seemed to contradict what Vassyana is saying, but I can't recall whether it applied to topic bans or site bans. Generally, keeping articles watchlisted that you have previously created and edited in a topic area you are later banned from can be a problem, especially if the articles are obscure. But here they weren't obscure. I fear this is more a case of people believing the edit summary ("name corection") made by the IP editor - most normal vandalism would have been reverted, and hence the problem would not arise. If you are the first to notice, you should correct vandalism on BLPs, but fundamentally, the Wikipedia system cannot work if such watchlisting relies on one editor only. There has to be a way to get others to revert vandalism like this, allowing topic bans to operate effectively. Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Martin, if you can gather evidence that the broadness of the topic bans is having a deleterious effect on content, please do so, but that will require more than one or two examples. What would then happen would depend on what exactly the effect of the topic bans has been. Maybe ask for a three- or six-month review at some point, and present your evidence then? If clear vandalism and BLP edits are building up without reversion, revert them and come back sooner, but give some time for others to do the reversions. Maybe what is needed here is for topic-banned users to provide lists of articles for others to watchlist? Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will not be commenting due to prior involvement with case. Shell  babelfish 11:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Vassyana is correct, those are standard exceptions unless otherwise stated, but be smart about, save yourself the potential trouble and report to the appropriate forum.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Rlevse in all respects. Steve Smith (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Rlevse. KnightLago (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rlevse sums it up nicely. SirFozzie (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, as what Rlevse said. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the above, just use caution. If it could reasonably be seen as a constructive edit, ask about it on a noticeboard. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No reasonable administrator would block a user for reverting obvious vandalism, but caveat that obviousness is the eye of the beholder. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Speed of light (January 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  ― <i style="background: white; color: blue; font-weight:600; font-family: monospace">A._di_M.</i><sup style="font-family: fantasy">2nd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) at 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 4.2 "Brews ohare topic banned"


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment


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

Amendment 1

 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light
 * I, A. di M., hereby request that the following sentence be added to the end of the remedy: "The topic ban is temporarily suspended until the ongoing Featured Article Candidate discussion regarding Speed of light is closed."

Statement by A. di M.
Brews ohare is the author of three of the pictures currently on the article Speed of light. None of these pictures are directly related with the debates which led to the arbitration case, which dealt with the implications of defining the metre in terms of the speed of light in vacuum. On the FAC nomination of the article, initiated by me, constructive criticism has been expressed about the pictures; such criticism is also totally unrelated to the definition of the metre. While Brews ohare is still technically allowed to improve the pictures (as they are hosted on Commons) he is not allowed to participate in discussions about them, as that might be construed as transgressing his topic ban. I do not think that this is helpful, so I propose that Brews ohare is temporarily lifted from his topic ban until the FAC closes. ― <i style="background: white; color: blue; font-weight:600; font-family: monospace">A._di_M.</i><sup style="font-family: fantasy">2nd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Steve Smith: It could, but that should be worded in a sufficiently clear way: Brews ohare said he's "not interested in a month of squabbles over sanctions", and I think that discussions about whether the wording did or did not allow a comment of his on that page wouldn't be helpful, either. ― <i style="background: white; color: blue; font-weight:600; font-family: monospace">A._di_M.</i><sup style="font-family: fantasy">2nd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai
In order for this amendment to be effectuated I (or another admin, or the committee) will have to suspend or lift the supplemental ban that I placed on Brews ohare previously. (Its in the case log) I have some ideas on how to word the amendment that I haven't committed to words yet, as I am still deciding whether or not to support this request.
 * I failed to timestamp the above. Whoops. Anyway, after considerable discussion on Brews ohare's talk page, I've decided that on balance, Brews ohare is a potential asset, and further has earned his shot at loosening restrictions. I intend to lift my supplemental ban after brief discussion at AE, and I support the motion below that will allow Brews ohare to participate in the FAC process to discuss the relevant images. I further recommend an excemption for editing the relevant images. --Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Get a move on! I know Amendments always get shuffled to the bottom of the pile, but this one is fairly simple to at least indicate which way you're leaning.--Tznkai (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Finell
It would be helpful to the project if Brews' physics topic ban were modified to permit him to participate in discussion of graphics that he created, and that are used in the Speed of light article, during that article's current FAC. It is not necessary that his topic ban be temporarily lifted, only that it be amended for this specific purpose. Recently Brews has been peacefully and productively editing math articles and his behavior has not been problematical in any way, so far as I am aware.—Finell 00:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
Brews Ohare's topic ban should be temporarily modified to allow him to participate in the discussions about the diagrams he made. To answer Kirill's concerns, I think the whole point of Arbcom requests is to look at each case individually, we don't argue on the basis of precedents. Finell has pointed out above that brews has been contributing in a positive way. If there is an issue with diagrams and it is found that some modifications are needed, then it could be extremely inconvenient for someone else to do that. In practice this could mean that someone else would have to make new diagrams from scratch. This has to be weighed against the potential of disruption of wikipedia given the reason of Brews topic ban (endless arguments about speed of light, domination of talk pages). I don't see this potential for disruption given what Brews has been doing recently. As I said, precedents are irrelevant. In similar cases where someone has been topic banned from some politics page which is up for FA review, you may well conclude that despite that editor having made considerable contributions, the potential for disruption is very real. Count Iblis (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades
As far as I know (and I would welcome any correction if I am mistaken), there have been no problems related to Brews' edits of images on Wikipedia/Commons. Further, I am aware of no major problems with Brews' participation in the project for the last couple of months &mdash; and I will say that stands in contrast to (and in spite of) the overzealous and...spirited actions of some of his self-appointed defenders.

