Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 60

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (Rich Farmbrough) (May 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 2


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1
Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so. Rich to be allowed to use his talk page archiving task. Femto Bot task 2.
 * Append:

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Note: Editors who have gathered that I am a loose cannon, may be interested to note that the BRFA for this task was almost turned down, since no BRFA is generally needed. However I preferred to have written authorisation. Much good it did me. Rich Farmbrough, 00:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

@ AGK. Not so, Misabot does not archive on request, but by date. Moreover it does not allow archiving to different destinations. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Hammersoft
Right. Rich is trusted enough to be an editor here, but he's not trusted enough to have a bot that does nothing but edit in his own userspace. From Bot policy, "any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user page, user talk page, and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval." Any bot that he would run in his own userspace would affect only him, and not the project, unless someone wants to speculatively claim Rich is going to launch a DOS attack. Alternatively, you could speculate that if he's permitted to run a bot in his userspace, he'd maliciously set it free to attack the encyclopedia. If he was planning to do that, he wouldn't be asking permission to let the bot run in his userspace. Wow. The enormous lack of assumption of good faith, combined with the undermining of Bot policy is stunning. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by CBM

 * It has to be asked: why aren't the existing archive bots that everyone else uses good enough? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not have to be asked. Moreover it does not have to be asked by you, you could have bitten your tongue and walked away. That would have been a wise course of action. Rich Farmbrough, 11:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Sladen
An offer has now been made by User:28bytes to run the archiving task, if Rich provides the source code/accepts the offer. —Sladen (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and arbitrator discussion

 * Decline.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An archival service like MiszaBot will be adequate. AGK  [•] 10:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline  Roger Davies  talk 11:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline as existing tools will suffice SirFozzie (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline per above. Courcelles 03:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline. Risker (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline no need for his own bot for that purpose, anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the request here is that Rich Farmbrough be allowed to use his own talkpage-archiving bot on his own talkpage only, then unless there is some complication I am missing, my vote would be to permit him to do so, on a theory of "what harm could it do?" It is obvious, however, that the arbitrator consensus is the other way, and I defer to it, especially since these are the arbitrators who participated in the voting phase of the recent case, during which I was unexpectedly inactive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline And this can be archived now with an absolute majority of arbitrators declining. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: R&I review (Mathsci) (May 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Mathsci (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct in respect of editors he perceives as ideological opponents."
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested

to be amended to:

"Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and battleground conduct towards editors whom he perceives as being engaged in proxy editing"

(or any minor variant containing the phrase "proxy editing").


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Statement by Mathsci
This proposal is a minor change, resulting from a very late change in the emphasis of the R&I review. Tabling a request for amendment of this kind was suggested to me by the drafting arbitrator, Roger Davies. Although my intention is to stay away from matters connected with WP:ARBR&I, this rewording would prevent any possible misunderstandings concerning any possible future reports of sockpuppets (or, in circumstances which I think now would be very rare, proxy-editing). At the time the case closed, this FoF did not look likely to pass. I had already recorded my uneasiness with use of the wording "perceived ideological opponents" a while back. The new findings on proxy editing changed in a radical way the emphasis of the case and my actions or reactions under consideration in this review should probably be considered within that context. The proposed rephrasing accurately reflects what happened since December 2010 and takes into account the views expressed in the three oppose votes (I note that Newyorkbrad has not been available for comment on wikipedia for some time now).

In slightly more detail: On 6 May 2012, while I was occupied in professional matters in the USA (which continued until my return to France on 12 May 2012), the thrust of this review changed radically: new findings and remedies were added supporting a long-standing charge of proxy-editing, which Shell Kinney had suggested from long back. Aside from my evidence in this review based on on-wiki conduct in October-November 2010, on 26 November 2010 and 30 November 2010 I passed on evidence in private to Shell Kinney which unequivocally confirmed SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 as proxy-editors. With my permission, she passed that evidence on to arbcom. Having contacted Captain Occam, she later commented on this proxy-editing on wikipedia, as reported in my evidence. Almost 18 months later, following further edits in the topic area by SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2, arbcom once again examined this so-far unresolved issue. They confirmed Shell Kinney's conclusions, but this time, instead of contacting Captain Occam, they conferred directly with Ferahgo the Assassin. She supplied relevant off-wiki information. These new developments fundamentally changed the direction of this case, in line with the evidence I had presented. That in turn forcably affected the previously posted findings and remedies. As I have written to Roger Davies in private, this is a grey area. There are few precedents and my own unwillingness to let the matter drop, knowing about the unambiguous off-wiki evidence, could be taken as either a vice or a virtue. That is reflected in the modified statement above. In the end I acknowledge my persistance here. I also very much appreciate that arbitrators came round to this particularly tough decision in what were very difficult circumstances—very much untrodden ground. Their decision provides a useful precedent and hopefully also a guide for the future. Mathsci (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: That change would also be OK, although, as others have written, it still omits the context. At this stage I hope that the opinions of those arbitrators active on the review that opposed the finding, particularly Newyorkbrad, can be heard, even if that means waiting one month.

@ Jclemens: The identification of SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 was not guess work. It was confirmed by Shell Kinney and all the on-wiki and off-wiki evidence passed on to the arbitration committee. It was not very different from what arbcom has looked at second time round with their off-wiki investigations. Shell Kinney described the first round findings on wikipedia in December 2010. (She already said some time back that her correspondence with me could be passed on to the arbitration committee: arbitrators will have already seen an excerpt from an email from September 2011.) Shell Kinney thanked me several times for my help in working out what was going on and she had no doubts about the identification. At no stage did she make any suggestion that my help might be motivated by some kind of ideological differences. Is Jclemens sugesting that now? The two people who have made outspoken statements of that nature, on-wiki and even more vociferously off-wiki, have been Occam and Ferahgo. In the last diff Occam refers to "the root problem of Mathsci’s behavior towards everyone he hates" and wrote that "Mathsci is always going to be up someone’s ass". My editing history does not show any ideological stance. It shows that I approach proxy-editing no differently from sockpuppetry. It just happens to involve more people and be several orders of magnitude harder to fathom. Many times it relies on on-wiki mistakes. Neither type of editing is permitted on wikipedia. I hope that as Shell Kinney did, arbitrators will use that as their frame of reference. Proxy-editing is almost invariably reported in private. My email correspondece with Shell Kinney started in mid-October 2010 when I pointed out to her to the anomolous editing of SightWathcer and Woodsrock and suggested possible sockpuppetry. Shell Kinney had already independently run a checkuser on the two accounts, so had already ruled out sockpuppetry at an early stage. SightWatcher was identified a month later because of logged-off edits from Houston, Texas, and because he added the same information on films to his WP user page, his DeviantArt page and his amazon.com review page. Very recently he has started using his WP username elsewhere. TrevelyanL85A2 has written his real life name and AIM account on his wikipedia userpage. This mess was created by Occam and Ferahgo. I noticed it and reported it. No different from noticing and reporting the sockpuppetry of Mikemikev. If arbitrators want to use language that is neutral, they should take a refresher course in User:Newyorkbrad/Bradspeak. I don't think it is reasonable of Jclemens to make any comparisons between me and the DeviantArt tag team. They have indicated their own ideology, but I have said nothing either on-wiki or off-wiki. These are users who have been involved in a calculated act of deception. I have been involved in no such acts, either on-wiki or off-wiki, so please WP:AGF. Yes, I dispprove of their acts of deception, continuing even now through SightWatcher (see below). Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments on SightWatcher's sudden reappearance following Ferahgo's site ban
Re DeviantArt team: I am not sure any good faith can be directed towards SightWatcher. after months of silence he has now miraculously found his tongue and become the spokesperson on wikipedia for two site-banned users. If he persists in proxy-editing like this, employing the same loopholes and wikilawyering as Ferahgo and Occam to circumvent his topic ban, then probably the site-bans of Occam and Ferahgo should be extended coterminously to him. At no stage, in particular below, has he accepted any responsibility for his own role in this calculated long-term act of deception, which has wasted hours and hours of time.

SightWatcher's comments seem confused but seem to be his first public admission to arbitrators that he was involved in the off-wiki attack pages and fake account for Mathsci and Muntuwandi on FurAffinity. The fake account for me was registered on 26 November 2010, but unused until 1 April 2011. By a strange coincidence, his DeviantArt identity was discovered by me on exactly the same day and emailed to Shell Kinney. She graciously thanked me for that information and, having asked my permission, forwarded that message on to the arbitration committee. The event SightWatcher is referring to is the off-wiki joke/attack page on FurAffinity on 1 April 2011. He seems to be identifying himself as one of the perpetrators, unless I have misunderstood what he wrote. SightWatcher has evidently been in contact with Ferahgo, otherwise he would not know the about content of the single wikipedia email I sent her in May 2011. Is there any other vaguely plausible explanation? After all, according to SightWatcher's version of events, he only became aware of the discussions of his own proxy-editing very recently. That version of events is not credible at this juncture. My on-wiki evidence shows collusion with Ferahgo and Occam, that cannot be explained otherwise. Off-wiki evidence provided to Shell Kinney in November contradicts SightWatcher's version of events. His account adopts the same tone as Ferahgo's statements on-wiki and also in the small amount of private "evidence" that I was shown at an extremely late stage. The names of SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 have been mentioned in AE requests (January), requests for amendment (January-March) and on the evidence page of the review (since 25 March). Knowing that the arbitration committee is aware of his friendship with Ferahgo, does SightWatcher think it is reasonable to expect arbitrators to believe that he was unaware that his editing was being discussed? A more likely explanation is that Ferahgo preferred to be the sole spokesperson for the DeviantArt crowd while she still could, to maintain consistency. With SightWatcher's comments here, there is no longer any consistency. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Apart from acting as the mouthpiece of the site banned users Occam and Ferahgo, SightWatcher does not seem to be here to improve this encyclopedia. I have had almost five months of my time wasted because of behind-the-scenes lobbying and WP:gaming the system by Ferahgo. Her repeated claims that her real life has been affected were not accepted by the arbitration committee; after that disruption, where she acted as a proxy for the site banned user Occam, it will be a little while before I resume my normal editing patterns. In the most recent SignPost article, there are quotes from Roger Davies giving some indication as to what Ferahgo has been up to behind the scenes. SightWatcher's version of events here has serious inconsistencies and, because of the timing of his first appearance on wikipedia in October 2010—with all the views of Occam at his fingertips—and his miraculous reappearance on wikipedia, it has zero credibility. It is the same worn out old yarn that Ferahgo has been telling, namely that his real life has been affected in some way that he cannot quite articulate. The majority of arbitrators active on the review found that he had been involved in proxy editing with Occam, Ferahgo and TrevelyanL85A2. He seems to be denying that here. In view of the findings there seems to very little doubt that the detailed RfC/U on WeijiBaikeBianji that SightWatcher produced in one single edit in his userspace was prepared by Occam and Ferahgo. His postings here continue the pattern started by Occam (interrupting threads where he is not really concerned). I think, in the circumstances, there is very little doubt that he conferred off-wiki with Occam and Ferahgo before commenting here. That seems to have been the way edits were coordinated in the past. One of the arbitrators active on the case privately informed me that if there is continued harrassment by any of the DeviantArt team, as seems to be the case here, then that should be brought to the attention of the arbitration committee. Mathsci (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally SightWatcher's second of set of comments is a very good illustration of how a disruptive user, in this case SightWatcher, can misuse the FoF that is being discussed for possible amendment here. In addition, why does he talk about re-opening the case when, as stated in the original request, it was Roger Davies who suggested that I request an amendment in this way? Is that what Ferahgo told him to write? Why is he even bothering to comment here? Topic ban appeal is thataway, third door on the left. Please wait at least one year and knock before entering. Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Inactive arbitrators
Sir Fozzie was inactive during the case and. from what I can tell. he has not been following it. I understand that he has not been in the best of health and I sincerely hope that he is on his way to a full recovery. In the circumstances, however, it is not clear why he is commenting here.

Please could arbitrators wait for comments from arbitrators who have been active during the case, like Newyorkbrad. Knowing wikipedia, that will probably not happen overnight. During the review, as Roger Davies has explained, Ferahgo the Assassin was granted a large amount of latitude in presenting her case—far more than is usual given the circumstances. In the end it was not justified by the outcome. I saw only tiny snippets of her "evidence" and at a very late stage. For that reason, there seems to be no need to rush to a decision particularly before established arbitrators active on the case have had a chance to respond. Mathsci (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Boothello, also apparently a proxy-editor for Ferahgo the Assassin

 * Boothello/David.Kane has been warned on previous occasions that commenting here breaks the terms of his extended topic ban. Here is a previous warning he received from Aprock and pointedly ignored; and here is an explicit warning from Timotheus Canens about a similar intervention when he violated the terms of his topic ban. Boothello/David.Kane is under stringent arbcom restrictions; he is prohibited from commenting on wikipedia in matters related to WP:ARBR&I unless his own actions are being discussed. That is not the case here, where he has attempted to hijack this request for amendment. His latest request for a repoening of the review or a new case would appear to be similar to the disruptive conduct of Ferahgo immediately prior to her site ban. It is a stunt aimed at WP:gaming the system. Boothello could theoretically make a separate request for an arbitration case on the request page if he believes he has any new evidence or diffs to present. That would seem ill-advised given the nature of his current topic ban which resulted from "tendentious editing" and being a "single purpose account".  Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Update Boothello's insistance on a request for a new case, following the same lines as Occam and Ferahgo, seemed very fishy indeed. It made me look a little more closely into his edits, to compare his style with that of David.Kane. While puzzling over that, I discovered one diff by chance where a stray piece of text "ixerin:" had accidentally crept in. That stray text shows beyond any reasonable doubt that he was editing the article Race and intelligence and its talk page while communicating on his computer with Ferahgo the Assassin. I have passed on that information with a more detailed explanation by email to arbitrators. I was very surprised to find it, but it fits into the general picture of "calculated deception" which appears to have been taking place on a larger scale than first imagined. Whether or not Boothello might be a sockpuppet of David.Kane (still a possibility) seems irrelevant now that this new evidence has come to light. Mathsci (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Vecrumba and Biophys's grudges already dealt with in original case
The last case WP:ARBR&I has come and gone. Vecrumba started editing R&I during that case, so any discussion ended with the close of that case on 25 August 2010. If Vecrumba wants to re-submit evidence that he already presented during that case, he is two years too late. His friends Occam and Ferahgo proxy edited through at least three known accounts (SightWatcher, TrevelyanL85A2 and Boothello) and that seems not to have registered with him. Given the campaign of off-wiki coordination in WP:ARBR&I that has been finally acknowledged by the review coupled with Vecrumba's own prior involvement in other off-wiki coordination, the timing of his comments here is quite unfortunate in the circumstances. Whether prompted or not, Vecrumba's edits are hyperbolic drama-creating rhetoric after the review has closed and proxy editing has already been identified by evidence gathered by the arbitration commitee themselves. If he now has gripes about that, WP:VPN or WP:ACN are thataway. Mathsci (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now Vecrumba has to keep him company. Please could an arbcom clerk remove Biophys's trolling image? If they want to make experimental edits, please could they use a sandbox instead of this arbitration committee page? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin keeps changing his name, so it's hard to follow his edits. As Biophys he contributed 19 times to the talk page of the PD at WP:ARBR&I in July-August 2010, inserting himself into that case without any prior involvement, like Vecrumba. He commented on the talk page of R&I during the case, started editing other race-related articles and made some very late submissions to the evidence page, which he misused for airing his own personal point of view, after the PD had been posted. Mathsci (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by SightWatcher
Since this request mentions me by name, I hope it's okay that I comment. I've just noticed I'm topic banned now, and I don't understand why. I understand what the accusation is, what lead to it, and how it might be considered questionable, but directly I fail to see how I acted improperly. The arbitrators are right that I got involved in R&I articles because of a discussion in Ferahgo's blog, but she didn't ask me to. Silktork said here that there's nothing wrong with getting involved in Wikipedia because of a discussion somewhere else. I don't care about R&I anymore and haven't for several months, but as a matter of principles I believe that I shouldn't be punished if I didn't do anything wrong. Has anyone here even considered that I didn't want my friends and family to know I was editing R&I articles? I didn't want Ferahgo to know who I was, and I picked a name she wouldn't recognize. But when Mathsci figured out my off-wiki identity, he emailed Ferahgo about it right away! I stopped editing the articles after Ferahgo got suspicious about who I was and because I couldn't deal with the stresses of dealing with such a heated argument. But for more than a year after that, Mathsci kept talking about my off-wiki identity, without any thought about how it affects her friendship with me. It's bad enough that nobody thought I wouldn't want my friends and family to know I was involved here. But calling what I did "proxy editing" is just a terribly false accusation. Proxy editing would be if Ferahgo asked me to get involved and told me what to post. I chose to get involved, and all posts I made I did by my own choice. Mathsci it would seem can't tell the difference between proxy editing and what actually happened. I will not sit down and allow my integrity to be put under attack simply because of who I choose as my friends.-SightWatcher (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mathsci's trying to reopen all of these issues after the review is closed seems to show he hasn't changed his battleground attitude. I understand Mathsci was admonished because his dispute with Occam and Ferahgo got so personalized, and he spread it to other areas of the project after they left the R&I topic. His comments above suggest he's going to do this to me next. I don't want to have to leave the project to get away from him, but I also know I shouldn't try too hard to stop his behavior, because trying too hard is why Ferahgo and Occam got banned. Can arbitrators please give an opinion about how to deal with Mathsci's continued battleground behavior, after an admonishment wasn't enough to stop it?-SightWatcher (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Professor marginalia
Not again!!

SightWatcher was topic banned by arbcom, not by Mathsci. It is worth noting that SightWatcher's re-entry to the conflict piggy-backs Mathsci's seeking to reword his own sanction, and that SightWatcher framed his response as seeking remedy how to deal with "Matschi's continued battleground behavior". Here Mathsci's simply citing the arbcom findings to back his argument how his sanction should be worded. While SightWatcher's response seeks a return to Day One: "Make Mathsci keep his nose out of it and allow me and/or my proxy-of-the-week to return to R/I". This solution made little sense in the first arbcom go-round, and makes demonstrably less sense now.

If SightWatcher wishes to Amend his sanction, I believe it warrants a separate filing. But I think it's best for everybody involved (especially SightWatcher) to just move on. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Krod Mandoon-thanks for so beautifully demonstrating the fun and games genuine editors must field to endure here. Professor marginalia (talk)


 * Meet our latest clown puppet to fail hard. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Boothello
Why is the committee turning a blind eye to Mathsci's continued battleground behavior? He's just added over 2,000 words of text attacking other editors, including some of the arbitrators who aren't giving him what he wanted. After the review closed, he only stopped for long enough to make 3 inconsequential article edits before launching into this. It's abundantly clear that being admonished for his battleground behavior is causing more battleground behavior from him, not less of it.

