Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 84

Amendment request: Scientology (May 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Francis Schonken at 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Requests for arbitration/Scientology:
 * "26) User:Rick Alan Ross is requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename; instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses; and restricted to one account only with his other named account, User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected to the main account."


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * diff of notification 173.72.57.223


 * Information about amendment request
 * Requests for arbitration/Scientology:
 * "26) User:Rick Alan Ross is requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename; instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses; and restricted to one account only with his other named account, User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected to the main account."
 * Request: ammend remedy 26 of the Scientology ArbCom case with "Rick Allen Alan Ross is permitted to edit Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) as "

Statement by Francis Schonken
Subject was referred to Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) by OTRS. In order to proceed it should be best that the situation resulting from the 2009 Scientology case is cleared. See Talk:Rick Ross (consultant). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrected Allen &rarr; Alan, sorry for the typo. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that my only stake in this is dealing with WP:BLP issues under WP:COI conditions (not my COI, the COI of Ross/173.72.57.223), without my current actions risking to be ultimately invalidated for a technical reason related to a past arbcom case. I think ArbCom can do something to avoid such risk. Some creativity may be needed, my creative proposal to amend the Scientology case is only one among several possibilities to iron this out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * re. what can be done:
 * contact the Arbitration Committee by email (if you haven't done so already)
 * login as User:Rick Alan Ross and edit with that account exclusively (instead of editing as IP 173.72.57.223)
 * (and other arbitrators), some suggestions:
 * check the ArbCom mailbox whether such email arrived recently, or in a more distant past, and if so see what actions have been of should be given accordingly
 * explain to Rick Alan Ross why it is advantageous to comply with the ArbCom decision, or what can be done.


 * re. "the subject must (...) edit the article non-pseudonymously" – the subject doesn't and mustn't edit the article per WP:COI. The subject writes his suggestions at the article talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose the recent exchanges at Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) (e.g. the IP at one point suggesting assistance from Wikipedia's "legal department") have made the "WP:IAR &rarr; business as usual" approach somewhat untenable. Proceeding without the IP being authenticated seems a bit unwise in these circumstances. I think OTRS people have handled this exemplary, don't know what they could have done better. The problem of the IP not being authenticated is not something that should have made a difference handling this at OTRS. But the problem exists now, for the handling of which I support the approach suggested by Newyorkbrad. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * How about: "User:Rick A. Ross has contacted the Arbitration Committee and indentifies as Rick Ross (consultant). All other user accounts or editors claiming or pretending to be Rick Alan Ross will be blocked."? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 173.72.57.223
I was instructed by Matthew at the Wikipedia Support Team to go to my bio page and use the Talk Page to discuss problems there. My name is Rick Alan Ross and some years ago I may have entered the name Rick A. Ross on Wikipedia. I have never gone by the name Rick Allen Ross. I have no general interest in Wikipedia other than the bio about me at Wikipedia (Rick Ross consultant). My concern is that my bio has been used as a convenient propaganda platform for those who don't like my work to attack me. My bio is not NPOV and has a great deal of biased POV editing. That editing is often misleading, intentionally omits certain relevant historical facts and information and generally reflects the slanted POV of certain anonymous editors at Wikipedia. I have repeatedly complained about this matter to the Wikipedia Support Team. Again, Matthew recommended that I specifically explain this at my bio Talk Page. I have followed his directions and posted my points of concern with supporting references and sources at the Talk Page per Mathew's instuctions. Now I am somehow here. Excuse me, but I don't understand all the Wikipedia protocols and rules. Please explain what need to be done to resolve this and address my concerns.

Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mdann52
As the user involved with the OTRS ticket, let me clarify something here. As the original user has effectively outed themselves, from what I have seen, this appears to be genuine. They do not have access to either of the accounts, or the email addresses used to create them, and their passwords no longer work. I fail to see how this is an unreasonable amendment - they could always make a new account if needed. As they are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, we should, IMO, be a tad more cautious, and the seeming bad knowledge may well be genuine. Mdann52 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As you appear to have made comments before the above, you may wish to revisit this. Mdann52 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
A BLP subject wants to provide input into the content of the article about himself, which he thinks has issues of balance and weighting. (I agree that the article has issues, although this isn't the place to go into them; I am also less than certain that this article should exist at all.) He seeks to adhere to our guidance about COI editing, which urges article subjects to disclose their identity and confine themselves to the talkpage, but is being tripped up because he is not an experienced Wikipedian and does not understand the fine points of our decision in this case from six years ago. My impression is that Mdann52 is correct and that the editor does not have access to his vintage-2008 accounts, perhaps because he does not recall the passwords, perhaps for some other reason. My suggestion is that an arbitrator reach out to Rick Ross directly, confirm his identity (if not already done), and explain exactly what is required of him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
I'm very familiar with the standard OTRS advice to BLP subjects - if memory serves, I assembled the boilerplate myself - and this request is precisely in line with it. I don't think we need to amend anything, we can just WP:IAR since it is obvious who is behind the IP and there is no attempt at deception (quite the opposite). Guy (Help!) 09:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Scientology: Clerk notes

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



Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Why does he need to edit as an IP instead of using his account? Yunshui 雲 水 11:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It also appears that the 2009 decision was never fully implemented; User:Rick A. Ross, the alt account, has never been blocked and doesn't appear to have been redirected to his main account. Yunshui 雲 水 11:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline, in the absence of any reason for using an IP over an account. Yunshui 雲 水 07:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not inclined to grant this request -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. I see no reason to overturn the committee's 2009 decision that the subject must identify and edit the article non-pseudonymously. AGK  [•] 19:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. I don't see why Alan can't use either of his accounts to edit Wikipedia: neither appears to be blocked... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline The purpose of the restriction was/is to prevent random IP editors turning up and claiming to be Rick A. Rosss or whatever as there had been complaints about impersonation.  Roger Davies  talk 18:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per Roger. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline, noting that he has now contacted the committee. Doug Weller (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Falun Gong 2 (July 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Colipon at 15:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Colipon
I, User Colipon, was placed on "mandated external review" in July 2012. Since then three years have passed and it seems like the arbitration committee have made some changes to way this remedy is carried out. On May 3, 2014, I was informed that this remedy was "vacated." I have not touched anything Falun Gong related for the last three years. My question is, are any sanctions still in place for me or am I now "free" to edit without restraint? It would be useful for me to edit uninhibited at this point as some articles which are only tangentially related to Falun Gong need serious work but I often stop myself in case it runs afoul of this stipulation.
 * [@AGK] Thanks for the prompt response. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Falun Gong 2: Clerk notes

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



Falun Gong 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is quite complex but easily unravelled. In July 2012, we passed remedy 7 ("Colipon subject to mandated external review"). In May 2014, we vacated that remedy with this motion which passed this set of housekeeping provisions. You will note that provision 5 expressly rescinded the Mandated External Review in force until that point. No other sanctions were ever placed on your account and you are therefore not currently subject while editing this area to any sanctions imposed by the committee. AGK  [•] 16:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What AGK said is correct, but do note that the Falun Gong topic area remains subject to discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)'
 * I concur with the above two replies. Courcelles (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the above, though I'd remind Colipon there was a reason for sanctions originally, and that new sanctions can be put into place under the DS. Hopefully that will not prove necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. That remedy no longer exists. Colipon needs to be aware that Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Falun Gong, broadly interpreted. Doug Weller (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the others, especially about the continuation of the standard discretionary sanctions.   DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: GoodDay (July 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by GoodDay at 12:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay
 * Seeking to remove restriction on diacritics


 * Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
 * State the desired modification

Statement by GoodDay
It's been nearly 3 years since I was restricted from diacritics & almost as long since I've breached my restriction. It appears that I've shown the ability of restraint since that time. I'm requesting that my restriction on diacritics be lifted, as it's simply no longer required to keep me restricted from that area. GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I won't be edit warring over article titles, content or infoboxes. Nor will I be filibustering over the issue at talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Courcelles - Would a 6-month probation be acceptable? Just to see if I can keep my temper under control concerning diacritics? As I understood it, I was restricted because of edit-spats, personal attacks & filibustering on talkpages. Not because of my opposition to diacritics usage. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Yunshui - My major interests is the North American-based ice hockey articles. There's some dios in them, which can be deleted or hidden. Those articles are under an agreed compromise at WP:HOCKEY. I'm aware of the Village Pump discussion, but see it as mostly a waste of time, as there's no consensus for either total usage or total banning of diacritics. Even if such a consensus were to emerge for either way, such a consensus would be difficult to impliment across thousands of articles. So again, I'd rather limit myself to ice hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not certain if it's relevant here. But, I have never committed sock-puppetry or evasion, in order to get around my restriction. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Steven Zhang - I'm not certain what your concern is about my touting my honesty. Would you elaborate? GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Steven Zhang - I've been on Wikipedia for nearly 10 yrs. I never have & never will resort to sockpuppetry or evasion. By bringing up this fact, I'm hoping that it will weigh in favour of a lifting of the diacritics restriction in any form. Obviously, if the restricton remains in place, I will 'of course' continue to honour it fully. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeking clarification - If 0RR is adopted. What would the penalty be for a breach? GoodDay (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Yunshui - Understood. GoodDay (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Seeking clarification - Does the proposed 0RR & lone comment on talkpage, apply to my userpage & its talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Steven Zhang - Ok, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A request - If my restriction is amended, would those of you here inform me (clearly) what the conditions will be? PS- I'm hoping a probationary period of 6-months will be considered, afterwards (if no breaches occur in those 6-months) my restriction will be fully lifted :) GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to GorillaWafare - I wish to hide diacritics on Bouchard's & Beliveau's names here & Stralman's name here, for examples, per WP:HOCKEY's compromise. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Steven Zhang - WP:HOCKEY compromise is here. As I mentioned earlier, there's no emergency to remove or alter my restriction. I merely figured that after 3 years, a request to ease that restriction wouldn't be unreasonable. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Steven Zhang - Resolute, Djsasso, Ravenswing (to name a few WP:HOCKEY members), would be 'better able' to point you to the discussons that brought about the compromise. We at WP:HOCKEY, are quite proud that we've achieved something that no other WikiProject has, concerning diacritics usage. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Steven Zhang - It's been years since the compromise was agreed on. I can't remember the exact dates the discussions were held. You're completely free to go through WP:HOCKEY's history, concerning diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Resolute & Steven Zhang - My stature on Wikipedia has been deminished to such a degree in these last few years, that I'm in no position to enforce anything. We all know that I've been virtually editing with a Wiki-gun against my head. The 0RR suggestion would (of course) be me virtually editing with a Wiki-cannon to my head. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, a few years ago, I recommended that English Wikipedia adopt a mechanism with an on/off button for diacritics. Those who wanted to see dios, could press the on button & those who didn't want to see dios, could press the off button. I'm guessing that nobody had the technology to create such a mechanism. I really felt it would've ended all disputes (content & personal) over diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Resolute - I have accepted the WP:HOCKEY compromise. I have no plans to hid dios from hockey player articles or Non-North American based articles. As for the rest of Wikipedia, I'm quite aware that there's no possible way to hide dios from thousands of articles. Just like there's no possible way to push for the usage of the Soviet Union as the birthplace/deathplace for people from the Baltics 1940's to 1991 - though we've reached an understanding to allow this at hockey bios. Across the rest of Wikipedia, I'm as much aware of the former (Dios), as you & Djsasso (and myself) are aware of the latter (Baltics birth/death places). GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If I may, AFAIK, I was never blocked for edit warring over diacritics. My problems were mainly on the talkpages, where I would loose my cool with those supporting dios. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the successful WP:HOCKEY compromise we've been mentioning, is currently under threat of being scrapped by 2 or more editors who've little to no interest in ice hockey articles, at Naming conventions (ice hockey). Restricted or not, there's little to nothing I can do about it. Thus the nature of Wikipedia. I'm fully aware of my limitations on Wikipedia. Again (for examples), I would prefer that British be used across British bio articles, but I accept that this won't be adopted. Also, I prefer the Soviet Union be used for the birthplace and/or deathplace of those Baltic people for the 1940-91 period, but I accept that this too, won't be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Djsasso - I'm already aware that my stature on the 'pedia is deminished to such a degree, that my participation in any diacritics Rfc, would have little influence. If anything my merely posting "hello"- in any such discussion, would invoke some form of pro-dios backlash. Given those apparent realities, it's rather strange that some of you are so anxious to keep me in chains. If my stature is so deminished around diacritics, one wonders why am I still 'restricted' after these last 3 years. It's been already pointed out, that I'm basically the seed that began the harmony tree across Wikipedia, concerning diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Suppose the Hockey compromise was abolished in favour of full-diacritics usage. What would an un-restricted GoodDay do about? one might ask. My question is - What could GoodDay do about it? The answer to that would be nothing at all. It would be a big waste of GoodDay's & WP:HOCKEY's time, for him to filibuster on hockey-related talkpages. He certaintly isn't going to edit war over it, as that would lead to a block under normal circumstances alone. So you see folks, I'm fully aware of the landscape across Wikipedia having changed in the last 3 years. One editor (In ictu oculi) 'alone', has moved hundreds of article to dios titles, sometimes unilaterally & sometimes with RM support. How far could I get, if I were to attempt to reverse any of those moves. How far would I get in attempting to remove dios from article content. TBH, How can I be dangerous, if I've little to no support in the diacritics topic? The consensus 'here', seems to be that GoodDay is no longer a problem due to the changed landscape, yet he should 'atleast' be fitted with an 'security ankle bracelet'. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Djsasso - There's no question about whether or not I was disruptive in the area of diacritics, 3 years ago. The question is - Would I be disruptive in that area today. You believe I would be. I tell you I won't be. Of course, the arbitrators will have the final word. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To the arbitrators - Would you consider a month-to-month (up to 6-months) probation? It's very difficult for me to prove that I won't cause disruption, if I'm kept restricted. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