On the other hand, I must also note that (per Tznkai's comments) a broadening of Brews' original topic ban to include meta-disputes and user-conduct discussions was required in late November in order to get him back on a productive track. There was also at least one violation of his physics topic ban in late December:.

While the proposed amendment is far broader than necessary, I am inclined to say that that on balance the likelihood of disruption from a more narrowly-crafted exception is low and indeed would be beneficial to both the project and to Brews &mdash; and might form the eventual basis for future relaxation of his topic ban terms. An opening to allow Brews to participate in discussions regarding his images in the article (which are, as far as I know, uncontroversial) would probably be worthwhile. Further, allowing him to participate in (a part of) the featured article process should – hopefully – expose him to some of our most dedicated editors working to achieve some of Wikipedia's highest standards and goals.

That's the carrot; here's the stick. While I hope and expect such a condition shouldn't be required, I would also suggest that the amendment explicitly be revocable by a consensus at WP:AE if Brews' editing should stray into the tendentious or disruptive.

The exact wording of such a temporary amendment is up to the ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (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.}

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Would a narrower suspension applied only the pictures be useful? Steve Smith (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Barring any substantial objection from other editors or arbitrators, I do not see why this cannot be handled by way of a simple motion providing a specific exception for Brews to discuss his images in this specific FAC. Barring any major objections, I will propose such a motion in the near future. Vassyana (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am uncomfortable with waiving a topic ban purely because some of the editor's work is being discussed at FAC, as it's an arrangement we've rejected in the past, and with editors responsible for even greater volumes of work. Is there some reason why Brews's direct involvement is necessary (rather than merely convenient)? Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I said when the case closed that I'd be willing to support a change to the topic ban to allow Brews Ohare to contribute images and to discuss images (narrowly construed). I would, though, prefer that Brews Ohare himself make such an appeal. I would in principle support a motion like that Vassyana intends to propose, but only if Brews Ohare indicates that they support the appeal being made here. I would even support a complete relaxation of the ban to allow any image work, not just a single FAC discussion. i.e. making an exception for all image work would make more sense than making an exception for FAC alone. Carcharoth (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: It seems to me that unless he's allowed to edit the images in response to criticism/suggestions at FAC, we're tying one arm behind his back. Are we going to allow him to edit the images as needed? SirFozzie (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally I would agree with Kirill here - banned means banned, and I'm very reluctant to give any sort of exception simply due to a one-time thing. However, based on the statements above, I'm willing to assume good faith in this instance, although Brews should be aware that he will be held to a tight leash during this exception. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 04:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Motions
1) Exception to topic ban

is permitted to participate in featured article candidacy discussions for "Speed of light" for the sole purpose of discussing the images used in the article. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy #4.2).

Enacted - ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (u • t • c) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve Smith (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo approves this motion. - 06:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly per comments above. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 04:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the current FAC discussion has closed, I've modified the wording of the motion to apply to future FAC discussions as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

2) Second exception to topic ban

is permitted to edit images used in the "Speed of light" article to address issues regarding the images that arise in connection with the article's featured article candidacies. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy #4.2).

Enacted - ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (u • t • c) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Risker (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly per comments above. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 04:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve Smith (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although, if the images are on Commons, this is not actually necessary. Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Noting the recent FAC has closed, I would be fine with future FACs. KnightLago (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Request to amend prior case: EEML (2) (January 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Durova 403 06:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected : Eastern European mailing list

It is a pleasure to come to this page with something positive. Recently Cary Bass asked who might be a suitable editor to do an improvement drive for the Lech Walesa biography. Piotrus came to mind of course as Wikipedia's most prolific contributor of good articles and featured articles about Poland. I conveyed this with all the appropriate caveats about Piotrus's editing status, and mentioned that last year ScienceApologist had run a successful improvement drive for the optics article during his siteban, with ArbCom's approval. Both Cary and Piotrus were interested in requesting a similar arrangement so I sought a team of people to proxy Piotrus's edits and facilitate good article candidacy.
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Malik and Xavexgoem have agreed to be facilitators. Xavexgoem is an administrator and mediator who has mediated Eastern European disputes and Malik is familiar with the area. To facilitate review Piotrus has agreed to use only English language sources.

