Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 49

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

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  T. Canens (talk) at 16:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 3: " is placed under a general probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, 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."
 * 2) Motion 6: " is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months. "


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


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

Amendment 1
Renewal of remedy 3, either for another year or indefinitely.

Amendment 2
Expansion of topic ban in motion 6 to include, at a minimum, mathematics.

Statement by Timotheus Canens
In this AE report, concerns were raised that Brews ohare has now engaged in the same disruptive activity for which he was originally sanctioned, only in the fields of mathematics instead of physics, as explained in this comment by. Multiple admins were of the view that sanctions in the form of a 1RR/week restriction or a topic ban was appropriate. However, as remedy 3 has expired, administrators were no longer authorized to impose such sanctions, and the report was closed with Brews accepting a binding voluntary restriction of one revert per week, per article, on any article in the natural sciences - which, the closing admin, construed to include mathematics; naturally so, since the proximate cause was disruption on Pythagorean theorem.

Brews now claims that his 1RR restriction does not include mathematics articles, something that is supported by our article on natural science but also means that the restriction failed to cover conduct for which it was intended. As it is now apparent that the restriction did not actually address the problem for which it was proposed, it appears that either a broadened topic ban or renewal of the probation provision is necessary to prevent further disruption. T. Canens (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the committee is imposing a site ban, it may be preferable to include conditions on returning to editing, similar to what was done in these cases, to ensure that disruption does not resume when the ban ends. T. Canens (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb

 * Why go through all this hooplah to keep disruptive editors around? We're not fucking babysitters, yet we're here every second week clarifying, expanding, tweaking the scope of Brews' ban, or explaining it to him. The only effect of imposing a 1RR restriction on Brews will be that the next time he violates his ban, or new restriction, is that we'll be debating technicalities about whether his last 132 edits to an article, and his 150 edits on its talk page really consist of a 1RR violation. Last time we failed to block Brews because he made physics/relativity edits on a mathematics article, which is complete bollocks. If it was not apparent by now that Brews endeavors to suck out time by wikilawyering every remedy, and debating everyone who wastes their time gives him pieces of advice, this amendment request should make it patently clear. On November 12, I told Ed Johnston he made a mistake by defining the scope of the restriction to be "natural sciences" since natural sciences don't include math, and that we'll be up at AE debating whether natural sciences include math or not within a month. And here we are three days later at AE doing exactly that. Let's stop beating around the bush, Brews had plenty of chances, plenty of explanations, plenty of time to improve. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, Brews ran out of AGF juice a long time ago, and there's no way Brews' contributions is worth keeping him around; for every hour he spends on Wikipedia, we sink a hundred hours of other editors' time in debating him, or being at some noticeboard. Indef block him. Or failing that, block him for the rest of his ban (which will just have the effect of giving people a one year break before this crap resumes). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to Count Iblis
 * The whole point of the various topic bans was for Brews to get away from these problem areas. This never happened. Brews always hung around, and focused on fighting his bans, appealing them, debating commas, debatting whether he "really" was violating his bans, laying the blame on everyone but him, etc, etc, etc. Hell, there even was an advocacy ban so Brews would stop fighting the bans, and get back to editing non-contentious areas. Again, this never happened, he always kept fighting his bans, testing its limits, etc... Brews had his chances; a lot more than he deserved. There's absolutely zero reason to believe that putting him in a metaphorical straitjacket and under the supervision of official babysitters, would change any of it. And quite frankly, we're not a kindergarten. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
Let's be clear about this: Brews only made a statement, he hasn't edited any articles since the last AE procedure, let alone violated the intended interpretation of the 1RR per week.

I recommend that Brews stick to 0RR on any edits relating to his own edits. If he writes something in an article and he is reverted on that, he can't undo that revert. He can then start a discussion on the talk page about the revert. Then, if he starts a discussion on a talk page and this is archived, he can't undo that archiving, nor can he start a meta discussion about this. On issues not related to his own edits, he can revert, but if his revert is undone, he can't revert again as that would fall under the 0RR restriction regarding his own edits. So, this amounts to 1RR on anything unrelated to his own edits.

My opinion is that this sort of restriction is what is called for, instead of topic bans. The problem with Brews was never caused by the nature of the topics (physics or math), rather with problems in editing together with people who don't like his proposed edits. On Wikipedia, you always have to take serious the opinion of other editors, however you disagree with them. Count Iblis (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Restriction to his own userspace. Brews is then allowed to work on any topic when invited to do so by other editors. He can produce content on his userpage and the other editors can then copy this into article space. I note that some weeks ago Brews was asked to contribute to a math article, but because that was too much physics related, Brews had to refuse because of the topic ban. So, such topics where Brews would be asked to contribute do exist. Count Iblis (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternative to site ban
 * Count Iblis, you seem to have this presumption that the correct approach to take when an editor is topic-banned is to rehabilitate them by some of these schemes you come up with. Is it at all possible that these ideas of yours fail to recognise that sometimes a topic-banned editor needs a break from an area, rather than being "asked" to contribute by alternative means? It may be an inconvenience, but other editors do exist, meaning it is possible to ask other editors instead of the topic-banned editor. Wikipedia should never become over-reliant in any topic area on any single editors. You should always be able to turn to another editor instead and make the request you would have made of the topic-banned editor. And the topic-banned editors need to politely decline requests and point the requesters to where others can help instead. Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm proposing would still work if Brews is restricted from physics, my point is simply that the break Brews needs is from those articles were his edits are not welcomed in the article. The pushing and arguing about such unwelcome edits is what gets Brews in trouble, be it on physics, math or any other topic. Now, the articles where he was invited to edit in, e.g. geology articles, there wasn't trouble. Obviously not, otherwise he wouldn't have been invited to edit there.


 * The issue is then not per se that we can do without Brews. Of course we can. What I'm proposing should be thought of as a remedy for Brews. Brews will be editing in a positive atmosphere (edits are invited, no bickering about it). If he does this for a while, say half a year or a year, he won't want to go back to the previous disputes. Of course, this is then also good for Wikipedia as well. Count Iblis (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What you mention points to the remedies being ineffective. My thinking has always been that, on the long term, we are better off figuring out how editors like Brews can be used on Wikipedia. In 20 years from now, there may be many retired professors editing Wikipedia, some of whom may show the same kind of problem as Brews now. Count Iblis (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Headbomb

I made some comments there and I think I should declare here that I've done so. Count Iblis (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've posted comments on NYB's and SirFozzie's talk page

Statement by JohnBlackburne
As I noted here I was skeptical that the sanction would have much effect for the reasons given. I was not expecting it to have none, or at least for Brews ohare to claim that it does not apply to him (he does not edit biology and chemistry, and is already banned from physics), an interpretation at odds with every other participant in that discussion. But I should not be surprised, as this is yet another example of his wikilawyering, followed with his usual blaming everyone but himself for his repeated sanctioning.

On the wider point this is not about physics, or natural sciences, or mathematics. It's about every other page Brews ohare takes an interest in becoming a battle ground, of edit warring if its an article, of tendentious editing on a talk or project page – dominating the discussion so other editors are swamped, ignoring consensus and process, repeatedly refusing to AGF, ignoring requests to stop and warnings – before trying to lawyer himself out of the inevitable visit to arbitration. The current sanctions (including the latest one which it now seems does nothing) have had little effect, except to stoke his persecution complex and add yet more names to the supposed cabal against him.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied here in some detail to Brews ohare's accusations of stalking. If he seriously thinks I, Headbomb or any other editor has been engaged in anything other than a good faith effort to improve this encyclopaedia he needs to provide diffs of our actions. If he can't he should keep his unfounded accusations to himself.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 10:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dick Lyon
As I've stated repeatedly, the problem with Brews is not topic related, so a topic ban is a lame remedy. He needs a good vacation from Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In his statement below, Brews pretends that the problem started at speed of light; but in fact, as I had pointed out in that arb case, the problem was by then old and very tedious, just not always in physics. He had already been at the focus of numerous AN/I and other actions, and protracted edit wars in which he never found a way to contribute other than increase his rate of article bloat and talk page argument to swamp the other side in each dispute and support his idiosyncratic interpretations of things. His comments re "tacit" below are an example of how he completely misunderstands or misrepresents the pushback and the support that he claims is found in sources for his pov. His holding up D Tombe as an example of someone willing to listen and discuss is comical in the extreme; Tombe has been characterized as a "physics crank" and for some reason he has unlimited juice for engaging Brews, even though the result is not productive in terms of better WP articles. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Brews ohare
I'd like to digress a bit on a few highlights of my education at WP.

I came to WP in the area of circuits, and contributed what now appear to be very much too technical articles on devices and design, such as Widlar current source and Step response. They passed muster with little discussion because only other experts read them. Then I went to centrifugal force (I've forgotten how that happened) and discovered this rather technical topic was an interest of many with no concept of physics, and of others with very determined opinions on the subject. One of these was D Tombe, who was again unusual in that he was someone with opposed views who could accept arguments and respond to them. These discussions led to my addition of many examples to Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), some of which have survived DickLyon's campaign to delete "bloat". It also led to significant additions to several other articles on planar motion, inertial frames of reference, fictitious forces, and to historical articles on Newton's famous examples of rotating spheres and spinning buckets. These contributions were accompanied as always by numerous figures, some of which are found here.

Unfortunately those long analytical discussions (which I found engaging because D Tombe was very resourceful and responsive) were totally outside the norm of WP, leading me to false expectations of the community as a whole. Similarly misleading were the very useful and prolonged interactions with Sbyrnes321 in articles like Faraday's law of induction. It was a huge contrast when I proceeded to Speed of light where I ran instead into a combination of religious fervor and viciousness that brooked no argument and soon landed me in court as disruptive. From that time forth I have been harassed by a few from those days who want more to bother me than to make use of my talents. I acquired a symbolical persona as a mad scientist that is still with me, and has nothing to do with me. See my resume here.

While under my physics topic ban I contributed substantially in the area of geology to articles like Low-velocity zone, P-wave, Lehmann discontinuity, Orogeny, Fold (geology) and so forth, again contributing many images. This uneventful epoch indicates that where Headbomb and Blackburne are not involved, things go just fine.

At the moment, a band of administrators, those like Sandstein and now Timotheus Canens, are happy to support ill-conceived actions by Blackburne and Headbomb with knee-jerk sanctions. I attribute Blackburne's and Headbomb's animosity to a few arguments that stuck in their craws and offended their personal images as savants. I have made overtures to Blackburne, who steadfastly ignores them. The actions of these two editors, combined with administrator incapacity for assessment, have made my days here difficult, regardless of my actions or interests in contributing. A listing of recent WP:AN/I and WP:AE actions against me shows that Headbomb and Blackburne instigated all of them, possibly except the present action undertaken by Timotheus Canens, although this too is a follow-up of an action by Headbomb.

The most recent events, which ostensibly led to the present action, can be summarized as follows.

Timotheus Canens has based this request upon the statement by JohnBlackburne, which is concerned with some edits on the page Pythagorean theorem. I will summarize that activity shortly. Headbomb has asserted a different basis, that I inserted physics edits on the math page Euclidean geometry, a claim disputed by most (including EdJohnston) in his failed action to produce a judgment supporting a topic ban violation.

Below is a summary of the activity on Pythagorean theorem:
 * On the page Pythagorean theorem I inserted a single sentence about Euclidean motions which was reverted by DickLyon on the basis that it misused the phrase "tacit assumptions". I then rewrote the insertion to avoid this phrase, and added a source discussing Euclid's assumptions. That attempt was reverted by JohnBlackburne, who said it was "bloat". I then returned to the Talk page to suggest that "bloat" was vague, and not a WP guideline. On that basis I reverted JohnBlackburne's revert. This revert was the only one I made in this exchange of views. It was in turn removed by David Eppstein, and that is how the matter ended.


 * There was accompanying Talk page discussion, as is recommended for such content disagreements. It was civil and confined to a dispute over what was "bloat", and settled on a majority rules basis.

Blackburne's comments used as the basis for Timotheus Canens' case provide no basis for extending my probation, now expired, over a concern that I might "repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". A single main page revert was made by myself. Talk page discussion was used properly and civilly and ended in acquiescence to majority rule.

Likewise, Headbomb's abortive attempt to transform this math insertion into a physics argument when I placed it in Euclidean geometry provides no cause to expand my topic ban to include mathematics, as there is nothing controversial or "idiosyncratic" about my suggestion that Euclidean motions are an underlying feature of Euclid's geometry, as was supported by impeccable sources in my inserted text. (Also added were this and  this). I made no attempt to intrude physics into a math article, despite Headbomb's insistence, and Blackburne, EdJohnston and others have agreed with me on that point.

I do believe the proposed actions presented below are overkill if based upon what actually occurred recently. The more serious question of whether there is a more extensive history that requires consideration is worth exploring, but that has not been attempted so far in this hearing. Such a question requires an inquiry into the history of my pursuit by Blackburne and by Headbomb. Should that be undertaken with proper discovery of evidence and presentation of diffs, rather than using he-said she-said and vaguely acquired perceptions based upon gossip, I believe I will be found to be a useful member of the WP society who unfortunately has run afoul of some very determined editors.

Blackburne's comment: As Blackburne has noted, I've raised other issues with his behavior, like his nominating for deletion virtually any article I initiate, like Idée fixe, Vector algebra relations, Quadruple product; his ultimately denied but continuous invoking of WP:OR and WP:SYN on numerous edits, and so forth. The list of arbitration actions brought by himself and Headbomb is only the tip of an iceberg.

The way to get to the bottom of these matters is, as Blackburne suggests, to open a Case and request diffs and evidence. In any event, something as serious as a site ban for both myself and for WP itself requires due diligence, if only to demonstrate to all watching the willingness of administrators to faithfully accept their serious roles. Such a careful undertaking appears to exceed the appetite of this hearing. Brews ohare (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DickLyon's comment: Like everyone, Dick has his opinion. The way to sort out the facts is to actually do due diligence, and not rely upon golden-tongued oratory, not accept pronouncements by self-appointed oracles, and not to decide matters by counting how many say this and how many say that, or rely upon history reconstructed from foggy memories. Get down to an organized assessment of diffs and documented facts.

