Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 52

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (Lightmouse) (April 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Lightmouse (talk) at 12:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 7.1): "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."


 * : Remedy 7.1 of the Date delinking case, which as originally written prohibited from utilizing any automation on Wikipedia, is amended by adding the words "except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group." Remedy 8, which limited Lightmouse to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group."


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

Amendment 1
Proposed amendment:
 *  Clause 7.1): which said "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia." is removed.

Statement by your username
The Lightmouse non-bot account and the related bot account (Lightbot) have been dealing with units of measurement for years and have played a part in significantly improving the accessibility, consistency and more functional linking of units of measurement that we now see on Wikipedia. Lightbot is currently authorised by BAG to edit feet and miles and there's an application to extend the scope to include inches. The workload of BAG is such that weeks have passed without a decision.

BAG and Lightmouse are in the unenviable position of having to debate code scope prior to testing rather than after. It means that non-bot automated edits must be elevated to bot status or remain undone.

Could I suggest that clause 7.1 be removed? This would reduce the administrative burden related to improving units of measure, which is a huge and ongoing task for Wikipedia. I believe it will be to the betterment of the project.

Statement by Gigs
The resumption of "MOS Warrior" tactics is not an acceptable outcome here. The manual of style is a true guideline that merely offers guidance, not a set of rules to be enforced using automation. Resumption of widespread and automated "MOS enforcement" will cause a lot of unnecessary conflict. The local consensus at MOS talk pages is often not reflected on a global scale, especially when it comes to units, which are often governed by different conventions in different fields of endeavor.

I remain unconvinced that Lightmouse understands that automation should only be used for truly non-controversial tasks. The correctness of a particular style is not important, what is important is whether the task is truly non-controversial.

The latest amendment was generous, and should not be expanded upon at this time. Gigs (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BAG, and outside commentary during the BAG process, absolutely does examine "whether" edits should be done. BAG should not and generally does not approve automated edits that are controversial in nature.  The bar for "whether" an edit should be done manually is much lower than the bar for "whether" mass edits should be done using automation.  Gigs (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that yesterday, Lightmouse became active again, asking for BRFAs to be approved for trials. Archiving this on the grounds that he has left would be a bad idea. Gigs (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Kingpin13
I'm very disappointed by the direction this case is going. It seems to me that no one at ArbCom is really bothered by Lightmouse having made at least 4853 semi-automated edits from his own account, at speeds of up to 15 edits a minute (faster than we expect bots to go) and without BAG approval (all of this is neatly listed at this page) despite being under a sanction which clearly stated he was to take no semi or fully automated edits from any account except his bot account, and even then to only do so with BAG approval. I fail to understand the point of ArbCom making sanctions if they are not then going to enforce them, and thus far the only "enforcement" I've seen is further relaxing of the sanctions, which I don't feel was done in an entirely open manner (I don't feel the most recent amendment really took into account this request, which was closed as stale). Personally I feel the action which needs to be taken in this case is further restricting and enforcement, rather than simply looking the other way. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A slightly more accurate (and more worrying) tally of semi-automated edits:
 * 09:37, 5 September 2010 - 12:22, 6 September 2010 - 1817 semi-automated AWB edits.
 * 12:23, 6 September 2010 - 11:04, 19 September 2010 - 4690.
 * 11:04, 19 September 2010 - 19:39, 17 October 2010 - 4535.
 * 19:39, 17 October 2010 - 13:59, 18 October 2010 - 4963.
 * 13:59, 18 October 2010 - 10:47, 28 October 2010 - 4676.
 * In total that's 20,681 semi-automated edits with AWB (judging by edit summaries) between 5 September 2010 and 28 October 2010. In addition, on the earliest page there are a few more AWB edits, but they date back to April 2009, and were not counted. Between 6 September 2010 and 28 October 2010 (nearly two months), around 94% of all of Lightmouse's edits were unit conversions in AWB. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like some clarification if something is going to be done by ArbCom about this. I'm happy to explain my thoughts further and rebuff some of Lightmouse's comments. However, I do not want to waste my time debating over this only to have it closed with no action as stale due to a lack of response from none other than ArbCom, as happened last time. Thanks, - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2011 (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

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

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

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

Further discussion

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


 * @Kingpin, did anyone file an arbitration enforcement request in respect of those edits made? – xeno talk  19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I'm aware. I spoke to NuclearWarfare about this here, and he suggested it would be best to wait until Lightmouse made a further request (unfortunately I completely missed the previous request). - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know the right place to post this to ensure it gets seen, if it's the wrong place please move it.
 * 1. Gigs asserts that I'm a "MOS warrior". I don't understand what the terms means but it sounds negative. I don't think it's helpful for all of us here to be categorised as pro-MOS or anti-MOS. Even if the MOS were deleted, non-bot accounts would still be used with automation for tedious but popular gnoming tasks such as maintaining units of measure, correcting typos, making formats consistent. Please focus on that.
 * 2. There have been many debating points made over the months and several rulings with nuances. The edits quoted here were intended as compliant edits. Sometimes I've asked for clarification on details of rulings. As Arbcom members have commented, wording has sometimes had alternative interpretations that isn't always apparent to all, I've sometimes misunderstood and have actually been allowed to do things that I thought I couldn't. Instead of debating about whether a good edit should have been allowed within wordings of Arbcom rulings, I'd rather we focussed on the principle that there is no remaining requirement for Arbcom to prohibit the Lightmouse account from doing such edits that improve articles.
 * 2. The conversion of feet and miles by Lightbot has already been approved by BAG. I have an application to extend that to inches. If converting feet and miles is acceptable, then converting inches should also be acceptable.
 * 3. The prohibition on automated editing of units of measure was never an explicit Arbcom or BAG decision, it's a collateral consequence of the now-resolved date delinking saga.
 * 4. Arbcom said Lightbot could run subject to BAG. I understood BAG members were going to examine technical issues ('how' and 'what'), not 'whether'. Thus there was no technical issue with automated editing of feet and miles. I don't believe there's a technical issue with automated editing of inches.
 * 5. If one or more BAG members oppose implementation of the Arbcom decision, that's an option for the individual member. But for due process they should either recuse or appeal the Arbcom ruling. Can Arbcom and BAG please resolve this?
 * 6. This application is not about bots or Lightbot. It's about the normal Lightmouse account. Like all other normal accounts, it should be able to use automation. If there is still Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt persisting from the now-resolved date-delinking sage, then might I suggest that Arbcom retains the scope of the restriction on Lightmouse automated editing of dates.
 * 7. With regard to this application being 'too soon', I understand the point. I'd have preferred to make this application after thousands of successful bot edits across a wide spectrum. However, I've got several small scope applications at BAG but after several weeks there is no decision. It'll take years before the scope will increase beyond the current 'feet and miles' into a wide spectrum. There's a lot of trivial units work that would never justify a bot but needs automation.
 * I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Risker and Brad: Lightmouse had just edited 8-9 hours before your last comments, asking for a 50 edit trial at his BRFAs. Can this be continued?  NW  ( Talk ) 13:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I find zero compelling argument for revisiting this again so soon. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And revisiting this more than a month later... again, decline. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Awaiting response from Lightmouse to some of the comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that Lightmouse has not edited in two weeks and the other comments above, this requst can be closed without action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my timing on the prior post was obviously wrong. Based on the updated input so far, I think there is a consensus of arbitrators that this request appears premature and that Lightmouse should focus on the quality of the work he is currently permitted to perform for awhile before seeking to return to using automation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would appear from what Kingpin is saying that we should rather be looking at a tighter restriction on Lightmouse. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Elen of the Roads here; however, as Lightmouse has essentially absented himself from the project since this request, I agree with Newyorkbrad that it is appropriate to close the request without action. Should a similar request be made, I am inclined to look very closely at Lightmouse's semi-automated edits. It would not be inappropriate for an editor to request arbitration enforcement, or to separately file a request for amendment/clarification in relation to these semi-automated edits. Risker (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Abstain. – xeno talk  14:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he did make a series of edits March 13. Given these edits, and the lack of response here, I would be disinclined to amend. Perhaps Lightmouse could convince me otherwise, but first he would have to show up here. Let's archive this, eh? Cool Hand Luke 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I could only support something like Lightmouse's new proposal (see below) if it were indefinite. As written, it commits us to potentially a 100ish day timetable for apparently full removal of the automation restrictions on the Lightmouse account. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Having read all the comments, I think there's another way forward. I now propose that Clause 7.1): is replaced with:
 * "The following restriction will apply for the next 10,000 edits by the Lightmouse account: the Lightmouse account is prohibited from making more than 100 edits per day on Wikipedia.".
 * That's an explicit and measurable step forward. It'll allow me to continue to improve articles. It may also reduce the need for debates about whether converting inches is worse than the already agreed conversion of feet. Trying to help Lightmouse (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to Cool Hand Luke: My restriction was imposed as a result of the now-resolved date-linking saga, not the rest of my work. Most of the restrictions imposed on others in that saga have been ended and I'm seeking similar treatment. The project has benefitted from my work on units over many years and from my collaboration with others, it will be able to benefit again if permitted. I'm not aware of any reason for the restriction to be continued. Coren said, I should be able to resume my well-intended contributions. However, if you'd prefer slower progress towards the goal of normalisation, I'm happy to suggest the following:
 * "Clause 7.1): is replaced with:
 * "The following restriction will apply for the next 40,000 edits by the Lightmouse account: the Lightmouse account is prohibited from making more than 100 edits per day on Wikipedia.".
 * I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Given evidence above that Lightmouse has repeatedly gamed or flatly ignored this restriction, there is no compelling reason to believe that he would handle release of the restriction appropriately either. If Lightmouse would like to show he can play by the rules first, I'd have no problem lifting the sanction, but I see no reason to agree to hoping he'll get the point in his next x number of edits. Shell   babelfish 11:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see there is still a lot of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. In that case, let's replace the x-edit sunset clause with an option for a review:
 * "Clause 7.1): is replaced with:
 * "The Lightmouse account is prohibited from making more than 100 edits per day on Wikipedia. After 10,000 edits Lightmouse may apply to Arbcom for a review".
 * The benefit of a restriction by edit count is simplicity. Simple for all to understand and audit. Simple for me understand and work within. I won't need to rely on nuanced clarifications permitting non-bot automation. We don't need to debate whether good edits were done by hand or by automation. There is a lot of good work that can be done. The proposal is a way forward. Lightmouse (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but once again, you haven't addressed any of the concerns brought up by editors here or explained why you were violating the restriction. You can re-apply later without needing any kind of motion here and the prohibition is against automation, not based on a number of edits which really makes this seem like you're trying to get around the spirit of the restriction here. Shell   babelfish 17:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on the discussion here, firmly decline. Suggest that Lightmouse waits at least 6 months before making a similar request. PhilKnight (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Race and Intelligence (April 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  aprock (talk) at 21:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

notifications: ,

List of any editors already sanctioned, and confirmation that all have been notified of the motion to amend:
 * [ Notified] (Indefinitely blocked)
 * [ Notified]
 * [ Notified]
 * [ Notified]
 * [ Notified] (Indefinitely blocked)
 * [ Notified]
 * [ Notified]
 * [ Notified]
 * [ Notified] (Indefinitely blocked)
 * [ Notified]
 * [ Notified]
 * [ Notified]
 * [ Notified]
 * [ Notified]

Statement by aprock
There seems to be some confusion about what edits fall under Administration Enforcement for the Race and Intelligence discretionary sanctions. From R/I Arbitration Remedies:Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles. The open question is how to interpret "closely related".

At the current AE Miradre/2 discussion, the behavior being discussed centers around the article Race and crime. Race and crime mentions IQ/intelligence seven times, and Race and intelligence is listed in the "See also" section of the article.

Several editors feel that the content and edits about race and intelligence (e.g. ,,) to Race and crime should be covered by arbitration enforcement. On the other hand, at least one administrator (Sandstein), is taking the not unreasonable view that this article is not covered by discretionary sanctions.

Clarification request: Does "closely related" apply only to what articles should be about, or does it also apply to the actual content within articles which may not otherwise be considered closely related?

Statement by Sandstein
Instead of interpreting what "closely related" means in this particular case, I recommend that the Committee change the remedy to replace "race and intelligence and closely related articles" with "in the field of race (classification of humans), broadly construed", or "broadly related to the relationship between race and other topics, such as crime or intelligence", or something similar. This would bring the conduct in the instant case within the scope of the remedy. This seems appropriate, as the AE report indicates that there are problems with the "race and crime" topic similar to those which triggered the "race and intelligence" case. I've no opinion about whether the AE case is actionable on the merits, as I've examined it so far only with respect of the scope of the remedy that is to be enforced.  Sandstein  21:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
Second Sandstein's suggestion. Just make it "race and related topics", as in this particular case - and most likely many future ones - the problems aren't just limited to Race and crime and Race and intelligence but also Social interpretation of race, Immigration and crime, Ethnic nepotism and many other articles, all orbiting in one way or another the topic of race.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Maunus
I would suggest that it makes little sense to phrase the remedy as having to do with certain articles, but rather with certain topics. The topics is "race and intelligence" but this topic can be partially treated in many articles that are not yet tagged with "Race and intelligence controversy" because nobody (but Miradre) have noticed that this topic has any relation to the R&I topic yet. If the restrictions should be limited to articles within the category then any user would be able to create new articles without including them in the category and repeat all the same problems that lead to the R&I Arbcase with impunity. That seems unreasonable. The discretionary restrictions should touch the topic whether it is treated in an article that is explicitly linked to the arbcase or not.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to Sir Fozzie: I am not sure if you are under the impresion that Miradre is already topic banned. He is not, so he can't brush up against the topic. He is fully allowed to edit within the topic. The question is whether his editing is subject to the discretionary sanctions, so that he can be topic banned if an administrator finds that he is not editing in accordance with the expected editing practices under the discretionary sanctions.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:ResidentAnthropologist
The issue to me is we are experiencing spill over from the initial WP:ARBR&I scope. I am going to talk about the scenario without naming names here to show that this is problem with the scope. I am not going to name name because that would that its limited to single editor and single scenario but represents a flaw in ability to enforce the core values of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR to ensure Encyclopedic Content.