To the arbitrators - May I have my Userpage/talkpage exempted from the restriction? GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Isaacl - I realize a full lifting of this 3-year old -and counting- restriction isn't going to happen anytime soon. I just felt after so long, some sorta easing of it, was a reasonable request. I'm not angry, nor will I be if all my requests are denied. Indeed, I think a good argument can be made that I've shown patients, concerning this restriction. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

To the arbitrators - If a consensus is reached at WP:HOCKEY and/or the rest of English Wikipedia to use diacritics everywhere, then I'll abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

A final request to Arbitrators - May I please have my talkpage 'exempted' from this restriction? GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Response to Thy - So I can respond to any editor who happens to bring up the topic there. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Thy - So, my requesting a lifting or easing of my restriction, is a sign that I'm obsessed with diacritics? In otherwords, anytime in the future, if/when I make this request again at ARCA, I'm going to be turned down, over & over merely because I made a request? GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Request to Arbcom - PLEASE close this down :( GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved TransporterMan
I'm only here because I saw the notice posted to Steven Zhang's talk page, which I stalk due to Steve's and my common interest in dispute resolution and the fact that he only occasionally comes around these days. I wasn't involved in the original case, nor have I had any prior dealings which were either so good or so bad with GoodDay that I can recall them.

I'm not necessarily opposing this, but I have to say that it seems suspicious to me. Why would any editor who doesn't have a bee in his/her bonnet about diacriticals care about whether or not s/he can edit or discuss diacriticals? In all my time here, I cannot recall ever caring about that issue, and though perhaps I'm just projecting my own apathy/lazy-editorism onto everyone else, I can't imagine anyone else caring about it enough to bother with this filing unless that bee is still buzzing around in their bonnet. (I do get it that a topic ban is kind of a black smudge on one's reputation and that one might want it removed for that reason alone. But not coming out and saying that kind of bespeaks some suspicion of its own if that's the reason.) If I were y'all, I think I'd want some additional explanation from GoodDay other than, "it's been a long time and I've been good," and perhaps a promise that even if the ban is lifted that s/he will continue to avoid doing the things that the ban covered so as to demonstrate and to continue to demonstrate that the &#x0181; (that's a B with a diacritical or, by extension, a diacritical bee) is defunct. Best regards, TransporterMan  (TALK ) 14:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ghmyrtle
Prior to his site ban, GoodDay had been topic-banned - here - from contributing "from pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed." Since being released from his ban, GoodDay has returned to his old habits of contributing his opinions repeatedly and unconstructively on UK/Ireland matters - for example here and here - in exactly the same way as he always did. Having failed to learn any lessons as to his behaviour in relation to UK/Ireland matters, I think it is improbable, to say the least, that his behaviour will change in relation to the use of diacritics, were that topic ban to be lifted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
GoodDay's statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If there's an area in which there is an agreed compromise, any editor on Wikipedia can make any of the changes GoodDay says he's interested in. Why do we need someone who's been a significant problem in this area back again? I believe that the Committee should turn down this amendment request, as I see no value to the project in allowing it. BMK (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to associate myself with AKG's remark concerning the amount of disruption GoodDay's actions caused at the time. BMK (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Zhang
(and GoodDay) - Thanks for the heads up on this one. I'm really in two minds here. As a former banned editor myself (back about 8 years ago now?) I agree that past actions shouldn't hang over one's head for all eternity, especially if it's clear one has changed their ways. After a period of time, one should almost always be given a second chance. That said, I do have concerns about an outright lifting of the ban - diacritics was the issue that got GoodDay in trouble back when I mentored him, leading to the GoodDay case where this topic ban was placed. He was later banned, and it has since been lifted. It's been some time since then, but I'd still be uncomfortable with an outright lifting of the ban.

I like the idea presented by Courcelles of a 0RR on diacritics, and I'm not sure he needs to provide a detailed explanation as to why he wants to be able to edit them - yes, this may come as a surprise, but with AGF and all, I think "I won't stuff up again" will suffice. If his edits are really uncontroversial, they'll stick, if not, someone will revert them. If he causes trouble, well, the Arbitration Committee can impose sanctions again, so I'd say lifting the ban on a 0RR condition would be the way to go, making it clear that if it is broken or trouble starts again, sanctions can be imposed, up to and including sitebans. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  06:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay, that goes without saying to be honest - and that you bring up the idea is rather troubling... Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  22:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay, saying "I didn't sock or evade to get around my topic ban", to me, makes me think that you may have considered it as an option at one point, otherwise you wouldn't even have mentioned the idea, if not the case, then I'm curious as to why you would mention it. It troubles me somewhat. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  22:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay, thanks for explaining. Part of me wonders why you want to be able to edit diacritics, as, well, there's so much else to edit (though after a year and a bit away, I admit I'm back to the same things I used to be - dispute resolution), but as I said in my statement, I don't think there's a need to explain yourself, as long as you keep your nose clean - a 0RR restriction is reasonably safe and I'm sure you understand what might happen if you break such a restriction/cause trouble. I'll end my involvement here (unless asked to comment again in an arb comment) - I'm sure they will come up with a resolution we can all live with. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  22:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay, I'd think the answer to that question would obviously be no :) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  12:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

, can you 1) link to the compromise agreed on and 2) explain why someone else can't make these changes? I mean, on reflection, there's an awful lot of other stuff you could do in WP:BACKLOG... Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  00:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

where is the discussion where this compromise was discussed and decided? Curious as to how this compromise works in with the guideline. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  01:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay, that's not really an answer...if I was making changes to articles as per a compromise that was once discussed (and may or may not be in line with the documented naming conventions guideline) I'd want to have the discussion link handy. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  01:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

- this request has been here for around a month now and with 7 arbs declining, can this now be archived/closed? Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  01:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
I think after three years, it would be fair to give GoodDay a fresh chance. That being said, GoodDay - you still gravitate towards drama like a moth to flame, so I do think an interim restriction would still be necessary. Personally, I am not thinking of 0RR, but rather a talk page restriction of one comment per sub-section of a debate, responding only to comments directed at you specifically. Otherwise, you're playing a risky game. Chances are your passions will plant you right on a treadmill right off Wikipedia, since I can't see the community being terribly lenient if we ended up back at square one. Resolute 19:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

, - The hockey project's compromise dates back to 2007. Somewhat ironically, it was GoodDay himself who seemed to have proposed it. Looks like the idea coalesced into a local guideline in June 2007. At the time, there was polls being done in wider Wikipedia context, but nothing approaching consensus. The hockey project was, at the time, something of a focal point for it, with a lot of arguing and reverting. A few of us old timers have referred to it as the "diacritics war". The compromise largely quieted that. Of note, I was probably even more opposed to diacritics then than GoodDay was, but have long since swung toward supporting them outright, so personally I don't really enforce it. I'm not pushing to re-open that debate, but the no-diacritics argument is growing increasingly tenuous as a handful of NA teams have begun to use them regularly, including the Montreal Canadiens. My honest advice to GoodDay would be to simply tolerate them, even if he doesn't accept them. It's a losing fight. And with a 0RR restriction, not he could win. But if he wishes to try hiding the accents on those pages, once, I see no harm in it. If others revert, he has to consider stepping back. Resolute 01:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A 'cannon to your head' is probably an apt way of putting it GoodDay, but that archive page I linked to might put this into some context: The things you are fighting about now are the same things you were fighting about then. I can respect your passion for these topics, even if they tripped you up over time, but you might consider borrowing from chess: High level players will not fight on until the bitter end.  They will resign and move on once their position becomes unwinnable.  Wikipedia will never be what you want it to be, nor what I want it to be, nor what anyone else wants it to be. To work well here is to accept compromise. In this case, it may well mean accepting something you don't like isn't going away. There are plenty of other things you might consider doing here that you would enjoy, and which doesn't risk lighting that cannon's fuse. Resolute 02:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Snowded
I have a similar concern to Ghmyrtle in that GoodDay seems to be returning to old habits of throwing in comments that are either provocative or not helpful on B&I pages. However if is prepared to make an absolute commitment to stop that then I would agree a fresh chance. <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 09:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DJSasso
I would have to agree with Transporterman. If someone doesn't care about them longer there doesn't seem to be a reason to request a lift of the restriction. Seeing that he has returned to his ways on the B&I pages after that one was lifted. And seeing that he still manages to get involved in drama for seemingly the sake of causing drama in other topics I don't really believe this will end well. Not for the project and likely not for GoodDay who quite probably would see himself shuffled off the wiki again. Likely this request comes from seeing a new person on the polar opposite side of the scale from him pushing to move to using them everywhere as linked to below. If that is the case it wouldn't be good. I wouldn't be opposed to a 0RR with reinstatement of his site ban for a breach. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * At a bare minimum a discussion restriction would also be needed as mentioned by a few. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay That last comment about the "compromise" being under attack and you not being able to do anything about it displays exactly why you need to be under these restrictions. You can't help yourself from jumping into hotzone issues. If the people who oppose it open an RfC on the issue, it will be discussed and a consensus or non-consensus will be determined. Your one voice probably would not sway the discussion much on one direction or another. It would only serve to get you in more trouble. And based on past discussions I wouldn't hesitate to guess that your voice might actually harm your cause than help it. The wiki will work the issue out. It will either decide that they should be used or they shouldn't be used. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay You aren't restricted because you are dangerous. You are restricted because you are disruptive. You waste a lot of peoples time. That is the trouble you can get into if you have your restriction removed. You aren't "in chains" to prevent you from effecting change. You are restricted because you cause a lot of disturbance and waste a lot of peoples time, filibustering and edit warring, and bringing up the topic of diacritics in every unrelated discussion possible to complain about the state of affairs. -DJSasso (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ravenswing
Seeing as my name's been dropped ... I do want to say something in the interest of full disclosure. I was -- and remain -- on the same side of the issue as GoodDay: I strongly believe that the use of diacritics violates WP:COMMONNAME and doesn't belong on the English Wikipedia. The hockey project's compromise was much less anything in which any of us believed than the only feasible way to settle a prolonged conflict, and the only reason I'm content with it is in the years of bad feeling and edit warring it's averted.