If this hearing is not up to that degree of scrutiny, it should adopt a less draconian choice of actions. For example, if the problem here is all about what "natural sciences" mean, then propose that I adopt a voluntary sanction worded differently instead of reinventing the definition of natural science.. Brews ohare (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect's comment: Indeed, you are correct about the thirst for further draconian actions. Already Roger has second thoughts that this "vacation" for me is insufficient, and he is looking forward to further action after the year is up, when Blackburne and Headbomb return to assert renewed "conduct issues". Brews ohare (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth's oppose: Thanks for the willingness to discuss alternatives. Brews ohare (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth's go-between: I heartily support Carcharoth's suggestion of a go-between, particularly if it is an administrator. I'd suggest an immediate trial period with this suggestion in place. My prediction is that Dick Lyon and Blackburne will immediately back off their nit-picking WP:OR, WP:V, "bloat" onslaughts and automatic RfD's for articles when they are faced with an automatic conflict with an administrator, and Headbomb will stop his wiki-hounding persecutions over nothing for the same reason. Harmony will reign, and these three trivia mongers will be forced into retreat and will vanish from the scene. I will be able to proceed like any other editor without their nonsense at every turn. There is no need to wait to implement this idea. It can be done immediately. I will draft any contribution on my User pages and if an admin agrees they will be implemented. There will be no restrictions on content or subject area. The administrator will have full authority in the matter. Brews ohare (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrators: I have read your observations and statements of support and find nothing substantive. Remarks like "this needs to end", "not everyone is meant to edit Wikipedia" and other vague generalities typical of political squawk ads are beneath the dignity of this hearing and simply add to the already general dissatisfaction with proceedings like this one. Can't this matter actually be examined? Can't alternatives be discussed? Is this proceedings a hearing or an excuse, mere window dressing for a decision reached in the shadows off-line? Brews ohare (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Disregard for WP process: Picking a group of jurors at random, it seems that a variety of opinion and a variety of suggested solutions would pop up. Instead, the action here sparked by a question about a voluntary restriction, and nonetheless proposing a very serious sanction, is actually diverted to propose a more serious sanction, and that proposal is agreed to instantly by administrators with only one dissent, without discussion, without regard for various recommendations for moderation, and without consideration of a variety of proposed alternatives.

My plea for looking at the facts, and not taking accusations at face value, is not only not acted upon, it is not even dismissed upon some pretext. Not only is due diligence declined, but the incontrovertible facts already established are not considered.

A solid unquestioning escalation of sanctions and deliberate disregard for process is odd, I think. What is going on? To parallel remarks by Coren in a different matter: this action that has been taken far beyond an amendment to the old Case: Speed of light needs to be filed as a full case request. Brews ohare (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

statement by Collect
Again we see that draconian solutions only evoke more desire for further draconian solutions from those who felt they did not go far enough. In the case at hand, the Arbcom limitation was clearly thought out and discussed - extending this to "permanent vacation" or the like is simply a matter of seeking what was not done in the first place. And mathematics is not sufficiently related to the Physics issues educed before as to fall under the initial motions. Time to tell folks that asking for more bites at the apple is "not done." All the other argumentation above is really of tangential relevance to this sort of spandex motions. Collect (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by Hell in a Bucket
I personally think this is a overreaction. I would note the irony of the same people being here asking for the same things. Recently a sanctions was not carried out due to a restriction voluntarily accepted. This wasn't far enough and so we get the request to indef ban brews? Maybe the committee would like to consider the cool calmness that was observed during the advocation motion and extend that to those who constantly howl for Brews head. Again I'd be willing ot completely butt out if there is a level playing field. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Awickert
Like this whole saga, this set of incidents seems to be a string of little things blown way out of proportion and wasting everyone's time. Let's put Brews on 0RR and let him know that while his early contributions (diagrams, etc.) were fantastic, engaging in arguments over trivialities and definitions is counterproductive and cannot continue. 'Course, this case seems fairly settled already, so I'm really just making a note of where I stand. Awickert (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[Add]: Since geology is mentioned: there was some debate over Brews' understanding of the terminology there, as in other areas, and some mistakes were made, but I will vouch that once Brews got what was going on, the volume and quality of his contributions more than made up for the time lost in discussion. Awickert (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by CBM
I realize that it may be somewhat late for me to comment, but I'd like to make a few remarks.
 * 1) As Headbomb also pointed out, few scientists would consider mathematics to be a natural science. I am one of the majority of mathematicans who would not consider mathematics a natural science. But a blanket 1RR per article per week, regardless of topic, would have resolved this sort of wording issue.
 * 2) One difficulty with topic bans is that a person's interests are unlikely to change simply because of the ban. So, since he was banned from physics, it is natural that Brews moved to similar areas that were not in the scope of the ban, such as Euclidean geometry, Pythagorean theorem, and Seven-dimensional cross product.  Again, a broader topic ban would have resolved this issue.
 * 3) Most editors who stick to esoteric articles such as Seven-dimensional cross product and vector quadruple product, which are mathematical topics of very minor importance, would encounter very little drama if any. Brews is editing under a spotlight – but he was, or should have been, aware of that fact based on the previous arbcom case.
 * 4) I am not familiar with the previous arbcom case, nor with previous editing by Brews. On the mathematical articles where I encountered him, my impression is that Brews means well but is not very familiar with the topics he is editing, and so makes the same sorts of minor mistakes that any editor working outside their field of expertise would make. Also, at times, he seemed to be reluctant to look up the necessary sources. But Brews did make many useful contributions to these articles as well, and (at least on the articles I saw) there was nothing in the edits that related to the speed of light.

I do accept that, from time to time, some editors simply don't mesh well with the Wikipedia system. But I'm not convinced yet that a year-long ban is warranted here, since the edits to math articles would not be particularly bad if viewed with no eye on Brews' editing history. I think that a combination of broader topic and 1RR restrictions might be able to resolve the issue. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I agree with Headbomb: we have spent enough time—more than enough time—catering to Brews' incessant attempts to argue his way around restrictions, and tolerating his perpetual conflicts with other editors on nearly every topic that he touches. Wikipedia is neither an experiment in online debate nor a game of Nomic; it's well past time for Brews to find himself a new hobby. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Waiting for other comments here, but I'm largely in agreement with Kirill. Shell  babelfish 21:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to think on whether a full year's ban is the best solution here, or if we can come up with something lesser that will have the hoped-for affect. SirFozzie (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Am reluctant to support a ban of a full year, but agree that something needs to be done here. I see that Brews ohare has been editing since he was notified of this amendment request, but I will leave him another note as he has not been formally notified that the response to the amendment request was the proposal by an arbitrator of a full one-year ban. I would like to hear from Brews ohare before voting on this. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Notification left.

Motions
1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * There are 11 active arbitrators, none of whom are recused, so the majority to pass is 6.


 * Support
 * Proposed; this needs to end. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With regret, but as I have come to realize, not everyone is meant to edit Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of the rare cases of an editor who is simply unable to work within the constraint of a collaborative environment. It is no reflection on Brews ohare; not all personalities are compatible with the way Wikipedia works.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not usually a great fan of fixed-period site-bans because a return to editing is guaranteed on the expiry of the ban, without establishing whether the banned editor has in the interim addressed the conduct issues that led to it. In this instance, I may be pleasantly surprised: I hope so.   Roger  talk 06:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After further thought, and reading Brews Ohare's statement, have to reluctantly support a full year ban. SirFozzie (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly. - Mailer Diablo 05:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * After reviewing the contributions Brews ohare is capable of in areas where he does not run into conflicts (conflicts that are in large part due to his own nature, lest he or anyone else misunderstand that), I don't think a one-year ban is a proportionate response here. Brews ohare's statement above is the problem in a microcosm. He correctly identifies electronics, geology, and images as three areas where he is capable of good work, but then undoes all that by refusing to move on from the other areas where he runs into conflicts, and to seek to lay the blame with others, and not himself. The golden rule when topic banned is to seek clarification before others object, and to acquiesce if there is any doubt (neither of which happened here). I would support a shorter, six-month ban, and a gradual return to editing in the areas outlined above, with a go-between to aid the production of any images for physics articles, along with a long-term topic ban on physics and maths articles. But that is unlikely to win the support of other arbitrators, or even the support of Brews ohare himself, but I offer it here for consideration for the day or so (or less) that this amendment request is likely remain open. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Abstain

Request to amend prior case: Kehrli (November 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Kkmurray (talk) at 23:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 1.1) Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z.


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Nick Y.
 * Kehrli

Amendment 1

 * Remedy 1.1) Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z and from articles related to Kendrick mass and mass units.

Statement by Kkmurray
There is a dispute regarding WP:OR and WP:NPOV at Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit) that is a continuation of the dispute previously discussed in the resolved arbitration case Kehrli that involved the mass and unit articles Mass-to-charge ratio, Thomson (unit) and Mass spectrum. User:Kehrli has resumed aggressive POV editing related to mass and unit articles. The locus of discussion for this dispute is Talk:Kendrick_mass.

As in the resolved arbitration case, User:Kehrli has over several months pushed original research and POV in mass and unit articles. He has used the general guidelines documents such as ISO 31, the IUPAC green book and a minority view from a single primary source document  to justify POV pushing and original research in mass units. He rejects multiple secondary sources  and is not abiding by WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE and WP:OR in article editing.

As in the past dispute leading to the resolved arbitration case, User:Kehrli has engaged in disruptive activity such as deleting talk page comments, inappropriately flagging other users talk page comments., merging without consensus., removing page flags during discussion, , WP:PERSONAL and lack of WP:AGF.

Dispute resolution steps so far
This dispute has been discussed extensively for several months (primarily at Talk:Kendrick mass) and has gone through a proposed merge, request for comment, and informal discussions with prior case administrators. The discussion has been useful in establishing the views of the editors and several new scientific references have been found that provide additional facts that shed light on the dispute. Informal discussions with administrators from the prior dispute process have led to further clarification of the situation, It appears that further discussion will not likely be useful as User:Kehrli does not seem willing to compromise. 

Specific dispute resolution steps:

Kendrick unit article created December 18, 2009 by User:Kehrli 

PROD January 17, 2010 by User:Glenfarclas 

dePROD January 17, 2010 by User:Glenfarclas 

Move Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass January 25, 2010 by User:Kkmurray 

Reverse move and redirect Kendrick mass to Kendrick unit August 17, 2010 by User:Kehrli  

Restore Kendrick mass and propose merge from Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass August 17, 2010 by User:Kkmurray  

Request for comments from WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Mass spectrometry, September 24-27, 2010 by User:Kkmurray   

Open RfC October 17, 2010 by User:Kkmurray

Informal request for assistance from prior case administrators November 1, 2010 User:Nick Y.    

Examples of recent original research related to Kendrick mass

 * Kendrick mass
 * Kendrick (unit)
 * Atomic mass unit
 * Thomson (unit)
 * m/z
 * The "Kehrli Plot" and original methods:
 * Rationale for original research and rejecting published scientific literature:
 * Rejection of secondary sources

Additional comments
In both the 2006 and 2010 disputes, Kehrli has applied the broad principles of metrology to what he considers to be poor chemistry nomenclature.

In the 2006 case, he objected to mass-to-charge ratio being defined as dimensionless. Secondary sources defining it as dimensionless (e.g. IUPAC Gold Book ) were “minority opinion of a small group of scientists” A single source that is consistent with his argument (Cooks and Rockwood 1991) was given undue balance and used to justify POV editing.

In the 2010 dispute, he objects to Kendrick mass being defined with units of Da. Multiple secondary sources defining Kendrick mass with units of Da (e.g. ) are “outdated jargon of a part of a fringe group”. A single source (Junnien 2010 ) is given undue balance and used to justify POV editing.

The issue is sources and balance.

Whether this is dealt with as an amendment to the prior case or as a new case, this is the same behavior as before. --Kkmurray (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In the likelihood that this request for amendment is not granted, I will take Physchim62 up on the offer to help with informal mediation and return with a new case request should it become necessary. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nick Y.
I am very busy right now and won't be able to spend much time explaining this situation. However, I will state here that the examples given by Kkmurray are original research. The OR is logical and helps to resolve some outstanding issues in the scientific literature. In other words it might make a good, as in thoughtful and compelling, opinion article in a scientific journal. There are multiple sources that conflict with one another. Rather than stating such Kehrli has chosen to resolve the issues here at wikipedia with his thoughtful suggestions as to how things should be done. His suggestions make sense and are logical and consistent with how units of measure should be defined by the strictest of rules. It simply isn't his role as an editor at wikipedia to define new units of measure, or even clarify the definitions of things that look like units of measure and are present in the scientific literature in some form. We are here to summarize and report accurately, even when what we are reporting on is a mess or conflicting with conventions. The new behavior is essentially the same as what happened last time. I wholeheartedly endorse Kkmurray's course of action here as it is clear that Kehrli is unwilling to understand or accept any feedback on the scope of his responsibilities as an editor. I also find no faults in Kkmurray's position on the substance of this issue. --Nick Y. (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To Amend or Restart To my understanding the purpose of sanctions is not to punish but to incontrovertibly inform and allow for some time and reflection. It is not alright to return to the same behavior after sanctions expire. The sanctions should have informed you that you need to listen and understand appropriate editing and behavior. Amendments to previous finding should be primarily for completing this job. "Is the same behavior persisting?" "What is it that is not clear about what is or is not OR?" "How can we help this editor to understand how to contribute effectively?" "Do sanctions need to be extended since they persist after previous sanctions, clarifications and admonitions?" The expiration of sanctions doesn't mean that the findings have expired and that the offending editor is free to return to their previous behavior. It means that the editor now has another chance to contribute as a good wikipedian.--Nick Y. (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding Kehrli's Statement I don't have the time to have the protracted debate the Kehrli seeks, nor is it necessary for the arbitrators to understand the argument that Kehrli is making. The simple fact is that Kkmurray is advocating that the articles around this issue be based on the commonly used definitions and actual usage as found in the scientific literature. Kehrli can argue perpetually why this is wrong however Kkmurray's position is consistent with wikipedia policy. This is the same conflict with m/z in the past and note that inappropriate editing at m/z and mass-to-charge ratio nearly identical to the problems a few years ago are recent. Kehrli persists in trying disprove commonly accepted units and notations that are widely used within the scientific contexts that use them. He/she also persists in finding one-off suggestions in the literature that are not widely used nor supported by any authoritative body and weave them into wikipedia. Kkmurray's representation of how the Kendrick mass is used is dead on correct. Kehrli's arguments are for making it right. The question is do we represent actual common usage or do we make it right. --Nick Y. (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Policy on Units The relevant section is: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." I think that this is the single focus of the issues here. This is the only point that needs to be addressed. Do we use the most current, most widely used notation and units as most commonly defined and used within the area being covered? Or do we make up better definitions and better uses? These are the only questions that need to be answered. --Nick Y. (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be abundantly obvious to all that when wikipedia policy states: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." that it is referring to encyclopedic (wikipedia) articles about scientific subjects.--Nick Y. (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The current Kendrick case has nothing to do with the previous m/z case
In the previous case I wrote an article explaining why the m/z notation is wrong. I thereby referred to the general principles of metrology according to which the m/z notation is indeed wrong. However, I could not produce a source that specifically said that m/z is wrong. This lead the arbitrators, which were all not experts in the field of metrology, believe that my article was OR.

In this case here, which is about a mass scale and not a physical quantity of mass per charge, I was much more careful. I learned from the past experience. I only wrote things that had literal sources. This time I did not rely solely on sources that showed that I used the correct methods. Everything I wrote is sourced. There is absolutely no OR, as I will show later.