The current wording of BAN appears to allow this type of limited proxy editing. Yet the recent arbitration was unusually contentious and we wish to take steps in advance to ensure that this proposed content drive is not mistaken for ban evasion.

So I would like to propose the following case amendment:


 * The applicability of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users in general is confirmed for this request, and in particular, Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem and Durova have permission to proxy for Piotrus by editing the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and at process pages directly related to the Good Article request.

Malik Shabazz and Xavexgoem should be adding their agreement to this proposal shortly, and Piotrus should be emailing the Committee to affirm his endorsement of this request. Respectfully submitted, Durova 403 06:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Xavexgoem
I support this wholeheartedly. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
I fully support this. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:31, 25 January 2010 (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.}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This seems reasonable enough, but I don't see any need to cite the general policy when we're granting an explicit authorization. Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Motions

 * (There being 17 arbitrators, of which 1 is inactive and 1 is recused, 8 is a majority) ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (u • t • c) 01:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Proxy authorization

Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem, and Durova are authorized to act as proxies for Piotrus by editing, at his direction, the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to its nomination for Good Article status.


 * Support
 * Proposed. Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to see how this turns out. SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it would be more efficient to amend by replacing the current siteban with a topic ban (a very broad topic ban, if desired), and then make this article an exception to the topic ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Siteban needs to be fully served or fully appealed, otherwise such things become meaningless. Limited proxy exceptions are fine. Carcharoth (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This scheme has been used with some success in past cases, and fosters future collaboration and return to constructive editing. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Willing to give it a try. - Mailer Diablo 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per SirFozzie. KnightLago (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, although I'm in Brad's camp in general Fritzpoll (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * banned means banned.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 23:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Recuse
 * Recused on EEML and related matters.  Roger Davies  talk 17:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: EEML (January 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  radek (talk) at 08:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected : Eastern European mailing list


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 10
 * 2) and possibly Remedies 2, 3, 4.2, 5, 7, 8, 8.2, 9.1, 17.1, 18.1, 19, 20


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

and possibly



The editors listed as "possibly" concerned above have been notified on their talk pages. Not sure if anyone else needs formal notification.
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

 * 
 * The one year topic ban from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same does not apply to the provided list of unsourced Poland related BLP articles which may be edited for the purposes of referencing them in order to avoid deletion (and because reffing unsourced BLPs is a good thing in and of itself).

Statement by Radek
I realize that this request may end up creating some "side drama" to the "major drama" that is now ongoing with respect to the existence and potential deletion of many unreferenced BLPs. However, I am sufficiently concerned that many notable articles on people related to Poland may end up being deleted as a consequence of the current situation that I think this request for an amendment is justified.

I've responded to the eruption of the issue of unreferenced BLPs by trying to add references to some of them (for example (it's crazy that this guy was an unreffed BLP), here, here, here, and here. There've been some failures to find sources as well, for example, here, here, and here) But as I was looking through the list of unreferenced BLPs to my frustration I noticed a large number of articles on Poles that could be easily referenced by someone fluent in Polish and with access to Polish sources. I include a short list, based on the first 5000 entries from this list below (Note, due to the ongoing developments, the list may not be current). Obviously, the topic ban prevents me from referencing these BLPs and thus saving them from potential deletion.

Therefore I am requesting that the topic ban on Eastern European articles is lifted in regard to unreferenced Poland related BLPs.

I understand that there may be concerns about slippery slopes which may lead to the topic ban ending up being ineffectual or to possible loopholes that such a partial lifting of the topic ban may create which, ABF, would lead to WP:Game. In order to alleviate these kinds of concerns I propose that I create and submit a specific list of unreferenced BLP articles from the link above (the list I include below can be taken as a preliminary submission - as referencing works progresses it would be extended to include other BLPs) to the ArbCom, that this list be approved and that the lifting of the topic ban is specifically applied to the articles on the list. Any editing to Eastern Europe related articles that are not on the approved list would still constitute a violation of the topic ban of course.

The list of articles includes some very notable people, for example Jolanta Kwaśniewska (former first lady of Poland and a notable persona in her own right), Henryk Chmielewski (an author of one of the most popular Polish comic books of all time), and Kazik Staszewski (a very well known and popular Polish musician). It would be a very significant loss to Wikipedia, and quite a shame, if these kinds of articles ended up being deleted.

