Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 44

Request for clarification: The Troubles (July 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Stifle (talk) at 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Statement by Stifle
I request clarification of Troubles restriction (see also Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles) to confirm that 1RR applies per a 24-hour period rather than per calendar day, as has been alleged at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
This is a community extension of the remedy (ArbCom's remedy was 1RR per week). The community routinely uses the word "day" or "24 hours" as if they are synonymous (that's certainly how I've designed the community restrictions that I've proposed); the intention is not that it is "per calendar" day otherwise it would specifically state that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved JzG
Anybody playing that kind of semantic nonsense is clearly gaming the system. The restriction exists to prevent edit-warring, arguing over the exact nuance of how much one is or is not allowed to edit war is missing the point by a very large margin. I trust that any uninvolved admin would have no difficulty at all in interpreting this community-applied restriction, or indeed the spirit of the Arbitration case: stop edit warring is the message, people who want to continue edit warring are not getting the message and might perhaps need a gentle tap with the cluebat. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Standard view is day=24 hours. Otherwise we'd run into all kinds of shenanigans depending on our editors timezones. SirFozzie (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with SirFozzie; the conventional meaning of "day" when discussing revert limitations is a continuos 24-hour period rather than a calendar day. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd always thought 24-hour periods were what was used when handling 3RR reports. I can't see how this would be any different and like SirFozzie said, a calendar day could lead to all kinds of craziness because of differing time zones. Shell  babelfish 11:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per SirFozzie, Kirill and Shell, 24-hour periods, not calendar days. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with my colleagues, and there appears to be no further concern here. Barring further discussion from another arbitrator to the contrary, this request for clarification will close in 24 hours. Risker (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User:SlimVirgin (July 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Tryptofish (talk) at 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

SlimVirgin notified:

Statement by Tryptofish
I have two (2) specific questions regarding Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, which states:
 * "User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation."

I also note that this caution was pointed out again at Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV.


 * Is the message of this caution about personal attacks still applicable today? (As a matter of common sense, it appears to me that WP:NPA is always in effect, but I recognize that an argument can be made that this arbitration case occurred a long time ago.)
 * If so, does this message apply as well to other content areas, beyond those that were the subjects of these arbitration decisions? (Again, it seems to me that it does, as a matter of common sense, but I recognize that it might not.)

I am specifically concerned about personal attacks directed at me and at other editors at pages about animal rights, broadly defined. The most recent occurrence of these was this: at Talk:PETA, but there have been many, many other such instances. My bottom line reason for asking these questions is that I would like such personal attacks to stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for that answer, Steve. And I definitely hear you with respect to not making this an arbitration-by-proxy. Based on what you said, I have to ask: what does your answer mean in terms of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of my potentially requesting Arbitration Enforcement with respect to the personal attacks that I allege? It sounds like you might be saying that there is nothing to enforce. On the other hand, you also indicate that someone would take past records into account, somewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you both very much for your time and answers here. That is very clear and fully answers the questions that I had. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am truly appalled by the comment by the user below. The accusation of stalking is unsupported by facts, and patently ridiculous. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read a bit into the past history, and I guess that I can see how the user might be sensitive about these issues. But factually, that is still untrue, perhaps jumping to conclusions. In fact, it paradoxically shows a big reason why I am concerned: repeat something enough, and people start to assume that it is true. But anyway, this is not the place to examine that in detail, and I am satisfied that my questions were answered. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding that, I agree with Risker that all of my questions were fully answered. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Steve says he won't look at the specific "personal attack" for various reasons. I did, it's not a personal attack, it's an expression of exasperation at the requester apparently Wikistalking SlimVirgin and reverting edits regardless of the fact that the reverts reintroduce formatting and other issues. The request is an attempt to use ArbCom to gain an advantage in a content dispute. It is likely that the community should be invited to debate a non-interaction sanction between these users, and further investigate SlimVirgin's implied accusation of Wikistalking. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I think cautions are one-time occurrences, rather than ongoing sanctions. In that sense, I don't think that the caution is "in effect", but I also don't think it was "in effect" five minutes after it passed.  As you note WP:NPA applies to all editors at all times, in all domains.  In that sense, SlimVirgin is, like any other editor, under an ongoing prohibition against personal attacks.  In the hypothetical event of an editor previously cautioned against personal attacks being sanctioned by ArbCom for personal attacks, it seems reasonable to believe that a past record of formal cautions would be taken into account.  I am deliberately refraining from commenting on (or even examining) the personal attacks you allege from SlimVirgin, as I do not want this request for clarification to turn into a proxy ArbCom case on the subject. Steve Smith (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my view that ArbCom-issued cautions are not suitable for WP:AE enforcement. Steve Smith (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with Steve here; I believe cautions/warnings etc. are similar to putting something on the record - it is a formal reminder that will likely be taken into account should the behavior occur again. Only restrictions are suitable for arbitration enforcement.  I'd also comment that I have a difficult time seeing the personal attack in the diff provided - less than perfectly civil, yes but looking at the overall situation, incivility doesn't seem to be limited to one editor.  Dispute resolution looks like the way to go here. Shell   babelfish 03:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with my colleagues here. As it appears that Tryptofish has found this response to be satisfactory, I will ask that this clarification be closed in 24 hours barring further comments from other arbitrators. Risker (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Ireland article names (July 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  RA (talk) at 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (notice)
 * Relevant discussion at Talk:British Isles

Statement by Rannpháirtí anaithnid
This request for clarification relates to Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. The case itself related to the titles of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles. However it touched on the use of the words Ireland and Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia. In concluding the case, ArbCom passed two motions. The first of these related to the titles of the Ireland articles. The second related to the use of the words Ireland and Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia. Notice of the motions can be see here.

A thread has been opened at Talk:British Isles relating to the use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland in the lead to that article. During the course of the tread it was said that this matter was covered by an ArbCom motion and editors were told to follow that motion. The relevance of the ArbCom motion is disputed.

Can we clarify:


 * Is the second motion a part of the resolution to the Ireland articles names' case?
 * Is the second motion binding on editors?
 * Does the second motion recognise the Ireland-related MOS as reflecting consensus in resolving the matter?
 * Does the second motion enjoin editors not to re-hash the debate with respect to use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia (i.e. not only use with respect to the titles of Ireland and Republic of Ireland)?

Finally, though not brought up by any editor during the course of the tread: with respect to WP:CCC, does ArbCom have comment with regards to how WP:CCC would relate to the consensus at the Ireland-related MOS and use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland across the encyclopaedia?

--RA (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Snowden

 * There was (and is) no question that the official name of the state as established by all sources is Ireland
 * The disambiguation agreement means that the article is called Republic of Ireland to avoid confusion with the island of Ireland
 * The normal practice in the use of the name in articles is [Republic of Ireland|Ireland] unless there is a risk of confusion with the island, this conforms with the ruling above and consensus
 * The use of "Republic of Ireland" as the name of the state remains a political POV position adopted by some editors - in effect perpetuating the British Government's position prior to the Good Friday Agreement. While the British Government has now moved on and uses Ireland nor ROI (as do the EU and the UN),  there is an extreme Unionist position which seeks to perpetuate the ROI name. (FAD I don't think RA is in this camp)
 * In the case of the BI article the disagreement is over wether there is a possible confusion of the use of the official name of the state in a paragraph which talks about the names of the states that occupy the geographical area.
 * RA has been arguing that the Arbcom ruling prevents anyone challenging the use of ROI if any editor thinks there is a risk of confusion. He has also accused editors who have taken the position that there is no confusion are breaking consensus or of rehashing the debate.  This is a nonsense position and unnecessarily provocative.  Bringing it here smacks of forum shopping.  --Snowded  TALK  10:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment
With respect to the last point, I made this request for clarification after Snoweded questioned the applicability of the relevant motion (not for the first time): "This has nothing to do with the Arbcom resolution which is far narrower in its meaning that your attempted use. As long as people make that error I will correct it. I can see no consensus that I am failing to respect." (diff)

Also I am not interested in artificially maintaining "consensus" through any kind of gaming, hence my question about how WP:CCC relates to this motion. --RA (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by HighKing
According to what @RA is stating above, what is to stop any editor who wants to use "Republic of Ireland" to simply cry "I'm confused", and invoke the WP:IMOS? Or as in this case, to refuse to craft lede paragraphs in such a way as to very simply avoid confusion? And quiet frankly, I don't see where the IMOS is *not* being followed. The IMOS currently states: The first clause uses an example that most editors (me included) wouldn't object to. But it certainly doesn't cover the current case. The second clause clearly sets out that where the state forms a major component of the topic (which in the current case, it does), we should stick with using the formal title. This example is far closer to the usage within the lede of British Isles. We've discussed this and a consensus appears to have emerged on the article Talk page, and RA bringing this here looks a little sour grapish. --HighKing (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In other places prefer use of Ireland, except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use Republic of Ireland (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").
 * An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance) where Ireland should be preferred and the island should be referred to the island of Ireland, or similar (e.g. Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").
 * In response to comments by User:Carcharoth below (it's important to be precise in this debate/discussion)... You state:
 * part of the reason the unusual step was taken here of (after a set framework of discussion) locking down the article names I'd love to hear an explanation of what you mean by this.  I've previously requested that Arbcom clarify what actually happened to result in a "lock down of article names", because that definitely isn't what the Arbcom-sanctioned process was intended to do.  It was a much larger process to allow the larger Wikipedia community decide on all manner of things relating to the term "Republic of Ireland".  Making statements like you have done just gets me fuming at how that process was organized and run, and how Arbcom came to their decision without any explanation or visibility into their reasoning for that final decision.
 * The lockdown didn't apply to the names used in article text  - correct. Except, very explicitly, this is a part of what the *process* was designed to do.  The Arbcom decision to merely lock down the article names until Sept 2011 totally ignored the months of discussions, which were a very important part of the process (which failed).  The Arbcom decision was taken *outside* the scope of the process (which had many parts),  and (as mentioned by BritishWatcher above) resolved absolutely nothing.  As a ruling, it essentially picked and chose the parts of the process to pay attention to, and as such is based (hopefully unintentionally) on an overwhelming British POV-biased so-called consensus.
 * have no problem with periodic revisiting of old arguments, as long as progress elsewhere has been made in the interim period. Where is this stated in the ruling exactly?  Or in the conditions of the process?  Or is this just being retro-fitted on now?
 * Note. We've all abided by the Arbcom ruling.  Nobody has reopened the debate.  But the bad feeling runs *deeper* than prior to the process, and this nit-picking by RA is a recipe to re-open the entire debate.  --HighKing (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BritishWatcher
The dispute over on British Isles at the moment about if Republic of Ireland can be used highlights that the resolution to the Ireland naming dispute has yet to be resolved fully. In the same paragraph the island of Ireland is mentioned, it is there for helpful to the readers for Republic of Ireland to be used in that introduction when talking about the state.

Republic of Ireland can be used when there is a need to avoid ambiguity, this is one of those clear cases where it is justified and a clarification about this subject would be helpful to prevent such a dispute causing problems in the future. We all accept the country is called Ireland, the trouble is just saying Ireland clearly causes confusion sometimes because there also happens to be an island called Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My own view, as an arbitrator who was not on the committee at the time of that case, is that the answers to the questions you pose are yes, no, yes, and yes. Steve Smith (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, let me amend my answer to the fourth question: the motion enjoins editors not to rehash needlessly the debate over Ireland names. In no way does it impede the normal operation of WP:CCC, which is why I say, in response to the second question, that it is not effectively binding. Steve Smith (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My initial comment here is that while consensus can change, part of the reason the unusual step was taken here of (after a set framework of discussion) locking down the article names was to allow people to focus their energies elsewhere more productively. The lockdown didn't apply to the names used in article text (recognising that this requires more nuanced discussion), and I appreciate that some valid arguments are being made at Talk:British Isles, but I would hope that some people would step back and look at the larger picture there. Consider whether the discussions there are making good use of the time and resources of editors, and whether progress at other articles or in other areas of the same article is being impeded because people go round and round in circles over the same issues for years on end? I have no problem with periodic revisiting of old arguments, as long as progress elsewhere has been made in the interim period. Has this been the case? Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to HighKing, when using the phrase "lockdown", I was referring to this: Once the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years. Passed 7 to 0, 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC) . This is what led to the motion in March 2010 (a bit further down that page) that locked the names in place until September 18, 2011. This was done after a lengthy process that involved much discussion and a poll (this is what I mean by after a set framework of discussion). You say the process failed, but what ArbCom was saying by the motion it passed in March 2010 is that in our opinion the process was a success (this may be the fundamental problem here, as if you disagree with that, there is not much left that you can do). It was the second motion that dealt with the issue of names in articles, and directed people to work with the then-existing consensus on the Ireland manual of style and to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes. The specific dispute here may or may not have some merit, but I looked at the entire talk page and I saw people arguing endlessly over the names (again). The final point, where I state that I hope progress has been made elsewhere, is a personal opinion. If I give examples it may help. If an editor makes no edits other than those to debates relating to Ireland naming disputes, that can lead to that editor losing perspective. If an article in Ireland topic area has little or no edits made to it or its talk page other than edits related to a naming dispute, that does not ultimately contribute to the aim of improving the article. If the various projects active in this area could summarise what they have achieved in the few months, and how much of those efforts have been stymied or forgotten as people are drawn back into naming debates, that could help. If people taking part in these naming debates have been productively working on other stuff in parallel, I will immediately apologise, but I do think a key aim when dealing with perennial debates is to not let them suck resources away from other work that needs doing. If, for example, some articles improved to good article or featured article status, that would be a measure of progress, even if the reviews failed because of naming disputes, it would put the naming dispute at the end of the list of things to be sorted on an article. Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European mailing list (2) (July 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk at 03:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 3


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


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

Amendment 1

 * 
 * This is a request to amend EEML Remedy 3 to end the topic ban that applies to Piotrus and allow him to edit articles related to Eastern Europe.