This isn't only a nuisance, it also disrupts the functioning of the project. It means none of the editors he regards as adversaries can ever make a request related to R&I without the discussion being bogged down by Mathsci's walls of text. It means I can never appeal my topic ban unless I want to endure this again, and neither can anyone else. If you want to restore normalcy to the topic, or if you want to reduce the amount of drama plaguing every discussion about it, the problem is staring you right in the face.Boothello (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Re this: I want to point out that Mathsci has never made an SPI report about me. He eschews the proper channel for accusing me of being a sock, in favor of trying to prove it to other editors on various pages where I comment. This principle seems intended to address this behavior, but Mathsci is disregarding it. Less than a week after the end of the review, does arbcom intend to let him show he will continue all of the same behavior he was admonished for?Boothello (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the AE diff you posted, in lieu of starting an SPI you researched Ephery's real-life address and brought it up in public. And now, you continue linking to the comment where you did that to try and prove your accusation about me. Do you really still think there was nothing wrong with doing that?Boothello (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Request
If Mathsci's continued battleground behavior can't be addressed in this thread for procedural reasons, I'd like to request that another case or review be opened. If that also can't be done in this thread, I can make a separate arbitration request for it. Two factors have led this:

A: It's become increasingly clear since the review closed that arbcom's admonishment is not changing Mathsci's battleground behavior.

B: It's also clear this issue can't be handled by the community. If it could, it would have been addressed in any of the 20 or so AN/I reports about Mathsci since 2008 (not all of which involve race and intelligence).

I should point out that the whole time I've been registered at Wikipedia, Mathsci's battleground behavior towards me has made my involvement so frustrating, I no longer have any interest in staying part of the project if the problem isn't addressed. This is why I'm semi-retired now. So I'm not afraid of my own behavior being examined in a review. The best-case scenario is that the situation improves, while the worst-case scenario is that I have to leave the project, which is what I'd be doing anyway if the problem can't be resolved.Boothello (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

comment by Aprock
I can only highlight Boothello's statement above: "the whole time I've been registered at Wikipedia, Mathsci's battleground behavior towards me has made my involvement so frustrating". That a topic banned proxy editor finds enforcement "frustrating" is a good thing, and is evidence that wikipedia process is active. Suggesting that this frustration is due to the battleground activity of Mathsci and not the product of biased proxy editing is just another example of disruptive behavior. The idea that proxy editors (like Boothelo) are not the primary cause of disruption is ludicrous. Per the requested amendment, I support removing the word "ideological" from the sanction. Pursuing enforcement against proxy editors is not an ideological position. aprock (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba
When I first arrived at R&I, Mathsci assaulted me for no reason whatsoever. I can dig up the diffs. I see no reason to limit Mathsci's combativeness as applying only to perceived proxy accounts. Every editor Mathsci doesn't agree with is a proxy for some enemy editor. Just watching from the sidelines, I'm exhausted by Mathsci's endless conspiracy theories and attempts to turn R&I into a Mathsci police state. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes
Mathsci asks to amend decision that he "has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct", but unfortunately his amendment request has became just that. This reminds me famous Brer Rabbit. Everyone, do not do it please.My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Re. I never had (and still do not have) any grudges or disputes with Matschi. This Rabbit story is about many people here, including myself and Vecrumba, and I thought it would be helpful for everyone to think about this. I am sorry if it did not work. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Mathsci. Yes, I made this comment, but it had nothing to do with you. Yes, I tried to fix article Race (humans), but without any success, and this page still contains a number of truly wrong claims, e.g. that subspecies = biological races, or even more important, that certain basic concepts of population genetics are not applicable to humans. But I am not going to fix these problems because of the continuous battleground in this area. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2012 (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

 * I don't think that the difference is material enough to be worth changing. You believe them to have been engaged in proxy editing? Fine. They're also editors with whom you've disagreed.  The nuanced version that you prefer seems to enshrine your view of the facts in the committee's findings.  The intent of "ideological opponents" was to be neutral: they don't see things your way, nor your theirs, and we're not taking sides in the finding on who is right or who is wrong, in large part because the issue isn't about the disagreement, but the conduct surrounding it. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Substantially per Jclemens, though if there is consensus to modify this, I'd support it being cut right back to just read: "Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct"  Roger Davies  talk 06:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jclemens - this isn't a substantial enough change to be worthwhile. Otherwise, I'd be ok with Roger's suggested amendment. PhilKnight (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's minor quibbling (either change) and wouldn't be willing to support any change. SirFozzie (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Roger's suggested amendment which cuts to the essential point and avoids speculation regarding motive (which we can't really know, only attempt to surmise from the actions).  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was inactive on this case and will leave the decision to my colleagues. AGK  [•] 10:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Roger, that's likely the cleanest. Courcelles 03:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Amendments to the texts of decisions in closed matters should be reserved for substantial matters. This is probably borderline in terms of being a substantial matter, although I can understand the reasons for Mathsci's concern. Perhaps the version of the finding suggested by Roger Davies would make the most sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion (Mathsci amendment)

 * With Xeno and Hersfold inactive, AGK inactive on this case, and Risker recused, that leaves 11 arbitrators. A majority is therefore six.  Roger Davies  talk


 * That FoF 2.5 in the Race and intelligence review be amended to read: Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct.


 * Support:
 * There seems to be sufficient general support above for this,  Roger Davies  talk 05:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 *  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting though, that this should be a very, very rare event, and requests for minor copyedits to FoF's should not become commonplacel the benefit will very quickly be drawfed by the time required. Courcelles 22:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While I both emphasize with SirFozzie and like the original wording for reasons I went into above, I am OK with modifying this per Roger's suggestion, since it seems to bother MathSci in a manner which was completely unintended by the original wording. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I find this version acceptable - it is perhaps better generally not to attribute motives to actions unless one can point to statements espousing those motives. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I don't think that the effort and time spent in changing this is worth it. SirFozzie (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I opposed the original finding, umm...not sure what to do with this really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I expect all that's necessary to participate in the vote is to decide if you like the modified wording better than the original wording--I wouldn't interpret a vote one way or the other as anything other than weighing the relative superiority between the two. You could also abstain. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (Nobody Ent) (May 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Nobody Ent at 15:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 2


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


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

Amendment 1
Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so. Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using AutoWikiBrowser and any custom automation he has created whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be AWB or custom automation shall be assumed to be so.
 * Change to:

Statement by Nobody Ent
Restriction as currently written is overly broad and vague and unnecessary to address the behaviors the community has found to be disruptive. What is "automation" in the context of a internet hosted web server? An absurd-for-explanatory-purposes example: the ping utility tells me that my client is currently using ip address 208.80.154.225 to access en.wikipedia.org, but I don't put that in my browser address bar because DNS automates the process of converting domain names to IPs. The case revolved around customization RF created himself, not standard tools many users use, such as spell check or twinkle. Even a template is a type of automation and is therefore included in the scope of the remedy as currently written.

@JClemens Committee member's interpretation of the current wording are inconsistent, , , and RF's rollback privilege has been removed by arbcom clerk  Nobody Ent 16:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC) ...and restored by arbcom member with their interpretation  Nobody Ent 19:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@AGK ya'll can talk about strawman all you want but the diffs above clearly indicate ArbCom has issued a remedy without the individual members actually knowing what it meant. Bureaucratic quibbling over whether this oversight should be pointed out to you via request for amendment, request for clarification, WT:ACN, trouts on all your userpages, email, IRC or smoke signals is contrary to the not pillar. It is ArbCom's responsibility to resolve disputes, not create them, and this ill conceived remedy is causing churn on the noticeboard, user talk, and AN. Nobody Ent 19:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, ain't worth the drama. Nobody Ent 00:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft
I don't think this request is a strawman at all. Already two arbitrators have felt that rollback could be reasonably concluded to be automation. Already arbitrators are disagreeing to the point of revoking/restoring his rollback rights because of this disagreement. The evidence here is already plain; if ArbCom can't figure out what automation is or is not, I dare say the community won't either. The restriction isn't so clear as Jclemens seems to think it is. There's apparently still uncertainty as to whether Twinkle or Huggle qualify as "automation". I have to agree with the filer of this request; the restriction as currently written is overly broad and vague. It can readily be used as a bludgeoning tool to generate an insane amount of drama. At a minimum, it should be modified such that any question regarding whether something is or is not automation should be addressed to ArbCom, and ArbCom required to respond via consensus before any block is applied for violation of that restriction. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sladen
Rather than ArbCom trying to decide "is Rollback automation?", it might be more useful if ArbCom simply decided is Rich allowed to use Rollback. This would solve the case-in-point, without getting side-tracked. —Sladen (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb
Back on the proposed decision talk page, I suggested this remedy instead. But it's been ignored. Maybe now it will get some attention:

"Rich Farmbrough is banned from mass editing regardless of the method, broadly construed, for a period of . That is, RF is banned from both running bots and from behaving like a WP:MEATBOT. This does not cover script-assisted vandal fighting (such as the use of rollback), neither should it prevent the use of assisted-editing to make improvements to specific articles, such as putting the finishing touch on an article after a rewrite/expansion, provided RF took part in the rewrite/expansion himself."

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Bolded the part that's actually important. Automation itself wasn't the problem. Mass-editing like a WP:MEATBOT was the problem. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Anomie
In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&diff=493409521&oldid=493405338 this edit], SilkTork stated "There are some that it would be highly unlikely would be a cause for concern if Rich used them (such as the one that with one click closes an AfD and does all the tedious stuff very efficiently)". I don't know whether Rich would do so, but it is certainly possible to use that script in a manner that would cause concern. Recall that recently retired in the face of accusations that he was closing so many deletion discussions so rapidly that he was not exercising due care in doing so.

I think the problem some have with Rich is that he obviously likes to make mass edits of various sorts, to the point where it seems he doesn't pay enough attention to whether the edits are needed or are being done right. The hope behind the automation ban, in my opinion, is that he will direct his skills to making a few quality edits rather than large numbers of sometimes-controversial edits, and possibly that he will use his technical skills to assist others who will be able to make assisted edits in a manner more in-line with community consensus (in this, though, I doubt any sanction would succeed; there are enough editors around who would be happy to boost their edit count by making questionable edits, and enough others who would be happy to be proxy for Rich if they thought they could get away with it).

This amendment is proposing change in exactly the wrong direction. Opening up the gigantic loophope that Rich could go back to his old tricks as long as he uses automation created by someone else is an awful idea. If you Rich supporters really want to do some good, let Rich decide what he wants to do and let him apply for amendments. Anomie⚔ 02:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
@Jclemens: That is a valuable clarification, thank you for that. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

@SilkTork: Since it was demonstrated neither that I was "not editing responsibly" nor concomitantly that "using automation either encouraged, caused or multiplied" the hypothetical, it is not surprising that this becomes ever more Kafkaesque. I prefer here Jclemens approach that at least addresses the myth, to the suggestion, however true, that I might be banned due to vexatious wiki-lawyering, and should edit accordingly. I have avoided the discussion about what does and does not constitute automation for two reasons, firstly it is facile per se, secondly it gives credence to the tottering edifice upon which the ruling is founded. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC).

@WohltemperteFuchs "it's best to simply put in place a clear restriction and then relax on a per-case basis afterwards" .. that's not really working too well right now. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I believe Headbomb's suggested change is a good idea, except that it should stop after the word "rollback". The remaining text might provide a potential loophole to justify editing behavior which the community has clearly had problems with. I see no need for the use of automated tool to put the finishing touches on articles, this can be done quite adequately by hand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I think that the repeated dramas surrounding user:Δ should illustrate to everybody why simple, bright line restrictions are preferable to loose ones that give scope for wikilawyering (regardless of who by).

In this specific case, it has been demonstrated that Rich has proven he cannot be trusted to use automated tools solely to the benefit of the project. Until such time that Rich regains the trust of the community (which will likely be several months at minimum and definitely not be until Rich demonstrates he understands why he lost it in the first place) I suggest that SilkTork's statement, "[N]o automated tools, and if in doubt if the tool is automated, then it should be regarded as automated.", is the one that will produce the least drama and thus be the best way forward.

As I see it there are only five possible ways forward, in decreasing order of my preference:
 * 1) Rich takes a step back, groks why he lost the communities trust, lives with and works within the restrictions for a while, then gradually returns to unrestricted editing.
 * 2) Rich continues to work within the restrictions without fully understanding why his actions led to them; the restrictions remain in place indefinitely.
 * 3) Rich retires from Wikipedia
 * 4) Rich breaches his restrictions and gets banned from Wikipedia.
 * 5) Rich (and/or advocates) wikilawyer around his restrictions causing significant drama until the community looses its patience and bans Rich (and possibly one or more of the advocates).

SilkTork's interpretation of the restriction is the one with the greatest chance of avoiding the least desirable outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Uzma Gamal
"Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so. ... Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked." Seems clear to me, particularly in view of Arbitrations findings of fact. If one click of a mouse or one press of the enter key on the keyboard results in two or more edits, that's automation. One click, one edit, is a manual edit and is not automation. There's no need to establish that one click resulted in two or more edits, the edits only need to reasonably appear to be automated for an admin to apply the Arbitration enforcement remedy. In other words, Rich no longer is entitled to benefits of Assume good faith when it comes to the appearance of his multiple edits. As a result, Rich Farmbrough, not the admin enforcing the Arbitration remedy, has the burden of proof and Rich Farmbrough's burden is to make sure that there is objective evidence of manual edits independent of Rich Farmbrough to avoid the Arbitration compelled assumption that his multiple edits are automated. Automation assisting a manual edit is not automation and if an admin knows Rich Farmbrough is using Twinkle, Huggle, Snuggle, or whatever to assist his one click, one edit, then a conclusion that such edits appear to be automated may not be reasonable. The Arbitration enforcement remedy is limited to blocking only, so revoking Rich Farmbrough's rollback rights is not an Arbitration enforcement remedy and not a basis to amend the arbitration remedies. The remedy is may be blocked, not must be blocked, so a decision on whether to block Rich Farmbrough for using MiszaBot, for example, to archive his talk page falls under the exercise of good admin judgment. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Beetstra 10:11, 23 May 2012: The remedy reads, "any edit s that reasonably appear," not "any edit that reasonably appears." Per the Arbitration remedy itself, the determination of whether Rich Farmbrough is using automation to make edits can be based on looking at two or more edits themselves without having to review the tool or draw a conclusion on the tool used to make those edits. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Beetstra 12:02, 23 May 2012: No, that's not right. It's a two part test, not a one part test. The admin first asks whether Rich Farmbrough's edit(s) is from a one click, more than one edit tool. If yes, automation. If no or unclear, then the admin asks whether Rich Farmbrough's edits reasonably appear to be automated. If no, then no. If yes, Arbitration requires the admin to assume that the edits are automated and act based on that. The Arbitration remedy is that the admin then may block Rich Farmbrough. If the admin doesn't think it warranted to block Rich Farmbrough, then they don't have to. If there still is confusion, the solution is not to make a different remedy for remedy 2), the solution merely is to add to the remedy, e.g., 2.1) Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using AutoWikiBrowser. Most people don't use AWB or their own bots, so other than the desyop, the outcome really isn't that onerous of remedy. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Beetstra
@Uzma Gamal: 'If one click of a mouse or one press of the enter key on the keyboard results in two or more edits, that's automation.' - so, using WP:AWB is not automation: one click, one edit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@Uzma Gamal 2: with AWB, you do multiple edit s - 2 clicks, 2 edits - 10 clicks, 10 edits - 5000 clicks, 5000 edits. They are all manual. According to your interpretation, the use of AWB would not be automation, yet, we are talking about Auto WikiBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I wonder what would happen if Rich would do one single edit with AWB. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * All parties are reminded to comment in their sections only. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is a strawman. We can deal with specific requests for clarification that pose real problems.  In the context of the case, automation is clearly intended to be that allowing an editor to modify multiple articles or other pages in rapid succession. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the content of the amendment request has been substantially expanded since it was initially posted, and my "strawman" comment applied to the less refined request. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Jclemens' first two sentences. AGK  [•] 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Uzma Gamal 10:44, 23 May 2012: I regret to say that I would find such an interpretation to be the most unadulterated wikilawyering, and I certainly think to refuse to consider for enforcement an automated edit because it was made singly would be to misjudge the purpose of the associated remedy. AGK  [•] 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be interested in an amendment to clarify "automation" as it is becoming a cause for concern that there is no consensus on the matter. I don't feel, though, that this amendment is helpful as the focus is too narrow. The concern regarding Rich is that he was not editing responsibly, and that using automation either encouraged, caused or multiplied the lack of responsibility. Principle 3 says "An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually." Any script or gadget or tool that makes a series of edits for the human, can be seen as automated. There are some that it would be highly unlikely would be a cause for concern if Rich used them (such as the one that with one click closes an AfD and does all the tedious stuff very efficiently), but I would say for the benefit of avoiding doubt, avoiding arguments, avoiding wikilayering, and avoiding having to ban Rich from the project, that we should have a simple and clear bright line - no automated tools, and if in doubt if the tool is automated, then it should be regarded as automated. My hope is that 12 months of unproblematic edits would lead to a lifting of the restriction.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Rich Farmbrough. It would be helpful if you acknowledged the concerns that people have about your editing, and gave some thought as to how you might address those concerns. You say above that it has not been demonstrated that you were not editing responsibly. It was found that you have two community restrictions on your editing -, and that you had violated those restrictions - .  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem at all with Headbomb's proposal and think it addresses the problem very well. If there's any support for this, I'll propose that text as a replacement,  Roger Davies  talk 11:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree with Roger, and would oppose that replacement. The need here is a total break from automation.  Finding of fact 3 in the case shows why any wiggle-room is a bad idea, and why, in my mind, the remedy had to be so broad. Courcelles 03:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aomie said it better than I did. There's no reason, like the recent Cirt/Jayren466 amendment, that for good cause, specific tasks can't be approved by motion down the line. Courcelles 03:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't consider Richrd Farmbrough's wording to be an improvement. On the other hand, I think Headbomb's wording is perhaps slightly better, and if this change is proposed, I'll support. PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't help but think that making a remedy talking about "mass editing" is going to cause anyhting else other than drama, due to large quanity of discussion about how many edits have to be made to qualify as "mass" editing. It would be good for us to make ..clearer.. what is and what isn't automation, but using terms like this introduces another term whose definition varies by the reader. Courcelles 03:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not finding any of the proposed rewordings to be better than the original, and the initial proposal actually misses the point. I am not prepared to consider a rewording unless there is evidence that Rich's edits are considered to cross the line.  Risker (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Risker that Headbomb's text offers a good attempt at a solution but it introduces its own problems. While I see vandal-fighting scripts and the like clearly different from automation in the sense of bot-assisted or batch actions, Courcelles makes a good point--based on the evidence in the case, it's best to simply put in place a clear restriction and then relax on a per-case basis afterwards. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting that the request has been withdrawn, so further action or discussion here is probably unnecessary. I am willing to consider concrete requests for clarification if uncertainties arise, but I think it would be useful for everyone to allow a bit more time to pass before raising such issues, and for Rich Farmbrough to focus on other aspects of the process that do not come close to the use of automation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: Scientology (Jayen466) (May 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   J N  466  10:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

 * Request lifting of Rick Ross topic ban ("Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.")