In addition I wrote a much more balanced article. It was not an article that showed that some terminology is wrong. It is an article that discusses a method in physical chemistry in the correct terminology as well as in the incorrect terminologies. I then listed passages from the VIM (vocabulary of international metrology) that will indicate to the expert that the terminology is not compliant to the VIM. I did not write down this conclusion because it could have been seen as OR.

Note that even my adversary Nick says that I have the facts right.

I am not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, but since this is an amendment of an old case which has nothing to do with the new Kendrick case, I should now probably continue defending the old case.

Why the old m/z case came to a wrong decision
This previous case was about the question whether mass spectrometers measure the physical quantity mass-to-charge ratio m/Q (with dimension mass/charge) or a ill defined, nameless and dimensionless quantity m/z which is often used by the analytical chemistry branch of the mass spec community. My arguments based mainly on a paper written by two outstanding scientists (Cooks and Rockwood) that tried to introduce a new terminology in mass spectrometry by replacing the dimensionless quantity m/z by a well defined quantity with dimension mass/charge and using the Thomson (unit) for this quantity. Unfortunately, in this paper they themselves used terminology that was not 100% decisive. They continued to use the symbols m/z for their quantity. My argument was that they considered m/z as a quantity of dimension mass/charge which correctly should have the symbols m/Q according to the international conventions. This mistake is made by many mass spectrometrists. Of all those that use m/z symbols, about 1/3 thinks of it as a mass-to-charge ratio (my guess how the authors meant it), 1/3 thinks it is a mass (and use Da as units), and 1/3 think it is dimensionless. Kkmurray then argued that it was not certain what the authors meant with their symbol m/z and that my "assumption" (which was based on the actual text in the paper) was not solid and therefore my article is OR.

In the mean time, one of the authors has visited Wikipedia. He has corrected the article Thomson (unit) in my sense and has stated that the the authors thought of m/z as a quantity of mass/charge and the unit Th as a unit Th = Da/e. He added this section in the article:


 * Unfortunately, the article proposing the unit of the thomson contains an ambiguity relating to the specification of charge. In one place the article refers to "charge number," as noted above, but in another place the article specifies charge in terms of actual units of charge: "Using standard rules for abbreviation, we have 1 Th = 1 u/ atomic charge." Or in other words the units of the thomson are units of mass (unified atomic mass units) divided by units of charge (atomic or elementary charge). This unfortunate ambiguity may have contributed to the controversey over the unit. The ambiguity about specification of charge does not affect the numerical value assigned to the mass-to-charge ratio of an ion, but instead relates to the dimensionality to be associated with the number. Clarification of the original intent of the authors has not appeared in the literature, although in private communications Rockwood states that the intended dimensionality was mass/charge with the specific units being unified atomic mass units per elementary charge.

He labeled this correction: Removed gratuitous comment and opinion refering to those who use the thomson as the "fringe" of the mass spec community. Which shows that Kkmurray edits were indeed non-neutral.

The author even engaged in a discussion with Kkmurray where he slapped his wrist for being non-neutral in the Thomson (unit) article:

In other words: the author not only stated that my interpretation of the paper was correct, he also was angry about the non-neutral wording of Kkmurray.

In hindsight the appearance of one of the authors shows that my ban was incorrect. Since we are already engaged in an amendment, I therefore ask the arbitrators to reverse the ban that was given to me in 2006 so I get back a blank jacket. This would help me to better withstand the troll-like behavior of Kkmurray who engages in disruptive behavior in almost each of my edits, as I will show later.

I also ask the new arbitrators to spell a ban on Kkmurray for his disruptive behavior.

Why the new accusations of OR are wrong
Here is a list of alleged OR of mine. I will show for each one of them why it is not OR. This may get very technical. Please ask a specialist in metrology for an opinion,


 * Kendrick mass

It is not quite clear what exactly should be OR, the claim is not very specific. I assume the following citation needed lables are the problem:


 * The Kendrick mass is a mass obtained by scaling International System of Units (SI) masses such as atomic mass unit (u), or dalton (Da) to simplify the display of peak patterns in hydrocarbon mass spectra.

Here is the explanation of the citation needed tags, in order of their appearance:
 * 1) scaling an SI unit is a process that is not foreseen or described anywhere in the metrology literature. Metrology strongly prohibits fiddling around with units. It is actually against the law. For natural units one finds often the expression "scaling to 1", but not for SI units.
 * 2) the atomic mass unit is explicitly called a unit outside the SI by all relevant metrology institutions
 * 3) same for the Da


 * Kendrick (unit)

I added a unit infobox for the Kendrick unit. What should be wrong with this?


 * Atomic mass unit

Again, I added a standard unit infobox for the Dalton unit. What should be wrong with this?


 * Thomson (unit)

I supplemented the charge state of the ions with their actual charge. This is completely appropriate since, as we now have learned from its inventor, the Thomson unit is a unit of mass/charge, not mass/(charge state). In the context of this article it would even be appropriate to eliminate any reference to charge state completely.


 * m/z

I added a physical unit infobox, which is 100% appropriate since m/z is a physical quantity in the eyes of any metrologist.


 * The "Kehrli Plot" and original methods:

The Kehrli plot is not even in the article. It is on the talk page where I try to explain a broader view of the Kendrick analysis. The Kehrli Plot would be OR if it were in an article, but on a talk page it is perfectly ok to explain things. This is a typical example of the disruptive behavior of Kkmurray.


 * Rationale for original research and rejecting published scientific literature:

This again is not in an article. It is on a talk page where I try to explain the concepts of modern metrology to Kkmurray.


 * Rejection of secondary sources

This again is not in an article. It is on a talk page where I try again to explain the concepts of modern metrology to Kkmurray. These are all concepts that implement the consensus terminology of the IUPAP red book, AND the IUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND the International vocabulary of metrology.


 * Conclusion: there is no OR on my side

Why Kkmurray should be banned for disruptive behavior

 * 1) Kkmurray moved/renamed my Kendrick unit article to Kendrick mass without any prior discussion. Wikipedia rules, however, state clearly: if you believe the move might be controversial (consider using the movenotice template to draw attention to the proposed move and new title, and start discussion on the talk page)
 * 2) Kkmurray reverts almost all of my edits, usually for no good reasons, just to stalk me.
 * 3) Kkmurray had even my Sandbox articles deleted during a period where I was not active on Wikipedia, |see here. These were articles where I was working on improvements and removing OR, for heaven's sake. It is not reasonable behavior to prevent improvements on Wikipedia.
 * 4) Kkmurray is violating the principle of good faith
 * 5) Kkmurray is continuously inserting gratuitous comments and opinion (not my words) into my articles in order to sabotage them.
 * 6) Kkmurray is pushing the outdated jargon of a fringe group (mass spectrometrists) over the international consensus terminology of the IUPAP red book, AND the IUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND the International vocabulary of metrology in all his edits. He thereby renders the articles non-understandable to the wider public.
 * 7) He is stealing my time as well as the time of you, the arbitrators, with his stalking behavior

The Big Picture

 * Kkmurray is pushing the outdated jargon of a part of a fringe group (mass spectrometrists) into Wikipedia


 * I think Wikipedia should be understandable to the wider public and therefore think the international consensus terminology of the IUPAP red book, AND the IUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND the International vocabulary of metrology which is also used by some researchers in the same fringe group (mass spectrometrists), is more appropriate.

That's all. Both views can produce sources. That is why it comes down to a really simple question:
 * Should Wikipedia give answers to the wider public or should it address ivory tower specialist in their own jargon

PS: I am currently very short on time and may not answer immediately. Kehrli (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Nick's Statement

 * Kkmurray's position is consistent with wikipedia policy. 
 * Not true. Wikipedia policy says here:

The use of units of measurement is guided by the following principles:
 * Avoid ambiguity: Aim to write so you cannot be misunderstood.
 * Familiarity: The less readers have to look up definitions, the easier it is to be understood.
 * International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific; apart from some regional or historical topics, use the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question.

The facts are: Hence I conclude that wikkipedia policy strongly favors my approach.
 * 1) The international consensus terminology (of the IUPAP red book, AND the IUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND the International vocabulary of metrology) is much less ambiguous than the jargon that is used in the field of mass spectrometry. For example, the definition of m/z has changed multiple times during the last 25 years. The use m/z is not consistent at all. 3 different researchers will have 3 different uses. This makes it completely ambiguous.
 * 2) The international consensus is also much more familiar to most people except for those from the field of mass spectrometry, which understand both ways since, as I said above, even within the field there is no consensus on m/z use. For example, there are about 3 different uses of m/z and it is not clear at all which is the most common.


 * Kehrli persists in trying disprove commonly accepted units and notations that are widely used within the scientific contexts that use them. 
 * They are widely used, but so are the ones that I promote. The later in addition comply with the international consensus on terminology.


 * He/she also persists in finding one-off suggestions in the literature that are not widely used nor supported by any authoritative body and weave them into wikipedia.
 * Not true either. For example, I found many different sources for the Kendrick mass units, among them a source from Marshall himself, which is the preferred source of Kkmurray. There is no "one-of" here.


 * Kkmurray's representation of how the Kendrick mass is used is dead on correct. 
 * Not true: as you wrote yourself, there is no consistent use at all. Therefore Kkmurray's representation cannot be dead on correct. Sometimes the Kendrick mass is unitles and sometimes it is in dalton. Both is obviously wrong. Both do not comply with the normal terminology established by metrology. Both are mathematically incorrect.


 * Kehrli's arguments are for making it right.
 * No, my argument is for the consensus terminology since it can be understood by more people than the scientific jargon of a fringe group that makes no sense in the bigger picture.


 * The question is do we represent actual common usage or do we make it right.
 * No, we can do both, use the consensus terminology that all people understand AND thereby make it right.


 * In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic.
 * In Wikipedia we do not write scientific articles. That would be OR. We explain science to the layman. Therefore we need to, I quote: Use familiar units rather than obscure units—do not write over the heads of the readership. Familiar is mainly the international consensus terminology.

Statement by Physchim62
ZOMG! The finer points of metrological opinion as the basis for an ArbCom case! Where should I start? Well, firstly, both “sides” have tried to seek mediation from relevant WikiProjects without success. I’ve seen their requests on both WP:CHM and WP:MEASURE, but didn’t get involved because the dispute seemed to be about such small points of interpretation. I neither agree nor disagree with either “side” completely. To atone for my sins of Wikilaziness, I offer the parties the analysis below as a basis for moving forward: if there is agreement to look for mediation, we can always squat a page at WP:MEDCAB to sort out the details.

To avoid any arguments over terminology, I shall call ℚ the physical quantity that mass spectrometrists pretend to measure. This quantity is related to m/Q by the laws of electromagnetism and (more precisely) to m/z because of the quantization of electric charge at the molecular scale. Note that Q and z are not the same kind of physical quantity: Q is continuous and has the dimension IT, while z is discontinuous and has the dimension 1.

I say “pretend to measure”, because ℚ (whatever name you give it) cannot be measured directly without a knowledge of the magnetic field, a recurring problem in metrology. The only way to measure the magnetic field along the path of interest is to calibrate the output of the mass spectrometer for an ion whose mr/z is accurately known: let’s call this calibration output ℚ°. So the measurement result of a mass spectrometric measurement is actually ℚ/ℚ°, a quantity that is obviously of dimension one. The spectrometrist (or, more usually, the spectrometer) then multiplies by the known value of mr/z for the standard to give ℚ. Yet both mr and z are also quantities of dimension one, so ℚ itself must also be of dimension one. Or, to be more precise, it is a quantity of dimension one related to the physical response of the mass spectrometer by a calibration constant.

So where do the thomson and the kendrick unit fit into all this? Well, they are units that are not coherent with the SI. Nothing wrong with that, the dalton isn’t coherent with the SI either! But the current definition of the thomson on Wikipedia is a classic example of harmlessly sloppy metrology by chemists: it has units on both sides of the equation, yet units from different, incoherent systems! The formal way to deal with this problem is to define a physical constant, which will have different values (and maybe even different dimensions) in the different systems. So we define the “Thomson constant” mTh such that mTh = mu/e = 1 Th. It is obvious that we can also define a “Kendrick constant” mKe = mu/(Ar(12C)+2Ar(1H))e = 1 Ke. The two units are of the same type, non-coherent with one another but both traceable to the SI through experimentally determined constants.

Secondly, this doesn’t seem to be a simple case of WP:OR on either side, although much of what has been argued over would have been better in a peer-reviewed article than on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the dispute is disruptive and appears to be spreading to more articles.

Finally, I’m sure I’m not the only one to question whether the reopening of a case from 2006 is really the best procedural way forward. If this case has to come before ArbCom, it should be as a new case: I would suggest that such a new case could probably be resolved by motion, given the limited scope of the dispute. Physchim62 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements; will comment thereafter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have some mixed feelings here. On the one hand, Kirill's point is well-taken, and it's difficult for us to talk about renewing remedies from a 2006 case given the time that has elapsed and the fact that not a single current arbitrator was on the committee in 2006. On the other hand, if, as appears to be true, an editor is currently engaged in exactly the same behavior for which he was sanctioned in 2006, it doesn't seem that the entire panoply of a new case should be required. Or, if we do ask for a new case, we should do our best to expedite it, which in the context of a one-editor dispute should certainly should be doable. In any event, waiting a couple more days (but only that!) for any additional statements to come in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Further clarifying my thinking, and responding to the latest comment above, whether we act (if at all) through a motion or a new case might depend in part on what Kehrli has to say. At the moment, he hasn't said anything, but then again, he hasn't edited at all in the week since this request was posted (whether that's cause-and-effect or not is impossible to say). So, I think we need to wait a little while longer and see what happens next. My views might be very different depending on whether he offers a reasonable explanation of why the current circumstances differ from 2006, or whether he goes back to editing while ignoring the request, or whatever else he might do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Awaiting statements also - please note that as this is a case from 2006, I will only be reading the final decision as background. If more background reading is needed, please indicate this in statements. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the old case, the remedies there have expired, so if anything was done here we would be reinstating (and extending) them, rather than amending them. In essence, this should be treated as a request to reopen the case. My view is that given the period of time that has elapsed, and the complexity of the matter, the best thing to do is to reopen the case (or start a new one) rather than attempt to work out on the amendments page what is going on here. But I'm holding off on my final decision here until Kehrli has had a chance to make a statement. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with my colleagues. Even though this does appear to be the same conduct issues, a new case would be best. Either that, or mediation. I would advise the filer to either refile for a new case, or to take up Physchim62's offer of informal mediation. Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a general point, I'm opposed to the idea of dragging a four-year-old case from the grave to impose new sanctions; arbitration remedies are not meant to be a perpetual hammer hanging over editors' heads long after they've expired. If there's a dispute that needs our attention, it would be better framed as a new case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My instincts are against resurrecting a four-year-old case, especially when the last sanction under it was in September 2006. I'd like to hear from Kehrli before finally deciding.  Roger  talk 08:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading through the area, I'm going to have to decline this as an amendment, with the suggestion that it be re-filed as a full case (which would be reasonably be expedited) SirFozzie (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with SirFozzie and others; this appears to need a full case rather than an extension of something from four years ago. Shell  babelfish 22:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I too think that, should this proceed, a fresh case is required. Risker (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues that this needs to be filed as a full case request. There is enough difference in context after four years elapsed that simply reviving a sanction this old without an examination de novo would be profoundly unfair.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Climate Change case (3) (November 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  JohnWBarber (talk) at 04:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * JohnWBarber (initiator)
 * William M. Connolley
 * Polargeo
 * Thegoodlocust
 * Marknutley
 * ChrisO
 * Minor4th
 * ATren
 * Hipocrite
 * Cla68
 * GregJackP
 * A Quest For Knowledge
 * Verbal
 * ZuluPapa5
 * FellGleaming

All notified (except for ChrisO).