Statement by Malik Shabazz
It has been more than six months since Piotrus was blocked and topic-banned. Since his return, he has been productive in other areas of Wikipedia. He has carefully observed the terms of his topic ban and avoided areas related to Eastern Europe.

Piotrus and I have a history. We got off on the wrong foot and found ourselves on opposite sides of edit wars that shouldn't have taken place. Since that time, he and I have mended fences. We've come to respect one another and I consider him one of my "Wikifriends". I was proud to have his support at my RfA.

Before his topic ban, Piotrus was very productive in articles having to do with Poland. He is responsible for 15 featured articles and 15 good articles (including 3 A-class articles) on Poland-related subjects.

In addition to his article-writing, Piotrus was the main force behind WP:POLAND. For a list of the tasks he performed, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 3. He carried out these duties without asking for any special recognition; his only "reward" was the satisfaction of improving the encyclopedia.

Pursuant to the motion enacted May 5, Piotrus was allowed to "raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban" at WT:POLAND. I have found his assistance at that page to be invaluable. (Please see WT:POLAND for examples of what's been involved.) I and a few others have tried to keep up with Piotrus' suggestions, but this represents but a fraction of what should be done for the WikiProject; it is also a very inefficient way of getting things done.

As one example of his noncontroversial editing this year, Piotrus has used his class at the University of Pittsburgh to improve the encyclopedia and try to bring several articles to GA status. (Please see Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Summer 2010 for details.) He has also become involved to a greater extent with WP:SOCIOLOGY. Since coming back to Wikipedia, he has had two (non-EE) articles promoted to GA and written 15 DYKs.

I believe Piotrus has learned from his mistakes in the EEML case and should be allowed once again to edit in the subject area of Eastern Europe.

Statement by Skäpperöd
Constructive edits to sociology topics, where Piotrus has some expertise, must not be used as a basis for granting Piotrus access to EE topics again, where he used the same expertise in a malicious way for years: There are few editors with a similar record of disruption, which has already caused a huge level of stress and waste of time (add up the kB of the above linked cases for a start). What makes Piotrus' case quite extraordinary is his long-term successful deception, including impertinences such as:
 * the 2006 RfC on Piotrus already contained evidence for canvassing and agitation in favour of his group and against his group's targets.
 * the 2007 Piotrus Arbcom has acknowledged the battlefield but tried an amnesty solution. This approach has failed and was replaced by the discretionary sanctions of the subsequent Digwuren Arbcom.
 * the 2008 Piotrus2 Arbcom (later renamed EED) acknowledged that off-wiki coordination by Piotrus' group is "almost certain", but refrained from passing a respective remedy because it lacked "definitive proof"
 * the 2009 EEML Arbcom was equipped with that definitive proof, identified Piotrus as a "ringleader" guilty of cover-up actions, abuse of administrator tools, a "variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring (...), abuse of dispute resolution processes (...), proxying for a blocked user (...) and encouraging and advising list members to circumvent Wikipedia policies", and canvassing
 * in Nov 2009, a month before the case's closure, Piotrus participated in the Tylman votestacking
 * in Dec 2009 Piotrus was identified by Radeksz as still coordinating off-wiki (the months thereafter, he served his block)
 * Piotrus' proposed FoF in the Piotrus2 Arbcom, reading "There is no group (WP:CABAL, WP:TAGTEAM) of Polish editor acting together violating policies and damaging this project. Piotrus is not a leader of such a (nonexistent) group."
 * Piotrus' reply to Irpen's offer for a fresh start: "I have not done the things...", "I can promise you I will not 'call in reverts' to create battlegrounds, I will not stack votes with otherwise uninterested meatpuppets, I will not seek to block content opponents..."

The "prolific Piotrus" and the "malicious Piotrus" are one and the same person, and the latter had long enough been free to deceive the project, including Arbcom, hiding behind the first. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus
I have asked Malik to post this request on my behalf, as a representative of WikiProject Poland and an editor familiar with my editing history (both past and present). I believe that Wikipedia is a project build on trust and cooperation among the users, and thus I am heartened that he has agreed to do this; his (and WP:POLAND's) support means a lot to me.

I have learned over the years that no matter how good one's intentions, it is all too easy to fall down a slippery slope. Having seen what happens when one descends this route, I plan on ensuring that errors of the past will not repeat themselves in the future.

It has been about a year since any complaint about my editing was raised (in the arbitration case I am asking to be amended). I have contributed, uncontroversially, to EE-related subjects for years before (including in the 4-month period that the case was ongoing). I have, over the years, till late December, contributed over ~20 FAs, ~20 GAs and ~300 DYKs, roughly ~90% of them in the Eastern European subjects). Even after the case ended, I was able to help out with addressing the BLP issues and then GAing Lech Wałęsa article. Throughout that time, I contributed uncontroversially to Polish Wikipedia, Polish and English Wikisource, and the Commons projects. I have written several GAs and over a dozen DYKs in the past few months on English Wikipedia as well.

I would like to return to my former levels of activity, in my areas of expertise (Eastern Europe), just like after a six months break I was able to resume clean up work for WP:POLAND. I have a nearly finished Poland-history-related Featured Article rusting in my sandbox on Polish Wikipedia. I would like to resume my work on creating the economic history of Poland article. I would like to resume GA work on Juliusz Słowacki. A sample list of further article content subjects I plan to work on is visible on my userpage (usually I go through most of my to-do boxes in few months; obviously they have been mostly frozen since last December). There are also many wikiproject gnomish tasks I cannot help out with (and which are not being carried out) (more "to do" not being done). I often spot vandalism on my 3k+ watchlist, but instead of reverting it I have to report it to AIV or arbitrators I see online, which often means it takes hours between I see vandalism and it is reverted. And being able to answer simple requests from help, including those from sitting Arbitrators, instead of directing them to WT:POLAND, would be nice, too.

On a final note, I'd like to echo Radeksz calls for all editors in Eastern Europe to assume good faith and work collaboratively. This is what this project is about. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Skäpperöd (first and only, I don't intend to engage in discussion on those pages, per the rules here): I am impressed you managed to post your statement so swiftly, even before I managed to post mine. I will just repeat what others have said in response to your comments in other recent amendments: 1) do you have any diffs from this year to bring, instead of rehashing old history? 2) Can you explain how this amendment would damage (instead of helping) the project - i.e. focus on the future, not the past (again...)? And 3) please stop misrepresenting what happened: a) the 2006 (2006, seriously?) RfC had no evidence, but unfounded allegations, not supported by majority of editors b) the 2008 ArbCom finding you cite did not mention any side or editor, you insert "Piotrus' group" without any basis, badly misrepresenting that finding c) I was within my right to vote in that AfD, the vote was not coordinated d) the mailing group, as stated before (including, I am sure, in the evidence archive) was created in December 2008; please stop alleging to the contrary. Lastly: I respect the work you have done in relation to German-Polish history and related subjects, and I'd hope you could see beyond our differences, assume good faith and try to work together with me and others to create a better project, in the spirit of good-faithed cooperation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Darwinek
I always perceived a global all-encompassing topic ban on Central and Eatern European topics as too harsh. One can edit or create articles about e.g. Poland or Belarus without any controversy. The current ban prohibits Piotrus to create e.g. even a tiny stub about, say, some Russian economist or Polish river. I think the current ban should be ammended and liberalized. I believe Piotrus will not misuse it and will be of great help to WikiProject Poland, where he was most active in the past. I am sure he learned from his past mistakes and would responsibly use his ability to edit the Central and East European articles again. - Darwinek (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lysy
If Piotrus served his so far de-facto probation well then it seems to prove that the sanctions did their job, are no longer needed, and in fact are harmful to the project content-wise. However, if the amendment is accepted and the ban is raised, I would suggest asking Piotrus for a parole, to help him remember that he should treat any Eastern-European issues in the same constructive manner as any other articles. Other than that, I'm totally for lifting the sanctions, as they seem to serve no purpose now. As for the Skäpperöd's comments, none of them seems relevant to the recent half a year period that is discussed here as the base for the amendment request. --Lysytalk 08:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Deacon of Pndpetzim
Essentially Piotrus' argument is: I might realise some of the things that happened in the past are unfortunate, but listen guys, I've been banned from this area for a few months and in those few months I haven't done anything bad in the area. So, obviously the ban is pointless and if you make me serve the ban I was originally given, you are being crueler than you need to be and depriving the 'Pedia of great content.

It is not news that Piotrus did a lot of writing for Polish and eastern European history articles. We knew that when we imposed the ban. The problem we had with Piotrus (or his side-kick Radek for that matter) is not this, nor that we discovered that all the allegations of co-ordinated bullying, edit-warring, wikilawyering and so on which had been leveled at him for years and ignored turned out to be true, but rather that that wasn't even the half of it.

You discovered that email archive, and you acted ... you sent out a message. You can of course be sure that they learned not to be so stupid as to have a email list that size and to record it so zealously. But you actually think they'll stop this kind of thing? Why would they? It was great for them ... and worked well, only trouble was that it leaked. So now that he has been caught and topic-banned, it is to be believed that he therefore saw the moral error of his ways? ;) Yeah, of course. He must have.

But sure, he might have ... he just might have. It is no matter, you guys don't know either way. And as appealing to your conscience as it might be to "give the benefit of the doubt", you have a responsibility to treat the possibility of gross misconduct as seriously as history suggests you should.

Moreover, you have already passed judgment on these offenses, offenses of the highest gravity. Is upholding previous ArbCom sanctions made in the aftermath of a long investigation against a background of rare community outrage really something that needs to trouble us as much as is being suggested? If the previous rulings were just a political show to quell the outrage which existed at the time, then sure you would revisit it after a few months. If you take it seriously otherwise, then overturning or significantly lightening the bans is very brave message to send to future perpetrators of such activity or to those contemplating such activity.