Statement by Jayen466
Since there is currently a fashion for this, I think I ought to apply myself. In the WP:ARBSCI case in 2009, almost exactly three years ago, I was placed under a topic ban "from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined". This was largely the result of concerns over my fall 2008 edit-warring at the Ross BLP with a Wikipedia admin (since desysopped, topic-banned and community-banned), and the BLP subject's personal objection to my editing his biography.

Remedy 3B of ARBSCI provides that:


 * Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

The current situation is that:


 * Since the arbitration case, I have reviewed at least a couple of dozen featured article candidates at FAC. I have received multiple barnstars for my FAC work, among them one from User:ChrisO in October 2009, who thanked me for my "outstanding work in organising and resolving citation issues in the Inner German border article", demonstrating our ability to work constructively together to create featured content. (He also received a barnstar from me for his quite extraordinary, and lovingly crafted article.) Closer to this topic area, I received a barnstar from User:Ohconfucius, thanking me for my help in bringing Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident to Featured Article status. For my work reviewing FACs related to German history, User:Auntieruth55 gave me a barnstar thanking me for my "incredible ability to find the minutest minutiae, and for suggestions on Cologne War, Unification of Germany, Hermann Detzner, and others."


 * As for my own editing, since the ARBSCI case I have brought Scientology in Germany to GA status, and shepherded the article through a successful GA Review presided over by User:SilkTork, at the end of which the article retained its GA status.


 * I have written two featured articles in other topic areas, The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman and Siege of Godesberg (the latter co-written and co-nominated with Auntieruth55).


 * I have written about 25 DYKs since ARBSCI, listed on my user page; a good proportion of them about religious scholars.


 * In September 2010, I was awarded an Imperial Triple Crown by User:Casliber, for my contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC.


 * I am well aware of BLP policy, and indeed have successfully proposed and/or contributed a number of refinements to Wikipedia's BLP policy over the years (WP:BLPCAT, No eventualism, discouraging contributions from individuals in a significant legal or personal dispute with the subject of any article, etc.).


 * I have acquired a modest reputation as a defender of BLPs against malicious editing, acknowledged by a few barnstars to that effect, and have written a number of related essays (WP:ADAM, WP:Hazing (described as "Brilliant" by Jimbo Wales, one of the founders of our project), and WP:NPSK).


 * Indeed, in acknowledgment of my efforts, I recently received a barnstar from Jimbo, stating that This explanation of BLP policy is one of the best I have seen. You have it exactly right. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC).


 * I understand that given Mr Ross's feelings and anxieties about me, as someone once affiliated with a group against which he campaigned vigorously, it would be quite inappropriate for me to ever edit his BLP again.


 * I have not made a single edit to his biography's talk page since the conclusion of ARBSCI, even though the talk page notice placed by Mailer Diablo at the conclusion of the case would have allowed me to do so ("Whilst the user is not prohibited from discussing or proposing changes to the article, on this talk page, they may not edit the article itself.").


 * I have no interest whatsoever in contributing to that article or its talk page at any time in the future.


 * I have never been blocked for edit-warring or any other reason.


 * I have never edited with any other account than this one.


 * The edits that resulted in the Ross topic ban were made in 2008, and the restriction served its purpose long ago. Its only role now is for it to be brought up against me as some kind of black mark. The risk of problem recurrence in the article is nil, and I therefore ask the arbitrators to be so kind as to lift the restriction.

@Roger: I have no intention of returning to the topic area ("articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined"). Given that we submitted arbitration evidence about each other, I would not want him editing my biography, if I had one, and he is surely entitled to the same peace of mind. Regards. -- J N  466  08:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens, FWIW, I understand I was an idiot then, and I am sorry. In fact, I owe Ross an apology. Re-reading some of the article versions I defended in 2008 is a cringeworthy experience.  J N  466  07:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
What I wrote about Prioryman also applies to Jayen466; he is one the best editors we have on Wikipedia. There may have been grounds to impose some restrictions in the past, but to keep them in force given his record is not justified. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so when we impose a topic ban, we are actually making the judgement that the editor in question is so much worse than a randomly selected person from the World's population, that you need to restrict that editor.

Even if we only focus on the past problems involving Jayen466 and Prioryman in the Scientology topic area, one can also argue that because they have been exposed to these problems in the past, they have become better editors as a result of that today. Count Iblis (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
I would recommend against removing restrictions from JN, who was a principal in a veritable holy war against User:Cirt. The latter wound up being desysopped and we lost one of the best closers at AfD, while JN walked away with a "tsk tsk." Cirt's activity on this topic strikes me as being an underlying cause of this battle — a mini-POV war, if you will. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan
User:Jayen should get a Wikipedia retainer for getting rid (helping to catalog and draw attention to the policy violations of) User:Cirt a violator of the project of the highest order (the worst I have seen in three years) that after WP:BLP restrictions here has simply moved to create BLP violating content on wikinews. As for Cirt's AFD prowess - he used to close ten a minute with one word closes, nothing special there. - this reply is in response to Carrite's comment, although what this request has to do with User:Cirt is really beyond me. You really  can  11:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
I regret that, to my own shame, I had in the past "stood up" for Cirt on some issues of disagreement between him and JN. We all know the ultimate outcome there. I also acknowledge that the subject himself, Rick Ross, has been a bit of a controversial one. But JN is one of the best writers and editors I think we have, and this is a subject of interest to him, as it is, to a perhaps lesser degree, to me and others. I believe we would all be better off with as many very good editors like him (not so much me) involved in all articles as possible. Also, I am very heartened by some of JN's own comments above, which indicate that he would now act very differently in controversial matters. I think/hope that I have become a bit more neutral over the years, and I believe from my interactions with him JN certainly has. I can see no reason not to have the ban lifted. Worst comes to worst, the page could be placed under discretionary sanctions, which probably isn't that bad of an idea for most controversial subjects around here. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I come from a similar place as John Carter, above, though I don't believe I was ever really involved with the case. My rather infrequent interactions with JN have benefited greatly from my gradual withdrawal from those entrenchments, and I have a much better opinion of this editor than I did before, and a more correct one, I believe. I think restrictions should be lifted. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2012 (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

 * Awaiting statements but in principle I doubt the value of retaining this ancient restriction, especially when discretionary sanctions are available to deal with any fresh issues. I note what Carrite has said but I don't think keeping rdestrictions in place on Jayen466 as a quid pro quo for his Cirt-related activity is either particularly fair or relevant. I do though have a question for Jayen466. He says "the risk of problem recurrence in the article is nil". Does that mean he has plans to return to the Ross topic but has mended his ways or that he has no intention of returning to edit there?  Roger Davies  talk 05:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, Jayen, noted thanks.  Roger Davies  talk 08:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I disagree with Roger here. But, before going to formally oppose, I will await further statements. SirFozzie (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with JClemens... this smacks to me more of "I must clear the black mark against my name" and not as much "I've learned better and won't do it again, and here's why I won't do it again" SirFozzie (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment "I don't like being under a topic ban" is not a good reason for removing a topic ban. If anything, it's an argument against removing it.  Better arguments include "I learned and know better now" and "I've run into a situation where this sanction is preventing me from improving the encyclopedia". In this case, both the first and second arguments are made, but my impression is that the first is the actual reason for this request. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the age of the sanction and the editor's forthright acknowledgement of the now-antiquated issue, I support the removal of the topic ban, noting that any potential future problems can and will be dealt with if they arise. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is something odd about a request to lift a topic ban on an article that one has "no interest whatsoever in contributing to ... at any time in the future", but, as with A Quest For Knowledge, I don't see that in itself as a reason to decline lifting the ban. The request is perhaps over egged, including the names of two Committee members plus Jimbo, but, again, that is no reason to decline. What counts is that Jayen466 has recognised the faults that led to the ban, and has evidence of good editing since the ban was imposed. The Cirt and Jayen466 case has been mentioned, and Jayen was criticised in that for his conduct toward another editor, but he was not criticised for his editing, so while there may be some concerns regarding Jayen, they are not in relation to the subject of this request. I support lifting the topic ban.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Legacy restrictions are demeaning, and I see no benefit from retaining this sanction. As my colleagues note, any new problems can be resolved rather elegantly with standard enforcement of the standing discretionary sanctions. I am minded to grant this appeal. AGK  [•] 10:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this restriction can reasonably be lifted at this point, and I've proposed a motion to that effect below. Kirill [talk] 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion (Jayen466)
1) The restriction imposed on by Remedy 21.1 of the Scientology case ("Jayen466 topic-banned from Rick Ross articles") is hereby lifted.


 * Support
 * Proposed per discussion above. Kirill [talk] 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay with me.  Roger Davies  talk 14:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions are sufficient. Risker (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker (I'm saying that a lot this morning. Being a few timezones west and all...) Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker. Courcelles 17:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per evidence of good behaviour, contributions, awareness of past issues, and the right attitude toward Wikipedia. Discretionary sanctions should not be needed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  21:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker et al. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With the same thinking as Risker and SilkTork, AGK  [•] 16:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Amendment request: Climate change (A Quest For Knowledge) (May 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) at 20:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 18


 * 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
 * Removal of topic ban

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge
I'd like to request the removal of my topic-ban given to me at WP:ARBCC. The main reason is I am not the same editor I was back then. Mainly, I no longer get that involved in content disputes that don't concern me. (In fact, I rarely get too involved in content disputes on topics that do interest me.) At the time I stumbled into the CC topic area, I was a relative newbie and had no idea content disputes like that existed or that it had lasted years. Now, when I encounter contentious articles, I prefer to stay on the sidelines, either by avoiding the dispute or providing advice at a distance such as Shooting of Trayvon Martin or Seamus (dog). Since the case concluded, I've maintained a clean record despite working in a number of contentious areas such as Mass killings under Communist regimes, Aquatic ape hypothesis and Astrology to name a few. (I dropped out of Astrology after Ludwigs2 was topic banned and dropped out of Mass killings under Communist regimes after the article was locked.) I either WikiGnomed and performed other minor changes, or I attempted to provide advice to other editors. The only topic space that is contentious that I do involve myself in is September 11 attacks where I'm happy to say I (along with other fine editors) were able to resolve a long-standing content dispute over how fringe theories should be covered. See here. Some other recent examples of me collaborating effectively with other editors include WP:List of self-publishing companies and the new header instructions at WP:RSN. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: FWIW, CC is not a topic I'm interested in and I have no plans to return to it in any substantive way. (Believe me, if I had known that a simple curiosity would turn into what it did, I never would have gotten involved.) As I said, I now prefer to offer advice as a distance. If someone posts something at one of our noticeboards or opens an RfC, I'd like the option to comment, but I don't plan on getting any more involved than that. To your first point, I said relative newbie. Yes, I was familiar with our main content policies but completely naive in thinking I could single-handedly fix the CC topic-space. I would never try to do that now. Also, I was completely unfamiliar with all the nuances of our various policies and guidelines which you only learn with experience. Since you brought it up, yes, I edit-warred and referred to editors in groups ("faction", "cabal", etc.) which contributed to a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere. I don't agree that I was uncivil. The lone diff in the finding on civility has me saying "Please don't waste our time" which IMO is not worth a finding-of-fact in an ArbCom case. To be honest, the topic-ban is a black mark hanging over me, and I'd like a sense of closure. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC) @Jclemens: I think that my biggest mistake is that I just simply argued too much. Wikipedia's rules encourage discussion, but at some point, that discussion becomes deadlocked or counter productive. Since the close of the case, I've learned not to repeat a point more than once or twice. If an argument fails to sway someone the first couple times, repeating it 20 more times isn't going to convince them. If anything, it's more likely to make the discussion more polarized. I've learned that sometimes it's a good idea to slow down a dispute. That is to say that if I'm a discussion, and someone posts something in a thread, rather than respond immediately, I'll wait a few hours or even limit myself to one post a day. I've learned that when in a dispute to try to come up with alternative solutions that might be mutually acceptable. For example, at Astrology, I objected to the use of the phrase "reputable astrologer" in Wikipedia's voice. Rather than insist on the One True Way, I offered 3 possible solutions and asked that editor if any of them were acceptable. I'm much better at judging whether a proposal has a chance at reaching consensus. If I don't think something has a realistic chance at gaining consensus, I'll say my peace and move on. I have better perspective now and don't take things as seriously. I think this is best exemplified by this. I used to be that guy. There's more, of course, but hopefully that's a good start. If you'd like more details or have any more questions or concerns, I'd be happy to provide more details for you. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC) @SirFonzie: I'm genuinely confused by your commment. I thought I did explain what I learned and why I won't do it again. My reply to Jclemens gave 5 specific examples of what I learned and how I handle things differently now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC) @AGK: I think that you can see improvement during the case itself. Most of the diffs about battleground behavior were close to a year old by the time that the case concluded, leaving the remaining finding a single incident of edit-warring (I broke 3RR on a 1RR article) that was six months old. It was a temporary lapse of judement and one I have never repeated, proving, I think, that I learn from my mistakes. I now try to follow WP:BRD and rarely even get to 2RR let alone 3RR. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) @The Devil's Advocate: I was not involved in that edit war. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I have never edited that article even once. What happened was that I was responding to a complaint filed by someone else at AN/I: Admin used powers in content_dispute. (See also: Shooting of Trayvon). I saw the discussions at AN/I and AN and I commented in both of them. The second discussion is 12 pages long and dozens of editors participated in it. I never said that I don't comment at AN/I or any other Admin or Arb board. In fact, I do so regularly. That doesn't make me involved in the content dispute. Like I said, to the best of my knowledge, I have never edited that article. I don't know how to prove that definitively, but go check the last 500 edits to the article and its talk page. How many times is my name listed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC) @The Devil's Advocate: Again, that's a misrepresentation of what happened. First, the discussions at AN and AN/I were about a conduct issue, not a content issue. Maybe you see those as the same thing, but I don't. I was concerned about an admin using their tools in a content dispute that they were directly involved in. I knew they were involved in the content dispute, because I was watching it. After someone else brought it to AN/I, I commented in it. But even if you see it as a content dispute, it was at a distance and in the appropriate forum. Further, I was not the first nor the only editor who discussed desysopping or taking the issue to ArbCom. In the end, I decided that unless there was a pattern of misconduct, there was no point in pursuing the matter so I dropped it. In fact, my involvement in the conduct issue lasted less than 24 hours if my math is correct. My first post was at 20:45, 26 March 2012 and my last post was at 16:53, 27 March 2012 and then I walked away. The community, meanwhile, continued the debate for another 5 days where apparently the consensus was for a trout (proving there was some warrant for my concern). Again, the full discussion are here and here. I agree that the record does speak for itself as long as you don't take anything out of context. I'm not saying I am perfect, but perfection isn't required for admins or editors. I don't want to go back and forth with you, so I'll quit at this point. I'll be happy to respond should the Arbs have any questions or concerns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC) @Drmies: First of all, I didn't bring you into this; The Devil's Advocate did. To be honest, I'd completely forgotten about this until TDA brought it up. What I said in my statement is that I no longer get that involved in content disputes that don't concern me. I believe that remains true. Yes, I was involved in a conduct issue regarding the Trayvon article. My involvement only lasted a day and even then, I believe I was commenting on the dispute as an outside observer. As I said, I dropped the issue while the rest of the community continued to discuss it for another 5 days. To the best of my knowledge, I did not engage in any problematic behavior such as edit-warring, personal attacks, etc.. I expressed an opinion which you disagreed with. If I had to do my statement all over again, I would have disclosed that I did get involved in a conduct issue. Like I said, I had forgotten about this until TDA brought it up. It was an honest mistake, I'm sorry about that but there was no attempt at deception. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley
As currently formulated, I oppose this request. AQFK attempts to minimise his errors by asserting that he was a newbie then. But he wasn't. Furthermore, I can see none of what has been required of previous requests - viz, specific acknowledgement of errors and a promise not to repeat them (edit warring, incivility, promoting battleground, etc) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan
Willing to consider reintroduction to the topic area without WP:BLP edits to see how it goes for a few months, living people were attacked. - After a nudge - I have struck the last part - it wasn't meant specific to this user - it was more of a general comment in regards to what was going on prior to the CC case and this user has pointed out to me that he was never judged to have committed any WP:BLP violations. I support a halfway house for all these users reintegration into the topic area, non BLP first to see how it develops. You really  can  04:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
Similar to Youreallycan, it may be a good idea to let AQFK back into the topic area without restrictions for a while and then evaluate how things are going. Instead of a fixed time, it may be better to re-evaluate after some number of edits. There may be some problems which may not surface within a few months if he doesn't edit a lot in the topic area. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
AQFK is being blatantly deceptive in his description of his involvement on the Trayvon Martin article. I dare say he is actually lying by stating that his involvement there was merely "providing advice at a distance" as he was making a huge fuss over that article being protected by Drmies. Here is an archive of a discussion about the action where AQFK was involved. The comments being left there hardly give off the same image AQFK is trying to present here and are just a sample of his conduct with regards to that incident.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@AQFK Dude, anyone can look at that archived talk page there and see what you said. Whether you edited the article or not is quite irrelevant. You described your involvement with the article as if you just provided some outside advice, when in fact you got heatedly involved in a dispute over that article and behaved in a very confrontational manner. Threatening to go to ArbCom and telling an admin he is going to get de-sysopped if he doesn't do what you say with regards to an article is not "providing advice at a distance" as you claimed was the extent of your involvement with that article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO
I've worked with AQFK on 9/11 related pages and it needs to be noted that though it subsequently went to Good Article Review and was demoted, AQFK was the editor that made substantive improvements to the September 11 attacks article and got it to GA. I know he has planned on resuming an effort to once again meet the GA criteria on that article soon. When confronted with conspiracy theories and fringe POV pushing on 9/11 topics, AQFK has always been a voice of reason, demonstrated a cool demeanor and avoided making personal atacks. My belief is that AQFK would do as he claims he would if he did participate in CC articles...and his behavior would be as explenary as it has been on 9/11 topics. I also don't think AQFK wants to have this topic ban lifted just so he can edit CC articles. I believe, as he has stated, that he simply wants this "black mark" removed from his portfolio.--MONGO 01:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@To Drmies...Found the thread you mention below. Seems AQFK was initially questioning your admin decision in this case and did mention desysopping...Wehwalt and Alanscottwalker also questioned the action. However, I think in this situation you made the right call...a tough one but the right one....but someone else could have done it as well. But I don't see that AQFK commented anymore aggresively than Bob K31416 in regards to what should happen to your tools.--MONGO 04:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
Ahem. Yes, I don't really see how AQFK's involvement in the Trayvon Martin affair is advice from a (safe) distance at all--it's a gross understatement at best. Calling for my head at AN/I is what you did here (even though you didn't start the thread). This edit and its summary are pretty clear also: you are not giving advice, you are endorsing action. Whether this relates to your restriction here at all is another matter, but since you brought up the Trayvon Martin case as an example of your good behavior, you brought me into this, since you were one of the most active editors in that desysop request. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison
On the topic of 9/11 and the related conspiracy theories, which is where I've worked with him, AQFK has always been calm and responsible. What he writes is thogough, neutral, and referenced. If he had problems in the past working on climate change, he would not in the future. Tom Harrison Talk 16:45, 24 May 2012 (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

 * Comment: I have no problem with lifting this restriction. I haven't assiduously trawled through AQFK's contributions but my general impression from seeing them around is that they have moved on considerably from their earlier, um, dogmatism and developed clue. In the event that fresh problems arise, they can be handled by discretionary sanctions.  Roger Davies  talk 06:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment "I don't like being under a topic ban" is not a good reason for removing a topic ban. If anything, it's an argument against removing it.  Better arguments include "I learned and know better now" and "I've run into a situation where this sanction is preventing me from improving the encyclopedia". Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Generally agree with Jclemens. SirFozzie (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the one hand AQFK is not putting forward a persuasive argument for lifting the topic block with his comment that he has no interest in the topic, but on the other he states that he has edited in contentious areas since his topic ban and has had no complaints. We accept that people make mistakes and we hope that they learn from them. AQFK is saying that he has learned from his mistake, so there seems to reason to keep him banned. Unless someone can raise concerns about his editing in the past 12 months, I would support lifting the topic ban.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you to AQFK if the quality of his editing at contentious articles has genuinely improved; this is always heartening to see. However, I do not hesitate in saying I am minded to decline this appeal. AGK  [•] 10:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the entire climate change area remains under discretionary sanctions, I think we can lift this restriction on the same basis as we're using for the other requests in this case—if any problems do recur, they can easily be addressed by the discretionary sanctions mechanism—and will propose a motion to that effect below. Kirill [talk] 14:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Climate change (A Quest For Knowledge)
1) The restriction imposed on by Remedy 18 of the Climate change case ("A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned") is hereby lifted.