An aphorism of mine, however, is the nature of a consensus-driven project like Wikipedia means that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus, and your only recourse is to lose gracefully and move on. Some have an easier time with this than others, but perhaps GoodDay's managed this, at last.

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to an 0RR caveat, although this seems to be a lot of fuss to go through simply for a single editor to be able to make particular edits to an article or two. In any event, in GoodDay's defense, may I suggest that if he goes off the rails again, there are likely to be several editors who will lose no time in seeking much harsher restrictions, and have few difficulties in getting them imposed?   Ravenswing   05:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Italick
I think there would be a benefit to the encyclopedia if the ArbCom would not condition every requested lifting of restrictions on whether it foresees that there might be some benefit to the encyclopedia.

As a rule of thumb, 6 months of editing within the restrictions and 250 conforming edits should suffice in most cases. You could tweak those numbers, but there ought to be a rule of thumb like that for evaluating the lifting of restrictions that is acceptable most of the time. Italick (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

GoodDay: Clerk notes

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



GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I might be willing to replace this with a strict 0RR for anything related to diacritics, but not an outright lifting of the sanction. Courcelles (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What prompted the sudden desire to edit diacritics? I'm genuinely curious, particularly in the light of the lengthy and heated discussion currently underway at the Village Pump. What diacritic-related changes were you considering?
 * I'm actually leaning slightly towards accepting this, almost certainly with Courcelles 0RR restriction or something similar, but I would like to get an idea of your intentions first. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 21:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Accept, conditional on the imposition of a 0RR restriction for matters relating to diacritics. (I'd be happy to set an expiry on the restriction of six months or longer.) Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 09:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming that a 0RR restriction was passed by motion, I assume we would treat it as an ArbCom sanction (since it would become a modification of the original case). Breaches would be reported at WP:AE, and dealt with there by, I would expect, a series of escalating blocks. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 10:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * After reading what Steven Zhang wrote, I agree with Yunshui, something like Courcelles' suggestion might work. Doug Weller 10:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK's commments concern me. Certainly they suggest that a discussion restriction is required. Doug Weller (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I support the 0RR restriction, and per Resolute's comment I'd like to see a discussion restriction as well - perhaps no more than two comments in any single discussion about diacritics, excluding up to one succinct reply in answer to any direct question asked of him following those two comments. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline based on comments subsequent to my one above, I'm now thinking that granting this would be almost pointless from a practical standpoint and when that is considered in combination with AGK's points there really would be no benefit to Wikipedia in allowing GoodDay to edit regarding diacritics at the present time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely certain what benefit exempting your user space would bring to the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * such discussion would be pointless as you wouldn't be able to engage in discussion about them anywhere else, nor take any action as a result of the discussion. History has shown that discussions about diacritics on en.wp are better when you don't contribute to them so I find it odd that anyone would solicit your opinion about them. That you are still pushing for even a tiny exemption to allow you to edit about diacritics over a month after you initiated the request and 2-3 weeks after it was declined, really does not convince me you have gotten over your obsession with them - quite the opposite in fact. Decline. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not that you have made an appeal, it is that you have persisted with requests for ever smaller exemptions for so long. Let it go. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GoodDay's disruption to articles in this area was so extensive that I do not think I can trust him to edit them again. I also keenly remember, as the drafter of this particular decision, that at the time we gave GoodDay the benefit of the doubt by warning, not sitebanning, him for disruptive editing. Less than a year afterwards, we had to site ban him by motion. Decline. AGK  [•] 18:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is just indicative of my own ignorance when it comes to diacritics and all, but can you explain what edits you are hoping to make to North American ice hockey articles that this restriction is currently restricting you from making? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per Thryduulf. I'm not seeing any real benefit to the encyclopedia from lifting this restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline - insufficient case made for lifting the restriction, and per AGK. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per Thryduulf. The replies by GoodDay do not give rise to confidence.  DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline NativeForeigner Talk 18:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen (July 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Soham321 at 20:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * | Bishonen
 * | Ogress
 * | Sitush
 * | Mohanbhan
 * | SpacemanSpiff
 * | Ms Sarah Welch


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
 * Removal of the Arbitration Enforced 6 month topic ban on all India related articles which has been imposed on me by Bishonen

Statement by Soham321
Bishonen accuses me of "battleground editing","tendentious editing", and an "aggressive discussion style" while imposing the ban. With respect to the first two accusations, i will point to Jawaharlal Nehru; all my edits have been accepted on this page even though it is a very disputed page and even the major political parties in India have commented on the editing on this page. I will also point out that even though i earlier had some personal friction with and  i now have cordial relations with both of them. With respect to Sitush, one may see the talk page on Eckankar where we have interacted in a very civil way. Regarding one may see the talk page of Two Truths Doctrine where i express confidence in her editing and she endorses a source used by me in the main article. Bishonen's claim that i have an aggressive discussion style is totally undercut by my two responses to two different editors as per this diff: [| diff1]. Additionally, with whom i have collaborated on some WP pages has argued that Bishonen's action against me was completely unjustified: [| diff2]. In the present case, there is an editor who repeatedly called Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya a fringe source on the talk page of Carvaka and proceeded to delete content in Carvaka that was sourced from Chattopadhyaya. Mohanbhan and i have repeatedly pointed out to her that Chattopadhyaya is not a fringe source in the talk page of Carvaka giving various pieces of evidence. I showed her that has endorsed Chattopadhyaya's scholarship. When Sarah Welch continued with her tirade against Chattopadhyaya in the talk page of Carvaka and also on my talk page i referred her to lacking in competence and mentioned that i would be henceforth referring to  lacking in competence if she continued her tirade against Chattopadhyaya. This resulted in Bishonen imposing a 6 month ban on India related articles on me.

One clarification: Regarding diff1, one notes that Sitush had thrown lacking in competence at me when i had simply expressed disagreement over whether the book India as a Secular_State is 'outdated' or not. , declaring himself to be an uninvolved Admin, has expressed the view that i deserve a one year ban for my present infraction. SpacemanSpiff, who is occasionally found exchanging friendly exchanges on Sitush's talk page, will i am sure reconsider his clearly biased opinion when comparing Sitush's behavior with mine and studying the provocations involved. I will also point out that Spaceman cannot declare himself to be an uninvolved Admin considering our somewhat rough interactions on my talk page, and considering  his comment concerning me to another Admin  on Dennis's talk page which he later retracted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_35#Caste_system_in_India). Spaceman, Bishonen and others are welcome to cherry pick my edits to portray me in a poor light; what cannot be denied is that i happen to be a content creator, and content creators need to be respected and protected.Secondly, i would like uninvolved Admins to compare my behavior towards other editors with the behavior of the highly experienced editor  towards me (prior to our new friendship as revealed by the recent editing on the talk page of the Eckankar page). The diff that i gave (diff1) is fairly typical of my interactions with Sitush (prior to our editing on the Eckankar page)--leaving aside my tiff with Sitush when i was a new WP editor. I have almost always been at the receiving end of Sitush's barbs, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jawaharlal_Nehru&diff=671007963&oldid=671007789 If no action is being taken against Sitush for behavioral issues, and concurrently action is taken against me, then the process smacks of double standards and hypocrisy. Bishonen had earlier created a unique pseudo complaint generator to protect Sitush: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Clueless_Sitush_complaint_generator So many complaints came up in this complaint generator--complaints of a serious nature as revealed by the history of this page--that the page had to be shut down. This is further evidence of double standards and hypocrisy and not treating all editors as equals.

Bishonen had earlier insinuated that i was editing anonymously using an IP address and when i protested against this she had withdrawn her accusation and even deleted the edit summaries, and from what i can tell even her edit. Please see Link1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soham321&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history ; and do a Ctrl-F for Bishonen. When i was new to WP, i had been involved in an ANI dispute. Not knowing WP rules I wrote a review of the discussion together with my thoughts on my talk page and Bishonen deleted my comments with what i thought to be an unduly harsh edit summary considering i was new to WP. This edit summary may be seen in Link1 (if you do a Ctrl-F on Bishonen ). There were also some harsh words exchanged on Bishonen's talk page relating to her insinuation or accusation that i was using an IP address to do editing (which she later retracted after my strong protest), but since this was on her talk page it will take me forever to retrieve the diffs. But as evidence for this one may see this diff containing two separate comments of mine: [| diff3], one of them in reply to. Bishonen mentions the one year topic ban on Digvijaya Singh imposed on me by Kim Dent-Brown;my answer is that i was new to WP at the time and didn't know the rules. I also respected the topic ban and didn't approach Kim for a review after 6 months even though he offered to review my topic ban in 6 months. Finally, i am pinging, , and since i have done collaborative editing with them. Soham321 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

i thank for the prompt response. I just wish to clarify that he is wrong when he says he did not have access to the full source when editing the Sach Khand article. The paraphrasing was being done from only one page of the book and he did have access to that page when he placed the close paraphrasing tag since he gave a link to the same book and same page (viewable online through google books) which i was using to make my edit: | diff1

So my exasperation was as to why he was not paraphrasing himself when he had access to the source, and instead preferred putting paraphrasing tags. It is true also that initially he put two tags of non-neutrality and POV ( | diff2 ) and then seemingly abandoned the discussion on the talk page which i initiated to try and resolve the tagging issue. In the one response he had given me as to why he had put the POV and non-neutrality tags, his rationale was coming across as being puerile.

This was when i told him that he has to continue participating in the talk page because of the POV and non-neutrality tags he had placed else we can opt to go for Dispute Resolution. I will point out, incidentally, that the article Sach Khand was created by me. I will also state that had i not been proactive the tags could very well have been in place in the article as of today. I also wish to refer to what Agtx had written on the talk page of the article (| diff3): "That looks a lot better, thank you for doing that. You're definitely more knowledgeable on this topic than I am. I went ahead played around some with the language and cleaned up some formatting.Should add that if my changes made anything inaccurate, obviously please feel free to fix it."

And finally, i will state that the changes Agtx made to the Sach Khand article (after i had condensed and edited it further after my discussion with Agtx)--as can be seen from the edit history of the page-- ended up making the article inaccurate because of which i had to do further editing on the page. I explained why i had to make changes to Sach Khand, after Agtx's editing in the talk page of the article. (Essentially, Agtx had introduced inaccuracies into the article.) To his credit, Agtx yielded to my corrections and did not place any further tags on the page. Soham321 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to do any trimming which is suggesting i do. I am allowed 1,000 words in my appeal on this forum as per the rules and i wish to take full opportunity of discussing my case while respecting the 1,000 word limit. Soham321 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have two points to make in response to 's post. First, it is inevitable to have a point of view and to therefore be "tendentious" when it comes to philosophy. But the fact that i have not let my point of view affect my editing on philosophy articles is seen when i have edited the Carvaka page presenting the Charvaka point of view and also the Sach Khand page (i created this article) presenting the Sikh point of view. The view of Sach Khand has nothing to do with the view of the Charvakas since the former is a spiritual view and the latter is a materialistic view. With respect to mentoring, there is only one Admin who has spent time mentoring me and that is. However, the maximum mentoring i have received is from my interactions with the veteran editor Sitush since Sitush is the editor i have interacted with the most ever since i started editing on WP. Soham321 (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to Ogress's most recent post supporting sanctions against me, slamming Mohanbhan, and talking of "gang editing". I had mentioned in my appeal that Ogress and i had had some initial friction before we started enjoying cordial terms as is evident from the talk page of Two truths doctrine where i express confidence in her editing | diff1 and she had endorsed a source i had used in editing this page | diff2. I wish to now refer to the initial friction i had with Ogress--about which i mentioned in my appeal without giving details-- prior to our having cordial relations. These pertain to Ogress undoing an edit of mine from the talk page of Carvaka with the following edit summary: "Deleting personal attack. DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS." | diff3. Ogress's undoing of my edit was in turn reverted by Mohanbhan with the following edit summary: "It is not a personal attack, he is stating a grievance, do not censor wiki by using strong words" | diff4. The conversation had not remained confined to the talk page of Carvaka since Ogress saw it fit to take it to my talk page: | diff5 and | diff6. Prior to this Ogress and i have had issues pertaining to the Caste system in India article. None of my edits were being allowed to be inserted into the main article because of what i considered a collusion of around five editors who seemed to be working in tandem on this page; one of these editors was Ogress. I had mentioned Ogress by name and referred to the collusion taking place here: | dif7. To protect myself as to why i took up that case on that forum (in which i mentioned Ogress by name and the collusion taking place in Caste system in India) i give this diff of an edit written by me and addressed to one of the Arbs: | diff8. The peculiar thing was that i was not the only person who felt like this. This is writing about this collusion and mentioning Ogress by name: "I again reverted and user Ogress came and reverted. No engaging on talk page." | diff9. And this is and  discussing the collusion that was taking place in the Caste system in India article: | diff10 (i had also subsequently participated in this discussion and so had Sitush).Soham321 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to Salvio for clarifying the procedure in place. I was hoping to show that the fact that earlier i had unfriendly relations with Ogress but subsequently i had developed cordial relations with her (and likewise in the case of Sitush) would be something taken in my favor. But if the Arbs, in their wisdom, find my defense worthless than so be it. Soham321 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish to make one more point about Salvio bringing up WP:ASPERSIONS in reviewing Mohanbhan's criticism of Sarah. WP:Aspersions says that "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence." But here, Mohanbhan is casting the aspersions on Sarah on the basis of WP:CIR, specifically when WP:CIR talks of 'bias based'. Here, contrary to all available evidence, like the scholar Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's scholarship being endorsed by giants like Joseph Needham and Louis Renou, Sarah was continuing to launch constant tirades against Chattopadhyaya and repeatedly destroying content in the Carvaka page which used Chattopadhyaya as a source--without any consensus on the talk page. Three editors, Mohanbhan, Ogress, and me--had endorsed Chattopadhyaya's scholarship.I am mentioning this because i had brought up WP:CIR before Sarah on two occasions and this has resulted in what i believe to be an unreasonable 6 month ban on all India related articles on me. Even if i made a mistake, the quantum of punishment is surely disproportionate. And if you want to go by past history, even then it is disproportionate. Soham321 (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