Finally, Piotrus has expertise in sociology and economics, and it is good that he can focus his attention there. It is good that he can focus his efforts there rather than in areas where he has a strong bias and a history of using wiki-gansterism and co-ordinated edit-warring in pursuit of ideological goals, where he has previously conspired to and succeeded by such methods in undermining and circumventing natural wikipedia safeguards like WP:NPOV, WP:BRD, WP:EW and so on. It is however very important for Piotrus to learn ... and for others to learn ... that once you do certain things, Wikipedia will come down on you and you won't get out of it just by waiting a few months and convincing a friend in good standing to make a case for you. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Charles Matthews
My experience as a past ArbCom member is that Piotrus is rather good at the wheedling tone (which he can employ on behalf of allies, however egregious their shortcomings). As editors, we have met on the site infrequently, but when we did it was shortly after the close of the second Eastern Europe case. My impression was that Piotrus had learned nothing: plain advocacy of a Polish-centred POV, warnings against conspiratorial Lithuanians, and so on. I think the ArbCom should apply here a thought from the old book of remedies, namely that sanctions which create a good editor out of a troublesome one are advantageous to the site. I would oppose varying them until there was evidence of a more profound change of heart. This seems a routine appeal based on the passage of time. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski
As usual, I fully support relaxation of Piotrus' restrictions, which seem to serve no purpose except to deprive Wikipedia of the useful contributions of a very productive editor. Whatever he is supposed to have done wrong, I think it's pretty clear he isn't going to do it again now that all eyes are on him.--Kotniski (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nihil novi

 * The lifting of over-reaching sanctions seems to me the preferable course. Everyone commits transgressions, and these should be monitored for.  But one no longer imposes long-term banishments or capital punishment for the hundreds of crimes and misdemeanors for which such drastic sanctions were applied as recently as a couple of centuries ago. Nihil novi (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Igny
My statement seems superfluous by now, but after looking over recent history of Piotrus contributions, and knowing quite well the positive influence Piotrus had on all the usual hotheads in EE disputes, I fully support lifting the sanctions. (Igny (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

Statement by Jan eissfeldt
i contributed to the amendment-request in april by raising the point of his university cooperation projects. therefore, i have the feeling that i have the duty to report the review results of his spring-project (may-june):

as long as i can see now, it worked without guideline problems or conflicts and the participants improved social- and political science related articles like periphery countries and great divergence. his project reached the well-established standards in the content- as well as the perspective of civilized behavior, best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Visor
I fully support lifting these sanctions — his works measured by new articles, high quality articles (FAs/GAs), working around community and overall contribution are really worthy for WP. He will be able to improve many of EE- and Poland-related articles. Piotrus' works will be examined very deeply and all negative aspects will be considered quickly. Visor (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Heimstern
I could probably sum it up this way: Listen to Deacon. These sanctions need to be strong and maybe even harsh because the case in question was not some isolated case; it was the latest in a string of EE-related cases that involved Piotrus (and loads of others) and it was, quite bluntly, hammer time. Lifting them now is not in the best interests of our EE-related articles or our editors who are editing these articles after actually leaving their POVs at the door. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Petri Krohn
I would not object to Piotrus creating content on Poland and I feel that his inability to do so is a great loss to Wikipedia. However, this was carefully weighted in the original Arbcom case, with Piotrus only narrowly escaping permaban.

What I see as disturbing is that Piotrus is all too eager in engaging in the your-nation-genocided-my-nation battles of Eastern Europe. I believe this edit from 1 June 2010 is a violation of his topic ban. The article, Cultural genocide is at the very heart of the Eastern European disputes. The edit, while it may seem innocent, in fact pushes a POV wording that the United Nations could not agree on in 60 years of debating the issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:56, 28 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).


 * Closing as not mathematically possible to pass, per request of an arbitrator.  NW  ( Talk ) 01:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I have always thought that some of the remedies in the Eastern European mailing list case swept much too broadly, although my suggestions to this effect (see the proposed decision page in the case) were not agreeable to the other arbitrators. In this instance, I think some relief from the sanction is appropriate at this stage, but I am not sure whether the better course is to lift it altogether (and then closely monitor developments!) or to more narrowly tailor it to the specific areas of conflict. I would appreciate some input on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Recused on EEML.  Roger Davies  talk 12:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts at this point are not to lift the sanctions in this case at this point, as I am concerned about some things. Possibly another month or two.. SirFozzie (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Too soon after the last amendment. I would want to give it more time to see how the previous amendment is working out in practice. I would suggest three months between successive amendments, independent of whether other people are submitting amendments as well, and even if we haven't been consistent about this in the past. Having a slew of EEML-related amendments at around the same time sends the wrong signal, in my view. Each previous amendment should be accompanied by a note on the minimum period before a new amendment can be filed relating to that editor, otherwise we get overwhelmed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I think I've been among the most sympathetic arbitrators to the early lifting of EEML amendments (I just moved my third such motion in the request above, and also moved the two earlier motions narrowing the topic bans), I'm not comfortable doing so here. We're dealing with a long history of problematic behaviour in this case, and also the behaviour of someone who, as a then-administrator, should have known better.  I take particular note of the comments of Deacon and Charles Matthews, which I find persuasive.  I do not agree with Carch's comments that this amendment request should be rejected purely because a different amendment was recently accepted. Steve Smith (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Recused on EEML. Shell  babelfish 19:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposed premature. and per steve. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with my colleagues who feel this is premature, particularly Steve Smith. Risker (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Recused. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Betacommand 2 (July 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   NW  ( Talk ) at 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :
 * Arbitration Motion affected: Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Restriction #1 of the unban requirements: "[Betacommand] may edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection."


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


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

Amendment 1

 * That restriction #1 is amended to allow Betacommand/Δ to run bots approved by the Bot Approvals Group.

Statement by NuclearWarfare
Bots/Requests for approval/Δbot and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Relaxing or rescinding of community-imposed restrictions on User:Betacommand / Δ has allowed Δ to run a bot for the purposes of clerking WP:SPI. I ask that the Arbitration Committee loosen the restrictions on Δ to allow him to do just that.  NW  ( Talk ) 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Verbal
I strongly oppose this amendment. This user has repeatedly abused the communities trust in the past, including the abuse of sockpuppets, abusive use of bots and automated edits, and abuse directed at other editors. That is why these restrictions were applied. To lift them so that he can run bots on sockpuppet investigation pages is just ridiculous. His resistance at against having his new name and previous name linked shows that he wants to avoid scrutiny of his actions by the community at large, and has put the smallest possible link on his page after being forced. This amendment should not be allowed. Verbal chat  16:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by N419BH
As the person who requested closure of the thread on WP:AN, let me specify that the community consensus appears to be in favor of allowing a SPI clerking bot only. Other bots could be considered in the future.  N419 BH  17:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rocksanddirt
I am uneasy with this. the User in question has shown strong disregard for boundries imposed by the community through whatever means (approved bot tasks, civility to other users, etc.). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno
With respect to User:Cool Hand Luke's concern that this would "open the door to any and all scripts BAG might approve": yes - from the committee's standpoint it would [though any subsequent tasks would need to be conducted with Δbot]; but as only a very specific exception to the community-imposed restrictions has been created, BAG will need to seek community support in a similar manner prior to approving any subsequent filings. I believe the reason that Kirill has drafted this amendment widely was so that in case the community does endorse additional tasks, a new amendment would not be required. –xeno talk  16:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @CHL: The exception is as follows - "Notwithstanding prior community-imposed restrictions, is permitted to operate an approved bot for the sole express purpose of clerking WP:SPI and its related pages. The source code of this bot shall be made available to the Bot Approvals Group and any administrator or trusted user who requests it." There doesn't seem to be any room for creative interpretation there, and BAG will not approve any BRFA outside this scope unless the community creates a new exception or relaxes the restrictions they have placed. –xeno  talk  13:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @CHL: I'm not advocating any particular position here: if the committee would prefer to simply open a targeted exception like the community did, that would just mean that any potential future BRFA would have to be vetted by both the community and the committee before BAG would approve it. If that's desirable, then perhaps an alternative motion should be proffered. –xeno talk  18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @CHL: Fair enough (though I still do not think any BAG member would approve a bot outside the scope of the exception without first seeking community approval for another exception. If that needs to be codified in the motion here, by all means...). –xeno talk  18:52, 29 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).


 * Recuse.  NW  ( Talk ) 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If the community and BAG agree that this bot is a good idea, then I don't see any need for us to stand in the way. I'll make the appropriate motions below. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Motion
1) The Arbitration Committee provisions for the unbanning of Betacommand are amended as follows:, now editing as , is authorized to operate a single secondary account, , to carry out certain automated tasks as authorized by the Bot Approvals Group.

''There being 11 arbitrators, not counting two who are inactive and one who is recused, the majority required is 6. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)''


 * Support
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Making it formal. SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 11:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 12:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Second choice. Risker (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Per Verbal, Rocksandirt, and this incident which shows BC hasn't changed at all.  — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 02:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't support this. Given user's history to bend the rules, I would prefer not to open the door to any and all scripts BAG might approve. I can only support if Deltabot is specifically limited to the task of SPI clerking, which N419BH not unreasonably found "consensus" for on AN. Additional tasks should be forbidden until BAG and (importantly) the "community" lend their support. Consider this a one account and one task trial run. Cool Hand Luke 15:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Xeno: I agree with your read that the community restrictions were narrowly excepted for this one task, but I don't think this is enough assurance that Delta will not wikilawyer his way into additional bot tasks. User has a long history of bending rules, and has done so quite recently in his rights transfer/rename request (see Randy's link above). At minimum, I would want a restatement that the community ban has only been lifted for this one specific task and that further tasks must go to AN as well as BAG. Cool Hand Luke 16:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Xeno: this is the same user who has violated (and been aided in violating) all manner of restrictions. I see absolutely no purpose in not making our intent crystal clear, and you have offered no argument against such clarity. If what you are saying is true, some explicit language on this point is at worst redundant. Cool Hand Luke 17:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Xeno: I'm not advocating a position on that either. It may or may not be sensible to require that further bots are rubber-stamped by ArbCom. I just want it unambiguously written here that he must have approval from both BAG and AN. This proposal, which only mentions the former, is unacceptable to me given the extensive history of bending rules and asking mother when turned down by father. Cool Hand Luke 18:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On reflexion, I'd prefer a gradual step-by-step return to full bot operation and would therefore support initially bot use directly related to SPI clerking only, with further requests per CHL as and when. This approach worked well enough for this user's return to editing.  Roger Davies  talk 16:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternative posted below.  Roger Davies  talk 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Recuse
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For this motion, there are 13 active Arbitrators (minus 1 who are recused), so 7 votes are a majority. 1.1) The Arbitration Committee provisions for the unbanning of Betacommand are amended as follows:, now editing as , is authorized to operate a single secondary account, , only to perform automated tasks directly related to the clerking of sockpuppet investigations only as specified and authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. Any other use of the bot, broadly interpreted, must be specifically authorized in advance by BAG and endorsed by ArbCom.
 * Alternative motion
 * Enacted at 07:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support
 * More restrictive alternative to existing motion.  Roger Davies  talk 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to ease back into things in this area. KnightLago (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider this a trial run. I would likely rubber-stamp future requests if and only if community input remains supportive, and I imagine we will eventually discard this requirement altogether. One step at a time though. Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2nd choice SirFozzie (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First choice. Risker (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First choice. Shell  babelfish 02:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Second choice; I'm not entirely comfortable with the use of a procedural restriction on usernames to enforce a broader sanction. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Given this incident was only two weeks ago and is yet another in BC's long record of wikilawyering and going to mom to get what he couldn't get from dad, and as CHL says, has violated (and been aided in violating) all manner of restrictions, BC is not ready for relaxed restrictions.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Recuse
 * Carcharoth (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European mailing list (5) (August 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK at''' 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 11A)

At alternate case, but proposed as impacted:
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * (initiator)
 * (initiator)
 * (initiator)
 * (initiator)
 * (initiator)
 * (initiator)
 * (initiator)
 * (initiator)
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Biruitorul
 * Dc76
 * Digwuren
 * jacurek
 * Martintg
 * Miacek
 * Piotrus
 * Radeksz
 * Tymek
 * Russavia

Amendment 1

 * [Remedy 11A) Editors restricted]


 * 1) Request to limit term of interaction bans.
 * 2) * This is a request to limit the interaction ban 11A) to be minimally co-terminus with remaining remedies in effect.
 * 3) * This is a request to limit an associated reciprocal interaction ban at another case to be minimally co-terminus with EEML remedy 11A)
 * 4) * This is a request (additional) to lift the interaction ban to which an editor is subject once all other remedies to which the editor is subject under the EEML case are satisfied (expire) or are lifted.
 * 5) This is a request to modify the interaction ban to promote positive community interaction within the confines of any other remedies in effect.
 * 6) * As pertains to this case.
 * 7) * As pertains to an associated reciprocal interaction ban at another case

Stated as a single amendment because request is for Remedy 11A) to be reworded to address outstanding and inter-related concerns. One inclusive proposal is provided.

Amendment 1, revised/consolidated
Regarding the reciprocal interaction bans, EEML <-> Russavia, all editors so sanctioned may nevertheless comment positively on other editors in the third person. Any individual EEML editor and Russavia may appeal jointly to lift their interpersonal interactivity ban should they both desire to do so, committing to uphold Wikipedia's standards of conduct. The bans on unnecessary commentary and interaction otherwise remain in effect.