 * Support
 * Proposed per discussion above. Kirill [talk] 14:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure,  Roger Davies  talk 15:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions should be sufficient. Risker (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A little more tenuously than the below ones, but still... Per Risker. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker and per my voting comment on the original decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I do not have the necessary confidences that the lessons needed to be learned to avoid future issues have actually been learned, therefore voting oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think the argument for vacating the topic ban is sufficient. However, I oppose without prejudice to a revocation in the near future (though of course this motion will probably carry). In any case, I thank AQFK for his self-improvement, and wish him luck if he is allowed to return to the Climate Change topic. AGK  [•] 16:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain

Amendment request: Climate change (Prioryman) (May 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Prioryman (talk) at 19:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedies 3.1, 3.2


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

Amendment 1

 * Request lifting of topic ban

Statement by Prioryman
''Note to arbitrators: I have separated this out as a separate request for your consideration in addition to the ARBSCI appeal below. The discussion has got unduly lengthy and has confused the two cases; the two matters really need to be considered on their own merits. Please address my ARBCC appeal here, and the ARBSCI appeal below, as independent appeals.''

I wish to request a lifting of the ARBCC topic ban on myself, passed 18 months ago. I don't particularly wish to return to the topic area in a major way, but I would like to be able to contribute the occasional new article (filling in red links and suchlike) and the odd bit of wikignoming on existing articles in the topic area.

I acknowledge the validity of the case findings that I had edit-warred and made incivil comments. I recognise that I responded badly to the battlefield conduct of others. In so doing I helped to reinforce the battlefield mentality that existed at the time. This was due to frustration with incredibly blatant BLP violations, persistent tendentious editing and a lack of outside intervention to deal with either problem. I don't believe such problems are likely to arise again in the foreseeable future due to a combination of the current arbitration sanctions, a stronger focus by the community on BLP enforcement, and the topic- or site-banning of the worst offenders. I've not followed the topic area at all since 2010, but the case sanctions log suggests that things are pretty quiet now.

Remedy 3.2.1 provides that "Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors."

The current situation is as follows:


 * Since the case I have been extremely busy as a content contributor: I have made nearly 10,000 edits and have had three Featured Articles on the Main Page in the last six months alone, as well as contributing two Good Articles, 65 DYKs and over 270 images to Commons. The FAs, GAs and DYKs are all linked from the top of my user page.
 * My contributions have been widely recognised by others, with 16 barnstars in the last 18 months. I have been described as a "model Wikipedian" for my contributions.
 * I was briefly blocked in March 2012 for an inadvertent violation of the topic ban, which was logged here.
 * I have been working closely with Wikimedia UK, which provided a grant to support the development of a series of articles to commemorate the Titanic centenary weekend in April. This has so far resulted in one featured article and sixteen DYKs, with the new and expanded articles attracting nearly 1 million page views over the weekend of April 14-15. I think this speaks well for my ability to work constructively with others.

In response to the specific concerns of the case (i.e. edit-warring and incivility) and a few other issues, I'd like to note the following points:


 * In my approach to resolving these specific concerns, I've followed the example of in concentrating on producing "audited content" and demonstrating that I meet the remedy's requirements. This approach resulted in restrictions on him being lifted in January 2011 (see ). I have so far produced 70 items of audited content which have been widely praised for their quality.
 * I've acknowledged making errors in my approach to these articles and have not repeated them in other topic areas since the case.
 * As a way of demonstrating that I had changed my approach, I specifically sought out a highly charged topic area area to bring an article up to FA standard - namely Battle of Vukovar - and entirely avoided conflict, dealing in a sensitive way with the complexities of the issues involved, for which I was widely complimented (and was awarded five barnstars).
 * I'm not under any BLP restrictions in the ARBCC topic area, though this occasionally been incorrectly claimed by others - perhaps through confusion with the ARBSCI below where such a restriction does exist.
 * The ARBCC sanctions have not resulted in conflict with other editors since the case.
 * I've sought to avoid conflict and, where conflict has arisen as a result of the actions of others, to find long-term solutions. When an interaction ban relating to me was recently violated, I sought the assistance of other editors to find a permanent solution, which resulted in an agreement on a more robust enforcement mechanism and stricter terms for the ban. This was a positive outcome, definitively ending an ongoing conflict situation. More recently I've helped to find an acceptable way forward to resolve issues that have seen him repeatedly getting blocked (see ) - another positive outcome that will benefit the community going forward.

I believe this record shows that I've met the requirements of 3.2.1 several times over and that I'm more than capable of re-engaging in the topic area without further problems. In the extremely unlikely event of any future issues, there is no reason to believe that the existing discretionary sanctions in the topic area will be insufficient. I therefore request that the Arbitration Committee consider one of the following options:


 * A full lifting of the topic ban (the simplest option).
 * A half-way house, under which I would be permitted to contribute DYKs to the topic area for a period of six months, following which the topic ban would be lifted if there were no further problems. This would have the advantage of allowing me to demonstrate an ability to contribute constructively to the topic area in a limited capacity. As Casliber is a DYK regular, he would be in a good position to keep an eye on my DYK contributions.

I'd like to remind editors topic-banned under ARBCC or banned from interacting with me that they aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
Prioryman's editing record begs the question: Did Jimbo hire Prioryman as a professional editor? Obviously, Prioryman should not have any editing restrictions; if he isn't a good enough editor to edit somewhere, who is? Count Iblis (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Collect: The problem in general with this is that ArbCom restrictions come with a reversal of the burden of proof. So, e.g. I'm not under any ArbCom sanctions and I have to misbehave quite badly before I'll be blocked. If there are some editors who are very critical of my editing who are mnitoring me, they will hve to present a strong case in an RFC/U or ArbCom case against me.

If, on the other hand, I were operating under some ArbCom restrictions, then any hint of a violation of those restrictons by me implies guilt, unless I can prove that I'm innocent. E.g. Prioryman had to explain himself here about his editing of BLP pages. So, there was a hint that he might have violated an ArbCom restriction, and he had to explain that this was not a violation of a restriction he's under.

Then with Prioryman being monitored by quite a few editors, Prioryman cannot just sit back and wait until his critics compile some case against him, he has to proactively counter whatever they come up with as soon as something surfaces. This is extremely distracting, so one has to consider if the restrictions are necessary at all. This would be the case even if the critics were always acting in good faith, but obviously that's not always the case here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Collect & Prioryman, what I mean is that you have to defend yourself, obviously with good arguments, not in some negative way. When I was under a stupid advocacy restriction imposed by ArbCom which barred me from defending an editor here, that caused me a lot of headaches, even a long time after that restriction was lifted, see here. I ended up at AE twice after that restriction was lifted, because of misunderstandings by editors about that restriction. Count Iblis (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No relevant objections have been raised so far.

What is relevant here is whether Prioryman can edit CC pages without problems. Both in case of William's amendment request and Cla68's request, the discussions here were centered around that question. I was in favor of lifting the topic ban for both editors with some restrictions (BLP restriction for William I think, although that may have been a compromise I supported, in case of Cla68, I argued for a 1RR or 0RR restriction).

Basically, one considers the editor in question back into the topic area and discusses what problems are likely to occur based on current editing behavior or very recent editing history. Count Iblis (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
PM has been quite evident on several noticeboards, incuding a current extensive discussion at AN/I. I would humbly suggest he get down to a "no drama" level for a month or two before pursuing this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@PM -- I know that you were the "victim" and that you had nothing to do with the "drama" evinced at AN/I. Yeppers. The way for you to have avoided the drama was to not promote the drama. And as others have noted, your problems in the past were heavily imbued with "drama." Ergo - a couple of months more with a cup of tea will not harm you. to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@PM - Last I looked, you quite appeared to be actively seeking the "drama" per notceboard postings and also per your posts on ErantX's UT page. Hence my suggestion that you swear off the "drama" for a couple of months before pursuing this further. Have some tea - the "deadline" is not yet arrived. Collect (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@ST My overall impression is that those who routinely complain on noticeboards as the "victim" generally do not emend their behaviour therein without being rather specifically urged to reduce such actions. ArbCom has seen a number of editors who seek "arbitration enforcement" aganst their perceived "foes" and I have seen no cases where such behaviour has been improved by simply removing sanctions thereon. Thus my suggestion that a couple of months without such drama would make me more convinced that the initial behaviours have possibly been ameliorated. Is this more clear? I would hold the same position, for what it s worth, on any "amnesty" acts where full and open discussions, not sullied by any "false consensus", led to the initial restrictions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@CI
 * Prioryman cannot just sit back and wait until his critics compile some case against him, he has to proactively counter whatever they come up with as soon as something surfaces

Exemplifies the drama problem. There is no need to "go on the attack" - that sort of battleground mentality is precisely one of the major problems on Wikipedia, and I am aghast anyone would say it is right to engage in battleground acts. If you feel your post should work in PM's favour, I regret to inform you that it is more likely to redound to his handicap in my opinion. Your mileage appears to differ. Collect (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note further PM's apparent love of drama at. Suchh claims as
 * ''He is often absolutist in his views and appears to consistently see things in black and white.
 * ''His judgement is often faulty.
 * ''He personalises disputes to an excessive degree, regarding problems as a personal affront.
 * ''He has an excessive willingness to escalate, which we've certainly seen on this occasion.
 * ''He has an insensitive / confrontational approach to discussions, again which we've seen on this occasion.

Are used by PM as a rationale to seek a 1RR restriction and a draconian civility restriction:
 *  If Youreallycan makes any comment that is deemed by an administrator to have been uncivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, or if Youreallycan otherwise behaves in a uncollegial manner, broadly construed, he may be blocked for up to a week.  

on an editor who appears to have aroused PM's personal animus. As all of the above claims seem to suit PM fairly well, I suggest "goose sauce" should be considered here as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

@PM - the issue is not whether you are pals with YRC, but whether you routinely jump to noticeboards seeking punishment for others. I note that the evidence is fairly clear on this - that you do so routinely run to the noticeboards seeking punishment for others. Cheers - you make this very clear indeed. Collect (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(noting that the comments by PM to which I herein replied have apparently been redacted, making it ddifficult for others to see precisely to what I replied and for what reasons) Collect (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466
Prioryman, did you write the L. Ron Hubbard featured article, as User:Helatrobus?

I am asking because at the time of that article's FAC, I was quite certain, having observed your (outstanding) work on the Inner German border article during that article's FAC, that you were the author. Not just from the (equally outstanding) quality of the work, but for many other on-wiki and off-wiki reasons as well.

Of course, under ARBSCI you were and are allowed to work on articles in that topic area to bring them to GA or FA status. I supported the FA nomination in recognition of that fact, and indeed assumed that the arbitration committee were most likely aware of your operating the Helatrobus account.

However, I later learnt from Cool Hand Luke that they were not aware of the Helatrobus account, and indeed would have been disappointed to find it was yours, given your previous socking after invoking the Right To Vanish. Could you clear this up, once and for all?  J N  466  12:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Prioryman, I am sure you are well aware that answering this question does not require you to make reference to any other editor. It's a simple yes-or-no question. For what it's worth, I took part in and supported the Hubbard FAC, and came to my conclusions quite independently of any user you might have in mind. It was blindingly obvious. If you want all your sanctions lifted, I would recommend that you come clean first, as otherwise this stuff will just continue to hang around you. And if you aren't prepared to do that, then I have no confidence that the factors that led to your being restricted in the first place are in any way resolved.  J N  466  13:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can call a Paxman here and assume that's a Yes then, shall we?
 * You were sanctioned in ARBSCI because you considered yourself above the law. Your recent behaviour, claiming the right to vanish during arbitration and then immediately returning as a sock, and then with your present account when the first sock was found out and blocked, and with the Helatrobus account as well, seems to indicate that you still do.
 * Battleground mentality, along with incivility and edit-warring, was the finding in ARBCC, in late 2010. And battlegrounding is how you chose to respond right here, to being asked a not unreasonable question. You refuse to give a straight answer, and instead turn the matter into a pissing contest over whose sanctions were worse, yours or mine. ;)  J N  466  02:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you are able, under the present sanctions, to perform GA and FA improvement drives on non-BLP articles. No change is required for you to write another five GAs or FAs. What you aren't able to do is to edit any BLPs in the topic area, or get involved in routine spats with other contributors.

I honestly think that's the best of both worlds. This topic area has mostly remained quiet since ARBSCI, one of the most successful arbitration cases of its kind in the history of Wikipedia, and is mercifully free of activists now. Some outrageously slanted biographies or other articles with BLP impact have been deleted or fixed, and the important articles in the topic area are stable and in reasonable shape. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If you really see some clanger in a biography, you are very welcome to drop me a note with suggestions; and there are other editors in the topic area who would look into any such concern for you too. Regards.  J N  466  12:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you're in attack mode again. I said, "No change is required for you to write another five GAs or FAs. What you aren't able to do is to edit any BLPs in the topic area, or get involved in routine spats with other contributors." That is correct, and surely was the intent of the remedy, which read:

17) has proposed a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature. ChrisO is instructed to abide by these restrictions.


 * Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And it has worked, because as you say, you haven't been in spats with other contributors. But instead of acknowledging that, you bristle, " It's absolutely, unequivocally false to claim that I was 'involved in routine spats with other contributors'" – as though you had never been in any such spat, which is complete nonsense. When you were active in the topic area, in editing BLPs and general editing outside GA and FA drives, you were involved in such spats. One two-year "spat" is mentioned in the ARBSCI FoF:

13) significantly edited, between August 2005 and September 2007, a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion. In his sysop capacity, he protected the article; declined a CSD; and blocked the subject of the article herself. and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material from an inadequate source to a BLP; and restored self-published material.


 * ''Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There may have been periods where you weren't involved in any spats in this topic area, but I doubt that you were editing the topic area much in those periods. Your unwillingness to give a straight answer on the Helatrobus account, your bristling, and your nibbling at the topic ban now, before it's lifted, like here, are warning signs to me. I don't expect anything good to result if the ban is lifted and you go back to editing BLPs in the ARBSCI topic area, or do routine editing outside GA/FA drives. Focus on the latter – you have the demonstrated ability to take articles to that quality level, and your temperament doesn't equip you well for the rest. Your opponent is interaction-banned, so don't worry about him. I personally am generally a fan of your FA work, and the FAC process is a much better, more controlled setting to fine-tune an article. Regards.  J N  466  23:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You mean you've violated your topic ban regularly for the past three years? I can't say I've noticed, despite having a good few pages in the topic area on my watchlist, but if you have, then I don't think that inspires added confidence that you are committed to editing BLPs and other articles within policy if the ban were lifted formally. I see a continuous and worrying history of you thinking various policies and guidelines don't apply to you like they do to other editors – whether it's RTV, acting when involved, citing your own self-published writing, violating BLP, returning to areas your previous account was topic-banned in under new identities without disclosing prior sanctions and identities, etc. (Your BLP ban in the ARBCC topic area was as recent as a year and a half ago – so there is a more than five-year continuous history of you getting banned from BLPs in topic areas you are passionate about.) I also see some great work, but frankly don't understand why you can't simply do good work and drop all the games. Cheers.  J N  466  00:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, this is now getting ridiculous. Prioryman is accusing me of having violated my ARBSCI sanction by commenting here. For reference, my ARBSCI sanction is, in total, per ARBSCI:

21.1) Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

If you want evidence of the risk of drama, or battleground editing, it couldn't come clearer than this. A bull in a china shop comes to mind!  J N  466  01:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan
Just a note to comment about my relating with Prioryman. I was pointed here in email by the user after I was mentioned in the comments. He has been suggesting topic bans and edit restrictions for me but generally/imo in a goods faith manner to help me stop repeatedly getting blocked for silly stuff before i get myself perma banned - I have been in dispute with him previously but I/we have been attempting to improve our working relationship so I wouldn't want any of his interactions with me to affect the outcome of this request, which I have not really investigated but it is generally my feeling that we should not be overly severe in our restrictions on editors contributions for excessive lengths of time unless there are clear related issues with a users contributions - if they improve  we can give them a chance and if they need restrictions again they can easily be replaced. - I would add that clearly the Helatrobus account is a sock of Prioryman - it was a year ago and he shouldn't have written that, ... I wish he would fess up and be honest about that, denying such clear realities just removes all good faith NPOV support. The users that violated BLP in the climate change area held/and still hold very opinionated vocal positions, those have not changed at all and living people were attacked , perhaps a position of non BLP contributing to the sector such as User:WMC is allowed would be a good start to see how it goes. You really  can  02:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Query from Short Brigade Harvester Boris
SirFozzie has voted on several requests related to WP:ARBCC, but was recused from the original case. I am curious as to what circumstances have changed so that his reason for recusual no longer applies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@ SirFozzie, thank you for the clarification. I do not recall your having explained this previously but then there's much that I do not recall. Regards, Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I will instruct the clerks to keep a close eye on this request, as Prioryman states in his request, folks who under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request. I am neutral, leaning oppose on the request, but I'm willing to listen to comments either way before I make a formal "decision" on which way I'd go. SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per SilkTork, I think I would need to formally oppose any lifting of the sanction at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As previously explained to you, Boris (or at least I certainly remember explaining this before), I recused on the original CC case because one of the main parties, WMC, had filed a RfC against me several years ago. I could have just recused on the WMC related questions (as is now the process), but that does not create a case for recusal on non-WMC related CC issues, even under my liberal recusal policies. SirFozzie (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment we've used audited content as an indicator for lifting of topic bans, so a Good Article is a good notch in one's belt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Willing to consider this; if things don't go well, the existing general sanctions would probably be sufficient to address issues.  Risker (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support a motion to vacate Prioryman's topic ban. AGK  [•] 13:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have no particular problem with lifting either this or the other extant historical sanction, which seem to me to be more trouble and more drama-provoking than they're worth. It is not as if this editor will escape scrutiny in either area so if the event that there are fresh problems in either topic area, they can be handled perfectly well by discretionary sanctions.  Roger Davies  talk 14:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: My take is that the sanctions themselves have become the issue, with the bickering switching from content to who is in breach of what. This view is confirmed by recent events. I still have no problem with lifting the existing sanctions because discretionary sanctions are in place and thus sanctions can be re-imposed if problems arise. Lifting the sanctions now will I think help everyone move on.  Roger Davies  talk 05:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Under the historic sanctions from Prioryman's prior account (which he now also wants lifted) he agreed to make "no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people", but a look through recent contributions shows edits to Edward Davenport (fraudster), Zuzana Žirková and Kumar priyank. Am I right in thinking that edits to those articles would be a violation of the sanctions if the sanctions are applicable to this current account? Could Prioryman provide an explanation for those edits - and offer up any other BLP articles he has edited as I only went back through contributions as far as the Kumar priyank edit.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC) My bad, I misread the sanction.
 * This seems a reasonable request. Prioryman produces good contributions and acknowledges the poor conduct from the past. I am unclear regarding Collect's points - is the suggestion that Prioryman reduce general involvement in noticeboards, or is there a particular concern about the focus or tone of the involvement?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I note this, this, this and this. I'm a little uncomfortable at the amount of drama that has unfolded and I'd like to see what other Committee members feel about what has happened.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  21:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would feel more comfortable supporting this if there was no associated drama. I am prepared to be convinced otherwise by colleagues, though my inclination would be to decline this for now, and hear an appeal again in six months, and if Prioryman sees at that time any provocative posts that he show an ability to ignore it/rise above it, allowing others to deal with the matter if they feel it significant enough.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Per Roger, I'm OK with lifting the individual sanctions if discretionary sanctions would cover any new misconduct in the area. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the discretionary sanctions argument is a convincing one; if any problems do recur, additional sanctions can very rapidly be imposed. In that light, I'll propose a motion to lift the older sanction below. Kirill [talk] 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Climate change (Prioryman)
1) The restriction imposed on by Remedy 11.6 of the Climate change case ("ChrisO topic-banned") is hereby lifted.