 * Scenario in this case

An editor who is using legitimate sources to and portraying them in way unintended by the authors of the sources. The Article Race and Crime seemingly represents something well outside the WP:ARBR&I boundaries. The assertion is put into the article that Black are responsible for disproportionment amount of crime in Western Justice systems. No one dispute that Black are convicted of most crimes in America/UK and a fair number of european justice systems Justice system. The article as written by this individual presented very main stream data of Crime and prison statistics. This seemingly valid content has place in an encyclopedia under articles like Minorities and Crime.

The editor then presents fringe sources that suggest Race/Genetics/Intlectual abilitlities all play a role that makes blacks more prone to crime. Then says the view have been met with "criticism" but leaves it at that.

The editor is taken to AE where Admin who is taking a strict interpretation of the Ruling that states "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles."

Clearly in this scenario and all future scenarios AE admins need to have the tools to prevent spill over of WP:ARBR&I material into articles where such material is placed.

I thank the committee for their time and hope they will understand the scenario is not limited to this Editor and this Admin made in the request for clarification. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @75.57.242.120 the WP:ARBSCI case was entirely different case and entirely different scenario. The sanctions was designed to address COI-SPA issues since all evidence indicated CoS IP addresses were being used for a plethora of accounts. I dont think we have any of those types accounts here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @NYB, I think consensus outside of Miradre that the current scope is too lose and leads to Wikilawyering about what is "closely related" and the Category clause further inhibits it from being effective. I would suggest the normal "broadly construed" phrasing.
 * On I side note I am looking at serial POV pusher espousing White Supremacist views that harms the integrity of WP as whole. I dont think know how to combat this other than another arbitration case as I doubt you would expand the scope that much. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Roger, I think such action may be wise. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Miradre
IQ correlates with lot of things. Similarly, race can be interpreted very broadly. Obviously the main articles about the controversy falls under the arbitration remedies. But I think one can introduce IQ as a factor in many race articles. Should Affirmative action be under this scope? One can certainly find sources on IQ and affirmative action. IQ is not mentioned there now. But if I introduced some material on IQ, would the article then fall under the scope? Would White flight? Similarly, there are a lot of articles where one can introduce the factors IQ and race. Should all of those articles fall under the scope the moment anyone makes this connection? Should Immigration fall under this scope the moment someone introduces some material on race and IQ there? Should Economic development fall under this scope the moment someone introduces some material on race and IQ there? Should HIV fall under this scope if someone introduces some material on race and IQ there, studies of which are in the academic literature? Should Malnutrition, Malaria, Education, or Literacy be under the scope, since they are proposed environmental factors explaining racial IQ differences? Or should the Olympic games article be, the Race and sports article already have some material regarding Chinese views that they are suited to "technical" sports in part because the stereotype of them being smart. Material not in the article applied this to differing Chinese Olympic medal rates for different sports. Should Alzheimer's or Mental retardation fall under this scope since they are intelligence related and differ between races? Should a book like Human Accomplishment be? Or History of science or Technology development? Should Incarceration in the United States or Rape be, if someone transferred some material from race and crime there? Should Genocide and Ethnic conflicts be, some researchers have made a connection with different average IQs causing conflicts between groups.

In short, it is possible to introduce sourced material connecting race and intelligence to numerous other topics. Where does it stop? Some clarification would be greatly appreciated. I introduced IQ to race and crime. I could introduce IQ and race to numerous other articles as per above. Miradre (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the AE dispute I would have made the edits to race and crime regardless since none of my edits are close to being a policy violation.Miradre (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also ask that the arbitrators to consider my view that while biological unequality explanations are automatically unpopular, they are not necessarily harmful to society. See and the section "My motivation for editing these controversial topics". In my view, I have done no policy violation, but my critics are trying to use the general unpopularity of the views I have introduced, in accordance with policy, to get me banned, not on merit for what I have done, but due to the emotional responses these views cause. Any objective evaluation of the AE evidence would instead show policy violations by several of my detractors.Miradre (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In my view a topic that causes emotional revulsion, regardless of scientific merits, has the potential to fare poorly in a quick process possibly involving only a single administrator. Only in a slower process, with more participants, has such unpopular views some chance to judged on merit and not on emotions. So I would also ask the arbitrators to consider the effects of extending the arbitration remedies, which in my view are not well suited for this emotional and important area, more broadly.Miradre (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to the IP editor. You are not the first to mention the many months old SPI. I have already commented on it in my AE comments. See my replies to Aprock and Mathsci: Miradre (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to the IP editor again. Regarding SPA see my third reply to AndyTheGrump: Regarding "brand new editors appearing out of nowhere to stir up this area", that would seem to describe yourself. A new editor who have done little to improve the encyclopedic content itself, in this area or elsewhere. More generally, none of those wanting to ban me from the area seems interested in improving the area itself while I have done a considerable amount of boring, housecleaning work on this as stated in the AE.Miradre (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by 2over0
Miradre makes a good point above regarding the futility of trying to demarcate the bounds of a contentious topic by an explicit list of articles. The text at the WP:TBAN policy touches on this issue - the relevant sections at otherwise unrelated articles are covered by a topic ban; going by the principle of least astonishment, we should apply the same reasoning when defining areas where discretionary sanctions are necessary. Otherwise we will find edits that violate a topic ban yet fall outside the list of articles covered by the discretionary sanctions invoked to impose that very topic ban. If it was ArbCom's intention that ARBR&I sanctions only be used for article bans and similarly explicitly strictly limited sanctions, then the current wording is fine. That is a significantly more limited tool, though, and is much more easily subjected to gaming of the system. Sandstein's proposal to extend the scope of ARBR&I discretionary sanctions by motion has merit, though I am not sure where the balance lies so that this dispute is covered but the rest of the site is not. By the principle of I know it when I see it, the current AE case deals with editing of the same sort that led up to the case (no comment regarding whether the material should be part of the encyclopedia - it takes two to edit war, and all that); I think that that gives us a minimum threshold for clarifying the scope of the case to cover every article, section, and discussion treating race, intelligence, and any connection between the two. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by 75.57.242.120
I thought someone should mention WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Miradre/Archive. It does seem like the system is being gamed. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition
No opinion (some reservations) about extending R&I discretionary sanctions to all race-related articles. I notice the Miradre SPI didn't mention User:Woodsrock, created within a week of Miradre. I think I remember a few others as well. (Woodsrock did make a small effort to branch out to a few more topics besides R&I). WP:ARBSCI says:

Given this recurring pattern of brand new editors appearing out of nowhere to stir up this area, I think something like that should be added to ARBR&I. A proposal like this was discussed extensively in one of the pre-arbitration ANI threads, and got pretty wide support, not quite reaching consensus at the time (I supported it). Subsequent events suggest we need it after all. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

SirFozzie: re "a warning/clarification is probably the best bet", does the warning Miradre already received (per Mathsci) not count? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Resident Anthropologist: WP:ARBSCI banned quite a lot of SPA's from Scientology topics (start here), some of whom were connected with Scientology and others of whom were opponents of Scientology. The editing conduct that led to the bans was often relatively mild if you look at the actual diffs (editing that might have gotten a regular editor warned but not banned). The approach taken seems to have been to let only regular editors do anything controversial in those articles.

Miradre I've never edited in the R&I area. I've commented (like now) on some of the related dispute resolution. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
I appreciate the invitation for admins active on AE to comment on this. Here is the current 'Locus and focus of dispute' for WP:ARBR&I: "1.1) The dispute is focused on articles within the Race and intelligence controversy category. The core issue is whether Intelligence quotient varies significantly between different races and, if so, whether this may be attributed to genetic or environmental factors. The dispute may be characterised as comprising: (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; (ii) persistent edit-warring; and (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources." This is one of the narrowest definitions of any Arb case that I reviewed. (It is the only one I found which is based on articles in a category). I think the current definition of WP:ARBPIA is working well. It helps that 'conflict between Arabs and Israelis' is an easy concept to grasp, both for the contributing editors and for the admins who may be asked to intervene. The ARBPIA definition is "..the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted."

Arbcom should consider widening the R&I definition to include "..the entire set of articles that discuss scientific findings which purport to show that race has a significant influence on human abilities and behavior, broadly interpreted." If the definition is widened, and this causes too many disputes to wind up at AE, Arbcom could easily undo this by motion. It may be less work for Arbcom to do it this way than for all borderline requests such as WP:AE to be passed over to Arbcom for handling as cases. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone pointed out at AE, the phrase 'broadly related' is used in the template Template:uw-sanctions for all 16 of the included cases. If the Committee wants some cases to use broadly related and others to use closely related, then the uw-sanctions template should be updated. EdJohnston (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens
I generally agree with EdJohnston's statement. In general, authorizing sanctions for articles "closely related" to a topic is pretty much an open invitation to wikilawyering about how close it must be for an article to be "closely related". T. Canens (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
Please make a clarification or a clear statement so that the R&I reach is "broadly interpreted" (and that topic bans in general are broadly interpreted, if possible). Otherwise, every month we'll have a new request for clarification of this same issue, and WP:AE will become increasingly useless as POV pushers wreack havoc and claim that they be sanctioned because they were not editing in the strict topic area (inserting their POV in articles that are not under the ban if it is narrowly interpreted, changing unrelated articles so they are all about their POV, etc). This is, and will keep being, a recurrent problem, and you need to "fix" it via clarification. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Professor marginalia
The problems here aren't limited to easily categorized articles but to the overall subject itself, which is questions of racial inheritance and race difference. Uninvolved admins might not recognize how clearly linked the Race and crime problem is to those in Race and intelligence but editors who've worked in the articles will recognize the same sources and the same pattern of NPOV problems with the ways they're being used. Virtually all of Miradre's edits orbit this theme; nearly all relate to some controversial aspect in the study of race differences. "Broadly construed" is more appropriate given that the same pov pushing goes on in subordinate topics such as r/K selection theory, Race and health, IQ and Global Inequality, Lewontin's Fallacy, Human genetic clustering ... Professor marginalia (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098
Make the entire Wikipedia subject to WP:Discretionary sanctions. People hardly ever edit it these days without an agenda. I have waded though swaths of topics where dozens of textbooks exist and only a pathetic stub or some crappy and unreadable article exists on the topic here. On the other hand, everyone likes to elbow the competition out of some socially important topic so their opinion is the first hit in Google. In short, admit that Wikipedia is mainly a venue for propaganda these days, and act accordingly. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci
Thanks to the four administrators who watch WP:AE for commenting here. Posting a motion to add "broadly construed" for the discretionary sanctions re wP:ARBR&I would create consistency with previous topic bans and make the sanctions more straightforward to administer. Mathsci (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Courcelles
I can't echo more what Timotheus Caneus said above. The standard wording of "broadly interpreted" is beneficial in that it nearly eliminates arguments about whether article X is within topic Y- I'm unaware of any successful challenge of a discretionary sanction due to the article involved not being within a broad interpretation of the related topic- because it is clearly understood language that boils down to on self-moderating one's behaviour for avoiding sanctions to "If it seems related, treat it like it is." On the uninvolved administrator side, a narrower view than that extremely liberal view is taken, my experience on the enforcement side is that the broadly interpreted is treated along the lines of the reasonable person standard. Generally, this lets AE get down to the business of behaviour (which AE is designed to evaluate) instead of questions of jurisdiction. (Note that I am only discussing mainspace and clearly related discussions (talk pages, AFDs, etc.)

What we have here is so different from the usual wording that enforcing it becomes difficult. It has had a tendency to turn enforcement not into a discussion of whether the behaviour involved was problematic, but how close the article involved is to the original subject of the dispute. And unlike the broad interpretation, entirely reasonable people can disagree on closely related, as there is no good, agreed upon way to decide how close is required for closely related to apply. Whether ArbCom settles this by replacing the remedy with "broadly interpreted" language or offers other guidance into the scope of the sanctions is much less important than that some form of clarification is provided. Courcelles 04:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Based on the evolution of the article, at this time I think race and crime has become a "closely related article" to race and intelligence. However, if the administrators on arbitration enforcement conclude that Miradre honestly was not aware of this or did not believe this when he made the challenged edits, then an appropriate warning might be in order before any discretionary sanction is imposed. (I have not investigated the edits to determine whether sanctions are in order; that is an AE task.) Regarding the possibility of expanding the scope of articles subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy, I will allow some more time for community input before commenting; input from more administrators active on AE arising from this case would be especially helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As there still seems to be some disagreement among the administrators on the AE thread as to how to interpret our decision, I am considering proposing a motion tomorrow to address it. Prompt comments on this idea would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Before I was elected as an Arbitrator, I worked in AE extensively, and in general, this is the question that I asked myself when such an issue arose in an AE request: Would an average person consider the edits to be related to the topic area?". If the answer was no, to decline the request, if the answer was unequivocally yes, then to take action on the request (this is for cases that they really should have known better). If the answer was yes, but I could see arguments either way, then I would rather issue a warning and clarification then to enforce the action as harshly as I would otherwise. My current thoughts at this point in time is that this would fall under the third category here, where a warning/clarification is probably the best bet. I'd also note that this is not a game to see how CLOSE one can get to the topic area without actually violating a topic ban (this means adhering to the spirit of the sanction not the letter), and that I would recommend not brushing up against this fuzzy line too many times. SirFozzie (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Manus: I am aware of the situation, I'm just saying that in this case, I think it would be best to give one warning and then apply discretionary sanctions as needed afterwards. SirFozzie (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * JClemens: Would it be best to clarify that like in other similar topic restrictions, that it is not only the Articles that fall under the topic, that even if the TOPIC would normally not fall under restrictions, that if the EDITS THEMSELVES would fall under the restrictions, then it would apply? SirFozzie (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a reasonable interpretation, but based on the widespread implications, I think the whole committee ought to weigh in on such a change; there may well be unintended consequences that we're not seeing initially. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the AE thread, it appears we have a gap here, where users trying to implement article changes which move a particular article closer to the scope of an existing remedy doesn't necessarily "compute": before they start, the articles are essentially unrelated, and don't really become related until the material, WP:COATRACK or not, is integrated into the article. Perhaps we should be more clear in the future about whether edits are confined to related articles on similar topics, or whether topical edits are affected regardless of within which article they appear.  I do not fault Sandstein for taking a more conservative approach to this particular question based on feedback in the current open case, given this ambiguity. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Substantially per JClemens. I don't think there's much doubt that expanding the scope of discretionary sanctions will be beneficial though there are two way of doing this: either (i) either extend the topic ban to include all articles which discuss alleged racial characteristics; or (ii) extend it to any editor introducing any material about alleged racial characteristics, broadly construed, into any article. The SPA clause adapted from Scientology would be a useful addition.  Roger Davies  talk 05:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston. Or fix the case to "broadly related" :)  Roger Davies  talk 06:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Motion
That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:


 * Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)


 * 5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the influence of race/ethnicity on intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.
 * To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia.
 * Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given and should be logged appropriately.
 * All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.