Per feedback below on clarity and comments I have received here and elsewhere. I believe this would build a bridge toward a more collegial environment. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba
Over a week has passed and this contribution by Russavia has not garnered a response. I commend Russavia for their positive comments regarding Miacek; nevertheless, statements such as (my emphasis): are both combative and an inappropriate re-litigation of EEML. I interpret Russavia's comments and the lack of any reprimand as proof that the current interaction ban structure is not working.
 * "although I am under a ban from commenting on EEML members, I don't really care"
 * "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"
 * "rather than the propaganda pushing that the EEML partook in"
 * "you [Miacek] were never part of the harrassment against myself"

Accordingly, I am proposing changes to interaction bans currently in effect in order to facilitate uniform enforcement while also promoting positive community conduct.


 * I believe #1 above is self-explanatory. In particular, the interaction bans (at EEML and Russavia's reciprocal subsequent) expiring also addresses problems regarding their interpretation and potential restrictions on the activities of editors even after all other remedies are satisfied. As currently worded, the interaction ban can be strictly interpreted as allowing only for necessary disputes, banning other interaction on any article, talk page, or user talk page; that is, once my topic ban expires, I can't edit any article requiring interaction with Russavia, which is equivalent to a topic ban covering any article Russavia chooses to edit. Hopefully unintended, as discussing article content would be a necessary action, but, again, a possible interpretation as there is no differentiating positive and not so positive interaction and no specific mention of what is, in fact, allowed outside the conflict venue.


 * I believe #2 reflects both feedback I received when (nevertheless, still) blocked for supporting lifting Russavia's ban as well as the lack of action regarding Russavia's (positive) comments regarding the lifting of Miacek's ban. If relationships among editors are to improve, there should be a venue for that before resumption of full activity in the field of prior conflict. Specifically I am proposing the following as the amended remedy (per #1 and #2):


 * 11A) The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on accusing or unnecessarily interacting with confronting Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. Positive and constructive interactions which do not violate other remedies in effect are exempt and encouraged. This remedy expires for all editors sanctioned under EEML at the satisfaction (expiration) of all other EEML remedies with explicit terms of duration. This remedy expires for specific editors if all other EEML remedies with explicit terms of duration regarding said editor have been satisfied or lifted. 
 * Responding to Martintg, I suggest the interaction ban stay in place until all term remedies expire. That could be two years (based on Digwuren's ban and then topic ban. It can always be shortened. P ЄTЄRS  J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 21:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I trust this proposed amendment is viewed as moving us forward. If so, the updated wording needs to be applied to amend Russavia's interaction ban as well.

Lastly, I have not reported the offending portion of Russavia's violation of their interaction ban because I hoped we were done with EEML.


 * @Shell, I'm not here to re-litigate EEML or to be the keeper or policeman of anyone who has cast my on-Wiki activities as being less than honorable. Old Latvian saying from my now dear and departed mother, when you stomp on shit it only spreads and stinks. I see Russavia has reported themselves at enforcement. That is either noble or cynical, but any block will (IMHO) increase their sense of martyrdom at my hands rather than engender any improvement in attitude. I'm the one suffering a topic ban for a year for (as I explained at the proceedings) participating in a consensus-related discussion at worst three times that I had not already found and contributed (and I would have found them); and the finding that I canvassed was a grossly bad-faith interpretation of my absconded personal correspondence. I've accepted the punishment despite that nothing I said mattered. I should have asked for the IP logs to exonerate myself instead of thinking ArbCom would accept my explanation of bulk-reading my Email. Water under the bridge. That's how WP works. Time to move on.
 * My hope was to open just a small window for positive communications. That would have allowed Russavia to say something nice about Miacek without feeling the need to editorialize on his interaction ban leading to editorializing regarding his (unsubstantiated) victimology in what (IMHO) was an inevitable chain reaction. Reporting Russavia would just be treating him the way he has treated me. I had no desire to take that route. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 19:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Following on to feedback at my talk... I think there are two categories of communication to consider, first where one can comment positively on an editor in the third person, the second which involves personal interaction. I think it is worthwhile to promote the former so that when it does come time for the latter—and that can be by mutual consent if otherwise under restriction—that can stand a better chance of moving past prior conflicts. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 20:59, 22 July 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.}


 * Comment. While there may or may not be some merit in tweaking the wording, lifting the interaction bans concurrently with any relaxation of any topic ban is too early. I'm happy with the current interaction bans as they stand, as it helps to settle things down and provide clear air. --Martin (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken. How do you feel about the first part, that is, allowing for positive interaction if not otherwise restricted by topic ban? As for lifting, I would accept a statement which indicates the term of the interaction ban will be reviewed at a given point. I'd still like clarification whether normal interaction on content at an article (once there is no topic ban in effect) is explicitly permitted. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 21:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The interaction ban ought to be lifted on a case by case basis. If two people want to let bygones be bygones and collaborate such as here, then that's perfectly okay, the interaction ban should be relaxed in that specific instance. In such cases a joint declaration from the two parties of their desire to work together should be sufficient to lift the interaction ban in that specific instance and the case log be appropriately annotated. If the wording of the remedy was tweeked to allow such a fast track method of appeal, that's okay with me. --Martin (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO lifting the interaction ban would be premature, although I would certainly support clarification that it is inapplicable whenever there is mutual consent to interaction, as is apparently the case with Miacek. Nobody is going to enforce the ban in such cases anyway. Nevertheless although I am under a ban from commenting on EEML members, I don't really care, 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, rather than the propaganda pushing that the EEML partook in and the like are inappropriate for a good reason, and should remain so. Colchicum (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculous WP:Drama. Russavia tells that he is not going to abide his interaction ban, just a week after coming back from his block for violating the ban . Vecrumba reacts by filing this amendment. Russavia posts an AE statement, then tells he did it by mistake instead of his userspace . People, that's disruptive. If anything, it proves that interaction bans were a good decision and must be strictly enforced. Biophys (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re to Vecrumba. "Breaking ice" is easy. As soon as your topic ban expire or lifted, go to the subjects that Russavia edits and edit them in the way he likes. Debate the improvement of content and agree with him. Then, your request to amend the interaction ban would be very much reasonable.Biophys (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I had two choices. One was to report Russavia as if I'm their policeman, the way they reported me for violating my ban at "Aspic" for example. The other was to find a way to move on as plenty of admins took notice of Russavia's comments, after all, Miacek's appeal was granted, and did absolutely nothing. Since the administrative system is broken, it's up to editors to find ways to break the ice to put past conflicts behind us as the administrative folk aren't going to be of much assistance, IMHO. If this results in drama, things are worse than I thought because it means that after serving more than half my ban, I can't look forward to anything having improved when I return to EE topics. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 02:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s. I always took pride that in all my years of experience I had managed to never do an ANI or AE except twice, once to ask that Irpen receive some advice (explicitly stating I wasn't looking for a ban or block) and once at Russavia's meltdown at Soviet Story. I don't intend to stoop to the endless sniping being fed by the endless well of WP bad faith. The day I think WP can't be improved, that we can't all be better, I'm leaving. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 02:23, 24 July 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).

Per direction of Rlevse, I am closing this amendment request as "no action taken".  NW  ( Talk ) 03:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recused. Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm recused on part of this, but as an aside, if you see a violation like that please report it rather than waiting for someone to notice and do something. With hundreds of different restrictions in place and the sheer volume of edits to Arb related pages, it's always possible something will get missed. Shell   babelfish 11:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Recused.  Roger Davies  talk 12:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to too vague and confusing.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus emerging for this change at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User:Betacommand (August 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno talk  at 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Statement by Xeno
I have recently marked "resolved" a thread at the bureaucrats' noticeboard (perm). However, lingering questions remain.

Betacommand was denied a rename-via-usurp to Δ by bureaucrats in 2007. In 2008, he was community banned indefinitely. In July 2009, he was provisionally unbanned by the Arbitration Committee, with terms. Terms 1 (edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection) and 3 (agree (i) to a civility restriction and (ii) to not engage in any form of wikilawyering, broadly interpreted) do not appear to have an expiration date (when compared to terms 2 and 4, which did).

Betacommand again sought the usurpation of the Δ username on or about 25 June 2010 (via IRC), which was performed by User:Deskana on 25 June, who later commented with respect to the off-wiki handling of the request. His comments indicate that Betacommand did not remind Deskana of the previously denied request.

Betacommand begin editing as on 11 July (when terms 2 and 4 of the provisional unban had lapsed). He made a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard to move his userrights from User:Betacommand to the new account at 21:49, 11 July 2010, suggesting he was "no longer under any restrictions". While none of the rights required bureaucratic intervention, I believe he made the request to have some form of bureaucratic approval of the de facto "rename". Discussion ensued, and several users (including bureaucrats) expressed concerns.

At some point, Betacommand made an off-wiki request to bureaucrat to transfer the userrights, which was done at 04:19, 12 July 2010. X! later commented after concerns were raised. His comments indicate that Betacommand did not inform X! of the ongoing noticeboard thread.

As I see it, the questions before the committee are:


 * 1) Were terms 1 and 3 of the provisional unban time-limited?
 * 2) If not, does Betacommand's abandoning of the account in favour of  present an issue (in particular for term 1)?
 * 3) Does the fact that Betacommand made requests off-wiki that had already been denied on wiki, or were still under discussion, present cause for concern?
 * 4) Is Betacommand presently under any restrictions (imposed by the Arbitration Committee or the community, see in particular the listing at Editing restrictions)?
 * 5) Does his abandoning of his original account in favour of this new account present cause for concern (especially given that the contributions and relevant logs have not been transferred)?

@Jack, Yes - had this request come via the usual means, the committee would've likely been at least pinged. As it is, the process is running backwards. The suggestion from another user below that this was brought to 'badger' is unfounded and unnecessary. The concerns being raised at BN were largely out of the bureaucrat's jurisdiction, this is why the matter was brought here. Personally, I think the rename should be allowed (though it would've been wiser to make the request through on-wiki channels), but feel the ambiguities need to be resolved as well. –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno talk  02:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Response

@Kirill, Thank you for the swift response - this resolves the questions. It should be noted that Δ has a pending request for bot approval, so #1 will (at some point) need to be amended to allow editing using approved bots. –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno talk  03:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Kirill says below that the provisions of Betacommand 2 are still in effect: but would this statement apply to the Community-imposed restrictions section at the bottom? I'd guess that those were probably "washed out" by the community ban and subsequent ArbCom suspension of the same, but a BAG member has requested clarification and noted that this and provision #1 as noted above at 03:40 is the only thing they can see holding up approval of the bot task (a fairly low-key task clerking an administrative page). –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno talk  16:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC) clarified at 16:28, 21 July 2010
 * Regarding Bots/Requests for approval/Δbot


 * FYI: Administrators' noticeboard. –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno talk  13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to Newyorkbrad's question: Yes, I think everything requiring clarification or amendment has been addressed. Thanks, –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno talk  21:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolved

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft
Even if it was a restriction without a one year time limit, he hasn't violated it. He's still continued to edit under one username. There is no policy preventing a person from abandoning one account in favor of another. His last edit as Betacommand was 20:56, 11 July 2010. His first edit as Δ was 21:44, 11 July 2010. There is no crossover, no editing as two accounts. With respect to the denial of the change three years earlier, consensus can change. Even if all the restrictions were in place even now, the restrictions do not prohibit him from starting a new account and abandoning his old. This filing is badgering of this editor. This editor is trying to make a clean start, and is even trying to stay away from prior trouble areas post the expiration of his editing restrictions. Assume some good faith and give him a chance. Nothing nefarious is happening here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Jack Merridew
Compare with my case; I am specifically restricted to editing with this specific user name; Betacommand would seem to be simply restricted to not using multiple accounts, i.e. the bot account. There's a connection via the old name's deletion and renaming logs, so there seems to be no real issue here, other than a clarification that it's ok. Am I missing something? FWIW, I think seeking this clarification is a good thing, and that it would probably have been the best route to have taken earlier this month. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Anomie
Kirill, there is some ambiguity regarding whether "the provisions of the Betacommand 2 case are technically in effect" includes the community-imposed restrictions or only the ArbCom remedies. Anomie⚔ 16:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Re xeno: It's not the only thing, there is also the need for Δ to have the unban provision #1 amended to allow for a bot account. Anomie⚔ 16:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Kirill: Thank you. Anomie⚔ 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Δ: That is the second of the 4 terms ArbCom presented you with. But even though that term has expired, term #1 ("You edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection") still prohibits your using more than one account. So yes, now that term #2 is expired you may operate bots or run automated scripts of whatever nature, but since term #1 is still in force you must do that under only one username which unfortunately means you still can't run a bot because you cannot run it under the bot account. And there are also the separate community-imposed restrictions, which require you review and approve each and every individual edit the bot would make (which really makes it script-assisted editing rather than a bot). Anomie⚔ 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Betacommand
"For one year, you are (i) topic-banned from any non-free-content-related work and related talk pages; (ii) subject to a 0RR restriction on any free-content-image-related work and related talk pages; (iii) prohibited from operating bots or running automated scripts of whatever nature; (iv) prohibited from inducing or attempting to induce others to operate bots or run automated scripts; and (v) subject to an editing throttle of a maximum of four edits every ten minutes (excludes reversion of blatant vandalism). After six months, you may apply to ArbCom for a review of the terms of this condition."