 * Support
 * Proposed per discussion above. Kirill [talk] 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure,  Roger Davies  talk 14:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per my comments above. The discretionary sanctions remain in force and apply to Prioryman. Risker (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Willing to go along with this, but wouldn't support much rope at AE if problems re-appear. Courcelles 19:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * While I'm probably going to be out voted, my concerns about how Prioryman deals with drama (even that not of his own makng) does not give me the necessary confidence to support this request. SirFozzie (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (May 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC). at 23:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Finding 8


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

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).
 * Details of desired modification

Amend to Rich Farmbrough has on a number of occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot, where this was uncontroversial, and generally with pre-approval of the blocking admin. In addition he has been scrupulous in ensuring that he has remedied any problems, or claimed problems, for which he is to be commended.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
This is a more accurate statement of the situation. For the existing wording to stand the Committee would have to show that many (I would assume more than five) unblocks did not address the reason for stopping the bot. They will not be able to show this because it is not the case. It is a matter of regret that the committee would wish to publish such falsehoods without even the most cursory examination.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

@Arbs. One, or even several is not many.

@Corcelles: Firstly it was established in the case that there is no such thing as process. Secondly in the case you cite the blocking admin had explicitly permitted a self unblock. Thirdly we are going back over a year to find one example, which fails.

@Fozzie: Since I was denied a chance to rebut the case at the time, the committee has left this the only on-wiki avenue available to me. To deny that would not only be ultra vires, and contrary to natural justice but counter productive. Moreover the Committee has added false statements to the case post closure. This is something the committee should want to rectify.

Additional notes. Fram continues to pursue me here. If that is not disruptive I don't know what is. Note that Fram refused to answer my questions on the case, and even changed my posts. Fram says I did not contribute to the case, I made over 500 edits (and I am still waiting for an answer as to how many hours a day I should be expected to dedicate to a case who's trolling tenet was debunked on day 1.

@Fram. Of course hiding the fact that you - like the other parties, are great at lip service to collegiality, but totally unable to put any actual effort into it is not fine. And redacting part of my post to an ArbCom case would seem very foolish, if not downright abusive. Note that another party suggested questions I should ask, I added them and still no response was forthcoming.

@Silk: You seem to have missed the part of the case where it was decided that unblocking one's own bots was totally within process per se.

@NewYorkBrad: You were more active than any other arbitrator, and, going by evidence, paid more attention to the content. AGK was also inactive, and had promised not to vote, but hat has not stopped him voting either on the main case or here.

@PhilKnight, I would be happy with striking the FoF altogether or a compromise wording.

Rich Farmbrough has on a number of occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot, where this was uncontroversial, and generally with pre-approval of the blocking admin. While Fram takes issue with one of the unblocks, almost all are uncontroversial, and all were made in good faith and the spirit of collegiality and cooperation we have come to expect from Rich.

@Beestra, It appears that ArbCom have collectively dug in and adopted a position of infallibility. I sincerely hope this is not the case. Rich Farmbrough, 12:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Comment by Fram
Rich Farmbrough is still using out-of-context facts to defend himself, even though the actual full context has been presented to him again and again. For all readers unaware of that context, "Secondly in the case you cite the blocking admin had explicitly permitted a self unblock." should be continued with "under strict conditions". The actual self-unblock did not follow these conditions at all. The self-unblock edit summary "Vexatious disruptive block" is quite clear as well.

As for "Since I was denied a chance to rebut the case at the time", this is a rather slanted reading of what actually happened, i.e. that he had every chance to defend himself, but largely ignored discussions (even though people like Dirk Beetstra, Hammersoft and Kumioko found the time and tried hard to do his work for him instead), often failed to provide evidence for his claims, and in general waited until the very last moment, after the proposed decision had been open for quite a while (since 5 May) and arbitrators started voting to close the case (12 May); then he suddenly needed a few more weeks to be able to present his case (14 May: "I started drafting my comments on the new material in the proposed decision yesterday." and "I will need at least a week, possibly two to respond to these matters."). This tactic failed. Like Kumioko said, "he spent a lot of time editing and not enough time discussing and defending". You were not "denied a chance", you choose to spend your time on other things and waited too long before starting your rebuttal; you shouldn't be blaming this on other people or on the ArbCom. Fram (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: "Additional notes. Fram continues to pursue me here. If that is not disruptive I don't know what is." You are making claims about a block of Smackbot I made, and the unblock conditions I gave. I think it is only natural that I give my version of that block, as a directly involved party. This has little to do with "pursuing". Apart from that, I was a party to the case, so amendments and clarifications to that case are of natural interest to me. I don't see you complaining that Beetstra and Hammersoft, who weren't parties to the case and not involved with these blocks, comment here, so apparently you are only bothered by people "pursuing you" when they don't support you, which is of course a good method to end with only supportive comments...

@Rich Farmbrough: "Note that Fram refused to answer my questions on the case, and even changed my posts." I presume you refer to my removal of the empty section "Replies by Fram" here? That's hardly "changing your posts", we shouldn't keep sections which will remain empty. Note that the final page still has two other such empty sections, since in reality no one answered your questions there. Perhaps the problem was more with the questions than with the refusal? I can't remember any instance where I actually changed a post you made.

@Rich Farmbrough: "Fram says I did not contribute to the case, I made over 500 edits (and I am still waiting for an answer as to how many hours a day I should be expected to dedicate to a case who's trolling tenet was debunked on day 1)." I did not say that you didn't contribute to the case, please don't make such incorrect claims. Fram (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: if you consider an edit summary of "Vexatious disruptive block." (your words at the unblock) as "the spirit of collegiality and cooperation we have come to expect from Rich." (your words used here to describe these unblocks), then I have nothing more to add, really... Fram (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Beetstra
As I asked the last time for the previous amendment - could the members of the ArbCom please specify which of the unblocks were out of line, and how they were out of line. This still suggests that ALL of the unblocks of Rich Farmbrough were out of line. A member of the ArbCom provides below one example, SilkTork now defines it as 'several' (which is also not the same as 'many'); I am sure that they can specify more examples to back up their statement 'on many occasions'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@Rich: As usual. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Hammersoft
It is clear from the wording Rich proposed that there is no way this amendment would ever be supported by any arbitrator. It is equally clear that ArbCom has failed to make its case for the revised FoF. So here we have one FoF wording that seems absurd being proposed by the target of an ArbCom case, and another FoF that seems absurd that has the backing of ArbCom. Not surprisingly, the body that wrote the latter refuses to consider modification of its version, and has (with SirFozzie's comments) threatened the writer of the former should he continue to make additional requests.

ArbCom has desysopped Rich. They have banned him from any automation (though, can't agree on what automation is). ArbCom considered banning him from the project. Rich has been pushed to the very edge of the precipice on this project. This, for one "wholly out of process unblock". I concur with Beetstra. Please show us the evidence that supports your finding. Please tell me there's more than one or two unblocks where Rich erred. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The proposed amendment is false, full stop. One prime example of a wholly out of process unblock was the "15:56, 2 February 2011 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) unblocked SmackBot (talk | contribs) (Vexatious disruptive block.)" one. Courcelles 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And speaking as an arbitrator who was inactive due to real life issues during this case, it may be time to classify Rich as a vexatious litigant and formally restrict him from wasting the Committee and Community's time with these requests. SirFozzie (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline There are several cases of SmackBot/Helpful Pixie Bot being unblocked inappropriately by Rich Farmbrough, and of other admins reblocking with a comment that he should not be unblocking himself, or that issues are still not resolved. I am disappointed that at this stage Rich Farmbrough still appears not to understand why his conduct has been a cause for concern, and that his ongoing behaviour is not helpful to himself.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would decline the proposed amendment. AGK  [•] 11:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Abstain as I was inactive in the voting on this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The current wording may not be perfect, however Rich's proposed version isn't an improvement, being too far in the opposite direction. PhilKnight (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline. This is essentially an attempt to vacate a decided case by amendment, and thus a non-starter.  Per SirFozzie, the unhelpfulness of these amendments is consistent enough to consider remedies against future abuses of the process. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline.  Roger Davies  talk 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (May 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC). at 22:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Allowed to use Femto Bot to archive own talk page, as no other archiving solution has the required responsiveness, nor the ability to split-archive to to-do lists.
 * Case affected :
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Principle 1
 * 2) Finding 2
 * 3) Remedy 3
 * Information about amendment request

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Allowed to use Femnto Bot to archive own talk page, as no other archiving solution has the required responsiveness, nor the ability to split-archive to to-do lists.

No. Listen. You turned it down because a standard archiving solution would do the job. I have explained that it would not. The request was closed and archived (without informing me - as usual). Given the extra information makes your previous reasoning moot, you should reconsider.

The suggestion was that the matters that were concerning "the community" applied to repetitive edits to many pages. This is an Arb's opinion. this does not fall in that category and should therefore be allowed without quibble.

@Casliber: Archiving my talk page was the key issue? I must have been in a different case.

@Jclemens: You remarked "We can deal with specific requests for clarification that pose real problems. In the context of the case, automation is clearly intended to be that allowing an editor to modify multiple articles or other pages in rapid succession." On that basis this should be a speedy approval. Lets see if consistency rears its beautiful head.

@AGK " No, it is too early, and I see some value to giving the whole issue some time to settle down." yet you wouldn't give me time to prepare a proper rebuttal?

@ArbCom Saying it is too soon is meaningless. The only thing that is likely to change between now and next week, is that one of us dies. Vague doomsday scenarios where the bot goes berserk and "vandalises all of the Wikipedia" are not helpful. The blanket application of the "remedy" to areas where it is not intended does not help anyone. Moreover, coupled with the committee re-writing the case it creates a bad impression of the committee to deliberately force a user's interaction with other users to be more awkward, for the sake of bureaucracy. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

@Risker: thank you for being the first Arb to approve. Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

@Silk: That "let them eat cake" response wholly fails to address the point. Rich Farmbrough, 03:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Headbomb
I support this. It's completely unrelated to the behaviour that lead to the case, and Wikipedia gains nothing by disallowing Rich to manage his own userspace. This is utterly uncontroversial stuff, and one of the reasons WP:BOTPOL says bots editing the operator's userspace usually don't require approval. [A]ny bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user page, user talk page, and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval. I hope ARBCOM realize that their "Really, you just asked for some derogation and it was declined... Therefore WP:SPEEDYDENY per WP:IDHT!" does no one a service here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and arbitrator discussion

 * Really? We just turned this down a few days ago.  Asking this soon is something bordering on, if not meeting, the idea of WP:IDHT -- asking until you get the answer you want is highly unlikely to work here. Courcelles 04:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As a noted sage once said.. "it was deja vu all over again.." we JUST declined this and the answer is the same. SirFozzie (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. And Rich... really.  You need to step back and internalize why you were sanctioned and the best way forward for you.  Repeated requests like these are not demonstrating that you can adapt to your sanctions, modify yourself, and emerge stronger.  Your various posts questioning how the committee conducts itself aren't helping any, either.  At any rate, my advice to you: go write some content. Demonstrate that you are most concerned with making the English Wikipedia the best repository of human knowledge you can, even without the automation to which you are accustomed.  Just avoid repetitive or trivial tasks, and do something marvelous that will compel the committee to reconsider your sanctions. Please--it's the best way forward for you and the project. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rich, my sincere apologies that you weren't notified appropriately. I'll find out what happened there.  However, the rest of your responses are not particularly helpful.  Please read and internalize what User:Thryduulf said here before continuing on your present course. I share his views on possible outcomes and their relative desirability. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not straight after the case where this was a key issue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Casliber, but to clarify for Rich: This key issue is not "talk page archiving", but "automation of any kind", and by extension you cannot be trusted to run unsupervised tools. I imagine something like a talk page archival bot could be a first step towards regaining access to automation, if you ever wished to pursue such a route, but at this early stage I am not comfortable having you near a script, bot, or other doo-dah—even if it were to edit only your userspace. Supposing it messed an edit up (these bots always do at some point), you would be required to engage with an editor or even participate at a noticeboard, and then the whole sordid cycle would repeat itself. No, it is too early, and I see some value to giving the whole issue some time to settle down. Decline. AGK  [•] 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Jclemens in particular on this matter. Risker (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline. Manual archiving will do what is required.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said when this request was previously before us, my initial reaction is that Rich Farmbrough's using a bot to archive his own talkpage only strikes me as entirely harmless, and my inclination would be to grant the request; however, I defer to the consensus of the other arbitrators who have commented, and who have the advantage over me of having been active throughout the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline.  Roger Davies  talk 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: Scientology (Prioryman) (June 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Prioryman (talk) at 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

 * Request lifting of binding voluntary restrictions

Statement by Prioryman
''Note to arbitrators: I have separated this out as a separate request for your consideration in addition to the ARBCC appeal above. The discussion there has got unduly lengthy and has confused the two cases; the two matters really need to be considered on their own merits. Please address my ARBCC appeal above, and this ARBSCI appeal below, as independent appeals.''

In the WP:ARBSCI case in 2009 I agreed to a set of binding voluntary restrictions. These were that within the topic area (i) I limit my edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) I make no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) I refrain from sysop action of whatever nature. The findings against me concerned conduct as a sysop, which is no longer relevant as I no longer exercise that function, and errors in the sourcing of articles. I acknowledged error at the time and voluntarily proposed the restrictions under which I currently operate.

The case came about due to concerns about COI editing and role accounts. I was not involved in those issues and was only added to the case at a very late stage. There was no suggestion at the time that I was involved in any ongoing issues; all of the findings against me related to a small number of historical edits, the most recent of which had been made a year before the case and the oldest of which went back all the way to August 2005, over four years before the case.

Remedy 3B of the case provides that:


 * Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

The current situation is that:


 * Since the case I have brought two articles in the topic area, Sara Northrup Hollister and Military career of L. Ron Hubbard up to GA standard. In other topic areas, I have created four more FAs, two more GAs and over 60 DYKs. My editing has been entirely uncontroversial and widely praised, earning 16 barnstars in the last 18 months alone.
 * My current involvement in the ARBSCI topic area is negligible and is limited only to minor maintenance (vandalism reversion etc) of articles that I've written. My editing in the topic area in the last three years has been entirely unproblematic and has not resulted in any disputes with any other editors in the topic area.
 * I inadvertently breached the restrictions with a couple of minor edits in July 2010 to articles that I did not know were covered by the topic area. This was resolved without further action in discussions by email with arbitrators on 13 and 14 August 2010.
 * The issues raised in the original case are ancient history now - the most recent diffs relate to edits made five years ago, and the oldest relate to edits seven years ago. I submit that this is more than long enough for a reconsideration to be due.
 * Although I have not conflicted with any editors in the topic area, the ARBSCI sanctions have been (ab)used by individuals associated with Wikipedia Review to snipe at me repeatedly and make unsubstantiated false claims about my editing. I deeply regret that although I asked at the outset of this appeal for topic-banned or interaction-banned editors to observe their restrictions on participating in this process, this has not been respected and has resulted in unnecessary controversy. As Roger Davies has rightly said, the ARBSCI sanctions are now "more trouble and more drama-provoking than they're worth".
 * The BLP findings against me in this case relate to two articles: (deleted in December 2007, 18 months before the ARBSCI case) and two edits to Tom Cruise made in September 2006 and December 2008. That is the entirety of it. Even going by the findings, it's 3½ years since any of my BLP edits in the topic area have been deemed faulty. At the time of the case there were no ongoing BLP issues of any sort.
 * Since I created this account I have edited multiple BLPs using reliable sources with no controversy whatsoever, including those in sensitive topic areas; example include Niall Ó Donnghaile (Northern Ireland), Edward Davenport (fraudster) (crime), Viktor Bout (crime), Penny Marshall (journalist) and Maggie O'Kane (Balkans) (and note the BLP enforcements here and here). I've collaborated successfully with multiple editors, including Jimbo himself, on BLPs. Jimbo highlighted and praised my contributions to Edward Davenport (fraudster) in this comment.
 * There has not been a single dispute about the quality, neutrality or sourcing of any of my contributions to the topic area since the case.
 * I'm not involved in any off-wiki activism related to the topic area, nor have I been for a very long time (in fact since well before the case).

The sanctions are no longer necessary for the following reasons:


 * I have more than demonstrated my commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and my ability to work constructively with other editors in this topic area over the last three years. I've also demonstrated an ability to edit positively on BLPs.
 * The restrictions have become actively counter-productive and are hindering my efforts to improve the topic area. (I remind the Committee that the restrictions were specifically intended to focus me on improvement work.) There has been no dispute whatsoever about the quality of the content that I've contributed, but the sanctions themselves have become the focus of controversy. As mentioned above, individuals associated with Wikipedia Review have used them as a pretext to wikilawyer and snipe at me. If the Committee wants to reduce controversy, the best way to do this is by lifting the restrictions and so remove that pretext.
 * There's no reason to believe that lifting these restrictions will cause problems. Nor is there any reason why the existing discretionary sanctions should not be sufficient in future.
 * It also makes no sense to continue sanctions related to very old edits when there is no ongoing problem with my involvement in the topic area, and there is no suggestion from anyone that the problems which led to the sanctions are either continuing or have been repeated since May 2009.

