Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 43

Request to amend prior case: Derek Smart (June 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Cla68 (talk) at 01:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


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


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Bill Huffman
 * Atama

Amendment 1
Bill Huffman (the account by that name and the person behind it) is prohibited from editing the Derek Smart article, including the talk page.

Statement by Cla68
Finding #5 from the Derek Smart case found that Bill Huffman was operating an off-wiki attack site on Derek Smart and editing the talk page of the Smart article under a Wikipedia account of the same name. On the Derek Smart talk page, the Huffman account has made, as recently as a few days ago, suggestions on article content which has been discussed by other editors.

It came to light a few weeks ago that this same editor was operating an undisclosed alternate account, TallMagic. Both accounts have edited the same article. TallMagic disputed (and here) the attempts at finding fault with his use of two accounts. Administrator Atama asked TallMagic to stop using the Huffman account, which TallMagic refused to do, instead, announcing that he was "retiring" both accounts. The Bill Huffman account, however, began editing again on 18 April, specifically targetting the Derek Smart article. He has been evasive when asked to explain why he is doing so.

I'm not sure why the Committee did not enact a remedy in the case with regards to this editor. It seems to me that someone who is operating an harrassment campaign off-wiki against someone should not be allowed to edit that person's Wikipedia BLP, including the talk page. I suspect that the person wants Derek Smart to know that he is messing with his Wikipedia bio, as he has the same name prominently displayed on the front page of the off-wiki attack site. The fact that the editor "retired" the TallMagic account yet kept the original account which is now used solely for the Derek Smart article shows that this person is really only here for one purpose, to use Wikipedia as part of his personal campaign against Derek Smart. I request that ArbCom consider adding a remedy to this case to resolve this issue.


 * 27 Apr 2010 followup: Based on a suggestion by Huffman on the Derek Smart talk page, someone just implemented a change in the article text.  So, Mr. Huffman, who runs an off-wiki attack site on Smart under the same name, is influencing the content of the Wikipedia article on the target of his campaign. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Steve Smith: Well, Huffman makes it fairly clear here and here that he has a personal interest in, a derogatory opinion of, and long running dispute with, Derek Smart.  I believe Huffman knows he would be banned fairly quickly if he touched the Smart article text himself because his off-wiki, apparently long-running war with Smart is very public.  So, Huffman gets around this by restricting himself to the talk page and making suggestions for others to implement, which they appear to do.  As I said before, I think Huffman wants Smart to know that he is messing with his Wikipedia article.  There is definitely a long-running dispute between the two.  See these comments beginning in 2006:   . Here, Huffman states that he has no interest in even discussing the contents of the article.  That, based on his editing since that time, appears to be untrue.  Huffman does appear to be displaying some negative POV in this article suggestion from last year. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have noticed this before about the "Diploma Mill" connection. On Huffman's off-wiki attack site, he devotes a lot of space to what he says is Ph.D. fraud by Derek Smart.  The university at which he says Smart claims to have received a doctorate is Warren National University (WNU).  Sub-pages on Huffman's website print what he says are emails in which Huffman and Smart argue over the university and the degree.  The history of the WNU article shows editing by Huffman in 2007 and then what appears to be more than a hundred subsequent edits by TallMagic .  The editing history of Huffman and TallMagic at that article shows efforts by those accounts to ensure that that article contains negative information on that school.  TallMagic appears to editwar frequently with IP editors who try to remove at least some of the negative information.  So, the off-wiki battle going on between these two people appears to have extended from just the Smart article to at least one other article.  Thus, it might be a good idea if TallMagic and Huffman not edit the WNU article either. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by 72.192.46.9
I've started editing Wikipedia some time ago, simply because I knew of Derek Smart, was surprised there was an article on him, and got interested in watching the article grow. I am not terribly Wikipedia savvy, and let it be known though I have been trying to acquaint myself with policy properly enough to weigh in on things, my opinion should be taken as that of an inexperienced editor.

The original arbitration did mention Bill Huffman, and as I recall found no reason to remedy. It is perfectly within reason and within WP:COI for someone who is directly involved with a subject to post strictly on the talk page, so long as they are careful as per 'close relationships'. To this end, Bill Huffman has never edited the article, has always seemed to give helpful edits, and remained calm in an extremely checkered history of vicious personal attacks by various editors. He is not a troubling force on that page, and anyone examining the history of the page is likely to see that for themselves.

I find myself bothered that this remedy is even being proposed, and I would like to note that conflict of interest was spoken to here, and seemed to find nothing in this regard. Editing a talk page with content suggestions does not seem to be something to discourage. Certainly not something that should be punished. These suggestions, it should be said, were not done disruptively to any measure that I can detect. His suggestions on the talk page were often for additions that, as someone who has had an extensive history with the BLP article's subject, he considered to be useful. Not all of his suggestions were taken, but a rejected idea never even seemed to cause him the slightest distress.

I feel bad in that I've been speaking with Atama, with regards to Bill Huffman, and now it seems even after he finished conversing with me (he banned what I thought to be a legitimate sock of Huffman and I made a case on the sock's talk page and on Atama's page, later inviting JzG to review if he ever had time), and now Atama's been called in anyway. My sympathies for your being drawn back in, Atama.

In summation, I don't see a case to be made, here. But though I am an inexperienced editor, I am also likely one of the few around that knows of the article subject, and some of the long-standing conversations throughout the history of the article. OH, no, there is one thing more. Is it possible to add another amendment that the article in question be reviewed by uninvolved editors? It's hard to get interest, but there has been a NPOV tag up for quite some time, there are also some simple errors, and if this article is truly non-neutral (this figure, from what I have seen, is often negatively regarded, however I'm loathe to judge in on WP:Weight) then some help to bring it up to speed would be ideal.

Addendum - In reading the 'evasive' link Cla68 posted, the final post in there seems to be from TallMagic as of this posting and it seems to be a clear explanation and not an evasion. A study of the history of the article will cause one to note that Derek Smart does indeed know that Bill Huffman edits the article, without any speculation required. After the ArbCom remedy, Derek Smart entered the page with his personal name, and in part of a long comment, was banned owing to legal threats. Prior to that, his surrogates, IP editors with close personal knowledge and singular interest in the article, were causing disruption on the page by removing all material critical of the article's subject. Through all of this, even while conflict of interest concerns were raised, Bill Huffman's editing patterns were often praised..

Addendum 2 - Something I'd forgotten. Cla68 also requested a personal review of Bill Huffman's activities with Atama. This request seems to have come the day before the final deletion of a sockpuppet investigation in which Bill Huffman was found with no case to answer. In the same day as Cla68's aforementioned request to Atama, he also requested BLP noticeboard assistance which found no action to be required. Hopefully this might speak to the level of light that has been shining here, as this was also a topic of the original arbcom. I would invite that this is certainly not an unknown situation, nor one that has not been thoroughly considered, in my estimation.

Response to Steve Smith - I never nominated the article for deletion personally, because I believe the strictest interpretation places the Derek Smart article within the bounds of wp:notability. There is disagreement on that, however. It is possible that much attention ON the article came after a long, protracted campaign from Derek Smart surrogates to control the information in the article. This lead to pushback in which people who weren't overly aware of the article continued to watch it after becoming bothered by the potentially controlling and/or demanding nature of the Derek Smart surrogates, or by insults received while trying to work with other editors toward a neutral article. (I can get newer diffs if it matters for any reason, I just went to the oldest archive because I remember it being small and thus easier to look through).

The problem now is that, it seems, very few editors who know of Derek Smart actually come to wikipedia. Therefore it's possible that after the edit warring died down, the interest in furthering the article OR investigating its notability died with it. Sadly, I can make very little time for wikipedia. I have little enough time that I never even made an account, and this here might be the most effort I've effort spent here thus far! I'm a Derek Smart hobbyist, you might say. There is something about what seems to be an extreme vitriol that he displays toward any negative views that there might be of him, and the unabashed nature with which he seems to present that vitriol, that keeps him in my mind. But that's only enough for me to read an article on him if one pops up. No, as for wikipedia I think watching this article move toward NPOV has been a really impressive thing to behold.

There are times when I believed that the surrogates would be too omnipresent and too determined to allow work to continue, but the structure of wikipedia prevailed. The Derek Smart article survived improper edits from both extremes (and editors adding bad information to the article were not limited solely to surrogates or to the 'pro-smart' point of view, the "Derek Smart stinks"-mindset editors only seemed to die down faster once people got more seriously involved in the article, they were present). That may be a more complete reason as to why I've never nominated it for deletion, the wikipedia process has convinced me that the article can be brought to excellence through time and perseverance.

With regards to point of view. In regards to Cla68's assertion that Bill Huffman's editing patterns are only an attempt to avoid banning. I see no reason to assume that simply because Bill Huffman took a very careful stance, and in doing so chose not to edit the article, it should be interpreted as an attempt to 'get around' being banned. I think this is an incorrect assumption because it would conceivably hinge on an intention to cause problematic, ban-worthy edits. Based on Cla68's reply to Steve Smith the contention here seems to be straightforward. Is Bill Huffman's point of view inherently problematic enough that he should be banned from editing.

One of the first edits I saw once I started looking into this was Cla68 stating that wikipedia should not care if people are deceived by diploma mills (the edited section for this diff is not the pertinent point). This is surely true if we are editing on opinion, and not sources, but apparently that was not the case. I invite that Cla68 may be seeking remedies so actively, because he may feel that the situation is analogous to another situation. Cla68 took exception to the sources being used to discredit diploma mills with an analogy that speaks to another of his interests, climate change. I feel this may be important because point of view is at the forefront of this discussion. And I intend to present evidence that Cla68 might not support his action against Bill Huffman if it was climate change skepticism that Bill Huffman was editing about. This may help the council understand the points of view at play.

Firstly, it would seem that Cla68's perceptions of editing may be colored by the belief that editors with a point of view are a causal factor, or symptomatic of, disruptive or non-neutral editing. This may be part of a belief that editors with a point of view will actively try to exclude material they don't agree with. It should be noted that in a prior edit for that diff, a commenting editor did clearly say he was referring to extreme views being put in their proper place, not being omitted.

In fact, he might believe that those with a strong point of view are trying to link their opponents with holocaust denialists and the edit summary may indicate that he considers his perception to be a large, unspoken truth. That edit did not stand. All of this might also be considered against what seems to be a strong point of view that Cla68 holds. However he does not recuse himself from editing articles within that scope of interest, climate change, despite feeling that Bill Huffman should be banned for a perceived negative point of view regarding Derek Smart. This is, of course, not to argue that Cla68 should recuse himself. But I want invite this for the consideration of the committee, while you review another action that Cla68 wants to bring in regards to Bill Huffman.

It seems that Cla68 himself would seem to disagree with the motion brought before us, if it were to apply to him. Bill Huffman can be seen cooperating and collaborating with other editors. Though he may be sardonic at times, reviews will likely show that when his language is more barbed, it is less inflammatory than the comments given to him, though I did not check these specific examples to verify.

Bill Huffman may have a negative view toward Derek Smart, as Cla68 has a negative view of the scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming, but the manner in which Bill Huffman edits (restricting himself to the talk page) and the edits themselves show, in my opinion, that Cla68 is right when he said point of view doesn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, then the reason Cla68 has for bringing this motion before the council is equally moot. I understand that Bill Huffman stated that he was at one time uninterested in the article but as he said, and as I believe myself as well, the article grew better despite challenges, and it became interesting to watch that unfold. Change of opinion does not necessitate disingenuous motives. And there is another factor that Cla68 doesn't seem to note. Cla68 stated that Bill Huffman influences the article by making suggestions which others appear to implement. That means others agree with those opinions upon review, which also means that Bill Huffman is only acting as a valuable source of information that others sometimes find useful for the sake of the article.

I've been going back and fourth trying to figure out why this has been pursued so actively. I believe now that I may have finally reached understanding as to the nature of this series of actions, though perhaps it's not as interesting as the possibility that Bill Huffman is a crusader bent on harming a BLP work, or that Cla68 may have gotten orders to start this campaign on behalf of diploma mill operators. Cla68 may believe that Bill Huffman editing this page is indicative of problematic editing becoming systemic, as he seems to believe happens in other areas. However, though I am not trying to disagree with him in regards to climate change, I think that such a passionate sense of purpose is not well placed in regards to the Derek Smart article. Reading Bill Huffman's summary, Cla68 may have let things go too far, and thus seems to have continued to forum shop when he did not receive the answer he preferred. By the way in reading that article on canvassing, the guideline notes the importance of linking to previous discussions, however Cla68 did not disclose to Atama that there was an SPI investigation closing when he asked for Bill Huffman to be banned for what seems to be the same reasons. Furthermore he did not disclose here, others did, that he has been seeking opinions against Bill Huffman's editing patterns, on the COI noticeboard and elsewhere, with what appears to be quite limited success.

Cla68 remains convinced despite so many disagreeing with him. Even Atama, who banned Bill Huffman only because he didn't seem to agree with Bill Huffman's use of an unlinked alternate account for the sake of privacy, does not agree with Cla68's conclusions here. Still, Cla68 is so strongly convinced that Bill Huffman must be problematic, that he seeks a blanket ban. I think a few steps back may be all that is required to see the full picture. There may not be intrigue or maliciousness, it may not be a page turner, but it seems straightforward.