I have not consulted in this matter with any other editors who were part of the Arbitration Case (staying away from mailing lists these days) and I think it is best to let them speak for themselves. However, I anticipate that some of them would likewise like to participate in referencing Estonian, Latvian, Moldovan, Polish, Romanian, Russian or Ukrainian unreffed BLPs. Hence, I've included them as "possible" parties in this request.

Please see Amendment 2 below.


 * Response to Varsovian


 * Ummm.... no.... you were not mentioned on the mailing list. You made your appearance on Wikipedia well after the case had been opened. Right smack in the middle of it in fact. Strange that you would claim this, though of course it's perfectly possible you got your dates mixed up. At any rate, I do commend you for making the statement that "I have tried very hard not to be drawn into the very nasty debate that accompanied the case.". As irrelevant as it is to this request ... I do commend you for making it.radek (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * x2 Varsovian, believe me, I want to put the case behind me as much as anyone else. Probably more. However, the current situation with unreferenced BLPs, and their deletion is exceptional and apparently a sort of "slowly unfolding" emergency. Hence this proposal. I also don't see anything potentially controversial here among the articles - and the amendments would cover mostly just adding the new category and adding references.radek (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Varsovian
Despite the fact that I was apparently mentioned on the EEML, I have tried very hard not to be drawn into the very nasty debate that accompanied the case. After reading the bitter and damaging comments from both sides and seeing how much harm the case did to WP, my conclusion is that now the case is finally over, we need to draw a very firm line under it and walk away. Every thing that happened happened and now it is over. For that reason I am utterly opposed to any amendment for any reason to any of the outcomes of the case. Varsovian (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies, that should have read "I was apparently discussed by the EEML". I remember clearly a translation being posted by one of the members of the EEML of a Polish language email which mentioned me. It was during the case (towards the end of the case, I think it was when one of the members of EEML accidentally posted some email to WP when his computer malfunctioned). But regardless of that, my point still stands unchanged: this whole mess was very very nasty and now that it is finally over, we need to make sure that it says over, we should not revisit it.Varsovian (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Martintg
??? I don't recall Varsovian ever being discussed on the EEML, unless he is a sock of someone we did discuss. I do note that he only joined on September 28, 2009, after the EEML case was opened. BTW, I did a quick check (I'm on vacation so I didn't really spend too much time on this) in the Baltic topic space and there are also quite a few unreferenced BLPs. If the Committee are of a mind to amend the remedy, perhaps it could be made more generic to cover the other sub-topic areas within EE.--Martin (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 2

 * 
 * The one year topic ban from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same does not apply to the creation of "Category:Poland related unreferenced BLPs", to the tagging of relevant articles with this category, or to the announcement of the category's existence at WikiProject Poland.

Statement by Radek
In order to get some help with referencing some of these articles I would like to create a Category for Poland related unreferenced BLPs. Doing so right now would of course be a violation of my topic ban. Since creating such a category would hopefully greatly aid in the efforts of providing these articles with references, I am requesting that the topic ban be lifted from the specific act of creating such a category. For this to be a meaningful act, the category has to be inserted into the appropriate articles. So I'm also asking for the topic ban not to apply to the insertion of the category into unreferenced Polish BLPs as well.

Furthermore, in order to get as much help with this task as possible I am requesting that I would be allowed to make an announcement about this category, the related articles and the general issues involved at WikiProject Poland. That way, other editors, who were not part of the arbitration case can get involved as well. If need be, this announcement can be approved by one of the arbs before it is posted.

Again, while this initiative is my own only, it is possible that other users currently under topic ban may wish to create similar categories with the same intent of referencing Eastern European BLPs.

Preliminary list of Poland related unsrouced BLPs that would be excluded from the topic ban for purposes of referencing
Please note: if anyone thinks that a particular unreferenced BLP article on this list is "too controversial" for some reason, it can be removed.

Andrzej Zulawski (famous Polish film director)

Andrzej Biegalski

Kazik Staszewski (very notable musician, widely known in Poland)

Edmund Wnuk-Lipinski (notable Polish academic/author)

Józef Borzyszkowski

Jan Wyrowinski

Jan Olszewski (major Polish politician)

Zdzislaw Chmielewski

Justine Pasek (Panamanian but Polish-Ukrainian born)

Janusz Onyszkiewicz (famous dissident, politician)

Jacek Saryusz-Wolski

José Szapocznik (Polish-Cuban)

Ryszard Gryglewski

Anna Czekanowska-Kuklinska

Jolanta Kwasniewska (wife of former Polish president and notable in her own right)

Longin Pastusiak (very notable Polish politician)

Henryk Chmielewski (comics) (ugh! My favorite comic book artist from my childhood!)