I would also like the Committee to note that the restrictions were voluntarily proposed by myself, and I request that I be given credit for this. I therefore ask for the restrictions to be lifted.

I'd like to remind editors topic-banned under ARBSCI or banned from interacting with me that they aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466
I would advise against lifting the ARBSCI BLP restriction at this time. I would like to see a substantial history of even-handed, neutral editing in generic articles first. No objection to lifting the remainder of the restriction. -- J N  466  20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
Similar to what I wrote about Jayen466's request, the restrictions should be lifted for Prioryman also in this case. The entire BLP topic area has come under much stricter oversight than just a few years ago, and this system also works quite smoothly. And I don't think Prioryman will behave as a troublemaker in this area, given his record in the BLP area outside this particular topic area. Count Iblis (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan
− 	I oppose lifting of this users Scientology arbitration restrictions - The user is one of the twenty notable people attacking Scientology - I strongly oppose his reintegration to the BLP sector in this topic - non WP:BLP I would not object to - I would prefer him to be honest and connect himself to the Helatrobus account. - You  really  can  04:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity
Another editor writing above hopes to see "a substantial history of even-handed, neutral editing in generic articles first". I think that's exactly what we *do* see at this point, and I would support lifting the restrictions -- this is clearly a productive and intelligent editor, an asset to the project. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2012 (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

 * Comment: these sanctions should probably go now as they are open to misunderstanding/wiki-lawyering and have themselves become a source of contention. This defeats the purpose of having them. I note that discretionary sanctions are in place for the topic, which means that clearer and/or more comprehensive sanctions could be imposed if problems occur.  Roger Davies  talk 06:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree strenuously with Roger and think lifting the sanctions would do more harm than good. SirFozzie (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that this individual sanction is superseded by standard ARBSCI discretionary sanctions, I am minded for that reason alone to grant this appeal. AGK  [•] 10:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As in the Climate change case, I think the available discretionary sanctions are sufficient to allow the older restriction to be lifted, and will propose a motion to that effect below. Kirill [talk] 14:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Scientology (Prioryman)
1) The restriction imposed on by Remedy 17 of the Scientology case ("ChrisO restricted") is hereby lifted.


 * Support
 * Proposed per discussion above. Kirill [talk] 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure,  Roger Davies  talk 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the discretionary sanctions are sufficient in this case. Risker (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Willing to go long now that admins have usable discretionary sanctions in this topic (including the ability to reimpose this BLP area ban). Like the ARBCC one, though, Prioryman, I don't expect you'll get a lot of rope if old problems return, though I don't expect them to. Courcelles 17:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As with Risker. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * While I'm probably going to be out voted, my concerns about how Prioryman deals with drama (even that not of his own makng) does not give me the necessary confidence to support this request. Considering that Prioryman was restricted in two areas under his prior account, I do not think that "discretionary sanctions are sufficient" in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The disc. sanctions here are not the standard ones, and only give admins the binary option to topic ban for 3 months. If that was brought into line, I'd be willing to let this restriction elapse, but not while admins have so limited options available to them. Courcelles 13:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I'll propose replacing them with the standard ones shortly,  Roger Davies  talk 13:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Motion to update the Scientology discretionary sanctions now posted,  Roger Davies  talk 04:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indented now that that motion is passing. Courcelles 17:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With the same thinking as Courcelles. AGK  [•] 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Switched to support, now that the "Motion on Scientology discretionary sanctions" has carried. AGK  [•] 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain

Clarification: Speed of light (Brews ohare) (June 2012)

 * Original discussion

Case link: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light 

Initiated by  JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds at 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Statement by JohnBlackburne
It seems the sanctions under this case have expired with his block, but Brews ohare has returned to the articke talk page of one of the articles that was the subject of that case,, because of his attempts insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths and physics. He has in the last few weeks tried to get rewritten but identical material added, then soon after that was rejected started an RfC on the same material. The RfC even more clearly rejected his additions, but he has today proposed a version of it yet again, as if the previous RfC, discussion in early April and of course arbitration case on his previous disruption of this talk page never happened (so objections can be dismissed because the previous discussions and arguments don't exist, and every other editor is expected to explain the problems with his insertions yet again).

My question is: is this behaviour covered by the arbitration case ? Or has that now fully expired and this should be taken to another venue (and if so which)?-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews ohare: the RfC was the place to discuss content. This is neither the time or the place. I made my comments on the content during the RfC, there is no point doing so again. You closed the RfC, after only a week, so it seemed you were happy that the discussion had run its course and consensus had been reached. It's your continuing to argue again and again after that that's the problem. It was the RfC that drew me in, as a site-wide notice on a topic I'm interested in. As always if you find fault with my contributions please provide diffs not vague accusations. The link to find them is in my signature.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews ohare You do know that posting off-wiki information about editors that they have not volunteered themselves is considered harassment, don't you? If I cared to keep my identity private I would not use my real name here but it is still strictly forbidden.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: the problem is suggesting something to Brews ohare doesn't work. Asking politely doesn't work. Asking pointedly with links to relevant policies doesn't work. It's not that he doesn't understand such suggestions and requests: he just refuses to accept them, and has instead written essays saying how it should be done and how editors like him should be properly respected. Even arbitration didn't work. The only thing that stopped him disrupting talk pages and wasting many editors time by creating multiple RfCs (   , all this year) and forum shopping was a block.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 14:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@AGK: I would like to clarify that this is not a content issue, though it would suit Brews ohare if it were. My presentation above is perhaps not clear on this, so here's the detail again, chronologically:
 * Brews ohare first proposes an addition. Two editors object, discussions ensue
 * Not accepting that the consensus is against him Brews ohare starts an RFC referencing the previous discussion. More editors join in, including myself. The text is rewritten multiple times, breaking other editors replies. The consensus turns even more clearly against the additions, however phrased.
 * Brews ohare closes the RFC, presumably happy with the result or at least resigned to not convincing other editors
 * He continues to argue with other editors over the article
 * Dicklyon asks him to stop
 * his reply blames Dicklyon
 * he continues to argue about the RFC content
 * and again asks for "reconsideration" of the RFC content
 * I, Srleffler and  Dicklyon ask him to stop
 * he dismisses these objections as "cheer-leading" and "missing the point".

The text went through multiple revisions but is the same material throughout: even Brews last attempt says it is for "reconsideration", and the text can be compared with the last version in the RFC. I've not tried connecting this to the 2009 discussions that Dicklyon mentioned as I was not involved with them. It's also hard to find them: Brews ohare made over half the edits on this talk page, more than twice that of the next most frequent contributor, often rewriting his own contributions.

This reminds me of my observations here: ''this is not about physics, or natural sciences, or mathematics. It's about every other page Brews ohare takes an interest in becoming a battle ground, of edit warring if its an article, of tendentious editing on a talk or project page – dominating the discussion so other editors are swamped, ignoring consensus and process, repeatedly refusing to AGF, ignoring requests to stop and warnings – before trying to lawyer himself out of the inevitable visit to arbitration''. Only a few months after that block ended and exactly the same is happening.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 02:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: That was the subject of the RFC, which is now closed as noted above and archived since, so it's too late to participate. Though even if you had it seems very unlikely given the overwhelming consensus against including it that it would have made any difference.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews ohare: You haven't provided diffs of my supposed improper behaviour, or at least not here. Diffs look like this one,, in which you imply some unnamed editor is 'an idiot' and suggest another or others of 'cowardice'. You can link them like above or link them with text describing them, such as this where you accuse me of 'efforts to embroil (you) in many contexts' (whatever that means). Please provide diffs of my supposed disruptive behaviour so I know what I am being accused of and can respond. Without such diffs your accusations are baseless and do nothing but make your own arguments weaker.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 00:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon
The problem is not so much "incorrect material", but tangential, poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information, and a few bits wrong, too, combined with refusal to hear or understand objections. When I was defending the Wavelength article against his bloat and nonsense in the summer of 2009, I thought he was probably an overreaching grad student; turns out he's a prof emeritus and fellow of the IEEE, so no dummy. But in the years since, he demonstrated repeatedly an inability to collaborate, or to even understand the objections of other editors to what he is trying to do. This blew up more at Speed of light because there were plenty of other serious editors there. I'm very happy that JohnBlackburne and a few others have been recently helping out at Wavelength, because I don't have the time or energy to take on that defense again. I have no idea how to convince Dr. Brews to take on a workable style, but this is a drag. The arbitration was supposed to help put him back on a tolerable track; I hope the arbs will look at how to help here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the technical argument is Brew's claim that "the Fourier series is the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that". That's nonsense. The Fourier series is one tool used to analyze periodic functions, primarily in the context of linear systems for which a decomposition into sinusoids allows easy solutions and characterizations of behaviors. This is not the case in the situation where he is introducing the Fourier series into the wavelength article; none of the (relatively few) sources that mention the connection show any way that it is useful. It is a red herring, a dead-end tangent. Decomposition of waves into sinusoids is indeed important, but least so in the context of periodic-in-space waves; the wavelength article is hardly the place to get into this. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb
Not this crap again... that's all I have to say. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Brews_ohare
The gist of Blackburne's complaint is that I have attempted to insert "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths". The text so-described is presented on Talk:Wavelength as a proposed addition as follows: If the direct quote from the cited source fails to convince, here are three others:
 * This source is cited in the article already, and this figure shows periodic waveforms in space. This source refers to Fourier series in the same context proposed for the suggested insertion in the green box.
 * This source is cited in the article already, and this figure shows periodic waveforms in space. This source refers to Fourier series in the same context proposed for the suggested insertion in the green box.
 * This source is cited in the article already, and this figure shows periodic waveforms in space. This source refers to Fourier series in the same context proposed for the suggested insertion in the green box.

I believe this sets aside Blackburne's claim that I attempt to "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths", and also Dicklyon's claims that this text represents "poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information" or of inserting "bloat and nonsense". It also refutes mistaken arguments by Dicklyon that "wavelength" is not applicable to functions periodic in space ("And your statement that ‘The wavelength, say λ, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself ’ is contrary to typical usage of the term ‘wavelength’ " Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2012).

At this point, it is established that content is not the issue here, and smearing this proposal as an example of bloat, flawed understanding, and idiosyncrasy is wide of the mark, and reflects poorly upon the grasp of the text by its critics. As Dicklyon is a self-professed "research engineer in Silicon Valley" and Blackburne a declared mathematician, one may wonder how these basic misconceptions have arisen. On any other WP article a minor sourced quotation making a connection between one topic (wavelength) and others (Fourier series) on WP would attract no attention whatsoever. I am forced to speculate that the primary source of the extreme response here is that Dicklyon and Blackburne have a prior history with me, and it is their lingering objections to my contributing to WP that drives them to bizarre claims contrary to sources, not this particular content. Brews ohare (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If further support for the content presented is required, I can supply an unending list of texts describing Fourier series and its application to periodic functions, and a case can be made that Fourier series is the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that.

What remains is the general claim that my Talk-page discussion insists too much on adding this aside to the reader, over "objections" of other authors. I'd suggest that these objections have been largely based upon misconceptions about the content of the proposed text and its purpose. My attempts to explain that this is an aside pointing out the applicability of the mathematical machinery of periodicity to the topic of spatially periodic waveforms has been addressed by Dicklyon using the argument that Fourier series is not useful for this purpose, which seems to me to be patently absurd. The entire history of functional analysis begins with Fourier series applied to periodic functions, and it is the subject of innumerable textbooks.

My interchange with Dicklyon on Talk:Wavelength extends over several topics, and not just this particular point. Sometimes such discussion gets somewhere, and sometimes it doesn't. That is what Talk pages are for. Brews ohare (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As an example of a fruitful outcome, a discussion on Talk:Wavelength led to my authoring of the article Envelope (waves) when it appeared that this topic could not be addressed within Wavelength itself. Other discussions led to the inclusion of the topic of local wavelength and a figure, the inclusion of the section on crystals and the notion of aliasing with another figure, and to the sections on interference and diffraction with two more figures (all figures created by myself). In fact, seven of the figures in Wavelength were contributed by myself and accompanied by additional text and sources arrived at through discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read the comment by Count Iblis. I believe he has a point in a way. I recognize that most of my interactions with Dicklyon prove difficult, and the proposed text was clearly one of those. I modified my proposal several times to make it a more and more minor addition, hoping to get some recognition that Fourier series in some form should be mentioned in Wavelength. Some formulation of this point could be acceptable to all if the point were developed jointly in a constructive manner. But the practical approach is for me to keep in mind the limitations upon what is possible with Dicklyon and Blackburne, and recognize that Blackburne will adopt every opportunity to drag AN/I or some Administrator into what would otherwise settle itself. Brews ohare (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Count Iblis: Thanks for the added remarks. Dealing with Dicklyon at length has succeeded sometimes, but Blackburne's intolerance makes this more unlikely than in the past. My efforts to widen opinion using RfC hasn't worked. Your recommendation of Wikiproject physics as an alternative mechanism to get other editors involved, and to limit my own participation, is worth trying in the future. Brews ohare (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Count Iblis: You raise the very practical question "how can you actually get something done here while facing opposition?", and suggest an approach bases upon aggressive revision of the article Main page that, if properly crafted, will force Talk page objections into a productive framework. It is unfortunate that so often Talk pages must be viewed in this light as struggling against opposition, instead of joining collaboration. In particular, if some of the editors interested in a page perhaps do not share even the same concept of what a WP article should be, or view exchange of ideas as survival of the fittest, or see WP as a venue to establish who counts, that is the result. Brews ohare (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Count Iblis: I believe you are right that where I have made new articles or added large sections I have been more successful. For example, Envelope (waves) developed when arguments by Dicklyon and others prevented exploration of periodic envelopes on Wavelength. By creation of a new article, these editors were faced with a wide open argument about deletion, which they did not attempt. Likewise, with Blackburne on Idée fixe, as you mentioned. In that case he tried for deletion and lost in the wider community. Also, Length measurement avoided the controversy portions of this topic caused on metre. Any approach that widens the number of editors that might become involved in a dispute proves beneficial. Brews ohare (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Count Iblis' proposal. Count, can you explain your proposal more? Here is my confusion. You propose a list of only 3 articles where I can edit. It isn't clear to me what the list is about. Immediately after introducing a maximum of 3 articles, you go on to say that there are many articles where I can contribute without problems. So I suppose the list refers to 3 articles where problems have shown up, and that seems opposite to what you have said. I'd take it that a complaint to the mentor about Brews ohare's Talk-page participation by an upset editor leads the mentor to review that Talk page and decide whether it goes on the list or not. It is the mentor's job to look at the discussion and decide for himself if it is too extended, based not upon content, but upon how much back and forth has occurred. Once listed, I have to abandon that page, but I am unclear how a page becomes removed from the list unless it is has to be removed because another one is added, and the limit is 3 pages. If I have got this right, or otherwise, can you extend your presentation to make these points more transparent? If I've got it right, I'd say this proposal is workable for me. If instead I am allowed to work on only 3 articles altogether, I don't find that acceptable. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to My very best wishes, I gather that you pose a query to me that can be narrowly expressed something like this: "Assuming that Brews_ohare is completely correct in stating that a sourced quotation has pertinence to the article Wavelength, and assuming further that opposition to its inclusion is not well founded, would you, Brews_ohare, nonetheless agree to desist from pursuing this particular attempt to include this material in Wavelength?" I'd answer that the posited assumptions reflect how I think about this matter, but, as stated above in my response to Count Iblis, I also see that there is little point in pursuing the issue on Talk:Wavelength under the prevailing circumstances. So, yes, I'll move on. Your question, however, is posed more broadly, not restricted to this episode on Talk:Wavelength. In a broader context, regarding discussion in general, I'll have to consider carefully to what extent Dicklyon is open to discussion should he appear on another Talk page. I'd point out the paragraph above detailing positive outcomes for Wavelength in interaction with Dick. These were the result of useful but difficult discussions with Dick. Now a further difficulty to weigh in future is that any extended discussion with Dick will draw in Blackburne, who will use any detailed discussion as an opportunity to invite Administrator attention, even using a pretext such as this supposed query about "clarification" of an expired sanction. I will doubtless be more careful in the future. Brews ohare (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes: Thanks for the remarks. Yes, there is no general answer to these kinds of problem. The answer appears in this case to depend upon my exercising more care in dealing with these two, regardless of the topic or the merits. Brews ohare (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes: I interpret your added remark as a suggestion that I be topic banned to reduce clamor on Talk:Wavelength. If your suggestion is a page-ban, it is hardly necessary, as it is clear to me that the present discussion is over. If your suggestion is more general, I would strongly object that such a serious action goes far beyond anything suggested by Talk:Wavelength. Brews ohare (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes: I'd add to these remarks that many past prolonged discussions on Talk:Wavelength have proved productive, as evidenced by the discussions attached in Wavelength to the seven figures I have contributed there. Not all prolonged, and even heated, discussions are useless, although they may not generate a glow of satisfaction. Of course, the atmosphere on Talk pages is not always ideal (to say the least), and results often stem from debate as much as from collaboration. However, if the discussions on Talk:Wavelength had been inhibited by the threat of sanctions, the article Wavelength would not be as good. Brews ohare (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Srleffler, the proposed text in the green box is not merely rehash. The proposal narrowed in scope and purpose over time to become what it now is, a simple cross-reference between Wavelength and Fourier series, a much more limited reference than that found in the four sources cited above. However, your objections never addressed this change, as explicitly pointed out to you. Brews ohare (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Blackburne's objections to my "outing" him: I was unaware that referring to a link to your photo would prove upsetting, as it is immediately available from the link posted on your WP User page. My apologies. I also was unaware of any policy in this regard. I have removed the link. Brews ohare (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Blackburne: I'm gratified to see you read my two essays 1, 2 though surprised at the tone of your reaction and your invented titles for them. You now are using this "clarification" as a foot in the door to squeeze in a smear campaign. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Jclemens: Although it may appear from Blackburne's perspective that simple head-butting took place on Talk:Wavelength, in fact the discussion did evolve. It ended with the text in the green box that makes the connection between Wavelength and Fourier series. As pointed out by direct quotes from published sources, objections that this text contains improper content are wrong. The objections actually are only a matter of taste: the value of a digression. Nonetheless, at this point I recognize that even this limited proposal has been rejected.