Statement by JohnWBarber
In the discussion of the previous clarification, I made this point:
 * I assume requests to modify the CC case decision are exempt from this, and discussing on Arb election pages actions by Arbitrators in this case is also exempt. I may do both (if I have the time and the stomach for it), but in recent days I haven't even had time to think about it. Those possible future posts would be discussing actions of arbitrators, but that might touch on behavior of other editors. If I make any statements, it will be clear that I'm focusing on arbitrators and their decision and not trying to coatrack some kind of attack on other editors. If that's disallowed, please tell me now. This case should be brought up in the upcoming elections, and that shouldn't be a part of any topic ban as long as editors aren't trying to use discussions to fight among themselves.

No ArbCom member directly addressed my concern. Please address it now. I think it's absurd to have to bring this up, but a lot of things I think are absurd become reasons admins use to issue blocks, and Jehochman just announced on Newyorkbrad's talk page that he'd block editors sanctioned in this case from bringing up the actions of ArbCom members as they relate to this case in discussions about Arb elections. Please confirm that you haven't taken away our right to criticize you. I think we should be able to do so on your talk pages (to the extent that individual arbs agree to that discussion) or on pages reserved for discussions about the elections.

I realize this is not a government and that no one has actual "rights" here on Wikipedia, but gagging editors when what they really want to do is discuss ArbCom actions in an ArbCom election, even if the ArbCom actions under discussion are about how ArbCom members acted in the CC case, seems to take a desire for order in the CC topic area to a ridiculous extreme. We're not editing the articles. We're not discussing CC topics. There is a desire to discuss how ArbCom members judged editors who edited CC-topic articles. By necessity in such a discussion, some CC-topic edits, or at least edits to ArbCom pages that link to CC-topic edits, will come up. There's a point at which a ban on discussing a topic becomes absurd. This is that point. We're not a government, but we're not East Germany either. Or am I going to be blocked for posting this?

Statement by Wikidemon
Wait a minute, does every arbitrator involved in a case who is standing for re-election have to recuse from ruling on whether a gag order issued in the case bars editors from commenting on the case in the upcoming election? That would be interesting. Who is left to decide the motion? Maybe we should form a committee of uninvolved nonadmins to rule on this.

Basic principles of governance -- of any organization, not just political bodies -- dictate that an order issued by an elected / appointed body restricting a person's actions cannot bar the person from appealing the order or from discussing the wisdom of those issuing it, each in the appropriate forum. The only thing that would justify closing the doors of appeal to someone (other than sundry matters like secrecy, libel, or court orders) is that they have exhausted all appeals and/or are abusing the forum. ArbCom members and administrators involved in ArbCom matters sometimes forget this, or perhaps they never learned it. A party to a case cannot reasonably be banned from criticizing or advocating in good faith against administrators who ruled against them in the case. We have to allow that discussion. If it becomes a proxy for re-arguing the merits of climate change science and the behavior of the parties to the case, that goes too far and somebody could declare some limits. Short of that, ArbCom is criticized enough as it is for being out of touch with the process of editing the encyclopedia and the volunteers who do so. Closing the door to those editors would only worsen that perception.

Statement by Jehochman
Those who got themselves topic banned from Climate Change did not demonstrate a good-sized dollop of common sense. Usually editors are topic banned for lack of common sense or lack of self control. If the "usual suspects" decide to get into a battle on the election pages, I will block them if I see it. If you want to comment on the arbitrator only, that's fine, but I don't think your words will carry that much weight. No doubt there will be a chorus singing "sour grapes" if you decide to attack an arbitrator for having dared to sanction you. For your own good, just drop the subject completely, in all venues, at all times, and do not look for exceptions, exemptions or ways to get in your last licks. Go edit productively, and soon enough this sorry incident will be a fading memory. Jehochman Talk 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ScottyBerg
I agree with Jehochman. While it may be theoretically possible for involved editors - both those sanctioned and named in the decision - to comment on the Arbcom elections, it runs the risk of reeking of sour grapes. I think that such editors has better stay away, and the same goes for editors in other cases who have been spanked by Arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I'm so teed off by the recent, unjustified blocks of Hipocrite and Connelley for voting in an RfA that I'm withdrawing my statement and now arguing in favor of allowing topic banned editors to make whatever statements they want int he Arbcom elections. I'm disturbed by the trigger-happy blocking that I'm seeing, and I believe that it must stop. The pendulum has officially swung too far in the opposite direction. Let's take the gags from the mouths of topic banned editors. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by WMC
I agree with Kirill, and reject the comments by JEH and SB who should (IMHO) realise that their comments here really are neither necessary nor useful; JEH, in particular, whilst basically a good guy, needs to stop acting as though someone appointed him sheriff of this case William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ZuluPapa5*
Topic bans are for topics, election bans are for elections. Impacted editors must be able to express their opinions in elections, without disruptions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest the ARBs consider issuing a Request For Comment on the case (and their performance), prior to the elections. This could help provide productive feedback, or incite further battle game flames. Take your POV, then take your pick. Outside critiques would be appreciated I am sure. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, it might be a good time for Jehochman, to pause and re-evaluate. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ATren
This is getting ridiculous. JEH is handing out block threats like candy on Halloween. The elections have nothing to do with the climate change topic area, but the events surrounding this case are entirely relevant to the elections. I have serious issues with the way 3 specific arbitrators handled this case (I think they know who they are) and I fully intend to ask very hard questions of those arbs if they are running. There is nothing in the letter or spirit of the topic ban that prevents me from doing so. JEH is out of line here.

And frankly, I am getting tired of people like JEH, SA, and TS (note: TS has indicated he has stepped back from CC, so this only refers to prior actions ATren (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)) acting in enforcement roles in all this. All three of these editors were significantly involved in this topic area, to the point where there was significant discussion of their behavior on the PD talk page. And it's these three who have, since the case closed, repeatedly overreacted with spurious enforcement requests, warnings and/or threats. Their responses, in most cases, have escalated minor issues into major blowups. In this example, it was a discussion about the particulars of a case finding on an arbitrator's talk page. The arb himself responded and there was civil disagreement, but no major issue. Then JEH showed up and started threatening blocks for merely participating in the election process, and here we are again with another clarification. More needless drama, caused not by one of the banned editors (WMC in this case, whom I almost NEVER defend), but by the overreaction of JEH. ATren (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz
What ATren said. Take heed, this is something that has been extremely rare. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Clarification: I agree with the general gist of ATren's comment, i.e. that enforcement actions are used to stifle legitimate debate, and that some editors and admins are overly aggressive in acting against trivial and perceived deviations from what they perceive as the officially blessed behavior, creating unnecessary drama and an unproductive editing environment. I have not followed the actions of all individual editors named by him to have a settled opinion on each. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Polargeo
I agree with ATren. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
It doesn't happen often that Stephan Schulz, Polargeo, and SBHB agree with ATren. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Awickert
What ATren, Kirill, and Coren said. Hurrah for rapidly-evolving consensus to be reasonable! Awickert (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse, as I'll be a candidate in the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to Wikidemon: If all or most the sitting arbitrators were going to be involved in the election, then those of us who will be candidates would have a duty to respond to the request for clarification anyway, since no one else could do it; this is the wiki equivalent of the "rule of necessity" (see discussion of real-world aspects in the recusal article). But that is not the situation here: we have 7 arbitrators with another year to go in their terms, plus some more who are choosing not to run for reelection this year. Thus, there will be more than enough eligible arbitrators to comment on the request for clarification without my and others chiming in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The very rare DOUBLE Recusal, as I recused in the original case, and I'm standing in the election. SirFozzie (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, appeals to the Committee remain permitted unless we specifically prohibit them, which we have not done in this case. If people begin filing frivolous appeals in an attempt to continue fighting with the other parties to the case, of course, that may change. As far as elections are concerned, if you wish to comment on the Committee's ruling, or on individual arbitrator's statements as they relate to the case, you're quite free to do so.  You may not, however, use the election as a pretext to engage in advocacy regarding content or policy disputes in the climate change area, or to attack other parties to the climate change case.  The line between these may be a thin one in certain circumstances, and it will ultimately be up to the administrators enforcing the topic ban to determine whether you're misusing the election pages; but, so long as we remain the only targets of your criticism, I think everyone will be reasonable about it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with how Kirill has put things; in particular, we generally only limit the rate of appeals and not the ability to make a timely appeal. And I agree that criticism of arbitrators (or candidates) regarding past record of decisions is exactly what an election discussion is for; and so this is pretty much by definition permissible. But there is a line between legitimate criticism and disruptive advocacy, and a good dollop of common sense suffices to stay well behind that line.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill pretty much hit the nail on the head. Shell  babelfish 22:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agreeing with Kirill. Risker (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill. Please remember that while elections do give some latitude for frank discussions and forceful questioning, they are not a free-for-all and restraint is still required. If the election co-ordinators, or others looking on, raise concerns, please listen to them and moderate your conduct accordingly. And as Kirill says, focus on the candidates, and don't use the elections as a coatrack to relitigate the case or attack those you were in dispute with. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: ARBPIA (November 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Cptnono (talk) at 08:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cptnono
1/rr was just rolled out across the topic. It has already proven to not mean much but the main reason I am bringing this up here is because editors do not know where to take requests for enforcement. There will be violations even though we all wish they didn't come up. Does it come to AE or the edit warring noticeboard?

Statement by George
I think that edit warring noticeboard is more adept at handling simpler, first-time infractions of the 1RR sanction, while more problematic, long term, serial sanction violators should be referred to AE. Just my two cents. ← George talk 08:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I have 3 cents and it says that AE is superior since it is focused on topic areas of heightened conflicts and should receive faster and stronger results :) I can see problems with both since the edit warring noticeboard is more likely to be ignored but AE is more drama. Edit warring board might also have admins fresh to the topic area (which could be a good thing) but they are less informed on problem editors (although AE has not taken care of problem editors). I don't think it matters too much but it needs to be efficient so whatever makes most sense for the guys looking at the issue is a good thing.Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't have a problem if other editors want to go to AE first, but I think we should be free to go to either (though not both for the same incident, which would be forum shopping). AE is about as focused as a wrecking ball operated by a drunk... it may swing this way today and knock everyone out, or it might miss the building entirely. Keeps life exciting, at least. :) ← George talk 08:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not using a wrecking ball today!Cptnono (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens
Requests to enforce the 1RR itself can be taken to AN3. If you ask for action to be taken under the discretionary sanctions provision (i.e., beyond a simple 1RR block), take it to AE. T. Canens (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TC. That is one admin. We don't need a dozen or anything but if we have a few say how they prefer it then others can take it from there. It isn't like we need a set rule or anything but being able to say a simple "hey it would be best if you went that direction" might be nice.10:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you take a look at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142 you will see some cases of Arbcom sanctions being handled at AN3, in a workmanlike fashion. Violations of 1RR are well within the abilities of AN3. Here are three examples:

Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142 16 October, 2010 User was cited for long-term edit warring on articles subject to WP:ARBMAC2. Blocked two weeks, put under 1RR per the discretionary sanctions.

Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142 User:Hammer of Habsburg reported by User:Taivo (Result:48 hours ) 19 October 2010 Violation of a 1RR restriction imposed under WP:ARBMAC

Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142 20 October 2010 Claimed violation of a 1RR restriction imposed under WP:ARBPIA. The admin did not judge that it was a violation of 1RR; closed as No Violation. (Eventuallly he got blocked anyway for 24 hours, not sure where it was discussed).

-- EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Climate Change (November 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Hipocrite (talk) at 17:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


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


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

Amendment 1

 * New finding of fact

Sphilbrick has edited

27) Sphilbrick has edited pages related to Climate Change.

Clarification 2

 * Regarding topic bans

Are topic banned users permitted to !vote in RFA's related to people who have once edited climate change articles? If yes, are they permitted, on request, to justify their vote, as long as such justification is not a re-fighting of the same thing?

Statement by Hipocrite
Sphilbrick is currently in the middle of an RFA. If he were an admin at the time the CC case went through the motions, I would have sought to have him mentioned similarly to StephanS. Since he was not an admin at the time, and was not a major participant in the troubles, he was ignored by most. However, as he is nearly an admin now, I think that it is important and relevant that ArbCom note that he edited Climate Change articles. It should also be noted that making this finding of fact will subject Sphilbrick to the "Involved administrators" standing order that individuals identified by name in the decision are not permitted to impose sanctions. Sphilbrick has already consented to avoid using any hypothetical admin tools to administrate CC articles in.

Further, I was recently blocked for a week as I !voted in an RFA, but when asked for a justification was forced to dodge said with the comment that I was topic banned. Was that the appropriate response, or should I have never !voted in any RFA related to any Climate Change related party, or should I have just provided a climate change related justification? (Or should I just have lied about my concerns?)

My goal, as I have stated before, was to leave the topic area behind, and I have done that. I was not involved in any of the flare-ups, but I don't think that I should be forced to have my voice discounted. I can provide other circumstances where I have dodged discussing climate change, if the committee desires. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

NYB - I was blocked for a week for my comment. I don't think my comment was incorrect. Please confirm if my comments were correct or incorrect. Coren had previously commented that my understanding of my topic ban was overbroad. Hipocrite (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ScottyBerg
I agree with Hipocrite. His request was occasioned by an absurd block of him and Connelly for participating in that RfA. I would take his request one step further: topic banned users should receive a safe harbor from blocking, and should be permitted to vote and comment on RfAs, without restriction on their comments concerning CC. This trigger-happy blocking must stop; it is preventing a free exchange of ideas in one of the most crucial parts of Wikipedia. Come to think of it, this experience has made me change the view that I previously expressed on Arbcom voting/discussions as well. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by jc37
I just wanted to note (in case anyone reading this wasn't aware) that the RfA part of this request may have somewhat of a time constraint, due to interactions at Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick. And this has been discussed in several places, most notably at WP:BN, and User talk:Hipocrite.