Comment to Steve Smith. I think Bill Huffman's comments about unaccredited institutions are not because of a desire to request amendment for them, but rather because being currently banned for being a sockpuppet, Tallmagic cannot do his previous editing which was intended to keep disruptive IP's from damaging the neutrality of the article. He may not be able to use that account now but it might be helpful to address concerns about whether Bill Huffman's behavior was legitimate, and whether Cla68's still ongoing press to further block Bill Huffman from editing is considered acceptable or disruptive. Perhaps a clarification, is reviewing Bill Huffman's banning or Cla68's actions something that can be considered here within this specific issue because it has arrived here, or must it be dealt with in a separate venue?

'''Sorry for adding so much material! WNU comment''' Cla68 mentions adding negative material regarding the WNU article. I can't speak to the article, but I do note that Cla68 mentions a negative tone and makes no comment as to whether the negative material is proper for the article. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Atama
I have to admit that this is the first time since I've become an administrator that I've been so conflicted. I've reviewed my feelings, opinions, and behavior throughout the entire incident that Cla68 referred to above, and while I don't feel that I've made any drastic mistakes, I believe that from here on out I would like to avoid any and all use of the tools against Bill Huffman or any of his alternate accounts. I'll try to recap what I've done and my point of view.

My involvement with this began at the conflict of interest noticeboard, where I responded to a complaint made by Cla68 regarding the involvement of TallMagic and others in articles related to "diploma mills". I didn't feel that there was a COI (see my opinion ), and I still don't feel that there was one. My biggest concern at the time was what I thought was outing of another editor in an attempt to prove a COI, which is an all-too-common problem at that noticeboard. I ) that outing an editor in pursuit of a COI case is not acceptable. At the time, I had thought that Bill had abandoned his old account and created a new one to preserve his real identity, and had only outed himself by accident. The discussion then moved to my talk page, which I thought was appropriate due to the privacy concerns in this case.

On my talk page, I TallMagic against sockpuppet accusations, insisting that the Bill Huffman account had been retired, the TallMagic account took over, and there was no other violation of WP:SOCK. I truly believed that at the time, but Cla68 insisted that the Bill Huffman account was still active, and TallMagic threatened to bring the issue to ANI to complain about harassment. That didn't seem like a good idea at the time, especially for an editor concerned about his privacy, and tried to, that the old Bill Huffman account be completely abandoned, and perhaps Cla68 would leave him alone. That was very poorly-received, and I was accused of trying to "". After that, I was more insistent with TallMagic and to not escalate this too much because issues of privacy can only properly be handled in private locations, and taking everything to ANI would be counter-productive. Despite my requests, it did spill over into the noticeboard.

I reluctantly participated in the ANI discussion, you can see my first comment where I tried to be circumspect for privacy reasons, as I still had concerns about outing, despite the fact that TallMagic seemed to be voluntarily disclosing the identity by posting such a report. But by the time I posted my I felt that such a concern was moot, since the connection was clearly made by other editors already, in such a public place, as I was afraid would happen. That was the point at which I questioned whether TallMagic really cared about privacy, and asked why he needed to keep his old account. TallMagic refused to explain why he needed the other account, and continued his outing complaint (while outing himself). That was the point in which I said that I'd trying to defend him, since he was uncooperative, and also pointed out that he'd used his two accounts to edit the same article (on almost the same day) in clear violation of WP:ILLEGIT, and in my next comment declared that I just  anymore.

At TallMagic's talk page I've left a number of messages, but the specifics don't matter, except that I continued to declare that I no longer thought that TallMagic/Bill's appeal that he needed multiple accounts for privacy reasons were sincere, and that I had no interest in interacting with him any longer (either in favor or against him). I did make one exception to that, however. TallMagic had, but then Cla68 that Bill was continuing to edit Wikipedia. At that point I blocked TallMagic, since I could no longer trust what he said, and felt that it would prevent future sockpuppetry. That may or may not have been wise, I've questioned myself on that move and if anyone reverses the block I won't object. If nothing else, if the TallMagic account is specifically retired, it is probably moot.

I apologize for rambling. I'd really rather forget any of this, but I thought it would only be responsible to make a comment here and provide some background from my perspective. I'm not proud about anything that happened, as I feel like I made sincere attempts to help two editors and failed miserably. I don't have a lot of opinion with Bill's editing of the Derek Smart page specifically, and don't want to get involved with that personally considering the history I have with the editor. --  At am a  頭 19:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Orlady
Background: I have (or, i should say, had) a longstanding and positive "relationship" with TallMagic, as we have interacted extensively on articles about diploma mills, educational accreditation, and related topics. I don't know much of anything about Derek Smart, but I see no indication that the user's editing of Talk:Derek Smart violated either Wikipedia policy or the remedy in this arbitration case.

Considering (1) the large sums of money that some unscrupulous people make from diploma mills and (2) the fact that most diploma mill business comes via the internet, it's hardly surprising to me if diploma mill operators are determined to control the content of Wikipedia articles about their operations. I've seen evidence that diploma mill operators can successfully intimidate governments and publishers into retracting negative statements about them, and I fully expect that they could make life very miserable for Wikipedians who are brave enough to edit diploma mill articles under their real names. With that background, I find it entirely logical that after some bad experiences as a result of editing diploma mill articles under his real name, the user created the TallMagic account as a main account to protect his privacy -- a legitimate application of WP:SOCK -- while continuing to use the real-name account solely to interact with Wikipedians regarding topics strongly associated with his real name (mainly the topic of Derek Smart). It appeared to me that -- Atama's efforts at "sanitization" notwithstanding -- Cla68's initial "outing" efforts permanently damaged the privacy of the "TallMagic" account, giving him sound reasons to abandon that account. Keeping the TallMagic account and abandoning the real name account (as was suggested) would have made no sense, since the TallMagic account could no longer protect his privacy. It pains me to see the continued "piling on" that the user has experienced after he announced the retirement of the TallMagic account. I believe that his use of two accounts was entirely legitimate (within the scope of WP:SOCK), that his decision to abandon the TallMagic account instead of the real-name account was entirely understandable, and that the labeling of the TallMagic account as a "Blocked Sockpuppet" added a major insult to the injury already suffered by a good and reliable Wikipedia contributor. I don't see any good reason for slapping an additional ban on the real-name account, as Cla68 now proposes. --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On my talk page, Cla68 asked: "I just noticed that, in addition to continuing his battle with Derek Smart in Smart's BLP, both accounts were very active in the related Warren National University (WNU) article. ...  The WNU article's history shows that you were also heavily involved in editing that article at the same time.  Were you unaware that Huffman/TallMagic was editing that article apparently as part of a long-running, off-wiki feud between himself and Derek Smart?" My answer is "No". I am not interested in the off-wiki feud, nor in determining whether there is/was a relationship between WNU and the off-wiki feud. Moreover, since WNU went out of business, there is now little activity in editing the WNU article. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve Smith asked a question (in passing) regarding the relevance of the topic of unaccredited educational institutions. They are discussed here only because the TallMagic account focused on that topic, was abandoned because it was "outed," and now is blocked as a sockpuppet. As someone who is continuing to watch those articles, I have a bit of concern that the blocked status of the TallMagic account will be cited by SPA contributors to discredit TallMagic's past contributions. Considering that the TallMagic account was used to protect the user's privacy for work on a certain topic, and thus falls in the category of legitimate uses of a second account, I would appreciate it if the TallMagic account were not identified as being blocked for sockpuppetry. This may seem unlikely, since the block notice only shows up on the contributions page and not also on the user page or user talk page, but I believe that the persistent defenders of various unaccredited institutions will find it and make use of it. Since the user has renounced the account, there's probably no harm in its being blocked, but I'd personally prefer to see a milder notice regarding the reasons for its blocked status. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Bill Huffman
Accusation of operating a SOCK account: I started editing Wikipedia using this account, user:Bill Huffman. After getting some threats in my home email from some apparently unhappy diploma mill owners I decided to create another account so that I would be able to safely continue editing Wikipedia articles like diploma mills, educational accreditation, and related topics as mentioned by Orlady. I decided that it would be best to continue editing the Timothy Baymon article with this account because a wp:SPA account that was likely Timothy Baymon or a meatpuppet threatened this Bill Huffman account. I thought it could be interpreted as deceitful if I started editing that article with my new account. I thought that trying to edit talk:Derek Smart with another account would be completely unreasonable from the point of view that I wouldn't be able to disclose my potential biases to other editors on the talk page without outing my new account. I was also concerned about keeping my TallMagic account separate from other people that might be watching the article that had participated in the Derek Smart Flame Wars on Usenet. So anyway, I posted on the BLP notice board and got another editor to fix the Timothy Baymon article so that I would no longer be a focus of Timothy Baymon or his meat puppet. My research of wp:SOCK seemed to indicate to me that this was all perfectly within Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In particular, the Privacy paragraph at wp:SOCK seemed to allow this kind of use. Regarding the accusation of editing the same article with two accounts, on February 21, 2009 I made my last edit on Timothy Baymon or the talk page using User:Bill Huffman. On February 22, 2009 I accidentally edited the article with my TallMagic account instead of the Bill Huffman account. The next edit by anyone in the article was in June. This February edit was the first edit to Timothy Baymon with the TallMagic account and I never edited the article again with the Bill Huffman account after that. I assert that it should be obvious that I was not trying to be deceitful or disruptive regarding this incident on Timothy Baymon. I also believe that the continued use of this old Bill Huffman account was legitimate and if I've misunderstood the policy and it was not legitimate then there was no attempt on my part to be deceptive, deceitful, disruptive, or dishonest.

Accusation that I said I would retire both accounts: This is just not true. Exactly what I said was, "I will retire my TallMagic account after this ANI. It is no longer usable thanks to Cla68 anyway. I will no longer edit Wikipedia except perhaps the rare addition to one talk page."

Accusation by implication that I have ever pushed an anti-Derek Smart point of view on talk:Derek Smart: My goal when editing on talk:Derek Smart (or any article) has always been making the best article possible and strictly following Wikipedia Guidelines. To support this assertion I first point out that Cla68 has neglected to point out any of my edits to try to support his false accusation. Second I point out that Thatcher in January 2007 said, "I checked Bill Huffman's main space contribs (none to Derek Smart) and some of his Talk:Derek Smart edits, and didn't see anything to be concerned about. He may be one of the few advocates who can put it aside here. (Unlike some folks in the other disputes I mentioned.)". Third, I point out that I let editors know on talk:Derek Smart when anything notable positive or negative is made public. The most recent example of positive information being on March 13, 2010 I posted this suggestion to add positive information. Fourth, just look at the talk page and make up your own mind.