Support:
 * Roger Davies talk 15:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Copy-edited to remove a bit of wiggle room. If anyone objects, I'll post it as an alternative,  Roger Davies  talk 04:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, broaden. Cool Hand Luke 16:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand JClemens rationale, but think it's necessary to broaden it as above. SirFozzie (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I think applying to non-article space is completely appropriate (for me the AE case is about whether or not that particular invocation of AE sanctions was appropriate); there's no use in just moving a dispute elsewhere. Shell  babelfish 07:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fozzie in this case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  14:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also agreed that the applicability outside of article space is appropriate and necessary. &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 00:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the broader scope. I expect that this remedy, like all discretionary sanctions, will be enforced proportionately and sensibly. There may be some principles adopted in the pending Noleander case that may, as background, also be germane to some issues here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * Too broad as written, and can be badly applied in non-article space as I think we've seen in the AE Sanctions case. I would prefer to see this split out a bit more:
 * "Any edit to any article or article talk page"
 * "Any sufficiently egregious edit to any non-article, non-article talk page" Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Recuse:
 * I recused from the original case, and will recuse from this motion in order to ensure that there is no grounds for questioning the result of the motion. Risker (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User:Prunesqualer's topic ban (April 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Cptnono (talk) at 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by Cptnono
Prunesqualer is indeffed from the topic area. Another user and I have a disagreement at Racism in Israel. I "warned" him (he had been warned about his conduct before) on his talk page. In hindsite, I should have been nicer and made it sound less scary. But the point of this request for clarification is that Prunesqualler decided to chime in. Is he allowed to comment in a discussion about the I-P/I-A topic area?

Also, I would be worried about the potential hounding of him following my "career with interest" but he is not prohibited from checking me out. I believe he he is prohibited from joining in discussion, though. If an admin would clarify that an indef does not need to be forever it would be helpful too. If Prunesqualer would stop going out of his way to make attacks and proved his editing could be a benefit to the project then he could request to come back.

On a side note, Guinsberg and I have not gotten off on the right foot. I am tempted to request counseling in a separate request but would like to stop rocking the boat now. It would be appreciated if an admin could formally notify him of the arbitration case and give him advise in a friendlier fashion than I am capable of. Edits of concern include this pointy bombardment of the article with fact templates when there are sources provided for some of the lines. Cptnono (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC) (this has now been done by an admin, although it has not been logged at Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles


 * Note that this request for clarification is on if the talk page comment is under the scope of the topic ban. If Prunesqualer wants to open a case against me they will have to get unbanned and make it at AE. Also note that those quotes were already handled at AE so they are now stale. If Prunesqualer wants to get unbanned the appropriate venue is not here but through the normal appeals process.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for "action". I am asking for clarification. Can Prunesqualer contribute to a discussion that is about the conflict area or not?Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, the reason I ask is because the policy WP:BAN is clear that the edit can be reverted. I also want to make sure that Prunesqualer does not continue to chime in on such discussion until an appeal is accepted. It is not much to ask and it is backed by policy. Unfortunately, both editors have refused to follow policy and allow the edit to be removed (I actually struck it out instead of reverting to be a little more open)Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Prunesqualer continues to violate his topic ban. No other editor has been allowed to edit in a discussion based on the conflict area they were banned from. This request was a formality. Can an admin advise Prunsesqualer to stop commenting on discussions that originated in the topic area. He is not commenting based on anything else. It is only the I-P/I-A topic areas that we have been involved in and he even mentions them in his initial comment. Can an admin take care of this or do I need to jump through more hoops? If he gets blocked then he cannot edit anywhere so that is my next option.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is still unresolved. Although I am happy to see this dropped sooner than later, some clarification is still needed.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop dodging th quesiton admins. Xeno: Can he edit or not? I am not going to open an AE just to see it devovle into garbage. I want something clarified and that is the point of this board. Either you can do it or you should not comment here ever again since you have proven that you are not interested. Can he edit or not in a discussion about a topic area. Yes or no. I ti s an easy question. I get the reluctance but go ahead and answer.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Prunesqualer
I realise that the following is almost certainly not being presented in the correct form, or forum. However I can only hope that interested parties will sympathise with the following: I am doing little harm here, and that: one should not have to be a Wiki-Lawyer in order to contribute to Wiki.

I believe my contributions, before my indefinite topic ban, were "a benefit to the project".

Re. my ban (to which Cptnono has linked/referred) I can now see that I committed naive breaches of Wiki editing rules. In the case of my first ban I didn’t even know what 3RR meant (I realise ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence, I'm just pointing out where I stood as an inexperienced editor). I noted during my resulting 21 October 2010, 24 hour, editing "block" that Wiki software made it impossible to edit. I made the following wrong assumption: that when I was allowed by the software to edit the Gaza war article before my longer ban on that page had run it's time I must have been forgiven or had slipped through the net (accepting the second possibility was not a noble thing to consider acting on, I admit). This excuse may seem a little lame but I would add that if you follow the "Gaza War" discussion page at that time, you will find a fair bit of acceptance for the edits I proposed, even from previous opponents (this added to the "green light" feeling I had about making the edits). I realise now that that is not how Wiki works. For these relatively harmless mistakes I received an indefinite ban on editing IP/IA articles.

By contrast here are some Cptnono Wiki quotes:

"Call it Palestinians getting screwed with giant dildos as far as I am concerned"

"If you fuck with the mainspace I am going to fuck with you"

"How many separate articles do we need on the Palestinians being sad?"

"So you have enough time to write an AE but it took you this long to comment? Prick."

Action taken for the previous comments "blocked 3 hours for incivility"

Frankly, I admit, that since these events my attitudes and actions have reflected more than a touch of bitterness towards Cptnono. I believe Cptnono is more biased in IP/AP outlook than I am. I see no good reason beyond his (admittedly) superior Wiki-lawyering skills, as to why- he should be allowed to edit on IP/AP articles, and not I. PS I would be very happy to discuss the issue of subjectivity, which is so central to these matters (and all human affairs), with any interested party.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer (talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shucks another of my fiendish schemes, to undermine Wikipedia, and to subvert truth, has been thwarted. It's fortunate, for you pesky good guys, that the Guardians of integrity (Wiki admin) are so clear sighted and unbiased. I will now retire to my up-lit livid green laboratory, and munch on some babies, whilst Cptnono shines a beacon of truth for the free world. Prunesqualer (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Guinsberg
I'm not a great connaisseur of wikipedia's protocol. Even though I am aware that user Prunesqualer has been banned from contributing to Israeli/Palestinian articles, I can't understand the basis for Cptnono's complaint against him. User P. was not contributing to an Israeli/Palestinian article: he was using my Talk Page to warn me about the rather sly argument style Cptnono adopts on discussions about that topic - that is, user Prunesqualer wasn't even actually discussing Israeli/Palestinian politics, the only subject he has been forbidden to contribute to on Wikipedia. From what I can see in Cptnono's conduct, he has a very provocative communication style. He frequently accuses me of being disruptive and threatens to file a complaint against me for doing exactly what he's done before - even on instances where he recognizes I was right in acting in such a way. That he decided to pick on user Prunesqualer even though it is very hard to see what he has done wrong in communicating with me, only goes to confirm the pattern argumentative behavior. Plus, what he says about me - that I have been warned by an adm on my editions - is not true. Guinsberg (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Prunesqualer has just one edit in the entire past month, and I do not feel impelled to take any action on this request. If Prunesqualer wishes to seek a lifting or modification of his topic-ban in the future, the appropriate venue in the first instance would be a request either to the administrator who imposed the topic-ban or to the AE board. Any such request would benefit from evidence of appropriate, collegial editing in other topic areas. I can't evaluate the quotes for Cptnono without diffs or links, but needless to say, if they are authentic, then this type of approach would best be avoided, no matter how stressful the editing environment in this topic-area may ofttimes be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Prunesqualer, stay off Cptnono's talkpage. Of all the places you could post on the entire wiki, that is one of the least appropriate. Cptnono, you still haven't answered whether the quotations attributed above to you are accurate. If they are, clean up your act. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Brad. I don't see any reason to take action here. SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "This request was a formality" &rarr; If you feel that the user has violated restrictions and arbitration enforcement is required, you should file at WP:AE, not at clarification. – xeno talk  15:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic ban is "over the entire area of conflict" . Yes: the edit, being made in direct relation to the area of conflict, violated the restriction. – xeno talk  12:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur, nothing for us to do here. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with my fellow arbitrators - there isn't anything for us to do here. If there are further infractions of the topic ban, they should be handled at WP:AE. Similarly, an appeal of this ban should be heard at WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Longevity Notifications (April 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Calvin  Ty  at 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Per template instructions, EdJohnston was notified here.

Statement by CalvinTy
My apologizes for making this request for clarification several weeks after the fact. Only today, I came across this discussion between Amatulić and Sandstein about the ArbCom Longevity case. There was a link to the ArbCom case, and there's where I saw the Notifications section here showing that the admin EdJohnston gave me a notification on 6 March 2011. The ArbCom Longevity case closed on 17 Feb 2011, and I was not active on Wikipedia until 25 Feb 2011 and onwards.

EdJohnston and I did discuss the necessity of the 'notification' at the time (on 6 March 2011):


 * RfE against NickOrnstein
 * His original notification to me at my talk page
 * My first reply
 * His response to my reply & striking out "further" in the phrase, "inappropriate behavior" in the notice template
 * Per his request, "It would help to clarify matters if you could explain why you happened to choose this moment to begin editing Wikipedia (right after the Longevity case closed)", I provided a lengthy reply.
 * My request for clarification on his talk page about his "I think that everyone who is part of the '110 Club Wikipedia' ought to receive this message." comment
 * His reply answered the other part of my clarification, "Please be aware that blocks and sanctions may be appealed, but not notices."
 * My reply indicating this, "Apologizes as I did not know that I cannot appeal a notice even if an administrator may have done it after coming to an incorrect conclusion that a notice would be needed (where one may not be needed). I will keep that in mind in the future and hope to be able to recommend somewhere that a notice can also be appealed."

That's the reason I'm here today. I hope I'm at the right place. For starters, I have learned a lot since 25 Feb 2011 and am now better educated in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. At the time, and still today, I am of strong opinion that I should not have received a notice considering that I was not engaged in any inappropriate behavior.

I thought I had not, but I see that I did tell EdJohnston here where I quoted the ArbCom case, Finding of Facts #3, "Membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics."

In that RfE case against NickOrnstein, which was expanded to include The 110 Club members (of which I'm an administrator/member of) due to possible off-wiki canvassing by some forum members, I had suggested a potential compromise here. I asked any admin this: "first, what is a discretionary sanction? Of more concern, why should every member of The 110 Club forum receive one automatically regardless of their level of involvement, if any, in a possible violation of any guidelines (which, to date, is quite debatable and has not been sufficiently proven)?"


 * EdJohnston replied to my talk page that he feels, "It is possible that the AE request might close with no specific action toward members of the 110 Club, though I believe that a warning is likely. "At a minimum, the AE will end with all of the members notified of the discretionary sanctions."
 * I gave a response on my talk page: "My point is that I could have not known that some forum members could have been in violation of WP:CANVASS, regardless of whether I am an admin there or not. Like I have said repeatedly, I only became active as of 25 Feb 2011 (no matter how "soon" it is perceived after the Longevity ArbCom case -- that's an unfair assumption.) I wanted to get your response and hoped to see you agreeing with my point of view, and voluntarily retracting the formal notice. You haven't indicated why you have associated me with the possible canvassing going on by some forum members, do you understand what I'm trying to say? In light of that, you have perceived me as a "guilty party" without due process by sending me that formal notice. That is inappropriate. I now respectfully request you to retract the formal notice that you sent directly to me until there is a new (if any) RfE regarding any possibility that I have been involved with any violations of any Wikipedia guidelines."
 * As mentioned earlier, EdJohnston had replied to me through his talk page, so I never got the chance to get a response from him on that particular formal request from me for retraction of the formal notice, which would have been helpful.
 * Though, the day before, EdJohnston even stated to another admin, "The meatpuppet issue is in a gray area, and one could argue there is not enough evidence of on-wiki mischief due to the off-wiki coordination. The arguments of the 110 Club that they are not canvassing seem to misunderstand policy."
 * EdJohnston closed that RfE against NickOrnstein with the comment, "Admins may choose to notify forum participants of the discretionary sanctions."