My response to Ms Sarah Welch: With respect to Joshua Jonathan, it is my genuine belief that the article Two Truths doctrine was becoming worse because of his editing since in my opinion he did not understand the content because of which he was introducing inaccuracies into the article. (This is similar to what happened after Agtx did some editing in the Sach Khand article--after i had condensed it following our discussion-- and introduced inaccuracies into it ). I explained why i felt this way, in the talk page and first asked suggested that we let Ogress do the editing, and subsequently pinged every person who had ever edited that page after Jonathan continued to edit on the page and continued to introduce more inaccuracies when doing so. I did not do any editing on this article after i had pinged every person who had ever edited this page. has written a comment on the talk page addressed to Joshua which to my mind reads like a polite request to him to refrain from editing the article: | diff1. On the Adi Shankara page there was a content dispute was over whether it can be mentioned in the main article whether Shankara borrowed/plagiarized certain arguments that had been first invented by Mahayana Buddhists. I gave in the talk page of the article references to various scholars (extracts from books) who maintained this. But Joshua, Sarah Welch and Abecedare were not willing to accept the introduction of the plagiarism accusation even after i posted the book extracts from three different scholars on the talk page in this connection. Sarah Welch was claiming here also that Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya cannot be used as a source, claiming he is a fringe source and an unreliable source and she was also raising a question mark on the book's publisher. I then gave her evidence of Chattopadhyaya's scholarship: Unreliable sources I also wanted an introduction into the main article a reference to a section of Adi Shankara's philosophical rivals calling him a demon. My source for this was the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Demon accusation However, since i was unable to gather consensus with my respect to my edits i did not force the issue and simply left editing this page. I had made my points on the talk page, and some day someone could see them and place the content in the main article.

With respect to edit warring with on the Eckankar page, first Sarunfeldt was simply reverting without even leaving an edit summary initially and secondly Sarunfeldt had a COV because he had declared he is member of the clergy of this religion. So it was his prerogative not to do any edit warring and instead have discussions with me on the talk page. I will point out though that i have not attempted to put back into the main page any of the content on Eckankar which i had placed and which Sarunfeldt had deleted (although i gave details of this content on the talk page of Eckankar) after Sarunfeldt was temporarily blocked although i had an opportunity for doing so. I was waiting for him to appear on the talk page of the article and have a discussion before attempting to place the deleted content back into the main article.

With respect to Ogress, my comment was after she had deleted my edit on the talk page of Carvaka, which was subsequently reverted by Mohanbhan and then taken it to my talk page claiming i was making personal attacks which i maintained i was not. I got tired of the personal attack accusation and hence i made the comment which Sarah Welch mentions. However, subsequently i apologized for the comment to Ogress on my talk page and told her to bury our differences and work together on enriching the Encyclopedia (i have already given the necessary links in my second rejoinder to Ogress) and i will point out again that Ogress and I had developed cordial relations.

Blade of the Northern Lights and Dennis Brown issued warnings to me with respect to my editing on the highly disputed Caste system in India article about which as i have mentioned earlier there were other editors who had expressed unhappiness about the collusion that was taking place in editing this page. I respected the warnings, and i refrained from adding any content on the main article after i received the warnings confining myself to the talk page of the article. They then had a problem with my comments on the talk page of the article also--this was after i gave a quote of the Harvard scholar Michael Witzel slamming "revisionist scholarship" for a second time-- and Dennis said i should consider taking a break from the talk page also, which i did. In fact i have not edited that article at all (not even the talk page) since Dennis asked me to consider taking a break from it.

SpacemanSpiff's warning to me was immediately after my conflict with Ogress. He essentially wanted me to be more civil with other editors. It is true that i had made a comment to Ogress belittling her after she posted an inflammatory edit summary when undoing my edit on the talk page of Carvaka (which was reverted by Mohanbhan) and after she continued accusing me of making a personal attack which i believed was untrue. But then i had also subsequently apologized to Ogress and appealed that we should bury our differences and work collaboratively. We even developed cordial relations. I do not believe i have been uncivil with Sarah Welch since she has repeatedly questioned Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's scholarship on one ground or the other--despite being shown ample evidence that her assessment of Chattopadhyaya was incorrect-- and repeatedly sought to destroy any content sourced to his writings. On the Carvaka page she was doing this without consensus which is when i pointed out WP:CIR to her. Soham321 (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to Joshua Jonathan for contributing to this discussion. With respect to Two truths doctrine, i have already explained on the talk page of the article why Joshua was introducing inaccuracies into the article through his editing because he did not understand the content in my opinion: | diff1 The fact that  politely requested Joshua to abstain from editing this article on the talk page gives additional credence to my assessment: | diff2 Finally, i have never edited this article after i pinged every single person who has edited this page after my content dispute with Joshua. With respect to the plagiarism allegations against Adi Shankara i had given references, links, and book extracts from the writings of three different scholars for this claim on the talk page of the Adi Shankara article.. These were Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Surendranath Dasgupta and Fyodor Shcherbatskoy. With respect to the Caste System in India article, five editors(,, , , and myself) have expressed a viewpoint differing from the five editors who were not allowing edits by others into this page-- on the talk page of this article, on Kenfyre's talk page or in ANI discussions. With respect to the Carvaka talk page, it is true that Abedecare had initially sided with Ms Sarah Welch but this support was conditional. Ms Sarah Welch did not want Chattopadhyaya to be used as a source at all; Abedecare was fine with using him as a source providing this sourcing was done with some discretion. After Mohanbhan wrote that Chattopadhyaya was making hermeneutic claims about Indian philosophy which cannot be refuted, Abedecare did not refute Mohanbhan suggesting that he agreed with Mohanbhan. Also, Abedecare stopped providing any support to Ms Sarah Welch's claim about not using Chattopadhyaya as a source possibly because he was persuaded by Mohanbhan and myself to consider Chattopadhyaya as a legitimate source. On Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's talk page, Abedecare had sided with Mohanbhan and me against Ms Sarah Welch. Soham321 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a belated response to 's comments. Mohanbhan, commenting on Ms Sarah Welch provoking me, writes: "When she repeats her "Chattopadhyaya is not a valid source" comment for the third time, Soham says this, "Your repeated tirades against Chattopadhyaya have exhausted my patience. Whenever you declare him to be a fringe source i reserve the right to point out lacking in competence to you."...He has been provoked to lose his cool, and he should not be punished for it."

is completely right that i did lose my cool. However i would like Arb to compare my reaction when i lost my cool with when Bishonen had earlier lost her cool and was subsequently blocked by. Bishonen, as an Admin, had written to an editor: "Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo!"

for which Jimbo Wales had blocked her as per this diff: | diff1

Bishonen had subsequently successfully appealed against the block. I am mentioning this because in any quasi-legal or quasi-judicial decision making it is valid to show precedence. Soham321 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to the Talk Page Etiquette link which has now been added in Joshua Jonathan's comment. The background to this is that on the talk page of Adi Shankara Joshua Jonathan was was moving edits on the talk page--his and also mine--from one section to another. Section headers were being deleted by him, new section headers created, and edits being transferred from one section to another. Secondly an edit written in response to a comment was transferred and made to appear as if it is a response to some other comment.This was creating a lot of confusion and so i simply started reverting him on the talk page asking him in the edit summary and also in the talk page to stop doing what he was doing since it was becoming impossible to have a discussion on the talk page. We were unable to come to an agreement. I then took him to ANI (simultaneously he also appealed against me on a page related to India asking for an Admin to take action against me--i will have to find the diff for this). An admin closed my appeal asking me to sort it out with Joshua. I went to the talk page of this Admin and said i have tried discussing with Joshua, and we are not being able to come to an agreement. I then specifically asked him: is there any intervening authority before i approach ArbCom since my appeal had been denied in ANI. He replied in the negative. I then posted on his talk page that i am taking it to ArbCom which i did. (I should add that Joshua rearranged the edits in their original form in the talk page of Adi Shankara after the matter went to Arb.) I gave the background to this to one of the Arb members with the request that this should not be held against me and he said 'it was an error of inexperience' and he would not be holding it against me. And this is the diff: | Diff1 Soham321 (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to Floquenbeam. I have strictly followed the rules of this forum. I respected the 1000 word limit in the initial appeal. There is, however, no restriction on the word limit when it comes to replying to other editors. I have not violated any rule. In any legitimate quasi judicial or quasi legal decision making you cannot make up new rules once an appeal has been filed. Soham321 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to. I would specifically like to highlight that Abecedare and i have been involved in content disputes on the talk page of Adi Shankara and Carvaka. In the Adi Shankara talk page, i gave references (including links and book extracts) to the writings of three different scholars who claimed that Shankara had borrowed philosophical content from Mahayana Buddhists in his writings. This included an extract from a book by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya which included the following words about Adi Shankara: "What is really not so indisputable about him is his actual philosophical ability. Though he reinterprets Upanishadic idealism in a really advanced form, there is nothing practically worthwile in this reinterpretation that is not borrowed from the Mahayana Budhists. This fact of large scale borrowing is sought to be concealed by Shankara himself with the demonstration of a great deal of contempt for these Budhists, often accusing them of preaching precisely the same views which he himself wants to preach with great gusto...The usual defense of Shankara by his modern admirers is that he admits the truth or logic as well as of the material things from the standpoint of practical life: but this very distinction between "two truths" is an innovation of the Mahayana Budhists, from whom Shankara borrows it only with some terminological alteration."

Abecedare's response to the above quote includes the words "What we are objecting to is the use of the word "plagiarism" that you introduced, which does not make any sense when applied to classical philosophical ideas and is not used by any of the sources you quote."

To which i responded with the words: "I am truly amazed that you are unable to see the plagiarism accusation. I would have imagined Chattopadhyaya at least makes the point very clear. I am glad i am giving the full quotes of these scholars instead of giving summaries or paraphrasing, so that at least other editors can see what you claim you are unable to see."

I leave it to Arb to judge whether i was civil or not with Abecedare.