Lech Trzeciakowski

Wladyslaw Markiewicz

Andrzej Jerzy Lech

Zbigniew Kabata (this guy might drop out of the "living" part of BLP pretty soon)

Jerzy Lukaszewski

Franciszek Jamroz(obviously notable. not in a good way)

Jaroslav Kurzweil (Czech not Polish. I include him because I am somewhat familiar with him)

Monika Olejnik (very well known Polish TV personality)

Kasia Stankiewicz (very well known Polish pop singer)

Statement by Kotniski
I hope this very reasonable request will be granted without drama or delay. Indeed, if there is to be a general uncontrolled purge of unreferenced BLPs as the ruling powers seeem to wish, there ought to be a general amnesty on anyone breaching any kind of ban to add references to such articles, unless the ban was in some way related to such activity (which is highly unlikely). (By rights any uncontentious editing should not count as a breach of a ban, but I realise that's too much of a mindset shift for people around here.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Angus McLellan
I should begin by saying that Radeksz brought this request to my attention, for which I thank him, as I had posted a mention of a Polish-related BLP which was unsourced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland and asked for assistance in sourcing it. I would hope that arbitrators will look favourably upon both amendment 1 and amendment 2. These ask for a quite narrowly defined variance in the original topic ban. The rationale seems sound and the benefit to the project seems clear. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:43, 25 January 2010 (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.}

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My inclination would be to grant a narrow exemption of some kind, possibly with a proviso that any apparently good faith complaint about POV edits would re-trigger the ban for the article in question. Awaiting others' comments. Steve Smith (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Martin: I think the more general sort of exemption that you propose is a non-starter. If Radek's request is approved, and if you see similar articles that you would like to reference from the Baltic states, you are welcome to put in the work that Radek has in identifying specific articles in need of referencing that you believe to be generally non-contentious. Steve Smith (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Steve Smith, consistent with my original view in voting on the case that the topic bans were too broad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would prefer that someone be assigned to supervise this (and approve additions to the list), rather than just a straight exemption, but no objection in principle. Please note, if any of these get deleted, they can be restored. The important thing is to come up with as complete a list as possible to be entered on the record here. In addition, can anyone in good standing be found to vouch for non-English sources that may be used? Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Recused on EEML and related matters.  Roger Davies  talk 17:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Motions

 * (There being 17 arbitrators, of which 2 are inactive and 1 is recused, 8 is a majority) ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (u • t • c) 01:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Topic ban narrowed

The topic ban applied to is amended. Radeksz may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.


 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. I deliberately applied this only to Radek, because it's not a large list of articles and exemplary behaviour since the case closed is a factor in my supporting this. Steve Smith (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Mailer Diablo 18:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm willing to see a bit of a relaxing due to his behavior since the case closed. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) KnightLago (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Will give this one a try. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> •  Talk  • 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse
 * 1) Roger Davies per this diff Noted by Carcharoth (talk)

2) Tagging and categorizing of unreferenced Poland-related BLPs allowed

The topic ban applied to is amended. Radeksz may create a category for unreferenced Polish-related biographies of living persons, tag articles for inclusion in that category, and announce the category's existence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.


 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. As this seems a larger task than the one in the previous motion, I may be open to extending the exemption to other topic-banned editors.  On the other hand, this also strikes me as something that a bot should be able to do in one fell swoop. Steve Smith (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Mailer Diablo 18:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm willing to support this per above. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) KnightLago (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Will give this a try.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> •  Talk  • 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse
 * 1) Roger Davies per this diff Noted by Carcharoth (talk)

Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley (February 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  William M. Connolley (talk) at 09:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Statement by your name
Abd's involvement in AFD appears to rise to an infrigement of his ban, e.g. the discussion here : It is not'' normal discussion for one participant in an AfD, which is a community process, to respond to most comments on one side with argument. If there is more evidence to be presented, by all means, present it, but there is never evidence for non-notability, so I'd recommend shutting up and let editors present what evidence they have...''. The arbcomm ban Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute... doesn't define "dispute"; do arguements at AFD rise to the level of "dispute" within the meaning of the ban? Note the "harassment" stuff here.


 * @M, V: fair enough; I thought it might be more usefully handled as a clarification, but if you'd rather see it at AE: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @V: as it turns out, the discussion at AE is turning on the meaning of the word "polls" in your judgement, so the issue of clarification remains open William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Abd
Someone should tell WMC that his slip is showing. He has no need for this clarification, because he should not be involved with enforcing the restrictions, nor should Mathsci or other involved editors, whose recent actions are rising, indeed, to the level of harassment and baiting. I'm allowed by the restrictions to participate in polls, and that's what an AfD is. My comment there was not outside the envelope for normal poll participation. If i'm incorrect, indeed, ArbComm is welcome to clarify, for my intention is to respect ArbComm decisions no matter how stupid or intelligent. If I want to appeal them to WMF, I will, otherwise, not.