Also, I'm wondering if the comments concerning the arb elections at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, would equally apply here. In particular, what should we consider "common sense", in usage and potential enforcement WP:AE.

While topic bans are not new, this particular case did seem to have some results which were unique to it, or at the very least, making topic bans seem unique when compared to other (typical) types of sanction. So typical generalisations about common sense would seem to be more difficult here. Maybe something general about what is common sense in how one may interact with other editors when under a topic ban. Since: topic bans suggest interaction with content, vs. these questions which involve interactions with other editors.

So clarification on this would be most welcome. - jc37 19:20, 13 November 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.}

Arbitrator votes and comments

 * As Hipocrite correctly points out, in his RfA, Sphilbrick has already acknowledged that he has edited climate change. He also has confirmed (partly in response to a question by me) that if his RfA is successful, he will take no administrator actions in that topic area. I perceive no need to amend the closed case to make a historical finding of a clearly undisputed fact. (If we are asked for an amendment every time an editor on an article subject to discretionary sanctions starts an RfA, we are going to be very, and unnecessarily, busy on this page). ¶ The scope of the topic bans needs, as we have said several times before, to be interpreted in a common-sense manner. The observations made by several of us on various other requests for clarification on this page apply equally here. ¶ (Disclosure: I have cast a support !vote on Sphilbrick's RfA, raising a potential recusal issue. I see no value to recusing from making a general comment here and posting pro forma in another section. If a motion is proposed, I will reevaluate any need to recuse at that time.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not going to retroactively add a finding to the case every time someone who has edited in the area requests adminship. The remedy prohibiting enforcement by named administrators was created in the context of the specific administrators who were actually named in the case, and based on the nature and degree of their involvement; it was never intended as a general sanction against any administrator who might have a similar background.  Further, given that Sphilbrick has voluntarily agreed to avoid any potentially controversial administrative actions, I see no reason for the Committee to be involved at all. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As Kirill and Brad have said, no need for the amendment. As far as the clarification goes, that should technically be on a different page, but the question might as well be answered here. My view, as I stated elsewhere, is that civil and reasonable RFA comments that help the bureaucrats, that contribute constructively to the discussion, and do not stoke drama, are perfectly acceptable. Please avoid purposefully reigniting disputes over the disputed topic area (the topic area that is the subject of the topic ban in question). In other words, provide the bureaucrats with enough information to weigh the value of your comment, but also pay heed to the topic ban. If you are in any doubt, ask for clarification. It also helps to state whether or not you regularly participate at RFA and undertake a careful review of the candidates, or whether you tend to comment only on RFAs of those that you recognise. If you are only aware of an editor and their RfA because you've previously interacted with them in the disputed topic area, then that is less acceptable than if you've interacted with them elsewhere and are prepared to comment on their editing and actions outside the topic area. If you have no interest in anything outside the disputed topic area, that indicates a loss of perspective and an excessive focus on one topic area. So my advice to topic-banned editors who wish to comment on RFAs of editors who they are mostly aware of due to their editing in the disputed topic area, is to look at their editing and actions elsewhere, to review that, and then make a comment at the RFA accordingly. That allows you to contribute constructively, and avoids drama. Let others comment on the editing and actions of the editor in question in the disputed topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Topic-banned editors are not prevented from discussing the candidate in RFAs. However, they are under restrictions, and consensus – both here here and at WP:BN – seems to be that they should comment with restraint, common sense and some circumspection. As RFAs run seven days, there is plenty of time to comment and it might be sensible to avoid appearing to take the lead/provoke drama in areas that impinge on the topic ban. As there is of course no requirement that each oppose !vote must be made from whole cloth, it is difficult to see how a simple "Oppose: Concerns about [insert concern] per X or Y" or very similar, would result in either the !vote carrying less than full weight or in a breach the topic ban.  Roger  talk 08:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with my colleagues, particularly Newyorkbrad and Kirill. Risker (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to lift/clarify topic ban (November 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  ellol (talk) at 14:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


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


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

Amendment 1

 * Topic ban of user Ellol
 * I appeal to lift my topic ban.

Statement by Ellol
Hello.

6-7 months ago I participated in a messy case (Russavia-Biophys). I feel sorry about that now. I wish to stay away from controversies.

I have no great plans for Wikipedia. But I think I could make some minor contributions to Wikipedia articles regarding Russia's share of the modern aerospace projects, keeping them up to date in view of recent news. I also would like to upload some of the photos of Russia's buildings, publicly requested by user Russavia User:Russavia/Required_photos. I think it would be very important to allow people in the world to see more of the Moscow sights in Wikipedia.

It would be good if my topic ban is lifted. If it's not feasible, please, tell me if I could make contributions about Russia's space projects or upload photos of Moscow.

Regards, ellol (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Biophys

 * You know my email. If you need to measure raman spectra of your specimens, feel free to contact me. As for the Wikipedia, I decided it's the best to leave it. Regards, ellol (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Kirill

 * Hello, Kirill.
 * Thank you for the reply.
 * Okey, I get it.
 * No worries, just I do not want to have my name mentioned in the list of topic-banned users. It's personal.
 * Regards, ellol (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys
As another party of the case I support lifting the ban for Ellol. He must have his second chance, just as everyone else. There is little to comment because he was not especially active during this time. Let's forgive and forget. Let's improve situation in this area. In particular, I would be very much willing to collaborate with Ellol on any subject he wants to collaborate with me. Same should be done by others in this area. Of course I do not insist on any collaboration. Such things must be mutual. I am telling this because Ellol seems to be the only editor who is interested in the same subjects as me, such as human rights in Russia. On the other hand, I never edited favorite subjects of Offliner (Russian military-industrial complex) or Russavia (aviation and foreign relations). So, I have no common interests with them... Biophys (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

 * The user formally known as Biophys has been renamed by Nihonjoe to a new name which can be seen in the history, keeping all his old contributions and his existing block log.
 * The person who filed the amendment request and signs himself as Ellol is someone who had previous chosen to vanish. I believe he is not eligible to file this request. Since filing here, he has been blocked by User:Avraham. If you check the history of this page you will see what is going on. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * As I've mentioned in the other amendment request for this case, the conflicts in this area continue unabated; given the circumstances, I don't think it would be beneficial to have you resume editing on this topic just yet. As far as images are concerned, you're perfectly free to upload them, since the topic ban only prohibits you from editing articles; you'll simply need someone else to add them to the articles for you. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The filing party has now chosen to vanish from the project, so unless I am missing something, I believe this request can be considered as withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys (December 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Biophys (talk) at 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * Remedy 3
 * Remedy 4


 * List of users affected by this amendment
 * (initiator)

Amendment 1

 * Biophys topic_banned
 * Biophys restricted - this is a related remedy that may be enacted after the topic ban

Statement by Biophys
I would like to apologize for contributing to disruption and ask for review and direction at this point, almost six months since the beginning of my topic ban. During this time I was active, edited in allowed areas, avoided conflicts, and tried to deal with problems noted in your findings of fact.

What was my problem? I edited 4,000 different articles (and a lot of them are related to my Russian cultural background) and created 250 new pages. Few my edits caused anyone's objections, but I always returned back to the articles where someone reverted my edits to be engaged in prolonged disputes, edit warring and complaints. It came at no surprise that the trouble happened in a difficult area that has been already a subject of numerous sanctions.

To avoid this problem in a future I am going to leave any article to others and edit something else if a dispute can not be quickly resolved by talking and compromising. It is enough to remove an article from my watch list. I did just that during my topic ban. This helped me to make exactly zero reverts that could be interpreted as edit warring during all this time (a few “undo” are fixes of obvious vandalism problems). Here are a few examples of someone recently reverting my edits ,,, and I walked away from these articles. Yes, I fully realize that every editor had his reason for reverting my edits, even though I happened to disagree with them and explained why, , ,. There is nothing wrong with returning later to these articles. The entire point is to avoid creating the conflicts.

If there is something else I must do, please tell. I could not care less about ethnic and territorial disputes, but I may have a bias related to human rights issues, no matter if the victims were Russian, German or Korean , except that I know Soviet subjects much better. But my edits usually describe mainstream majority views and are referenced to books by the best experts, as in the diffs above.

In summary, I only wanted to tell that I am ready to contribute positively in this area. No, I do not feel any rush to return back to difficult subjects, but I am ready to make such decisions for myself. I am asking for an amendment mostly because I feel extremely uncomfortable being a subject of indefinite sanctions. I simply want to be a normal editor again. You issued a good preventative topic ban that helped me to spend my time in the project more productively. But it is no longer needed.

Response to Offliner
Offliner provides this diff. No, I did not really make such promises since they are not included in the final version of my statement. Still, this is something reasonable and involves three different issues.

(1) Yes, I left EEML mailing list.

(2) With regard to edit warring, I thought it was enough to limit myself mostly to 1RR per article per day. That was a serious error of judgment, and Arbcom made it very clear to me that edit warring is totally unacceptable, no matter how frequently one does it. Hence I changed my behavior and was not involved in a single edit warring incident during last six months. But edit warring is only a symptom. The real root of the problem are serious personal conflicts, which is something very much different from debating content disagreements. The only way to avoid the conflicts in this environment is to leave an article (or a disputed part of the article) to your opponent if you can not come to an agreement. That is something I was doing during these six months and will do in the future. This is a serious commitment.

(3) I tried to help by commenting at administrative noticeboards, , , (the most recent diffs in reverse chronological order).

The alleged battleground on my part. Unlike some others, I did not file a single official complaint about others to AE, ANI or other similar places for at least a year. Offliner brings here an episode when Colchicum made an AE request about Russavia still stalking my edits. Yes, I get excited when Jehochman, Petri and Russavia started claiming that it was me who actually violated the ban, despite to clarification by Shell. However, Offliner forget that I striked through my comment as soon as realized that it was indeed inappropriate, and I did not object to the non-administrative closure of the AE case by Petri Krohn. I regret about commenting anything at all in this case.

Yes, I left a few comments to Vecrumba, Radek and Martintg  and  (diffs by Offliner). I reminded to Vecrumba about Russian editor who was indefinitely banned, mostly for contributing in irrelevant discussions. I am telling Radek that "winning" is not the goal, and it might be better for him to loose a dispute or two. Is that an evidence of the "battleground" by me?

Response to DonaldDuck

 * 1) "Gaming the system" by moving to other articles and returning back. That's my editing style. I do not like improving articles that are already in a decent condition and prefer moving through a large number of pages to fix most serious problems that can be quickly fixed. As about returning back to the same pages, yes, if this topic ban is lifted, I may return to some of ~1000 articles edited by me in this area and see if they can be improved per NPOV and RS without being engaged in edit warring. If not, I will edit something else.
 * 2) The retirement. Yes, I feel extremely uncomfortable here for a number of reasons, and especially after receiving these sanctions. That's why I ask for amendments.
 * 3) Not being sincere ("What difference does it make..."). Oh, no. I am sincere. I do not want to be a subject of sanctions. Not now, not ever. And I fully realize that any sanctions can be quickly reinstated under the watchful eye of users who edit in this area. Did I do anything on purpose? Yes, I made these comments in "Communist terrorism" article talk page   to show that I can constructively discuss even the most controversial subjects. But this is just an extreme example. Speaking generally, there is nothing wrong with editing even such articles (if new consensus can be found, that's fine; if not, let's edit something else). Speaking practically, I would certainly avoid any articles in the state of active editorial war . Biophys (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Reply to EdJohnston
Just a few points to clarify the situation.
 * This is a review of my editing during last six months, after the topic ban. I had no previous sanctions by Arbcom/AE. I have no interaction ban with Russavia, or at least this is my understanding.
 * The problem was not "controversial articles" or "ethnic and territorial disputes". Edit warring had happened in a number of articles on very different subjects, some of which (like Red Banner) are not at all controversial. The problem were my attempts to restore sourced content in a number of articles, no matter what the subject. That is what I addressed in my statement above.
 * Yes, I have failed with certain controversial subjects (maybe with 2% of all controversial subjects I edited). Can I handle this better? Please see diffs above when someone reverted me during last 6 months (I repeat them: ,,). Each of these cases represents a controversy, and I handled all of them quite well. Of course, the best way to handle a controversy is not to be involved in it at the first place. Hence I simply moved to a different subject as soon as discussion became  unproductive.


 * I consider EEML case a matter of the past. I unsubscribed and do not have any email or other off-wiki communications with members of the list. Let's put it behind. Yes, I know well all EEML editors and therefore talked with them (diffs by Offliner) and commented about them, just to help them as to any other editor in trouble, but especially if I know this editor.


 * My discussion with Piotrus ("I feel extremely uncomfortable...") Sure, this is not the issue that led to the topic ban. This is a reason for me to ask for this amendment. I am getting really tired thinking which my edit can be regarded as a topic ban violation. I can not quote any Soviet scientist (like Landau), even on the scientific matters, because that would be a violation of the ban. I can not edit politics of 20th century, because most of that may be related to the Soviet Union or post-Soviet republics. And I stopped editing old Russian history after the AE request by Colchicum about Russavia (the article about Chaadayev). This particular topic ban now creates more problems than helps. That is what I am talking about.


 * My talk page . I am not talking with anyone off-wiki about my experience here. This is for a number of reasons. One of them: I do not want to scare scientists who meet today in Italy to discuss if they want to contribute to wikipedia, among other things . No, I am not attending this conference. In fact, my talk page must be deleted for precisely the same reasons (please consider this an official request).Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Petri Krohn
Petri, I do not have conflicts with anyone, you including. Yes, I had them in the past, but I do not have them now. Did I say that I have conflicts anywhere? Did I blame anyone of my own problems? No, I am very much ready to forgive and forget whatever had happened in the past, and I hope all others can do the same. No, It was exactly my point that the conflicts must be avoided at any cost (please see above). Biophys (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Vlad fedorov
Welcome back! Yes, I have a human rights-related bias. No, I have no intention to waste anyone's time. Please see my statement above. I only want to return to normal editing process, which is impossible with an indefinite topic ban. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You tell me: "You always try "to win" at any cost." Yes, perhaps that was a problem in the past. That's why I addressed this problem in my statement. Now I promise to loose any dispute as soon as discussion becomes unproductive to avoid contributing to conflicts. For example, I will leave article Boris Stomakhin to you if we still have any dispute here. If you want to describe an imprisoned journalist as a "convicted criminal ... who call to exterminate other people" (as you say) in his BLP article, then fine, this is none of my business. I thought it was my business prior to these sanctions by Arbcom. Not any more.Biophys (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to The Four Deuces
First book was written by a group of internationally recognized historians and published by the Harvard University Press. What better comprehensive textbook, specifically on the subject of communist repressions in different countries, could you possibly suggest? This is probably the best. Another book, "KGB in Europe", was prepared by a Chair of the History Faculty at Cambridge University. Did you read this book? This is based on a huge number of published sources rather than Mitrokhin's archive. These books are well above the average level of wikipedia sources. How can you claim that books by the best academic experts are "published outside the academic mainstream"?