My requests to the admins who read this: Steve Smith question: ii. I edit talk:Derek Smart for the same reason that I edited Wikipedia in general. When I was a kid I used to spend many hours just reading the set of encyclopedias that my parents had bought. I started doing that with Wikipedia. I felt an obligation and felt I could try to help "repay" my enjoyment by contributing to the project. My thought was to contribute in areas where I had some interest and expertise. At the time there was just under 2 million articles in English and I came to really appreciate how well the policies and guidelines had to work to accomplish such an amazing feat. My appreciation grew considering how problematic it was improving two articles that I had some interest in, Derek Smart and Pacific Western University (California). It was problematic getting improvements into those two articles because the Wikipedia process had broken down. Derek Smart article because of surrogate edit warring and PWU because of legal threats. After the ArbCom ruling the Wikipedia process was allowed to work and the Derek Smart article was stabilized within two or three weeks. Anyway, the bottom line is that I edited Wikipedia because I appreciated Wikipedia as a resource and wanted to do my part to improve that resource for other readers. question iii The article is marginally notable in my opinion. As a game developer alone it probably doesn't reach notability. As an "eccentric and vocal personality" alone it likely doesn't reach notability. In my opinion when they are put together it does reach sufficient notability. I actually argued for deletion in the last AFD, if I remember correctly. That was due in part to my mistaken belief that the surrogate accounts would never allow real progress to be made on the article.Bill Huffman (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Response to KnightLago: The question seems ambiguous to me. You say that you're in agreement with NewYorkBrad and so I'll answer that potential meaning first. Yes, I have already agreed not to edit until after this is settled. The other potential meaning I see, I'll answer next. If ArbCom votes for and passes a request that I voluntarily no longer contribute to the talk:Derek Smart page (I've never edited the article) then of course I will comply. Steve Smith, response to okay, done Cla68, response to I never said Mr. Smart claimed a degree from WNU. I really don't understand why Cla68 keeps attacking me. Bill Huffman (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC) A simple google search of the werewolves.org website proves Cla68's untruthfulness in his latest statements. WNU is not mentioned anyplace on the website.. Please ask him why he is doing this?! Bill Huffman (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC) addenum: I would like to further address this statement by Cla68, "The university at which he says Smart claims to have received a doctorate is Warren National University (WNU). Sub-pages on Huffman's website print what he says are emails in which Huffman and Smart argue over the university and the degree." I want to assure the committee that these emails discussing Derek Smart having a degree from WNU never existed. As far as I know, Derek Smart has not ever claimed to have a degree from WNU. I never had any such emails on my site. I most assuredly never deleted any such emails off of my site. Bill Huffman (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I request that the User:TallMagic account be unblocked. Not because I wish to use it to edit article space, that will never happen. I make this request because I believe that this is a case of wp:SOCK. I also feel that it is insulting to my past contributions to Wikipedia and to me personally to block the account. If certain fans of certain diploma mills finds out about this then it will likely be used as a jumping off point for spreading more insults and lies against me. For example see an example of such an attack against me http ://www.dltruth. com/showthread.php?tid=276].
 * 2) I also request that Cla68 be told that he has to leave me alone. I cannot imagine ever being tempted to edit Wikipedia articles again as long as I have to worry about Cla68 renewing his harassment. I do not know why Cla68 started what I consider a harassment campaign. Here's an abbreviated history in chronological order
 * 3) Outing and a COI
 * 4) When Cla68 was told outing was not allowed, he said he was allowed to out me because this was a COI and also because my original account was a real name account. Does Cla68 not understand the outing policy? Perhaps, but he failed an RfA because of an outing incident he was apparently involved with and so it seems more likely to me that he really was more familiar with the outing policy than he pretended. The COI was closed with consensus in my favor.
 * 5) Cla68 filed a SPI against me Which is fine but it is closed and Cla68 can't seem to accept the consensus, just like he can't seem to accept the COI consensus. He continues lobbying with various admins that I be punished. It seems in large part because he was still determined to further out my TallMagic account. The SPI was closed with consensus in my favor.
 * 6) Cla68 continued claiming that he was allowed to out me even after multiple warnings from multiple admins. He then posted this on user_talk:TallMagic page to apparently indirectly associate the real name Bill Huffman with TallMagic.
 * 7) (To TallMagic) Your accusation of "harrassment" on my talk page cheapens the term and experiences of those who have been real victims of harrassment, like this guy. This attack website on Derek Smart lists "Bill Huffman" as the site's owner. An account by that same name has been trying to control or heavily influence that article's content for some time. Also, I have serious concerns about the use of the archived version of the Oregon database in order to add negative information to the WIU article. I will continue to notify you so that you can give your side as I continue to look into this using Wikipedia's various administrative forums. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) addendum: Note that in Cla68's quote above, the word "This" is a Webcitiation link to the Wikipedia page that contains User:CRedit_1234's outing that he was subsequently indefinitely blocked for.
 * 9) addendum3:The Webcitation page disappeared. Here is what it's contents wereBill Huffman (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Cla68 posts incidents on a few noticeboards (BLP and Reliable Sources) in an attempt to find fault with my edits. These too were settled with a consensus in my favor, yet Cla68 continues what seems obvious to me to be harassment.
 * 11) Cla68 makes a request to ArbCom Where he also attempts another outing that Hipocrite redacts
 * 12) Finally I feel that this current action is another attempt at harassment. As far as I know, this campaign of Cla68's is the first time there has been absolutely any interaction at all between us. I would really appreciate it if Cla68 was told to stop harassing me as Cla68 seems to pledge he will continue when he says, "as I continue to look into this using Wikipedia's various administrative forums". from above
 * 13) addendum2: Of course if part of Cla68's motivation has to do with an off-Wikipedia encounter then I'd have no way of knowing that for sure, although I am suspicious.
 * Bill Huffman (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @SirFozzie: I don't have time to respond to what I believe are Cla68's misleading accusations at this time. I just wanted to say here that I'm happy not to edit Talk:Derek Smart (I've never editted the article.) until this is settled. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's more detail on my view of the potential request.
 * I assume that the concern is that after contributions here spanning about three and half years I might all of sudden change my editing pattern and start making problematic edits? Sort of like a proactive sheriff asking honest people to volunteer for jail because someone has accused them of being a dishonest thief but is unable to prove any of their false accusations? (See our anon friend was correct, I sometimes enjoy being sardonic. :-) )
 * I most definitely would not be the least bit interested in contributing to any volunteer group should the highest authority of that organization say that not only are my contributions unappreciated, they are unwanted.
 * In the past year I've contributed to maybe three threads on the Derek Smart article talk page. My absence from the article would not cause the article to degrade. It would only mean that perhaps some updates in the future might not be made since my main role has been letting editors know on the talk page when new information has become available.
 * This really would cause me far less consternation than watching articles that were on my watch list going through degradation far faster than I feared. First properly sourced critical information disappears from the articles then unsourced praise creeps in and eventually Wikipedia ends up hosting advertisements for substandard unaccredited institutions.
 * I respectfully suggest that greater concerns should be preventing Wikipedia from becoming an unpaid advertisement for unaccredited institutions and understanding why a valuable contributor was chased off of Wikipedia and how can such things be prevented in the future?
 * Bill Huffman (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Questions to Cla68: Cla68 have you been in communication with Derek Smart? This question is based in part on Derek on April 15 at 21:43 posting on the gaming blog, Blue's News, a link to some of the Wikipedia activities regarding us. Derek says in that post #63, "Plus, he [Bill Huffman] has different things to worry about, now that he has once again been outed and he has a lot more professional eyes oh him." It is interesting that Derek seems to refer to your activity as having "outed" me and to your "professional eyes" here on Wikipedia. Regarding the Warren National University story, did you ask Derek where he got his degree and Derek simply told the false story that you then were irresponsible in repeating here without any verification? Finally, if you have been in contact with Derek, did he offer you any financial incentive for your activities regarding me here on Wikipedia, perhaps making you a professional in his eyes? If you have been in contact with Derek Smart then I believe that this questionable action has left you vulnerable to such speculation. Bill Huffman (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC) vulnerable to such speculation and questioning. Bill Huffman (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

'''I asked Cla68 on his talk page to respond to my questions. He responded on my talk page as follows.'''
 * Cla68, I know that you've been on a semi-wikibreak but, you've posted to Wikipedia almost everyday since then. Your request for an amendement to an old ArbCom case has had outstanding questions for you to answer for about four days now. I assume that the case has not been closed because the committee is interested in your answers to these questions. Please attend to this as soon as you can. Bill Huffman (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The committee members haven't, as far as I'm aware, commented on the diploma mill editing by your two accounts, so it doesn't seem to me that they're awaiting any further discussion from either of us. I'll answer your questions here, however, as I understand them.  I have not communicated with Derek Smart in any form or capacity, ever.  I surmised the name of the university that was involved in the dispute between you and Smart because one of the emails on your site gave the university's initials.  When I searched in Wikipedia under those initials, the university/diploma mill that both your accounts had edited came up. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Derek Smart has never claimed a degree from WNU, as far as I know. Here's a google search of "WNU" on http://follies.werewolves.org. The initials do not exist on the Flame War Follies website. It appears that you are not being honest, Cla68. Please give a full accounting of why you are saying such things. Bill Huffman (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response posted on User_talk:Cla68 - Sorry "Bill", but I'm not going to get into this with you. The Committee doesn't appear to be willing to tackle the diploma mill issue so I'm letting it drop.  In conclusion, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia as part of your personal feud with someone.  You're fortunate (arguably) that you were't banned for using an unauthorized sock account and for being evasive when asked to come clean about it.  So, stay away from the Derek Smart article and don't do anything further on Wikipedia which appears to be aimed at carrying on your personal battle with the guy. Cla68 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This WNU accusation is highly problematic, in my opinion. If he didn't hear the false story from someone else then he must have just made it up himself. In Cla68's campaign he frequently mischaracterized me and my edits. I believe that the WNU accusation is just a further demonstration that Cla68 appears to obfuscate and twist the truth in his dealings with me. He made false claims about me involving WNU. The old name for WNU was Kennedy Western University. I did find two places on the website where the initials of KWU were found. Neither place is anyone saying that Derek Smart had a degree from there. No place on the website was there ever any such thing. Here's archive.org copies of the Flame War Follies website and I invite Cla68 to find the "emails" there that he claimed he found on the website. He won't be able to do it because they never existed. Bill Huffman (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 2

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

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

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

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting further statements. On an initial review, I find this situation to be troubling. I urge Bill Huffman to refrain from posting to Talk:Derek Smart until this matter is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that people claiming that Cla68 was outing a user by linking him to a real name alternate account that the person was using. to be.. slightly puzzling, to say the least. I second Brad's suggestion above that the posting on the Derek Smart page(s) should cease until this can be further reviewed. SirFozzie (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Recused. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three questions: i. to Cla68, do you have evidence of specifically problematic editing of Talk:Derek Smart by Bill Huffman, or is this request based solely on the premise that any editing of a BLP's talk page by a real life adversary of that BLP's subject is inherently problematic? ii. to Bill Huffman, is there a reason you feel compelled to edit Talk:Derek Smart, and, if so, is that reason independent from the off-site anti-Derek Smart campaign you have been waging?  iii. Is there a reason that nobody has listed Derek Smart at AFD for three and a half years? Steve Smith (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your responses (and for yours to KnightLago's, BillHuffman). There is little doubt in my mind that we'd all be best off if you did not edit the Derek Smart talk page (at least KnightLago and Shell Kinney seem to agree with me on this point); you seem to suggest that this would have little impact on your overall editing habits, so I hope you'll make that voluntary commitment even absent a formal request from us to do so (it seems a little odd for us to be passing formal requests for things that are within our power to mandate).  Your comments about unaccredited post-secondary institutions appear to me to be neither here nor there; this is a request for amendment to a case about the Derek Smart article, such amendment being specifically focused on the Derek Smart talk page.  If you believe that the topic area of unaccredited post-secondary institutions requires our attention, you are welcome to request a case on that, but I do not see what bearing it has on this request. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In view of BillHuffman's voluntary commitment to stay away from Talk:Derek Smart, I don't believe an amendment to this case is necessary. Steve Smith (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Bill Huffman's edits have been specifically problematic, given the serious external dispute, I can't see any compelling reason for him to edit either the article or the talk page. Shell  babelfish 06:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Newyorkbrad and Shell. Mr. Huffman, will you voluntarily agree to refrain from any editing that relates to Derek Smart, including talk pages? KnightLago (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (June 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   Sandstein   at 07:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (notified)
 * (notified)
 * (notified)
 * Admins involved in the AE discussion: notified via a link to this request in the discussion.

Statement by Sandstein
I make this request in my capacity as an admin working at WP:AE. Administrators now disagree at WP:AE about whether Shell Kinney's widening of the ban should be enforced. Please advise about how to proceed.  Sandstein  07:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In June 2009, the Committee banned Pmanderson from editing "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates" for a year (RFAR/DDL).
 * On 17 August 2009, the Committee passed a motion which does not appear to have changed the scope of Pmanderson's ban.
 * On 28 August 2009, as a result of this AE thread, Shell Kinney (then not yet an arbitrator) added the following to the case page's sanction log: " restriction re-widened to include the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines due to continuing disruption." Nobody appears to have objected to this.
 * In April 2010, Tony1 requested the enforcement of this widened ban after Pmanderson appeared to have violated it.


 * Reply to Carcharoth: Thanks for the clarification. Your diff shows that the motion did indeed restrict the scope of Pmanderson's topic ban, but that this amendment was recorded in such a way (by leaving the 14 June 2009 timestamps intact) as to make the reader believe that the amended version was the one originally passed. I agree that this is most unhelpful and that the clerks should consider establishing a better practice for the recording of amendments.
 * With respect to your proposal at AE that Pmanderson just agree to the widened ban, I am not sure that this would resolve the problem, because he could at any time withdraw such an agreement, and then we would be back to the same question under discussion here: which are the binding restrictions on Pmanderson?  Sandstein   10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Pmanderson
This was a piece of inadvertence on my part; if I had realized, as I ought to have done, that the discussion linked to from WT:NOR involved an active MOS page (as well as some MOS regulars), I would not have commented - certainly not before Shell's expanded sanction expires a couple of months from now, and probably not then.

I will not now do so; therefore, if bans are preventative rather than punitive, it has done its work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to Carcharoth: It is User:Tony1 who has taken an uncharacteristic interest in Talk:Catholic Church, even more than Ohconfucius; but most of the rest of your comment will apply to both of them. The substance of his effort to gather mud from a five-month-old edit dispute was answered (by a third party) |here . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius
Arbs should evaluate whether the above statement is sincere and credible in light of previous comments which appear to strongly indicate that he was attempting to argue his way out of a topic ban extension based on a technicality rather than out of genuine contrition for his "inadvertance". Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth was right to point out my indiscretions in referring to Pmanderson via nick-names. I have apologised to them both for this and will not do it again. The MoS pages themselves have been stable. The occasional tension on MOS, MOSNUM and MOSLINK talk pages is not in a way that is damaging to the project. I will do more to exercise restraint and encourage calm at all times on these pagers. I hope this is a satisfactory response to your concerns. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth
Since my previous comment (at arbitration enforcement) has been raised recently (at the current WP:AE thread), and it concerned User:Ohconfucius, I would like the arbitrators to consider that previous comment I made, along with recent behaviour by Ohconfucius, and to ascertain whether his combative approach is helping here, and whether a widening of the topic ban on Ohconfucius to cover all MOS and style pages (similar to the widening applied to Pmanderson) will help here.