And this is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adi_Shankara#Shankara_and_Buddhism

Abecedare and i have had two or three conversations on my talk page, and also in the talk page of Rigveda, where when i point out that an authority he is citing--Klostermaier-- is regarded a fringe historian (please see the Reception section of Klostermaier's WP page), he responds by saying he often mixes up Klostermaier with Elst who is another fringe historian as per Elst's WP page. (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rigveda#Reference_to_Hinduism ) I do not believe i was uncivil with him in these conversations. Soham321 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to who is mischaracterizing my position in my opinion. My position is not that the problem lies with other editors; my position is that unless you are ok with the quality of several important WP articles (which are of a disputed nature) remaining mediocre and inaccurate (serving thereby to discredit the reputation of WP as a whole), you have to be prepared to tolerate a certain amount of friction and "heat" due to the inevitable intellectual debate that takes place in the talk page of the article and also occasionally in the main article through reverts with associated edit summaries. Soham321 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Link from Bishonen
Here's the conversation on my page from 2013 that Soham321 mentions above. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Ogress
Soham321 has been a tendentious and difficult editor. He also has been improving, albeit slowly, and I think one day might be a very solid editor. He has shown to learn from his mistakes, albeit slowly on some occasions. I do not know that this statement impacts a temporary ban on India-related editing.

, if your temporary ban is upheld, I hope you will take the time to continue to edit Wikipedia in other places. Admins have been extraordinarily patient with you - perhaps you do not realise how much mentoring you have received, I think I got about zero - and I urge you to learn the same patience. Also, pretty much everyone has suffered bans of one sort or another. Continue to improve your skills in areas where distance from your subject might help you improve as an editor; you are nothing if not committed to passionate editing on topics you are committed to, which can sometimes actually be a hindrance, especially to new editors who are learning. You are, as I said above, continuing to learn how to Wiki, and I would be lying if I said it came naturally to anyone. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 03:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am going to add more content. I am deeply troubled by the long responses by both and, who are using this discussion to continue a very inappropriate attack on other users such as , most particularly Mohanbhan, whose entire response is a tirade against Ms Sarah Welsh.


 * I am disappointed and angry that this is being turned into a forum to point fingers at Ms Sarah Welch and others. I have changed my position from neutral to support sanctions - although this is not a vote - as I think this very Arb request is being used as another chance to continue what is a grudge match.


 * I would also like to point out that the behavior of has been very particularly inappropriate both in and outside this Arb board as well. I'm not sure why his behavior has not been examined more closely as he has been posting in a manner not befitting a Wikipedia editor.


 * Lest anyone think I am partisan in this situation, I wish to be clear that Ms Sarah Welch and I are on the opposite side of disputes most of the time, even on the very article Carvaka that is being dragged around, and not in a minor disagreement kind of way. I have avoided editing pages she is involved with in order to avoid conflict with her. I nonetheless find the ongoing gang editing direly troublesome and extremely distasteful. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 08:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mohanbhan
This is Sarah Welch's revert to the Charvaka article. There is no doubt that Soham's contribution to the article had enriched it, making the article a systematic exposition of Charvaka philosophy. Charvaka philosophy itself is unrelentingly critical of the Vedas and Vedantic thought, which, as I have suggested on Charvaka talk page, may have ticked off Sarah Welch who usually edits pages related to Vedantic philosophy. She has made it her one-point agenda to denigrate and exclude references from the greatest authority on this topic Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. Whenever I have edited or tagged the article she has shown a tendency to make the argument personal by adopting an aggressive hysterical tone, positioning responsible editors as vandals, and herself as the custodian of the page. Instead of discussing the cited references objectively and responding to the specific objections she repeatedly makes statements like "'The book @Mohanbhan likes' is not Wikipedia's definition of RS". She also quotes selectively and distorts the sources to push her POV, as can be seen in the discussion. She also uses the word "tainted" to refer to Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's dialectical materialist/Marxist viewpoint, and in spite of our objections repeatedly uses theis word] to refer to Chattopadhyaya. She is explained here that Chattopadhyaya is a philosopher who has made hermeneutic claims about Charvaka philosophy, and, as such, his work can't be said to be dated. After this discussion on 9th July Sarah Welch stops her disruptive edits and the article is substantially improved with sourced content. She shows up again on 20th July and starts haranguing about Chattopadhyaya as an unreliable source in spite all our previous explanations. She indulges in disruptive edits and her edits are reverted by Soham when she has no consensus for her view on the talk page. She then continues her rant on Chattopadhyaya, which I ignore, but which Soham responds to by advising her to read WP:CIR. But Sarah Welch repeats her rant, calling Chattopadhyaya "controversial and fring-y", citing non-existent "abundant evidence and review summaries" on the talk page. When she repeats her "Chattopadhyaya is not a valid source" comment for the third time, Soham says this, "Your repeated tirades against Chattopadhyaya have exhausted my patience. Whenever you declare him to be a fringe source i reserve the right to point out lacking in competence to you."

Soham has contributed constructively to the article, his content is cited and includes direct quotes from sources -- and he has used sources other than Chattopadhyaya like Bhattacharya and M Hiriyanna -- to avoid disputes about POV, and his arguments for their inclusion have been erudite and sophisticated. Sarah Welch, as can be seen on the talk page, has distorted the sources and pushed a POV; she has also indulged in disruptive editing, canvassed against me when her edits have been challenged and her rationale refuted, and has generally adopted an inflammatory tone, denigrating certain sources for their viewpoint instead of discussing the content and sources objectively. Given all this, I think it is Sarah Welch who is to be blamed for edit-warring and being disrespectful to other editors rather than Soham who has contributed constructively to the article. He has been provoked to lose his cool, and he should not be punished for it. I sincerely hope that ArbCom takes an impartial view of the matter and does justice to Soham. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio: I am not casting aspersions on anyone; everything I have written is supported by links to the Carvaka talk page. I have found Sarah Welch's actions disruptive, and not constructive, and I have stated that with evidence. I have always avoided making content disputes and disagreements personal, and I have avoided that even on this page. I have also chosen to ignore Ogress's personal and inflammatory remarks about me. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur with Twobells' statement that "2 or 3 ideologically like-minded editors have 'taken over' the articles and proceeded to go to any length to undo any independent editors attempt to introduce neutrality and balance to said articles." The same has happened with Carvaka article as can be seen by looking at the revert mentioned in the first line of my statement. There has been a systematic attempt by these editors at historical revisionism as is evident from this discussion on Template talk:Hindu philosophy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like the arbitrators to please look at this discussion to see how some writers whose work is critical of Brahminical and far-right Hindutva ideology are being systematically excluded from wiki articles. Please notice how the other editor indulges in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by repeating again and again that 1. the books of Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, S.N. Dasgupta and Scherbatsky are more than 100 years old 2. that Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's book What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy is self-published and 3. that DC is not a reliable source -- all of which are false. People's Publishing House, a very prominent publishing house in the 1960s and 70s, has its website hosted on blogspot; this is being pointed out to claim that its books aren't "peer-reviewed", but Permanent Black, one of the most respected academic publishers in South Asia, is also hosted on blogspot. So spurious and silly reasons are being cited to keep out certain writers from wiki articles, and a far-right ideology is being forwarded through these articles. Soham is the victim of this cabal of ideologically motivated editors and their tendentious editing of articles related to Hinduism and Hindu philosophy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SpacemanSpiff
I did not want to post on here earlier, but as Floq brought up the length issue I'll slightly modify and transfer my post from the RfAr filing that preceded this to provide a summary and some general info.

Soham321 has been issued multiple warnings by multiple admins and other editors for various forms of disruptive behavior as well as on ARBIPA sanctions. He has had a topic ban in the past, yet the disruptive behavior has not stopped. The warnings and disruptive behavior have dated to at least as far back as mid to late 2013 by my checking. While demeaning other editors is part of the disruption, it is not the only one. There's a refusal to accept any form of feedback as well as misrepresenting opinions(including here where he says in the complaint above that I retracted something while I was just saving the ever so polite Mr Brown the necessity of replying.)

(Pinging, , , , , as some of the warnings/notes have been from them in the diffs listed above.)

A little over two weeks back, I was ready to issue an AE block and six month topic ban, but switched to a warning instead, thinking that some of the input he has received will have some impact. Despite his response I expected that the warning will probably cause an impact. However, that has proved to be not the case. Today, I was ready to issue an ARBIPA one week block and a one year topic ban from India articles and was getting the explanation and diffs ready, but Bishonen beat me to it with a lighter sanction.

The issue here is Soham321's behavior, which has been disruptive over the course of two years. He has received blocks, topic bans, and numerous warnings. The question for this appeal is should other editors have to spend time and effort on this going forward as that is essentially what the ARBIPA sanctions are for. It's still a light sanction as Floq says, but that's what's on appeal, and I think ArbCom should decline that.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by agtx
Soham321 placed a message on my talk page asking for my commentary, presumably because of our brief interaction editing Sach Khand. I would say that if Soham is reaching out to me to show an example of collaborative editing on an India-related topic, then he needs to do some work on his collaborative editing skills. I tagged the page in question first because it was presenting Sikh views on religion as though they were true, and then because it was a close paraphrase of a book (something about which Soham had already been warned). I would characterize our interaction as following along the lines described in Bishonen's talk page post imposing sanctions. Four talk page posts and less than 36 hours into the discussion, Soham was accusing me of abandoning the discussion, and threatening to invoke dispute resolution. When I pointed out the copyright problem, Soham's response was to tell me to fix it myself instead of tagging it, even after I said that I didn't have access to the full source.

To Soham's credit, after the initial interaction, which I would characterize as relatively unpleasant, things got more productive. He did change the article so as to avoid the close paraphrasing, and he edited collaboratively after that. No further accusations followed, and while the article needs expanding, I think it's not an unreasonable stub at this point. Soham obviously is knowledgeable about the topic, and he was able to fix errors that I introduced in clean up (because my grasp of Sikhism is, to put it mildly, tenuous).

From my interactions, I think that Soham is capable of contributing productively here, and I think he has a desire to get things right. However, I also think that he gets angry (or what others perceive as angry), and makes changes and comments rashly. Further, I think that he has trouble understanding Wikipedia policies, like copyright and reliable sources, when they don't align with his views. I also understand that some of these edits are in a heated topic subject to discretionary sanctions. Between my personal experiences, Soham's previous topic ban, and Soham's participation in the discussion at Talk:Cārvāka, I think the sanctions imposed are warranted. I hope that Soham will take these six months to edit articles in other areas to which he has less emotional attachment, so he can understand the kinds of talk page discussions and consensus building that are productive here. agt x 22:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ms Sarah Welch
Allow me to skip an analysis of the content @Soham321 has recently tried to delete, replace or add to various wiki articles from RS, NPOV and other wiki policy perspectives.

In this admin-issued-sanction arbitration matter, allow me to focus on: Are there facts to persuade that the admins of wikipedia in recent past have been reasonable? Is @Bishonen's latest sanction in this matter reasonable? My answer: "Yes, abundantly". Here is some of the recent evidence relating to @Soham321 sanction:
 * 1) Edit warring with @Joshua Jonathan, despite @JJ request to stop edit warring in early July here, here and here
 * 2) Edit warring with @Sarunfeldt in mid July here, here and here
 * 3) Edit warring warning by @Shrikanthv here
 * 4) Uncivil behavior and personal attack on a wiki article's talk page against @Joshua Jonathan here in Carvaka article, and more recently here in Two truths doctrine article; Quote of edit summary:  "Joshua Jonathan's editing is making this article worse as i have explained in the talk page. The more he edits, the worse this article becomes in terms of clarity, accuracy, and cogency. - @Soham321"
 * 5) Uncivil behavior and personal attack against @Ogress here; Quote: "I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. - @Soham321"
 * 6) Uncivil behavior and personal attack against me, see links here
 * 7) Request to be civil with other wikipedia editors by admin @Abecedare here
 * 8) Warning in June 2015 by admin @Dennis Brown here
 * 9) Warning in June 2015 by admin @The Blade of the Northern Lights here
 * 10) Warning in July 2015 by admin @SpacemanSpiff here

How has @Soham321 responded to recent comments and warnings? @Soham321 has been combative with admins as evidenced here, and to requests by @Sitush here. Quote: "Soham, I am trying and trying to show you how to write well and you simply keep fighting it at every opportunity. I'm not known for a saint-like patience and sooner or later I will snap unless you start to come to your senses. - @Sitush"

Summary: The veteran members of the Wikipedia community have been patient. Admin @Bishonen's sanction on @Soham321 was reasonable.