To date, I still don't feel that I along with several other forum members should have received any notice unless there were diffs to provide evidence against each one of us (as far as I know, none were supplied by any editor against me). Yes, there were several diffs providing evidence against some forum members, which were quite convincing, but EdJohnston may have acted erroneously in good faith when he came to the conclusion that "I think that everyone who is part of the '110 Club Wikipedia' ought to receive this message.".

'''Finally, I apologize again for my chatterbox habit, but to sum up, I just feel that a formal notice was given to me by mistake, and I want to find out how I can have this formally retracted, if possible. I just am the type of person who abides with policies and guidelines, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere, and I still feel that formal notice is a negative connotation against me and who I really am like. Seeing my name in an ArbCom case did upset me so that's why I'm following up on whether I am able to have a notice retracted, hopefully by EdJohnston himself. Best regards,  Calvin'''  Ty  22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Response by CalvinTy
@EdJohnston, that was a good analogy about "taking back a notice is like unringing a bell". @SirFozzie, I did understood that "Notification does not imply any wrongdoing"; I guess I was just taken aback when I saw my name appearing in an ArbCom case that closed before I even became active here (even if it's just a notification). By 6 March 2011, the date of the notice, I knew that Longevity articles were being watched due to the recent ArbCom case. Yet, "notification does imply something" and the notification appeared not to be sent to every The 110 Club forum member that is also a Wikipedia editor (we can see a larger list of duplicate members in the ArbCom case) -- so naturally I felt "singled out" and that it was implied that "I was engaging in inappropriate behavior solely because of my The 110 Club membership" even as EdJohnston did strike out the "further" part of "inappropriate behavior" of the notice template, which was appreciative. That notification just didn't seem to jive with the ArbCom's statement about membership affiliation, that was all.

In any case, I certainly do not want to make a big deal out of this; just wanted to see whether there was an appeal process for getting a notice. Since there isn't, so SirFozzie or any arbitrator, please feel free to close this request for clarification. Regards, Calvin  Ty  11:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up comments by CalvinTy
I read some great points by everyone who commented to date. Since they have made the effort to comment, I'd like to follow-up here:


 * Jclemens said: "I would like to see notifications that are relevant, recent, appropriate, and targeted." I couldn't say anything better than that.
 * Jclemens also said, "The options for that are twofold: those doing notifications can take it upon themselves to keep warnings appropriate... or ArbCom can draft more constraints around what constitutes an effective notification." Sandstein commented along the same lines, "But evidently, editors who are not editing problematically should be warned (if at all) without using the  template, which assumes that misconduct has already taken place."  Perhaps that was all I was seeking at the time of the notice.
 * SirFozzie mentioned, "...a topic banned user canvassing off-wiki to "rally the troops" to AfD and other such locales, thereby putting a cloud over what 110 club editors would say." That might be the precise concern I was trying to convey here as that is a dangerous slope thinking like that.  Again, I agree that I saw potential canvassing evidence -- after the fact -- as you have mentioned the topic banned editor doing that.  Just because "CalvinTy and RYoung122" are members of the same longevity forum, therefore, to paraphrase you, "anything CalvinTy (and/or others) may say should be viewed in a skeptical manner".  Is that fair to me?  ArbCom made it explicitly clear that membership of any group "does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics."  I think it comes down to the fact that it's not the actual notice that bothers me, but it's the perception BEHIND the notice.  Sure, some members of The 110 Club had been potentially guilty of canvassing, but a blanket warning to any/all forum members shouldn't occur without any justification & supporting evidence.
 * To conclude, I quote Jclemens: "is it appropriate to simply notify every editor who has ever edited in an area about discretionary sanctions, thus fulfilling the requirement and taking the "Safety" off for an insta-sanction should they cross a line? That doesn't make sense to me." I have no qualms about the interpretation that a notice does not mean that any inappropriate behavior has already happened, that's fine with me, I only ask that the notice is given when it's due ("relevant, recent, appropriate and targeted").  Regards,  Calvin  Ty  19:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (Reply to SirFozzie) I understand your opinion, though it's just an opinion on your part. All I can say is that I am here on my own accord, without influence of anyone else, and that I form my own opinions of everything here on Wikipedia.  I also have casually (as in a couple of times per year) edited longevity articles since my first edit on 4 Aug 2009.  See here.  I only got involved in discussions in Feb 2011 as I educated myself about what the acronyms all meant such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and so forth since they were overwhelming to me as a "still-new casual user".  Since then, I have worked collaboratively with editors who have shown differing opinions in longevity articles such as David in DC and Itsmejudith.  RYoung122 feels they should be banned, and he has mentioned that recently as you know.  It's disappointing that you feel that anything I say would have a cloud above me, SirFozzie.  Maybe that's precisely the problem here -- administrators or arbitrators looking at me in a negative light because I'm a member of the same forum as a topic banned editor (RYoung122) & because of the "timing" of my contributions to Wikipedia.  That is... just not right and unacceptable.  An apology would be appropriate from you, SirFozzie.  I think I have said everything I can on this request for clarification.  Best regards,  Calvin  Ty  20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Newyorkbrad) I would like to be sure that I did not misunderstand you. You were explaining that the second purpose of the notification is because in someone's view, an editor may have been in violation of a guideline, etcetera.  Then you felt that a "preemptive" notification (to all editors of a topic) does not meet that second purpose?  In other words, if someone (like I did) received a preemptive notification, then there is another incident where I knowingly violated something, an admin or arbitrator could impose immediate sanctions on me because there was a prior "notification"... you feel that there should be an appropriate intermediate step in between instead?  I think I got it.  That may be what I was nervous about as well.
 * (Reply to all) After this good discussion, I am of the thought that I understand that a notice can be given to a particular editor if a "behavior" in a sensitive topic like Longevity may become problematic, even if no misconduct has taken place yet. I accept that, as we certainly do not want to restrict an admin/arbitrator's ability to maintain discussions and administer them.  Note I underlined "particular editor" as it now comes down to whether a preemptive notification to a group of editors was/is appropriate, keeping in mind once again, the spirit of the ArbCom Longevity case clearly states that a membership of Group A or Group B does not rise to COI in editing longevity articles.  Apologizes to using SirFozzie as an example (but to be fair, EdJohnston was of the same opinion when he gave the notice), but he was providing his opinion that the notification was justified solely on those grounds:
 * I'm a member of the same forum as the topic-banned editor, RYoung122,
 * There were evidence of canvassing by some forum members over there,
 * I began contributing actively on Wikipedia "shortly" after ArbCom Longevity case closed,
 * Therefore, a preemptive notification to a group of editors, including me, were appropriate.


 * That would appear to be against the spirit of the ArbCom Longevity case where, generally, editors should not make the attempt to "associate" similar editors together as being part of a "rogue forum" or something to that effect. As I told David in DC once, RYoung122 and I are quite different editors as I essentially summed up in this sentence, "I think Robert and I are two sides of the SAME coin... different personalities but having similar interests such as longevity.".  I don't want his actions or anyone else's actions to reflect poorly on me.  That was what I feared with the preemptive notification.  Best regards,  Calvin  Ty  14:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to close this RfC by CalvinTy

 * This is a formal request to close this Request for Clarification by the request originator. I was not sure where or how to properly request the closure, so I'm making the request here.  It appears that there is a lack of interest in finalizing the discussion whether a preemptive notification can be considered biting a casual (or a new) member or against good faith, particularly when a notification cannot be withdrawn or appealed.  Regards,  Calvin  Ty  11:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
At present there is no appeal process for those who receive notices of discretionary sanctions and feel that they do not deserve them. Since notices are intended to head off future trouble, it seems unwise to make them into a major deal. The notice gives the recipient a link to policies and past decisions so they can see if they think they are OK. Taking back a notice is like unringing a bell. I am not aware that any recipient of a notice has ever been un-notified, and I don't see why we should began that now.

The major concerns raised at the AE regarding Nick Ornstein was that Nick was edit-warring against consensus, and that an offwiki group called the 110 Club was trying to manipulate the longevity articles on Wikipedia. CalvinTy made it known that he was an administrator of the 110 Club. As a result of the AE, Nick agreed to change his approach, and that issue appears resolved. It was decided not to take any action regarding the 110 Club. There were no sanctions against CalvinTy as a result of the thread; he was merely notified of the discretionary sanctions. User:SirFozzie may recall some of the details since he participated in the admin discussion at the AE. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I'll only comment about my understanding of the warning requirement, as the longevity-related matters are WP:TLDR.

WP:AC/DS says: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

The wording of this provision does not require that the editor being warned has already done anything objectionable, or even (as some remedies do) that the warning needs to be given by an uninvolved administrator. With this wording, my understanding of the warning is that it is simply a procedural requirement to ensure that people who edit troublesome topics are aware that higher conduct standards apply to editing in these areas than elsewhere in Wikipedia. As such, I see no need to question, appeal or undo a warning under any circumstances. But evidently, editors who are not editing problematically should be warned (if at all) without using the uw-sanctions template, which assumes that misconduct has already taken place.  Sandstein  15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion
Looking at the AE section to refresh my memory. I think there was a valid concern that there was canvassing happening there, that the blanket notification of possible sanctions for issues in this area. In fact, Ed went so far to say in the formal closing of the AE request: Notification does not imply any wrongdoing, but it is official notice that their behavior may be looked at if they seem to be editing so as to favor the use of a specific set of off-wiki sources. It's good that we haven't had any further issues after the warning was issued, but I don't see any reason to say that means the blanket warning wasn't necessary and/or a good idea. SirFozzie (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This raises a gaming issue--is it appropriate to simply notify every editor who has ever edited in an area about discretionary sanctions, thus fulfilling the requirement and taking the "Safety" off for an insta-sanction should they cross a line? That doesn't make sense to me.  I would like to see notifications that are relevant, recent, appropriate, and targeted.  I don't see them as a way to avoid "ignorance of the law is no excuse" conversations, but rather as notifications that one or more specific behaviors are trending problematically. The options for that are twofold: those doing notifications can take it upon themselves to keep warnings appropriate... or ArbCom can draft more constraints around what constitutes an effective notification. Jclemens (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an issue in THIS case.. the activities around the last request were deeply problematic to me: a topic banned user canvassing off-wiki to "rally the troops" to AfD and other such locales, thereby putting a cloud over what 110 club editors would say. Again, it's a good thing that AE admins haven't had to follow up with anything, but it doesn't mean that the warning were not needed and/or a good thing. SirFozzie (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (reply to Calvin) Quite frankly, when the users showed up A) Without having a track record of participating in such discussions previously, and B)After the "call to arms" done.. yes, it puts a cloud over their participation, per the canvassing issues we discussed previously. SirFozzie (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with SirFozzie here. Regarding Jclemens's comment, there's nothing wrong with notifying editors - where appropriate a reminder or warning can be issued at a later date. PhilKnight (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, to be sure... everyone should be notified... but warnings that sanctions are in the future if changes aren't made should be proximate and specific to the problematic behavior. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Notification serves two purposes. One is to make sure that the editor is literally aware of the issues with the article and the discretionary sanctions regime applicable to them. The second is to make sure the editor is aware that he or she has, in at least one person's view, violated policies and guidelines in editing these articles. My view is that before a sanction (topic-ban, revert restriction, whatever) is imposed on an editor under discretionary sanctions, unless he or she has really misbehaved in a gross and obvious way, the editor should have the benefit of both types of warning. A "preemptive" notification to all editors on a topic, including those who aren't misbehaving (or aren't even active at the time) serves the first purpose but not the second, so I think that it may be helpful to do sometime, but should be followed up by a more formal warning that there are problems if and when that becomes necessary, wherever possible. In other words, from "everyone in the world is on notice of sanctions" to "you have been sanctioned" is a long jump; "you are in danger of sanctions if you keep this up" will often (perhaps almost always?) be an appropriate intermediate step. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley (April 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Abd (talk) at 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by Abd
I apologize for the length of this; however there are complex issues, and I already spent a day boiling it down. I believe that what remains is worth reading. If not, I really shouldn't bother any more with Wikipedia, indeed, this is my letting go, my effort to ensure that I did what I could.

This is a request to lift a ban under general sanctions,, based on AN discussion, report filed by JzG. Ban was based on alleged "re-engagement in prior disruptive behavior that caused ArbComm to issue the sanction a little over a year ago." Asked for specifics, GWH provided


 * 1. Continued combative editing on Talk: Cold fusion  .  By themselves, not necessarily actionable.  As part of an overall picture of you continuing problematic behavior that caused Guy's initial report, however, a component.
 * This assumed that the cause of JzG's report was my "combative editing." As can be shown if needed, JzG had taken every occasion to attack me and other editors who interfered with his agenda re cold fusion. The first recent JzG report was over editing of my Sandbox, where I'd been studying edit ratios per claims of page domination at Talk:Cold fusion. JzG similarly, early last year, initiated and obtained a topic ban for User:Pcarbonn, linked below, and in neither case did he disclose his prior involvement or ArbComm sanctions on this topic. As a COI editor, I carefully refrained from tendentious editing of the article, and confined myself to Talk, hopefully civilly and focused on what was relevant. Having become expert on the topic, and knowing policies and guidelines well, I often had substantial comment to make! Further, I'd responded to concerns and had largely abandoned editing because current conditions with article ownership, as can be shown if needed, made it mostly useless.
 * Those three edits were proper responses, where I had made edits expecting them to be non-controversial, and was reverted, and the sense of what I stated in them would be sustained at RfC, I believe. They were not lengthy. In particular, the arguments over lenr-canr.org were long ago settled, with consensus, when carefully addressed, and the placement of interwiki links is standard practice, and the only reason it was opposed here was an opinion about me. (If the argument "self-published" were true, it would be true of every WP article as to See Also, which is what this amounted to.) Cold fusion is covered by the same overall neutrality policy as Wikipedia, but implements it differently, not being subject to the restrictions of an encyclopedia, and any WP editor is invited to help with resources at Wikiversity. Readers would want this WV link, I believe, as a place to discuss cold fusion or ask questions. Otherwise they do it at Talk:Cold fusion and are often troutslapped for it.