My comment, back in August 2009, was here, and can be read in full context here in the arbitration enforcement thread closed by Shell (before she was an arbitrator). Back then, I pointed out that Ohconfucius had, with this edit, referred to Pmanderson as "the style anarchist Pam Anderson". I made the case that this was a deliberate insult by Ohconfucius, but nothing was done at the time, possibly because it was later struck by Ohconfucius. Given this, and noticing the WP:AE thread, I decided to take a closer look at Ohconfucius's conduct here.

From what I can see, Ohconfucius sees Pmanderson as a "MOS style" opponent and pushes back against him whenever he can, as witnessed by the edits here (objecting to the "words to watch" edits due to having that page on his watchlist) and here (complaining about Pmanderson on an unrelated topic and for some reason trying to link it to the enforcement request). I can't see any previous involvement that Ohconfucius has had with the Catholic Church topic. I would suggest asking Ohconfucius why he has suddenly taken an interest in Pmanderson's editing on the Catholic Church topic.

As for recent combative behaviour by Ohconfucius, there are several examples (all from the last two weeks): here (a strike-out of unnecessary commentary, which doesn't really undo the harm done by making such comments); another insulting of Pmanderson here (using the nickname "Mandy" that Pmanderson has previously objected to - see here); using the word hogwash in an edit summary; telling another editor they need to grovel; making insinuations as here, the edit summary here (later apologised for here).

From what I can see, tensions still run high at various MOS and style pages, because there are more people than just Pmanderson who fail to control themselves on those pages (and more than just Ohconfucius as well). I think the whole MOS and style pages still suffer from people who take a very combative attitude to all this (showing an unwillingness to discuss civilly or reasonably, and unable to compromise). This was, in my opinion, the underlying problem in the date delinking case, and in some cases the root verbal incivility and attitude of some of the participants at MOS and style pages is still causing problems. I would urge that the attitude of all editors actively involved in MOS and style pages is given closer scrutiny, starting with Pmanderson and Ohconfucius, and including any other editors previously or currently sanctioned who are continuing the conduct that led to their sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Note to Sandstein
Sandstein, your second bullet point ("does not appear to have changed the scope of Pmanderson's ban") is incorrect. The motion passed by the Arbitration Committee, that you linked to in your first bullet point (the text of which is also on the case talk page), did modify Pmanderson's topic ban. The diff of the clerk enacting that change is here. Search for "Pmanderson" and you will see both the change, and what Shell later re-widened the ban to include (she was effectively reversing the narrowing that had taken place). In my view, the clerk making the change here should have made this clearer by collapsing the old remedies and writing in new ones below the collapsed ones, rather than just overwriting them and misleadingly leaving in both the date as the date when the case closed and the votes from the proposed decision, rather than the date the motion was passed and the vote numbers from the motion. Collapsing the old remedies and adding in the new ones avoids administrators like Sandstein having to dig through the history to find out what happened here. I did actually point this out at the time, but it seems my suggestions were never acted upon. Sandstein, do you think replacing the over-writing with collapsed old remedies (dated for when the case closed, with the voting figures from the case) and visible new remedies (dated for when the motion passed, with voting figures from the motion) would help make things clearer? Also, would it have been clearer if Shell (or a clerk responsible for the page) had in addition to this edit made a note in the section containing the wording of Pmanderson's topic ban? Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tim Song
The general agreement of the administrators who commented in the AE thread is that in the absence of an explicit provision in the motion authorizing re-widening of the ban, Shell's sanction does not appear to be authorized. (My disagreement with Sandstein at the AE thread is over whether we should address the validity of the sanction at all when no party has contested it.) I do not see how the motion can be interpreted to authorize admins to widen the topic ban on their own discretion - Coren's comment that there will be "very little patience towards renewed hostilities" (1) does not address the question who is to impose sanctions, and (2) is not voted upon by the committee. One can similarly argue that NYB's comment that "If it is called to our attention that any user covered by this motion is replicating the problems of the date delinking dispute in other areas, I'd be open to reinstituting the remedies against him or her" means reinstating the original remedy should be done by the committee, not individual admins, and the restriction on amendment requests in the motion that did pass would seem to support that view. In this case, nothing in the remedies or motion passed explicitly empowers administrator to do anything, and if the committee nonetheless thinks that administrators are empowered to act in those circumstances, it would be helpful to clarify the source of that authority - is it the "spirit" of the decision at issue (something necessarily vague and sometimes difficult to discern), the comments of the individual arbitrators (which may not have been reviewed, not to mention endorsed, by the full committee), or something else? Does this also extend to other cases unrelated to date delinking? Or, the committee might wish to pass a motion explicitly authorizing administrators to impose sanctions in this case, and retroactively confirming Shell's sanction, which would resolve the matter at hand without having to tackle the questions above. Tim Song (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Recused  MBisanz  talk 05:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recused, but as I commented at one of the earlier discussions of this (as an editor, not an arbitrator), I've done so again here, suggesting a way to resolve this with a minimum of fuss. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: I've also made a statement above, which is in addition to the AE comment. I'll restrict any further comments to the statement area above. Carcharoth (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a first comment, I think it is clear that the original return to the wide interpretation of the topic ban was both anticipated as a possibility and made explicit as the inevitable consequence of misbehavior ("very little patience towards renewed hostilities"). Therefore, there is no doubt that the wider sanction is valid and applies. That being said, that the topic ban of one editor has been widened does not give license to the other editors for disruptive behavior (or any form of antagonism); and that the role of Ohconfucius in this incident may well be worth a closer examination at enforcement.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the wider sanction is valid and does apply. Also, that other editors should endeavor not to use these sanctions as clubs in debates. The role that other editors played in this may be looked at as needed. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse, as I provided evidence in the original case. Steve Smith (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European mailing list (June 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  radek (talk) at 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 10


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

N/A
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

 * topic ban
 * This is a request to amend the EEML case in order to allow me (USer Radeksz) to edit articles in the Eastern European area again. As such it is an appeal of the topic ban that was implemented in December as part of the case.

Statement by Radeksz
In the winddown of the case, several of the arbitrators, past and present, indicated that they would be amenable to an appeal and lifting of the topic ban after suitable time has passed. It's been almost 6 months since the case. Furthermore, appeals such as this one are often made and granted in similar cases.

Activity since the case

Since the conclusion of the case I have been active in other areas of Wikipedia, such as Mexican History and Economics, and I have tried to take scrupulous care to abide by my topic ban. I have avoided any controversy in the area of Eastern European topics, or any other topics for that matter. Also, through the two amendments that were passed which already narrowed my topic ban, here and here, I was able to source over 150, unreferenced Poland related BLP articles that might have been deleted otherwise. The lifting of the topic ban would allow me to improve the remaining Poland related BLPs (over 170 still left, as can be seen here) many of which are in need of expansion, tagging, and updating (many of them are several years out of date) in addition to sourcing.

Since this is likely to be brought up by someone else, I want to indicate that in one instance I did in fact apparantly violate my topic ban, by posting a comment at the AfD for the Ryszard Tylman article (I did not however vote in the AfD). Since the subject of the article is a Canadian I wasn't aware that the article fell within the scope of the topic ban and I removed my comment as soon as the matter was brought to AE.

Here's a list of some of the other things I've accomplished since December;


 * I created three articles which were reviewed and attained Good Article status: Treaty of Ciudad Juarez (now nominated for FA ), Battle of Ciudad Juarez and Confederate war finance. I plan on continuing to work on these to bring them up to Featured Article Status. I also have another article currently going through the GA review process, which just made GA status, the Brander-Spencer model.


 * I created about 23 DYK articles since December, mostly in the areas of Mexican History and Economics. A full list is here.


 * I've been active in tagging and assesing articles within WikiProject Economics as well as helping out in more minor roles on bringing the article on Price elasticity of demand to GA.


 * I've helped bring the article Nobel Prize to GA status (I was very careful to avoid sections which deal with Eastern European recipients of the prize so as not to violate the topic ban).


 * I've also *almost* hit 15,000 edits!

In carrying out this work, several times the topic ban limited my ability to fully improve/create some of these articles. For example, in my article on the Preston curve - a relationship between income and life expectancy - I avoided discussing the large drop in life expectancy in Eastern Europe in the early 1990's so as not to violate the topic ban - this was actually picked up on by an anon reader on the talk page of the article but I was unable to respond. In my other work on Economics related topics, I also was unable to assess and improve articles which tangentially might have to do with Eastern Europe and Poland - for example article on the famous Polish economist Michał Kalecki.

Plans for the future

If this amendment is succseful, I plan on creating and working on the following articles which are concerned with Economic History and Eastern Europe. I don't anticipate that any of them should prove controversial - of course, if any disputes arise in the future, I will be careful to observe high standards of conduct:


 * Domar serfdom model (did factor endowments (land-labor ratio) determine whether a pre-industrial economy ended up with slavery, serfdom or free labor?)
 * Brenner debate (related to the above, what ended feudalism in Western Europe but caused its re-emergence in Eastern Europe?)
 * Second feudalism (re both above)
 * Economic history of Poland (started, on hold since topic ban went into effect)
 * Piast monetary policy (of the Polish Piast dynasty; sometimes good, sometimes bad, just like Ben Bernanke today)

(among others)

I would also like to help out with the gnomish tasks over at WikiProject Poland to lighten the load on some of the editors who have picked up the burden. Furthermore I would very much like to resume my participation in the Jewish Labour Bund Task Force project, which has become somewhat dormant since January - I believe I can revive it with new articles and activity.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, I plan on contiuning with the sourcing and improvement of Poland related BLPs. I would also like to expand/create several articles on some of the casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, since they are quite notable but lack adequate coverage on Wikipedia. In general, articles on "current events" in Poland, such as the May 2010 Central European floods, are always in need of knowledgeable editors and I can help a lot of with those.

Lifting of the topic ban will enable me to improve these and other articles, and it shouldn't be controversial. In addition I plan on continuing work on articles not related to Eastern Europe.

General statement

I would like to point out that both amendments which narrowed my topic ban went off without a hitch or controversy. I think this will continue if the topic ban is amended.

I left the mailing list which was the subject of the case in November 2009. I have not participated in any activities that were deemed objectionable by the 2009 ArbCom which led to the topic ban, since then.

Looking back on the case after 6 months I have to say that I have learned a lot since then. Basically, I still believe that the people who were on the mailing list, joined it with the best of intentions for Wikipedia and its policies. I do realize now however that at some point things were over the line and that, often out of frustration, members of the list, myself included, engaged in questionable activities for which I personally want to apologize.

I encourage everyone, former members of the list, as well as their "opponents" to undertake efforts which will reduce the battleground atmosphere in this topic area and lead to more collaborative editing. Somebody's got to make a show of good faith however, and I would like to say that I personally harbor no grudges against any other editor currently active on Wikipedia and am willing to work with anybody. I'm going to reset my "assume good faith" meter back to good faith and I hope others do likewise.


 * re to Skapperod
 * 1. I did leave the list in Nov 2009. The precise date was the 21st of November, 2009. The oversighted edit in fact showed this exactly as it included the heading for my unsubscribe request. Since you went over that oversighted data with a fine comb, I am sure you are aware of this, so why are you misrepresenting the facts and in the process calling me a liar?


 * 2. I have no idea what the relevance of the Wikipedia Review "diff" is to this appeal or what it has to do with me. Somebody there said the admin Adjust Shift was a sock puppet. So? What does that have to do with any of this? With my topic ban? With Eastern Europe? Nothing. What exactly are you alleging is the problem here? You are connecting completely unrelated and innocuous events in a questionable effort to merely sling mud and hope that somehow it sticks.


 * 3. At the Tylman-related AE, administrators Future Perfect, Sandstein and Tznkai (maybe Stifle too, I can't remember) all stated that they believed I was not aware the AfD fell under the topic ban, although I should've been more careful. An assessment with which I agree and share.


 * 4. I did not violate the topic ban when I commented on Molobo's request. I was clarifying a misunderstanding with regard to blocking policy and WP:OFFER on the part of another editor. Hey, Rlevse was right there and I responded directly to him as well - surely he would've noticed if this had been a topic ban breach. And I'm sure you, or someone else would've made a AE report out of it if you had had ANY confidence that it was indeed a topic ban violation. You didn't. It wasn't. You knew it then, you know it now.
 * Add: I've copied the relevant discussion that is supposed to be a "topic ban violation", into a subpage so that it can be easily examined here. Please look at it and compare it to the false claim being made. Note also the "You are quite right, Radeksz." and the "Thanks for pointing out my mistake!" comments made by PhantomSteve, an uninvolved editor, which shows pretty clearly that (aside from the fact that this had nothing to do with the topic ban) I was not being confrontational or controversial in this case at all. This is really really fishing for a crappy reason to hang an "oppose" on.