Given the phrasing of ArbCom's statement, I read it as that after one year I am (i) able to comment/edit non-free related material. (iii) Allowed to run bots, and use automated/simi auto tools. (iv) allowed to give more input in BRFA/bot related issues (v) No longer have an edit throttle. ΔT The only constant 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
The Committee's restrictions run concurrently to those imposed by the community, but they are distinct (separate). The exception to this rule is where the Committee explicitly lifts or supersedes a community restriction, or in a practical sense, where the community does not recognise (aka refuses to enforce) a Committee restriction; such situations only should arise in exceptional circumstances. In this case, there was no exception to the rule, so the community restrictions remain in force (until they are explicitly lifted or superseded by the community or the Committee). And for this purpose, in the absence of appropriate notice to either or both AN/ANI, as well as notifications to the users who commented in the original sanction discussion, a discussion at BAG would not constitute a community consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Recused  MBisanz  talk 03:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion
Responding to Xeno's questions in order: Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) To the best of my knowledge, provisions 1 and 3 were intended to be of indefinite duration, and were communicated to Betacommand as such.
 * 2) The rename itself is not a violation of provision 1 per se, since the provision does not require either (a) retaining the current username or (b) informing the Committee prior to changing it.
 * 3) This may potentially be a cause for concern, but I don't see it as a matter for the Committee at this stage; it's something that ought to be brought up in a user conduct RFC or a similar venue first.
 * 4) As previously noted, provisions 1 and 3 of the unban conditions remain in force.  In addition to those, the provisions of the Betacommand 2 case are technically in effect, but are of limited relevance given that Betacommand is no longer operating a bot account.
 * 5) As in #3, this may potentially be a cause for concern on some level, but is not a violation of the restrictions imposed on him, and should be discussed by the community first.


 * In response to the followup questions regarding the community restrictions: I don't believe that there's any real precedent for a situation of this sort, but my feeling is that such community restrictions remain in effect until they are explicitly rescinded by either the community or the Committee. Since Betacommand's appeal to the Committee concerned only his ban, not any additional restrictions ("The Arbitration Committee has decided that the community ban... be provisionally suspended"), I would say that the other restrictions are still in place, and would thus prohibit the operation of a bot unless the community considers the discussion at BAG in and of itself as indicating sufficient consensus for lifting them. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to chime in here, I think Kirill got all of that exactly right. Shell  babelfish 11:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While this request was pending, the committee adopted a new motion/amendment concerning Delta/Betacommand. Does this, coupled with Kirill's post, resolve all or most of this request for clarification? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In view of Xeno's response to my question, I think this can now be closed and archived. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerks please close.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light (August 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   Sandstein   at 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (notification)
 * (notification)
 * Possibly the contributors to WP:AE (notification on that board)

Statement by Sandstein
I request clarification about whether the sanction Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light has expired.

The motion of 20:37, 29 March 2010 recorded at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light reads in relevant part:
 * "The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes."

It is not clear whether sanction 3, entitled "Brews ohare restricted" is part of the "supplementary restrictions" that the motion refers to, because it is not listed in the "(namely ...)" part of the motion and, in the list of sanctions on the case page, it is not followed by the comment "Modified by motions below" as is sanction 4.2, entitled "Brews ohare topic banned".

The question is relevant because I have just been enforcing sanction 3, following an enforcement request at WP:AE. It has subsequently been argued on my talk page that sanction 3 has expired. Should that turn out to be the case, my enforcement action was in error, but in this case I ask the Committee to consider reinstating the sanction by motion because, as the enforcement request shows, it appears to continue to be necessary.

I would also appreciate it if the Committee would consider establishing a process to ensure that arbitration case pages always unambiguously reflect any change in status of the decisions without much need for interpretation.  Sandstein  07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, thanks for the advice concerning page updates. You appear to be under the impression that I reinstated the full topic ban as a discretionary sanction. I did not – I only imposed a ban from the article Speed of light and its talk page.  Sandstein   09:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Concerning expiration dates, I recall a previous request for clarification (can't find the link now, sorry) in which most arbitrators appeared to be of the view (contrary to my own opinion then) that discretionary sanctions could extend in time beyond the duration of the remedy under which they were imposed. I'd of course not otherwise have imposed a ban lasting longer than 20 October. May I ask the Committee to clarify this "question of law" one way or the other and preferably codify it in some arbitration policy or guideline page?  Sandstein   06:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Brews_ohare
The motion was this. It refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.

This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.

This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked.

I would raise the following points:
 * Although the restriction does not contain wording limiting the nature of sanctions to be imposed, I would take it as implied that any such sanctions are to run co-extensively with the authorizing motion; that is, until October 20, not indefinitely. Sandstein has exceeded the authority granted by this remedy. To extend a sanction beyond the time of the authorizing restriction itself requires a full arbcom hearing.
 * I was not, IMO, properly advised that such action was going to be taken. I believe that claims by Blackburne that I was warned that arbcom action would be taken are erroneous.
 * I immediately desisted when advised that arbcom was to become involved. Brews ohare (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment upon this proceeding: The basic question here as to whether “sanctions cannot run past the expiry date of the restriction” is a general technical point, and its accidental origination in my particular case really has little bearing upon the broad issues at stake. I believe the morphing of this clarification proceeding to become in effect a hearing on my appeal is (i) a distortion of what the clarification should be about, and (ii) an invalid hearing of my appeal in a restricted context where all the issues pertinent to a decision cannot be raised. Brews ohare (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by JohnBlackburne
To clarify I did not claim that the previous warnings were about ArbCom. I simply wrote "He has been warned before" with diffs, so editors could make up their own minds about the relevance of them.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hell in a Bucket
keeping this short...typing one handed is a bitch. 8-) I am not advocating for brews specifically, I'm more concerned with arb enforcement w/o specific authorization. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I find this inherently interesting. Jehochman is calling foul because i started a advocacy restriction against him and others and didn't notify him. My question is where is our notification he wanted to impose community restrictions? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
Flagging this prior clarification for attention as it is of some relevance to sanctions, expiration dates, reset sanctions, and additional sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman's
Brews has gone back to purposefully disrupting the speed of light article by repeatedly advancing fringe theory and original research. Why must you torture our editors by subjecting them to this repeated punishment. Brews doesn't get it, and will never get it, no matter how much you wish he would. Please, would you finally deal with this problem: ban Brews from making any edits related to the speed of light or definition of the length of the meter. This ban needs to be permanent. Jehochman Talk 11:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Would somebody please address this. The advocacy restrictions on Count Iblis and Hell in a bucket were allowed to expires.  These accounts are now running cover for Brews disruptive editing.  The situation is abominable because you folks have abdicated your responsibilities.  Please take a look at the current discussion on User talk: Brews ohare and WP:AN/I.  Jehochman Talk 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Steve Smith: Wikipedia is not a popularity contest to see who has the most friends to support their position. The AN/I thread has thin participation from uninvolved editors.  Please look at the behavior patterns that have largely reverted to the pre-arbitration state.  What's the point of arbitration if editors just go back to their old, improper ways? Do you think that AN/I is acceptable behavior?  It is transparently retaliatory. The subjects of the ban proposal were not even notified of the discussion. And since when do we ban editors (without any prior warning) from participating in arbitration?  How can you turn a blind eye to this? Jehochman Talk 08:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Question from the puzzled Angus McLellan
I don't understand Carcharoth's position, or Sandstein's proposal. Brews had a topic ban and, in best Bourbon manner, forgot nothing and learned nothing. So why give him another topic ban, whether that's the original one until October, or a narrower one indefinitely? The expired topic ban was his last chance to learn and he didn't take it. So why wait until he doesn't learn from another last chance? An indefinite block is the only solution here since Brews isn't interested in changing his behaviour. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Protonk
The RFAR resulted in a strict topic ban and an advocacy ban. The former was whittled down by arbcom I presume out of their belief that they had unfairly classified Brews due to the actions of David Tombe. The lapsing of that topic ban resulted in Brews immediately reviving his past behavior on Talk:Speed of Light, which produced a discretionary topic ban from Sandstein. That ban in place the same behaviors were started up in other (closely related) physics articles. When an admin moved in to stop Brews, those editors formerly restricted from advocating on his behalf did so strenuously and simultaneously (though I don't think they were acting in concert). With respect to arbcom, it wastes the time of the admin corps when old cases are re-litigated needlessly. Whatever the motivation of arbcom to relax Brews' topic ban, the proper thing to do is to re-instate it (and not leave it reinstated as an AE action) and expand it to related articles. Protonk (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Count Iblis
Jehochman intervened to stop Brews on an alleged OR issue as discussed here on AN/I. Jehochman being an experienced Admin can, I'm sure, filter out the sniping on the AN/I thread, take my own comments with a pinch of salt as I started the thread, and then focus his attention on the comments by experienced uninvolved editors who make relevant comments on this issue like e.g. Awickert and Holmansf.

As I explain here, involved Admins are actually better qualified than univolved Admins to judge cases like this. I know that this sounds crazy, but take the time to read my arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * First up, I would encourage Sandstein (as someone active in arbitration enforcement) to approach the clerks and sort out a good way of making sure that it is clear what is in force or not following an amendment. The topic ban does have the phrase appended in italics Modified by motions below 02:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC), but there are other, possibly clearer options, such as collapsing old text to avoid it being unintentionally read as still in force (in passing, the previous confusion caused at the date-delinking case is still there, so you could raise that as well). I suggest going to the clerks noticeboard to raise these issues, especially the one of how to deal with time-delayed expirations (it is not normal to expect case pages to be modified every time a sanction expires, but maybe it is needed in some cases). Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving on to the issue that needs clarification, I support the reinstatement of the topic ban and agree that the general probation (which was still in force) gives some authority to take this step, but I think that an indefinite topic ban requires a new ArbCom motion, and that any arbitration enforcement action should only extend to reinstating previous sanctions, not extending them (or, at most, resetting them to a length not greater than the original sanction). Accordingly, I would suggest reimposing the topic ban until 20 October 2010, and also reactivating the exceptions (numbers 1 and 2) that allow participation in featured article candidacy discussions solely in order to discuss images and to edit said images. I would also suggest that if the topic ban expires or is lifted at some point, that Brews Ohare realise that he needs to change his approach to such articles and to write down how he will change his approach, and if he cannot change his approach, to avoid such articles otherwise he will end up indefinitely topic banned. And to clarify a few other points, I view remedy 3 (the general probation) as still in force, and I believe the wording of the motion referring to "supplementary restrictions" referred to the 24 November 2009 restrictions imposed by Tznkai and logged at the case page in the logs section. Finally, I agree that the actual expiration of the topic ban should have been logged at the case pages at or soon after the point it expired. Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein: sorry, I misread remedy 4.2. In effect you have narrowed the scope (from all physics pages to just 'speed of light') and extended the timescale to indefinite. I am still wary, however, of new sanctions imposed at arbitration enforcement extending beyond the date when the initial sanctions would have normally expired (20 October 2010, in this case). My feeling is that if an administrator thinks sanctions need to be extended in time or extended in scope, that needs to come to ArbCom for clarification or amendment. The exception would be things like resetting sanctions following evasion, or following a set series of escalating sanctions set out in enforcement provisions. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been noted above, the general restriction on Brews remains in place until 20 October. I do not believe that any sanctions placed under the guise of arbitration enforcement can extend beyond that point without additional arbitration committee involvement. Steve Smith (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My view remains that arbitration enforcement actions cannot extend beyond the expiration of underlying remedies. If you can dig up the clarification request that concluded the opposite, I may reconsider in the interests of consistency and predictability, but right now I see no reason to do so. Steve Smith (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not longer clear on what clarification question is being asked here. Initially, it appeared to be on the technical propriety (not the merits) of Sandstein's actions, but that question has been asked and answered.  If this is now an appeal of the merits of an enforcement action, it should be re-framed as such (and not on the request for clarification page).  In direct response to Jehochman's most recent comments, the restrictions on Hell in a Bucket et al were extraordinary (and, so far as I am aware, unprecedented).  The concern was that these users were causing a dispute to flare up where, were it not for their involvement, it would burn quietly out.  The case now is that they are participating in a live dispute (live due other than to their own actions).  While it may be annoying that these users are now bringing these matters to ANI, arbitrators' talk pages, or wherever else, it's not fundamentally any different from what happens all the time in all sorts of polarizing disputes, and I cannot agree that by allowing it we have abdicated our responsibility. Steve Smith (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The procedural matter here is somewhat curious. To the best of my recollection, the Speed of light case is the only instance in which the Committee imposed a general probation with a specified ending date; general probations imposed in other cases have normally been of indefinite duration.  (Borrowing of terminology from topic-level discretionary sanctions, rather than using the traditional wording for probations, adds to the confusion, in my view; but that's tangential to the main point here.)  My inclination with the old variant of probation—which was limited to page bans specifically, rather than any imaginable sanction—would be to allow the bans to remain in place beyond the expiration of the period for making them, since there would be no reason to assume that an editor would necessarily be ready to return to a page merely because the original remedy had lapsed.  However, I'm not quite convinced this is a particularly good approach when the remedy authorizes the full range of available sanctions rather than merely page bans.  The best solution, however, would be to avoid crafting remedies in a way that causes this sort of thing; thus, the motion below. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Motion
1) Remedy #3 ("Brews ohare restricted") of the Speed of light case is replaced with the following:"is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on him if, despite being warned, he repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Actions taken under this provision are subject to the relevant rules and procedures for standard discretionary sanctions."