The harassment comment, as can be seen from the first diff WMC gives, I struck. I made a simple response to the AfD on the irrelevance of classic bad AfD arguments as part of my Keep !vote, and the ensuing brief discussion occurred because the nominator elected to respond personally to me, it wasn't necessary. The article in question is of marginal notability, I had previously reviewed it during the second AfD, and the whole process and its repetition is an example of how Wikipedia multiplies debate over simple questions because people become personally involved and tenaciously push for what they want instead of moving on. What WMC appears to want is the fulfillment of his prediction, stated long before the events that came to ArbComm's attention, that I'd end up banned because I meddled, by pointing out, on his Talk page, his infamous use of tools while involved, at a point when I was neutral and actually generally supported his POV. Had he heeded the warning, he'd still be an administrator.

WMC should not be allowed to waste ArbComm's time with frivolous requests. Let neutral administrators who need clarification, in order to enforce remedies, ask questions like this, or let an affected party do it. My previous request wasn't fully answered, but I'll handle that by email to arbcom-l, if I feel the need. --Abd (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Vassyana: Well, to give WMC's request a positive construction, he's asking for clarification of the sanction, and the problem is that he's not the one who would need it, I suspect. He has no legitimate purpose to intervene in this case -- and the last one --, unless he's planning to be the monitor, with Mathsci, of my behavior. Mathsci voted in the AfD right after I did. I could go back and find lots of examples of what could be wikistalking, and evidence of intent to harass. But it really should be simple. A review of the RfAr should show that WMC and Mathsci should be hands-off, unless specific article business requires them to interact with me. ArbComm sanctions should not be enforced (or enforcement requested) by highly involved editors unless they are personally being affected by the sanctioned editor's behavior, that's a general principle that should be considered here. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * MastCell and Enric Naval. No admin who acts within the spirit of recusal policy has anything to fear from me, even if they make mistakes. No sysop has lost his or her privileges simply from blocking me, nor have any been taken by me to RfAr over it or even a noticeboard. The only direct loss was for WMC, who insisted on the right to block me long after it was blatantly and blindingly obvious to everyone else that he shouldn't, and he went ahead anyway, while the case was being considered. Sure, if I'm blocked without cause, and it's not a mere short block but indef, and I put up an unblock template and it's denied without what I consider good cause, I'd go to ArbComm. It's my right (and their right to decline or accept the case, so if there is a problem for an admin, ArbComm has decided it's worth examining).
 * Sure, an admin should be careful about blocking me, but shouldn't they be even more careful about editors less able to defend themselves? I see these comments added here today. Who's maintaining disruption over this, stirring the pot? Tznkai makes a harmless or even helpful comment on my Talk page about an alleged violation, and bang! WMC and Enric Naval are all over it at User_talk:Tznkai#Abd, with Enric Naval bringing in off-wiki "evidence" that I'd be happy for ArbComm to consider, if necessary. But I would never bring that kind of thing here unless it was crucial and necessary. If I'm clearly violating my restriction, any admin can block me and ask questions later. It's what happens later that separates the sober administrators from those who are not. I welcome intervention by truly neutral administrators, even if they do something I don't like, because, usually, I can reason with them and they make reasonable decisions, pretty quickly. If it's unclear, then either AE or RfAr/Clarification are the place to go.
 * There is a problem with MastCell's "spirit of the sanction" proposal. There is no spirit of the sanction, because there is no spirit, no soul, so to speak, behind it, there is just a statement that was made with little deliberation as to what it meant, and why it was being implemented, and what prior damage was being prevented, and it may have meant different things to different arbitrators -- and I think it did. I wrote that I'd write to arbomm-l if I needed clarification, and I didn't think it was needed yet. Perhaps that's my ADHD, it can manifest as a puzzling failure to intuit what people mean if it is not contained in what they say. If I were doing actual damage, ongoing, just banning me until some other solution appeared might be appropriate. But sometimes when one person is getting a number of people upset, blame isn't actually appropriate for that person. Sometimes questions are being raised that must be raised, sooner or later. The existence of massive disruption from a brief comment is a sign that this is the situation. And some good can come out of that. Now or later. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Abd, while blocked, has posted additional responses and statements regarding this issue, and particularly regarding the current block. That statement is posted at User Talk:Abd. If there's some means of transcluding it, or if it should be copied directly instead, please do so - I post the link here on Abd's behalf, because I said I would while declining his unblock request yesterday. Best, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC).

Statement by GoRight
It is evident that WMC means to pursue Abd beyond reason and to hound and harass him at every opportunity. This request is vexatious as Abd's restrictions specifically allow him to participate in polls such as an AfD.