 * I will reiterate my sincere hope that the editors active in this area abandon their battleground mentality and try to work constructively together.

re to Skapperod's further thoughts: Skapperod, you are again bringing stuff up from December - when the case wasn't concluded or any sanctions made. You are again bringing up stuff that's not from Wikipedia at all but from an external public website (which is read and occasionally commented on by some of the arbitrators - so they could've already read what I had to say there). And you are again completely misrepresenting what I said or did.radek (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Skäpperöd
I am not convinced, considering: I appreciate the above apology, but not its timing. I would have more trust in the apology if it was not made in the context of wanting the sanction lifted. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * the severity of the offense that led to the sanction.
 * the untrue statement of Radeksz above that he left the list in Nov 2009: evidently, he was enlisted and active in Dec 2009 which he revealed himself while proxying.
 * more off-wiki contact to listmembers while topic-banned targeting perceived opponents: Radeksz asked for this diff to discredit a former EEML-target on 5 Jan 2:16am at WR, received it on 5 Jan 2:31am at WR, and on 5 Jan 9:15am, the diff appeared on-wiki at co-EEML-member Molobo's talk page.
 * The abovementioned diff was removed by Molobo (27 Jan) when he prepared an unblock request (29 Jan). The request made it to AN/I, where Radeksz commented on 23 February, violating his widely-construed topic ban from EE-related process discussion.
 * Radeksz also commented on the AfD concerning the article of co-EEML-member Tylman on 30 April, violating his widely-construed topic ban from EE-related process discussion. Given the close ties between Tylman and Radeksz, the latter's argument that Tylman's Canadian citizenship made him think the AfD was excepted from the ban is not convincing - Tylman's connection to Poland is simply too obvious, and evidently Radeksz was aware of that since Poland-related topics, not Canada, was the common interest they shared and focussed on in the EEML, and Tylman's Polish background was emphasized in the article the AfD was about.
 * on 21 Jan, Radeksz removed his outburst with the edit summary "i miss the old times" to avoid the pending sanction.


 * Re @Radeksz
 * Re delisted: The diff shows that you continued the EEML and just changed the channel. It does not matter whether you use Digwuren's wpm or send circulars via other servers, what matters is that you maintain that virtual war room per se and the high traffic generated there, before and after November, resulting in coordinated actions on-wiki as demonstrated by the very action you performed resulting in that infamous proxy- and leak diff.
 * Re WR: In this context, it adds to my concern that a wiki-diff you gather at WR needs only a few hours to be posted by Molobo on-wiki. How could that happen without invoking off-wiki coordination?! And, since that diff consisted of mud to be slung at a former target, and since all of this happened while you were topic banned and Molobo was blocked, it has everything to do with a mentality the EEML sanctions, including this appealed one, were to remedy.
 * Concerning the topic ban violations, at least in the case of 30 April to 1 May it was obvious enough to result in a block. When Russavia left the obligatory AE notification on your talk, you did not accept that either and attacked him as a stalker.
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Re Igny and more thoughts/diffs

Of course battleground mentality is not shown openly on en.wiki while he wants to have his sanction lifted, in contrast to WR where Radek is more blunt, e.g. The oversighted diff that brought about Offliner's sanction and the abovementioned pair of WR/wiki diffs show continued off-wiki coordination resulting in on-wiki edits. Radeksz also The last appeal Radeksz filed, against a previous sanction, was prepared on the EEML (see archive), where Radeksz also announced to keep "low-profile" until the appeal was through.
 * Arbcom are "not just plain ol' assholses, like the ED folks, but they're creeps, self-righteous creeps";
 * also blame shifting on Lithuanian and Russian users).
 * advocated unblocking of his co-listmember Molobo in the course of DonaldDuck's unblock request and on AN/I ,
 * advocated in his co-listmember Tylman's AfD, attacking Varsovian as a "dick" in the same post,
 * attacked Matthead as an asshole ,
 * attacked Dr.Dan as a troll (following this one ),
 * and attacked Russavia as a "stalker" violating the interaction ban.

Lifting already lenient sanctions is not really solving the problem of malicious mailing lists - the next one just got busted (Азербайджанский список рассылки). Skäpperöd (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Igny
Radek and I were opponents in several content disputes in EE area. However, I was against blunt topic bans during the EEML case and I fully support Radek's request to lift the ban on EE topics. After all, that area is where Radek is very knowledgeable and where his contributions would benefit the project a lot. I have looked over recent history of contributions by Radek and did not notice any of the "battleground mentality" (4 words to Skapperod: eye of the beholder). I would hope that everyone learned their lessons from the EEML case, and it certainly seems that way for Radek. (Igny (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

Statement by Paul Siebert
I think, the only EEML's sine was that they were creating a visibility of a consensus between allegedly independent editors whereas in actuality there was a strong coordination between them. In other words, they were creating a false impression that several independent editors were acting, although in actuality it was just one collective editor. The EEML group's punishment was correct, however, that does not mean that the ideas they were promoting should be banned. Since EEML members' actions de facto converted them into one collective editor, they should be treated as such, and that would be a solution, at least temporary, of the issue. In other words, the issue can be resolved if only one EEML member will be allowed to edit EE related articles. For example, if Radek wants to edit the invasion of Poland article, he is free to do that, however, by doing that he made the article banned for other EEML members. Of course, other members can discuss his edits with him, however, they will not be able to participate in the talk page discussions, in RfC's etc. I propose to lift a topic ban for Radek and for all other EEML members provided that two or more EEML members are not allowed to edit one article simultaneously (or to simultaneously participate in talk page discussions). --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC) PS. It is necessary to note that I also was an opponent of many EEML members.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Novickas
I see phrases used by R. above as not in keeping with a pledge to maintain high standards of conduct and minimize confrontation: 'misrepresenting the facts and in the process calling me a liar?', 'merely sling mud and hope that somehow it sticks', 'really really fishing for a crappy reason to hang an "oppose" on'. Addressing Russavia as 'my dear stalker' on April 30th doesn't inspire confidence either. He could of course refactor or otherwise address those. But to me, using that language here says he hasn't internalized a less confrontational approach to WP disputes. It can be done - there are editors here working in really troublesome topics who contribute to resolution - in part by speaking calmly and neutrally. But I don't see R. as doing that at this point.

I like Paul Siebert's suggestion - altho it seems rather novel for WP. It wouldn't solve the problem posed by R.'s language, which has a conflict-escalating aspect, but it would act to reduce the teaming concerns. Like Paul, I note that I also was an opponent of many EEML members. Novickas (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate the support rationales. But I still worry that if R. returns to this area, and problems come up (they will), and other editors voice concerns, what if R again responds with 'my dear stalker'. You-all may, of course, feel that our skins should be thick enough to withstand those kinds of comments. I'd prefer to see first see some sort of commitment on R's part to moderate their language. Novickas (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Those arbs supporting this motion - you are in effect saying it's OK that he used the words dick, troll, stalker, asshole, and quasi-Nazi after his topic ban. On the grounds that he made other valuable contributions. Now I don't think either Skap or I are asking for a groveling apology. There is a middle ground. That would be publicly acknowledging Skap's and my concerns in a respectful way. It's been done.

It would be nice if Coren clarified and expanded on 'any relapse is likely to be poorly received'. Do you, Coren, feel those weren't relapses; or that they were but they should be forgiven since enough time has passed since then; or that no evidence shows the kind of collusion he was topic banned for; or...? Novickas (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by dr.Loosmark
I cannot agree with the comments of the "opponent of many EEML members" Novickas and Skapparod too who seems to be blowing out of proportions old things, Skapparod's diffs seems to be from January!? To be totally honest I think it would be better if more really neutral editors would give input but ok that's not for me to say. Anyway I have carefully examined Radeksz's contributions to wikipedia since January and I don't see any problematic edits. Quite the contrary, I see he has really worked hard and made a huge number of quality contributions and there weren't any problems that I am aware of. Dr. Loosmark 18:34, 8 June 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

 * Recused from the EEML case. Shell  babelfish 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My first instinct is that we should lift the topic ban, but I wonder whether something more nuanced and narrow can be written in its place. As Paul Siebert says, the problem was not lone editing, but banding together with other EEML members. Perhaps lift the ban, but impose a restriction on interacting with other former EEML members in EE topics. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This particular self-rightous creep is open to revisiting this sanction. One possibility is lifting the sanction for a trial period (say, a month) and seeing how things go. Another is to refer to the proposed narrower wording for all the topic-bans that I suggested on the proposed decision page at the time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion
Remedy 10 of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Radeksz topic banned") is rescinded.

(There being 14 arbitrators, five of whom are either inactive or recused, the majority is 5) ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 04:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Enacted ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Steve Smith (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to explain my rationale, which is fair enough. The short version is that I think many of the EEML problems grew out of a bit of a mob mentality, and my experience with mobs is that once you get their members to engage as individuals, they're okay.  Radek's plainly thinking for himself, has been well behaved during his sanction (including while editing on Poland-related stuff in response to the prior amendments to this case), and obviously has a lot to offer on Poland-related stuff, primarily on non-contentious Poland-related stuff.  I'm not proposing this motion because I believe that the original sanction was wrong, but because I don't think it's serving much purpose at this point. Steve Smith (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I prefer this to the status quo. Cool Hand Luke 17:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I see good work being done since the time of the closing of the EEML case, and I believe a suitable period of time has passed.  Risker (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) With the understanding that any relapse is likely to be poorly received.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Willing to try this (although it might be more clear if the motion said "terminated" rather than "rescinded"); see also my comments on the proposed decision page of the original case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) While I appreciate Skap's concerns and am almost swayed by them, I am going to support this per Risker and Steve.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Concur with Steve Smith. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Recused
 * 1) Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Pseudoscience (July 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  GDallimore (Talk) at 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Principle 15
 * 2) Finding 9

None
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

 * Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience
 * Request change as follows: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more."

Statement by GDallimore
Following this decision, the WP:Fringe guideline was modified to quote the above passaged: Fringe_theories

It is also highlighted as notable pseudoscience: Fringe_theories

This has essentially foreclosed any possibility of discussion on whether or not Time Cube is pseudoscience:

In my view, it is a particularly poor example and should not be highlighted in the guideline. Specifically, it is not science, pseudo- or otherwise, but a semi-religious rant and Internet phenomenon. Labelling it pseudoscience actually gives it more credence than it deserves.

The requested amendment leaves the content of the statement unchanged, but removes the (arguably) inappropriate example.

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.}

If this statement is amended to remove time cube as an example, another suitable example should be substituted. Otherwise, what standard should editors use to judge what is obvious pseudoscience? I suggest Nibiru collision as pretty obvious pseudoscience. Also, the statement should be made grammatically correct. It currently ends, "... categorized as such without more." More what? Move evidence? LK (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 2

 * Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience
 * Request change as follows: "Wikipedia contains articles such as Time Cube (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), a theory of time, on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics. In the case of Time Cube, an anonymous editor, "Time Cube Guy," frequently reverts to his favored version."

Statement by GDallimore (2)
For the reasons given in amendment 1, referring to time cube as a [pseudoscientific] theory of time gives it more credence than it deserves. This part of the statement should be removed.

The reference to Time Cube Guy is out of place. He was not discussed or mentioned anywhere else in the decision and no remedies against him were proposed.

The amendment removes the (arguably) inappropriate example and needless mention of a particular editor but leaves the content of the statement unchanged.

Statement by Enric Naval
I searched in google books "time cube" pseudoscience and "gene ray" pseudoscience and I got zero relevant results. Other searches in google found only really weak sources and mirrors of wikipedia. So, yeah, by the policy of verifiability, Time Cube has turned out to be a bad example because there aren't really any reliable sources supporting its pseudoscienting status, and it seems that no book on pseudoscience lists it, not even as part of a name-check. It should be striken out as suggested.

Statement by other editor (3)
{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

 * I am favourably disposed towards both of these amendments for the reasons given. If there are no objections in the next couple of days, I will propose a motion effecting both of these amendments. Steve Smith (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Steve, both of these requests appear to be good ones, although I'm a bit surprised that an example cited in the case would continue to carry enough weight to motivate them. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it's because it's considered funny and funny Internet things always end up getting more prominence than they deserve (surprised it's not mentioned in WP:BIAS). People will always go the extra mile to ensure funny things are included. Usually it's harmless and fun to learn about these weird and wonderful things, but sometimes the joke can go too far. When I saw this article on the psuedoscience template alongside aids denialism and homoeopathy I decided it was time to reduce its prominence. GDallimore (Talk) 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The point made in this request for amendment is well-taken, but what is obviously happening here is that undue weight is being given to what was clearly a throwaway remark in this three-and-one-half-year-old case. (I wish as much attention were paid to the core principles and findings of all of our cases.) Therefore, I am not sure that a formal motion to amend is necessary, though I will not oppose it. It would be courteous to notify the former arbitrator who wrote the Pseudoscience decision, Fred Bauder, and see whether he has any comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The lesson here should be that formal motions probably shouldn't contain throwaway remarks. Steve Smith (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion
The words "such as Time Cube" are struck from principle #15 of Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Obvious pseudoscience"). Finding of fact #9 of Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience") is amended to read "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics."