FWIW, when I began considering evidence for this statement, my intent was to request reduction of the 6 month sanction to a 3 month sanction on @Soham321. But, after looking at @Soham321's pattern of behavior with numerous wiki editors over the recent months, I now feel that @Bishonen has already been kind and generous. The evidence points to a stronger case of WP:NOTHERE than what I felt a while ago. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Twobells
edit. In response to Joshua Jonathan's comment The situation couldn't be further from factual truth, I sourced (please see my Caste System In India and British Raj diffs) numerous up to date citations on the latest works, however, these were based on empirical and priori evidence rather than ideology and for this they were removed along with their conclusions. Unfortunately, what has happened on the British Raj and Caste System in India articles is that 2 or 3 ideologically like-minded editors have 'taken over' the articles and proceeded to go to any length to undo any independent editors attempt to introduce neutrality and balance to said articles. Essentially, what we have now are two articles so biased that they fail to stand up to independent review and display what can only be termed as a dogmatic and misguided attempt at historical revisionism. In closing, as they stand I would call these articles Examples of Morton's Demon At Work, regards. Twobells''t@lk 10:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a real shame I have not had the time to develop my Rfc on the Indian articles, perhaps then Soham321's patience would not have been quite so tested. I have found he has demonstrated a clear and concise willingness to present a neutral, balanced edit doing so with good manners and a clear methodology, however, he is energetic, a state some might wish to use against him. In my experience he has the patience of a saint when dealing with Sitush and others who have shown themselves to be prejudicial, labelling other editors as incompetent if they do not agree with their dogmatic position and quick to suggest bad faith. I have found Soham to have been a victim of combativeness rather than as presented a perpetrator, particularly on Indian history articles. With that in mind, together with my experience collaborating with Soham who has been a study in Wiki best practice, I would recommend you approve his appeal. Twobells''t@lk 18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In response to Floq's Comments: Hello, pleased to meet you. With respect, are you aware of the issues pertaining to the articles concerned? Trust me, when I say an in-depth response such as Soham321's is required in order to give the neutral observer a proper background into what has been going on over there. A situation, which can only be described diplomatically as counter to best wiki practice, regards. Twobells''t@lk 15:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Joshua Jonathan
After the reply by Soham321 to Ms Sarah Welch, I think it's time for me to respond too. All in all, I've seriously been wondering if Soham321 just doesn't understand at all how to work at Wikipedia (I put it friendly here), or that he is simply trolling. I'm still not sure that it is a lack of understanding. I had refrained from responding here so far, since I've had my share from POV-pushers and the like. But now that he also mentions me, I felt I had to respond too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At the Carvaka talkpage, Ms Sarah Welch has explained her doubts about Chattopadhyaya as a source, and suggested that he should appended with more up-to-date sources, a proposal which has been endorsed by Abedecare. neither Soham321 not Mohanbhan has seriously responded to this proposal; instead, MSW has been accused of "incompetence." Given the quality of her edits, this is a gross misqualification.
 * Caste System in India: five editors agreed that the Caste System in India, as it exists today, was shaped by the British. This was based on reliable sources. And, as Sitush mentioned, also to our surprise. Yet, Soham321 and TwoBells kept insisting that this wa suntrue, and that we were biased. Despite repeated requests, they were unable to present reliable sources which gave a different opinion.
 * Adi Shankara: Soham321 introduced a section on "Allegations of plagiarism." A wildly anachronistic qualification. Abecedare and I immediately responded, see Talk:Adi Shankara. We responded so soon, very short after each other, that I hadn't even noticed that Abecedare had already responded, and I opened a new thread. When I found out, I merged the sections, to the dismay of Soham321, who wrote he became confused. He reverted me twice at the talkpage, meanwhile removing my comments twice. Incredible. Anyway, it ended with Soham opening an ArbCom-case on "talkpage etiquette (yes, serious!).
 * At the Two Truths Doctrine article, Soham321 made a series of edits, based on one single source, in a writing-style which was difficult to follow. I smoothed his contributions; Soham321 reverted them en masse, with the statements he's already been given. At this point I'd already given up to discuss with him; it's impossible. Soham321 doesn't discuss, he makes statements, and seems to be incapable to understand what other editors are saying. And to say that I don't seem to understand the topic - well, had he taken the care to check my edit-history, he would have known that I'm one of the top-editors on Buddhism-related articles. Or just User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources.

Further response: Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * " i have already explained on the talk page of the article why Joshua was introducing inaccuracies into the article" - incorrect. The Madhyamaka theory was already described; you doubled it, which was unnecessary. When you pinged dozens of editors (including B9Hummingbird Hoovering, who's been indeffed years ago already, as I'd already told you), you forgot to explain what the "content dispute" is about;
 * "he did not understand the content in my opinion" - read WP:ICANTHEARYOU;
 * "The fact that Shrikanthv politely requested Joshua to abstain from editing this article on the talk page gives additional credence to my assessment: | diff2" - Shrikantv wrote "not supporting anyone in particular", and further wrote "would suggest to abstaining from concretising philo/spiritual concepts but rather giving only an Idea or a possibility (giving the reader to decide or finding out on his own) would be a better way of going ahead ". To read this as "politely requested Joshua to abstain from editing this article" is a misinterpretation. Read WP:OWN;
 * Plagiarism: none of these authors uses the term "plagiarism." It is a wildly anachronistic term here. It's astonishing that you don't get that;
 * "Ms Sarah Welch did not want Chattopadhyaya to be used as a source at all" - that's not true; she proposed to supplement him with additional sources;
 * Talk Page Etiquette - I merged two sections, which was completely reasonable, as several admins have told Soham321. If you had simply said "Hey, please keep these two sections separate, it's confusing to me!" and simply reinserted the header, I'd said "Of course, fine." Instead, we ended the day at ArbCom...

Response #3 - "ideologically like-minded editors" - usually I get the heat from Vedic POV-pushers; this time I'm apparently considered to be in the other camp, of those Vedic sympathisers. That's nice, for a change. And "the patience of a saint" - where? And no, I'm not going to mentor Soham321. I've wasted enough time on official mentoring. He's welcome, though, at my talkpage, if he needs any help. thanks for your thrust, of course; hoghly appreciated. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Floq
I saw yesterday that Soham321 had squeaked in just under the 1000 word limit. However, counting responses, he's now up to 4100 words. If "Decline - TL:DR" is a legit vote, that's what I would suggest. 6 pages (single spaced, 11 pt type), with no sign of stopping... if that's what people he's editing with have had to put up with, then getting off with just a topic ban is generous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by shrikanthv
I would suggest Soham321 would be better put under a mentorship with an admin or senior editor related to topics he is editing, I see that he edits with passion and sometimes(most of the time) steps on wrong foot ! with some exp he could be well off rather than banning him ! would suggest JJ as mentor for him Shrikanthv (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Abecedare
I see my name mentioned a few times, so here are my 2c, based on my interactions with and observations of Soham321 since July 2nd, when I first came across the editor.

Soham's article space edits have some problems (reliance on a single and often dated source; quote-farming; undue weight; (good faith) misinterpretation of sources etc), but these are routine issues that are typically handled easily through talk-page discussion. The main problem is that Soham doesn't react well to even the politest of feedback and responds by All this makes collaborative editing with Soham321 virtually impossible, and I'm afraid the issue is unlikely to be confined to India-related pages covered by the current topic ban. Frankly Soham's statement above, by itself, provides ample examples of IDHT/TE/Battleground conduct that led to the topic ban, and the fact that the editor doesn't even realize this is not a promising sign. As I have recommended a couple of times earlier, and as Shrikanthv advises above, Soham should consider getting a mentor who they trust and can consult, because unless their conduct changes drastically, I see a perma-block or site-ban coming a few months down the line. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * insulting other editor's intelligence, good faith, ideology etc,
 * endless repetition and filibustering (eg, see Talk:Cārvāka, or just the ARCA section above),
 * continual editor/admin/forum-shopping and needless escalation. This being the classic example; also note the number of totally unconnected editors/admins Soham contacted about this ARCA appeal alone. Another example here in which Soham (IMO, pointily) pinged >50 editors.
 * refusal to concede even the tiniest of errors. For example, Soham's insistence that Bishonen misguided them into originally filing this appeal at the Arbitration Request page (the error itself was of course minor; I am only pointing to failure to simply say "oops" and move on). Also note the number of editors, admins, and arbcom members who told Soham that they were wrong about the issue of the previous arbitration request; yet Soham repeats the complaint unchanged. Ditto for the claim of an 8th century philosopher being guilty of "plagiarism", which Soham again repeats on the page (won't bore the audience of this page with the details, which can be read here).

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen: Clerk notes

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



Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * that's rather a large wall of text you've written there. Could you please trim it down to focus on the essentials, thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per Seraphimblade below and Floq above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of those who may be unfamiliar with our procedures, I'll clarify that the standard of review employed by ArbCom when dealing with appeals against discretionary sanctions is "was the action we are reviewing reasonable?", rather than "would I, under the circumstances, have imposed the same restriction". In this case, Soham, examining your conduct, I do see a pugnacious approch to editing and disputes and some tendentiousness to top it off; for that, I find the sanction reasonable and vote to decline your appeal. Incidentally, Mohanbhan, please note that casting aspersions on other editors is disruptive and sanctionable. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per Salvio - I also see a pugnacious approach as well as a failure to AGF which suggests that removing the sanction would not benefit the encyclopedia. Mohanbhan, you need to pay attention to what Salvio has said. Doug Weller (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. Soham321, if your approach to editing bears any resemblance at all to your approach during this appeal, I would rethink it, quite quickly. Pugnacious is if anything an understatement. I would also strongly echo Salvio's point regarding casting unsupported aspersions, and all who have raised that you need to make your point reasonably concisely. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline Soham321's response to the topic ban (to fight it tooth and nail in any available venue, and to argue from the outset that the problem lies with other editors) is for me ample indication that this was a sensible call by Bishonen. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Euryalus (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline, per Yunshi and Seraphimblade  DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline L Faraone  20:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Dolovis (August 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Dolovis at 18:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * “Unblocked” notice on my talk page


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1)  additional condition: "... not to edit any article edited by user:Djsasso within the previous 30 days."


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * additional condition: "... not to edit any article edited by user:Djsasso within the previous 30 days."
 * Removal of additional condition

Statement by Dolovis
I have not been given any explanation as to why the Arb Board has forced me to accept an interaction restriction with User/Admin:DJSasso. I am aware of no complaint against me asking for or requiring such a restriction. As such, I request that such restriction be removed.

Statement by Djsasso
Not really sure I have much to say here other than Dolovis's past blocks for sock puppeting were all caused by him targeting me (and others) for harassment. Using sock puppets for good hand bad hand while targeting my edits and articles I either created or heavily edited. He has a pretty well documented history of activity which is clearly geared at disrupting me and my editing. Seems like a pretty reasonable restriction for removing the most recent block. To be honest with his history I am surprised he was unblocked in the first place, even with this restriction. -DJSasso (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
I would be rather curious to know how this came about as well, actually. I simply assumed that this was generated by BASC of its own accord given DJSasso was a target of Dolovis' latest run of sockpuppetry. But IIRC, was also targeted by Dolovis' latest socks, so I never understood why one but not both.