Reply and questions to arbitrators
@Kirill, I do not understand why I should be held responsible for problematic actions by others. The problems will probably never go away from controversial areas. If I did something wrong during these six months, please tell what it is, and I will try to fix what I can.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Kirill, thank you very much for the explanation. Why are you not convinced? If you do not believe my promise not to be engaged in edit warring, then issue me 1RR restriction, as was initially planned. And if I am not engaged in edit warring, on which grounds someone would bring me again to Arbcom? A lot of editors with "patriotic" views edit in this area. Therefore, there is nothing I can do except creating new content on the subjects that do not cause anyone's objections. What's wrong with this? As you know, I always follow WP:RS in this area. Do you mean that the guys will follow all my edits to revert them all, no matter what I edit? If something like this indeed happens, I will simply edit something else (as I said above), rather than be again a subject of your sanctions. I am not a fool to repeat my own mistake twice, whatever my political views might be.Biophys (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

@Shell. ''I made exactly zero reverts that can be interpreted as edit warring during this time. This is a dramatic change in my editing habits''. I provided five examples when someone reverted my edits during this time, which did not cause any problems 1,2,3,4,5. In example 1, I left the article and its talk page, because it became a subject of edit warring between multiple parties. In case 2, a discussion was heated, but an editor finally agreed with my argument and himself made changes suggested by me. In cases 3 and 4, we came to an agreement after a brief discussion (3 - another editor suggested that I go ahead and make the changes ; 4 - I agreed that another editor is right after looking at the complicated system of relationships between different pages ). In case 5 I decided not to make any changes and stop discussion because it fueled an unnecessary conflict and became a subject of AE inquiry filed by Colchicum. What else I suppose to demonstrate?

@SirFozzie. Yes, I understand and share your sentiment. Please tell what should I do to fix the problems, whatever they are. Should I remain in protective custody forever, or it is me who creates danger for others? I can promise not to talk with anyone who edits in this area about anything except improving the content and purely technical questions/requests. Would that resolve the problems? Then fine, I will do just that. In particular, I am going to leave without answer and remove from my talk page comments like this. The only thing I ever wanted was creation of new content. The conflicts may continue to escalate, but I am not going to be involved. I hope you do not mean that I contribute to conflicts by creating new encyclopedic content? Just to clarify, I would be involved in "robust debates" as Ed Johnson said only about improvement of content and only at talk pages of the corresponding articles. Would that be a possible solution of the problem? What else I must do in addition to conflict-free editing?

@Newyorkbrad and Risker. Thank you very much. I have no problem waiting another three months to resubmit this request. Once again, my primary motivation for filing this request was returning to normal editing rather than coming back with vengeance to the conflict area. Biophys (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion
You do not want to see me again, as Kirill said. Yes, I do not want this too. Then the simplest and fastest solution would be the following. You remove all editing restrictions, but with the following clause: if I am found guilty by AE administrators of any violation in this area, the indefinite ban is automatically reinstated, without any your involvement. Then, I do not need to make any promises, and you do not need to trust me. If there are any additional recommendations, please tell, and I would be happy to follow. Biophys (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Offliner
I don't think there is sufficient reason to believe Biophys would not return to his old disruptive ways if the sanction is lifted. He has made several promises before (e.g.,), but these never caused him to alter his behaviour (see here). Biophys also continued to participate in battleground discussions during his topic ban, defending certain editors, while attacking others. Biophys' battleground mentality is still here, as clearly evidenced by diffs like this and this. Anyway, the sanction says that the topic ban is to be reviewed no sooner than after one year, not now. The ruling was pretty clear here, and modifying it now would make the original sanction look strange, even misleading. Offliner (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba and in Response to Offliner
Re: Offliner's reference of an exchange on my talk page here, Offliner's characterization is a complete misrepresentation as I was attempting to work through some conflicts in the topic area in question (and have received positive responses regarding my participation); Biophys' statement was one that I took as asking why I would seek out some area of controversy that is a known battleground (there was a raging Arbcom going on at the time I took interest to the articles in the area of dispute). Observing that there are battlegrounds and offering the observation that an editor might have better places to spend one's time is hardly exhibiting a "battleground mentality." What is a battleground mentality is Offliner always seeming to be the first to show up at these affairs to denounce those who he considers his editorial opposition. I'll spare diffs on his block shopping with regard to myself. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dojarca
I think Biophys is not sincere here. He has a long history of gaming the system, virtuously using the Wikipedia's rules against his opponents. Currently he is involved in a dispute in Communist terrorism trying to re-create this article and push material from a highly biased Black Book of Communism. He cited his topic ban as an obstacle for further discussion about this topic.

Also note that the topic ban imposed on Biophys is very narrow. It does not include Eastern Europe and Communism in general, but only the USSR-related topics. I doubt he is able to contribute constructively in this area judging from previous his contributions.

--Dojarca (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also note the Biophys sanction: Biophys is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year,  Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the arbitration Committee.

So this application should be dismissed based only on the previous decision, because Biophys currently has no right to request the review of the ban.--Dojarca (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by DonaldDuck
As far as I remember from my contacts with Biophys, he was very experienced in gaming the system. One of his tactics was moving from his battleground topic area temporalily, only to avoid sanctions, and restart his battle later. He several times declared retirement from Wikipedia during his arbitration cases (recently he asked to delete his userpage to remove traces of this multiple retirements). This recent comment by Biophys: "Besides, what difference does it make if someone follows the rules because he is now a different person or because he does not want to be a subject of sanctions?" gives reason to suspect that Biophys has not really changed his outlook, and only active sanctions keep him from returning to his battleground activity. --DonaldDuck (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces
Biophys states, "I may have a bias related to human rights issues, no matter if the victims were Russian, German or Korean". Yet in all cases the perpetrators were Communists. He also states, "my edits usually describe mainstream majority views and are referenced to books by the best experts, as in the diffs above". But the sources used include the Mitrokhin Archive, The Black Book of Communism, and The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, all of which are controversial books published outside the academic mainstream (although the Black Book was later republished by the Harvard University Press). A lot of conflict could be avoided if there were tighter restrictions on sources used, as for example in WP:MEDRS. In a Climate Change case, an editor was "prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media...without first clearing the source ...." A prohibition of that nature to all editing on these articles could be helpful. TFD (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect
As long as the person says he will abide by the rules, and does abide by the rules, there is no reason to iterate accusations that one does not believe him. This applies no matter what the topics are, nor what biases are seen by those who know the "truth" on any topic. And, as always, I find draconian punishmnets to be quite counter-effective. Collect (talk) 20:36, 5 December 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.}

Amendment 2

 * Remedy 1

Statement by Martintg
I was involved in the original Russavia-Biophys case, after Russavia continually brought complaints against myself and others forced me to act. Subsequently Russavia was restricted from interacting with former EEML members and this remedy has been remarkably successful, freeing him from the incentive for stalking for violations and allowing us to contribute in a more collegiate environment. This kind of interaction ban does not prevent people from working together on the same topic because it allows for necessary dispute resolution born out of legitimate content dispute, as interpreted by the admins patrolling AE. But it stops the perpetuation of the battleground as it forces people to either work together or ignore each other by taking away the easy option of block shopping. Therefore I request that this interaction restriction be extended to a couple more people.

When User:Offliner accuses Biophys of "battleground mentality", he doesn't come here with clean hands. As I recall, Offliner was previously involved in the harassment and outing of Biophys that was perpetrated by Russavia. Offliner was recently site banned for six months for engaging in the most extreme battleground behavior of posting a link to a freezepage of material he knew to be soon oversighted. Just recently he launched yet another Arbitration enforcement case against Vecrumba in conjunction with User:Petri Krohn. Petri Krohn has also been site banned by both the Committee and the community. Note that Krohn launched a bogus SPI case, and both of them have involved themselves in continuing their battleground having involved themselves in another recent failed AE request against myself.

Just as the Committee has grown tired of seeing the same old names over and over again, I am tired of it too. Very tired. We all want to move on. Except that Offliner and Petri Krohn seem to be stuck in the battleground headspace of 2009. Their ugly tactics are not constructive and have no place in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no attempt on their part at building a collegiate environment let alone engage in productive discussion, unlike other editors who have expressed such a willingness to work together. As univolved BorisG stated in regard to Offliner's latest AE case, this needs to stop.

Therefore I ask the ArbCom to amend Remedy 1 to: --Martin (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ", and  are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution."

@Shell, sorry perhaps I didn't articulate this clearly above: an associated interaction restriction is related to Biophys' original request. With any relaxation of Biophys' topic ban, as they would not like such an outcome, it is highly likely either Offliner or Petri Krohn would agitate some kind of action or pile on into any future dispute involving Biophys, if their recent track record indicated above is anything to go by. Note that User:Dojarca appears to be associated with Petri Krohn, having proxied for him in the past, I would check his edit history, one of his first edits after an eight month absence was to comment here. Offline co-ordination? --Martin (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ed, Biophys has good cause to feel uncomfortable editing something like Pyotr Chaadayev. To any observer this indeed is unambiguously outside the scope of "articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics", how can anyone seriously argue eighteenth Century Russia is a "former Soviet Republic". Yet we have Petri Krohn arguing precisely that, not only here but back in August on WP:AE when he claimed that Biophys broke his topic ban here and in support to this claim Petri Krohn provided this astonishing argument here. This explemifies why an interaction ban is necessary, boards like WP:AE is the battleground, not the article which just serves as the pretext. This needs to end. --Martin (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Another statement by Biophys
I personally do not have any problems with debating anything at all with Petri, Offliner and Russavia if needed. I would even suggest lifting the interaction ban for Russavia with myself, rather than imposing new bans. Biophys (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Re to Martintg . Just to clarify, I talked only about my topic ban. If I "feel uncomfortable" editing any article, I will not edit it. That's not a problem. Biophys (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
I'm commenting here as an uninvolved admin. Recently some cases have been filed at WP:AE involving Eastern Europe, so I've had to study the record of some of the EEML editors. Here are my impressions about User:Biophys and on the wisdom of lifting the topic ban imposed on him due to the Russavia-Biophys case in May, 2010.

His multiple retirements are curious. His lack of talk page archiving is a problem for any admin who wants to check out his record. He apparently has a sincere interest in improving Russian articles, but his interests do include a lot of cutting-edge hot-button topics where controversy is inevitable. In many cases he has handled the controversy poorly. (Note the first four blocks in his block log, from early 2007, where he clashed with Vlad Fedorov repeatedly). By joining the EEML mailing list he exhibited bad judgment. Due to the many troubles in Eastern European topics, it would be understandable if Arbcom were to gradually crank up the sanctions in those cases where lighter measures have not stopped the editing problems. The WP:EEML case was closed in December 2009. The submissions in the Russavia-Biophys Arbcom case date from mid-2010 and they don't reflect well on Biophys.

In a recent posting on his talk page BIophys stated "I feel extremely uncomfortable knowing that someone is looking over my shoulder to report me on AE if I quote Landau or Pyotr Chaadaev." He must surely be aware that this is not the type of issue where he got into trouble in the past. He did not get into edit wars for quoting the 18th-century Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadaev. Since Chadaev did not live in a country called the Soviet Union, he is not included in the topic ban anyway. If Biophys wants to work on culture or science related articles that connect to the Soviet Union, and may be covered by his ban, let him present the list for Arbcom's review here. I'd also suggest that Arbcom request him to set up talk page archiving, though not mandate it. I would not favor lifting the interaction ban between Russavia and Biophys, and suggest that Arbcom limit the present request to matters concerning Biophys. The wider picture would need a separate request. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been negotiating with Biophys at User talk:EdJohnston to see if he would agree to a revised ban that would still limit the problems that the Arbs saw previously. Though his good faith is evident, I don't see that he has agreed to anything that would address the problem. I recommend declining this request for amendment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Biophys has agreed to automatic archiving of his talk page, and I have set that up. So I struck out that part of my recommendation above EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Biophys has gone back to routinely removing posts from his talk page, even innocuous ones. So I gather he is still very concerned that people outside the wiki will be following his activities here. Under these conditions, it's hard to recommend his return to editing contentious articles about the Soviet Union. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Biophys
You're right about the interaction ban. Russavia is prohibited from "commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case.." per WP:ARBRB but you are not banned from interacting with him, at the present time. This is because only the editors that were sanctioned by name in WP:EEML were banned from interacting with Russavia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Petri Krohn
The way I read the the decision "Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics" would cover anything to do with Russia. Biophys's areas of conflict seem to be communism and the Putin administration.

I would support a narrowing of the topic ban to exclude pre-revolutionary Russia – including her Empire – and other non-political topics. (Note, that in the Soviet Union everything was political.)

An absolute minimal wording for a topic ban for some EE problem editors would be that they should not introduce "any content (edit, section or article) that describes or tries to describe Soviet rule in the Baltics or Eastern Europe as illegal or oppressive or communism as immoral or criminal." As Biophys clearly has a conflict with modern Russia, this wording would not be sufficient. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As a result of Martintg's latest comment I am withdrawing my statement. I cannot see any reason why he had to drag my name into this case earlier and yet again make even more accusations. I am in no way involved with Biophys and have only communicated or commented on him in an earlier WP:AE case.

Under the present circumstances I see little other ways out of this than reopening EEML and permabans for its members.