Enacted ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Steve Smith (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Risker (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  — Rlevse •  Talk  • 20:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm not convinced this motion is really necessary, per my comment above, but since it is here I will go along. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) It would have been good, I suppose, to also sort out the strange wording in Principle 15, ("may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." Without more what?)    Roger Davies  talk 15:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) I don't mind, given that the decision stands in substance with the amendments.  I should point out that Time Cube had the desirable property of being unambiguously bogus and unrelated to the pseudoscientific fields where there are significant content disputes on Wikipedia (so that nobody is unfairly singled out, even if just as an example).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral
 * 1) I think Time Cube is not a terrible example, but I can also see that this example a content ruling. Torn; would gladly change it with the original drafters consent. Certainly a different category from homeopathy and the really influential pseudoscience. Incidentally, does anyone else think the image on Time Cube is inappropriate navel-gazing? Cool Hand Luke 02:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the visual style of the Time Cube related website is part of their notability. Certainly, they are distinctive and bear some illustration.  Bug resounding "meh" from me on that.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I tend to think this is not necessary, but not willing to oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Recuse

This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf (July 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   — Jeff G. ツ at 05:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) JBsupreme warned


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * JBsupreme (diff of notification of this thread on JBsupreme's talk page)
 * Jeff G. (diff of creation of this thread, for completeness)

Amendment 1

 * The link to the remedy is Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf.
 * I would like to change the remedy to:
 * 1) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Statement by Jeff G.
Accompanying edits with diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, has continued (since the warning in the original remedy) making edits with problematic edit summaries, which are uncivil, contain personal attacks, or contain assumptions of bad faith. This behavior has been despite the warning in the original remedy, and despite attempts to change the user's behavior (since the warning in the original remedy) via user talk page posts by multiple editors, including Amalthea, Jéské Couriano, Maunus, and Will Beback. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive531 and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for background. In addition, that user's user talk page currently stands at a rather unwieldy 228 kilobytes, and the user has actively declined to archive it or even index it. — Jeff G. ツ 05:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor: User:Maunus
It seems to me that this amendment is necessary in order to have any kind of administrative leverage against this long time pattern of verbal abuse which does not contribute to making wikipedia a friendly and good work environment. It seems to me that JBSupreme is wilfully ignoring any request about changing his behaviour and the banner above his talk page suggests the same. It feels to me like the system is being intentionally gamed here in a fashion that cannot be avoided untill an amendment like the proposed one is applied.·Maunus· ƛ · 07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * JBSupreme is editing again. ·Maunus· ƛ · 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jeff G. (2)
Many others have tried to counsel JBsupreme by posting on that user's user talk page, only to be countered by summary removal of their posts by that user. For further background, please see:
 * 11 September 2008 - Reversions by user JBSupreme
 * 25 April 2009 - User:JBSupreme's continued inappropriateness
 * 11 May 2009 - JBsupreme edit summaries again

Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Niteshift36
There wasn't a lot of support about this at ANI and for good reason. The complainant seems to be making a project out of this. While JB might not be polite, he's really not making personal attacks (which was the original complaint). Further, this seems to have started when the complainant kept trying to add a link to a deleted article onto a list (for reasons he has yet to explain) and got his nose out of joint over it. As I said at ANI, frankly, I just don't care if some vandal gets his feelings hurt and I think it's a big waste of time to jump through all these hoops over it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jeff G. (3)
I would also like to change the heading for that section to a more appropriate one, such as "JBsupreme restricted". — Jeff G. ツ 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents has now been archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive614. — Jeff G. ツ 01:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Taking note of Maunus's post here of 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC) and Will Beback's post here of 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC), JBsupreme used this edit to delete Newyorkbrad's post from their user talk page, and has not commented there or here in the 69.5 hours since then, despite 20 intervening edits in two sessions, and has thus posted with four more questionable edit summaries and has continued "refusing to respond to good-faith criticism".   — Jeff G. ツ 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This request has been open for a month now. JBsupreme is editing again, has deleted Maunus's post to their user talk page, continues "refusing to respond to good-faith criticism", and continues using questionable edit summaries.    — Jeff G. ツ 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would not object "to making this a new remedy (2.1?) rather than having it replace the current, still applicable remedy".   — Jeff G. ツ 20:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback
I have no involvement in this matter other than leaving a note on JBsupreme's talk page and some minimal comments at ANI. However I see that, in addition to incivility, the previous decision also faulted JBsupreme for "refusing to respond to good-faith criticism". JeffG posted his ANI complaint at 05:33, 14 May 2010. JBsupreme made his most recent edit 05:15, May 14, 2010, just 18 minutes earlier. It appears that he has not responded to the good-faith criticism on his user talk page, on the ANI thread, or here.  Will Beback   talk    23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrencekhoo
I had some brief interactions with JBsupreme a couple of years ago and found him problematic to work with. He's not very response on talk pages, and his edit summaries tend to the impolite. Perusing his edit history, it appears that he has only gotten worse in that respect. LK (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

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

JBsupreme hasn't edited since May 14. Pcap ping  17:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's been six days now. There is no rush (a look at his contributions during the current calendar year shows that he has had periods of at least a week's absence before), and the thing to do now is be patient and wait, but at some point we will need to work out another way to resolve this if there is no response after 10 days or so. Carcharoth (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, the post Brad made earlier can be assumed to have been read by JBsupreme (blanking such messages is not disallowed), and there was a follow-up post here. I would much prefer JBsupreme to make a statement here, and now that they have edited since the amendment was opened, I will ask them to make a statement here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * No time to write a full response here, but on an initial perusal of the edit summaries used by JBsupreme, I am not impressed at all. All those edit summaries are viewable by anyone reading or editing this website, and are undoubtedly read by more than just the people they were directed at. I will wait to hear what JBsupreme has to say, but I am tempted to add an enforceable remedy to this case by motion to address this ongoing conduct. A general observation I would also make is that while it is tempting for any editor to act the way they want to act, or feel they can act, some restraint is needed, and gratuitous incivility and lack of restraint over a long period of time is something that should be addressed eventually, especially when it is possible to say the same thing in a more restrained manner. There is no prize for coming up with the most cutting and biting edit summaries possible. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC) (Noting here to maintain a transparent record of earlier dialogue:, )
 * I'm in agreement with Carcharoth here; the edit summaries provided seem well outside of the normal decorum expected when editing. Shell  babelfish 06:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carcharoth, Shell Kinney, and several of the commenters that the pattern of edit summaries is unbecoming and unhelpful, particularly in light of the warning in the prior case. I also take note that JBSupreme has not edited for almost two weeks. In that light, rather than keep this request open indefinitely, I am going to place a notice on his talkpage calling his attention to this request and asking that his edit summaries adhere to the guidelines of civility and NPA in the future. Hopefully this will resolve the problem; if it does not and JBSupreme continues to submit inappropriate edit summaries, the request for an amendment may be renewed, with a link to this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He's been editing again, and at least four people (including NYB and Carcharoth) have left messages about the summaries. He's not responding. Support a motion. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I was inactive on this initial case and will remain inactive for the purposes of this amendment request. Clerks, please note when calculcating the majority. Risker (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion
Remedy 2 of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf ("re  ) is changed to read " is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

Enacted ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 19:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  — Rlevse</b> •  Talk  • 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Comment - generally support this, but would there be objections to making this a new remedy (2.1?) rather than having it replace the current, still applicable remedy? Steve Smith (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Either as a supplementary remedy or replacing the previous remedy. SirFozzie (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I think Carcharoth had something more modest in mind, but I support this&mdash;as supplement or replacement. Cool Hand Luke 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)   Roger Davies  talk 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm not sure it needs to replace the current remedy, but I support either possibility.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Recuse

This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European mailing list (July 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Biruitorul Talk at''' 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 19


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * N/A

Amendment 1

 * topic ban
 * This is a request to amend the EEML case in order to allow me (User Biruitorul) to edit and create articles in Category:Geography of Romania and Category:Geography of Moldova again. As such it is a partial appeal of the topic ban that was implemented in December as part of the case.

Statement by Biruitorul
Well, I've been stewing in my own juices now for six months since the EEML decision was handed down, and I feel it's time to open the windows a crack and let me resume some of my more worthwhile activities. No off-wiki coordination, no canvassing, no usage of hidden communication to create the appearance of a consensus: I get it now, believe me. Half a year of scrupulously having to avoid my favorite subject area has drummed these lessons into me. Truth be told, I haven't been too active here since December, but neither have I done any harm. The only possible blemish on my record is a non-event that led to a pretty disgusting decision. (Let's be serious here, you don't extend a valuable contributor's topic ban by five months because he's made a few harmless edits he thought he was free to make.)

What I'm proposing here is to be allowed to dip my toe in again, editing in the areas of Romanian and Moldovan geography, neither of which has been the subject of much controversy in the past, certainly not involving me. There is quite a bit I plan to do: to give one example, I plan to finish creating articles on the communes of Moldova, which I had nearly finished doing before being rudely interrupted by this overly broad topic ban. Let's see how this goes. If for some reason I can't handle it, throw the book at me. If, as I suspect, everything will run smoothly, then in a little while I'll have reason to appeal more of, or the entirety of, the topic ban. - Biruitorul Talk 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lysy
Yes, absolutely. Both proposed categories are lacking a lot, so having an active editor there could only be of benefit. Besides, it would allow Biruitorul to prove that he/she can edit in a harmonious and proper way in his/her area of interest. Eastern European topics lack good, mature editors. --Lysytalk 13:58, 27 June 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).

Motion
Remedy 17 of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Biruitorul topic banned") is lifted.

Enacted ~ <font color="#F09">Amory <font color="#555"> (u • t • c) 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Of the sanctioned parties, Biruitorul's misbehaviour was among the mildest.  He/she has acknowledged the misbehaviour, and has had not conduct issues of which I am aware since the case. Steve Smith (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) With appropriate cautions. SirFozzie (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Six months sounds like enough to me. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Risker (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Steve.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse
 * 1) Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)   Roger Davies  talk 15:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Speed of Light (July 2010)

 * Original discussion

'''Initiated by Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Hell in a Bucket, Count Iblis, David Tombe
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

 * Requesting change to advocation restriction set to expire immediately or at end of Brews topic ban.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket
As to this time I still completely disagree with how this was handled however it did quiet things down a significant bit which I think all of us appreciated. I think we are at a crossroads, well for myself anyways, Brews will have enough rope to show he is a valuable addition to our community and will have enough rope to work in relative freedom without incessant hounding over what may or may not be a physics article. While it's likely I would advocate for brews should the need arise I find it significantly reduced once the topic ban expires. If this isn't possible for all invovled perhaps the committe can review this on a editor by editor basis. (Note Likebox was not included as he is presently indeff'd.)

Statement by Count Iblis
I actually made a request by email a few weeks ago, asking for a more limited relaxation of the restriction. This was just the minimum of what is necessary for me to write up some comments on moderation of high quality forums that cover science and the difficult moderation problems you then encounter. ArbCom has notified me that they are looking into this. However, I do support Hell in a Bucket's request to completely lift the restrictions.

If Brews is back editing physics articles and the restrictions against me are still in place, then the most likely effect in practice would be that I can't say anything about Brews on Wikiproject physics. Realistically, in the early stages of a new problem, what I would have to say would likely be focussed on something directly related to the physics content any dispute is about. And we all know that in the old speed of light dispute, I, together with most other editors argued in opposition to the position held by Brews. So, at this level there certainly no issue with me not being objective when it comes to commenting on Brews.

Count Iblis (talk) 22:59, 16 June 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.}
 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

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

 * I am cautiously supportive of this request. I believe that the advocacy restriction was necessary because the advocacy was stirring up a hornet's nest that would otherwise have been calm.  Once the underlying restriction has expired, it seems that the only circumstances in which advocacy would occur are those after the hornet's nest has already been stirred up.  I'll ruminate on this for a bit, and am open to persuasion either way. Steve Smith (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would oppose removing the restriction immediately. I'm open to lifting it simultaneously. Cool Hand Luke 15:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose any change. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would hope at least some discussion will be forthcoming as to why not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion
Amendment 4 to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light ("Brews ohare advocacy restrictions") expires concurrently with remedy 4.2 of the same case ("Brews ohare topic banned"), as amended by amendment 3 ("Brews ohare").

Enacted ~ <font color="#F09">Amory <font color="#555"> (u • t • c) 19:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Per my comments above. Steve Smith (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I have my concerns, but, I'm willing to see how this turns out. I must caution against backsliding however. SirFozzie (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) As with my comment. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) With the understanding that all of the users whose sanctions will be lifted contemporaneously understand that a repeat of the prior behaviour will not be acceptable. Risker (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)    Roger Davies  talk 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) I share some of the concerns expressed by my colleagues, but I agree that those sanctions are logically dependent on one another.  Further attempts at filibustering will be met with a proportional response, however.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Ferrylodge (July 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Anythingyouwant (talk) at 06:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC) WithdrawnAnythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Ferrylodge Restricted


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment


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

Amendment 1

 * Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge
 * Restriction lifted

Statement by Anythingyouwant
First off, I want to notify Arbcom that I am now editing under a new username, instead of my old username which was Ferrylodge.