Also a topic of curiosity is why Dolovis wants the restriction lifted. This seems to be a "just because" request. And for an editor who has been the subject of at least three edit restrictions - and so far as I know, they are all still active - I would suggest there needs to be a much better reason given before any of them are given consideration for lifting. Resolute 03:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
IMHO, the restriction should be lifted & Dolovis given a chance to demonstrate that it's no longer required. There's a fine line between Preventative & Punitive, where restrictions are involved. GoodDay (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ravenswing
I was unsettled when Dolovis was unblocked -- I feel strongly that he's a disruptive influence -- and unsurprised when he promptly resumed some of the same disruptive practices which contributed to many a past dispute. However, this is not a proper venue to discuss the propriety of his being unblocked. I'm likewise unsurprised here: this is not the first time that Dolovis has agreed to some stipulation or to obey some rule so as to quiet a dispute, only to claim a lack of understanding down the road, when he didn't simply ignore (or deny making) any such agreement in the first place. To address Resolute's query about why I wasn't included in the restriction, I wouldn't think it was necessary. DJSasso and I edit many of the same articles, and in any event, Dolovis' targeting of DJSasso was far more comprehensive than his targeting of me, which mostly revolved around creating socks to file AfDs on articles I created. As far as this restriction goes, it is high time Dolovis was held to his word. No one "forced" him to agree to anything, and if he felt such stipulations to be injurious to his dignity, he could have always walked away ... and can do so now, as Salvio suggests. I want a far better reason from Dolovis for reneging on his word than that he fails to understand something about which he had the opportunity to ask in the first place.   Ravenswing   15:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

 * As an outsider who spent a little while looking at this, it was apparent that, as Salvio said, such an agreement had been reached (or at least that the unblocking admin believed it had). What was not apparent was the reason.  DJSasso gives their view as to why this would be.  Presumably this matter was covered in previous on-wiki dispute resolution, including that which lead to the block of Dolovis.  Can the committee then confirm that this is the case and provide a link to such documentation.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Dolovis: Clerk notes

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



Dolovis: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Your unblock was conditional on you accepting this restriction and, indeed, you accepted it; and, for my money, the restriction should not be lifted, for the moment. If this is causing you undue hardship, you may withdraw your consent to it, on the understanding that your block will be immediately reinstated, though. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This restriction was placed because the consensus of those Arbitrators commenting on your BASC appeal felt it was necessary to prevent the disruption which resulted in you getting blocked in the first place. This appeal, and the comments by others on it, make me believe that this was the correct decision. If after 12 months without breaching your unblock conditions you can demonstrate it is no longer required, then I would consider lifting it at that point. Alternatively, per Salvio, you may withdraw your consent at any time on the understanding that your block will be immediately reinstated. You may appeal that block in a few months, but do note that this condition would almost certainly also be a requirement for any subsequent unblock. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As Thryduulf stated, this requirement is a condition of being unblocked. Dolovis, if you've found you no longer can live with it, the option is then to reinstate the block. You voluntarily agreed to these terms and no reason is provided here for why they should be changed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was quite against this unblock, so not surprisingly, I have absolutely no intention of changing the restriction. Courcelles (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues. I'm not happy about agreeing to an unblock and shortly after trying to get the restriction lifted, and strongly suggest that you avoid any appearance of getting anywhere near violating it. Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, per Seraphimblade. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the others. Removing the restriction is to likely to cause trouble.  DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Longevity (August 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Ricky81682 at 09:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
 * 2) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
 * Reinstatement of discretionary sanctions


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
 * Stronger language that re-affirms that the WikiProject should listen to the experienced Wikipedia editors

Statement by Ricky81682
I think we need to reconsider and allow for discretionary sanctions in regards to longevity articles, including in particular problems we continue to have with longevity articles and at WikiProject World's Oldest People (WOP). With the absence of User:DerbyCountyinNZ, none of the other parties from the original case have been active in this area to my knowledge so I wasn't sure who to add a party here. I've added recent participants at the WOP talk page (and Jytdog due to a reference to him below). Regardless of Remedy 4 from before, in my mind, the project has largely moved along with little actual involvement from outside the insular community that exists at WOP articles.

The comment of Waenceslaus (since topic banned so not included as a party) that "Yet, before any change in the WOP guideline can be done, a user is to become a member of Wikipedia WOP group" reflects a long-held belief that the WikiProject can create its own guidelines that trump the rest of the Wikipedia. The WikiProject's need for guidance and insistence on them actually listening is required. Even today, most of the "real" editing from the project takes place at the project's personal pages such as WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians and not within the larger encyclopedia itself (article, talk, project, none of it absent AFD discussions and even then a subset).

In July until August 2015, a discussion was held at WP:RSN regarding the inclusion of claims based on tables produced on the website of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), in particular the inclusion on Wikipedia of people's names and alleged birth (and for the non-living, possible death dates) based on the so-called Table EE ("Table EE PENDING GRG CASES"). The discussion closed confirming that tables E and I (of verified supercentarians) was a reliable source, of which there was little dispute, but that Table EE was not. Since then, the WOP project talk page has engaged in what can be considered a long-winded repetitive discussion that basically asserts that the RSN discussion should be ignored and repeated argues based on the same reasoning. This discussion is repeated on numerous edit summaries and across a number of talk pages, resulting in a number of articles being protected.

As an clearly WP:INVOLVED admin, I'd be asking for the reinstatement of sanctions so that other admins would be able to assist. Discretionary sanctions are required because the editors involved are largely WP:SPA who do not discuss their beliefs but edit war voraciously and without any regard to policy. The attempts to remove the "pending" and "unverified" have been going on for close to a decade. For why ANI is not a remedy, User:Ca2james attempted to update the project's self-description of the notability guidelines. This edit was reverted by User:Waenceslaus amongst others. Waenceslaus's edit warring continued (including said "membership required comment") and was ultimately brought to ANI in a discussion with two counter-topic ban arguments and two nonsense desysop arguments but ultimately resulted in a topic ban against Waenceslaus. There must be a way to prevent disruption as these editors can essentially stay in the shadows for months if not years and all suddenly appear to re-engage in repetitive arguments.

This is starting to get more ugly as the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination) shows wherein User:Jytdog is creating lists of WOP and non-WOP members which reflect a divide between the insular views of the project and the broader actual consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 2:25, August 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason that the arbitrators have already discussed this is because this is largely based on the prior discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity and is merely a request to reinstate Remedy 4.3.1. The issue is whether those issues from before have been resolved, namely in my view, Principle 4.1.4 about the project paying attention and acknowledging the wider consensus and whether there has been any serious attempts at paying attention to Remedy 4.3.4, namely noting that the editors who are you disagree with are editors who are far more experienced here. The point is, your views about "validation" or whatever have been made, have been argued and have been repeatedly found not to be in consensus with the wider encyclopedia and "[perpetuating] disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive ... is disruptive." The project talk page continues because we are going round and round over the same issues as I repeatedly to move on and instead ask for someone to point to a single example of a name that's concerning to them, rather than running to RSN to argue hypothetical points about whether there exists terrible newspaper articles or random on-line obituaries (which as I note, as perfectly included whenever someone wants to create an article on a supercententarian). I asked for input from the let's say the more inclusionist editors on the project to see if they think the problems recognized in 2010 have been resolved and whether other admins should need to topic ban individuals. The fact that you are still arguing in the same manner as that did that time is the insight the arbitrators need. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ollie231213
I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (joined in December 2013), as are some other editors involved in the World's Oldest People (WOP) Project. I joined because longevity is a subject I'm interested in, and since Wikipedia is the first place many people turn to to find out about any given subject, I feel it's important that the articles in the scope of the project are as accurate and informative as possible for readers.

There's no doubt that there have been some issues with this project in the past, but that's largely down to the editors involved not properly understanding how Wikipedia works or Wikipedia's core policies, and longevity "fans" wanting to create as many trivial lists of supercentenarians as possible, often which were unsourced and in violation of WP:OR. But the problem is that these "fans" usually know that the information they are putting in is correct, but don't understand that WP:VERIFIABILITY requires the lists to have references. So, when people make what they believe to be a constructive edit, but a more experienced user, say, reverts it with good reason, they may view that as some kind of "attack".

And I know that's how I felt when my user page was nominated for deletion because it was in violation of WP:WEBHOST, but looking back (now that I have a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies) I realise that the reasons for nominating it for deletion were justified. Other members of the WOP project also had their user pages deleted for similar reasons. But this issue has been dealt with and has now gone by.

I also think we can all agree that the 166 IP user needs to be topic banned, as he/she is NOT a positive contributor. Note that, while this user is pretending to be as such, they have engaged in vandalism in the past. Likewise, Waenceslaus has been topic banned, so the issue with that particular user has been resolved.

So, the issues surrounding the project are being resolved and I personally am trying to work towards a solution. The RSN discussion found Table EE and I have accepted this decision (contrary to what Ricky claims) and have made some changes to articles accordingly. The reason I have been having discussions on the WOP project talk page is because some users are trying to argue that if a longevity claimant is reported on by a newspaper, that they should be added in to Wikipedia without any mention of the fact that their age has not been validated by any internationally recognised body (such as the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), The International Database on Longevity (IDL), or Guinness World Records). I think it's very important that Wikipedia makes the distinction between "validated" and "unvalidated" cases, for two reasons:

1. The need for the validation of exceptional longevity is a scientific concept accepted for 140+ years, with William Thoms establishing the basic premise of the need for age verification in the 1870s. Wikipedia needs to reflect scientific consensus in line with WP:VERIFIABILITY

2. 65% of claims to age 110 are false, and 98% of claims to 115 are false (see here).

But instead of reasoned discussion, I'm being faced with straw man arguments. THAT is why the discussion is long-winded and repetitive, not because I'm saying that "the RSN discussion should be ignored" or because I'm being disruptive.

And one of the biggest reasons why things are getting "ugly" is not because the wider community are stepping in and the WOP project members are reacting, it's because there's a certain few editors who get themselves involved in the project who hold views which aren't necessarily representative of the whole community.

Let me focus in particular in the last part of Ricky81682's post, where he says there is a "divide between the insular views of the project and the broader actual consensus" ---> No, that's totally misleading. Some of these people in the so-called "broader" community are the likes of CommanderLinx, whose sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to effectively police longevity-related articles, and DerbyCountyinNZ, who also makes a lot of edits in longevity-related articles. What about the views of people who have NOT been previously involved?

And in fact, the AfD nomination of List of the verified oldest people (which was closed as "snow keep") shows that the wider community are not necessarily in agreement with some of those who are "policing" the WOP project. Note the comment from an editor uninvolved with the project: "For pity's sake, snippily suggesting that the article is suspect because the GRG is the source is like saying an article about soccer "verified" by FIFA is suspect. The GRG is the outfit generally held to be the worldwide authority in such matters".

This whole business of creating lists of WOP and non-WOP members to show the difference in views is quite frankly ridiculous. Shock horror, different people hold different views. What does segregating Wikipedia editors achieve? All it does is turn Wikipedia in to a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

I am trying my best to compromise with editors with whom I hold disagreements with, but I'm not sure if I'm getting anywhere. Little attempt has been made to establish wider community consensus, which means people outside of the WOP project and those who are regular contributors to longevity-related articles. This is what needs to be done moving forward.

P.S. Can someone explain why some arbitrators have begun with their discussions before everyone has had a chance to comment? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 930310
While my account is almost ten years old I am not an experienced user of the English Wikipedia website. I do however have an interest in longevity so that is why I have been posting in these areas. I have never been involved in any discussions before this one so I might not be absolutely the best person to comment, but I guess that this is a learning process and that I am just starting out here. I was not aware that my sandbox wasn't in compliance with the Wikipedia policies until recently because I had never looked into it. This is however not an issue any longer.

Interest in human longevity has existed for several millennia (as we can see with Biblical claims such as Methuselah). The book of Guinness World Records began listing the World's Oldest People in its early editions. Age validation research itself began in the 1870s with the pioneer demographer William Thoms who laid out some rules for age validation in his 1873 book on Human Longevity, with one of them being that there should be evidence of birth for the longevity claimant.

What modern-day unverified claimants do not have is exactly that, no early evidence of birth. Validated supercentenarians do have early evidence of birth as it is a requirement for validation by most age validation groups.