You have advised "all parties to work together toward improving the articles in question". One might wish that interactions between myself and Dicklyon, with occasional participation by Srleffler, were less confrontational. Nonetheless, improvements to Wavelength have resulted from our past interactions, leading to eight figures contributed by myself and their related content. One such discussion led to the new article Envelope (waves). So, although our relationship is imperfect, shall we say, it can have positive results, and it does not require Arbitration. Brews ohare (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Kirill: There is nothing complicated about this case at all, if you look at it closely. The proposed text in the green box is nothing more than a straightforward quote from a reliable source, backed up by further sources for the purpose of this case. Bringing it forward here as a "clarification" of a dead sanction is only pretext, as you have noticed. This action simply is harassment by Blackburne, who was involved only peripherally in the discussion of this proposal. The real discussion was between Dicklyon and myself, and we frequently disagree about how a topic should be presented or even whether it should be presented. These differences are often just a matter of taste, as in the present case where the actual content is beyond reproach, and the only issue is evaluation of pertinence to the topic. Our joint history shows that we can sort these matters out without the intervention of Administrators. See, for example, this, this and this as an example of one of our extended discussions that ended equably with positive results for WP. This whole matter should be thrown out in its entirety. Brews ohare (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary remarks
If I weren't the subject here, it would amuse me to see how a lengthy dispute between two editors (Dicklyon and Brews ohare) over including a reference to another WP article could be blown up to such proportions. The original object here of a so-called "clarification" of the Case:Speed of light, an expired sanction, has been completely put aside. By accepting the possibility of a topic ban, the matter is now, in effect, a case or a review with no name and no discovery, settled by a show of hands without open fact-finding.

Were it the case that the issue of noncontroversial or valuable edits were a factor in Arbs' thinking, the matter would be settled in my favor already. Since my return, among other articles Wikipedia now has Envelope (waves) and Length measurement and p-n diode and field effect (semiconductor) that were written by myself without controversy. Wavelength contains multiple figures by myself with associated discussions fashioned amid controversy with Dicklyon, when Blackburne was not about. When Dicklyon is not involved, my editing history is full of non-controversial additions to articles, the most recent being a history section for Dirac delta function.

A real question is why a gadfly like Blackburne is given credence when he sticks his nose into something he has no interest in, and doesn't take time to understand. Apparently, he is appreciated for other reasons.

Blackburne has made numerous appeals to arbitration since my return to WP from a ban of a year that was instigated in response to a request by Blackburne at that time. He has pursued me across Wikipedia, even to articles like Idée fixe (psychology) and several essays of mine, like Formal organization that have no relation to the topics of physics or math. Prior history shows this will continue with increased intensity should the topic ban be imposed, allowing claimed violation simply by raising content issues that formally lie outside Arbs' jurisdiction as spelled out in WP documentation. A topic ban takes any claim that the ban has been violated to AN/I, where content is moot, or allows any Administrator to institute reprisal by themselves, without discussion with anyone else.

Some Arbs have pointed out this matter is not a "clarification" at all, and if any action is to be taken at all, it involves some complex history that needs sorting out by a review or a full case. I hope that sense prevails. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I see an about-face by Arbs who now contradict their initial reactions, for no stated reasons. Disagreement between a very few editors on a Talk page? Despite Elen of the Roads' observations that Case:Speed of light was over and a new case was necessary, AGK's comments that the matter was too specialized for a motion, Krill's and PhilKnight's agreement with that, Jclemens' exhortation that all parties work together, and SilkTork's seeing no problem with Talk page discussion? What happened, one might ask? Why were all of Roger Davies' motions against Brews ohare, and none for other alternatives? What has the pretext for this action of a "clarification" of a dead Case:Speed of light got to do with all this? The dead Case:Speed of light has decided things, after all, it seems.

There isn't any sign my remarks were considered, nor those of the community at large.

It's too bad. Brews ohare (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Elen of the Roads: "Everyone else is quoting textbooks, Brews ... has his own interpretations. There's your problem." Elen, that is nonsense: it is my text in the green box that cites sources. There is no interpretation by Brews, and the claims by the critics is not sourced at all, and in fact contradicts four cited sources. Brews ohare (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides, this is not a content dispute, but a dispute over whether I am allowed to protest on a Talk page over spurious allegations contrary to sources. Apparently that rebuttal has limits, and my behavior in many other cases shows that I am aware of this fact, and have desisted. Were a full review opened, these matters could be properly explored, and my behavior properly assessed. Brews ohare (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Jclemens: "This [a topic ban] seems a more appropriate way forward when only one previously-sanctioned user's conduct is being questioned." Two questions: Why is a topic ban preferable to the proposed motion limiting Talk-page interaction, which has obvious advantages for easy Administrator enforcement and eliminates murky decisions about content? And, why is it that only the actions of one editor, Brews ohare, is under consideration when it is clear that Blackburne has pursued Brews ohare all over WP, and Dicklyon has been the major partner in long discussion wherever he has shown up? Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens: You say "you may be questioning the conduct of two other editors, but I didn't--and still don't on a quick re-read-through--see anyone else doing so here". That seems to be the case, no-one else has dwelt upon this issue. That doesn't mean it isn't there. In my comments I have linked diffs by the score showing Blackburne's efforts to embroil me in many contexts. And there are also diffs above showing Dicklyon's engagements with me can be very extended, so their length in itself is not a cause for alarm until Blackburne capitalizes upon it.
 * I am aware having looked at statistics that Arbs have a lot of stuff to deal with, a mind-boggling amount in fact. So the time to look at things is limited. However, in this case these pressures have led you astray.
 * In any event, the proposal I have offered to limit my Talk-page interactions fixes all this, regardless of the brou-ha-ha and regardless of why it all came to be, or who is at fault. Brews ohare (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Way forward
So far the motions under consideration by arbitrators are limited in nature. The goal of all of them is to limit what is seen as my disruption of Talk pages.

A much simpler way to do this than the proposals, and one that does not eliminate my ability to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way, is a motion imposing a limit on how many times I can attempt to rephrase a proposed addition to the main page without censure of some kind.

A motion of this form has two advantages: it eliminates my causing long Talk-page discussions while allowing me to contribute non-controversial material such as Envelope (waves), history of the Dirac delta function, and figures, and at the same time it is easy to administer. Instead of judging whether or not a contribution of mine on (say) 'Pythagoras' is biographical, mathematical or physics-related (an undertaking difficult for Admins with no technical background) an Admin has only to be able to count how many times I have attempted to explain a proposal of mine.

It seems probable to me that by working under such stricture I would develop habits of discussion acceptable to the community, and eliminate pretexts for arbitration.

There is no need for Admins to keep an eye on matters: if no editor complains about Brews ohare, there is nothing to worry about. If an editor does complain, that will trigger Administrator attention, and a count of Brews ohare replies will result. The criterion of three replies is so easy to implement that it seems likely to be a rare occurrence that Brews ohare will overstep. Brews ohare (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A different motion has been advanced by Count Iblis and My very best wishes. That proposal involves appointment of an intermediary who would decide when and whether a suggestion of mine was ready for prime time, and serve to interface between myself and other editors. Some version of this proposal could work, but I feel that it is a burden upon the mentor that might make it hard to find a volunteer.

In any event, the present motions do not address my Talk-page discussions in the best way, and some more creative measure, like the two suggested here, would be better for the future of WP. Brews ohare (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To limit Talk-page discussions
Brews ohare is advised to limit his Talk-page discussion of topics to an initial proposal and three or fewer responses to rejection. Follow-up proposals or new threads initiated by Brews ohare concerning the same topic do not re-initiate the count. Introduction of a new thread by another editor does reset the count. Brews ohare may reintroduce a topic on a Talk page after a lapse of time set as six months, which resets the count upon Brews ohare's ability to respond. These strictures upon Brews ohare will be reviewed in one year to see how things are going.

The penalty for violation of these requirements will be a page-ban for one year from the page and its Talk-page where the violation occurred.
 * @Roger Davies: Roger, you have indicated on your Talk page that this proposal to limit my Talk-page activity cannot be proposed as an alternative here because you "do not feel sufficiently confident in the outcome to propose it as an alternative." You go on to say that a topic ban is a great approach because an editor (like Brews ohare) will have no trouble steering clear of any edits that could possibly infringe upon the ban.


 * Of course, history shows that to be nonsense: who can anticipate that some editor will call it an infraction of a physics ban to cite an author in an unrelated connection who also happens to be a physicist. Or that an idiot will confuse geometry with physics? All of which have happened, as the diffs I showed you substantiate.


 * Your timidity regarding presenting this alternative to your peers speaks well neither of your common sense, nor of your opinion of their abilities as Arbs.


 * Inasmuch as a perfectly fine solution to the supposed difficulties here cannot be discussed out of cowardice that it may have possible but unimagined pitfalls (which, of course, always could be corrected in another action of "clarification"), this entire proceeding is now perfectly crowned for all to marvel, a WP wonderment. Brews ohare (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @SilkTork: You've obliquely criticized this proposed Talk page restriction as allowing trouble before it is detected. Apparently the idea is that a topic ban will prevent disruption altogether, and not just react to it.  Your criterion for a viable sanction is that it stop any disruption before it begins.
 * One way to insure no trouble is to make a very clear sanction. Brews ohare and everyone here can count to three, so the likelihood of a transgression of the proposed Talk-page limitation is very small.
 * In contrast, the likelihood of a topic ban leading to Administrator intervention is very high, based upon WP history. The reason for this dismal record of the topic ban is that a topic ban necessarily involves assessment of the content of edits, and both Administrators and editors cannot make the necessary technical distinctions. What is worse, they tend to push a topic ban far beyond the need to limit issues for WP, and instead wikilawyer the thing beyond any reasonable interpretation, as when a topic ban against physics is construed to be violated by citing a published source in a physics-unrelated matter simply because its author happens to be a physicist. Brews ohare (talk)
 * A further factor to consider is that the difficulties on Talk pages occur primarily with Dicklyon and Blackburne. This proposal should stop that problem effectively, because I will be unable to carry on long discussions with Dicklyon (even profitable but lengthy discussions like those on Talk:MOSFET 1, 2, 3) regardless of their utility. The brevity of future discussions and the clarity of this sanction will provide Blackburne with no future occasion to request "clarification". Brews ohare (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These remarks are intended to assist in the consideration of methods to limit Talk-page activity, and I am happy to see that SilkTork is open to such a discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved My very best wishes
I am not quite sure why the overall atmosphere in Physics is significantly more hostile than in Biology and Chemistry. It could be that articles in this area are better developed and therefore more difficult to improve, or it could be that some editors want everything to be described exactly as in their favorite textbook (although there are alternative interpretations) and in their favorite version of article, so they should be reminded of WP:NPOV and WP:own. What I mean is not the editing by Brews, but the overall opposition to making changes in this area (including changes proposed by Brews). Actually, editors in the area of Physics and Math (including Brews) made an outstanding work. Now the real challenge is to make some of these articles more understandable and even interesting for students and general public. This can be done by using introductory textbooks and good books on popular science that prove scientific concepts by explaining them. Unfortunately, such RS are frequently and unfairly dismissed merely on the grounds that they are not "academic" (even if written by experts with PhD degrees), and not only in the area of Physics.

In this particular situation, I do not think that returning to old subjects was a problem because consensus can change, but Brews must carefully avoid to be engaged in WP:DE. I do not see any proof of WP:DE by Brews at the moment - agree with Silk Tork. My very best wishes (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Brews. Please consider the following situation. There is certain perfectly sourced information that you think must be included, but there is also a couple of other people who do not want it to be included, and they are wrong. Would you agree to drop the issue and edit something else? Please read WP:TE before response. ( Just to clarify, I am not telling here that "opponents" of Brews are wrong). My very best wishes (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Brews. Thank you. I think there is no general answer to this, and it well could be that the "other guys" are engaged in WP:DE, paid advocacy, or a personal crusade against an editor, even if they form majority (once again, I am talking generally here, not about people in this particular incident). This is a situation when WP:Consensus sometimes comes in a contradiction with WP:NPOV and improving the content. But unfortunately, there is no other choice, but to follow WP:Consensus if we do not want to be sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Brews. No, I do not have an opinion that people who continue civil discussions even when they are in minority should be topic-banned. But I am not sure about our policies in such cases and therefore asked to clarify. In a couple of cases I looked at (Pythagorean_theorem and Wavelength), I think that your suggested changes do not significantly improve these pages (although there is nothing wrong with your materials to be included), so you could spend your time more efficiently by switching to other articles in the area of Physics, as you did during the  initial period of your editing here. However, in  another case, you were absolutely right, and there is now a constructive discussion on this article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This looks to me as prolonged disputes on numerous talk pages, such as here some time ago and now here. The arguments by Brews are not unreasonable, and he provides some valid sources. At the same time, I can agree that such discussions are frequently fruitless, distract people from making productive contributions, and therefore can lead to sanctions. But we have much longer and even less productive discussions in many other subject areas, for example here. Should we just look who contributed most in such discussions and topic-ban the leader? Please clarify. My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @ I think this is an excellent point by AGK ("I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea"). Indeed, an administrator frequently can not judge if a user contributes positively to the project or makes a disservice to reader (as Helen said ), unless he knows the subject. Actually, the biggest mistakes can be made in cases when an admin thinks that he knows something (because he follows "common sense" or read about it in newspaper - usually in the areas of history and politics), but he actually does not. Unfortunately, not knowing the subject is an official policy: all admins are prohibited from ruling in the areas where they edit and therefore read a lot about. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @JohnBlackburne. I did not read the entire discussion (too long, did not read, sorry), but the question that Brews asks in the beginning is this: "Comment is sought as to whether a reference to Fourier series is appropriate under the heading general periodic waveforms". Yes, it is. Certainly there is nothing wrong here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Brews would be much better off by immediately dropping any issue that meets opposition, and I am sure he realizes this by now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps my problem is that I did not see the previous disputes with Brews. Sorry, I am not interested. It is enough that I looked at his content contributions and found them good. But to ban a user for conducting civil discussion on a talk page of one article is over the top. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @SilkTork. I respectfully disagree. Yes, the list of previous sanctions for Brews looks convincing to me. The only relevant question now is this: did he made any serious policy violation this time. I think he actually did not. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @AGK. Yes, I agree. There are no problems with article Wavelength or with content changes suggested by Brews. Neither I see any serious problems with discussion by Brews. In fact, the only action needed on the part of other editors was to firmly say "no" one time (if they are so strongly opposed to the change by Brews, and I am not opposed to his changes), and peacefully leave the page. There was no edit warring about this. And if other editors continued discussion, it means that discussion was meaningful, exactly as Brews tells. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Srleffler. Yes, I agree that Brews is a very knowledgeable contributor in Physics, Engineering and Math, and it would be shame to loose him. I also agree with proposal by Count Iblis. Of course I did not mean that someone just tells "no" at article talk page. I mean that someone comes to an RfC, tells his opinion, justifies it by sources, and leaves. But if he wants to continue discussion, this is fine too. And it is not uncommon that someone wants to have "last word" and makes a long post, but remains in minority and looses the dispute (no matter if he was right or wrong), like Brews. But considering this a sanctionable offense is over the top. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Count Iblis
Brews is making the mistake of trying to get his way by posting more RFCs. Thing is that being right on the issue doesn't give you the right to edit your way. The first time, I did see the RFC Brews posted, and I wanted to comment, but I abandoned that due to lack of time. I did not agree with Brews' proposal, but I had an idea about an alternative text that would mention Fourier transforms.

What struck me also was the lack of such contructive efforts, because obviously, Fourier transforms does in principle have a place in an article about wavelengths, regardless of how flawed Brews' proposal was. So, there is also something wrong about the general editing climate if the issue isn't properly debated. If editor X raises an issue and he has a point, then one should discuss the point that does exist and steer the discussion toward that, and not focus on opposing by ignoring the real points that exist and only focussing on where the editor goes wrong. Because then that editor will eventually correct himself and you end up dancing around the central point for a long time, causing everyone to get irritated.

So, I would suggest Brews to limit the time he spends online here editing and arguing on the talk page. Try to get it (almost) right the first time you propose something, or when you edit something in an article. To the others, I would say that they should be more positive about any proposals. This doesn't mean that you have to accept something that is bad, just that you would in that case end up rejecting in a way that would more likely conclude the debate. E.g. on the Tachyon page I see too much opposition for proposed edits while in the end you had to accept the proposal. Surely, that could have been agreed to weeks earlier by acknowledging that the proposer did have a legitimate point here? Count Iblis (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Brews, by limiting the time spend here, what I meant was the time you spend here in some uphill effort to get something into the article. I would recommend that as soon as you experience any difficulties like in this case, you drop a line at Wikiproject physics instead of letting the issue fester for many weeks. But then, after briefly explaining your point, you should let others take a look while you reduce your input significantly. There is, of course, nothing wrong with spending a lot of time editing and arguing constructively on Wikipedia.

Don't think that everyone at Wikiproject physics is going to oppose you, because of the past history. I remember that Headbomb asked for input there because he was having difficulties editing the Planck law article last year. He got support on some points, but on some other points he did not get support. So, this isn't some rubber stamp procedure where the people who you got difficulties with in the past, always get their way.

I think this is better than posting RFCs, because this is more likely to lead to new editors actually getting involved in the article. What matters in the end is if some text is going to be seen to be appropriate for the article by the larger community and eventually by the readers of Wikipedia, not by any particular editor. Count Iblis (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne, you have been de-facto patrolling Brews edits the last few years. You do this with the best of intentions (and that not necessarily actively, you may simply see Brews' edits on your wachlist), but in practice this leads to problems of the same type we've seen in quite a few other ArbCom cases. Your Wiki-philosophy is too much at odds with Brews'. Where there are two completely opposite but legitimate points of views regarding edits, you two end up preferring the different options, see e.g. this editing history and this AFD discussion of that article. If you then also find yourself having to cite Wiki-policies to Brews on other occasions when its more serious and you intent to go to a noticeboard if he doesn't listen, he may not take you serous, even though the issue may now not ambiguous, i.e. Brews is wrong and you are right. I guess Brews also needs to see examples of how you can actually get something done here while facing opposition, instead of only being told not to do something here whenever there is opposition. The example given by My very best wishes is a good thing to explore. So, the lede of the Fourier transform article now says that: "The Fourier transform is a mathematical operation with many applications in physics and engineering that expresses a mathematical function of time as a function of frequency, known as its frequency spectrum; Fourier's theorem guarantees that this can always be done."

I have to say that I find this definition mentioning time completely unacceptable too. The question is then how to go about changing this definition, without having to fight some uphill battle on the talk page. If I imagine how things are likely to go wrong with Brews insisting on the relevant issue on the talk page, it's actually because Brews will be "too nice" at the start. He will make the most minimalist of proposals you can imagine. He thinks by doing that he can avoid stepping on people's toes. But then, because he went out of his way with such a proposal, he will argue fanatically for it, ending up annoying people after a while.

My style of editing is completely different, I would completely rewrite the introduction of the article to make room for a more general definition. That creates far more room to deal with legitimate opposition than some minimalist proposal affecting only one or two sentences. I would not engage in arguments with people who oppose me but have no good arguments, who have WP:OWN issues. I gave them less room to exploit other issues to argue about. So, my starting position is much stronger than that of Brews. But this does require more work, as you have to rewrite a lot more of the article. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews, for the articles you have been involved in it looks like that way. Now, I'm not saying that you have always been right in disputes, just that you have ended up being opposed with what you wanted to do quite often. Then, you can look at what you have been successul at doing here. I think that the larger editing efforts by you have been more productive, like the large sections of some classical mechanics articles (e.g. about curvelinear motion). I have the impression that whenever you engage in editing well developed articles here on more minor points, that this leads to problems.