 * Support
 * The easiest way to avoid the procedural uncertainty here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Un-gameable, and easily enforced. I see things in this area backsliding to what they were before (which caused sanctions to be mooted against both Brews and some of his supporters), and I am not really wanting to go through that whole thing again. SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I don't see it as helpful to increase sanctions' severity to make them easier interpretatively. We don't do due process, of course, but this offends something. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding to that, the stuff that's going on now at ANI and elsewhere does not strike me as a ringing endorsement of the existing general restriction; I don't see extending it as self-evidently useful. Steve Smith (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Abstain

Request to amend prior case: Everyking 3 (August 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Scott Mac at 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy "Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner" (as amended)


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


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

Amendment 1

 * "Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Wikipedia for a length of one year. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. The duration of this remedy is to be reset following an unsuccessful appeal of this restriction."


 * I wish to suggest that the above restriction, which has only recently lapsed, be extended indefinitely, to read:
 * "Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer. Should he violate the letter, or spirit, of this remedy he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. This remedy shall be indefinite, and without further appeal." 

Statement by Scott MacDonald
Comments removed.

Given this, I am happy to withdraw this application. That Everyking has realised the unwisdom of pursuing this in any forum, renders it moot. There's no need to rub salt in. He's done the right thing.--Scott Mac 07:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Everyking
For me, the restriction is effectively indefinite, because for obvious reasons it would be deeply unwise for me to ever get into any kind of tangle with Phil Sandifer again. I regard the expiry of the restriction as merely a symbolic victory that restores me to the status of an editor in good standing. And I don't believe the ArbCom would claim to have jurisdiction over off-wiki remarks. Everyking (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to Scott, I believe in following the civility policy and treating other editors with respect here on-wiki, so I'm not going to participate in some kind of exchange of insults with him. Everyking (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Phil: it might not have occurred to him that, having been under a restriction for the previous five years, I haven't really had the opportunity to "get over it". He was never put under any comparable restriction, so it might be hard for him to relate to the feeling of being aggrieved for five years and then finally being released and having a moment of off-wiki gloating over it. I don't really know what to say to the rest of Phil's statement. Perhaps it would put his mind at ease if I reassured him, once again, that I really do not want anything whatsoever to do with him? Everyking (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be more appropriate to restrict Phil Sandifer from talking about me? I have never used this level of invective in talking about him, or anyone else, on-wiki or off. Compared to the severity of these personal attacks, my off-wiki gloating that stirred all this up seems entirely unworthy of notice.


 * For the record: I have never "stalked" Phil Sandifer. I have never done anything more than make sporadic snide comments about him&mdash;initially (in 2005) because I was concerned about his use of admin powers, later (since then) because I was frustrated and annoyed by being continually subjected to a restriction that seemed senseless to me. Even given the history of bad feeling between us, it is rather shocking to see someone distort and misrepresent events so egregiously, portraying some online criticism and jokes made in an entirely harmless context as dangerous stalking. Everyking (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Brad: I have said for years that there is no purpose in any interaction between Phil and I, because for reasons of history and personality it is quite unlikely that anything productive could ever come of it. In that sense, the restriction was always perfectly reasonable. My objection was centered on the one-sided nature of the restriction, which I felt acted as a unjustified smear on my work and reputation on this website, as it implied that I was at fault and Phil needed protection. Some people see that five years has passed and wonder why it would still be an issue, but to me, it was an issue every single day up until 15 August 2010, because I had that smear attached to my account for the entire time. Phil's memory has dimmed more than mine because he's had little reason to think about this stuff over the last five years, but the restriction gave me plenty of reason to continue thinking about it.

I'm perfectly happy to make a pledge that I will not discuss Phil Sandifer here on Wikipedia (I've already pledged that many times, and stuck to it, but I will make the pledge again, for the record), and I will also pledge to refrain from discussing him on other websites. I would like it very much if he would make the same pledge with regard to myself. I would also like it if some of Phil's comments are redacted when this request is archived, for obvious reasons. Everyking (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Phil Sandifer
Amusingly, had this case not been filed I'd have had no idea Everyking was back at it.

In any case, the history here is relevant. Everyking's treatment of me was, I believe, one of the Arbcom's first cases of wikistalking. His stalking of me was particularly pernicious, and its spilling over onto WR is, to my mind, relevant, as he was part of the echo chamber there that helped escalate someone into getting me harassed by the police. I don't feel like digging back through the quotes there, but he had a quote along the lines of me being a sick and depraved individual. Someone else speculated that it would be easy to force me out of my PhD program. And the thread eventually turned into someone calling the police in my town in a deliberate attempt to get me harassed by them.

That was four years ago. I've had no contact with Everyking since then, and apparently his obsession with me is undimmed. Which, again, I wouldn't have known were it not for this - because the correct thing to do with a dangerous stalker is avoid them. Well, after seeking a restraining order, which, to be fair, I'll do if anything involving him crosses into the real world again. The one-sidedness of this needs to be stressed - other than the fact that it involved Ashley Simpson, I have no memory of what I did to offend Everyking, and I'm fairly sure whatever it was happened five or more years ago. Prior to today, I have not thought about Everyking in ages. He mostly comes up, in my mind, when for some reason I am thinking about Ashley Simpson's "Yeah Yeah," the only song of hers I remember, and I remember Everyking, that loon on Wikipedia.

Everyking's memories of long-ago perceived slights seems to outdo my own.

In any case, the purpose of the communication restriction on Everyking was always simple - Everyking's presence makes Wikipedia no longer a safe space for me. One should not have to choose between personal safety and editing Wikipedia. It is clear from his behavior that engagement with Everyking endangers my personal safety. To be honest, I am afraid of him. Because being afraid of someone who still stalks your Twitter and insults your teeth (WTF?) after five years of minimal contact with you is a sensible thing to do.

Not that I'm a terribly active editor at this point. But the job of the arbcom does include protecting editors and maintaining a safe space. Everyking is apparently a threat to that. Certainly seeing his recent behavior makes me disinclined to edit at all on Wikipedia knowing that doing so is inviting contact with a stalker. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the question of jurisdiction, although it is clear that the Arbcom has no jurisdiction as such over WR, that seems to me to merely be a statement of plain fact - the arbcom cannot prevent actions on WR. On the other hand, the arbcom has acted to impose on-wiki sanctions for off-wiki behavior in the past - indeed, if I recall, Everyking lost administrator status for comments on WR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "I have no interest in you, I just still read your Twitter five years after my last contact with you and insult you on random messageboards" seems a strong contender for least sincere sentiment ever. If Everyking truly had no desire to have anything to do with me, he wouldn't have gone looking on social networking sites to see if I have a presence on them.


 * I mean, let me boil this down. Everyking is an obsessed stalker who has continued to criticize and rail against me based on a handful of interactions all five years or older. He has constructed an elaborate fantasy of my personal life based on shreds of online evidence he has obsessively scavenged for. Despite having never met me and seeing all of two photos of me, he comments elaborately on my weight, dental record, and personal habits. And he has extended this stalking behavior in the past to Wikipedia. What possible reason does the arbcom have to think that, given such a disturbing past record, future behavior is going to change?