 * ''2. Your behavior on meta taken in totality.  By itself, not necessarily actionable.  As part of an overall picture, however, a component. permanent link to what GWH would have seen at the time, supplied in place of live link he used. Final discussion as closed linked below.
 * In order to judge my behavior at meta, one must indeed have an overall, "total," perspective. Notice that the original request at meta was short and simple, and was an attempt to clean up damage covered by RfAr/Abd and JzG. Because of tendentious argument against delisting there, beginning with JzG's personal attack, it was necessary to answer prior and repeated claims in detail. I know that is irritating, but I knew from experience what was necessary at meta, with the blacklist admins. The result of my meta request was delisting, finally undoing damage done by JzG or at his request, more than a year earlier, see RfAr/Abd and JzG. As a side-effect, and without further request, lyrikline.org, also problematically blacklisted (JzG not involved), was delisted a few days later, attention having been called to it. GWH did not see the close, because he banned me before it happened. This was the full discussion.


 * ''3. Your behavior on the AN thread itself. You were offered numerous opportunities to defuse the situation or take a clean approach that didn't lead to a confrontation, and chose to spurn all of them. Again, a component of an overall picture.
 * I'm completely unclear on this. To an administrator who does not realize the situation with the filer of the notice, I could look stubborn. The confrontation was already happening, and not just there, and I'd already backed down in many ways. I did not pursue conflict, but I was pursued, as I've been ever since this case, it led to my almost total abandonment of Wikipedia editing, as edits I never thought might be violations -- mostly of the MYOB ban -- were alleged, and some resulted in blocks, or in extensive discussion at AE, which is, indeed, irritating!


 * GWH blamed me for the "confrontation," when there had been no confrontation other than the kind of edits he cited, which he acknowledged as not being a problem "in themselves." The "confrontation" arose when JzG filed the AN report. GWH gagged a hen for making some mild squawking noises, ignoring the fox, who has long been acting to ban editors. (-- note that no use of tools while involved is alleged here, I've seen nothing recent like that.)


 * I am not here requesting clarification on the so-called MYOB ban, nor on the alleged violation of the interaction ban that was the basis of my last block, this is only about the cold fusion topic ban.


 * Jehochman tried to mediate, as he had before (he filed the prior arbitration case with JzG.) His suggestion was, however, for me, that I abandon editing even Talk:cold fusion, totally. Problem is, almost all the editors remaining were either with or supportive of the POV editing that had long done such damage at Cold fusion, by exclusion of what is in peer-reviewed secondary sources in mainstream journals, for about six years now, and in other ways, or they were ineffective, not knowing the sources and not knowing dispute resolution process. I know the reliable sources and proper process. And as a COI editor, I was supposedly encouraged to participate on the Talk page. Note: I became COI only after the subject ArbComm cases. I was originally concerned only about the abusive blacklisting as a process issue. Then I researched the topic, and started to work for article balance.

By the way, if not topic banned, I doubt I would have pursued formal dispute resolution, it's inconsistent with COI editing. Rather, I'd have occasionally advised, or responded to questions, and as I still do, off-wiki. I'd just rather advise, re cold fusion, on the cold fusion Talk page! Or make non-controversial edits, I often see errors or obvious shortcomings, since I know the damn field!

While "wall of text" may have been a contributing factor for some arbitrators, the sanctions based on lengthy discussion did not pass, and the ban was rooted in a finding of tendentious article editing, with lengthy Talk page comment only weakly asserted. Since there was, this time, no such editing of the article even alleged, the new ban was not based on repetition of what led to the ban. See also the discussion of that finding as proposed. Rather, "wall of text" was a common claim from some editors, and I acknowledge it as a problem. It has been understood, however, that sometimes detailed discussion is appropriate, or can, at least, be tolerated, perhaps collapsed.

This is one full discussion that was part of the basis for GWH's decision, as considered in collapse above. The issue here is what RfAr/Abd and JzG was about, with another editor, previously and subsequently banned and blocked for behavior like this, raising the same arguments as ArbComm had rejected. You can see how the debate continued after I gave up, having done as much as I felt I could do. I did not create the mess at Cold fusion, it existed long before I became aware of the cold fusion article. The lenr-canr.org issue is still alive, see Talk:Cold fusion on lenr-canr.org, permalink for today.

To understand why it might easily seem that I'm disruptive, notice that my first case found that use of tools while involved had happened, and the second desysopped the admin, the occasion for my filing. A non-admin confronting admin abuse is rarely popular. With the first case, the preceding RfC, with crystal-clear evidence, had still shown 2/3 comment for banning me instead of addressing the RfC subject. The second case, the same clique had piled in, resulting in an easy appearance that "this editor is causing trouble." A later case, in which I took no part, addressed the clique itself.

Even if "wall of text" were the prior basis, contrary to claims that I "didn't hear," I had ceased the writing of lengthy comment, even where it might have been necessary, as a waste of my own time, and as ineffective with others. I acted consistently with COI restrictions, rigorously, regardless. This is a topic where experts, including Nobel laureates, disagree, see Brian Josephson, at Energy Catalyzer, and detailed discussion regarding the implications of sources, needed to negotiate a balanced article, will almost certainly be "impenetrable" to those who don't study and read the sources, etc.

I was pleased with General Sanctions passing, but, other than this ban, there has been no enforcement, in spite of clear disregard of policies and guidelines by others at Cold fusion. The only experienced editors supporting neutrality, previously active there, who knew how to, and had the energy to, handle disputes and get them resolved, to raise issues for AE, had been banned, both of us on the instigation of JzG, who was clearly highly involved, the basis for RfAr/Abd and JzG. This is not the place to examine JzG's behavior, per se, which is why extensive possible evidence about him isn't being submitted, it is only necessary, now, to understand that there is possible damage, and lessen it by removing an impediment to dispute resolution and true consensus, the bans. If the behavior is not repeated, water under the bridge.

An editor at Cold fusion, with his reverts and comments leading to so much of the allegedly offensive discussion, was later topic banned, and indef blocked, for behavior elsewhere that was no worse than at Cold fusion. Again, it is not necessary to rule on misbehavior, only the possibility of damage from such.

I ask for the Cold fusion topic bans of Pcarbonn and myself to be lifted, as unnecessary and prejudicial in context. Pcarbonn also acted consistently with COI rules on his return, he had found employment as a researcher in the field, I believe, and had not been tendentiously editing Cold fusion, confining himself to reasonable discussion on Talk, suggesting sources, etc. Pcarbonn told me that he'd given up, when he was banned the second time, notice, in such a frustrating way -- the arguments were bogus and misleading at best, implying that ArbComm had banned Pcarbonnn for his POV, something JzG often alleged in attempting to ban others. Sensibly for himself, he moved on to something else -- as did I, see Wikiversity:Special:Contributions/Abd. But Wikipedia lost. I also was, at the time of this ban, credited for editorial assistance in a journal that Einstein published in, Naturwissenschaften, in a recent review, Status of cold fusion (2010). Theoretically, this source should be golden on cold fusion (a recent peer-reviwed secondary source review in a mainstream publication), but material from it was tendentiously opposed.

Because of the meta delisting, one of GWH's reasons for the ban, I can provide a convenience link to this recent review.

Under General Sanctions, if a problem appears, it can be efficiently handled, but if the only experienced editors capable of clearly recognizing and addressing a problem are topic banned, there goes neutrality, while what is left looks like consensus. --Abd (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @JzG: Lie: 2 or 3 words. Correction: Many. JzG is a master of sound-bite attack. Each story sounds plausible, but he's repeating old arguments against consensus, evidence free. He knows that editors will often believe him unless they investigate. What appeal was previously rejected? --Abd (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @JzG: Please review and check what JzG has written. If he's right, I'm totally insane, and Wikipedia is the least of my worries. (I might be insane anyway, to imagine that ArbComm might review this.) His arguments about lenr-canr.org were rejected by ArbComm and everywhere, lenr-canr.org has been delisted, at my request. (And that led to this ban!) The copyright issue was considered in detail, by many, links have been provided. RfAr/Abd and JzG was based on his actions re that site, and confirmed my claims. Durova had warned me that if I raised that case, I'd be banned from cold fusion. But I didn't care about cold fusion, I cared about Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens, PhilKnight: The bans to be lifted were not declared by ArbComm, they were requested by JzG at AN, for Pcarbonn, and granted under General Sanctions for the subject case after AN, for me, also based on JzG AN request. The General Sanctions ban requires ArbComm review. My behavior changed radically, I followed COI rules. Please review. --Abd (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Risker: You made your views plain in the RfAr. If you are not interested in the sequelae, in what the decision you proposed, and that passed as a compromise, has wrought, I can wash my hands of this. But do, please, consider the case of Pcarbonn. Same story: JzG attacks, editor banned, supposedly based on the same POV as got him banned before. Does ArbComm ban based on POV? If so, it's making content decisions. Is JedRothwell banned? by whom or how? (JzG. Blocked by MastCell as a favor to JzG, based on no misbehavior. Not banned.) What does Jed Rothwell have to do with this? Good luck, you have a mess, and intense denial isn't going to fix it. If you had paid more attention in the subject RfAr, you might have avoided the Climate Change RfAr. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @GWH. I did not intend to stray beyond the ban boundaries, the edit on the whitelist page, I did not expect to be at all controversial, and no content issues were addressed, purely what should have been a helpful procedural suggestion. It got complicated today, and I've been aware of the edge, and concerned about it. I will, therefore, effective immediately, cease all activity on Wikipedia, even remotely related to cold fusion, aside from what you seem to have routinely permitted, i.e., occasional non-contentious comment on user talk pages, with consenting users, and excepting what may seem necessary here on this page. If you want something tighter than that, please let me know. I am not restricted at meta.
 * As to not helping Wikipedia, you may be right. That, in fact, was why I almost entirely gave up back in October. I was a COI editor, dependent entirely upon voluntary acceptance of my points by other editors. If nobody listens, it's a waste of time. If ArbComm is willing to tolerate what it -- and you -- are obviously willing to tolerate and ignore, in order to get rid of too much discussion, then it will get what it allows. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2011

Developments

 * request for routine removal from whitelist, JzG makes contentious comment with no necessity at all. See discussion on his Talk page. There was never any "spamming." If ArbComm and the community ignore this repeated pattern, concern for the real cause of disruption on the wiki has been lost.
 * JzG use of tools while involved, today. unilateral addition of lenr-canr.org to local blacklist, use of spam blacklist for content control, no discussion, no specific copyright violation shown, involved admin, log of action. See RfAr/Abd and Jzg: --Abd (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * JzG has again requested blacklisting at meta, based on "copyvio" showing his dogged attack on lenr-canr.org, that started long before I was involved. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other JzG
Abd was topic-banned for wall-of-text argumentation of WP:TRUTH from primary sources using links to copyright violating material on partisan sites.

His appeal consists of a wall of text arguing WP:TRUTH with links to primary sources hosted in violation of copyright on a partisan site. The previous appeal was couched in exactly similar terms. Abd, a self-confessed obsessive, never gives up.

The central question for any appeal must be: what's changed. The answer in this case is, nothing. One more paper has been published, which has not, as far as anyone can tell, changed the scientific consensus, and Abd's appeal rationale is the same as last time: that he's still right and everyone else is still wrong, especially that the original decision in the cold fusion arbitration case is wrong, the previous appeals resulting in upholding that decision were wrong, and Abd is still a fearless and wronged crusader for WP:TRUTH.

But the ban was not imposed because Abd was wrong, it was imposed because his interaction with others was impossibly problematic. As is pretty clear from the above, he doesn't get that. Abd lacks the self-criticism necessary to understand and resolve the problems that ensue when he tries to edit a subject on which he has deeply-held convictions that are at odds with the opinion of other editors. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Abd's trotting out yet again of the "blacklisting abuse" meme, a point refuted a thousand times, is further evidence that with Abd there is no way any issue can ever be settled other than by giving him what he wants. There was no "damage". Lenr-canr is a fringe advocacy site littered with copyright violations and repeatedly spammed by its owner and, after his banning, by Pcarbonn and Abd proxying for him. Neither denies being on friendly terms with Rothwell. This is why dealing with Abd is, quite literally, impossible: there is no known way to get him to drop something once he has it in his head. Ever. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert
I don't see that the situation has changed. I appreciate that Abd is continuing to address this via appeal procedures and within the system, but I don't see that the fundamental behavior has changed.

Abd - Additionally, while reviewing this, I came across your comments on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist over the last couple of days regarding lenr-canr.org. I am concerned that this activity violated the topic ban, which is in effect now.

I believe that you should stop that conversation until and unless Arbcom changes its mind below and revokes the sanction, in which case it would be a moot point anyways.

Currently, the topic ban goes until... October 5, 2011, one year from the AN discussion. I am greatly concerned that, if things continue in this direction, it will have to be reimposed for at least another year. Abd - I appreciate your devotion to this topic and you willingness to keep working within Wikipedia's system with regards to appeals and so forth, but your behavior on this topic is just not ok. It's not doing you, or Wikipedia, any good.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Is this a request for clarification, or a request for amendment? If the desire is that a specific sanction be terminated, I'm not seeing why this should be the former, rather than the latter. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBUREAU. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This does appear to be a request for amendment, and perhaps we should request a clerk moves this discussion. However, I also agree with Stephan that we shouldn't worry too much about such matters. Anyway, based on the comments so far, I'm more in agreement with Guy than Abd. In order for the sanctions imposed on Abd to be relaxed, I would have to be convinced that he has changed. That could be achieved in a number of ways, such as collaborative editing, and recognition of past mistakes. However, based on his statement above, I'm unconvinced that he has changed sufficiently for the imposed sanctions to be relaxed. PhilKnight (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't worried about such matters... I was actually using it as an excuse to try and elicit a succinct statement from ABD about what he actually is looking for, to confirm what I think I was reading. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on Abd's statement, he still fails to understand why the sanctions were imposed in the first place. I cannot support permitting him to return to this topic area when it is clear that he will return to exactly the editing pattern that resulted in his removal in the first place. This applies whether this is an amendment or a clarification. Risker (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with those above, I see no reason to lift the topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Decline, broadly per Risker.   Roger Davies  talk 17:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to lift sanction: Abd-William M. Connolley (May 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Abd (talk) at 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by Abd
I apologize for the length of this; however there are complex issues, and I already spent a day boiling it down. I believe that what remains is worth reading. If not, I really shouldn't bother any more with Wikipedia, indeed, this is my letting go, my effort to ensure that I did what I could.

This is a request to lift a ban under general sanctions,, based on AN discussion, report filed by JzG. Ban was based on alleged "re-engagement in prior disruptive behavior that caused ArbComm to issue the sanction a little over a year ago." Asked for specifics, GWH provided


 * 1. Continued combative editing on Talk: Cold fusion  .  By themselves, not necessarily actionable.  As part of an overall picture of you continuing problematic behavior that caused Guy's initial report, however, a component.
 * This assumed that the cause of JzG's report was my "combative editing." As can be shown if needed, JzG had taken every occasion to attack me and other editors who interfered with his agenda re cold fusion. The first recent JzG report was over editing of my Sandbox, where I'd been studying edit ratios per claims of page domination at Talk:Cold fusion. JzG similarly, early last year, initiated and obtained a topic ban for User:Pcarbonn, linked below, and in neither case did he disclose his prior involvement or ArbComm sanctions on this topic. As a COI editor, I carefully refrained from tendentious editing of the article, and confined myself to Talk, hopefully civilly and focused on what was relevant. Having become expert on the topic, and knowing policies and guidelines well, I often had substantial comment to make! Further, I'd responded to concerns and had largely abandoned editing because current conditions with article ownership, as can be shown if needed, made it mostly useless.
 * Those three edits were proper responses, where I had made edits expecting them to be non-controversial, and was reverted, and the sense of what I stated in them would be sustained at RfC, I believe. They were not lengthy. In particular, the arguments over lenr-canr.org were long ago settled, with consensus, when carefully addressed, and the placement of interwiki links is standard practice, and the only reason it was opposed here was an opinion about me. (If the argument "self-published" were true, it would be true of every WP article as to See Also, which is what this amounted to.) Cold fusion is covered by the same overall neutrality policy as Wikipedia, but implements it differently, not being subject to the restrictions of an encyclopedia, and any WP editor is invited to help with resources at Wikiversity. Readers would want this WV link, I believe, as a place to discuss cold fusion or ask questions. Otherwise they do it at Talk:Cold fusion and are often troutslapped for it.


 * ''2. Your behavior on meta taken in totality.  By itself, not necessarily actionable.  As part of an overall picture, however, a component. permanent link to what GWH would have seen at the time, supplied in place of live link he used. Final discussion as closed linked below.
 * In order to judge my behavior at meta, one must indeed have an overall, "total," perspective. Notice that the original request at meta was short and simple, and was an attempt to clean up damage covered by RfAr/Abd and JzG. Because of tendentious argument against delisting there, beginning with JzG's personal attack, it was necessary to answer prior and repeated claims in detail. I know that is irritating, but I knew from experience what was necessary at meta, with the blacklist admins. The result of my meta request was delisting, finally undoing damage done by JzG or at his request, more than a year earlier, see RfAr/Abd and JzG. As a side-effect, and without further request, lyrikline.org, also problematically blacklisted (JzG not involved), was delisted a few days later, attention having been called to it. GWH did not see the close, because he banned me before it happened. This was the full discussion.


 * ''3. Your behavior on the AN thread itself. You were offered numerous opportunities to defuse the situation or take a clean approach that didn't lead to a confrontation, and chose to spurn all of them. Again, a component of an overall picture.
 * I'm completely unclear on this. To an administrator who does not realize the situation with the filer of the notice, I could look stubborn. The confrontation was already happening, and not just there, and I'd already backed down in many ways. I did not pursue conflict, but I was pursued, as I've been ever since this case, it led to my almost total abandonment of Wikipedia editing, as edits I never thought might be violations -- mostly of the MYOB ban -- were alleged, and some resulted in blocks, or in extensive discussion at AE, which is, indeed, irritating!


 * GWH blamed me for the "confrontation," when there had been no confrontation other than the kind of edits he cited, which he acknowledged as not being a problem "in themselves." The "confrontation" arose when JzG filed the AN report. GWH gagged a hen for making some mild squawking noises, ignoring the fox, who has long been acting to ban editors. (-- note that no use of tools while involved is alleged here, I've seen nothing recent like that.)


 * I am not here requesting clarification on the so-called MYOB ban, nor on the alleged violation of the interaction ban that was the basis of my last block, this is only about the cold fusion topic ban.


 * Jehochman tried to mediate, as he had before (he filed the prior arbitration case with JzG.) His suggestion was, however, for me, that I abandon editing even Talk:cold fusion, totally. Problem is, almost all the editors remaining were either with or supportive of the POV editing that had long done such damage at Cold fusion, by exclusion of what is in peer-reviewed secondary sources in mainstream journals, for about six years now, and in other ways, or they were ineffective, not knowing the sources and not knowing dispute resolution process. I know the reliable sources and proper process. And as a COI editor, I was supposedly encouraged to participate on the Talk page. Note: I became COI only after the subject ArbComm cases. I was originally concerned only about the abusive blacklisting as a process issue. Then I researched the topic, and started to work for article balance.

By the way, if not topic banned, I doubt I would have pursued formal dispute resolution, it's inconsistent with COI editing. Rather, I'd have occasionally advised, or responded to questions, and as I still do, off-wiki. I'd just rather advise, re cold fusion, on the cold fusion Talk page! Or make non-controversial edits, I often see errors or obvious shortcomings, since I know the damn field!

While "wall of text" may have been a contributing factor for some arbitrators, the sanctions based on lengthy discussion did not pass, and the ban was rooted in a finding of tendentious article editing, with lengthy Talk page comment only weakly asserted. Since there was, this time, no such editing of the article even alleged, the new ban was not based on repetition of what led to the ban. See also the discussion of that finding as proposed. Rather, "wall of text" was a common claim from some editors, and I acknowledge it as a problem. It has been understood, however, that sometimes detailed discussion is appropriate, or can, at least, be tolerated, perhaps collapsed.

This is one full discussion that was part of the basis for GWH's decision, as considered in collapse above. The issue here is what RfAr/Abd and JzG was about, with another editor, previously and subsequently banned and blocked for behavior like this, raising the same arguments as ArbComm had rejected. You can see how the debate continued after I gave up, having done as much as I felt I could do. I did not create the mess at Cold fusion, it existed long before I became aware of the cold fusion article. The lenr-canr.org issue is still alive, see Talk:Cold fusion on lenr-canr.org, permalink for today.

To understand why it might easily seem that I'm disruptive, notice that my first case found that use of tools while involved had happened, and the second desysopped the admin, the occasion for my filing. A non-admin confronting admin abuse is rarely popular. With the first case, the preceding RfC, with crystal-clear evidence, had still shown 2/3 comment for banning me instead of addressing the RfC subject. The second case, the same clique had piled in, resulting in an easy appearance that "this editor is causing trouble." A later case, in which I took no part, addressed the clique itself.

Even if "wall of text" were the prior basis, contrary to claims that I "didn't hear," I had ceased the writing of lengthy comment, even where it might have been necessary, as a waste of my own time, and as ineffective with others. I acted consistently with COI restrictions, rigorously, regardless. This is a topic where experts, including Nobel laureates, disagree, see Brian Josephson, at Energy Catalyzer, and detailed discussion regarding the implications of sources, needed to negotiate a balanced article, will almost certainly be "impenetrable" to those who don't study and read the sources, etc.

I was pleased with General Sanctions passing, but, other than this ban, there has been no enforcement, in spite of clear disregard of policies and guidelines by others at Cold fusion. The only experienced editors supporting neutrality, previously active there, who knew how to, and had the energy to, handle disputes and get them resolved, to raise issues for AE, had been banned, both of us on the instigation of JzG, who was clearly highly involved, the basis for RfAr/Abd and JzG. This is not the place to examine JzG's behavior, per se, which is why extensive possible evidence about him isn't being submitted, it is only necessary, now, to understand that there is possible damage, and lessen it by removing an impediment to dispute resolution and true consensus, the bans. If the behavior is not repeated, water under the bridge.

An editor at Cold fusion, with his reverts and comments leading to so much of the allegedly offensive discussion, was later topic banned, and indef blocked, for behavior elsewhere that was no worse than at Cold fusion. Again, it is not necessary to rule on misbehavior, only the possibility of damage from such.

I ask for the Cold fusion topic bans of Pcarbonn and myself to be lifted, as unnecessary and prejudicial in context. Pcarbonn also acted consistently with COI rules on his return, he had found employment as a researcher in the field, I believe, and had not been tendentiously editing Cold fusion, confining himself to reasonable discussion on Talk, suggesting sources, etc. Pcarbonn told me that he'd given up, when he was banned the second time, notice, in such a frustrating way -- the arguments were bogus and misleading at best, implying that ArbComm had banned Pcarbonnn for his POV, something JzG often alleged in attempting to ban others. Sensibly for himself, he moved on to something else -- as did I, see Wikiversity:Special:Contributions/Abd. But Wikipedia lost. I also was, at the time of this ban, credited for editorial assistance in a journal that Einstein published in, Naturwissenschaften, in a recent review, Status of cold fusion (2010). Theoretically, this source should be golden on cold fusion (a recent peer-reviwed secondary source review in a mainstream publication), but material from it was tendentiously opposed.

Because of the meta delisting, one of GWH's reasons for the ban, I can provide a convenience link to this recent review.

Under General Sanctions, if a problem appears, it can be efficiently handled, but if the only experienced editors capable of clearly recognizing and addressing a problem are topic banned, there goes neutrality, while what is left looks like consensus. --Abd (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @JzG: Lie: 2 or 3 words. Correction: Many. JzG is a master of sound-bite attack. Each story sounds plausible, but he's repeating old arguments against consensus, evidence free. He knows that editors will often believe him unless they investigate. What appeal was previously rejected? --Abd (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @JzG: Please review and check what JzG has written. If he's right, I'm totally insane, and Wikipedia is the least of my worries. (I might be insane anyway, to imagine that ArbComm might review this.) His arguments about lenr-canr.org were rejected by ArbComm and everywhere, lenr-canr.org has been delisted, at my request. (And that led to this ban!) The copyright issue was considered in detail, by many, links have been provided. RfAr/Abd and JzG was based on his actions re that site, and confirmed my claims. Durova had warned me that if I raised that case, I'd be banned from cold fusion. But I didn't care about cold fusion, I cared about Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens, PhilKnight: The bans to be lifted were not declared by ArbComm, they were requested by JzG at AN, for Pcarbonn, and granted under General Sanctions for the subject case after AN, for me, also based on JzG AN request. The General Sanctions ban requires ArbComm review. My behavior changed radically, I followed COI rules. Please review. --Abd (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Risker: You made your views plain in the RfAr. If you are not interested in the sequelae, in what the decision you proposed, and that passed as a compromise, has wrought, I can wash my hands of this. But do, please, consider the case of Pcarbonn. Same story: JzG attacks, editor banned, supposedly based on the same POV as got him banned before. Does ArbComm ban based on POV? If so, it's making content decisions. Is JedRothwell banned? by whom or how? (JzG. Blocked by MastCell as a favor to JzG, based on no misbehavior. Not banned.) What does Jed Rothwell have to do with this? Good luck, you have a mess, and intense denial isn't going to fix it. If you had paid more attention in the subject RfAr, you might have avoided the Climate Change RfAr. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @GWH. I did not intend to stray beyond the ban boundaries, the edit on the whitelist page, I did not expect to be at all controversial, and no content issues were addressed, purely what should have been a helpful procedural suggestion. It got complicated today, and I've been aware of the edge, and concerned about it. I will, therefore, effective immediately, cease all activity on Wikipedia, even remotely related to cold fusion, aside from what you seem to have routinely permitted, i.e., occasional non-contentious comment on user talk pages, with consenting users, and excepting what may seem necessary here on this page. If you want something tighter than that, please let me know. I am not restricted at meta.
 * As to not helping Wikipedia, you may be right. That, in fact, was why I almost entirely gave up back in October. I was a COI editor, dependent entirely upon voluntary acceptance of my points by other editors. If nobody listens, it's a waste of time. If ArbComm is willing to tolerate what it -- and you -- are obviously willing to tolerate and ignore, in order to get rid of too much discussion, then it will get what it allows. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2011

Developments

 * request for routine removal from whitelist, JzG makes contentious comment with no necessity at all. See discussion on his Talk page. There was never any "spamming." If ArbComm and the community ignore this repeated pattern, concern for the real cause of disruption on the wiki has been lost.
 * JzG use of tools while involved, today. unilateral addition of lenr-canr.org to local blacklist, use of spam blacklist for content control, no discussion, no specific copyright violation shown, involved admin, log of action. See RfAr/Abd and Jzg: --Abd (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * JzG has again requested blacklisting at meta, based on "copyvio" showing his dogged attack on lenr-canr.org, that started long before I was involved. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That blacklisting was reverted by DGG, see User talk:JzG on the spam blacklist. Some sanity left, anyway.
 * Is NW going to notify the involved editors that the link in their notice won't work any more? Looked like the arbs were accepting it here. What amendment is being requested? None that I know of. This was under General Sanctions. Ah, well, their business. --Abd (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other JzG
Abd was topic-banned for wall-of-text argumentation of WP:TRUTH from primary sources using links to copyright violating material on partisan sites.

His appeal consists of a wall of text arguing WP:TRUTH with links to primary sources hosted in violation of copyright on a partisan site. The previous appeal was couched in exactly similar terms. Abd, a self-confessed obsessive, never gives up.

The central question for any appeal must be: what's changed. The answer in this case is, nothing. One more paper has been published, which has not, as far as anyone can tell, changed the scientific consensus, and Abd's appeal rationale is the same as last time: that he's still right and everyone else is still wrong, especially that the original decision in the cold fusion arbitration case is wrong, the previous appeals resulting in upholding that decision were wrong, and Abd is still a fearless and wronged crusader for WP:TRUTH.

But the ban was not imposed because Abd was wrong, it was imposed because his interaction with others was impossibly problematic. As is pretty clear from the above, he doesn't get that. Abd lacks the self-criticism necessary to understand and resolve the problems that ensue when he tries to edit a subject on which he has deeply-held convictions that are at odds with the opinion of other editors. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Abd's trotting out yet again of the "blacklisting abuse" meme, a point refuted a thousand times, is further evidence that with Abd there is no way any issue can ever be settled other than by giving him what he wants. There was no "damage". Lenr-canr is a fringe advocacy site littered with copyright violations and repeatedly spammed by its owner and, after his banning, by Pcarbonn and Abd proxying for him. Neither denies being on friendly terms with Rothwell. This is why dealing with Abd is, quite literally, impossible: there is no known way to get him to drop something once he has it in his head. Ever. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert
I don't see that the situation has changed. I appreciate that Abd is continuing to address this via appeal procedures and within the system, but I don't see that the fundamental behavior has changed.

Abd - Additionally, while reviewing this, I came across your comments on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist over the last couple of days regarding lenr-canr.org. I am concerned that this activity violated the topic ban, which is in effect now.

I believe that you should stop that conversation until and unless Arbcom changes its mind below and revokes the sanction, in which case it would be a moot point anyways.

Currently, the topic ban goes until... October 5, 2011, one year from the AN discussion. I am greatly concerned that, if things continue in this direction, it will have to be reimposed for at least another year. Abd - I appreciate your devotion to this topic and you willingness to keep working within Wikipedia's system with regards to appeals and so forth, but your behavior on this topic is just not ok. It's not doing you, or Wikipedia, any good.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Noting for the record - Future Perfect at Sunrise issued a 2 week block based on the issue I raised above about the blacklist talk page. .  A unblock request was denied by Stephan Schultz, with some subsequent discussion.  It is somewhat unusual for parties or appellants to be blocked during discussion, so I believe it should be in the record here that it's happened.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Note from TenOfAllTrades
Abd has decided that his current block shouldn't prevent him from POINTy editing while logged out, purportedly to remove previously-made comments which might violate his topic ban, but principally as a way to stir things up: summary provided by Abd himself. (I presume based on past performance that he's waiting for someone to block his IP so he can file another rambling unblock request, explaining how unreasonable it is for us to block him while he is trying so hard to clean up after himself, and why is everyone being so unfair?) Since Abd has such an extensive history of boundary-testing, I would recommend that the ArbCom short-circuit the nonsense, save everyone some time, and ban him already. He's declared that he's going to edit through a block or ban anyway, but we might as well dot the i and cross the t. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Moved to the amendments page.  NW  ( Talk ) 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Is this a request for clarification, or a request for amendment? If the desire is that a specific sanction be terminated, I'm not seeing why this should be the former, rather than the latter. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBUREAU. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This does appear to be a request for amendment, and perhaps we should request a clerk moves this discussion. However, I also agree with Stephan that we shouldn't worry too much about such matters. Anyway, based on the comments so far, I'm more in agreement with Guy than Abd. In order for the sanctions imposed on Abd to be relaxed, I would have to be convinced that he has changed. That could be achieved in a number of ways, such as collaborative editing, and recognition of past mistakes. However, based on his statement above, I'm unconvinced that he has changed sufficiently for the imposed sanctions to be relaxed. PhilKnight (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't worried about such matters... I was actually using it as an excuse to try and elicit a succinct statement from ABD about what he actually is looking for, to confirm what I think I was reading. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on Abd's statement, he still fails to understand why the sanctions were imposed in the first place. I cannot support permitting him to return to this topic area when it is clear that he will return to exactly the editing pattern that resulted in his removal in the first place. This applies whether this is an amendment or a clarification. Risker (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with those above, I see no reason to lift the topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Decline, broadly per Risker.   Roger Davies  talk 17:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Decline, Risker sums it up well. Casliber (talk · contribs)
 * Decline; I think it's clear from his statement that Abd still fails to see why the sanction was imposed in the first place. While regrettable, this leaves us with no choice but to keep the restriction in place.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Abd is now indefinitely blocked, and has proclaimed his intention to ... well, I can't tell exactly what he's proclaimed his intention to do, but it's certainly not consistent with acceptable behavior here. I think this request can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander (May 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Tijfo098 (talk) at 13:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by Tijfo098
I find the discretionary sanctions passed in this case quite muddy. Do they apply for instance to someone who persistently edits with, say, anti-Palestinian or anti-Serbian bias? I can think of a number of users who don't break 1RR and similar technical rules (like outright misusing sources) but edit in this fashion overall, by adding solely negative information about some peoples. Assuming my impression is correct, may I bring them to WP:AE under the discretionary sanctioned passed in this case? 13:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Casliber, did you change your mind since the vote? Or was the remedy poorly worded? The discretionary sanction/remedy linked says "its terms are applicable to other disputes similar to those arising in this current case." It seems to me that NYB's thought experiment, although not part of the decision itself, is how that remedy is to be interpreted, at least by him. 14:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Casliber, what do you mean by "opening the floodgate"? Do you think there are many editors like Noleander active, but editing in different anti-people-X areas? 17:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Noleander has been indef topic banned as a separate remedy in the case, so I doubt the discretionary sanctions were meant for him alone (the 2nd / discretionary remedy doesn't contain such wording or even name Noleander), but who knows... 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. 03:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
I had thought that the decision was clear and settled, but seeing Casliber's comment below makes me feel a need to come back with a question. It seems clear to me that the Noleander case was about articles pertaining to Judaism and the Jewish people, so the discretionary sanctions do not automatically extend to other religions or peoples, as Casliber says. However, Casliber's answer sounds to me like the sanctions might only apply to Noleander, individually, and not to other editors who might engage in the kinds of conduct addressed in the sanction, in content pertaining to to Judaism and the Jewish people. If so, that does not make sense to me. Noleander is topic banned from that subject area, so surely the sanctions apply to other editors. Furthermore, it seemed clear to me during the case that the purpose of the discretionary sanctions was to address conduct by editors other than Noleander, that did not rise to the level of requiring ArbCom sanctions in this case, but which was nonetheless recognized as being unhelpful. Could the Committee please clarify that? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad: Sorry, but now I'm even more confused. That no new discretionary sanctions were adopted in the case: yes, I understand that. That the "thought experiment" was not anything official: yes, of course, I understand that too. Remedy 2 explains how the decision in the earlier case applies here: yes, I understand that too, insofar as it goes. But the question that all three editors are asking here has not been answered. Remedy 2 draws readers' attention to the earlier case, and quotes a passage from it. In the earlier case, the quoted passage is followed immediately by the following:
 * "To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia."
 * It would appear on the face of it that the Committee was declaring that editors, other than Noleander, who make edits "relating to the area of conflict", can potentially be brought to Arbitration Enforcement in relation to the Noleander case. It now sounds as though both Casliber and Newyorkbrad are saying that this is not so. Three editors here are asking if users, other than Noleander, who make edits "relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed," or perhaps even in other subject areas, are subject to Arbitration Enforcement as a result of this case. When Roger Davies proposed the remedy (please see his vote at the Proposed Decision), he seemed to be saying so. Please understand that the community appears not to understand what the Committee intended in this regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the Arbs for clearing that up. Roger's explanation makes very good sense to me, and fully answers any questions that I had. Agreeing with what Griswaldo said, it occurs to me that some of the confusion arises from placing that part of the decision in the Remedies section, as opposed to Principles or Findings of fact, because it implied that this was a description of actions to be taken as a result of this ruling, when it now appears that it was actually a reminder of something that already exists. (I will also point out that I am disappointed that the actual remedies do not really address the kinds of conduct that occurred in response to Noleander's edits, but I accept that the Committee's decision was a fair one, and leaves those matters, should they occur again, to the existing dispute resolution process.) Thanks again, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Griswaldo
I too am confused by Calisber's response. I was under the impression that Arbitration Enforcement of discretionary sanctions was available as a remedy once someone was notified by an admin that their edits in a certain area fall under the purview of an arbitration case. Is that not correct? Thanks for any clarification.Griswaldo (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the arbs for their clarifications. It makes sense to me now, but perhaps the confusion is a good indication that the manner in which people were bing reminded about other descritionary sanctions wasn't completely clear.  Maybe it will be done differently in the future to avoid confusion.  Thanks again.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
Roger and Brad, are you saying that discretionary sanctions may not be imposed anywhere on the authority of the Noleander case, but they could be imposed for most examples of racist editing, if the racism is regarding or alluding to the intelligence or other human attributes (specifically including kindness, typical behaviour and/or impartiality, but presumably excluding things like height, physical strength and similar non-personality attributes) of the denigrated race on the authority of the Race and intelligence case? If so,
 * Can you confirm that this is the case regardless of what race or nationality the editor(s) in question disparage (i.e. it would apply equally to someone denigrating Arabs, Jews, Serbs and Namibians)?
 * Where should clarification be sought if one is in doubt whether the racism in question falls within the included intersections of race and interlligence/personality or not
 * If discretionary sanctions are applied due to editor(s) making comments that are both within the scope and without the scope noted above, what should the course of action be if the editor(s) (a) ceased making the within-scope accusations but not the without-scope ones; or (b) continued to make both sorts of problem editsStandard dispute resolution? RfC? AE? Requests to ammend the Race and intelligence case? A new arbitration request? Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all, particularly Roger, as I'm now happy I understand everything. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The sanctions as such under AE refer to this case (i.e. Noleander). Other editors whose actions had not otherwise been scrutinised to date should pass through the standard procedures and noticeboards, which could include Content noticeboard, Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, No original research/Noticeboard, before moving to such venues as Requests for comment. Otherwise we'd be opening a veritable floodgate...(although then again if it did act as a strong deterrent...) . Anyway, this is my impression of how it would work, others may have a different idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No discretionary sanctions were adopted in the Noleander case; the only actual sanction (remedy 1) was the topic-ban against Noleander himself or herself. Remedy 2 is a reminder that recently, the Committee voted to expand the scope of the topic-area subject to discretionary sanctions in the Race and intelligence case, to now include "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed." Editors may refer to the discussion of that motion for some background of why it was adopted (basically, to curb extensive wikilawyering that had ensued from the original remedy in the case); the expanded sanction addresses issues that I consider separate from, though somewhat related to, those we addressed in Noleander. (See my vote comments on the proposed decision page in Noleander.) Finally, my "thought experiment" on the workshop talkpage was an attempt by me individually to follow up on some of the dialog on the workshop proposals; it was intended to frame some issues for thoughtful discussion rather than to conclusively resolve them, it was not reviewed or commented on by any of the other arbitrators, and it does not form any part of the decision in the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my colleagues. Noleander does not itself authorise discretionary sanctions but does draw attention to another case which authorises discretionary sanctions for edits which may be characterised as essentially racist. An anti-Palestinian and anti-Serbian bias would only be covered if the edits sought to link human conduct to racial characteristics. This typically arises when sweeping generalisations are applied to races/ethinc groups. Crude examples: "Because Blue people are thieves, they looted and plundered after the battle in 1358", which ignores the fact that it was standard practice in 1358 for all armies to loot and plunder after battles. "Saladin was admired by the Crusaders because he was a good and honourable man for an Arab": which (apart from the Arab/Kurd controversy) strongly implies that as a ethnic group Arabs are neither good nor honourable (remarkably this comes from a 1930s history textbook). "Because you are Blue, it's typical that you run to support other Blue people, no matter whether they're right or wrong": which implies that Blue people place kinship above intellectual honesty.  Roger Davies  talk 06:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Thryduulf
 * It applies regardless of race/ethnicity but not to nationality. (Namibian looks like a nationality not a race/ethnicity.)
 * Arbitration enforcement ("AE") is the best venue.
 * AE would cover the in-scope ones. The out-of-scope stuff needs to go through the usual dispute resolution venues that Casliber has talked about.
 * I hope this helps,  Roger Davies  talk 09:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Discretionary sanctions were not adopted in the Noleander case. The discretionary sanctions you've mentioned are from the Race and intelligence case. These discretionary sanctions can be applied to editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process in regard to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed. In general, editors who are anti-Palestinian, or anti-Serbian wouldn't be covered by these discretionary sanctions, however such editors probably could be sanctioned under WP:ARBPIA or WP:DIGWUREN. I notice that Roger has listed some examples that would be sanctionable under the Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions, and I agree with his analysis. PhilKnight (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys (May 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  YMB29 (talk) at 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Case affected :

Remedy #8 - YMB29 topic banned
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


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

Amendment 1

 * YMB29 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 6 months.
 * End the topic ban.

Statement by YMB29
It has been almost a year and I stayed away from editing. Can the topic ban end now?

About editing outside the topic
I did not edit outside the topic because I only edited on the topic before and I did not know until recently that admins look at that.

If editing outside the topic is so important then why was not this made clear when the case was decided? I understood the ban as a restriction that would be lifted if I don't violate it and stay out of trouble. -YMB29 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad
Thanks for your objective reaction. You were also the only arbitrator who understood my situation and suggested a less severe ban. 

As for what I would do differently, I guess I won't get into edit warring even if a user does nothing but that. If I again encounter a user who does not want to discuss and compromise, I will keep trying to get an admin or other users to help, even if that will take long and be frustrating.

If you want me to gradually return to editing on the topic, maybe I could for now be limited to a few edits per week and/or no reverts of others? -YMB29 (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin
I guess thank you for providing diffs of me trying to make the wording in articles more neutral and accurate ("reinterpreting" is better than misinterpreting), adding sourced information (don't know where you got that I don't give new sources...), and requesting sources for statements. If you want diffs of me significantly expanding articles here are some examples:  (forgot to login but that was me)

If anything problems with you discouraged me from getting more involved in editing Wikipedia and making more of such edits. -YMB29 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Risker
Why are you so concerned? It is not like I did anything terrible. Again, one of the arbitrators did not even think that I deserved such a long ban. I am in this situation because of a conflict with one user who is still topic banned (and who is trying to keep me topic banned now). With others I have always been able to resolve disputes. -YMB29 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Russavia
I am aware of what that user is trying to do but just felt I had to respond to some accusations since the arbitrators might look at that. As for editing the topic you suggested, I think it is too late now for this amendment, if only I knew about editing outside the topic ban requirement before... -YMB29 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Shell
When I asked you in late February about me having to edit outside the topic you did not give a clear answer and did not answer me about opening this request. So after some time I decided to try making a request. -YMB29 (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Thryduulf
I've never been involved with this case or topic area, but it seems to me that the spirit of the resolution was that YMB29 should stay away from this troublesome topic area for a significant period of time, which he has done. I see what all the arbitrators are saying, but I think Newyorkbrad has got the right attitude here, and YMB29's response to his statement is along the same lines I was thinking. So, as a way forward I would like to propose the following:
 * YBM29 is permitted to a maximum of 20 edits per week with no more than 10 edits per week to any one page.
 * All of these limits shall apply only to non-talk pages that fall within the scope of the original topic ban
 * These limits are to be seen as maximums not an entitlement or target
 * YMB29 is encouraged to contribute constructively in one or more topic areas that are clearly unrelated to those covered by the topic ban
 * YMB29 works with 2-3 volunteer mentors, approved by YMB29 and the Arbitration Committee, who will assess his contributions across all topics and namespaces
 * If and when YMB29's mentors are happy with his contributions they will, in discussion with YMB29, gradually relax the above editing limits, subject to the following
 * The first relaxation shall be no sooner than 1 month after the enactment of this amendment, but this is not an automatic entitlement
 * There shall be a minimum of 2 weeks between each relaxing of editing restrictions, but this is not an automatic entitlement
 * The mentors may introduce tighter restrictions, including talk page restrictions, at any point they feel necessary
 * The mentors may not widen the scope of the topics covered without the consent of the Arbitration Committee
 * Each change in editing restrictions shall have a specified commencement time
 * When considering altering restrictions, the mentors shall take into account the expressed opinions of involved and uninvolved editors but shall not be bound by them unless there is a very clear consensus.
 * The mentors may not remove all restrictions without the consent of the Arbitration Committee
 * All changes to the restrictions shall be logged at an appropriate page or section of this arbitration case (to be specified)
 * After a minimum of three months or at any time thereafter YMB29, with the agreement of his mentors, may apply to the Arbitration Committee for a complete release from the restrictions. Any rejected request may set a minimum time before another application will be considered.
 * If YMB29 exceeds any of the limits applicable at the time the provisions of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys shall apply
 * If YMB29 stops cooperating with his mentors they may request the Arbitration Committee reimpose the original complete topic ban.
 * If at any time YBM29 and his mentors agree that this agreement is not working, they may jointly request a change in moderators and/or another amendment.
 * If after one year this agreement is still in force and YMB29 has not been completely released from editing restrictions, the Arbitration Committee shall review whether it should continue or be replaced with something else.

I don't expect this to be perfect, so I anticipate changes (e.g. not everything may be necessary, and/or I may have missed something). The essence is that YMB29 agrees to an editing restrictions and to work with mentors to gradually ease the restrictions.

I have deliberately not mentioned a narrowing of the topic ban (e.g. if YMB29 is seen to be doing fine on some aspects of the topic but not others) as I don't know whether this should be within the powers of the moderators or should only be done by application to the arbitration committee.

I unfortunately do not have the time to volunteer to be one of the mentors. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hodja Nasreddin
Yes, the purpose of indefinite sanctions issued in many recent cases was to make sure that editors can improve. This is different from issuing a ban for a fixed period of time. Nevertheless, I believe that any editor with a good record of content contributions must be given second chance, as I said about another participant of this case. I would encourage YMB29 to provide five to ten best diffs showing how he creates or significantly expands any articles during last three years (I could not find anything). That would be an important argument in his favor. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since he is not responding, I can simply provide all most recent contributions by YMB29 that were not edit warring, requests to sanction other editors, or minor edits: ,,, . Note that he never gives any new sources, but only "re-interprets" sources already in the articles. That is what he did in other articles as well. To put it in a certain perspective, I must tell that Vlad_fedorov ( another participant of this case ) significantly expanded at least four pages several years ago. For example, this text was a good faith contribution by Vlad, and I only moved it from another page. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29. Thank you for providing two your best diffs. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@Russavia. I commented as the only person who closely interacted with YMB29 in the past. All others (User:Isarig, User:Kostan1, User:Altenmann and User:Boris Novikov) are currently inactive. I neither support nor object this request. I only suggested to look at his editing record, which I thought was a perfectly legitimate suggestion. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@Commenting on the policy debate. This is an important debate because such sanctions were given in many recent cases including "Climate change". I think it was a perfectly legitimate idea to follow real life justice model: giving certain time to the violators, but allowing them to return earlier if they show good behavior. At the same time, I do believe that your recent decisions include one problematic approach. Here it is: giving an indefinite time to first-time violators who made a significant contribution to the project based on their editing record (I am talking about many recent cases; "first-time" means they did not receive previously any official sanctions by Arbcom). That is something you might wish to reconsider. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia
YMB29, may I make a suggestion. The fact that an editor has chosen to covertly attack your presence on WP right here at this request should be ignored by yourself. The whole point of the attack being made as it was is to try and provoke you into a response which you should not be making.

As it is, your request will likely be approved (as it is as this point in time) perhaps with a 1RR restriction for a year. This is something which if implemented on yourself should also be placed on other editors when they come to have their requests looked at.

Having said that, why don't you use this opportunity, right now to go and expand some articles on Russia pre-1917? Your topic ban never stopped you from editing pre-1917 Russian articles, did you know that? Why not use this opportunity to show that you can do what some arbs are doubting you are capable of? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 22:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
This is a question about enforcement of Motions 1 and 1.1 at AE. The admins at AE would need guidance on how to handle any possible future complaints. The decision that YMB29 is requesting an amendment to is WP:ARBRB, which does not provide any discretionary sanctions. So if YMB29 does not follow the expected standards after the lifting of his topic ban, it is not clear what to do. Motions 1 and 1.1 defer to 'related decisions' for enforcement. Can we assume that the related decisions would be WP:DIGWUREN? It is not at first sight obvious that WP:DIGWUREN covers the entire Soviet Union, which is what YMB29 was specifically banned from under WP:ARBRB. This is not necessarily a problem if the Committee thinks that DIGWUREN is sufficient to handle anything likely to go wrong in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
Oh what the hell, give him a chance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba
I agree with Volunteer Marek. There's been enough witch hunting and bad blood. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Without seeing editing outside the topic to give us a baseline to have trust that previous editing issues would not reoccur, I think it's a rather difficult path to have to be trod here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just noting that Shell advised you in February that it would be "difficult to determine if you've resolved the problems that led to the topic ban" without edits outside the topic area. – xeno talk  20:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess my instinctive reaction to the request isn't quite as negative as my colleagues'. If an editor had been totally banned from the project altogether in one of our decisions, he would have been allowed back in a year, so it's hard to say that an editor who received a lesser sanction than that shouldn't be allowed another chance to contribute in what is obviously his primary area of interest. That being said, it is certainly more difficult for us to conclude that the problems with the requester's prior editing will not recur if he's allowed back, so I would invite more input from the requester about what he would do differently this time around, and perhaps suggestions about restrictions that could be imposed to allow a more gradual return to editing instead of lifting the topic-ban altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless something new comes to light, I will propose a motion in the next couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have proposed motions below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to allow this request, given that 6 months was the minimum, and now almost a year has passed. Given the previous concerns included edit warring, I think we should stipulate a 1RR/day restriction for 12 months. PhilKnight (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I share the earliest respondents' concerns, but I support Phil's middle ground of 1RR for 12 months in lieu of the existing topic ban, along with a quick return to the topic ban if civility or non-edit warring problems resurface. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I can understand the positions of some of my colleagues about returns to editing, the fact that you have made no attempt at all to participate in the project for the past year does not bode particularly well for your ability to return to editing in this contentious topic area. I am willing to consider a 1-RR restriction, or even an editing throttle; however, I'm not really persuaded that your editing philosophy has changed over the past year, and I am concerned that you will find yourself indefinitely topic-banned fairly quickly. Risker (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per three previous - 1RR caveat for 12 months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above, 1RR/12 months.  Roger Davies  talk 13:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While the lack of outside-scope edits is a bit bothersome, I think the 1RR restriction proposed above serves as a good measure to pair with lifting the ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Motion 1
Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of the decision in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of six months. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.


 * Since there are 14 active arbitrators, a majority is 8.
 * Support:
 * Proposed, per discussion above. I think that six months is an adequate duration for the 1RR limitation, given the availability of discretionary sanctions governing this topic-area if necessary, both before and after the six months expire. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per discussion above. PhilKnight (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable. I do not understand any rationale that would make all such topic bans permanent; a conditional return seems preferable, and six months is more than enough time. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Cannot support, YMB29 has not shown that he can edit in a collegial manner that would give me confidence that he would edit within Wikipedia's norms and procedures. SirFozzie (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Provisional oppose. I'm reluctant to start a new motion on this with so few voting so far, but if this were a 1RR/12 months, I'd happily support. Perhaps NYB would consider this as a copy-edit?
 * I cannot accept this as a copyedit because I think the terms of my motion are fair, per my comments above; however, I am proposing 1.1 as an alternate to expedite deciding this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough,  Roger Davies  talk 21:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole point of moving from topic bans of arbitrary length to those that require evidence of changed behavior was to remove the guesswork and keep from trying to decide who was "worse"; since we have no information to go on, I'm not comfortable going back to guessing. It's also telling that despite talking with me about this in late February, YMB29 made no effort to resolve this concern, or in fact, edit at all - inability to respond to and act on feedback does not bode well for heavily disputed areas where an editor has already shown issues. Shell   babelfish 08:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Shell Kinney. Risker (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Lacking detailed background in the case, and really not having time to get up to speed, I'm going to defer to the arbs who are familiar with the matter. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As per Jclemens, I don't have the background knowledge of this one to make a judgement. If any motion reaches the point at which one vote will be decisive, I'll make the effort to fit in the time to understand the background here, but otherwise this is better decided by those people familiar with the original incident. – iridescent  16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Motion rejected. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Motion 1.1
Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of the decision in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of one year. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.


 * Support:
 * Proposed as alternative per above. For me, second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. PhilKnight (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern here is that this editor is in effect a single purpose account, focussed almost exclusively on the area of conflict, and with a history of disruption. I would not support such an editor returning unhindered purely on the basis of time served but in this instance the restrictions are probably tight enough should problems develop.  Roger Davies  talk 21:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Substantially, per Roger Davies. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Equal to #1. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per rationale above. SirFozzie (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Same problem. Shell  babelfish 08:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Per my abstention in 1. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If he manages to go a year without being removed from the topic area again, then he is probably good to go; however, I remain concerned that an editor who shows no interest in any other area of the project, and has demonstrated sanctionable behaviour in the past, gives us little to go on when it comes to longterm predictability of good behaviour. Risker (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my comments above. – iridescent  16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Motion approved. (With three abstentions, the majority is 6.) Clerk to archive and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Motion 2
An editor who is indefinitely topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing in a topic area under an Arbitration Committee decision may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. In considering such a request, the Committee will give significant weight to, among other factors, whether the editor in question has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.


 * Since there are 14 active arbitrators, a majority is 8.
 * Support:
 * YMB29 has suggested above that he was not aware that the Committee would take his editing in other topic-areas into account in deciding whether to terminate his topic-ban in his core area of interest. In several recent decisions, we have expressly stated this in connection with topic-bans we have imposed on other editors, and I think it would be worthwhile to make it a general policy going forward. The words "among other factors" are important because, while a good editing record in other areas is helpful when we evaluate a request for amendment, I do not wish to suggest that it an inflexible or mandatory requirement (as our action in this case shows). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell made him aware in February, (which was not followed up on) and I do think it should be mandatory that they show that they can edit in a collegial fashion before a topic ban is removed. SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, with a copy-edit (adding "or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise") as indicated. Please revert if you don't agree and I'll set it up as an alternative motion,  Roger Davies  talk 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection to the copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk)
 * I greatly prefer this option to guessing whether or not a problem is resolved. We decide cases based on evidence and require evidence for AE sanctions and most case amendments; I can't see any logical reason that removing sanctions should be a protected class of amendment exempt from showing evidence. Shell   babelfish 08:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, with the copyedits. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Per my abstention above. The fact that this case is here in the first place implies that it's somehow atypical, so a motion regarding standard custom & practice is potentially misleading, but again I defer to those with knowledge of the background to this particular case. – iridescent  16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Motion approved. Clerk to archive and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)