I would ask that the committee amend the decision to include an interaction ban on WMC with respect to Abd. This would seem prudent to maintain a harmonious working environment. --GoRight (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that WMC has not participated in the AfD,, or at the article itself, , so one is left wondering just how WMC came to be aware of this issue in the first place? I'll leave it to Arbcom to decide whether there is an actionable behavioral concern here on the part of WMC.  --GoRight (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @My good friend Mathsci: Perhaps WMC should be encouraged to remove Abd's talk page from his watch list through the imposition of an interaction ban then. That should cut down on these vexatious requests.  --GoRight (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
This does look premature to me, although it shows the usual signs of Abd digging his heels in and preparing for a fight. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

 * Abd still seems to be testing the limits of his editing restrictions. His reaction to the last clarification on his talk page was not encouraging.  It doesn't seem that any further clarification is necessary here. As Vassayana suggests, a request should be made on WP:AE, if users think there are problems with the nature of his participation in this AfD.


 * 129 people have Abd's talk page on their watchlists - presumably WMC is one of those.


 * has already indicated that Abd had joined the EEML in his evidence for the EEML ArbCom case. It seems reasonable to suppose that Abd found out about this particular AfD through that mailing list or some other form of off-wiki correspondence with that group of editors.

Mathsci (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Abd has added another long "explanation" without diffs on his user talk page . It is not clear what its purpose is, except perhaps to deflect attention from his own editing and create drama where there is none. Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
Abd seems to think that an AN ban discussion is a poll. Tznkai (the admin in the AE thread) has told Abd that this one is a violation of the ban. See related discussions User_talk:Tznkai and User_talk:Abd.

Does this need a clarification, or do we let AE handle it as an obvious violation? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

P.D.: Pst, make a clarification: Are ban discussions considered to be "polls"? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC) are ban discussions in AN considered to be "polls" inside the context of Abd's restriction? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

P.D.D.: Regarding Abd's edit of the Oppenheimer-Phillips_process article. It's a violation of his cold fusion topic ban because Abd has repeatedly linked himself this process to cold fusion:
 * On-wiki, cold fusion was cited in three different comments in the talk page. All three comments were authored by Abd, no one else mentioned cold fusion. Abd even took care of linking to the cold fusion article when pointing to me the relationship. Abd himself remarked in his third comment that an editorial in Nature listed the OP effect as one of the possible explanations for cold fusion.
 * Off-wiki, around that time, Abd cited the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect to support Takahashi's explanation of cold fusion effects: in wikipedia review and in the VORTEX-L mailing list . Abd had been trying to insert Takahashi's explanation into the cold fusion article.

Abd was already blocked once for making a minor edit to an article that he was banned from, and then claiming that it was harmless because he had self-reverted, see User_talk:Abd/Archive_12. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
I initially viewed this request as unnecessary, but recent events have convinced me of its importance. Abd doesn't take the MYOB restriction seriously. That was evident in his response to an earlier violation, and in his response to a more recent violation.

Abd's disrespect for the spirit of the restriction is enabled when other editors offer to proxy for him to get around the restriction. Presumably, the restriction was not intended to encourage sympathetic editors to repost Abd's contributions in their own name, but to actually keep him out of external disputes where his input has proven counterproductive again and again. I'm reminded of ; every time a banned editor like or  would create a sock to attack another editor, Martin would restore the material by saying, "I'm not banned, and I agree with this." That sort of exercise may or may not be "legal", in a narrow legalistic sense, but it seems deeply antithetical to the spirit of the restriction.

My prior experience leads me to envision at least two possible branches from this point:
 * 1) Abd continues to test the boundaries and seriousness of his restriction. At some point, people will realize that "words to the wise", however wise they may be, have no effect here, and an admin will block him. At that point, the blocking admin will be subject to a grinding barrage of litigation and argumentation attempting to prove that they are "involved", "biased", etc.
 * 2) Abd is told in no uncertain terms to respect the spirit of his restriction. He is told that if he doesn't understand the spirit of the restriction, then he should seek clarification prospectively from ArbCom before involving himself in disputes. Sympathetic editors who enable Abd to evade the spirit of his ban are asked to stop. If any of these clear limits are overstepped, then Abd is blocked.