Martintg, I ask you remove or strike out your comment. If you do that, I will strike out this comment and restore the previous one. As for now I am not even going tho comment on the Pyotr Chaadayev / David Satter issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vlad_fedorov
Biophys, you know very well that your problem is your bias. The hardest bias I ever seen here in Wikipedia. You are not neutral editor. Nothing has really changed since 2007. Your repeated attempts to game the system failed. Just let's return to Stomakhin. So was he really innocent, dissident, prisoner of conscience? You tried to delete repeatedly his paranoid fascist calls to exterminate all Russians, just to see that phrase return to the article again - Boris Stomakhin. You tried to spam the article with undue weight account of so-called human rights defenders, just to support your personal POV. Just compare the current article with your so highly insisted version after you kicked me out of WP with the help of your "friends". Even without me the article returned to what I wrote about him, and even "worse". What was the point of your holy crusade against me, then? Even now, you, most likely, do not understand the point I try to make. You are blind. You just waisted everyone's time here. That is the point. Vlad fedorov (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Biophys Biophys, please do not confuse here anyone about your so called "human rights" bias. I am the winner of international humanitarian law moot court competition organized each year by the International Red Cross Committee - just to let you have some understanding about my "bias" too :-). But I do differentiate, like most of people, between convicted criminals like Boris Stomakhin who call to exterminate other people just because they have some nationality (and Stomakhin failed to sue Russia in ECHR - because he knows he would fail there) and people who really suffered for nothing and who need protection. My problem not was your POV, but the way you pushed your POV in Wikipedia. You always try "to win" at any cost. You were the first who reported me for the violation of 3RR, although you might want to look into the article history to make sure you did it too. Instead of trying to reach an agreement, you suggested me to leave this article, suggestion which you disguised under "you do not edit the articles which were started by me". This is not the way to resolve the disputes. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Biophys. Biophys, your statement demonstrates clearly that you, unfortunately, haven't changed your mind - If you want to describe an imprisoned journalist as an international criminal in his BLP article, then fine, this is none of my business. I thought it was my business prior to these sanctions by Arbcom. Not any more. You just can't free yourself of these disguised accusations of owning the article and appeals that you defend "the light side" against the dark one. You were deleting statements of Stomakhin claiming they were inappropriate for WP, not me. My interest in Stomakhin article was to present clear sourced facts that Stomakhin was imprisoned not by KGB intiative, but by the intiative of old opposition party woman and only second time application was successfull, and to publish his original statements for people to evaluate independently of Biophys or me. This is in sharp contrast to your claims of KGB conspiracy theory, right? You do not respect opinions of other people which are supported by many reliable sources and you still push your agenda in WP. This is your biggest personal problem. When I graduated from Oxford, I understood that I don't need anymore to prove anything to anyone. Unfortunately, although you are older than me, you just never grew to this point. Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Clerk notes

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


 * I'm assuming this can be archived soon?  NW  ( Talk ) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should probably not take any action at this time, but I would be willing to reconsider this matter in three months' time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Same as Brad. Statements if any should focus on this narrow issue only, not the broader topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disappointed that it came down to the same faces in the same ways. I think that under other circumstances, this would have a broader chance of success, I think the level of conflicts would continue to be escalated if we took action in this request. SirFozzie (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to please get some views from those familiar with Biophys's editing who were not involved in any of the previous cases? Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This really should stay focused on the amendment made by Biophys; if there are other issues that need to be addressed, please open a separate request. Shell  babelfish 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While I don't see anything in the past six months that's incredibly worrisome, I also don't see anything that leaves me feeling that Biophys would be successful returning to this topic area. After two cases where problematic behavior was found, I would like to see clear evidence of a major change in the way Biophys approaches editing in difficult topic areas where he has a strong viewpoint. Shell   babelfish 14:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of the ongoing problems in this area, I see no reason to modify the sanction on Biophys at this time. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Biophys: I am not convinced that you would be able to edit in this area without becoming involved in conflicts similar to those for which you were originally sanctioned. I have no desire to see you brought before the Committee yet another time. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Newyorkbrad; I am not prepared to move at this time, but would be willing to reconsider in 3 months. Risker (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Palestine-Israel articles (December 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Cptnono (talk) at 08:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cptnono
1/rr was just rolled out across the topic. It has already proven to not mean much but the main reason I am bringing this up here is because editors do not know where to take requests for enforcement. There will be violations even though we all wish they didn't come up. Does it come to AE or the edit warring noticeboard?

Statement by George
I think that edit warring noticeboard is more adept at handling simpler, first-time infractions of the 1RR sanction, while more problematic, long term, serial sanction violators should be referred to AE. Just my two cents. ← George talk 08:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I have 3 cents and it says that AE is superior since it is focused on topic areas of heightened conflicts and should receive faster and stronger results :) I can see problems with both since the edit warring noticeboard is more likely to be ignored but AE is more drama. Edit warring board might also have admins fresh to the topic area (which could be a good thing) but they are less informed on problem editors (although AE has not taken care of problem editors). I don't think it matters too much but it needs to be efficient so whatever makes most sense for the guys looking at the issue is a good thing.Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't have a problem if other editors want to go to AE first, but I think we should be free to go to either (though not both for the same incident, which would be forum shopping). AE is about as focused as a wrecking ball operated by a drunk... it may swing this way today and knock everyone out, or it might miss the building entirely. Keeps life exciting, at least. :) ← George talk 08:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not using a wrecking ball today!Cptnono (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens
Requests to enforce the 1RR itself can be taken to AN3. If you ask for action to be taken under the discretionary sanctions provision (i.e., beyond a simple 1RR block), take it to AE. T. Canens (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TC. That is one admin. We don't need a dozen or anything but if we have a few say how they prefer it then others can take it from there. It isn't like we need a set rule or anything but being able to say a simple "hey it would be best if you went that direction" might be nice.10:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

 * If you take a look at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142 you will see some cases of Arbcom sanctions being handled at AN3, in a workmanlike fashion. Violations of 1RR are well within the abilities of AN3. Here are three examples:

Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142 16 October, 2010 User was cited for long-term edit warring on articles subject to WP:ARBMAC2. Blocked two weeks, put under 1RR per the discretionary sanctions.

Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142 User:Hammer of Habsburg reported by User:Taivo (Result:48 hours ) 19 October 2010 Violation of a 1RR restriction imposed under WP:ARBMAC

Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142 20 October 2010 Claimed violation of a 1RR restriction imposed under WP:ARBPIA. The admin did not judge that it was a violation of 1RR; closed as No Violation. (Eventuallly he got blocked anyway for 24 hours, not sure where it was discussed).

-- EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I think the views above are reasonable; I have no objection to simple xRR enforcement being handled at AN/3RR if the enforcing administrators find that to be a more suitable venue. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Recused on this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The comments pretty much have it here - simple revert warring enforcement can be handled at 3RR but anything complex should be handled at AE. Shell  babelfish 04:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally agree with my colleagues.. my first thought is that AE should be the first place of business, but anywhere that gets a cross-section of aministrator attention is fine by me. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree that AN/3RR is an appropriate venue for simple edit-warring. They're geared up to handling this kind of thing swiftly and effectively. More complex stuff should go to AE.  Roger  talk 11:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User:Vecrumba topic ban (December 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK at 23:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Statement by Vecrumba
As I have not received an answer to my request elsewhere (diff immaterial), I would like the expiration of my topic ban clarified: is it the date per the original topic ban or is it extended by intervening blocks? For completeness, whether or not later undone, that would be an additional 3 weeks plus 24 hours plus 24 hours. The sanction states consecutive with any editing ban, and I am unclear as to whether blocks apply.


 * @Coren, many thanks. Best, P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 04:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * They do not. The sanction was consecutive with any ban in the decision, and blocks to enforce a topic ban generally do not extend the topic ban itself.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Coren. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with my colleagues.  Roger  talk 11:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I/scope of topic ban of Mathsci (December 2010)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Mathsci (talk) at 03:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Statement by Mathsci
At the close of the case WP:ARBR&I, I readily agreed with arbritators on a topic ban by mutual consent, even after an arbitrator had suggested a shorter topic ban, which would have been over by now. I agreed to this because I no longer had any interest in editing content in the area of race and intelligence, broadly construed, and because, as I said during the case, my presence editing articles was wholly dispensable and completely desirable. My compliance and agreement with almost every point made by arbitrators significantly shortened the closing of arbitration. My topic ban was carefully formulated and did not apply to process pages and noticeboards.

During and after the close of arbitration, Captain Occam, joined by his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin, have militated to have sanctions imposed on other editors, notably (and to a lesser extent ). Third parties have appeared on wikipedia in the past month or so, since a topic ban was imposed on Ferahgo the Assassin, whose sole purpose so far has been wikihounding and harassing WeijiBaikeBianji. I have communicated off-wiki with arbitrators about some of these issues, in particular Shell Kinney and Newyorkbrad, which are violations of the topic bans of Captain Occam and Ferhago the Assassin. On specific occasions it has been suggested that I contribute to arbitration noticeboards. I have additionally been asked asked whether information I have provided can be passed on to other arbitrators. I have no views on the editing of WeijiBaikeBianji. I made a brief statement containing only one very general piece of constructive advice on methods of editing and adding sources that would apply to any editor. Since the close of arbitration, Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin's activities in militating have not declined and the reports I recently made to WP:AE reflect this renewed activity. This has resulted in a logged warning for, for personal attacks, and a block for for tracking his edits. In my perception both incidents formed part of a campaign of harassment and wikihounding of WeijiBaikeBianji. Another example are these kind of edits by a newly arrived editor. , In addition I have identified and reported a series of troubling sockpuppets of, some with specifically antisemitic overtones, including , , and.

I am requesting that arbitrators please clarify the particular nature of my topic ban by mutual consent and whether it should in future apply to process pages, for which there has been no indication so far. Please could arbitrators also provide guidance for administrators overseeing the arbitration noticeboards as to whether they may change the nature of carefully formulated topic bans of this kind.


 * Response to Newyorkbrad and Shell Kinney : Thank you for these kind comments. Even if my name at any stage were formally removed from the list of those topic banned, I should make it clear that for my own sanity I would continue not to edit articles or their talk pages in this area.


 * Out of process extension of topic ban by EdJohnston and Timotheus Canens: According to this diff these administrators, without any clear remit or justification, claim to have extended my topic ban in some imprecise way to policy pages. Please could arbitrators explain whether this is permissible and could these administrators please explain their reasoning a little more carefully.


 * Further comments:

I have made two requests on ArbCom noticeboards since WP:ARBR&I was closed on August 26 2010:


 * Nov 22: about Captain Occam and possible meatpuppetry, a somewhat complex situtation. The result was that Woodsrock received a logged warning from MastCell. I had corresponded prior to this with members of ArbCom.


 * Nov 26: Ferahgo the Assassin blocked by MastCell for contravening her topic ban.

ArbCom carried out a checkuser on the two users mentioned above. From what I understand ArbCom is concerned about issues connected with meatpuppetry. Several administrators made comments about that in the first request. After the extension of the topic ban to cover RfCs was announced, Ferahgo the Assassin posted five times to the RfC/U in question:     I mentioned this to EdJohnston in a recent email. It seems unlikely that ArbCom would impose restrictions on participating in RfC/Us. In almost all circumstances they concern issues of user conduct not content editing. My outside view in this particular RfC/U, which does not conform to standard RfC/Us, was anodyne and commonplace, having no relation whatsoever to any kind of topic ban. I have also contributed to the RfC/U on YellowMonkey and will continue to do so while views are still being posted. If any administrator attempted to block me for doing so, I assume that they would risk being desysopped by ArbCom.


 * Additional statement about meatpuppetry : Details of another account, recently active in this area since the topic ban of Ferahgo the Assassin, have been sent in private to a member of ArbCom, who has passed on the details to other arbitrators. This additional evidence, found completely by accident, seems uncontestable at the moment.


 * Reply to Timotheus Canens : Many thanks for your statement. I had assumed this in the interim. I was not intending to comment in the RfC/U any further, even if I agree with some of the subsequent statements. I sent a wiki-email to EdJohnston concerning WP:AE and will forward that email to you. Apologies that I did not do so before.


 * Comment on Captain Occam's additional statement : This is directly related to the recent information that members of ArbCom have been sent in private. Both EdJohnston and Timotheus Canens are now aware of the issue. I have no complaint at all about the advice offered on WP:AE, which seems extremely sensible.


 * Response to arbitrators : Many thanks to arbitrators for suggesting (unexpectedly!) that my topic ban could formally be lifted. If other arbitrators agree that my name could be removed from the list of those under personal sanctions from ArbCom, I would adhere to my voluntary undertaking never again to edit articles or their talk pages related to race and intelligence, broadly construed.


 * Response to Vassyana : I do not understand the question as posed. I've made a statement to Vassyana by email. Is it possible for him to reformulate the question a little more carefully in the light of my message?


 * Second response to Vassyana : if the topic is lifted I would continue to be completely disengaged from the articles and their talk pages. Otherwise I think that the response of Shell Kinney covers everything very accurately.


 * Third response to Vassyana : Yes :) although moot since this request has already been closed

Statement by Captain Occam
Since this thread discusses both me and Ferahgo, I think Mathsci should have notified us about it, but now that I’ve found it I’ll offer a statement here.

As someone who was accused of meatpuppetry in one of Mathsci’s recent AE threads, I beg to differ with the assertion that Mathsci’s participation in process pages has been completely harmless. I would recommend that arbitrators read this thread before concluding that Mathsci is correct to claim this. Apparently Mathsci is convinced that Woodsrock and Sightwatcher are both meatpuppets of mine, and this has resulted in a week-long AE thread, although almost none of the people commenting (and no admins) have believed that there’s a good reason to assume this. Even so, Mathsci is continuing to claim that I am violating my topic ban (as in the statement above), and bringing up this accusation in unrelated discussions where the accounts that he suspects of being meatpuppets have participated. (Such as here). I have neither been blocked nor warned for violating my topic ban since the end of the arbitration case, and as far as I know Sightwatcher and Woodsrock are just a pair of new uses who happen to disagree with Mathsci (although I admit it wouldn’t hurt for Woodsrock to improve his civility), and for Mathsci to keep bringing up this accusation against us is very irritating.

More importantly, dealing with these accusations first from Muntuwandi and now from Mathsci has made it very difficult for me to work on the other articles that I’d like to. My style of editing is that I prefer to fully focus on one article at a time, and not allow myself to be distracted by anything else until I’m reasonably satisfied with it, but this requires me not having to constantly deal with accusations being made against me. During the three months since the end of the arbitration case, there has only been around one month during which I was left alone sufficiently to do this, during which I wrote the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case article. I had been hoping to get started on my planned rewrite of the William Beebe article over the past week—I’ve now done all of the research that I need to for it—but while Mathsci is continuing to badger me, that’s not possible.

As can be seen from the proposed decision page before Mathsci volunteered to be topic banned by consent, when he agreed to this the arbitrators were already voting in favor of him receiving a topic ban identical to the one received by me and David.Kane, and opposing the lesser remedy for him. The only reason Mathsci received a topic ban that was voluntary rather than involuntary is because he volunteered for this four days before the case closed. The “Review of topic bans” decision also states that applications for topic bans to be lifted will not be considered less than six months before the close of the case. To make an exception to this in Mathsci’s case because his topic ban was voluntary would send a message that any time an editor is clearly going to be sanctioned in an arbitration case, he can avoid being subject to some aspects of the ruling by volunteering to receive the sanction that arbitrators are already voting for. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional comments : Although it’s correct that Mathsci is no longer participating in the RFC, he’s still using unrelated fora to snipe at the people who express disagreement with him there.   Is Mathsci’s participation in discussions like that one really helpful, and something that ought to be encouraged? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Response to Mathsci : By any objective standard, it’s disruptive for you to hijack an unrelated discussion in order to accuse an administrator who disagreed with you in the RFC of “silliness and absurdity”. I’m obviously not a party to your private communications with ArbCom, and neither are the admins who will be closing the AE thread, but I don’t see how any kind of private communications with ArbCom would justify acting this way.  You’ve made it clear what your excuse about this is—that all of what you’ve been doing recently is acceptable in light of your private correspondence, but that since you can’t actually tell anyone else about the content this correspondence, the admins closing the AE thread will have to just take your word for this.  You’ve been in private correspondence with ArbCom for around two weeks now.  Isn’t it a little inappropriate to use this secrecy as a one-size-fits-all excuse for whatever you want to do in the meantime? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions about EdJohnston’s new sanctions
I don’t think it’s a bad idea in principle to extend topic bans to all discussions related to the articles in question, and I know this has been done with topic bans from other arbitration cases. But I have some concerns about the process by which EdJohnston made a decision in this particular case. When I discussed this with EdJohnston in his user talk, he said that I should ask ArbCom about it in this thread, so I’m doing so. The thread where I explained my concerns to him is here. Since EdJohnston has suggested that ArbCom examine this situation, I think arbitrators should read the thread there.