 * Everyking's behavior is dangerous. To me. It has been for years. The arbcom has consistently protected me from this behavior on Wikipedia. The restriction was allowed to expire out of a hope that his behavior might have changed in the past five years. He responded to its expiration by firmly demonstrating that his dangerous obsession is undimmed. Any hope that his behavior might have changed is, by any standard of evidence, squashed at this point. If the arbcom intends not to restore the restriction, I would ask them what reassurance they can offer me that editing on Wikipedia is not actively courting interaction with my stalker. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cla68 - I have no problem with that. I already miss the days of not thinking about him. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
It's obvious that EK and Phil don't like each other very much judging from the indirect jabs they both launched at each other in their statements above. So, if the Committee decides to vote on some kind of sanction here, please make it apply to both editors this time, not just one of them. I think that would be better in both the short and long term. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lar
This is a tempest in a teapot. No, in a teacup. No, in a teaspoon. Don't arbitrators have better things to do than write exceedingly long analyses of this minor matter? Focus, people. I'm not without sympathy for Phil Sandifer's situation, but given a choice between personal safety and editing the wiki, the choice is obvious. No, it's not "edit the wiki anyway". ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz
Re. Carcharoth: I think this is a situation where a quick, relatively discreet decision, either way, is more helpful to all involved than a potentially drawn out discussion on public noticeboards. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
I suggest that the Admins and Arbitrators who are active on Wikipedia Review discuss this matter there. Count Iblis (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Scott, we have not traditionally sanctioned individuals merely for comments made at WR, however reprehensible those might be. I'd like to know whether you believe this approach should be altered in the general case; or, if not, why you believe this particular situation warrants an exception from the general rule. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that we do not have jurisdiction over at WR. I consider the comments to be ill-advised, petty, and pretty much think that it proves that the restriction WAS necessary..... I have to say, that EK recognizes the "facts on the ground", so to speak. The facts are that while the restriction itself has expired,that any edits on WP that would violate the restriction if it WAS still in effect would still lead to him being sanctioned harshly. SirFozzie (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll comment later tonight. In the interim, I direct the parties not to post further on-wiki regarding this matter. I also strongly urge them not to comment further in any public forum. Any further communications that are necessary can be sent to us by e-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Every aspect of this matter is dispiriting, in part because it reflects very badly on a long-term contributor, in part because it is creating emotional distress, and in part because it is so needless. When users misbehave in the course of a heated content dispute, we can tell them not to misbehave, but at some level a motive is explicable. Here, I read the Wikipedia Review thread over the past couple of days and I read some of the comments above and I feel nothing but sadness and bewilderment, mixed with a tinge of anger.
 * The committee imposed a series of sanctions on Everyking in a series of cases that took place well before I started editing, much less arbitrating. Soon after I became an arbitrator, Everyking petitioned to lift all those restrictions. My view was that the problems with Everyking's editing that inspired most of the restrictions had been alleviated and that those restrictions were no longer needed&mdash;a conclusion that the rest of the committee also came to, though in some instances more slowly.
 * The exception to my view was the restriction on Everyking's referring on-wiki to Snowspinner (I will refer to the user in question by that former username throughout), which I thought should remain in effect. I based my conclusion largely on a particular remark that Everyking had made about Snowspinner on Wikipedia Review, in a now-infamous thread there that has been referred to above. To be very clear, Everyking did not join in, and in fact commendably sought to discourage, some of the more lurid allegations and speculations that were made in that discussion. But a particular comment of his there crossed the line from off-wiki discussions over which Wikipedia has no jurisdiction, into the type of thing that we do, when left with no choice, have to take into account in our decision-making so as to protect our contributors. Consistent with my past practice, it would serve no useful purpose to further publicize the particular comment, and I would prefer not to do so, though I probably will describe it in some detail if Everyking unwisely continues to poke at the matter. But it was the sort of comment that in my view justified a permanent restriction on Everyking's having anything to do with Snowspinner.
 * Eventually, enough time went by that the committee decided to let this last restriction on Everyking's editing lapse quietly. In the interim, Everyking had made substantial content contributions to Wikipedia, had regained community trust to the point of having passed a new RfA, and was not displaying the behaviors that had led to most of the sanctions originally imposed against him. And also in the interim, Snowspinner, for whatever reason, was spending less time on editing Wikipedia. To the extent that Everyking believed that his criticisms of Snowspinner's editing or administrating in and after 2005 were sound at that time, a matter I have not evaluated and which at this stage would not be of even historical interest, by 2010 they had also long since become utterly moot. Prior to this week, Snowspinner had not made a single edit in three months and had a grand total of one logged administrator action this entire calendar year.
 * For this reason, Everyking's comments about Snowspinner this week on Wikipedia Review, which have been well summarized by others, were even more gratuitously unnecessary and hurtful than might otherwise be the case. I can only agree with those who have categorized these snide and hurtful comments shortly after the restriction expired as the clearest possible vindication of the view that the restriction remained necessary all these years in the first place. The comments also had the predictable effect of upsetting Snowspinner when his attention was called to them, and provoking him in the context of this request to a most unhappy reaction, and arguably something of a rhetorical overreaction (the word "stalker," in particular, should not have been used). In sum, I cannot imagine what possessed Everyking to think that even his initial comments this week, must less the whole succession of comments, was a good or reasonable idea. This episode should be remembered, if at all, as a lesson in the type of conduct that no Wikipedian, and certainly no administrator, should engage in.
 * That being said, I am not sure whether adopting a formal motion at this time is necessary (although if a motion is proposed, I would not support a restriction on Snowspinner, whose only comments were on this very noticeboard after he received what I'm sure was unwelcome news that his name had returned to the arbitration pages). Perhaps we can do without a motion so long as there is an immediate and definitive halt to this situation. Everyking has already stated here that he has no intention of mentioning Snowspinner on Wikipedia again, and I assure him that he will be strictly held to his promise. It would be very, very much for the best if he were to further promise, immediately and definitively, on this page, that he will not refer to Snowspinner again in any public forum, and if he were to keep that promise is well.
 * I respectfully disagree with my colleague's suggestion below that this matter be referred for a community discussion. This request is not suited for a community-based decision for several reasons: first, as Scott MacDonald points out, it would require these two editors to resume sniping at each other in a highly watched public forum; second, the community has no way of evaluating the events of 2005 that are the ultimate background to this episode, some of which are on-wiki in long-forgotten archives and others of which are off-wiki and in some cases non-public or deleted; third, extensive prior discussion will only increase the stress and unhappiness that the entire episode has already caused (to the point that one of the editors is speaking above in terms of restraining orders); and fourth, this matter affecting only these two editors should not become a further burden on the community's time. That being said, if other arbitrators support Carcharoth's approach then my directive that the two editors stop posting can be considered overridden. Or we can simply pass a motion reinstating the prior restriction on Everyking for a further term; Everyking says he has no intention of referring to Snowspinner on-wiki, and if means it the restriction would have little effect (other than the symbolic one about which he has complained for so long, but I fear he has lost any high ground he might ever possibly have had in that regard). But I still think the best answer here may be for Everyking to realize that he has done damage, to sincerely apologize, and then to shut up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In light of Everyking's most recent comment above, I agree that this request can be closed without formal action. I hope very strongly that we will never have a need to revisit this issue. Whether Everyking avoids any further scrutiny of his behavior by this committee is now entirely up to him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am going to take a slightly different tack here. ArbCom doesn't need to get involved. I think that community sanctions will work here. In other words, the ArbCom restrictions have expired, so there is no need for ArbCom to be involved here, or at least some attempt by the community to resolve this should be attempted first. I suggest Scott MacDonald present his case to the community and see if there is support for community sanctions. Such sanctions could in theory be appealed to ArbCom, but we tend not to get involved if we judge that the community has successfully resolved the situation. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Scott, I think the amendment you are requesting here could be simply and easily put in place as an independent sanction enacted by the community. If you don't want to propose that, I am happy to propose that ArbCom restore the previous restrictions, but that will probably take longer, and discussion among ArbCom may result in harsher sanctions being put in place than the community might impose. My view is that the events of over 5 years ago don't need to be explained. The conduct here and now is sufficient to make a case that something needs to be done. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyking, thank-you for making the pledge that you make here. Given that the latest round of this matter was started by comments from you, I see no need for Phil Sandifer to make a similar pledge, but from his edit here I presume he will forbear from commenting on you just as you will forbear from commenting on him. I have asked my colleagues to look at this, as I think that given your pledge, no formal action is needed here and we can redact what needs redacting and ask for this request to be archived. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What Newyorkbrad said, especially the last sentence. Although my preference would be a sincere undertaking from Everyking that he will refrain from discussing Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer (I would suggest that he refrain from doing so in any public forum), I would have no difficulty in reinstating the prior restrictions. I also concur that there is no benefit in involving the community as a whole in this discussion. Risker (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Risker. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 02:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Carcharoth and Risker. As far as I'm concerned, we can probably wind this one down now.  Roger Davies  talk 03:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Brews ohare (talk) at 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * 1) Remedy 3: Brews ohare restricted


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


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

Amendment 1

 * Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Brews ohare
 * This ban implemented by Sandstein should be dropped, or failing that, modified to expire at the same time as the authorizing remedy.

Statement by Brews_ohare
Repeal or amendment of this action by administrator Sandstein is the object of this appeal. The question of imposing a ban extending past the expiration date of the remedy used for authorization has been decided in the negative in this request for clarification. It also has been determined that the matter of repeal of the ban altogether is separate from the issue of its extending beyond this expiration date. See this diff.

This appeal was filed before at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, but was not ruled upon because it was taken to be outside that venue's responsibility. Comments by others can be found there.

I am presently subject to a modification of Case: Speed of light here. This modification refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.

This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.

This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked in this action, which extends the remedies of Case:Speed of light without ArbCom consideration.

I would raise the following points: Brews ohare (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the restriction does not contain wording limiting the nature of sanctions to be imposed, I would take it as implied that any such sanctions are to run co-extensively with the authorizing motion; that is, until October 20, not indefinitely. Sandstein has exceeded the authority granted by this remedy. To extend a sanction beyond the time of the authorizing restriction itself requires a full arbcom hearing.
 * I was not, IMO, properly advised that such action was going to be taken. I believe that claims by Blackburne that I was warned that arbcom action would be taken are erroneous.
 * I immediately desisted when advised that arbcom was to become involved.
 * There was no warning of impending arbcom action; Blackburne's diffs that he interprets as warnings do not specifically indicate that unless I desist in talking about things on the Talk page, action would be initiated. In some cases, these remarks are simply bad tempered expressions of old wounds.
 * The quarrel is over Talk page discussion, not intervention on the main article page. There was no violation of Talk page decorum or standards of behavior. What did happen is that extended discussion of a number of points took place, in an entirely civil manner. As a result, some improvements of some topics on the article page were made by a variety of editors. Some issues remained open on the Talk page at the time of Sandstein's action. They did not involve Blackburne, who brought the request. It is probable that these matters would have been abandoned in due course due to lack of agreement, and there was no need to intervene with sanctions. Evidently, however, Blackburne decided that rather than add to the discussion, or suggesting to all that it end, he would resort to administrator intervention.
 * In view of the bad tempers and impatience exhibited by many on the Talk:Speed of light page, I volunteer that any future contributions to a thread that I might offer upon this Talk page will be limited upon request of any editor actively involved in that thread.
 * Sandstein is not an "uninvolved" administrator inasmuch as has conflicted with me several times in the past, in particular, in the Trusilver debacle when he overturned a block against me by Sandstein.


 * Reply to Sandstein: Sandstein suggests that my “ statements of intent (then or now) to stop editing the article and its talk page can[not] be taken at face value”. I'd suggest that Speed of light behavior is not an issue.  Where Talk: Speed of light is concerned, Sandstein's ban can be rephrased to allow my participation subject to constraints. I have suggested that a request to stop discussion by an editor actively involved in a thread on Talk:Speed of light could suffice. I think that is a very severe restriction upon my Talk page interaction, and clearly would accomplish its goal. Brews ohare (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Roger Davies: The clarification question as to whether “sanctions cannot run past the expiry date of the restriction” is a general technical point, and its accidental origination in my particular case really has little bearing upon the broad issues at stake. On the other hand, this appeal is very particularly related to myself, and involves some matters entirely separate from the broad questions needing resolution in the clarification. I believe the spreading of the clarification proceeding to become in effect a hearing on my appeal is (i) a distortion of what the clarification should be about, and (ii) an invalid hearing of this appeal in a context where my views cannot achieve proper expression, and all the issues pertinent to this appeal cannot be raised or discussed. Brews ohare (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Further reply to Roger Davies: You have asked what this appeal is about, besides the point of Sandstein's using an ArbCom decision of limited duration to authorize his action to act alone in applying a single-handed action of indefinite duration without any further ArbCom participation. That aspect involves a broad decision on such matters, which then can be applied here; however, that broad decision should be drafted to be applicable in general, and not limited to this accidental instance. The answer to your question is the three other aspects of this appeal: (i) the warning of ArbCom action required by the authorizing remedy was not given; (ii) the disturbance required by the authorizing remedy did not occur; (iii) if there is disagreement that the preconditions were not met, the action by Sandstein is excessive – I have offered an effective remedy that is less severe. I would add (iv): Sandstein is not an "uninvolved" administrator inasmuch as has conflicted with me several times in the past, in particular, in the Trusilver debacle when Trusilver overturned a silly impetuous block against me by Sandstein. Brews ohare (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Cool Hand: You insist that this is a topic-related issue, I guess because the problem arose on a particular Talk page. However, I'd suggest there is zero evidence that that occurrence was anything but accidental. Might as well say that the problem is DVdm and Blackburne, because they also were present, and in fact were present at some other fluff-ups too. Although I think that might be a more accurate assessment, I'd take a bit more distant stance and say the problem is as I have said: talking on the Talk page past the endurance of some editors, who then take umbrage instead of discourse as their modus operandi. That could be fixed by limiting my Talk page interactions, for example, as I have suggested. Brews ohare (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to Steve Smith: Steve, you say “All I can say in response is that I have examined in some detail the disputes in which Brews has been involved, both before the topic ban was first placed and since it was lifted, and he has not managed to successfully apply Wikipedia's content policies.” The policies about content I have failed to apply are not identified. Perhaps you refer to WP:OR or to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, as these are the only content policies that have come up on Talk pages. Of course, content policies are usually considered to be matters outside the purview of ArbCom, and better left to the experts on Talk pages. In any event, they absolutely do not justify ArbCom punitive actions, which are to govern behavior not content. A page ban should be used to prevent things like edit wars on the article page, not to suppress discussion. However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, I am willing to subject my Talk page activity to ArbCom control, but in a different manner than a page or topic ban. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment upon first motion below: The motion proposed is worded in the same fashion as the remedy that led to this appeal, and is subject to the same ambiguities. It suffers from the following: (i) no clarity about the nature of the warning; is the indication of execution of this remedy to be explicitly mentioned in the warning? (ii) no clarity about what constitutes a violation: it is up to the "discretion" of an "uninvolved" administrator. Some guidelines should be provided, an example, does it apply to civil and reasoned insistence upon a Talk page of some clarity and consistency with established sources? This is the type of "disturbance" of WP that I have engaged in so far.

Observation on second motion: As noted long ago by DickLyon in the old Case:Speed of light, the issue is not one of topic, and is one of my behavior. Hence, the present motion is wrongly conceived. I have presented a simple and effective remedy, namely, impose a limitation upon the extent of my Talk page activity. The problem is not willful disruption, as claimed; that statement is insulting and blind to my contributions. It also is not WP:SOUP, although I understand that mischaracterization, as argument over a formulation sometimes can appear to be hairsplitting, particularly to an uninvolved observer. Rather, the problem has been outlined above: exhaustion of the patience of other editors on Talk pages, and an effective remedy also has been proposed.