The restriction was imposed in 2007. Since then, I have edited many articles, including the articles subject to the restriction, and yet the log of blocks and bans is empty. Unless this was intended as a lifetime restriction, now would seem as good a time as any to lift it. This was a mild restriction, which did not prevent me from editing any article, and it would seem that a mild restriction is more appropriate for lifting than a more serious restriction. Lifting the restriction would allow me to interact with other editors on an equal basis, though of course I would abide by all applicable guidelines and policies (as I have been doing at the articles in question ever since the restriction was imposed). Thanks.
 * @Carcharoth - You're right, there have only been a few edits to that range of articles since April 2010. I just made a couple more a few minutes ago.  None of them have been controversial.  I only realized today that I should let ArbCom know about the name change, and I wasn't previously aware that it was an issue.  Anyway, I would be glad to refrain from editing that range of articles until this request for lifting is disposed of.  If the restriction is lifted, then I'll be in the position of everyone else who changes his/her name, and would be glad to do whatever they usually do.  As far as notifying the old Arbitrators, I'll go do that now, and provide the diffs here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Since my present and past user and talk pages now cross-reference each other, I guess there is no need to refrain from editing any articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - Okay, here are the diffs (for all the old Arbs except Kirill who is apparently a glutton for punishment): Yellow Monkey/Blnguyen,jpgordon,Jdforrester/James F.,Morven,FloNight,Fred Bauder,Charles Matthews,Mackensen,Uninvited Company.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - Sure, I'll try to redirect the old userpage and user talk page and have a note on my new user page disclosing the previous username. I thought it might be simpler to just refrain from editing the articles in question until we see how this amendment request goes, but it's no big deal, I'll go do it and make a note of it here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - Okay, my new talk page and user page now say what the former user name was. However, I cannot edit the Ferrylodge talk and user pages, because they're protected.  Please feel free to do the redirects, given that I apparently can't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - I took eight months off from Wikipedia,during which I did negligible editing, and then last month I started again with some IP edits before re-opening a named account. I mentioned at the named account talk page that I made some IP edits, just to be very open and unambiguous about it.  I would be glad to provide diffs of those edits as best as I can reconstruct them (my IP address was not always the same).  However, it would be much easier to just provide the diffs regarding edits to the range of articles in question.  Would that be adequate?  I'll get started on it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - Okay, by way of introduction, I was the main editor who brought the Roe v. Wade article through Featured Article Review in 2007, and I think that's the only relevant article where I've made IP edits, all of which were made a few days ago before I resumed full editing under a username. Here are the diffs in chronological order (most of them were consecutive and none have been reverted or contested): ,,,,,,,,,,,,, (the last one reverted vandalism while the edit summary had some slight humor).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - I don't think the remedy in my case authorized any admin to impose a topic ban; at least, I've not heard that said before. It was an article-by-article remedy: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."  And, of course, I was never subsequently banned from any such article.  Nada.  As for the other thing, yes, I am clear why the remedy was imposed in the first place, and will be much more careful so as not to return to the conduct that led to that remedy being imposed.  With one caveat.  Part of the remedy was to overturn a complete ban from Wikipedia, which was a completely absurd ban as ArbCom recognized (much like the later failed attempts by involved administrators to have the article-by-article remedy enforced).  I do not feel responsible for ill-advised administrative action that may occur in the future, though I will do my best to avoid it.Anythinyouwant (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - Sure, I'll try to track that stuff down.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - Here ya go: ,,,. All were properly denied because there was no violation of the remedy.  Frankly, the repeated requests for enforcement, even though unwarranted, have disinclined me somewhat to edit the articles in question, because responding to such things is a real pain (as was participating in the ArbCom proceeding in 2007, no offense intended).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - The previous four links were from Arbitration Enforcement. There were also a couple further rejected requests that got ArbCom involved again; see the bottom of the talk page for the Ferrylodge Arbcom case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @MastCell - MastCell and I have had interactions at other articles that I have edited, in addition to articles that are within the scope of this ArbCom remedy. Call that a coincidence if you like.  If I were an Admin, for example, I would have blocked him long ago for POV-pushing, harassment, wiki-stalking, and vandalism at the Clarence Thomas article.  But, as I said, that's all outside the scope of this ArbCom remedy, and MastCell has not linked to any article that is within the scope of this ArbCom remedy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Shell - I left Wikipedia for eight months because of what happened with MastCell at the Clarence Thomas article, which included expansion of my block log. If that incident (and a comment I made about it) is to be ArbCom's reason for maintaining a lifetime restriction on me for an entirely different set of articles, then perhaps you should look at what happened at the Clarence Thomas article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @ - KillerChihuahua, the comment MastCell linked to relates to what happened at a completely different article, unrelated to the set of articles at issue here. Please note that the "very long ANI thread and subsequent Rfc" that KillerChihuaua mentions is from three years ago, and is therefore unrelated to events after the restriction was imposed on me in 2007.  And in answer to KC's question ("Why, is he planning on being disruptive?") the answer is of course "no."  I am tired of having to defend against meritless enforcement actions, and interminable requests to expand the remedy, which have made me reluctant to touch the articles in question.  I want to be treated as an equal, instead of as a pariah forever.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @ - KillerChihuahua - KC is incorrect that I've not significantly edited the articles in question since 2007. As Risker mentioned, I have indeed done so.  For example, as KC must know, I started and MCed the biggest and longest RFC that has ever occurred at the Abortion talk page, resulting in substantial edits to that article.  I've also tried to maintain the Roe v. Wade article as a featured article.  Plus various edits to other articles in this category.  I can provide a list of diffs going back to 2007 if people want.  If I had not been editing the articles in question, then there would not have been four groundless enforcement requests, and two groundless further requests to ArbCom regarding the remedy.  All the same, KC is correct that I have given up on the Fetus article, though I documented at that talk page why the article is a hopeless POV propaganda piece.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ncmvocalist - Thanks, but I'd rather do without that luxury. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @MastCell - Thanks for not objecting to lifting the remedy. Regarding the Clarence Thomas BLP that MastCell thinks is significant here, anyone can go look in my block log, see that I was blocked for 3rr at Clarence Thomas, and then confirm that I did not revert three times within 24 hours (MastCell requested the block though another admin implemented it).  Moreover, anyone can confirm that what I removed from that article was a single item by a source and publisher that had called Thomas a "rodent in robes", after I specifically explained at the talk page that the source was not reliable and violated BLP policy.  So, sure, if people want to make this about an article that has nothing to do with the ArbCom remedy, please do.  And you can go look at the exact time when MastCell showed up at the Clarence Thomas article, and compare that with the time when he finally ceased the multiple groundless remedial actions against me regarding the present remedy. And go look at the Clarence Thomas talk page as it exists right now, to see MastCell trying to explain why he removed two New York Times footnotes from the article without so much as mentioning such in his edit summary, and completely failing to rebut an accusation that he was inventing stuff "out of thin air".  Do I have to agree with every single administrative action that has ever been taken against me at unrelated articles? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Coren - The diff to which you refer was mainly about the Clarence Thomas article, and did not mention any article subject to the present remedy. Is that Thomas article within the scope of the present remedy?  My many edits at the articles subject to this remedy have not been disruptive during 2008, 2009, and 2010 which kind of indicates (to me) that I know how to not be disruptive.  I have no desire to go through this nightmare again, so you can be assured that I will not be as confrontational.  The log of blocks and bans is empty.  What more can I do?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - OK, thanks. By the way, I realize that an apology from me, or something like that, might be helpful to getting the remedy lifted.  But all I can say is that I'm older, wiser, and less confrontational now than before.  Also, I am glad to support people like KillerChihuahua when I think she's right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Rocksanddirt - Like Coren, you cite a comment of mine that MastCell linked to. That comment of mine did not mention anything about this restriction, or anything about any article subject to this restriction.  If ArbCom wants to turn this into a lifetime restriction based on an unrelated comment of mine, then I suppose ArbCom can do that.  But the fact is that MastCell joined me at another unrelated article, and requested that I be blocked me there.  I still disagree with that block.  But can we consider the articles subject to this restriction, please?  I am not disagreeing now with any prior block at those articles.  I would have done differently in those situations if I could do them over again, but don't take my word for it.  Look at the emptiness of the log of blocks and bans for this ArbCom case, despite numerous edits at the articles in question.  I've acknowledged responsibility for this restriction.  Was I acting in a vacuum, and was everyone else involved behaving with utmost purity?  No, I don't think they were.  But I should have done better myself.  I feel entitled to be upset about the many dozens of hours and days that I had to spend fending off MastCell's multiple unsuccessful requests for arbitration enforcement and remedy expansion.  All of those attempts were denied, because my edits did not justify them.  Surely, my being upset about all that wasted time does not mean that the whole arrangement needs to be extended for the rest of my life, does it?..Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Rlevse - You say, "Oppose changes per Coren." But Coren said, "I would not oppose a lifting of the sanction."  Please clarify.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rlevse, if you unlike Coren are opposed to lifting this restriction, I'd just like to emphasize that (to the best of my recollection) MastCell had no involvement whatsoever with the imposition of this restriction. So, I don't see the relevance of the remark to MastCell that you're relying on.  When I expressed frustration with MastCell, it was not because of imposition of this restriction, but rather because of other stuff that I've briefly described above (e.g. repeated unjustified attempts to enforce and expand this restriction, plus events at the Clarence Thomas article).  I don't know how the record over the past 2.5 years could be any clearer, or my remarks here in this thread could more clearly show that I have no intention of doing anything that would get me blocked at the articles in question.  If people edit-war or hurl insults or do anything else that I don't like at the articles in question,  I'm not going to respond in kind.  I haven't for the past 2.5 years, and won't in the future.  What more assurance can I give?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

@Arbitrators - I'm not sure what else to say. My purpose at the articles in question has always been NPOV. They're very controversial articles, and many disputes arise. I think I was unfairly singled out, but I also acknowledge reacting badly in some of those disputes. It hasn't happened again (witness the empty log of blocks and bans for this case over the past 2.5 years). It also won't happen again. I think a lifetime sanction in this instance is unwarranted. As a gesture of good faith to break the gridlock, I'd like to commit to a voluntary 1rr at these articles for six months after the restriction is lifted. And please note again: my comment to MastCell cited by two arbitrators did not mention this restriction; it was a complaint directed at MastCell, and he had nothing to do with the imposition of the restriction, as best I recall (MastCell had me blocked at another article unrelated to this case, and he also pursued multiple arbitration enforcement and expansion requests that were all rejected by ArbCom). Thank you, and I'm genuinely sorry if this has proven a difficult decision for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

@Risker - During the past couple weeks I've made a few edits to the abortion article, because I thought it would be an apt time to demonstrate the unobjectionable nature of my edits. You indicate that I've almost gone too far. A diff would be helpful to me. As far as crossing a line, I would much prefer the opportunity to cross a line and be topic-banned rather than be perpetually labelled as a suspicious character who's restricted for life. I have been careful not to canvass for support here, so it's kind of hard to see how the few third-party comments here reflect "the community". In any event, I wish you would look carefully at my edits rather than going by what you think "the community" wants. I continue to feel subject to viewpoint discrimination for opposing the ideological slant that exists at the articles in question. In any event, if you all are afraid that I'm going to become disruptive, then please give me the rope to hang myself; if I don't hang myself then your fears are proved unwarranted, and if I do then the problem will be permanently resolved. I stand by every edit I've made the last few weeks (despite some criticism from an involved editor).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

'@Arbitrators - I withdraw this request. We all know where it's going, and there is no need to prolong the process. Perhaps in another decade or so, ArbCom will be more inclined to remove what has become a very unusual and discriminatory lifetime restriction. I have already apologized numerous times for disruption which, by the way, did not occur in a vacuum. The idea that I might not understand why the restriction was imposed is patently absurd, given that the log of blocks and bans for this restriction has remained empty for 2.5 years, despite numerous edits to the articles in question. And I regret that no arbitrator has seen fit to provide a diff of any recent objectionable edit to the articles in question. ArbCom is walking a very fine line here, between legitimate concern for harmonious editing, versus targeting a neutral and good-faith editor who has sought to bring NPOV to some very slanted Wikipedia articles. Thanks for your time.'Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
I'm not necessarily opposed to lifting the sanction (it was ineffectual anyway, and efforts to enforce it tended to bog down in legalistic parsing of "articles" vs. "pages"). I do hope that the reviewing Arbs will look at the enforcement requests linked by Anythingyouwant, since I don't personally think they're as he's represented them. I do think that there should be some straightforward means of addressing a return to the previously recognized "long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion", short of returning to ArbCom, but that's just me. In contrast to Carcharoth, I am not particularly optimistic about Anythingyouwant's assurances that he understands the reason for the findings against him, based in part on these sorts of responses. MastCell Talk 00:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to break my rule. What happened at Clarence Thomas doesn't seem particularly relevant here, but it's a matter of record should anyone care. Ferrylodge accepts no responsibility for the actions which led to his block, and instead views it as an unfair machination on my part. As a result, I don't share Risker's optimism that Ferrylodge's outlook has changed. But I don't really object to lifting the remedy - as I mentioned, it proved unworkable and toothless in practice anyway. MastCell Talk 21:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by KillerChihuahua
I have seen nothing to indicate that Ferrylodge, now Anythingyouwant, has any concept of why he was placed under restriction - the comment MastCell linked to indicates denial and hostility, not understanding and determination to amend his ways. I have seen similar denial when he was blocked by Bishonen for harassment (of me, incidentally) - he carried his strident denial of wrongdoing through a very long ANI thread and subsequent Rfc, and never indicated he understood the problems his behavior caused. I do see him requesting a lifting of what amounts to a gentle admonishment, combined with a heightened scrutiny, or to put it another way, a lower tolerance, as he has - to be somewhat vulgar - "used up" his allotment of reminders and passes. In short, he requests that the sanction that he can be blocked or banned from an article in the topic area where he has caused massive problems before, if he is disruptive, be lifted. Why, is he planning on being disruptive? I ask not to be sarcastic but in all seriousness, as a Socriatic examination of rationale. If he has no plans to be disruptive, to push the envelope, to see what he can "get away with", I fail to see that he would gain anything. If, on the other hand,he does feel the need to have this lifted, my concerns are raised that perhaps he plans to re-enter the "arena" as it were, with renewed vigor. That is not a desirable thing to happen. I recommend the sanction, such as it is, be left in place. He will have no concerns if he keeps his manner civil and his editing collegial. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: FL is correct in that I have no recent encounters with him - he virtually ceased from editing Abortion related articles after 2007, and indeed retired for some time. That I cannot comment on his recent record is due to the issue that there is not much of a recent record on which to comment, rather than that he's been editing peacefully and productively. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
In an event that it is lifted, and then the sanction needs to be reimposed, the community already has a growing list of matters where sanction proposals need to be put out there to be enacted (see my talk for an example) - it doesn't need yet another one on the list if a previous remedy could have stayed for the time-being. This is not an actual topic ban or page ban or wide-encompassing probation that needs to be lifted. I also don't see any evidence of editors citing the restriction to intimidate Anythingyouwant, so I'd reject the argument that there is uneven footing here that disadvantages Anythingyouwant. On a simplistic level, the only difference is others don't have the luxury of being article-banned instead of being blocked from the entire site if they edit disruptively. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, that is probably why it was/is involuntary. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Rocksanddirt
In the original community ban discussion, the appealant in this case made a tremendous amount of arguementation around and beside the question of editing restrictions, but not addressing the concerns that were raised. This seems to be the case in this request also. Based on the comment in the link from mastcell, I don't think the user understands why an editing restriction was placed and why a community ban/restriction discussion happened. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