Personally, I think the second option is better. Of course, my observation of previous litigation involving Abd has made me extremely cynical, so perhaps things aren't as dichotomous as I've described them to be. Then again, the groundwork for pathway #1 is already being laid. This feels depressingly like a game; certainly I get the sense Abd is treating it that way, and I'd rather it were nipped in the bud. MastCell Talk 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.
I dealt with Abd today in what I considered a quite straightforward act of enforcement of the current editing restriction. The response I got from him, full of assumptions of bad faith, accusations, attempts of intimidation, and threats, was unacceptable. Enforcing the Arbcom decision under these conditions is a highly depressing and stressful exercise, so a clarification or possibly amendment would be appreciated. The rule as stated is vague, it's always been and has remained so even after the latest amendment: no discussing "disputes", but "voting and commenting at polls"? But where does a normal editorial content discussion end, and where does a "dispute" start? Which activities are "polls"? And why are polls exempted anyway; what makes us think his intervention in those has any less potential of growing disruptive than his intervention anywhere else? Since he is gaming these rules, the rules must be tightened. MastCell describes the situation quite well above. As another alternative, I only see the prospect of seeking a community sanction in the form of a full siteban on top of the Arbcom decision. That won't be achieved without yet more blood, sweat and tears, but it might be worth it – there's currently hardly any net positive coming from Abd; he has been making only insignificant numbers of mainspace edits and seems to be spending all his time playing around the edges of his restrictions stirring and perpertuating his disputes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another aspect of Abd's technique of perpetuating conflict despite the restrictions can be seen here. The logic is this: (a) There is a dispute in which Abd is not a originating party. (b) Abd comments on the dispute, breaching restriction. (c) Admin tells Abd not to breach restriction. (d) Abd attacks admin. (e) By attacking the admin, Abd has now created a dispute in which he is a party, which he then cites as a pretext to continue commenting on the initial dispute (a). Obviously, this cycle can and will be repeated ad infinitum. It's just like the "make-admins-involved" cycle: (a) Abd misbehaves; (b) Admin warns Abd; (c) Abd misbehaves against admin; (d) Admin responds; (e) Abd now claims admin is "involved" and therefore barred from taking action. These cycles need to be stopped, now. I have therefore blocked Abd for breaching his restriction with the edit cited above . Arbitrators can review the block here while they're at it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai
Its amazing what kind of conversations can happen on your talk page without your participation or even knowledge. First time I logged in today what with a real life that surfaces for several days at a time. If I've got the basic time line here, we had this request for clarification, which lead to an AE request, which I handled a week ago (Jan 12). Then, seperately, I saw that Abd had commented on an AN thread involving GoRight, now we're back here at the same request for clarification? So, which situation are we trying to clarify? I will likley comment further after I read my talk page and do the appropriate digging.--Tznkai (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded on my talk page to Abd, Eric Naval, William M. Connolley, and ATren with this. My opinion remains the same. Bans discussions are not polls. Abd's vague involvement in the greater issue does not give him an in on the dispute. Thus, Abd's editing on the AN thread about GoRight was in fact a violation of his ban. Such is my interpretation as an administrator, and I don't think arbcom needs to go out of its way to affirm simple common sense. Enforcement done under arbitration enforcement is best done at AE, or at least noted there.--Tznkai (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ultraexactzz
Abd was blocked at 07:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC) by. Abd subsequently requested unblocking to participate in this discussion and in other discussions dealing with the block and his fate. I declined the unblock, given that he was specifically blocked due to his interactions with others in venues such as this. However - I did ask Abd to post additional statements to his talk page, should he wish to contribute further to this discussion. If it is proper, I or other editors can copy the relevant remarks over; if not, they will at least be on his talk page and visible. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Skinwalker
Last night, Abd violated his topic ban from any content related to cold fusion with this edit to Oppenheimer–Phillips process. A glance at Talk:Oppenheimer–Phillips process shows that he edited Oppenheimer–Phillips process in relation to cold fusion prior to his ban. Skinwalker (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Is there some reason I'm missing that this cannot be sorted out on WP:AE, as is normal for such matters? Vassyana (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse on all matters Abd. Steve Smith (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike some of the commenters, I view this as a legitimate request for clarification. On the merits, my view is substantially the same as Tznkai's administrator comment on the Request for enforcement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Motion proposed below to address at least part of the problem here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Recused on this case. Shell  babelfish 11:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Motions

 * (There being 17 arbitrators, of whom 2 are inactive and 6 are recused/abstained, 5 is a majority) Updated clerk notes: Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)...Updated arb count. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Abd and William M. Connolley prohibited from interacting

and shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should either editor do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Enacted ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (u • t • c) 22:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support
 * If there's enforcement to be done, let someone else handle it; neither of you should be involved with the other at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so sure that WMC is the problem here, but I'm willing to see a complete and utter break in communication and interatcion between the two. SirFozzie (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so sure this is needed, per SirFozzie. Both Abd and WMC demonstrate the same problems with others, not just when they interact with each other, so this is not really addressing the core issues here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A stopgap measure. KnightLago (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 06:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * I think an informal request that these editors stop interacting with each other should suffice at this time; I'm not convinced a formal motion is appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Recuse
 * Cool Hand Luke recused per original case - entered by Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FayssalF recused per original case - entered by Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell Kinney recused per this - entered by Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve Smith recused per this - entered by Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse on all matters relating to Abd Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)