As I stated there, EdJohnston originally suggested in the AE thread that this expansion of topic bans from the R&I case be extended for Mathsci as well as me and Ferahgo, because he and Timothy Canens both felt that all three of us have contributed to the continued conflict over these articles. Mathsci subsequently contacted both of these admins privately via e-mail, and shortly thereafter, EdJohnston and Timothy Canens decided to sanction me and Ferahgo but not Mathsci. No other admins commented in the discussion about this. As far as I know, after EdJohnston’s original proposal to sanction all three of us, the only thing that changed about the situation was Mathsci e-mailing him. (Unless you count Mathsci’s new comments directed at Cirt, but those would argue in favor of him being included in the additional sanctions, not against this.)

In the discussion in his user talk, EdJohnston has said that his decision in the AE thread was not influenced by Mathsci’s e-mails. He also said in this comment there that once Mathsci began e-mailing him, it would have been a good idea for him to close the AE thread with no action, in order to avoid the appearance of being influenced by private correspondence. But even though EdJohnston clearly agrees that it would not have been appropriate for him to let e-mails from one of the involved parties in an AE thread influence his decision there, he has not been willing to explain what other than Mathsci’s e-mails caused him to change his mind about his initial proposal to sanction all three of us equally.

I consider this a problem for two reasons. First, even though EdJohnston is basically agreeing that it might have been a better idea for him to close the thread with no action in order to avoid the appearance of being influenced by private correspondence, he is not willing to do anything to reverse the fact that he’s created that impression. He’s unwilling to reverse the decision he made there, and he’s also unwilling to explain what caused his reversal of opinion about sanctioning all of us equally. And second, according to this decision from a past arbitration case, EdJohnston has a responsibility to explain why he chose to sanction me without sanctioning Mathsci. EdJohnston has not explained this, despite my asking him about it several times in his user talk. According to this arbitration principle, if EdJohnston was not prepared to justify the reason for this decision in public, he should not have made it. (And as stated in the comment that I linked to, EdJohnston seems to agree that perhaps he should not have made this decision, but he’s still not willing to undo it.)

Can ArbCom clarify what’s the appropriate course of action here? This is the first time I’ve ever had an admin sanction me and then later express uncertainty over whether it might have been a better idea to take no action, while still being unwilling to reverse their decision. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by VsevolodKrolikov
I'd like the ban to include RfCs connected to the topic, broadly construed. I struggle to see how the involvement of any of these three editors at the RfC concerning user:WeijiBaikeBianji is not going against the purpose of the topic ban. I also think that MathSci's repeated allegations that the RfC has been instigated by the other two need to stop. There is no evidence for this that I have seen, and it heightens tension when all the active editors in the area want WBB to do is WP:HEAR the concerns of other editors, and not edit against consensus or be "bold" when it's really unwise to be. RfCs are not there to enforce sanctions, and we are not "reporting" WBB, but trying to bring him into a better mode of editing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Question for Shell Kinney You don't think the repeated allegations of meatpuppetry are at all problematic? The calling for an AE enforcement in what looks rather like a response to a genuine RfC, on fairly flimsy grounds? I have to disagree with you that his involvement has been entirely benign. I simply don't see the need for topic banned people to be involved in the RfC. RfCs don't hand out sanctions. They're meant to be attempts to sort out problems in an area without resort to sanctions. It shouldn't happen with topic banned editors snipping from the sidelines trying to influence how people edit in the topic.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For Professor Marginalia I find your statement somewhat contradictory. You emphasise how MathSci has only been civil, yet you think the claims of Captain Occam instigating interference are not justified. Civil accusations are still accusations, and the way that they seemed to rope in more than just these two editors raised tensions. My own feeling getting involved in all of this is that far too many people were just too jumpy. What do we have? One uncivil editor who got blocked without any complaints, and another who has accepted - albeit grudgingly, that the RfC should come to an end - an RfC suggested by an admin. MathSci also endorsed the statement "This RfC seems to be ideologically motivated, I think you're hoping for ArbCom to overreact and hand out a topic ban. Do try proper dispute resolution rather than bringing out the big guns to get people banned", an aggressive, accusatory statement that certainly seemed unnecessary. (Remember, it was an admin who suggested RfC as the way forward in the dispute). MathSci of course wasn't the only endorser - the jumpiness seems more widespread than that. "Suspicion" has been used a few times here to imply guilt on the part of the suspected. There's communication going on off-wiki with arbcom that we're not all party too; dark hints about what might be found regarding meat puppetry also haven't helped. Having someone whose only role is to "sniff out socks and trolls" sounds all very nice. The thing is, even if there are no witches, having a witchfinder general around the place doesn't make for a happy community.  VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098
The constant stream of administrative complaints from topic banned users is a proxy way of influencing articles in this area. The single-purpose accounts is probably another. Presumably NYB & Shell intend to carve a "whistleblower" role for Mathsci, who will exclusively deal with filing administrative requests in this topic area from now on, in contrast to the other topic banned users who, by emerging AE consensus, aren't going to be allowed to do this anymore. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens
I remain of the view that input by topic-banned editors in topic-related processes, including DR, is neither necessary or helpful in general, nor useful in this case. All it seems to accomplish is to encourage the topic-banned users to continue to snipe at each other and watch the topic area closely, personalizing the disputes further and fostering battleground behavior, instead of properly disengaging. The fact that no admin was inclined to address the bulk of Mathsci's most recent enforcement request before it was archived for the first time is telling. T. Canens (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Mathsci: In case it isn't clear: so far no one has purported to actually expand your topic ban. Admin comments at AE are not sanctions until and unless they are acted upon, by means of a notification on user talk, logging at the case page, and so on; and as long as WP:ARBR&I has not been vacated, administrators have the remit to impose sanctions they deem necessary and appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Professor marginalia
The ambiguities in arb comm's sanctions and/or advice only inspired Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin to explore all manner of alternatives to influence the articles *besides* directly editing them after their topic bans, including the one-sided schmoozing and prospecting for proxy edits on user talk pages. The both of them tune out what they don't want to hear, so hints and fuzzy lines merely open doors to crazy-making. For their own sakes they should be given bright white boundary lines.

Mathsci's continued involvement seems to have limited itself to sniffing out socks and trolls, which have been springing up like mushrooms. It's a delicate balance - between WP:BITE and WP:DUCK. But he's not shooting wildly - his targets (rightly or wrongly) fit the profile of socks (new and sleepers) - and he's got a lot of company sharing his suspicions. I'm suspicious too--we're seeing a rash of newly hatched newbies who are just way too comfortable with wp, with policy, editing tools, userboxes, with template and article creation, with subscription only access to professional journals used in references, and several (most bizarrely) adopting a peculiarly skewed interest in the tedious arbitration conducted months before they registered. Off-site recruitment was an objection raised against some of the now topic banned users during the arbitration. Despite sharing some of his suspicions, I myself wouldn't go so far as Mathsci to blame Captain Occam of instigating here. Yes, there is a history, a pattern, but for me I know that the editing of articles with kinds of back-page baggage as these involved articles have inherited can get derailed by juvenile hijinks and intrigues pointing in any number of directions, always at the expense of those focused on the "substance" in disputes.

With that said, I really don't see that mathsci's involvement has been disruptive. He's been civil-magnanimous even. I generally try to "tune out" or wp:DENY those I suspect of being trolls, socks or proxies--but I realize they are disruptive and somebody needs to meet them head on. Since the accusations against him he acknowledged when he voluntarily imposed (later ratified by arb comm) his own topic ban narrowly focused on incivility, I again come back to--I don't see where he's being uncivil. In other words, I think the disruptions were already there--Mathsci's involvement simply forced attention on them via the dispute channel or WP styled "chain of command". Professor marginalia (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer to VsevolodKrolikov: Let me clarify that I do think Captain Occam has instigated interference--but I can't say he's the mastermind responsible for socks and meatpuppets. And I disagree that Mathsci's accusations have "roped" anybody here-others have been posting these allegations weeks before he weighed in. WBB inherited three newly registered antagonists and a fourth whose account was inactive for years at the exact moment his old one, Ferahgo the Assassin, is delivered a topic ban.  Just one week after benign disagreement between the two following his first and (at the time) only edit to a race/intelligence related article and Sightwatcher is backing Ferahgo against WBB over on AE. There's no "witch hunt" here. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
Please see the result of a request at Arbitration Enforcement. Wider topic bans were imposed on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin. For convenience the Sanction portion of the AE is reproduced in the box below:

Sanction

 * Under the discretionary sanctions that are authorized for Race and Intelligence:
 * Captain Occam and Ferahgo are indefinitely banned from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages. This includes RFC/Us about other editors where the behavior of that user on R&I is one of the major topics. These two editors should not participate in noticeboard discussions where the main topic is an article that is under R&I or the behavior of an editor who is closely associated with R&I. They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned.


 * The following is advice, and it is not compulsory:
 * Captain Occam and Ferahgo are advised not to make enforcement requests at AE that concern R&I where no question about their own editing is on the table.


 * Mathsci is advised to limit his new filings about R&I at AE in the future, especially when no question about his own editing is on the table. (This advice will no longer apply if Arbcom decides to lift his topic ban from R&I).


 * Mathsci is welcome to continue making reports at SPI, even when he is reporting socks that may be active on R&I.


 * No action taken regarding David.Kane et al:
 * David.Kane hasn't been much involved with R&I since the case closed. There seems no need to change his topic ban.
 * Mikemikev is out of the picture since he is under an indefinite block for pretty bad stuff, including nasty sockpuppetry.

This thread was closed with no sanctions on Mathsci. Obviously Arbcom can make a decision to lift Mathsci's ban if they want to. The AE request mentioned the behavior of two new editors who have recently become active on R&I, and might possibly be socks: Woodsrock has made some personal attacks, and was notified of the R&I discretionary sanctions by MastCell on 22 November. He has not edited Wikipedia since then. SightWatcher seems to be more of a good-faith editor, and I don't see any misbehavior yet that would justify notification under the R&I sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * and
 * I personally believe that, with the closing of the AE request without any change in the scope of Mathsci's topic ban, the main reason for Mathsci to seek a clarification here has gone away. My own opinion is that the strengthened sanction on Captain Occam and Ferahgo will help to reduce the unneeded process activity around Race and intelligence. The closure of the AE request does reflect a lesser concern about Mathsci's process activities around R&I (and those of David.Kane) than those of the two others. I can think of some reasons why Arbcom might want to continue their review of Mathsci's clarification request anyway:


 * 1) If they believe it is time to lift Mathsci's topic ban, as suggested by one arb.
 * 2) If they think that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry around Race and intelligence are significant and require their attention. If so, then the need to handle confidential information might be a reason for the further study to take place within Arbcom rather than at AE. This clarification request could serve as a dialog to receive input from the community regarding possible violations of WP:SOCK. At present we know little (except for what Mathsci has said in various requests) about the status of Arbcom's review of the possible meatpuppetry. We have heard that a checkuser was run, presumably at the request of the arbs and not per SPI, regarding Woodsrock and SightWatcher. I asked this question of Captain Occam on my user talk: "I would welcome any clarification you can give as to whether you think SightWatcher or Woodsrock could be anyone you know personally or have communicated with electronically". He replied that that he had sent email to Shell Kinney. This does suggest that at least some of the arbs may be interested in pursuing this question. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Xxanthippe
I find the extent of alleged private e-mailing in this case to be disturbing. Although I expect it does not breach the rules, it gives the impression, true or false, of backstairs cronyism. Disciplinary matters of this nature should be conducted in a completely transparent manner. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Requested clarification from Vassyana
I would ask the Arbitration Committee to briefly review two AE threads: this thread discussing multiple editors and this recent appeal by Captain Occam. Could MathSci and ArbCom please note some specificity regarding involvement insofar as complained areas? I, as an administrator currently active on AE, would like some bright line clarification. I want a nice clear line drawn between mudslinging/battling and useful good faith assistance with disruption. If this is not an all or nothing disengagement, I want to know the exact limits of that something explicitly in a short statement. It will cut through a major portion of noise and answer a major, recurring point. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In what circumstance and under what conditions will MathSci be participating in related discussions and conduct enforcement? Vassyana (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that MathSci will be disengaged, voluntarily, from content discussions in the area. He is advised to exercise due caution the same as any other involved party, but may be involved in other processes and is not restricted or pledged from doing so. Is that correct? (I'm not trying to be dense. I'm just trying to make sure it is explicitly clear.) Vassyana (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements. I am specifically open to the possibility of lifting Mathsci's topic-ban at this time, to avoid disputes about its precise borders, given his statement that in any event he does not intend to return to editing the articles themselves. It may also be that we need to review the behavior of various editors on these articles since the case closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Waiting for additional statements here, but I don't believe Mathsci's participation in process areas for this topic has been disruptive. Shell  babelfish 04:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Vassyana - I apologize, but I've read your request through a few times and I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Which participation by whom in what areas? (Or in other words, would you be so kind as to try explaining it a different way?) Shell   babelfish 20:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. If the topic ban is lifted, there wouldn't appear to be any bar to him participating in dispute resolution or AE reports, though clearly he's an involved editor for purposes of discussions related to the Race and Intelligence topic area/case. Does that answer what you were asking? Shell   babelfish 21:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Willing to lift the topic ban, given Mathsci's voluntary withdrawal of editing articles in the topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also open to the idea of removing Mathsci's restriction if he so wishes.  Roger  talk 11:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Vassyana: My hope would be that Mathsci have as little to do with AE as possible. He has walked away from editing articles within the topic and leaving AE behind would be an excellent next step in putting this completely behind him. I do not believe, as a general principle, that it's particularly helpful for former arbitration participants to involve themselves in AE as it only perpetuates irreconcilable differences. This view may not be entirely shared by my colleagues.  Roger  talk 22:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Recused on this case. Risker (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Motion (WP:ARBR&I)

 * Proposed : That Remedy 6 ("Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent") of the Race and Intelligence case is terminated, effective immediately.
 * There are 10 active arbitrators, 1 of whom is recused, so the majority to pass is 5.


 * Support
 * Roger talk 10:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)