So, perhaps you should think about creating new articles, or edit complete new sections in articles. That will automatically move you toward articles that are not well developed yet, and then you are less likely to encounter editors with strong WP:OWN feelings, plus you have all the benefits I wrote about above. My editing here is more focussed on these sorts of articles, see e.g. my recent edits to Gaussian quadrature.

If someone were to object to these edits, and start a discussion about that, then the ball would be more in his court than mine, because the formula and the proof should be in either this article or somewhere else. So, simply reverting and deleting the edits because, say, it is too textbook like, or because no sources are given, isn't really an option. These are issues that can be fixed by including sources or rewriting to make it less textbook like. But such discussions are less likely to happen in the first place.

Note that when you created the Idee Fixe article, it was put on PROD and then on AFD, so the opposer of that article had to argue with the larger community, not you, and he lost his argument. While you also argued a lot on the AFD page, you could have left only a brief comment there and then completely ignore the opposer. Count Iblis (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban will lead to more problems not less. I've explained that and suggested an alternative on Roger Davies' talk page. Basically this is a ban on editing any article or talk page unless given permission to do so by a mentor. Count Iblis (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Proposed Motion
 * Brews restricted to work on an approved list of articles

The previous time there was topic ban, the same problems manifested themselves in some of the math articles Brews was working on, leading to a site ban for a year. So the problem is not topic related. While the present topic ban mentions "physics related", the problem really hasn't got one iota to do with physics. The nature of the problem is that when opposed, Brews will tend to try to talk his way out of that opposition. That he makes a proposal that is wrong in some case (i.e. his own interpretation that is not fully supported by a source) isn't actually the fundamental cause, because we can all make such mistakes. If you are right but the proposal is not welcome, you still have to accept that.

Then, because Brews has been able to work productively in many articles without friction, I would aks the Arbs to consider this proposal:

'''Brews is restricted to work on a list of articles, the list is determined by a mentor and is limited to a maximum of 3 articles. A link to the list is posted on the Speed of Light ArbCom page. Should Brews edit any other article than the listed ones, Brews will be blocked as part of the regular ArbCom enforcement procedure, and that block will be logged at the relevant ArbCom page.'''

There are plenty of articles where Brews can work without there being much friction on the talk page. But suppose that the mentor would need to intervene, how would that work? Note here that the perceived disruption caused by Brews is typically a slow moving one, where a discussion goes on and on and on and on. This means that a mentor who monitors how Brews is doing has ample time to intervene. The mentor can also be contacted by editors who feel that Brews is starting to engage in an argument that will likely lead to nowhere, allowing the mentor to cut that short and remove the article from the list.

What the mentor won't do is try to see if Brews has a point. So, suppose that I'm the mentor and Blackburne contacts me to notify that he has reverted an edit by Brews and Brews has explained his edit on the talk page, then I would remove that article from the list. Clearly, Brews has then made his point, and if he really has a point, any other editor can continue from there. Whether I agree with Brews' point or not is then neither here nor there. My task is to steer Brews toward articles where such discussions to defend edits are not necessary in the first place (of course, engaging with constructive criticism would not be a problem).

So, this isn't a burden on the mentor. Admins can easily check if Brews is sticking to editing the 3 listed articles. Brews also prefers to work within these constraints instead of the physics related topic ban. Count Iblis (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Brews, you would only be allowed to work on 3 articles. This looks very restrictive, but note that the list is flexible. You have to consider this as an alternative to the complete physics topic ban and presumably also a very difficult editing experience in math articles, where your editing can be construed to be physics related or otherwise problems can occur and you then find yourself at AE frequently and perhaps eventually site banned for a year or longer. Also, for any restriction to have a chance to be accepted it must be practical to enforce. That's not difficult to do for a list of just a few articles.

Then about you feeling restricted a lot, in practice, that may not be a big deal because you can only ever edit at one place at a time, and looking at your conributions, you can see that you tend to stick to editing a few articles a lot. If you want to edit somewhere that is not in the list, you just propose that to the mentor, and you can get approval for that. But then another article will be removed, you then choose which one. If we limit the rate of changes to the list to one mutation per week, this will not be a burden to Admins who patrol AE.

Count Iblis (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Srleffler
The fundamental problem here is Brews' persistent, tendentious style. In June 2009 Brews introduced some weak material relating to nonsinusoidal waves and Fourier series decompositions of them. After much discussion, some of his ideas got reworked and put into the article and others did not. He just can't let go of the concepts that didn't make it in, though. No matter what arguments are raised or how many other editors object, he just keeps bringing forward the same ideas over and over and over again, with slight variations of form. Every now and then he files an RfC, and when his proposal is rejected he immediately resurrects it in yet another slight variation and starts all over again. It is tiresome, and a waste of time that could be put to better use editing other articles.--Srleffler (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Count Iblis' proposal should be considered. I agree with him that this issue is not really about physics; it is about Brews' editing style and method of interacting with other editors. A topic ban seems likely to be less effective and less appropriate than something that might help Brews to adjust how he approaches editing on Wikipedia. Also, Brews is extremely knowledgeable about physics and mathematics, and it would be a shame to lose his ability to make constructive edits in this area. --Srleffler (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To "My Very Best Wishes": you write "the only action needed on the part of other editors was to firmly say "no" one time ... and peacefully leave the page." That is not how Wikipedia works. We (the other editors) don't own the article; editing is by consensus. Simply telling another editor firmly "no" is not acceptable. Everyone who is making a good faith effort to contribute is entitled to an explanation when others disagree with their edits, and if the original editor is not convinced then a discussion is necessary to either change one side's mind or arrive at a consensus. The problem is just that Brews keeps coming back with the same issue again and again and again, neither convincing anybody nor being convinced, and not letting the matter drop. He compromises, but I'm often left feeling that the compromise versions are just the Camel's nose for a further attempt to introduce the rest of the material (some of the interactions in 2009 worked out this way, if I recall correctly). --Srleffler (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To Silktork: a talk-page-only restriction is clearly not going to work, unless it is tied to an article-space editing restriction. The problem is not bad talk page behaviour per se, but rather unending attempts to insert material into articles—not knowing when to give up and move on. What is required is something that limits his ability both to insert material into an article and to keep trying over and over and over to argue for that material on the associated talk page. To work, any solution has to not be prone to wikilawyering. Brews' proposal above concerns me in that regard, since I can see it leading to arguments over the definition of "the same topic" and "a new thread by another editor". (Brews tends to re-introduce the same ideas in slightly different form and insist that the repackaged material is altogether new.) Also, of course, article-space edits related to the talk page discussion would have to be prohibited: if he can't discuss a topic on the talk page, he should not be able to insert material related to that topic in the article. Count Iblis' proposal would be simpler to implement if a suitable "mentor" can be found, and it will be less prone to wikilawyering. The mentor could even implement something similar to Brews' proposal, but with the benefit that the mentor then is the one who decides whether a new thread is on "the same topic" or a different (but possibly related) one.--Srleffler (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496
I am a bystander with no involvement other than being appalled at how much disruption one editor can cause. I would like to note that Remedy 2 of the case was Brews ohare is warned to adhere to content policies and the expected standards of behavior and decorum, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.. If that remedy has any specific meaning at all, it ought to mean that Brews ohare is subject to sanctions via some sort of expedited process. Looie496 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification by Dr.K.
AGK made a supplementary statement on 21 May 2012 at 10:42 (UTC) as follows:

Yet almost a week after AGK issued his supplementary statement, arb after arb quote AGK in wanting to open a new case or review the existing one. But in his additional statement AGK essentially nullified his original statement and declined the amendment request. Why quote AGK then in conjunction with reopening or reviewing a case? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 16:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies: Thank you Roger. I was suspecting that much. Hopefully this incongruence may end now. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements, particularly from Brews Ohare. At first (brief) sight, any sanctions have expired; no discretionary sanctions were authorised; and the original case was sufficiently long ago (autumn 2009) to be left to lie. If there is misconduct, and if it very closely mirrors the 2009 case, and obviously I'm not expressing an opinion on either of those points, it might be possible to persuade arbitrators to re-open the 2009 case as it is within ArbCom discretion to re-open any prior case at any time.  Roger Davies  talk 05:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I too am happy to see this as either a case or a review, and (unless someone else beats me to it) will put proposals with the options. @Dr K: I suspect people are picking up on the first, rather than the second, of AGK's comments.  Roger Davies  talk 16:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have concerns that Brews is returning to WP:DE, but if that is the case, we can probably resolve this with a motion re-restricting him from the topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed this dispute, like SirFozzie I am concerned. However, I am minded to open a review of the original case, and would be uncomfortable with remedying this dispute by motion. We need a proper case (if an abridged one) with suitable mechanisms for evidence submission—not a Pop-Up Hearing on this page. AGK  [•] 15:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: This amendment has become absurdly specialised. We are not content experts, and (to my knowledge) no current arbitrator is qualified as a Physicist or similar. I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea. I therefore default to decline this amendment request. AGK  [•] 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Too soon for another case or motion, and would encourage other dispute resolution first. If via dispute resolution there is clear consensus of Tendentious editing, and Brews Ohare is warned and clearly ignores the warning, then it could be returned to us and we might be able to deal with this by a motion rather than a full case. I would suggest to Brews Ohare that it is OK to raise an issue once, but if consensus is against him, then he needs to wait 12 months before raising the same issue again. I think all of us will admit to having areas where we feel our views are the right ones, but consensus is against us. It can be frustrating, but it would be very damaging to the project if we all repeatedly raised the issue, so we move on, in the greater interests of the project as a whole.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is sufficient evidence of recent tendentious editing to open a case, then - given Brews Ohare's history - there may be sufficient evidence to deal with this by motion. It is not a complex case as far as I can see, and relates to whether or not a single user - Brews Ohare - has engaged in problematic editing. At this point I don't see raising questions on article talkpages in itself as problematic; though, in one case, the Wavelength article, Brews Ohare has been problematic by persisting in pushing a point. Without further specific evidence of problematic editing, however, I doubt I would support a ban, but I can see myself supporting a warning which would give admins at AE the power to block Brews Ohare if he repeats the tendentious editing evidenced at the Wavelength article.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  12:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the Speed of light case I note that Brews Ohare has a warning which appears to be still in place. Though, given his history, it appears that the warning wasn't sufficient then, and even a site ban hasn't moderated his behaviour. In the circumstances, a ban of some sort appears to be appropriate, and as the Wavelength incident appears to be an isolated incident I'm thinking that a topic ban would be more appropriate than a site ban.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm of a mind that if previously sanctioned editors cannot return to a topic and garner consensus for specific content modifications, and, upon failing to do so, cannot even take "no" for an answer, there is a small likelihood that their future interactions in the area will be constructive. I would encourage all parties to work together toward improving the articles in question, appropriately representing minority views represented in RS'es per NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The response to the clarification request is clear as far as I can see - the sanctions have expired, discretionary sanctions were not put in place. If Brews is returning to the behaviour that occasioned the first sanction, then he is in the position of a man up once again before the beak, charged with the same offense he was sent down for last time. I can see no merit to reopening the original case - he did his time for it. He's (continuing the metaphor) charged with breaking into a different house this time, and needs to be "found guilty in accordance with the law."  At that point, his previous offence will undoubtedly be taken into account in sentencing.  I apologise for the extended legal metaphor, but I hope it makes it clear.  John Blackburne/other parties will have (in my opinion) to either open another RFAR or potentially make a case at AN for a topic/siteban, if they believe it is possible to evidence the problematic behaviour without requiring a knowledge of post-doctoral physics. The community generally has little sympathy with a previously sanctioned editor who returns to their problematic behaviour, so Brews might be well advised to take the counsel of Kenny Rogers and "learn when to walk away, and learn when to run."Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per AGK, I think that the best way to proceed would be to hold a new hearing, either as a full new case (which I prefer) or as some form of review of the original case; the dispute here appears to be sufficiently complex that simply resolving it by motion will likely be impractical. Kirill [talk] 15:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Kirill and AGK. Risker (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, I would much prefer trying to address this by motion if we can. I can't see any value in forcing everyone to go through even an entire review, let alone a new case.  Risker (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not happy with this situation in which an editor who was banned for disruptive behavior in a topic continues, by all evidence, to continue to edit disruptively (albeit perhaps a bit less disruptively) on that topic. I do not believe that other users should be required to go through the entire dispute-resolution process, from beginning to end, all over again, to deal with such a situation: that strikes me as a sure-fire recipe for driving editors away. Hence I would support either a motion or a review here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Similar to Risker, Kirill, and AGK, I'd prefer either a review or full case. PhilKnight (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * After going through the R&I one, I think the difference between a review and a new case is almost purely one of terminology, so, fine with either. Courcelles 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Motions: Speed of light (Brews ohare)
I've extracted the main three options from the arbitrator discussion above and put together motions for each of them,  Roger Davies  talk 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To open a full case
The Committee authorises the immediate opening of a full case ("Speed of light 2"), to examine all aspects of the the conduct of JohnBlackburne (filing party) and Brew ohare (party) in relation to the Wavelength article and the Speed of light topic since the expiry of earlier sanctions on 21 November 2011.


 * Support:
 * Third choice. It seems to me that, as we do not make content decisions, the dispute that needs to be resolved is whether Brews ohare is repeating the earlier inappropriate behaviour that lead to his sanctions or whether he is responding reasonably to the unreasonable conduct of others. Given the comprehensive nature of the statements, we probably do not need a full case to resolve this.  Roger Davies  talk 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. AGK  [•] 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Courcelles 16:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Equal second choice, but I would prefer not to mention the names of any individuals in the motion. It is frankly obvious that the initial focus of the case will be Brews ohare, although the editing of other parties will be examined as the evidence may warrant. I see no reason in particular to mention Johhn Blackburne in the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The information we need to make a decision on this is already in front of us. A full case would have no purpose other then to use up time better spent elsewhere.SirFozzie (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The information is available for a decision to be made. Despite a warning, a restriction, and a topic ban, Brews ohare received several blocks until he was site banned for a year. The consideration is if this behaviour is a repeat of the tendentious editing that led to the previous sanctions. Regardless of if Brews ohare is correct in his thinking, that he continues to push his point even though consensus is against him is clearly disruptive. Given his history the decision appears to be topic or site ban, and I'm inclined to see if an indef topic ban will work. We have that as a motion, so a full case is not required.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He's repeating the behaviour of the last case. It doesn't need another case to establish this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Motion: To conduct a Review
The Committee will conduct a Review, ("Speed of Light/Review"), focusing on the conduct of Brews ohare in relation to the Wavelength article and the Speed of Light topic since the expiry of earlier sanctions on 21 November 2011. The Review will follow on an expedited timetable, to be set at a later date by consensus of the Committee.


 * Support:
 * Second choice. Again, given the comprehensive nature of the statements, we probably do not even need a review to resolve this issue.  Roger Davies  talk 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very weak second choice, again, I feel that the information we need to handle this is already in the history with the previous cases, its various amendments and clarifications, and this request.
 * First choice. AGK  [•] 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice. Courcelles 16:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Equal second choice for now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The information is available for a decision to be made. Despite a warning, a restriction, and a topic ban, Brews ohare received several blocks until he was site banned for a year. The consideration is if this behaviour is a repeat of the tendentious editing that led to the previous sanctions. Regardless of if Brews ohare is correct in his thinking, that he continues to push his point even though consensus is against him is clearly disruptive. Given his history the decision appears to be topic or site ban, and I'm inclined to see if an indef topic ban will work. We have that as a motion, so a review is not required.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the problem is self evident and not requiring of a review. Everyone else is quoting textbooks, Brews ... has his own interpretations. There's your problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Motion: Topic ban for Brews ohare
1. From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively and effectively with others within the topic and is thus repeating the behaviour which resulted in his now expired sanctions. The earlier episodes were very disruptive and were a great drain on the community's patience and resources.

2. It follows that preventative action is appropriate. Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. After a minimum period of at least one year has elapsed, Brews ohare may ask the Arbitration Committee to reconsider the topic ban, giving his reasons why the Committee should do so.

3. Should Brews ohare violate this topic ban he may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the clock for any lifting of the topic ban restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light. Appeals of blocks may only be made by email to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support:
 * First choice. Arguably the core issue has now been examined in statements, and Brews ohare has taken the opportunity to respond robustly and amply to what has been said. We are probably therefore in a position to deal with this on the basis on the statements already posted alone.  Roger Davies  talk 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice, very nearly only choice. SirFozzie (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite a warning, a restriction, and a topic ban, Brews ohare received several blocks until he was site banned for a year. This behaviour is a repeat of the tendentious editing that led to the previous sanctions. Regardless of if Brews ohare is correct in his thinking, that he continues to push his point even though consensus is against him is clearly disruptive. Given his history a ban of some form is appropriate, and I'm inclined to see if an indef topic ban will work, given that such a ban will be able to be enforced by AE admins.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much only choice. The community is not very sympathetic to editors who return from sanctions to repeat problematic behaviour - we should respect the desire of those editors who just want to get on with life. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Only choice. I do not see value in putting everyone else through hoops to come to this obvious conclusion. Risker (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Third choice. I share some of AGK's concerns here, mainly that the wording of probabilities is poor, and that Brews is likely not the only problem in this topic right now, but the conclusion of the topic ban itself is, IMO solid. Courcelles 16:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently my first choice, but I will consider this a tentative vote; I'm be open to persuasion (by AGK or anyone else) for another day or two that there is more to the situation than currently appears. I also agree with the suggestions for copyediting of the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems a more appropriate way forward when only one previously-sanctioned user's conduct is being questioned. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * "From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively": By our own admission, we are meandering blindly. Guided by conjecture and statements by parties to this dispute, we are proposing a topic-ban without a proper review of Brews' edits or the articles in question. Such a specialised dispute needs a proper examination, not a quick motion to eliminate the noisiest editor, and we ought to find out what is the real problem with this article. My own suspicion is that there is more to do here than topic ban Brews ohare, and I implore my colleagues to reconsider. AGK  [•] 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * @Brews, in reply to my above comment, you may be questioning the conduct of two other editors, but I didn't--and still don't on a quick re-read-through--see anyone else doing so here. So you can mentally change my commentary to read "... questioned by the community." if that improves things. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As it has been pointed out that Brews ohare's article contributions are valued and non-problematic, the suggestion that we consider some form of talkpage restriction seems worth considering, as that is the area of concern. It would be inappropriate to create a restriction which waits until Brews ohare becomes a nuisance, so it would need to be a ban on the talkpages of the topic. Is this workable? Would he also need to be restricted from the talkpages of editors in the topic area? What happens if Brews ohare makes an edit, which is then reverted. He would be unable to discuss it anywhere. Would he be able to accept that, or would he become frustrated? Given that his history has shown that he finds it difficult to accept consensus, especially when he feels he is in the right, I suspect a talkpage restriction would lead to problems. But I would be willing to discuss it.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)