About both motions: A lock-step repetition of remedy that is poorly phrased and irrelevant to the problem, and prone to litigation and abuse because of its ambiguities, does not reflect well upon ArbCom's ability to understand the matter before it. (What exactly is “physics-related”? Math? Engineering? Astronomy? Geology? Circuit analysis? Chemistry?... DickLyon suggested my insertion of a figure on the definition of a property of an ellipse was ‘physics related’.) The present motions abandon ArbCom's responsibility to some future unknown "uninvolved administrator", who individually is apparently more skillful and wise than ArbCom, and able to decide an issue that ArbCom cannot fathom. Brews ohare (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This appeal of a sanction by Sandstein regarding the Talk page of Speed of light has morphed into a hearing on my behavior in general, but without observing that such an expansion of the purpose of the appeal constitutes a widening far beyond that envisioned. I believe that expansion to be unwarranted, and if it is to be done, a new case is required wherein my overall behavior can be assessed properly within the enlarged boundaries. Brews ohare (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the assumption is made here that the problem is one of topic, as though the difficulties related to subject matter, and to the pursuit by myself of erroneous views in the face of reasoned and authoritative opposition. ArbCom is incapable of making such an assessment: technical matters of subject are beyond their interest and capacity. In fact, nothing said here addresses this framing of the subject: it has been leaped into without careful examination. What ArbCom can do is assess behavior, that is: Is discussion proceeding? Or, is it degenerating into incivility or straying to personal attack? That has not happened. What has happened is that I have pursued discussion to the extent of trying the patience of some editors, who in exasperation have appealed for administrative action. They have options other than ArbCom action. That is the matter that needs to be addressed here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have volunteered to curtail my Talk page discussion upon request by editors involved in a thread. If ArbCom doubts my sincerity, they can make this a formal requirement upon me. That action directly addresses the problem. A page ban does not. General probation that can be acted upon by a single so-called "uninvolved administrator" is a draconian action that abandons ArbCom responsibility and leads to nonsensical administrative actions because the rules of engagement are hopelessly vague and are open to crazy ideas, as my personal history under similar remedies attests. Any dyspeptic editor can find a hair-triggered admin to exercise a block that then cannot be overturned by any other administrator regardless of circumstances. See the Trusilver debacle for an instance. Brews ohare (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear how the page ban motion addresses the appeal brought. Sandstein's action that brought this matter here has not been addressed. Instead, a broad and imaginary issue has been posited to exist without being properly examined, and treated using what is commonly called cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides ignoring the original purpose of this appeal, also ignored is (i) the lack of evidence for disturbance of ‘decorum or standards of behavior’, that is, there was no crime, (ii) the lack of notice that ArbCom action would be sought, that is, conditions required for activating the appealed action were not satisfied, nevermind conditions for implementing a general hearing of this kind, and (iii) there is no stated basis for the motions considered in terms of WP guidelines, that is the proposed remedies are not related to the five pillars or guidelines. There is every appearance that this hearing was hijacked to alleviate preexisting prejudices, and all rules and the good of WP were set aside to accomplish that aim. That impression should be corrected, for the good of WP and of the reputations of its administrators. Brews ohare (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
Unless asked to do so now by an arbitrator, I intend to comment on this request after the related request for clarification is resolved.  Sandstein  17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Steve Smith, I am not sure as to whether this request does supersede my request for clarification as long as the question asked there has not been answered by a majority of arbitrators and a motion is being voted on. But here's what I can say now:
 * The question of whether discretionary sanctions can outlast the remedies authorizing them is for the Committee to decide (hence the request for clarification); should it do so in the negative, I will of course amend my sanction accordingly.
 * As concerns the other procedural issues raised by Brews ohare, the AE thread contains a diff of what I think is an adequate prior warning; the remedy does not require that Brews ohare be warned of AE action specifically. In view of his long history of disputes and sanctions related to this topic, I do not think that his statements of intent (then or now) to stop editing the article and its talk page can be taken at face value; also, if these statements were meant in earnest, there would be no need for Brews ohare to contest my sanction so persistently.
 * On the merits, I think what I wrote at the AE thread is still valid and accordingly I recommend that this request be declined insofar as it is an appeal against the substance of my sanction. But the review of all of Brews ohare's recent edits that you intend to make is a good idea, and of course I do not object to any action, including limiting or extending my sanction, that arbitrators may want to take on the basis of that broader review.  Sandstein   18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Brews ohare's now-added opinion that I am not "uninvolved" is incorrect. My few interactions with Brews ohare have all been in my capacity as an administrator reacting to arbitration enforcement requests; per WP:UNINVOLVED, such administrative interactions do not require me to recuse from future administrative actions. I have never voiced an opinion about the content issues underlying these AE requests, nor have I (to my knowledge) participated in any discussions about Brews ohare's conduct other than in the course of these AE requests.   Sandstein   15:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JohnBlackburne
(this is just my comment here but copied here to reply to the same points by Brews)

The diffs were provided to show that a number of editors - most of the participants of the talk page - had objected to Brews' editing over the space of a only a few days. That some reference the previous arbitration case is unsurprising as it concerned the same page and is hardly "old wounds" as it is still in force. I'm not sure why you expect them to show a "warning of impending ArbCom action".

On civility I again point to and, your characterising other editors' contributions as "stupid" and "lazy" respectively. Or only yesterday more recently, perhaps more typically, three good faith attempts by different editors to address your concerns were dismissed like so:. Whether any of this is bad tempered or impatient I'm sure editors can judge for themselves.

Statement by Count Iblis
Comment about the proposed motion. My concern is that given the way Brews' edits are scrutinized, issues like this have to addressed. Count Iblis (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This reply to Brews and Jehochman on my talk page is perhaps useful to the Arbitrators. Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Community dynamics constrains how far Wikipedia can evolve the smart thing to do is to leave Wikipedia, just like our early ancestors left the Chimp community. Count Iblis (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusion

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
I don't have anything to add to the comments made under motion 2 (as of the time of writing this) except my endorsement. Thanks also for the courtesy notification of the merging of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Protonk
My comment on the clarification request also applies. Motion 2 seems to simply settle the matter (for the most part). Protonk (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket
Wow! That's all I can really say. I'm surprised and actually disheartened that instead of trying to look at everything that happened it appears Arb is symbolically washing their hands and letting the mob rule. It's a tad ironic you would ban advocacy for brews but no one looks into the headhunting that has really happened here, but hey if history is any judge why should we have suspected different? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:41, 14 August 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).


 * Motion moved from Arbitration/Requests/Clarification per request of Steve Smith.  NW  ( Talk ) 03:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Motion 2 enacted  NW  ( Talk ) 16:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Speaking only for myself, Sandstein, I think it would be useful to hear from you now; this amendment request seems likely to essentially supersede that request for clarification anyway. On the merits of this request, I'm examining Brews' editing of the contentious areas since the lifting of the topic ban in some detail, and expect to reach some conclusions in the next couple of days. Steve Smith (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple of initial thoughts: First, the premise that sanctions cannot run past the expiry date of the restriction, it seems to me, is fundamentally flawed. Blocks arising out of sanctions, for example, run over all the time and nobody would expect anything else of them. Second, the currently ongoing request for clarification doesn't reflect anything very much yet as, absent affirmative assent to the contrary, the status quo prevails. Third, it doesn't seem to me necessary at all to meet to treat this as separate to the request for clarification. It is just making work for all concerned. Roger Davies  talk 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If, Brews, the basis of your appeal is not the technical point about remedies extending past the sell-by date, what is your basis for it?  Roger Davies  talk 03:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Carcharoth that Sandstein is uninvolved for enforcement purposes. As for motions, I am also inclining towards the view that the two relaxations of the original restriction were probably premature and that complete disengagement from the topic for a longer period would perhaps have been more appropriate.  Roger Davies  talk 01:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Noting here that Sandstein is correct to say that he is not involved here. He has only, as far as I can tell, acted to carry out administrative actions. I suggest that Brews Ohare read WP:INVOLVED, and realise that not everything can be appealed to ArbCom. Thousands of editorial and administrative decisions are made every day on Wikipedia, and while some may be poor or incorrect, anyone disputing them (even those who have been through an arbitration case) still needs to work with others rather than relitigate the case. I am minded to support the motion below, but will wait and see if any alternatives are proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Brews: you say that the original purpose of the appeal has been ignored. I don't think that's true. You brought an interesting issue to our attention: whether enforcement restrictions can persist after a remedy has expired. As it turns out, there is no ArbCom consensus on this matter. However, having brought this matter to our attention, it seems that the arbitrators generally do agree that a restriction similar to the one that Sandstein imposed is appropriate. The proposed amendment therefore supersedes Sandstein's enforcement action, which resolves the underlying dilemma. Cool Hand Luke 17:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Motions
1) Remedy #3 ("Brews ohare restricted") of the Speed of light case is replaced with the following:"is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on him if, despite being warned, he repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Actions taken under this provision are subject to the relevant rules and procedures for standard discretionary sanctions."


 * Support
 * The easiest way to avoid the procedural uncertainty here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Un-gameable, and easily enforced. I see things in this area backsliding to what they were before (which caused sanctions to be mooted against both Brews and some of his supporters), and I am not really wanting to go through that whole thing again. SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Second choice. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I don't see it as helpful to increase sanctions' severity to make them easier interpretatively. We don't do due process, of course, but this offends something. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding to that, the stuff that's going on now at ANI and elsewhere does not strike me as a ringing endorsement of the existing general restriction; I don't see extending it as self-evidently useful. Steve Smith (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absurdly open-ended. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Prefer motion 2. Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Prefer 2. - Mailer Diablo 19:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Prefer 2. Shell  babelfish 20:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Abstain

2) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.


 * Support
 * 1) I am uncomfortably aware that a law student who used to tutor some high school physics proposing to ban a professor emeritus of electrical engineering from physics-related pages will strike a lot of people as emblematic of what's wrong with Wikipedia.  These people may very well be right.  All I can say in response is that I have examined in some detail the disputes in which Brews has been involved, both before the topic ban was first placed and since it was lifted, and he has not managed to successfully apply Wikipedia's content policies.  Moreover, his response to criticisms of his edits is generally, by accident or design, reminiscent of WP:SOUP.  Insofar as I am qualified to judge (i.e. not very far at all), his edits are scholarly and accurate, but he appears unwilling or unable to engage with Wikipedia as it is, rather than as he believes it should be.  Whether his vision of Wikipedia would be preferable to the status quo is an open question, and one outside of the Arbitration Committee's remit. To tidy up some other loose ends, I concur that Sandstein was uninvolved for enforcement purposes.  I do not agree with Roger that enforcement actions may extend beyond the life of the remedy authorizing them, and would have supported reducing the length of the speed of light topic ban on that basis (while specifically recognizing that Sandstein's decision to make the term indefinite was authorized by the general view expressed by arbitrators at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines).  As this motion would subsume Sandstein's sanction, however, there is no need to do so.  I trust that my support of this motion says all that needs to be said on my view of the substance of Sandstein's enforcement action. Steve Smith (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support in all particulars. SirFozzie (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I am extremely disappointed. I was originally reluctant to topic ban Brews ohare at all; he manifestly has scientific competence that would add to the project. However, he chooses to willfully disrupt it instead&mdash;there's no other plausible way to interpret it. I am not happy with imposing this remedy, but I do think it's for the best of the project. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Response Brews' "about both motions": I consider the hard core of this topic ban to be the speed of light, units of measurement, and fundamental constants. If you are editing articles on non-physics topics in math or chemistry or geology that do not heavily involves these issues, I think you're fine. You can quote me on that. If you start editing that Avagadro's number is unmeasurable because it relies upon the axiom that carbon-12 is exactly 12 g per mol... well, I think you'll be on the far side of the topic ban.
 * Use your best judgment. If you're editing innocuously about ore types, no one in good faith could say that you've violated the topic ban. The activity that precipitated this AE, on the other hand, was not a close call. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Works as well. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) First choice. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) First choice, with regret. To be interpreted, in my view, per Cool Hand Luke. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Mailer Diablo 19:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) A very unfortunate support.  As others have pointed out, I believe that Brews contributions to the content of these articles could be excellent and find it very disappointing that he's unable to moderate his behavior in a manner that would allow him to continue to participate. Shell   babelfish 20:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain