Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 55

Mbz1's block log (July 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Mbz1 (talk) at 15:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


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

Amendment 1

 * My block log
 * Modify the last record of my block log by removing the list of bans.

Statement by Mbz1

 * I am not asking for a block review.
 * I am not asking for removing a whole record from my block log
 * I am only asking for editing the last record of my block log which now states "19:27, 27 December 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) unblocked "Mbz1 (talk | contribs)" ‎ (has agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPI, AE for 6 mos, tkng bvir wrs to only 1 editor)", in order to remove the list of unwarranted bans.
 * I agreed on these bans myself, because it was a condition of my unblocking. I agreed on these bans because I could not care less about contributing to any of these boards. I did not know these bans will be added to my block log, and would be used to harass me a few months later, after they were lifted, and with me not contributing to any of the boards in spite they were lifted. I believe we have to establish 2 things in this request:


 * 1) Is this a common practice to add bans to a block log? These bans are humiliating, they damage my reputation even now 3 months after they were lifted. Is this what a block log should be used for?
 * 2) Were these bans warranted in a first place?

I'd like to stop on #2 please:

My contributions to AN/I two months prior to my ban

 * On 24 October 2010 I opposed somebody's block in a thread started not by me
 * On 8 November 2010 I made a neutral comment in a thread started not by me
 * On November 27 I initiated a thread about deletion of an article I wrote. As a result of this thread the article was undeleted and eventually kept.
 * On December 2 I made a few comments arguing for unblocking an editor in a thread started not by me
 * On 8 December 2010 I opposed lifting a ban of a user in a thread started by some one else
 * On 19 December 2010 I made a neutral comment about a user in a thread started not by me
 * On 21 December 2010 I initiated a thread about vandalism only account. The user is blocked indefinitely
 * On 23 December 2010 I made a single comment in a thread started not by me
 * That's it. Two more posts I made to AN/I were made in a thread about me, when I tried to defend myself: here and here

My contributions to AN two months prior to my ban

 * On 16 December 2010 I argued for lifting the ban of an editor in a thread started not by me
 * On November 8 I made a comment about blocking of an editor in a thread started not by me

My contributions to SPI two months prior to my ban

 * I seldom file SPI. All, but one SPI I filed were concerning User:Franklin.vp and its socks. All of them were confirmed.
 * A single bad SPI I filed was this one. I filed it not to harass anybody, but in trying to defend myself. It was filed in a hurry, it was wrong, but it was not filed in a bad faith.

My contributions to AE two months prior to my ban

 * I initiated a request about a user. It was a valid request that was closed, when I got blocked and only because I got blocked although the request had absolutely nothing to do either with my block or even with the topic of AE request. The user against whom the request was initiated was blocked and topic banned a month later. He is topic banned now too.

Conclusion
So as you see from the above I have proven that except a single bad SPI request I have never abused any of the boards for at least two month prior to my bans. The bans were unfair, unwarranted, humiliating. I believe that ArbCom's prestige will benefit from removing the mention of these bans from my block log. Thanks.

Responses
SirFozzie, thank you for your comment. I am editing under my real name, which is displayed at most of thousands of images I uploaded to wikipedia. The bans listed in my block log are hurting me a lot not only here on wikipedia, but in a real life as well. Could you imagine what people are to think about me because of these bans? I believe I have proven the bans were unwarranted. What wrong will it do, if the list of these unwarranted bans that should have never been added to my block log in the first place are removed from my block log? I understand it is not what is normally done, but it it will be a right thing to do. Besides I do not believe that even warranted bans should be listed in a block log. The list of these bans hurts me in a real life. I am not saying they were listed in my block log in a bad faith, but they were unwarranted. Shell, you comment is the best point why the bans should be removed from my block log. You said: "if you don't want a record of you behaving poorly, don't behave poorly." It is what other think when they see the bans listed in my block log: she behaved poorly and was banned. The point is I was not behaving poorly. I have never abused any of these boards. Shell, may I please ask you to be so kind and to prove your words with the differences? In what way my "poor" behavior deserved the bans in question? Have I ever abused any of the boards in question to deserve such bans?
 * Response to SirFozzie
 * about tarc's comment
 * according to this tarc's comment should be discarded for arbitration) cases. tarc made a few very bad PA against me on Wikipedia review. I hoped (I am not sure what gave me such hope) that tarc will exercise some dignity and refrain from commenting here. I was mistaking.
 * tarc was the main player in making me blocked (I am talking about this very block). As a matter of fact tarc uses every opportunity to bite me any time it sees my name. ".I've only left supporting comments in the many, many places where complaints have been filed against mbz."
 * Also may I please ask you to note that this post is not about me and not even about review of my block. It is only about editing (not removing, but editing) a single record in my block log. Besides tark's statement is false as usually. Rd232 suggested a dispute resolution for my block log here and here
 * tarc forgot that it is not me who is commenting on its arbitration case, but just the other way around.
 * Once again this request is not about me, and not about my block reviews. It is only about single particular and very unusual record that should not have been added to the block log. I am only asking to change it to 19:27, 27 December 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) unblocked "Mbz1 (talk | contribs)" ‎
 * Response to Coren.
 * response to Shell.

Thank you for bringing up a painful memories, Shell. I even know what wikihound of mine emailed you the link D= But what my talk page proves anyway? Whatever editing I have done at my talk page while being blocked has nothing to do with my conduct at administrative noticeboards.

Shell, I know I am not doing myself a favor, but you know what, I do not care. I am 99.99% positive the link was emailed to you, and I know who did it.

If you found the link yourself, one could assume that you read the link you found before posting it, and this edit does not look as you did, but this hardly matters. I could even apologize to you, but this also would not matter. I am simply very, very tired.

I even realize that I could end indefinitely banned as a result of this request, but this also hardly matters. You still failed to respond what my talk page has to do with my bans on noticeboards? I mean, if instead of looking at my contributions on the boards I was banned from, you found yourself the link to my talk page, you should have been thinking how my conduct at my talk page is to help you to prove your point about me behaving "poorly" on the noticeboards. Listen, I am still grateful you're trying to prove something :-) Most admins say: "It is right because I said it" :-) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Shell, thank you very much for your response and for trying to justify your position. I cannot stress strong enough how much I appreciate you trying, but Shell, the other editors did not provide any evidences of my "poor" behavior on AN/I and/or AN and/or SPI others than I discussed above. None of my AN/I post, none of my AN posts and a single, yes, filed in a hurry but not in a bad faith, SPI should not have resulted in me banning on these boards, and you know this, Shell.Thanks.

BTW while we at my talk page, you might be interested to know that Rd232 removed one post of an "editor who were bringing up concerns" from my talk page as unhelpful. I wish somebody removed from my talk page the harassment by user:betsythedevine. That user claimed I canvassed Sandstein for this email I sent to him when Gwen removed my talk page access. How this email is canvasing, Shell? That user user:betsythedevine went above and beyond to assassinate my character, and she succeeded in doing this. Also user:betsythedevine alleged I hounded somebody without providing any differences to prove that false accusation she often makes. I have never hounded anybody. But once again I am bringing this matter here only because, you, Shell brought it first. My initial block was unfair, my indefinite one, and removing my talk page access were more than unfair and I could prove it, but once again this request is not about my block review. This request is only about removing a list of my unwarranted bans from a single record in my block log, which is the right thing to do. I would not have bothered ArbCom, if it did not. Just listen to yourself please. Most of you except Shell do not even arguing the bans were warranted, but you're declining undoing wrong that was done do me, and why you declining it? Because it is not what is done normally. Is this reason a good enough? I still hope that it will be at least a single arbitrator, who will support my request. Even, if this record in my block log is not edited, it will make me feel so much better.
 * But it does cause prejudice.

May I please ask you to consider removing the last record from my block log altogether and to leave me blocked indefinitely. I should have never agreed on humiliating, unwarranted bans as a condition of my unblock. It is much better to be blocked indefinitely than to have these bans in my block log. Thanks.
 * If my request as it stands now is declined

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 Tarc
I'm having a hard time believing what I'm reading here. Didn't we just go through a MASSIVE clusterfuck of a debate barely three weeks ago regarding Mbz1 and block logs? put a 1-second block on mbz1, the purpose of which was to annotate the block log which, in his personal opinion, he felt was wrong. This was overturned by the community discussion at ANI (AGK was found to have acted in good-faith, though, no wrong-doing there), and the 1-second block was itself revdeleted by (I believe).

I have never, in years of editing here, seen anyone obsess with their block log and worry about it being a stain or a badge of shame or whatever. I'd like to see a ban on mbz1 ever bringing this subject up to any policy board again, quite honestly. This is bordering on the tendentious. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum; unfortunately, mbz forgets the old "it takes two to tango" saying, that our Wikipedia Review exchanges are quite a two-way street of colorful comments, e.g. I am a "brainless anti-Semite", apparently. But this is neither here nor there.

Yes, Rd232 suggested that you head to WP:AN if you wish the block reviewed. Did you?

Again, this is a user who was blocked and topic-banned for a time, does not feel that either were deserved and wants the entries clarified or expunged. How many hundreds of sanctioned editors in 10 years of the project's existence feel the same way? Hell, I was baited into a 3RR war and earned a half-day block once, but I really don't care about it. Reject this, please, otherwise the floodgates will open to everyone who wants to scrub their block log of anything they think is unjustified. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * We only edit block logs in very extreme cases. I don't consider this one of them personally, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise. SirFozzie (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would only consider the annotation or redaction of a block log in two circumstances: the entry is prima facie defamatory, or the entry is highly prejudicial and was demonstrably made in bad faith. I see no evidence that this is the case here.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The internet is written in ink; if you don't want a record of you behaving poorly, don't behave poorly. Shell  babelfish 19:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really need a refresher MBz1, try this version of your talk page. Shell  babelfish 23:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not doing yourself any favors here - I found the link myself in just a few minutes, but thanks for assuming incompetence. I meant more everyone else's comments there about what you were doing wrong which clearly you still don't get. Shell   babelfish 00:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To explain further, the other editors who were bringing up concerns on your talk page did give diffs and other examples. The conversations in that version were rather detailed. Shell   babelfish 01:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Decline per other arbs above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Decline per Coren. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Nishidani (July 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  User:Ravpapa (talk) at 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


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


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

 * Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria
 * I propose to grant an amnesty to Nishidani, removing this topic ban.

Statement by Ravpapa
This and the following request for amendment regarding Gilabrand replace the request that I submitted proposing a more general amnesty for blocked and banned editors in the IP topic area. A number of administrators commented in that discussion that they opposed a general amnesty, and would prefer a case by case discussion of amendments. Therefore I am submitting this and the following requests.

In a discussion of the state of the IP project here, it was the feeling of participants in the discussion that the blocking and banning of editors had done little to reduce the level of conflict on the project, while other measures (centralized discussion and 1RR restriction) had been effective. On the other hand, several of the participants felt that blocks had removed knowledgeable editors from the project on both sides, and had thus actually hurt, rather than helped, the project.

Nishidani is such an editor. Regardless of his often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages, he is unquestionably one of the most knowledgeable editors to tread in this sensitive topic area. His encyclopedic knowledge of sources was often astounding. His insights into article organization and language were always enlightening. True, he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents; however, unlike other aggravating editors, he not only argued but also made important substantive additions to articles he worked on.

In the discussion leading to this request, editors from both sides of the IP dispute supported a lifting of sanctions against Nishidani and Gilabrand. I fear that by separating the requests, we will turn this into a partisan dispute, something I had hoped to avoid. In any case, I call upon editors from both sides to support the lifting of this ban, as an act of faith in the viability of our project and the belief that knowledgeable editors are a benefit to the project.

Statement by Nableezy
I think this is a no-brainer. In the WB/JS case ArbCom said that work in developing featured class articles in other topic areas would be looked upon favorably in a request for lifting the topic ban. Nishidani has done such work, helping bring the once very poor article Shakespeare authorship question to FA and improving a host of articles related to that, see for example his contributions at History of the Shakespeare authorship question, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, and Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Additionally, Nishidani has helped bring the article Al-Azhar Mosque up to GA quality and, if I ever spend the time needed to finish a certain section, nearly up to FA quality, working with an editor who was also banned in the WB/JS case (Jayjg) in doing so. See also his work at Barasana, which looked like this prior to him starting to work on that page, and like this after a few weeks of his working on it. He has also written, largely by himself, the articles Franz Baermann Steiner and Taboo (book).

Ill repeat what I wrote in the now archived "general amnesty" appeal, the restrictions put in place in WB/JS have not made the topic area better in any way. The main instigator of the edit-warring that brought that case about (NoCal100 and his socks, including another party to that case Canadian Monkey) continues to edit with impunity. Nishidani has not chosen to go that way; he has instead edited in a wide range of topics, helping to bring very poor quality articles to a much higher standard.
 * There are a lot of unsubstantiated accusations made below, some of which merit responses and some of which dont. I wont spend any time on that, but I would like to make one note. When Jayjg appealed his ban, you did not see editors who hold opposing views as him making such comments as the ones seen below. Those of us who disagree with Jay were silent. The opposition below comes entirely from editors who disagree with Nishidani and wish to maintain a ban on an excellent editor because it is to their advantage. The comments about Nishidani never having contributed any content to the topic area is so utterly ridiculous that I had not responded to it until now, and even now I will only provide a diff of an article that Nishidani is almost entirely responsible for. An article which would be more of a finished product if not for the fact that after spending a great deal of time and energy expanding the material on the Jewish history of the village, a sockpuppet tag team drove him off of the article when he turned his attention to the Palestinian history of the village. The topic area is filled with examples of Nishidani's work. However, the appeal is not about what Nishidani did prior to being banned. Ynhockey's accusation that Nishidani has not worked on any good articles or featured articles while he was banned is demonstrably untrue; links in my original statement demonstrate that his accusation is false. Nishidani has indeed worked on featured content, helping to bring very poor articles, or non-existent ones, up to such a status. That those who oppose his views on the I-P conflict also oppose this request is not surprising, though it is disappointing that they chose to make such false charges against him to argue that his ban be maintained. I hope the committee will see through the comments of those that have been in conflict with him and instead make their decision based on the actual evidence.  nableezy  - 15:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Michael C Price
I agree with Ravpapa about Nishidani's "often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages" and "he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents". Do we really want to let such a battlefield mentality editor loose again, without a clear acknowledgement of change of heart? I note that he regards himself as essentially innocent, in a recent statement blaming his ban on a "stray remark", and is presumably unrepentant. As Boris remarked "it is not easy to earn a permaban by a slip of the tongue". Indeed.
 * Note to Nishidani, yes, I am being selective in quoting Ravpapa - because I don't agree with the rest of his statement! :-)
 * I prefer not to be cited selectively. - BorisG (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
I support this amendment due to Nishidani's extremely helpful contributions at Shakespeare authorship question (SAQ). I started following the turmoil and article development at SAQ in October 2010 after seeing the matter raised at a noticeboard. I had no knowledge of Nishidani before then, and have never looked at P-I issues. At SAQ, I saw a tremendous amount of disruption from people wanting to promote the UNDUE notion that Shakespeare did not write his plays. Eventually, an ArbCom case resolved the disruption allowing the two main editors of the article (Tom Reedy and Nishidani), with several other expert editors, to continue article development with the result that it was promoted to FA in April 2011. Every step of the process was strenuously opposed by disruptive editors, and I observed that Nishidani remained calm and helpful despite a lot of provocation. Some recent discussions, now here, show some diffs of Nishidani falling short of CIVIL, but that was in May 2010 and involved an editor who was repeatedly misreading sources, and who is now topic banned for a year, while Nishidani has never been sanctioned regarding the SAQ area. Certainly Nishidani is now fully aware of the requirements for editing and civil collaboration, and there is no reason to maintain a topic ban.

Nishidani's knowledge is extraordinary, and he has excellent access to resources. Removing a topic ban is likely to assist the encyclopedia and cannot do harm since WP:ARBPIA allows sanctions to be readily applied should the need arise. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
Michael, the diff you cite in evidence against me does not support the deduction you make from it, and I would appreciate you clarifying on what evidence you base your contention that I regard myself as 'innocent', esp. since in the diff I clearly admit that I did break the rules, (in reverting 4 editors) and that Arbcom exercised its proper right to punish me for my infringement. Namely, I wrote, contrary to your inference that I was protesting my innocence, that
 * 'In a stray remark, I failed the test, and I cannot complain that I was asked to pay the penalty for that lapse. They were perfectly right technically.'

Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * With regard to your reply, changing 'innocent' to 'essentially innocent' doesn't help, nor does selective quotation for advantage. The phrase 'stray remark' refers to this diff on the original Arbcom charge sheet. One is obliged to AGF which here, particularly in regard to the sockteam operating there, I did not. That is an actionable infraction technically, and therefore Arbcom was, I repeat, wholly within its remit and rights to punish me for it. One cannot be 'innocent', let alone 'essentially innocent' when one breaks a rule in witting disregard for sanctions. May I remind you that the proposer and those who second his suggestion, request an amnesty, not a retrial on some spurious late defence that I might be innocent of the original charge, as you appear to insinuate by suggesting I am here to protest my innocence. Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael. I know many are tempted to speedread in here, but you have, again, misunderstood. 'Selective quotation' refers to your use of my comments, in the diff you added, not your citations from Ravpapa and BorisG. I have no animus against those who might entertain a spirit of enmity against me in this place. I do tend to get my metaphorical knickers in a twist, or to be more gender-consonant, my bowels in a knot, when long arguments ensue from habits of misreading everything one's interlocutor says. May I Cromwellize this rather fiddlesticky exchange? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken about what you think I said. Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In reply to JClemens, I confess I do not quite 'wish' to return to the I/P area. Several fellow editors have expressed some confidence in the idea that, if I mend my scabrous tongue, and learn to refrain from, to misquote Sir Thomas Browne, abusing the incivility of my knee, I might prove helpful in the area they edit. However the vote swings, or I swing, I owe them a vote of thanks for their solicitude in expressing a desire to have me back as a colleague there. This motion imposes on me a sense of obligation, if the amnesty is passed, to work in a manner that will not disappoint their confidence.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen
I support this amendment. Nishidani is a very able and intelligent contributor to Wikipedia. Like JayJG, he has contributed high quality work in areas not covered by the ban.

Wikipedia is not some cult or extremist party where editors are expected to make obsequious replies to "just criticism". Shortly after the original punishment, Nishidani attempted to retire at a round number of edits which I think was 13K. he is now approaching 20K edits. He has not been blocked for over two years and does not attract much admin criticism. Although Michael note that Nishidani can be ascerbic, he has not produced evidence newer than the year-old edits in the other thread.

He is therefore someone whose presence is generally a benefit to the project and I think that Wikipedia can afford to take a small risk in lifting the topic ban in the same way that it did with JayJG with no subsequent problematic repercussions.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Broccolo
I strongly oppose this amendment. I agree that Nishidani is a veryable and intelligent contributor to Wikipedia, but he has violated his topic ban many times. For instance Nishidani inserted himself in the discussions directly related to I/P conflict, including introducing hate propaganda anti-Israeli cartoon Besides it is my understanding that Nishidani was not very civil editing in other areas of the project: I do not believe I/P topic will benefit from this user incivility. Broccolo (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Topic ban violation
 * Topic ban violation
 * Topic ban violation
 * [] “Oh dear, man. Learn to read!...I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”
 * [ – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."
 * None of these edits are from this year and some were considered in the SAQ arbcom case without action being deemed necessary.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I provided the differences that prove that Nishidani has violated his topic ban and was uncivil while editing in another topics. Here is the difference from this year that proves BATTLEGROUND behavior of the user. Please read what Nishidani  responded when asked by another editor why he is commenting in the meditation he refused to join.
 * There is a difference between posting new sanctions and lifting old ones. Nishidani has repeatedly violated his topic ban, Nishidani has repeatedly demonstrated incivility and BATTLEGROUND behavior, and his topic ban should not be lifted. Broccolo (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything particularly battleground in that and I note it seems to have survived purges by the mediation moderators. It does explain why someone I had not heard of is taking interest in this thread.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ynhockey
As I said in the proposal from a few days ago, and say again now, the last thing the I–P area needs is bringing back problematic editors. There are enough problems as it is, and there is no doubt that this editor was not banned for nothing. Broccoli above presents a solid evidenced case why there is absolutely no reason to lift the ban.

Moreover, the condition for lifting the ban was that the editor continues to contribute to Wikipedia in a significant way. With due respect to Nishidani's contributions, he has not written any FAs or GAs or even DYKs lately (as far as I can tell), did not participate in the major backlog drives, and mostly continued his pattern of editing little but writing TLDR talk page comments that waste everyone else's time, only now outside of I–P (about 64% of Nishidani's latest 500 edits, for example, are on various talk pages, which isn't necessarily a problem, but for anyone who remembers the case and why Nishidani was banned, it is). I feel that Wikipedia has not lost a major asset by banning Nishidani from the topic area, and won't lose anything by not lifting the ban. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of quoting statistics, are you able to identify any problematic in the approx 320 talk page edits of which you speak? They would at least constitute more recent evidence than that put forward so far.--Peter cohen (talk)
 * I don't need to find "actionable" evidence because I'm not advocating that Nishidani be sanctioned, rather I'm asking that his sanctions not be lifted. There's a big difference. All I need to show is that Nishidani's editing pattern has largely remained the same. This in itself is a reason for not lifting the sanction. Also, please make further comments in your section per page guidelines. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy
@Jclemens - The "portion of the community commenting here" consists mainly of editors heavily involved in the topic area Nishidani was banned from. There are only two editors I don't recognize from I/P articles (in which I am also involved, for the record). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming you count the same too as me, their presence can be explained by one agreeing with Nishidani over the SAQ business and the other disagreeing with him over Ebionites.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So the people who agree with him want the topic ban lifted, and those who don't, don't. And nobody else cares. What a surprise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Brewcrewer. In the little interaction I had with Nishidani, I found him to be combative, condescending and long winded. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@nableezy - The main reason that "when Jayjg appealed his ban, you did not see editors who hold opposing views as him making such comments as the ones seen below" is that Jayjg doesn't antagonize editors holding opposing views like Nishidani does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Brewcrewer
I have no idea why Nishidani would want to have the topic ban lifted. He does not appear to have any history of solid contributions to the Israel-Arab topic. All I remember about Nishidani are his huge blocs of text he added to talk pages in which little was understood save for his belittlement of other editors. I am open to being corrected of course. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Biosketch
I'm thoroughly opposed to the idea of granting amnesty to banned users, regardless of whose side they're against. I'm not familiar with either of the two editors on whose behalf the amendment is being sought – though I suppose I do indirectly bear the blame for 's ban) – but my opinion based on my experience in the I/P topic area thus far is that more editors should be sanctioned, not have their sanctions rescinded. The topic area is bad enough with the small number of disruptive participants already involved in it. Opening the door for even more disruption will be a disaster.—Biosketch (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @, it's likely that the reason there are so few regular contributors in the I/P topic area is because of the intimidating atmosphere engendered by editors who don't know how to manage their anger and for whom assuming bad faith is the default option. I'm beginning to understand who among the regular contributors is genuinely devoted to improving articles and collaborating with unlike-minded editors and who is here primarily for amusement and to promote an agenda. This isn't the place to name names beyond the two individuals in regards to whom this Amendment is being sought – but specifically in their case, from what I've been able to gather, their sanctions were imposed on account of their inability to work constructively with the general community. It's my opinion that more users who demonstrate such inability should be banned. In the long run, it will be to the benefit of the topic area.—Biosketch (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG
Biosketch has an interesting view. But: the vast majority of contributors to the I/P topic area have, shall we say, very strong views one way or the other. If we topic ban all of them, no one will be left to contrtibute. Thus any bans have to be weighed against past and potential contributions of the user(s) in question. In short: no users - no disruption, but also no content.

Even if it is true that more editors need to be banned, this needs to be consistent. I do not see that Nishidani is any more disruptive than a number of other editors. He is under such a drastic sanction because it was an ArbCom case. I think on this basis, Nishidani's ban needs to be lifted. He will certainly be under very close scrutiny.

One concern I do have is conflicting and confusing messages from Nishdani. On one hand, he says that he has retired partly because he was prevented from contributing to the I/P topic area. On the other hand, he says now he is not keen to return to this area. According to his talk page he is retired, but according to the user page, semi-retired. A bit confusing. BorisG (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Biosketch, your general point is taken. Basically, you are saying that my equation 'no users - no disruption, but also no content' is simplistic and incorrect because as we ban more disruptive users, others less disruptive will join in. Well, possibly. But in any case, I have (briefly) looked at Nishidali's ArbCom case, and I did not find his behaviour so outrageous as to warrant such a drastic sanction. Also I have looked at all the diffs presented here by opponents of the lifting of the ban, and they are not particularly compelling. Besides, I almost always believe in the second chance. The risks are actually minimal, as he will be under severe scrutiny. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
As is noted in the decision itself, as well as in the comments lifting JayJG's restriction, any edits to the pages in question will remain subject to discretionary sanctions. That being the case, I believe that it is not unreasonable to lift Nishidani's existing restrictions as well. As is the case for JayJG, and, really, any and all other editors who will ever edit the related pages in question so long as the discretionary sanctions remain in effect, any misconduct they might make from this point forward may well cause the placement of sanctions of some sort on that editor. Personally, I think that those sanctions could, reasonably, include temporary topic bans, if such were indicated. Nishidani is a good editor who has done very good work in recently helping to bring at least one other contentious and difficult article, the Shakespeare authorship question, to FA. He appears to have demonstrated a significant degree of knowledge regarding this topic as well. That being the case, I can see no good reason to continue to permanently keep a good editor who is knowledgable about the subject and apparently willing to work on it from doing so. Should the misconduct recur in a non-trivial way, a block or temporary ban could be restored, or potentially edits to the article pages themselves placed on him. (A single instance of moderately insulting someone would at least to my eyes qualify as a trivial example of misconduct, for instance.) But I don't think it necessarily makes sense to keep a good and productive editor from being able to edit content he has, apparently, already demonstrated an ability to improve. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cptnono
Why? The editor has been semi-retired or retired for a bit. He even says that he does not wish to return. We don't need him and he appears to be fine with it. He thinks that simply biting his tongue will be sufficient? Why hasn't he made a statement acknowledging that he understands that his bias has been a hurdle to editing constructively and that is something he promises to keep in check? If he would have not violated his topic ban multiple times (see the warning last September) and then not made completely unneeded and possibly baiting commentary disguised as a "note to self" in March then maybe I would believe that there could be some change. I also believe the never archived nsection at the top oh his talk page is still a concern even if consensus was otherwise.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to saying "I told you so". General amnesty picked by an editor seemingly at random? One of them has no chance at coming back (see below) and another all of a sudden can even though they have not made it clear that they actually understand what they did wrong (edit warring and a sharp tongue are one thing, but completely ignoring the goals of this project by not keeping an seemingly uncontrollable bias in check is another). The requester (not even the editors in question) actually asked at the collaboration page what difference the sanctions have made. To paraphrase my answer: It is quite now but as editors get off their blocks it will all start up again. How many more AEs do we need?Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 7 July 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

 * The portion of the community commenting here seems to reasonably support ending Nishidani's topic ban. If there's anything missing, it's an assertion that this editor wants to edit the topic area and expresses the desire to do so in line with community guidelines... but I suspect that's implied. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to give it a go and lift the sanction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we could give this a chance. Shell  babelfish 23:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's acceptable to lift our restriction and leave it up to the community if they want to enact their own measures. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted by Johnuniq and John Carter, the area is under discretionary sanctions - so any regression to past problematic behaviour could be handled at WP:AE. As the topic ban was placed over 2 years ago, it is not unreasonable to lift to determine if it has become unnecessary. – xeno talk 14:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Motion
The editing restrictions placed on in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.


 * Support
 * Proposed (adapted from Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria). – xeno talk 14:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence (August 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Miradre (talk) at 10:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by your Miradre
The current statement for the scope of the sanctions are "to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed)". It is highly problematic that the focus seems to be on "articles" and not on the actual material that is edited. The same focus on the article title rather than on the material edited are in these templates:

1. Does the sanctions include material that is clearly not regarding this intersection but that are in articles that may contain some other material regarding to this intersection. For example, would adding material about the relationship between "IQ and happiness" to the "IQ" article be within the scope of the sanctions?

2. Exactly what articles are included? Articles about ethnic foods? Female circumcision (varies by ethnicity)? Cousin marriages? Immigration? Slavery? Wars (ethnicity certainly often important)? Are articles about various differences between nations under the sanctions? Ethnically based political parties? Politics in general which often includes ethnic concerns? General medical articles since there are ethnic differences regarding diseases? All religious articles since religion varies by ethnicity? I am sure the one with could find this intersection in some small part of every article about human activity in Wikipedia which in effect would mean that all articles about humans are under the scope.

I would recommend that the emphasis should be shifted from specific "articles" to specific "material". So the parts of the "IQ" article not about this intersection is not under the sanctions but the sanctions apply to material about the intersection regardless of the title of article.
 * Reply to xeno. Since I am topic banned at the moment I am of course interested in knowing what areas I may edit. It is in the area of psychology I have most knowledge and am able to contribute. For example, may I add material about "IQ and happiness" to the IQ article? May I create a new article about how happiness differ between nations? See the other examples I mentioned above. I am sure to be instantly reported by the editors who wants an excuse to ban me permanently so I would like to know before editing where the border goes.Miradre (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From Mathsci's comments and his other behavior of following me around it seems likely he will file an AE immediately if I make an edit of any kind to IQ the article and many other articles of the kind I described above. That is exactly why I would like a clarification before making such an edit. I appreciate Mastcell's view that I can make "general psychology-related improvements clearly unrelated to the race/intelligence intersection" but due to the emphasis on specific "articles" rather on "content" both in the sanction text and the tagging it not certain that every administrator would agree that I would be allowed to edit the "IQ" article at all. I would rather not gamble which I why I ask before.Miradre (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Aprock. None of the articles or edits, such as the rankings in the book Human Accomplishment, are about either race or intelligence. Obviously therefore not their intersection. Harassment by Aprock who disagrees with me on issues besides race and intelligence. Also, as usual his presentation is misleading. As far as I know E. O. Wilson is not a "prominent hereditarian" on either race or intelligence issues. Also, I still do not understand or have received an explanation for why Aprock did not also receive a topic ban, or at least notification, for reverting. He did more reverts than me as documented in the topic ban discussion! Looks like a double standard in this area, when I receive a 3 month topic ban, while he nothing for doing more reverts than me, so a clarification would be helpful.Miradre (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (To clarify the time sequence regarding questions and answers in the RfC: Note also that this a new question today from aprock after several arbiters have already answered my earlier one week old question. Miradre (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC))

Statement by Mathsci
Meritless request. This editor is spamming neutral articles with non-neutral content related to R&I and wasting the time of editors, administrators and (in this case) arbitrators. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am just one of a large number of editors to find problems with Miradre's edits. I have been involved in only three of the articles that Miradre has edited recently (White flight, List of international rankings and Malaria). Elsewhere on wikipedia, but not here, Aprock has been the main target of Miradre's complaints. Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by MastCell
As a general observation, the race & intelligence dispute features a number of editors who are quite invested in testing and wikilawyering the boundaries of their restrictions. Given this tendency, I think a broad restriction is preferable to death by a thousand cuts. If Miradre's edits are general psychology-related improvements clearly unrelated to the race/intelligence intersection, then I think we have to trust that admins won't sanction him for them. On the other hand, if Miradre's edits simply seem designed to circumvent the letter of the restriction on race/intelligence articles, then I think admins should have the latitude to act. MastCell Talk 18:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by aprock
As an illustration of MastCell's comments above about "testing boundaries", Miradre has embarked on a series of edits to promote the book Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, adding it to a number of articles where it's inclusion is WP:UNDUE:


 * Leonhard Euler
 * Einstein's awards and honors
 * Aristotle
 * Shakespeare's reputation
 * Isaac Newton
 * Genius

On a related tack...


 * softening criticism of E. O. Wilson, another prominent hereditarian, in the Sociobiology article:
 * entered into a dispute at Criticism of evolutionary psychology:,.
 * made edits which link to articles in the category R&I:

Given this pattern of "walking the line" of his topic ban, could an administrator please clarify whether or not these edits fall within or without the scope of the topic ban? aprock (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Is there an actual instance where there was some dispute over the scope prompting this clarification request? I do note that this case has already been amended to refer to "any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia" and not just articles. – xeno talk 12:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Miradre: Thanks for clarifying. Convenience links to discussion leading to topic ban and previous clarification request leading to amendment. Will need to review in more detail. – xeno talk 15:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Will try and pop back in tomorrow once I've reviewed the case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After re-reading the previous amendments and the views above, I'm not sure drawing additional boundary lines would be helpful or effective. The amendment stipulates that any intersection of race and human abilities, broadly construed, is fair game for sanctions, and we broadened it for good reasons. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per David, the main aim is to steer clear of the topic area as broadly construed. Decline. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also decline. We expanded this for a reason. My best approximation here is: if you have to ask, you're not far enough from the boundary. Cool Hand Luke 23:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that no action is required, for the reasons suggested by David Fuchs, Casliber, and Cool Hand Luke. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92 (August 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Martin (talk) at 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by Tammsalu
I am not happy with the way the AGK has handled the above mentioned AE case, where I reported Russavia for breaching his interaction ban, and seek clarification of some issues that have arisen in wake of this.

Background
I was minding my own business editing Occupation of the Baltic states, where I had corrected some obviously POVed piece of unsorted text that made a misleading assertion. Unfortunately before I could add the appropriate reference to support the change, Russavia reverted the text in the very next edit. Because the revert is not permitted per WP:IBAN, and Russavia is subject to an interaction ban, I asked Administrators to take action in an appropriate forum being WP:AE, as permitted by IBAN. Russavia was subsequently blocked for 48 hours and AGK asked for input from other Administrators if any further action should be taken.

However no other Administrator had made any comment despite AGK's request for input while the case remained open during the week, thus most people would construe that no further action was necessary. In fact the case remained open for such a long time that Russavia was able to comment further after his block expired, seeking a retaliatory block. AGK duly complies and blocks me, claiming the filing an AE report about Russavia's violation was a breach of my own interaction ban.

When I and others subsequently point out that WP:IBAN explicitly permits the reporting of the other party in mutual interaction bans, AGK agrees that my filing of an AE report was not a violation of my interaction ban, but then claims this edit, made six days after Russavia's ban breaching revert was a violation of my interaction ban.

However it is a general principle that edits made in defiance of a ban should be reverted, IBAN discusses this. As BAN states, Wikipedia's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns, in this case: It would just simply be untenable that a breaching edit, such as revert or even a comment on a user talk page cannot ever be undone, not in one week, one month or ever. It would lead to all sorts of kamikaze sanction breaking edits if there was some profit to be derived from that.
 * Maximizing the quality of the encyclopaedia and;
 * Dissuading or preventing banned editors from editing Wikipedia or the relevant area of the ban.

I am a long standing editor of Occupation of the Baltic states with 132 edits since March 2007 compared with Russavia's 5 edits since May 2009. My edit of the 17th of June, coming six days after Russavia's original breaching edit, was not a blind revert but was made in the spirit of BAN, removing the ban breaching edit and adding the two references I was was going to add before the disruption.

An additional issue is that I asked AGK to amend the result of the AE case to reflect his new reason for the block, he has not done so.

Points for clarification
Can the Committee clarify whether:
 * WP:IBAN permits reporting the other party for breaching a mutual interaction ban, WP:AE being the appropriate forum for such requests for Admin assistance
 * In the case that an Administrator has determined that a particular edit has breached the interaction ban, that disruptive edit can be undone per BAN

Thanks for your time. --Martin (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to EdJohnston
EdJohnston claims there is no wording in WP:BAN that permits reverting of ban breaching edits, yet this clearly states:
 * "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert."

Of course regular reverts are prohibited by WP:IBAN, but what AGK and EdJohnston are saying is that, for example, if someone should make an edit in defiance of their IBAN by leaving a comment on my talk page, and I would not be allowed to remove that ban breaching edit from my talk page after the matter has been reported and the other party blocked. In other words, AGK and EdJohston are saying that a long standing editor of an article (132 edits since 2007) can never edit that particular section of an article ever again because the other party (5 edits since 2009) has defied their IBAN by disruptively editing that section, even though the matter has been appropriately reported and the other party blocked for defying their IBAN. --Martin (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to AGK
AGK raises the issue of "unclean hands", however my revert came six days after I reported Russavia's edit and after it was determined that edit was made in defiance of Russavia's IBAN, so AGK's claim that I came to AE with "unclean hands" is some what misleading because my AE request significantly pre-dated the supposed "unclean" edit. --Martin (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeking your opinion, which has been proven to be wrong in the past, (you confirmed that you had always intended to block me, but apparently lacking any evidence you request input from other admins, and when that did not materialise, you make up a justification that is contrary to policy; I note that you had closed the AE report without annotating it to indicate your original decision was completely flawed, resulting in a misleading record being archived), but clarification of two issues by the Committee. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Anthony, do you understand the meaning of the term "clarification" and how that meaning contrasts with term "action"? Given that you have not amended the original reason (hadn't you read WP:IBAN before coming up with that rationale?) for your block when closing the case that has been subsequently archived, I am entitled to seek definitive clarification on behalf of the community from the Arbitration Committee as to whether filing AE requests reporting breaches of IBANs is itself a breach of IBAN, lest some admin in the future thinks otherwise, as you did in the past. You seem to be challenging my right to seek that definitive clarifcation in the apparent belief that I am seeking some kind of action from the Committee, by continually repeating your viewpoint as if you believe in the power of proof by assertion. My second point of clarification is concerning WP:BAN's policy in regard to reversion of edits made in defiance of a ban. Perhaps if you can drop your apparent self-preservation mode and let the Committee give due consideration and answer these important questions rather than continue in your apparent belief that I am asking the Committee to rule on your admittedly woeful handling of this case, that would be helpful. The Committee's answer will determine whether or not I need to ask for an amendment to the enforcement provisions of the respective ArbCom cases. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Question to Shell
Shell, reverting out of the blue isn't identical to reverting an edit in context of an AE report which has found that specific edit presented as evidence had breached the ban.

Are you saying that if A breaches their interaction ban by, for example, leaving a comment on B's talk page and is subsequently reported and blocked, party B cannot subsequently remove that ban breaching comment from their talk page ever? Don't you think that turns the spirit of BAN, which seeks to dissuade banned editors from editing the relevant area of the ban, on its head by incentivising undesirable behaviour by making such edits sticky? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment
I see that Russavia has chimed in to my clarification request, which I thought clearing up the two issues would be of benefit for him too, given the fact that he had again reverted my edit within hours of him coming off his own block. But instead he launches in to more polemic.

His continual reference to myself after his block, not only in the original AE case, not only a second time, but a third time, and a forth time in this Clarification request is surely yet another breach of his interaction ban, since WP:IBAN suggests any complaint be made no more than once.

It seems to me that this clarification request has gone as far as it can, so I'm not going to comment further. I'll be filing amendments in due course to update the enforcement provisions of both relevant cases to introduce an additional "Enforcement by reversion" provision with respect to the interaction bans (which is within scope of the WP:BAN policy) in order to solve the problems evident with the current regime. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
Russavia reverted Martin, in violation of WP:IBAN and WP:EEML. I blocked Russavia, which Martin did not contest. Martin then re-reverted Russavia; for this, I therefore also blocked Martin. It is a given at AE that editors with "unclean hands" who request enforcement may also be blocked or sanctioned. I do not see what the issue is here. AGK [&bull; ] 16:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Martin: I agreed with you that you did not violate the interaction bam by submitting an enforcement request. That is not an issue here. As I have said repeatedly, you were blocked for reverting Russavia. Admittedly, you did not revert until after you filed the enforcement request, but it was a revert nonetheless - and therefore a violation of the interaction ban. Again, I do not see what your complaint is. AGK  [&bull; ] 21:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Martin: But I will give my opinion anyway. I am as entitled to opine on the issue as you are, and as a general matter it is encouraged that the other parties have the opportunity to challenge the reasoning of an editor who is filing for action by ArbCom. Your re-revert was undeniably violation of WP:IBAN. AGK  [&bull; ] 23:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin: Who is Andrew? If you are responding to me, my name is Anthony. AGK  [&bull; ] 12:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
I believe that WP:IBAN does not allow the action that Tammsalu says is OK. He makes a statement which I can't find support for in policy: "Having found that a particular edit has breached the interaction ban, that disruptive edit can be undone per BAN." There is no wording in WP:BAN which supports that either. He might be thinking of the provision of WP:3RR which does not include reverts of a banned editor as counting toward the limit of three reverts. Tammsalu is not allowed to revert *any* edit of someone from whom he is interaction banned, so the fact that such an edit won't count towards 3RR is not of interest. Tammsalu is asking Arbcom to rule on what the policy says, and I think it supports AGK's view of the matter. I would also recommend that Tammsalu change his signature to match his user name, since 'Martin' causes puzzlement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia
As User:Tammsalu (aka User:Martintg) accuses myself of disruption, one also needs to know:


 * 1) I did not know that a change in username had taken place, as I was encouraged to forget about the EEML editors - something which I had done.
 * 2) As I did not know that a username change had been made, it is WP:AGF that I was no aware that I was banned from interacting with the editor now known as Tammsalu.
 * 3) I was not blocked for my revert of his edit on Occupation of the Baltic States - it needs to be mentioned that Tammsalu's edit on that article was not adequately summarised in the edit summary.
 * 4) I was blocked for my edits on Russophobia - an article on which discussion on the talk page was occurring, and for which Tammsalu was not involved
 * 5) Immediately after my block, Tammsalu interjects himself on the Russophobia article, thereby all but blocking myself from participating in discussion. It also needs to be noted that discussion was occurring with several editors who are banned from interacting. But Tammsalu's interjection is questionable.
 * 6) Also immediately after my block, Tammsalu makes this edit to Anti-Estonian sentiment. And again, Tammsalu uses the totally misleading edit summary of copy edit.
 * 7) I made substantial edits to the article back in July 2010, and if one compares Tammsalu's edits with the article as it stood last year here, one will see that Tammsalu's edit is no copy edit, but rather a complete removal of all changes I made to the article last year (i.e. a wholesale revert), and has been done by himself as he is now safe in the knowledge that I am now unable to touch a single thing on that article.
 * 8) It is obvious that Tammsalu is intent on continuing with the battleground here on Wikipedia, regardless of what is on his talk page, there is no need to perpetuate the battleground on his part, when there really isn't one.

Given Tammsalu's history of harrassment of myself, and his history of vexatious reporting, it appears that as soon as there was a good faith belief that my revert of their edit was made without knowledge of their change of username, they immediately escalated the issue and reported me for breaking an interaction ban with other editors, when those editors were more than able to report me. This in itself is a dire breach of Martintg's interaction ban, is it not?

I urge arbitrators to look at this for themselves, and comment accordingly. --Russavia Let's dialogue 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Sander Sade's comments

 * 1) My reports were never found by Arbcom to be vexatious in nature. This was very clearly stated by Shell Kinney herself in that case.
 * 2) EEML states "Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating." So, who exactly was harrassed, and who were the specific users? EEML basically says it all, does it not?
 * 3) User:Nanobears insertion of material on Russophobia was not unverifiable. (Talk:Russophobia) The doctor's name was not wrong - it was merely transliterated from Russian from the source (Slutsis), rather than native Latvian (Slucis).
 * 4) Please read WP:EDITSUMMARY. Misleading edit summaries of "copy edit" should be frowned upon, particularly when it is obvious that an editor has not done a copy edit, but has rather reverted to a year old version of the article, so his edit summary should have been "rv to year old version" rather than "copy edit". It should be noted that the reversion has removed context, re-inserted information which fails verification, and a host of other problems which were fixed with the article. The timing of the edit by Tammsalu also should call into question his motives? Of course, he is now aware that I am unable to change a single thing on that article, because for me to do so will result in a vexatious report being made, and unfortunately, many admins don't want to take the time to look at issues in any great depth to see what is actually happening. And it appears that Tammsalu is now intent on using an interaction ban as a battleground tool to enforce content. This is NOT on. To claim that the wholesale revert was reverting to a "stable" version is misinformation, as there has been no objections to edits on the article in the last 12 months, and it has not been subject to edit wars or anything of the like. It is a provocative revert on the part of the editor, whereby every single edit I had made to the article from 12 months ago has been undone, regardless of the reasons I made the edits, which are clearly explained in both edit summaries and on the talk page.
 * 5) I have created no battleground. I explained that I had no idea that Tammsalu was Martintg, and suggested that the report be dropped and everyone get back to editing. Instead, Tammsalu ignored that, and furthered the BG by reporting Russophobia edits, in which he was not involved, and no other editor had any problem with at the time; Sander Sade was more than capable of reporting, but obviously saw nothing wrong with edit and discussion occurring on the article, except now that this is being brought to the Committee's attention it is all of a sudden a problem. --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Tammsalu's comments
This is necessary dispute resolution, not simply a clarification request. As per AGK's comments I have sought the guidance of uninvolved admins (Jehochman and FPaS) on how to approach instances such as that on Anti-Estonian sentiment. Those two admins have not responded, so perhaps the committee can provide guidance on how to approach issues such as this. I have taken note of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision. Will anyone on the Committee be prepared to look past the surface and take a little bit of time to actually look at what appears to be occurring. --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Estonian sentiment
I have posted a raft of problems relating to Anti-Estonian sentiment at Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment. Given the 1) timing of the edit by Tammsalu and 2) fact that all edits by myself to the article 12 months ago have been reverted and 3) the nature of the information which has been removed and/or reintroduced into the article by Tammsalu, from where I am sitting, I can only assume that this is a provocative edit on the part of Tammsalu, perhaps with a bit of battleground furtherance behind it, but done first and foremost because the interaction ban would prevent myself from doing anything substantial on the article as it would be seen as a revert at WP:AE, which I am sure would be taken there if I attempted to touch the article in any substantial way.

I am not going to wikilawyer restrictions as seems to be the case with this very clarification request, but if one uses the very same arguments that Tammsalu is using, I would be well within my rights (according to Tammsalu) to report him to WP:AE for breaking his interaction ban on me, and I would be well within my rights to immediately undo his edit in its entireity. But I shall not do this, because the reasoning is shallow and not really grounded in policy.

However, I would ask the Committee to re-read Tammsalu's initial complaint, and then look at his actions on the above article, and one could likely reach the conclusion that Tammsalu is using the interaction ban in such a way that is pointy and somewhat disruptive to the project as a whole. This opinion is reinforced even further after Tammsalu has used mutual and constructive interactions between Miacek and myself in such a way as to try and have me alone sanctioned.

Perhaps editors could clarify their reasons right here for their edits, so that the committee can reach informed opinion on whether interaction bans are now going to be used as a battleground tool by certain editors, and whether some amendment to cases actually need to be made. --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Sander Säde
Russavia, very funny.

-- Sander Säde 09:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Vexatious reporting" when his report was found actionable by block (btw, wasn't constant vexatious reporting the reason why you got the interaction ban in the first place?).
 * Martin's history of "harrassment". Not found by thorough ArbCom investigation, perhaps because there was none?
 * Russophobia - as I recall, someone named Russavia repeatedly reverted removal of Nanobear's rather dubious unverifiable material (which, as it came out, was wrong in more or less every detail, including the name of the doctor...) in violation of Russavia's interaction ban. That kind of BLP rule-violating reverts are no different from vandalism - and should be treated as such. And somehow Martin is "intent on continuing with the battleground here on Wikipedia" despite you creating the battleground?!
 * Misleading edit summaries - I don't see why you keep bringing this up. As a first thing, edit summaries are not even required. Considering the scope of Martin's edits, what should he have written? "Changes to restore stable version and improve the article, namely [this], [this], [this] and [that] ..."? "Copy edit" was perfectly acceptable description, especially considering he continued with five more edits to improve the article.

Nanobear: a) The doctor was from USA, not Latvia; b) He has allegedly published ads, not article; c) He didn't write in the ad that he would not treat a Russian patient; d) Doctor's name is Slūcis (transliterated Slucis), the professor (or you, as I have not seen the original) obviously mistransliterated the name.

So. What exactly do you claim that was correct about your edit? No typos? Bonus points there. Even the source itself was given partially, without the publisher or ISBN. This is not an acceptable way to edit controversial topics. And yet you dare to claim I "arrived" here reeking "of clear battleground behaviour and harassment"... I don't think any further comments are needed. I am done here and will leave for my well-deserved two-week vacation on the beach. Bye. -- Sander Säde 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Nanobear
Response to Sander Säde: No, the material I inserted was not "unverifiable" and "wrong in more or less every detail, including the name of the doctor" as you claim. What I inserted was this. It is not "unverifiable": the source (which I gave in the edit) is ISBN 9780230614185 (pages 44 and 58), a book written by a Professor of San Francisco University, a notable expert. The name of the doctor is not wrong; it comes directly from source and has the same transliteration as in the source. That Sander Säde has chosen to arrive here claiming that my completely legitimate edit is "wrong in almost every respect" reeks of clear battleground behaviour and harassment by Sander Säde.

About changing usernames: Martintg/Tammsalu seems to have covertly changed his username without notifying ArbCom clerks. His new username is NOT listed at WP:EEML, making is difficult for admins and editors to find the sanctions and warnings Martintg has received. It also leads to misunderstandings such as when Russavia did not know recognise Tammsalu as Martintg and did not know Tammsalu was an EEML member (with whom Russavia is not supposed to interact with), since Tammsalu's name is not listed at EEML. When I changed my username, I immediately informed a clerk (as well as ArbCom) about the change, and my name on the relevant pages was changed:. Why has Martintg not done the same? Did he simply forget, or was it a deliberate attempt to conceal his history of disruption - your choice. Nanobear (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My thoughts are that someone may let an admin know that a mutual interaction ban has been breached, but reverting the edits yourself is a step too far. SirFozzie (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fozzie here; reporting someone is one thing, going on to repeat the behavior yourself is right out. Shell  babelfish 14:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, not what I said at all. This was an article, not your own talk page (where people certainly have more leeway) and this isn't a topic ban or even a one way interaction ban, it's a mutual interaction ban.  Reverting a content change after getting someone blocked isn't going to discourage interaction, in fact, it's likely to inflame things further. Shell   babelfish 12:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Shell and Fozzie here. Editors should be allowed to let admins know about possible violations of an interaction ban, but that doesn't give one leeway to also possibly violate the terms. In the very least it's unhelpful and in the worst case makes the scenario much worse. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with my fellow arbitrators - reporting an infringement of the mutual interaction ban would be ok, but reverting the edit was unhelpful. In this context, I think AGK's handling of the situation was entirely reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per preceding - don't revert someone you are not allowed to interact with - there are always plenty of admins or other editors around to ask. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with the above, but my concern is that this position provides a "first-mover" advantage (in terms of article content) for a violation of an interaction ban. Should administrators receiving a report of a violation revert the violating edit (similar to the advice at PROT)? – xeno talk 14:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Gilabrand (August 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Ravpapa (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC) at 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Case affected : https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=430904012&oldid=430898742#Gilabrand


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

 * Arbitration enforcement topic ban of Gilabrand
 * Indefinite block related to topic ban
 * I propose to grant an amnesty to Gilabrand, removing the indefinite block against her.

Statement by Ravpapa
This and the previous request for amendment regarding Nishidani replace the request that I submitted proposing a more general amnesty for blocked and banned editors in the IP topic area. A number of administrators commented in that discussion that they opposed a general amnesty, and would prefer a case by case discussion of amendments. Therefore I am submitting this and the preceding requests.

In a discussion of the state of the IP project here, it was the feeling of participants in the discussion that the blocking and banning of editors had done little to reduce the level of conflict on the project, while other measures (centralized discussion and 1RR restriction) had been effective. On the other hand, several of the participants felt that blocks had removed knowledgeable editors from the project on both sides, and had thus actually hurt, rather than helped, the project.

Gilabrand is such an editor. She has extensive knowledge of the topics on which she writes, and she is a clear and incisive writer. Moreover, she has contributed not only to IP topic articles, but also to articles on a variety of subjects. She has shown herself to be an editor genuinely interested in advancing the Wikipedia project.

This request for amnesty is in no way meant to condone the unconscionable use of an anonymous IP to continue editing when under topic ban. I am aware of the extensive damage that puppetry has wreaked on the Wikipedia as a whole, and in the IP area specifically. Almost universally, these puppets are single-issue editors, whose sole purpose is to introduce propaganda into the Wikipedia. But this certainly is not the case with Gilabrand. Her interest in contributing to Wikipedia as a whole is genuine, and if her passion led her astray in the past, I am confident that this ban has put enough of a scare in her that she won't do it again.

I urge editors from both sides of the IP divide to support this request. By supporting amnesty for Gilabrand and Nishidani, I believe we are showing a level of solidarity and of genuine interest in the well-being of the project that can move the project forward.


 * Several days later: I am a bit surprised and, I might say, disappointed by the total lack of interest that this request has generated. I suppose that this is because, as opposed to the other editor whose ban I proposed to remove (Nishidani above), this editor is completely noncontroversial. In any case, you can find some discussion of this request here. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Bus stop
I support the amnesty suggested for User: Gilabrand based on her contributions to the project over a long period of time. She has done some work in some contentious areas of the project and that can lead to stress-related moves that can account for some of the trouble she has run into. I recommend another chance at getting things right. Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by jd2718
I appreciate Ravpapa's sentiment. Perhaps editors' reticence to comment is due, in part, to how recently Gila was found to be block-evading. That's three weeks between the AE thread and the first amendment request. It may seem too fresh. Jd2718 (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Casliber's approach is interesting (evaluate the edits made while banned). But do we know if all of Gila's ban evasion was done from that one IP? And as that IP is shared, do we know which of the edit's are hers? It wouldn't do to blame her for someone else's work, nor to look at only a fraction of her edits. Jd2718 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Davshul
Although I had found Gilabrand's edits to be at times somewhat impetuous and a little inclined to take unilateral action on matters that should preferably have been the subject of prior discussion, there is no denying the enormous contribution she has made over the years to the IP and other projects, her deep knowledge of the subject and the hard work and effort expended by her in improving the quality and range of Wikipedia articles. I consider that an indefinite ban to have been harsh, taking into account her contribution, and support the amnesty proposed by Ravpapa. Davshul (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by IZAK
Hopefully by now Gilabrand has learned her lesson and will be careful to abide by all WP policies and guidelines. She will then be able to contribute her great knowledge and skills to enhance WP. Even great people like Nelson Mandela and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ran afoul of their authorities but they then had the most productive years of their lives ahead of them after they were punished, jailed and banished as they came out mellowed and wiser for their experiences. WP should not "cut off its own nose to spite its face." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
The filing party must notify the blocking administrator that this request has been submitted. Before we proceed, he ought to do that. With regards to the request, I oppose it. Gilabrand was topic-banned some months ago, and it was later discovered quite by accident (Gila signed a comment using an IP address) that he (or she?) was evading the ban by editing anonymously. No SPI was ever ran, so we don't know if Gilabrand also used registered accounts to evade the ban, but it was sock-puppetry and ban evasion that led to the block, not simple misconduct.

I haven't refamiliarised myself with the case, but I do recall that considerable disruption preceded the topic ban and the one-year block. It is my view that that is a moot issue, because in no case should an appeal be granted so soon, if at all, after such serious ban evasion. AGK [&bull; ] 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Marokwitz
I strongly support the amnesty suggested for user Gilabrand based on his unparalleled contributions to Wikipedia over a long period of time, on a wide spectrum of topics. The violation this user was blocked for seems to be motivated by the desire to improve the project, not disrupt it. Indefinite blocking is way too harsh for such a capable editor. Let's give him/her another chance. 07:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion by BorisG
Gilabrand needs to be given an opportunity to make a statement. She may be thinking doing so may violate her topic ban. Can we invite her to make a statement? - BorisG (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be acceptable (indeed, encouraged) for Gilabrand to post a statement on her talk page, which any interested party (or clerk) could transfer to this page.  NW  ( Talk ) 19:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
More or less as per my comments about Nishidani above, I would think that it might make sense to allow interested and competent editors to edit this topic. Should misconduct continue, the existing discretionary sanctions can be used to enforce adherance to conduct guidelines. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to NW above, I have contacted Gilabrand via e-mail and indicated that some comments there would be more than welcome. I have received a reply, in which s/he indicates that there isn't much more to say than has already been said. I have since sent a response. It is my sincere hope that some comment there can be seen shortly. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens
I find myself very surprised that I have not been notified of this request, and that I only discovered by chance. In any event, I agree with AGK's last sentence. In light of Gilabrand's seven blocks for violating an AE restriction in a single year, at least two of which she evaded through IP socking, I believe that restrictions are not useful in her case. T. Canens (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @John Vandenberg: Gilabrand has a tendency of ignoring any editing restrictions placed upon her. Last time she was topic banned for 3 months, she got blocked 5 times for topic ban violations; when another editing restriction was placed upon her as a result of an AE thread, she was blocked an additional 2 times for willful violations of the restriction. I just don't see how that's going to work out. T. Canens (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Soosim
I, too, strongly support the amnesty suggested for user Gilabrand based on his/her unparalleled contributions to Wikipedia over a long period of time, on a wide spectrum of topics. The violation this user was blocked for (a year ago?) seems to be motivated by the desire to improve the project, not disrupt it. Indefinite blocking is way too harsh for such a capable editor. Let's give him/her another chance. (yes, i copied from markowitz, but it says what i want to say too!) Soosim (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Gilabrand

 * copied from User talk:Gilabrand

Despite years of jibes from the academic community, Wikipedia has become a leading source of information. If that information is to be reliable, comprehensive and comprehensible, Wikipedia needs people who are willing to give of their time to bring in solidly sourced information, write in clear, concise English, remove non-encyclopedic and off-topic material, and add images that illustrate the content and make the reading experience more interesting and enjoyable. These have been my goals since joining Wikipedia half a decade ago. I have edited thousands of articles and taken dozens of photographs in this spirit, and I would be grateful for an opportunity to continue.

My sincere thanks to the courageous editors who have taken the trouble to speak up on my behalf. If I am unblocked, I will do my best not to disappoint them.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (in response to question from Xeno)

My IP address is a shared one. I replied to a question on my talk page but forgot to log in. When I noticed the IP number, I replaced it with my signature. This led to an accusation that back in 2010 I evaded a topic ban. I replied that I opened an account five and a half years ago as advised by Wikipedia so as not to be associated with this shared global IP used by a business center with many offices. I was called a liar by administrators and given an indefinite block, although several editors pointed out that this was indeed a global IP address used by others. Anyone who takes the trouble to look will see ample evidence of my productive work on Wikipedia over the course of many years. I have devoted myself to adding content and images. I have turned thousands of stubs and start-class articles into worthy encyclopedia entries. I have written numerous articles from scratch and spent hours assessing articles for various projects on Wikipedia. I have received thanks from editors across the IP divide for my input. So I am not ashamed of my edits, and I have no reason to edit anonymously. If I am unblocked, I will do my utmost to stay clear of controversy, improve relations with anyone I may have clashed with, and work together to make Wikipedia better.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Shuki
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, Ravpapa brought two 'opposing' editors here for amnesty, for balance. You were wiling to give Nish full support so the community could decide, but in contrast, you fail to give Gila AGF and even doubt her 'generic' (?) 'promise'. Nice. Could you instead comment on how the substantially lopsided quality contributions by Gila (in contrast to Nish) does not have any weight to your opinion of her? --Shuki (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Number 57
I was contacted by Gila by e-mail, who asked me to comment here. I first came across Gila when she started copy-editing articles and doing a good job of cleaning them up and expanding them (I actually have her a barnstar at one point). Although she later drifted into edit warring and NPOV violations, unlike many of the contributers in the Israeli-Palestinian arena who were strongly biased and tenditious from day one and should never be allowed back (or banned permanently as many of them are still around), Gila was once a good and productive editor. I would be happy to see her ban lifted for a trial period to see which Gila reappears. Number  5  7  18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
I normally edit the articles in the List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I saw some IP-edits on Bayt 'Itab, and was quite certain that was Gilabrand, breaking their topic-ban block. I was not surprised, as Gilabrand has earlier stated: ''This is a sanction that goes against Wikipedia norms, since the person who complained about me retracted his statement. I will continue to edit as necessary, reverting tendentious edits and removing unneeded tags that are placed on articles out of some political agenda or spite. I will continue to copyedit as necessary, and add content and solid references to articles''.

In short, Wikipedia sanctions are apparently not valid for Gilabrand...unless she finds them valid.

The "shared global IP used by a business center"-story is difficult to swallow, given the evidence  here.

Having said that, I actually agree with most of what Number 57 said above: Gilabrand can be a productive editor, copy-editing articles etc. But I wish that before you  consider  unblocking, Gilabrand  would  A: come clean/explain the evidence cited above, B: accept that sanctions are also valid for her. Huldra (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

After I wrote the above, I received an email from Gilabrand -which I of course cannot quote from here. However, I then went to her talk-page (which she can edit) and asked her to clarify whether or not she had made the above   IP-edits on Bayt 'Itab. She has not yet answered. Huldra (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
I can't recall editing with Gilabrand much, except for one minor incident, where I witlessly infringed my topic ban and she got upset, but if I recall correctly did not rush to go for me at AE. I trust Ravpapa, BorisG and Number57's judgement a lot here. The area needs page builders rather than edit monitors, and apparently she was good at content. I think, rather than our opinions, that, as Huldra suggests, she be invited to discuss this directly with the Arbs here in a conversation undisturbed by co-editors, to see if some provisory test return can be thrashed out. TC's concerns about a pattern are legitimate, but we have lost quite a few good editors in the past, and now that strong sanctions that can be applied imediately are in place, there's perhaps room for experiment.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 30 July 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.}

Further discussion

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

Statement by Ravpapa
with regards to Caslibers request for examples of noncontroversial edits by gilabrand:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Boxer&diff=prev&oldid=429594098
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramot&diff=prev&oldid=429583481
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramot&diff=prev&oldid=429561408
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lag_BaOmer&diff=prev&oldid=429535886
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahava&diff=prev&oldid=429513948

The overwhelming majority of Gilabrands edits are noncontroversial. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mbz1
It is my understanding that it was not proven that Gila was the one who used the very public IP in question. If this is the case, the block should be lifted without pre-conditions.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Biosketch
Initially I was opposed to amending anyone's sanctions by granting special amnesty. I felt it would further complicate things in a topic area that's problematic enough with the editors already in it. Since then, though, had his request for amnesty approved and his contributions to I/P have on the whole been constructive. If Admins were willing to extend to User:Nishidani the benefit of the doubt and leave it to the community to determine whether or not the decision was a wise one, then the same ought to be done in the case of. Indeed, in just the past couple of weeks I've happened upon User:Gilabrand's name in quite a few important articles, and each time I've found his contributions to be decidedly positive in nature and impressive in scope. My attitude is as that of above: in order to embrace the spirit of 's original request with a mind to being fair to all parties involved, and considering Gilabrand's stated commitment to the values and principles of the Project, I encourage the Admins to favor lifting his sanctions and allowing the community to be the judge of his conduct.—Biosketch (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement - hopefully the last - by Ravpapa
In this discussion so far, 16 people have participated. Of those, 14 - representing editors from both sides of the Israel-Palestine area - have supported the amnesty. Two - both administrators, one of whom was the administrator who imposed the original ban - are opposed.

I think that this discussion has been sufficient to reflect the opinion of the I-P editing community, and that an administrator can make a motion and act upon it. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Noted as passed on Aug. 8. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 07:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Still not seeing anything that makes me want to go forward with this... Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * this doesn't make a strong case for it, but the IP edits I saw were pretty straightforward. I am a bit busy IRL ATM, so if folks arguing for/against can show presence/absence of controversial edits from this IP that'd help. In essence, if the IP edits have been constructive, I am open to opening up a way for Gilabrand to return to collaborative editing in the IP area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ultimately as wikipedia grows into more of a polishing, fine-tuning and referencing phase, I believe editors who are highly familiar with a topic area become more and more of an asset as long as they are able to collaborate and negotiate with others. Given any disruptive behaviour will likely be very quickly be pointed out, I am prepared to give a trial unsanction and see where it takes us. If this passes, I strongly urge Gilabrand (actually any editor) to think "common ground", "compromise" and "fine tune" rather than polarising edit wars. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify where you mean Israel-Palestine and where you mean Internet Protocol ? – xeno talk 16:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Question for Gilabrand: Presently, the amendment request as written only seeks to lift the indefinite block - but not the lifting of the topic ban. If you are unblocked, will you make a greater effort to comply with the topic ban (including not editing while logged out or using other accounts to evade the topic ban)? – xeno talk 15:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC) cross-posted from user talk:Gilabrand
 * Clarification needed: Does the amendment request seek only the lifting of the indefinite block, or also the lifting of the topic ban? From my read, it's only the former. – xeno talk 16:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (Gilabrand pointed out that the topic ban expired. – xeno talk 12:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Question for Gilabrand: Could you explain, in your own words, the circumstances leading to your most recent sanction/block; and how you will modify your approach to editing (especially in the conflict area) in the future to avoid further sanctions? – xeno talk 14:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a trial unblock, but the evasion and lack of evidence that the root cause for the ban in the first place suggests that we might be better off applying WP:OFFER. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Generic "I'm going to do things better" promises don't particularly sway me either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If we were to amend this, I think the user should be subject to a topic ban for two months. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Timotheus Canens, if they violate the topic ban this time, they will be letting down everyone who stuck their neck out at this amendment request. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should unblock her so that she can comment here. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Motion
The arbitration enforcement block placed on related to the Palestine-Israel articles case is provisionally suspended as of 25 August or the passage of this motion, whichever is the latter. Gilabrand is reminded that articles in the area of conflict remain the subject of discretionary sanctions, and are currently subject to a 1RR restriction. Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly.

For this motion, there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 is a majority.


 * Support
 * 1) (happy with 1RR addition above) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) John Vandenberg (chat) 13:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Although significant concerns linger regarding Gilabrand's compliance with discretionary sanctions, I am willing to cautiously support in light of the supportive submissions made to this amendment request. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I've copyedited the motion to include a mention of the 1RR restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Jclemens (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, with the 1RR.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 8)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I (August 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Mathsci (talk) at 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by Mathsci
Miradre is under a three month topic ban under WP:ARBR&I and appears to have broken that ban by editing too close to the limits. I have filed a report at WP:AE. That is not the issue here.

Captain Occam, who is subject to a very general topic ban which I would have thought precludes his involvement in such requests if he is not directly implicated, has added comments there claiming to be "uninvolved". However, he has used the occasion to launch an attack on my edits on wikipedia, in an area outside my self-imposed voluntary topic ban, to which I have adhered fairly scrupulously. That self-imposed restriction does not apply to project space, although I have agreed that requests at WP:AE related to WP:ARBR&I will be sparing (as has been the case). Captain Occam's attack on me there appears to break his topic ban and I actually don't understand the logic of his misusing WP:AE in that way. He has used the occasion to launch an attack on me which has nothing whatsover to do with arbitration enforcement.

Perhaps he could have made a posting on WP:ANI about his concerns, although I appear to have made hardly any edits of any substance to articles recently. His complaints on WP:AE seem to be reiterating the disruptive trolling (now reverted) of yet another sockpuppet of A.K.Nole,, who was just blocked by Sandstein after two SPIs with some help also from Elen of the Roads.

I am not under any ArbCom restrictions. Captain Occam, however, seems to have broken the terms of his extended topic ban and appears to be abusing the arbitration enforcement page. I am reporting this here because it seems so anomolous.

Please could ArbCom clarify whether Captain Occam's attack on me in this context is within the terms of his topic ban, as extended subsequently at WP:AE.

There is also the issue of the two confirmed meatpuppets of Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2, who since the topic bans appear to have been editing on behalf of the topic banned users. Their real life identities have been confirmed to ArbCom at the start of the year. SightWatcher has complained about me in the same vociferous way as Captain Occam, which is hardly surprising in the circumstances. Several users, including administrators, have privately and on-wiki raised doubts about three further accounts that have appeared since the topic ban, editing exclusively in the area of the topic ban. These users are Woodsrock, Boothello and Miradre; the only evidence so far has been circumstantial. Mathsci (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Update EdJohnston has confirmed on WP:AE that Captain Occam appears to have violated the terms of his topic ban by commenting on WP:AE in a case under WP:ARBR&I in which he is not involved. Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Further update The terms of EdJohnston's original extension did contain a loophole which Captain Occam has used. However, one of his intentions for posting at WP:AE, and not WP:ANI, appears to have been to lobby for restrictions to be imposed on my editing in project space. Since at least two accounts have been editing on his behalf during his topic ban, that is a surprising request. But he must surely be aware of the continuing problems with the community banned user Mikemikev, which make such a request completely out of the question.  Just in the last two weeks or so Mikemikev has created a flurry of sockpuppets, some extremely malicious. The most malicious involve outing explicitly in user names. All traces of these have been removed from wikipedia, thanks to the kind help of Fred Bauder, Casliber, Elen of the Roads and LessHeard VanU. In addition Mikemikev has posted nasty racist comments on Stormfront and created two racist attack pages on ED.ch, dealt with by an administrator there with an account here. As Comicania he created an attack file on Commons which was dealt with here and on Commons with the kind help of MastCell, Moonriddengirl and Philippe Beaudette of WMF. It has taken a lot of effort and vigilance in project space, with the dedicated help of checkusers, to deal with this disruption connected with WP:ARBR&I. Arbitrators have been kept informed about these problems and continue to be extremely helpful. Other off-wiki disruption connected with friends of Ferahgo the Assassin on FurAffinity involves racist attacks on User:Muntuwandi and me, which ArbCom has been told about. Newyorkbrad used the terms "troubling overtones" a year ago; those overtones have not gone away or become any less troubling. Mathsci (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment about Captain Occam I do not quite understand what Captain Occam means about harassment. SightWatcher has complained about my edits to Risker on her user talk page, who, because she is recused from all matters related to WP:ARBR&I, was unaware that SightWatcher is a real life friend of Ferahgo the Assassin. Captain Occam has intervened on his own initiative, presumably following my edits from afar, and has lobbied for sanctions against me on WP:AE. Captain Occam is aware that my recommendation would be that were his topic ban to be lifted formally, i.e. delisted from the ArbCom page, it should probably be replaced by a voluntary and indefinite withdrawal by him and his friends from all articles and their talk pages related to race and intelligence, reasonably interpreted. As for his statements below, I find them very hard to understand. Out of the blue, in a situation where he has not been mentioned, he launches an unprovoked vitriolic attack on me on WP:AE, describing me in extremely uncomplimentary terms without the slightest shred of evidence; he then complains here that he is being victimized by me. What is all this nonsense? Mathsci (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to comment of Captain Occam What Captain Occam has just written is another personal attack, which seems way over the line. As a reminder of what harassment is, here are the historic records of two fake user pages for Muntuwandi and Mathsci on FurAffinity recorded in May   and a forged message from Mathsci on the page of Ferahgo the Assassin.  I told Shell Kinney about these on her user talk page shortly after I stumbled across them in May (searching for something on wikipedia). On her talk page, Ferahgo the Assassin confirmed that these pages were April Fool's jokes created by a friend of hers. I wonder, considering what he is writing now, whether possibly Captain Occam's account might be compromised in some way at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Further response to Captain Occam On this page Captain Occam is making a number of unsubstantiated statements of a highly negative kind about me. These appear to constitute a personal attack, which seems very emotionally charged. The same is true on WP:AE. I am at a complete loss to know why he is doing this. Nothing makes any sense at all. Mathsci (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The query that I had seems to have been answered here by EdJohnston so I am withdrawing this request for clarification.

As I understand it uninvolved administrators dealing with the WP:AE case can, if deemed appropriate, simultaneously clarify the extended topic bans to preclude any involvement in enforcement requests concerned with WP:ARBR&I except when the originator of the request.

Thanks to all who have commented.

Mathsci (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Miradre
I must say that this request to prohibit another user from uttering an opinion seems very hypocritical considering that Mathsci himself in a RfC argued that he should be able to participate on "process pages" while promising to stay away from the topic itself. See the discussion for removing the topic ban as well as Mathsci's stated desire to be able to voice opinions on "process pages" while staying away from the topic itself. Also, his description of me is incorrect and I argue in the AE case that he himself has broken his promise to the ArbCom to stay away from the topic area.Miradre (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to Volunteer Marek
Just pointing out that Volunteer Marek is not an uninvolved editor but has had extensive disputes with me in that past as well as has been involved in race articles with a strong personal POV. Miradre (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Captain Occam
I already mentioned this in the AE thread, but Ferahgo’s and my topic bans specifically do not extend to AE. This was first pointed out by ArbCom in a previous request for clarificaiton. When Ferahgo’s and my topic bans were extended in this thread, the thread also mentioned AE as a special exception, and the advice that I not participate in R&I-related AE threads is listed as “not compulsory”.

I need to make it clear that in general I have been trying to avoid Mathsci since the beginning of the year. He has not returned the favor. The most obvious example of this was his attempt to get me site-banned in February, which grew out of an argument that he initiated with me in Jimbo Wales’ user talk about my letter which was published in The Economist. In response to that amendment thread, several arbitrators told him that he should cease his involvement in the R&I topic area. Mathsci doesn’t appear to have followed that advice. In addition to his various enforcement requests against other editors during the time since then, on June 30th he sent me e-mail saying that I will have to put up with this again myself if I attempt to appeal my topic ban. Specifically, he said that he will demand that my topic ban be lifted only if I promise to never edit race-related articles again, and that he’ll support this with all the same accusations of meatpuppetry and whatnot that he’s made in the February thread and the current one. I’d had no recent involvement with Mathsci when he sent me this message; the only context of him sending it was that I was discussing the possibility of appealing my topic ban with Newyorkbrad. (Jclemens has seen the contents of the e-mail.)

I would like to have as little to do with Mathsci as possible, but I would also like to have the opportunity to eventually appeal my topic ban without Mathsci using it as a platform to pursue the same interpersonal dispute against me that he’s been pursuing for more than a year. For the past month, I have been attempting to discuss with ArbCom whether there is a way that that’s possible, but have had very little success communicating with them effectively. (The main problem I’ve been having is arbitrators either not responding to me at all, or abruptly ceasing to respond while I’m trying to discuss the issue with them.) I’m kind of at my wit’s end about this. An appeal is supposed to be an opportunity for an editor to discuss with ArbCom whether or not his or her editing has improved. It’s not supposed to be an opportunity for someone else sanctioned in the same case to continue pursing the same interpersonal dispute that originally led to arbitration. But that’s what Mathsci has promised it will be, if I attempt to appeal my topic ban.

This is why I began paying attention to his behavior towards Miradre. After Mathsci sent me this e-mail on June 30, I wanted to see just how severe his harassment behavior is nowadays, since apparently I’ll soon have to put up with this again myself. My reason for mentioning this at AE is because I’m still hoping that if something could be done about this behavior while Mathsci is directing it at Miradre, perhaps when I appeal my topic ban I won’t have to put up with it myself. I don’t actually want to take a side in the Mathsci/Miradre dispute, especially not as far as content is concerned. I just care about my ability to not be harassed myself when I’m ready to appeal my topic ban, and after a month of silence from ArbCom in response to my efforts to discuss how this might be possible, bringing attention to his harassment behavior at AE is the only way I can think of that this might be possible.

I hope this thread can receive attention from the arbitrators that I’ve tried to talk to about the possibility of appealing my ban: Newyorkbrad, Cool Hand Luke, and especially Jclemens. Please, I’m asking all of you—give me a way to appeal my topic ban without having to put up with this, such as permission to appeal it in a private hearing. That’s the only thing I really care about here. If I can be given that, I won’t have any need to try and forestall Mathsci’s promised harassment of me by trying to get attention for it when it’s being directed at someone else.

In response to SirFozzie: if the arbitrators want me to change my comment at AE to not describe myself as uninvolved, I’m willing to do that. However, what I think really needs to be addressed here is the issue I described above. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional comments:I hope I’ve made this clear already, but I think it bears repeating that I really don’t want to be in the middle of this conflict. I’d rather not be posting at AE about anyone’s editing in the R&I topic area.  But as described in my post above, Mathsci has made it clear that he isn’t able to leave me alone even in situations where I’ve had nothing to do with him or R&I articles in the past several months (which was the case in June).  His e-mail to me also makes it clear that I can expect more of this from him in the future.  Until there is some sort of long-term solution to this problem, I feel like trying to get attention for Mathsci’s harassment behavior is the only option I have available.  I really hope ArbCom can come up with a solution to this, especially one that doesn’t require the amount of stress from me that interacting with Mathsci always involves. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to Volunteer Marek:As you haven’t been involved in articles on this topic for very long, I don’t think you have a good understanding the history of this situation. This isn’t just an issue of Mathsci’s most recent e-mail to me.  Mathsci’s repeated attempts to get me and Ferahgo sanctioned, and following me to discussions that had nothing to do with him in order to argue with me, have been an ongoing issue since the ARBR&I case closed a year ago.  It’s involved several threads at AE and AN/I, a sockpuppet investigation, and an attempt to get me site-banned via an arbitration amendment in February.  Based on his repeated claiming that editors who disagree with him are specific real-life friends of Ferahgo, he’s also apparently conducted a large amount of real-life research about her.  She’s a 24-year-old girl, and she doesn’t appreciate having a middle-aged man that she doesn’t know prying into aspects of her personal life.  I think ArbCom is already aware of the extent of this, and four different arbitrators have already told him in response to his amendment thread to stop pushing for enforcement against me.  Mathsci has ignored that request:  just as one example, he opened his sockpuppet investigation about me three months after ArbCom gave him these instructions.


 * You can’t just look at a single AE thread, without any familiarity with the background of this situation, and think that what you see there gives you the complete picture. You have to look at this in the context of the year-long pattern of behavior that exists as background.  When a pattern like this has existed long enough, it’s not possible to not believe the person in question when they tell you that they intend to continue with it.  Two editors who have been paying attention to this situation for as long as it’s been going on, and who might be able to help you understand my AE post in the proper context, are Ludwigs2 and Maunus.  (Incidentally, these aren’t editors who have tended to agree with me about content, so I’m not just pointing you to editors who are on my “side” in content disputes.) --Captain Occam (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @Marek: After a year’s worth of experience with this pattern, and the promise that the same pattern is going to continue in the future, I’ve just come to accept that I’m going to have to periodically put up with this from Mathsci even when I’m not trying to have anything to do with him. On the other hand if I try to get admins to do something about Mathsci’s battleground attitude, it’ll mean having to put up with a lot more of this stress in the short term, but it’ll also have the potential to resolve the problem in a long-term sense.  It’s like pulling teeth.  You could ask the same question about why a person with a toothache would get a tooth pulled—if they care about avoiding pain, why would they ask a dentist to do something that’s even more painful?  The answer is that if it’s the only way to make the pain go away in the long term, sometimes it’s still worthwhile.


 * Please remember, I’ve been trying to discuss this issue with ArbCom privately for the past month, and have been consistently unable to get an answer from them about whether I could appeal my topic ban in a private hearing in order to help avoid this problem. (They haven’t told me no; they just haven’t given me a response at all.)  The tooth-pulling attitude that I’m having now is more or less a last resort for me. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
I have added a comment on the current WP:AE request about Miradre to indicate that Captain Occam doesn't seem to be violating his current topic ban by posting there. (My wording *advised* him not to post at AE about other people but it did not forbid it). In general, I think that in the future, any broad topic bans that are written (those bans which include talk pages) should disallow commenting about others on any page of Wikipedia, including AE, unless the person's own edits are under review. Such article+talk topic bans should still allow direct appeals to Arbcom. It is too late for me to fix the wording that I drafted for the AE sanction that was issued to Captain Occam on December 2, 2010. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
Question/statement on Capt. Occam's statement:

I hope I’ve made this clear already, but I think it bears repeating that I really don’t want to be in the middle of this conflict. - yet you show up on AE out of the blue in a case in which you haven't been mentioned with a 7097 character/1213 word statement (basically the equivalent of a decent sized Wikipedia article). That just doesn't look like a "really don't want"a to me. It looks like a "I'm itching to be in this again".

I don’t actually want to take a side in the Mathsci/Miradre dispute - you might not want to but somehow you did.

I just care about my ability to not be harassed myself when I’m ready to appeal my topic ban - so you pick a (real) fight with Mathsci today because of some hypothetical harassment you think he might engage in the future?

Note that Capt. Occam (and a sock of Mikemikev) aside, the consensus at AE is pretty much that Mirardre's edits are trouble - so if this was some kind of attempt to preempt possibility of future harassment, as silly as that is in itself, Capt. Occam definitely picked a wrong situation to do it in.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Mirardre: has had extensive disputes with me in that past as well as has been involved in race articles with a strong personal POV

has had extensive disputes with me - probably true. So have at least have a dozen other editors.

has been involved in race articles - yes, somewhat.

with a strong personal POV - total nonsense. Again, at least a half a dozen other editors have had precisely the same disagreements with you that I have.

@Cpt. Occam - maybe I haven't been around for that long, but I *am* fully capable of going back and reading old cases, threads and discussions. Your way of framing things is ... "peculiar", to be put it nicely. Anyway - general point stands; if you don't want to interact with Mathsci, why pick fights with him? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
 * Note to Clerk: This request, having been withdrawn by the filing party, can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My first thought is to direct the parties (and Captain Occam) to not comment on each other until at least the AE request is worked out. I do have doubts that Captain Occam can be truly described as uninvolved in this situation, and I hope whatever administrator actions the AE request takes that into account when actioning the request. SirFozzie (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the filing party has withdrawn the request for clarification. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 03:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping (September 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Colincbn (talk) at 05:00, 23 August 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 colincbn
I request clarification of Remedies 4) Article and subject scope. Specifically: "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area."

In practice this is being taken to mean that the Topic Banned parties are able to comment on any RfM, any RfC, or any other new topic as it comes up. In effect not just putting forth their proposals at the beginning of the discussion but their views on the proposals of others. Also Blackash is being asked "direct questions" on her views of the posts of others by a new SPA, thereby allowing her to make her case in response without Slowart being given the same courtesy.

I have noted that in the above ruling it clearly states "allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion". These comments are not proposals, they are not background rational for their proposals, and they are not being made at the commencement of the discussion (note there is a section specifically set aside for this purpose that they have opted not to use).

Also the statement: "This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area." seems to rule out Sydney Bluegum as he is not an expert nor has he, or anyone else, ever claimed he is.

I do not think this was the original intended outcome of this ruling, but if it is I am more than happy to stand by that ruling if it is made clear. Colincbn (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Elonka's statement below is an accurate and concise assessment of the situation. Colincbn (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @Jclemens I would then request the ruling is amended to say:
 * "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, to participate in all RfMs, RfCs, or other threads related to the topic, and to answer any queries addressed to them, so long as they keep their posts to 500 words or less. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area. "
 * This would be an accurate description of the current situation, and I would no longer have any issues with its interpretation (the lined out section is simply intended to note that it should be struck, I would not expect that section to actually remain lined out). Not amending this section simply means the ruling, as it stands now, is being ignored. I honestly don't have any problem with the current state of the page, just that the ArbCom ruling specifically spells out what is to happen, yet that is not what is happening. Colincbn (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the only way we can know your desired result is if you tell us what it is. If the current situation is in fact the desired result the wording should be modified to show that. Colincbn (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So far all the arbitrators who have commented here have agreed with the current implementation, I have no problem with that. However I hope you will amend Remedy 4) Article and subject scope to be an accurate reflection of this position. I think the wording suggested above is appropriate. Currently the remedy is worded much more strictly than it is being interpreted as. Colincbn (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka
Colincbn is in disagreement with how the ArbCom ruling is being interpreted. As an uninvolved administrator monitoring the article, I have interpreted the Article and subject scope remedy as meaning that Slowart, Sydney Bluegum, and Blackash are banned from discussing the naming issue, but are each allowed to make a single statement in those discussions, and then reply to specific queries. As such, when a Requested Move was filed, I allowed each of the three banned editors to make one statement, no more than 500 words, and am allowing them to reply to specific questions. Colincbn, however, disagrees strongly, and is of the opinion that this is not what ArbCom intended, and that the three banned editors should have been limited to participating in the RfC, but not in the RM. There have also been concerns expressed by some of the editors on the page that Sydney Bluegum is a SPA, and should not be allowed to participate at all. A further concern is that one of the editors, is a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet and should therefore be banned from the discussion. However, multiple checkuser requests have been filed, and though there is a possible connection since the account is in the same city as Sydney Bluegum, the account is using a different ISP/computer. I have been monitoring ?oygul's behavior closely, and issued a couple warnings, but ?oygul has been adapting to requests so I have not seen a ban as necessary. It is my opinion that I am interpreting the existing ArbCom ruling correctly, that the discussions on the talkpage are moving slowly forward in a mostly productive manner, and that once the RM is allowed to reach its natural conclusion in a few days, that things should simmer down. Of course, if ArbCom would like to modify the case remedies, I will adapt my monitoring to match. --Elonka 06:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of clarification: Regarding Martin Hogbin's diff of Blackash's comment, I am in agreement that Blackash's language was not appropriate. However, I would also point out that I contacted Blackash with my concerns, and she voluntarily edited her post within the hour, to more appropriate language. So the version that Martin diffed, is not the one that is currently on the live page. Which doesn't mean that Blackash's initial comment was okay, but it does mean that the banned editors appear to be responding fairly well to the ArbCom-authorized administrative supervision. I, as monitoring administrator, have only needed to offer some general nudges and cautions, and no additional bans or blocks have been required so far. --Elonka 18:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Martin Hogbin
I support Elonka's concerns about ?oygul. There does seem to be an element of gaming the system in which ?oygul allows Blackash to continue her business and personal rivalry with Slowart by asking her specific questions, thus giving her the right to respond. This is not conducive to a rational discussion, neither do I think it is what Arbcom had in mind when they allowed the banned editors to respond to questions because of 'their experience and familiarity with the area'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens:I think that the comments of Blackash have disrupted the encyclopedia-building process by once again focusing on personal and business rivalry rather than what reliable sources say. Blackash's latest response  shows what she thinks other practitioners of the art think about the name of the art, to the detriment of her personal and business rival Slowart.  Discussion should not be about this but about what reliable sources say about the name. That discussion has already taken place and there is strong agreement amongst both regular and uninvolved editors that the sources support 'arborsculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of my diff was not to complain about the language used but to point out that Blackash's comment was simply her opinion on what other practitioners thought. We do not base decisions in WP on what one person thinks another thinks, we base them on what reliable sources say. The problem with allowing this kind of input, especially from a banned editor, is that it disrupts proper discussion on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Blackash
I believe Elonka's interpretation of Remedy 4) seems to working. Blackash   have a chat  00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC) In reply to Martin's comments above.
 * Please note ?oygul asked Slowart a question first then when Slowart wouldn't answer, ?oygul then rephrased it to Slowartdiff. After no reply for a few days, ?oygul then asked me diff. This lead to Colincbn asking for clarification here.
 * Please note in my comment that Martin refers to I address the references first and what is said in them. diff Then I give my knowledge about the different practitioners, and whats is happening in the art, which is why I'm allow to comment.
 * I'm going to try and point out Martin's inconsistency please note that and not the topic.
 * Martin has repeatedly stated at Tree shaping he only cares about policy. It appears to me he is not just here for wikipedia policy. Example:
 * If the word arborsculpture was independent of Slowart, what anyone says about it wouldn't matter. Yet here is Martin concerned about "the detriment of ... Slowart". Shows he knows that arborsculpture is not independent of Slowart. To use this word as the title would go against the core policy of neutrality.  Martin has consistently ignored or dismissed this policy when it is point to.  Blackash   have a chat  00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Slowart
As long as Elonka keeps a close watch on the potential trouble makers (myself included)and is not shy about editing (as done) and blocking if needed, I trust the participating editors will embrace the spirit of, if the letter of the ban. Sometimes a little controlled venting let's the pressure off. Slowart (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I see nothing objectively unreasonable in Elonka's interpretation. The point of the remedy was to tone things down so that discussion could continue, without silencing these editors entirely.  I'd be interested in hearing if and how the participation that has been allowed has disrupted the encyclopedia-building process and has therefore failed to achieve our desired result. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Elonka's interpretation of the remedy is eminently reasonable and in line with the committee's intent. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On balance I agree with Elonka. The remedy's aim was to prevent good-faith comments from being squelched but cut down on opportunities for disruption, and keeping discussions of the involved editors short and succint seems to be the best interpretation of that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Elonka is implementing the remedy in the way that I anticipated when I first wrote it - the editors concerned had their opportunity to put their view, but every discussion did not degenerate into walls of text. I note that a RM was submitted recently, and turned down by Silk Tork on the grounds that it was premature, which I think it was, but I thought that on the whole the discussion was proceeding productively.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Further to this, Blackash has asked if she can post a response to Martin Hogbin above. This would be acceptable under the terms of the remedy as intended. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks as though this is being interpreted in the manner intended. Risker (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Ryulong (September 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  — Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) at 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Finding 20: Ryulong discussing the identity of Mythdon
 * 2) Remedy 3a: Ryulong admonished...
 * 3) Enforcement 2: Ryulong and users' identity seeking


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

Amendment 1
I would like these three aspects concerning the seeking of real life identities to be removed entirely from my injunction as they are in no way relevant to what had happened.

Statement by Ryulong
It has been two years since the injunctions against me were filed and these related entries are the ones I still have issues with. As I stated in my original whatever it was that the now banned user Mythdon was the instigator in this supposed "real life identity" searching. Prior to the ArbCom case, Mythdon went out of his way to bother me on my YouTube channel. I still have the incoming and outgoing messages Mythdon sent me via YouTube, asking if the YouTube user Ryulong was in fact me (which it is). The only thing I provided to MBisanz was a link to the profile Mythdon was using which happened to include his age at the time. I have never gone out of my way to seek out the real life identity of anyone, including Mythdon, and I find that these particular findings and injunctions against me are overly unnecessary and they make it appear I had done something which I never did. If necessary, I can provide the messages received through YouTube from 2008 in which Mythdon continued his harassment off site, unprovoked.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: Jclemens: The arbitration was brought up to me recently and I saw these entries and it reminded me that I do not agree with the fact that they were ever made in the first place.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:58, 16 August 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

 * So you want us to go back two years to right wrongs that you believe were visited upon you then. Why now? Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out this thread; I've not had a chance to review it or the above. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 03:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Above thread was archived here with no action taken. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to lift here, other than the fact that Ryulong disagrees with them, some time after they were originally placed. We're not going to change history here. SirFozzie (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with SirFozzie; this is just disputing the historical arbitration findings. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is useful or necessary to revise a past case in this manner unless it is to amend an active restriction that has a significant undesirable effect. Whether those findings were correct or not at the time they were made (and I`ve no intention of second guessing the arbitrators that were active on that case here and now), there is no point in editorializing on them today.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree more or less with Coren on this. Risker (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As per Coren, Risker. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (September 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! at 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Case affected : Date delinking


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 16) Ohconfucius topic banned
 * 2) Remedy 18) (as amended) Ohconfucius accounts


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

Amendment 1

 * Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
 * 16): "Ohconfucius is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions."
 * 18) "Ohconfucius is limited to using only the account 'Ohconfucius' to edit. He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group."
 * Details of desired modification: Termination of both the above clauses.

Statement by Ohconfucius
This week marks the second anniversary of the conclusion of the case, and six months since the remedies imposed on me were last amended. In the six months since the amendment, there have not been any issues arising from date linking, nor any drama involving same, with or without me. Although one might say that the remedies no longer have practical effect, I am seeking to having all remaining restrictions lifted. Call it housekeeping if you will. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to Xeno
 * I have stated above that I consider this purely housekeeping. These days, there is no disagreement that can be cited on issue of whether or not to link dates. The issue is closed as far as MOSNUM is concerned, and I do not foresee having anything more to add to the discussion there. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to Jclemens
 * The date-linking issue is dead. It is universally accepted that dates ought not to be linked. Terminating the two remaining remedies imposed upon me would technically allow me to operate alternative accounts from now on. I would state that I have no intention of doing so for the time being. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Dates case has taught me a lot, and I can assure you that I don't take the issues of automated editing lightly. While the community has endorsed the termination of date-autoformatting, and much more selective use of date-fragment linking, these aspects are a minor part of my editing. I can only reiterate that my interaction with editors, particularly those who query my edits, is now strong and I make a positive effort every day to improve on it. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Response to Carcharoth
 * Carcharoth and I been in a dialogue since the closure of the case, and I seriously take on board what he says. I also have little desire to see a re-run of the date-delinking case, and would certainly consider having more centralised (as opposed to local) discussions. A separate account for script edits will be considered once that option becomes available to me. Although I am now allowed to use the MOSNUM Bot account, I do not currently do so as the nature of semi-automated editing is quite different from bot actions. It's certainly a good suggestion to slow down: I do often take breaks by rotating the various types of work I undertake within WP, and will continue to do so. I would however, address particular comments of Carcharoth that could be misconstrued. First, there exists, IMHO, a healthy tension at the many MoS and TITLE talk pages; far better that issues be worked through in those more 'exposed' places, than at isolated article talk pages where revert-wars are much more likely. I believe it's all too easy to dwell on the negative – the tensions among editors playing out on its talk pages – and overlook the stability of the MoS over the past few years. The exchange of views and tensions are natural and healthy (so long as they remain civil), and I would genuinely welcome a wider participation in the formulation of style guidelines. The ensuing rules must be clear and consistent. Truth is that even animated discussions fail to get consensus for change; it is hard to find evidence that style and running bots/scripts are part of a connected agenda by anyone there. Things just do not work this cart-before-horse way: "...develops a consensus about a particular aspect of style that is amenable to being worked on with a script or bot". Third, style guides, like pillars and policies, are indeed a belief system on a wiki if they are to have an effect or function; but they take their place in the hierarchy.  My personal "belief" is always within the context of the WP environment. My statement is, no more and no less, part of my effort to communicate with those who may have questions on what I do – many editors state on their userpages what they do and the rationale behind it in very similar terms. I regret the fait accompli apparently communicated. I stated: "However, the time and my skill-set is not yet ripe" – this was not quoted. I accept that I don't have more rights over other editors; my "weight" is because of what I do and how I do it. I try to be responsive and to queries and suggestions, and I believe that my talk page comments reflect this care. As to the 'project' of tagging articles for dmy and mdy dates, I am one user. There are some who use my scripts or variants thereof; there are others who tag independently; I do not know who these all are. As to my 'bot', perhaps I should have also linked to my failed bot application as a reference point. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Failed bot request is here. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pursuant to the second comment, I have simplified my own project page; I am in the process of upgrading the scope and status of Date formattings. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 05:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Response to Risker
 * I regret some of my actions which might have given the impression that I have shown "tendentiousness on the topic of dates". I realise automated editing carries responsbiilities beyond that of normal editing. I do try hard to be responsive to the advice of other editors, and to avoid being drawn into destructive adversarial spirals. As can be seen from the exchanges on my talk page, I act immediately to correct mistakes when these are pointed out to me. I will take steps to improve my diplomacy, and my editing skills, whether manual or semi-automated; I will exercise greater care in selecting articles to process and adjusting the script from time to time. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Gimmetoo
Ohconfucius is still actively making controversial date-related edits. A well-attended RfC found no consensus to remove yyyy-mm-dd formatted dates from WP, in particular from the references. Ohconfucious nevertheless has been using a script which routinely removes that format from the references, in violation of WP:DATERET, even when an article is already consistently using one format or a style is clearly present. (A few recent examples:   .) Ohconfucius has been asked to stop many times; these scripted edits are producing a Fait accompli. This behaviour has led to ANI threads [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive676#Ohconfucius.2C_MOSNUM_edit_warring_.2F_ARBCOM_Date_delinking_case_revisited. 1 March] 14 May, 30 June and 13 August that I know of. (I started the last one.) Ohconfucious is editing against consensus expressed in the RfC and the current MOSDATE guideline. If anything is to be amended in the past decision, it should be to clearly apply it to date formats so that this behaviour can be addressed at WP:AE. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth
I've been looking into some of the background to this, and I think Ohconfucius should have been clearer about what his plans are. I went and looked at his talk page and some of the script-editing relating to date format has already resulted in the following queries made. Some of those problems were easily fixed, by the looks of it (but surely should have been detected in test runs before live editing?), while others look harder to avoid (date formats in image titles has come up twice already). Please read Ohconfucius's talk page to get a feel for how such problems are addressed. My concern here, though, is what Ohconfucius said here, which is worth reading in full. The parts I want to quote here are: The points to note are the ambition to bring all Wikipedia articles into line with this part of the Manual of Style (this could be construed as an attempt at a fait accompli), and the stated intention to develop this into something that can be done by a bot (my view is that this should be done on separate accounts, hence the restriction on the main account being used like a bot should remain). I think Ohconfucius should have stated here his intention to develop a bot for this and linked to his 'project' page to make clearer what his plans are. I should disclose that I have disagreed with Ohconfucius in the past on the issue of script-editing, and have recently been discussing the issue of the Manual of Style, and the way it or those editing to bring articles into line with the MoS, can sometimes lead to friction (see User talk:Noetica). What I said there was that I am concerned that some see the MoS as a 'belief system' (see User:Ohconfucius/script, which starts out with a 'Mission statement' that says "I believe in Wikipedia's Manual of Style"). My other concern is that mass editing with scripts and bots, especially where the MoS is concerned, can destabilise things across Wikipedia as a critical mass of editors previously unaware of the issue of the day get drawn into arguing about it when they see various bot or script edits on their watchlist. The general development of MoS disputes (only some issues seem to develop into disputes for some reason) seems to go like this: If the restrictions are lifted, my advice would be for Ohconfucius to take things very slowly, as any mass editing leading to another Wikipedia-wide dispute like the date-delinking case would not be a good outcome. I would suggest a separate account at the very least, more centralised discussions, and work done systematically by a team rather than single editors using scripts. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Since starting to use scripts to automate the process, I always had the intention in the back of my mind to create a bot that crawls its way systematically through all wikipedia articles using categories. I created the templates as markers of the passage of the script (and ultimately the intended bot), making the updating schedule possible."
 * "So far, over 125,000 articles have been tagged by the script for dmy dates, and nearly 12,000 articles tagged for mdy dates. You may find more details of my project at User:Ohconfucius/script."
 * (1) Discussion among a relatively small group of editors at a Manual of Style page develops a consensus about a particular aspect of style that is amenable to being worked on with a script or bot. The number of editors participating in any such discussion is nearly always far smaller than the number of editors that eventually see such edits being made.
 * (2) Someone writes a script or bot and (sometimes with other editors helping) proceeds to audit (or re-audit if this is a change from a previous change) all Wikipedia articles to make any changes necessary.
 * (3) Sometimes resistance, mistakes, or misunderstandings result and further discussion ensues.
 * (4) If the resulting discussions go poorly, an escalating dispute can result, with more and more editors drawn in due to the wide number of pages affected.
 * A couple more suggestions (not strictly related to the amendment request, but I'll put them here anyway). Would it not be better for MOS-related projects such as this to be in some Wikipedia namespace page, rather than personal projects run from the userspace of an editor, with an unknown number of other editors taking up and using scripts maintained by such editors? I had wanted to comment on the discussion page attached to Ohconfucius's 'project' page, but it just redirected to his user talk page. An example of a MOS-related userspace page that does have an attached discussion page is this one and another one is this one (those are more essays than projects, and relate more to the philosophy behind scripts to reduce overlinking rather than anything to do with date formats). There are various other userspace MOS-related pages knocking around, but my point here is that the boundaries between personal projects and essays and Wikipedia-wide MOS scripts, bots and projects seems to be easily blurred. About the failed bot request, I vaguely remember that but had forgotten it. I'm sure the arbitrators can find that if they need to do so, or you could provide the link. Carcharoth (talk) 13:22, 29 August 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.}

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting further statements. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Question for Ohconfucius: Do you anticipate returning to participating in editing "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions", or is this strictly a matter of housekeeping? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Based upon Ohconfucius' response to my/Jclemens' question, I agree with F&F below that a lifting of restrictions (with the standard expectations & retention of jurisdiction) does not seem unreasonable at this late stage. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 03:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Striking my comment pending further review, as I've just been pointed to a somewhat related thread elsewhere that I won't have time to look at until later. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 03:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Still reviewing, but unstruck - I do note that the now-archvived thread is about date formatting, a slightly-different (but closely-related) bird. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 02:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The last time we lifted sanctions on an editor sanctioned under this case, I regretted it, because the future behavior in the area was problematic. Would you care to explain to the committee how your case might be different? Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Waiting for more statements if any, but my first thoughts are that lifting it wouldn't be that big a deal (of course, if there was a revert to previous behavior, we could quickly reapply) SirFozzie (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support a removal of restrictions given that they can be swiftly reapplied if it is necessary, as Fozzie points out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike some of my colleagues, I see the date modifications that OhConfucius is currently doing as essentially the same behaviour for which he was sanctioned in the past, and think that this should be going in the opposite direction. Risker (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Motion
Remedies 16 and 18 (as amended) of the Date delinking case are terminated, effective immediately. Ohconfucius is reminded that this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, and that he is expected to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines, especially those concerning the editing and discussion of policies and guidelines, and the use of alternate accounts.

For this motion, there are 15 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive and 1 who is recused, so 8 support votes are a majority.


 * Support
 * Proposed. Seems to be reasonable housekeeping, and can be brought back if any issues reoccur. Copyedits welcome. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indent support. I initially proposed this prior to their being any views critical of the requested amendment. I may reinstate this, but I want to take another look at it and (given renewed activity in voting), would like to see if any of the other arbitrators active on this motion have further insight. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the arbitrator comments on the request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaving this vote here for now, but I'd appreciate Ohconfucius's responding to the concern raised below by Risker. The Clerks should please not close this motion for a couple of days (even if it is passing numerically) until we can receive and evaluate Ohconfucius's response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the restriction has served its purpose and is, indeed, no longer required. &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This vote stands, but I would like to remind Ohconfucius that the bot policy requires that the task he proposes to do be done with a separate, approved bot account – if at all. Please make extra-double-crispy sure that you have broad consensus before doing mass changes, and be ready to backpedal if you encounter resistance.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I forgot I recused on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only echo Coren's views. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Per my comments above: I see this current bot-editing by OhConfucius as being nearly identical to the behaviour for which he was initially sanctioned (i.e., using bot editing to impose his own preference, regardless of the wording of the MOS guideline). Risker (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose remedy 18 could have relevance to this (if he started using an alternate, non-bot account, to change date formats - note that we already removed the restriction from his using automation ), but how does remedy 16 apply to his activities as regards date formatting? (i.e. not date delinking?) – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  18:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my request to Ohconfucius in the support section above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that Ohconfucius has returned to the behaviour that led to finding #26 in the case, and which in turn led to other sanctions. This tendentiousness on the topic of dates is precisely what led to the Date delinking case, although Ohconfucius was not alone in his tendentiousness. I don't want to see a repeat of this behaviour (after having read the entirety of the previous case, which was half as long as War and Peace), do not want to see another case on this topic area, and lifting a sanction related to this case when the editor appears to be returning to the initially problematic behaviours does not seem indicated. Risker (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While I wasn't going to oppose if I was the only one with concerns here, I echo Risker's rationale. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Risker here. With apologies to the bot-runners among us, I feel it almost needs a higher standard among those who want to use scripts, bots etc, because they can do enormous amounts of problematic edits, and frequently seem not to realise what the problem is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are issues concerning Onconfucius and mass edits related to date formats (and there may well be), I would prefer to see those concerns brought directly rather than trying to address it in what is now a fairly historical case. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 00:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. His response seems to be "the community has now endorsed what I was sanctioned for doing before, so I should be free to do it now without restriction"--or at least take that sort of a tone.  That is precisely the sort of editor we don't want running bots.  Bot-runners and AWB users should be biased towards implementing consensus rather than modifying it.  The vast majority of bot operators cause no problems whatsoever, but those who do have demonstrated a disproportionate effect on the harmony of the community. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As per what Jclemens said right above. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * per Jclemens. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments

Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Transcendental Meditation movement (September 2011)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) at 19:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Due to concern regarding real life identify users in question not provided.

Statement by Doc James
In the TM case we passed a number of previsions including one pertaining to WP:COI It states that editor which "have only an indirect relationship" may continue to edit. What about editors who are members of the public relations department of the Transcendental Meditation movement? Are they too allowed to continue editing or should their editing ability be restricted? Would stipulate the specifics off Wiki due concerns of releasing peoples identify if this is indeed a concern.

Statement by Tony Sidaway
Risker writes: "those who have a personal belief system that is in direct conflict with the philosophies of Transcendental Meditation (or for that matter, any other belief system) must also bear in mind their own potential conflict of interest and edit neutrally or not at all."

Belief systems and religions have the distinguishing quality of belief. Anybody who doesn't belong to the in-group (Socialists, Objectivists, Zoroastrians, Christians, TMers, Quakers, Raelians, Atheists, or whatever) is in direct conflict with the belief system. However normally we tend think of those outsiders as having a better chance of writing objectively about the belief system than the believers. I think this is probably a good idea. --TS 01:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The principle you reference says that "an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies" - so it really depends on the edits themselves. If you think an editor who may have a conflict of interests is not observing relevant site policy/guidelines with their editing, then you should engage the discretionary sanctions provided for in the remedies by seeking enforcement at WP:AE. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What Xeno said. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Xeno, although I would add that the first step might be to discuss your concern directly with the editor in question himself or herself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Xeno and Newyorkbrad. Keep in mind the converse is also true; those who have a personal belief system that is in direct conflict with the philosophies of Transcendental Meditation (or for that matter, any other belief system) must also bear in mind their own potential conflict of interest and edit neutrally or not at all. Risker (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I too concur with Xeno and Newyorkbrad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There has never been an outright prohibition against conflicts of interest on Wikipedia (for many reasons, not the least of which is the inability to properly define "conflict of interest" in the first place). What COI entails, however, is a higher risk that one's editing unwittingly strays into being tendentious or otherwise problematic.  This is why editors in a plausible conflict are counseled to propose edits to talk pages to raise consensus: it's insurance.  Ultimately, however, it's the quality of the edits that count.  If the pope edited the articles on Christianity while remaining rigorously neutral, then few people would find cause to argue.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with those who have spoken before me SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)