This request has been withdrawn and will be archived in 48 hours. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Waiting for statements from the other parties that have been notified, but making initial comments as well. It would be courteous to also notify the (mostly now former) arbitrators who made this decision, as they may have some insights here as well. While we wait, I've been checking that the return of Anythingyouwant (who was renamed from a previous username) all got sorted out OK. I see the talk page was fully restored, but there are some deleted edits at the old user page, what should be done with those? Also, I think the old userpage and talk page (before the rename in July 2009) should be redirected to the current pages or some notice placed there for those who click on the old username which is still linked from several places and in histories. There was also something last year about ArbCom restricted users not renaming, but as your case was in 2007, and you renamed in 2009, you might not have been aware of that. The one additional question I have at the moment is whether you edited articles subject to the restriction since April 2010 (when you returned), as it might not have been clear to everyone who you were? I see only one edit, which was after you filed this amendment: . You really need to make clearer who you used to be before you make edits in that area, as otherwise you are effectively evading scrutiny that could be applied under the restriction you are asking to be amended. Not everyone will realise or know what your former username was. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notifications, Anythingyouwant. Do you think you could also redirect the old userpage and user talk page and have a note on your user page disclosing your previous username? This is not normally required, but it is in this case because in order for the remedy to have any meaning, people need to know that you are still (despite the rename) under this remedy. Once we get to that point, we can then wait for others to add their statements. Carcharoth (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Update: I've unprotected and redirected the old user pages - there is also an entry at Missing Wikipedians that needs removing or updating. 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, another question has occurred to me. In a thread in the history of your talk page, you mentioned that you had done occasional editing as an IP before returning to this account. To properly assess the amendment request, we would need your full editing history here following the case. It would be best if you fully disclosed those edits, either here or by e-mail (the latter if there are privacy concerns). Would you be prepared to do that? Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further updates. Provisionally, I can't see any reason not to lift the remedy (which wasn't an actual restriction, only providing admins the option to topic ban you for article-by-article bans), providing you are clear why it was imposed in the first place, and won't return to the conduct that led to that remedy being imposed. I say provisionally, because I will still be watching this request to see what those you have notified (one of whom has been inactive for nearly a month, the other having been more active recently) have to say, plus any former arbs who chose to comment, and obviously what the rest of the current ArbCom have to say (and they would have to vote on any motion as well). But I'm happy there is enough information here to go on so far. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Quibble addressed. 19:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, you say there were "failed attempts by involved administrators to have the article-by-article remedy enforced"? That sounds like something that should be in the records somewhere and could be linked to. Could you link to those discussions please? Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Updating my views here to say that I share the concern by some that Anythingyouwant does appear to be somewhat abrasive at times, while noting that this behaviour is seen in others who edit the articles in question. I would prefer to see the restriction lifted and the community (and if necessary ArbCom if community-level actions failed) to review the behaviour of all parties at such articles. While the Ferrylodge arbitration case did include a finding against the editor now called Anythingyouwant, my impression from reading through the pages and histories in question is that this is a hot-button topic (much as some of the US politics that has been touched on here is a hot-button issue as well) and if anything more people should be under such restrictions (there may even be a case for discretionary article or topic sanctions). But rather than leave old restrictions in place (there is no real justification for restrictions of this nature to remain in place for what is now 2.5 years), it would be better to have them lifted to enable a proper review to take place after a few weeks or months of editing by the current community of editors at those articles. I would point out to Anythingyouwant, though, that even if the remedy is lifted, your history here would mean that you would be likely given harsher sanctions if any subsequent dispute returned to ArbCom and you were found to be at fault. And Ncmvocalist is correct to point out that the lifting of this remedy would give other editors more latitude to propose site bans for disruptive conduct, though as I said before, I would hope that the conduct of all involved editors would be reviewed if it ever got to that stage. More generally, given that the committee members who have commented so far are fairly evenly split, I will wait a bit longer before proposing a motion - it may be several weeks before this gets fully resolved, so please be patient. Carcharoth (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a few more comments here than just the appellant, but right now I don't see any reason to remove the restriction. There don't appear to be any current article bans in place, so I don't believe this will prevent you from editing but we have very little to go on here and edits like the one MastCell points out aren't very promising.  This gives administrators a tool to deal with any behavioral concerns given your past history of them. Shell   babelfish 14:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse. I've edited cooperatively with the user. Cool Hand Luke 15:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support lifting remedy - Ferrylodge (editing under that account name) appears to have been constructive in his editing of Abortion and Talk:Abortion in the fall/winter of 2008-09; there were no sanctions imposed on him at that time, nor was he restricted by administrators. I appreciate that his behaviour in the period before the sanctions were imposed were sufficiently unacceptable to lead to an arbitration case and sanctions; however, there does appear to have been a tacit recognition that his behaviour needed to change. In the current editing climate, the community (and individual administrators) is much more willing to address problematic behaviour without the direct intervention of the Arbitration Committee, and I have little doubt that if there are recurrent problems, the community can at least get the ball rolling on any needed sanctions. Risker (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On looking further, I see that Anythingyouwant is editing in a way that is getting close to the edge of going too far in recent weeks, although not to the level where a topic ban would quite be justified. I think, overall, it is better to leave this restriction in place, because I believe it may be keeping Anythingyouwant from crossing the line. I do see Carcharoth's point about having an article-specific (rather than editor-specific) sanctions, but that does not appear to be the view of the community. Risker (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While I can empathize with the desire to see a restriction lifted, even though it has no effective effect at this time, statements like this worry me enough that you might not have understood why it was imposed to begin with to make me hesitate. At this time, I see no compelling argument either way, and while I would not oppose a lifting of the sanction I cannot support it either.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose changes per Coren..."statements like this worry me enough that you might not have understood why it was imposed to begin with...I cannot support it either."<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I find myself agreeing with Coren and Rlevse.  Roger Davies  talk 15:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European Mailing List (3) (July 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Miacek 10:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * 1) Remedy 20


 * 
 * This is a request to amend EEML Remedy 20 to end the topic ban that applies to Miacek and allow him to edit articles related to Eastern Europe.


 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request


 * N/A

Statement of Miacek
As a result of this Arbitration case, I was topicbanned from articles on Eastern Europe. I would like to emphasise, that the overwhelming majority of my contributions has been to the Eastern European topics, in which I have hopefully have some expertise, or just interest.

As I tried to explain during the arbitration case, my active participation in the list was occasional, and I did not ask anyone to edit-war in tandem or to support my POV. It would have been difficult, too, because I happened to disagree with some users on issues of deletion etc. What I was found guilty of and what I cannot deny either was the e-mail I sent to the list, regarding the proposed deletion of an article I created (Derzhava). I will not canvass anyone in the future, nor will I join a list similar to the EEML (that I actually left a few months before it was discovered).

There is another thing that I was listed as guilty of, hence I will briefly have to comment on it. I found it regrettable that this was included as evidence, because I strongly disapprove of sock puppetry, account sharing games etc. This comment was meant as an ironic note, because one of the list members had engaged in exactly this kind of misbehaviour. There was no serious offer: I would hardly want to share an account with Molobo, who has very different interests and POV compared with mine. I also had more or less normal relations with User:Russavia, with whom I sometimes disagreed but never considered him a menace, as some users (who were not topicbanned in December) actually seemed to do.

Because of the ban I have had to transfer my activities to Wikipedia editions in other languages, mostly German Wikipedia, with occasional edits to the Russian and Estonian Wikipedias. However, I find all those ('national') encyclopedias rather parochial and hence prefer the English Wikipedia with its more universal approach. During the last 6 months, I have made just over 300 edits here, most of those simple reverts of vandalism (my overall edit count should be around 6300 on en.wiki). Hence, I believe that lifting my ban would be beneficial for the Wikipedia, as I could start contributing to the Eastern Europe topics again. I have not been found guilty of repeated edit warring or POV pushing and will not engage in such behaviour in the future. I have tried to maintain a neutral, not nationally motivated stance on Eastern Europe topics, where pro-Soviet/anti-Soviet, pro-/anti-Russia POVs tend to occur and will do so in the future. I also promise to follow the remedies of the EEML case.

Some plans for the future


 * start/translate Zjednoczenie Patriotyczne "Grunwald"
 * Kharakhoba (a Russian exclave wihtin Azeri territory)
 * Rady Fisch, a Soviet orientalist
 * Union of Russian Patriots
 * Mi(k)hail Guboglo, a linguist of Gagauz origin.
 * post a proposal how we might stop persistent small-scale edit warring at Meša Selimović and find a compromise

Statement by other editors
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
 * Assuming the facts stated are correct, I support this amendment - this editor has clearly been more than sufficiently "punished" for very minor wrongdoings, and restricting productive editors is actually punishing not just them, but Wikipedia as well.--Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It does seem that the sarcasm/irony of that "sockpuppetry" comment in the EEML evidence was lost on some in the heat of the EEML case (and, I'm ashamed to say, I have to include myself in this statement), and in consequence Miacek got a harsher treatment than his actual on-wiki record would have warranted. Bring the crime-fighing dog back! Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I am under a ban from commenting on EEML members, I don't really care, I am going to comment here. I support Miacek coming back to editing on WP. When the EEML case first broke, I was disappointed, and somewhat disgusted, that Miacek was part of that group, considering the amount of harrassment I was put under by the group. And I told him so. I have had a good editing relationship with Miacek; I believe that we are both here for the betterment of the project, rather than the propaganda pushing that the EEML partook in, and I am extending an offer to Miacek for him to contact me and we can collaborate on articles of mutual interest for the betterment of the project. As was mentioned on his talk page in December here and as he replied on mine at User_talk:Russavia/Archive_15. So yes, please let Miacek back to normal editing. But Miacek can you please confirm whether you are still a member of the list, because as you know the EEML continued to operate even during the arbitration case, and it is partly my concern that the same underhanded tactics will continue in future, and I hope that we can foster a spirit of conciliation and moving forward, for I believe that the two of us can do this - you were never part of the harrassment against myself and for that I do sincerely thank you. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 01:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Amendment I noticed Miacek's statement that he left EEML before it was publicly named and shamed, and based upon that, I can only wholeheartedly support Miacek's return. Miacek, you say you would never join another list. Here's an idea. Perhaps a list could be created in which editors who are interested in Russia topics (which the EEML was inherently set up to propagandise against - for want of better words) could discuss issues relating to these topics...and it wouldn't be a super duper secret list - membership would be open to all WP members in good standing. Do you think this could go some way to fostering collaborative spirit amongst editors? Might be worth a try, what do you think? Leave message on my talk page or via email if interested in answering that. Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 01:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Allowing a couple of days in case any other editors want to comment, but in the absence of any significant problems in the past few months not discussed above, I am inclined to grant this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As things stand, I'd be willing to support. I'll wait for more comments. SirFozzie (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Recused on EEML.  Roger Davies  talk 12:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Willing to support, per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Willing to support, but concerned (per Biophys - comment later removed) at the slew of EEML-related appeals. Sometimes it really is better to wait. Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Recused on EEML. Shell  babelfish 19:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Motion
Remedy 20 of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.

There being 10 active Arbitrators, not counting two who are recused, the majority is 6. ~ <font color="#F09">Amory <font color="#555"> (u • t • c) 21:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Per most of my colleagues and several of the comments above, in particular FPaS's.  This is a remedy that passed 4-2 (!) in a heated atmosphere.  I'm not convinced that this particular remedy was justified in the first place, and even if it was I think it's now served its purpose. Steve Smith (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) SirFozzie (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Carcharoth (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> •  Talk  • 02:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Risker (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Without prejudice about the remedy's propriety at the time.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Recuse