Here are what I believe are the real reasons behind the entire debate on longevity articles here on Wikipedia:


 * 1) Some believe that longevity cannot confer notability
 * 2) Some believe that age validation research isn't important and doesn't matter and that Wikipedia should ignore research that has existed for 140+ years
 * 3) Some of the major admins that have chimed into the longevity research project have failed to distinguish between longevity "fans" and longevity "scientists"

The purpose of the WOP-project is to present reliable information that is available to the public, which shows how long the oldest people live and how the average ages for the absolutely oldest people are increasing. The way that people in the project have done this is to have written articles about some of the oldest supercentenarians, where they've tried to illustrate how the life of the person was and what they themselves might have thought was the reason that they lived so long. They have also created lists of supercentenarians where they've listed them based on where they lived and so on. These lists and articles shows verified data, where there is original proof of birth and not claimants for extreme ages where the only evidence they have of their claims are documents issued late in their lives. This means that if verified and unverified data is mixed the data is no longer reliable.

The members of the WOP-project are people who are interested in longevity and usually an interest means that they have more knowledge in the subject than the average user. Some of the members are however not experienced Wikipedia users and have acted in good faith while editing articles, which later have been reverted due to lack of sources etc. While some of this interest might be a bit trivial, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which means that the main focus in this topic area needs to be changed from updating lists to writing material about this field from a scientific perspective.

There has been talk in the discussions on Wikipedia that longevity does not warrant notability. Cases such as Jeanne Calment do however show that you can be notable because of your longevity. I believe that Wikipedia should have policy guidelines on the "notability" of supercentenarians due to longevity and that those who have been internationally recognized as the World's Oldest Man, World's Oldest Woman and World's Oldest Person should be considered notable enough to have separate articles, along with the people who are ranked in the Top 100 Oldest of all-time list. The ones who are noted for things such as having been the oldest Jewish person ever might or might not be notable enough to have their own articles. The ones who were only known within their region or state are likely not notable enough for them to have separate articles.

These levels of regulation would limit the growth of articles in this area to a minimum and would actually be a clarification of the guidelines for the WOP project that were written in 2010.

In other words, let's have a slowdown in deleting long-standing material and have a review of why this may or may not be important. Just a month ago, things seemed to be calm and workable, everyone here would like a return to that. That's not to say that we haven't all learned lessons: Wikipedia is not a webhost and the trivial material needs to be cut down. But there's no reason to be cutting the scientific material on the subject matter too.

While we, the members of the WOP-project give ground and re-learn we ask for the admins to do the same thing. I think CA2james is on the right trail by being able to admit that he was wrong.

Finally here is an article about longevity written by Alexander Graham Bell and published in National Geographic in 1919: 930310 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights
It's all the same, only the names have changed. There is an issue with distinguishing between the fanboys and scientists, but the problem is on the other end; the fanboys are working in concert with the scientists, and as we know one of the scientists was the biggest promotional editor of all in the area. One thing I think we really need is a name change, because the very name is the same as the Yahoo group where absolutely massive canvassing occurs when anyone attempts to do anything in this topic area, and having the DS in place will make it much easier to have that discussion. The trick then will be finding people willing to enforce them, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ca2james
It looks to me like the discretionary sanctions were lifted because they had been in place for five years and hadn't been used. However, the reason they weren't used is that outside editors had not been looking at the articles associated with WP:WOP. As soon as outside editors come in, members of this project as well as members of their forums (the 110 club and the yahoo group) engage in disruptive reversions and behaviour. The ANI case involving Waenceslaus linked above shows the battleground mentality some of these editors have and how disruptive they can be. Reinstating the discretionary sanctions is needed to prevent the disruption.

I first saw this WP:WOP project in December 2014 when I became involved in nominating user pages for deletion that were associated with the project. There was much arguing and reverting and talking because these editors strongly objected to having these pages deleted. I recognized at that time that there were issues with this project's articles - in particular sourcing and the use of colour on these pages - but after bringing them up and discussing them (see this archive, this discussion, and this discussion), I stayed away for a while after that because the experience deleting those user pages and the subsequent discussion was exhausting.

I've recently returned to this project to try to bring these pages into compliance with WP policies and guidelines. There was some question about whether the GRG was a reliable source so I took that question to RSN to get the community's opinion. When the community decided that Table EE was not reliable, I attempted to edit the project page to reflect this information and was reverted. Several editors attempted to reinstate the material but were also reverted until the page was protected. Since then, I've tried to update some of the articles and have encountered reverts (that's all from List of supercentenarians who died in 2015; this has happened on other articles) and along with lots and lots of discussion. Much of the discussion has been a repeat of the discussions I linked to above. I've attempted to explain why things are being changed because I do recognize that having their articles changed is difficult.

There is much more to be done. In addition to the work to bring the articles up to snuff, I think that there may be some articles that duplicate information or could be merged. Doing that work is very difficult because of the disruption. The discretionary sanctions are needed. Ca2james (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding: I did list List of the verified oldest people for deletion, which was quickly closed as snow keep. I definitely made a mistake and I've been very careful since then not to nominate anything for deletion without much more careful analysis; similarly, I've been quite careful to discuss my edits and changes on WT:WOP. Ca2james (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog
My involvement in WOP is recent and minimal, and mostly I have expressed concern.

In early August, I commented in the RSN thread about GRG tables, agreeing that table E (claims of age verified by GRG) is reliable and table EE (unverified claims of age) is unreliable, for example here.

On August 14 I commented in the ANI Ricky mentions here, noting, "I have been reading within WP about WikiProjects that went off the rails and were disbanded through MfD. It may well be time to see if the community is ready to disband that project and start an MfD on that.... The attitude of project members posting  here makes it seem that that they have lost their way. "

Also on August 21 I !voted at the AfD, as follows: "Merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians The GRG project is getting step-by-step closer to being disbanded by the community for exactly the kind of activity going on in this AfD."

On August 24 I posted the list of WOP members or WOP-SPAs, at the AfD. I posted that list with some uncertainty as to whether it was a good thing or not. We tag SPA comments in AfDs to provide context for the closers; I intended this to function along the same lines, but again was uncertain as to whether it would be helpful or disruptive. Out of an abundance of caution, I just struck the list. I am sorry for making things uglier.

I do think the time may be ripe for the community to disband the WOP project. I am not sure it is, but WOP members/followers do seem to be acting in a GANG/OWN fashion on content that interests them, and seem to be making their own guidelines about WP content and ignoring CONSENSUS of the broader community.

I do support re-instatement of DS for longevity content, per the proposal. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite (involved only as an admin)
There are still persistent issues, not only as mentioned above, but also with IP editing. See current ANI section here where I have suggested a topic ban for the IP-hopping editor. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Longevity: Clerk notes

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



Longevity: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If the disruptive editing and ownership issues have resurfaced, I'm minded to propose a motion putting the discretionary sanctions back in place. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that motion is quite in order, Seraphimblade. Courcelles (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would certainly support such a motion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Longevity
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed.
 * Enacted - L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Enacted - L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * , ; I'm not seeing the point of discussing this and then voting on it, so I'm putting this up, it'll either get majority or it won't, so may as well discuss and vote simultaneously. This is the exact same remedy and wording from the original case that was rescinded.  Courcelles (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Amendment request: Argentine History (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by MarshalN20 at 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Topic ban


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * Topic ban
 * Requesting removal of topic ban. This is an appeal that was allowed after one year of the decision; nearly 2 years have passed.

Statement by MarshalN20
A considerable amount of time has passed since the "ARBARG" case reached its conclusion. After the topic ban was placed, I asked then-arbitrator NuclearWarfare on how to proceed in order to appeal it; he suggested that I tackle a controversial article and take it to featured status (see ). Since then, I have taken three articles to featured status (Peru national football team, Falkland Islands, and Pisco Sour), and I am now in the process of passing another one through the GA-FA process (Bicycle kick) as well as conducting a GA review of an article by Kareldorado. It is worth mentioning that I worked on the controversial Falkland Islands article with Wee Curry Monster and was supervised by administrator Basalisk.

I am requesting the removal of this topic ban on the basis of the following points:
 * First, I have demonstrated through actions that I am a valuable contributor to this encyclopedia. Over a year has passed since the ARBARG case, and so the topic ban at present is punishing rather than preventative (which goes against WP:NOTPENAL).
 * Second, I understand my mistake and apologize for it. I was accused of battleground conduct because I pointed out that the editing patterns of certain editors were suspicious and favoring a national POV rather than a neutral POV. I felt that my points were left ignored, so I became increasingly aggressive. This behavior was wrong. At the time I did not know that there existed a Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where I could have taken my concerns. I now know of its existence and, in the future, plan to use it in order to avoid creating bilateral conflict that is disruptive to the encyclopedia.
 * Third, since its inception, the topic ban has been the cause of much harassment against me. Most of the enforcement and amendments that followed were the result of hounding users taking advantage of the TBAN's lack of clarity. Luckily, in all cases either an administrator or the Wikipedia Community stood by my side and repealed any harm done to my user account. Unfortunately, this has not prevented users from still using the TBAN to attack me. For example, most recently I was called a "delinquent" and unfairly accused of misbehavior for simply directing a new user to contribute to Wikipedia; the situation was so ridiculous and upsetting that administrator EdJohnston boxed it up (see ).

The third point, which goes against WP:HARASS, is what has prompted me to request this TBAN removal. The harassment needs to stop, and the only way to do so is by removing this unnecessary, punitive topic ban. My contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves and demonstrate that I am not an editor that deserves this type of mistreatment. In fact, this experience has taught me many valuable lessons about Wikipedia and its community, including the reality that many editors also deal with this problem of harassment; in the near future, I would like to become an administrator in order to help users become productive editors while also tackling harassment issues which drive away productive editors. To achieve this goal, I will have to earn the community's trust, and this I will do by committing myself to continuing my positive behavior and contributions to this online encyclopedia. To be more precise about my near future plans, I would like to first take the Peru article through an FA re-review (since it no longer meets the standards) and next work on taking more articles to featured status (mostly those in my sandboxes).

Please let me know if you have any questions. I would kindly appreciate the opportunity to answer any questions prior to arbitrators making any final decision on this request.-- MarshalN20 T <font color="Silver">al k 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In light of recent comments, I would just like to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon. I believe that, if needed, can provide further insight on the situation that recently occurred with Keysanger, and he can also explain each side's behavior. As I write this message, I read the following recommendation from the committee: "Be professional. Comments that are intended to provoke a negative reaction or that are uncivil are completely unhelpful." That's exactly what I plan to do. Regards.-- MarshalN20  T <font color="Silver">al k 15:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero
I understand the reasons why I was topic banned back then. I know that many people does not trust me, I can't simply ask for a lift of the topic ban by just stating my good intentions. Although two years have passed, I think that I have to earn that trust, and time alone may not be enough. For that reason, I asked some months ago for exceptions for the biographies of the Argentine presidents from 1983 to modern day: if I manage to make them all featured articles, then I may have something to justify my case. Unfortunately, my limited time did not allow me to have any progress that I may show at this point (I'm just with a good article nomination, and nothing more). Because of this, I will make no special request in this case for me at this point.

On the other side, there is a request I would like to make: please do not tie Marshal20's fate with mine. His situation is not the same, and his topic ban should be lifted now. The original dispute was with the biography of Juan Manuel de Rosas; the scope was expanded to all of latin american history surely to prevent the problems with "testing the limits" if the thing was too narrow. But if you check him, you will see that before that dispute he had never took part in any discussion or made any significant number of edits to either the article of Rosas or to some other article that may be more or less related (such as those in the navbox Argentine Civil War). In fact, he's not Argentine but Peruvian, and the national histories of Argentina and Peru had very little points of intersection. MarshalN20 simply joined the discussion when the discussion had been taken to venues to request to intervention of more users, just that. If someone deserves to be punished for that old dispute, let it be just me. Cambalachero (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Second comment: please take Keysanger's comments with care, and check them instead of taking them at face value. First, have in mind that MarshalN20 has not been topic banned because of his work in the article on the War of the Pacific. That article has never been discussed during the case, it just fell into the expanded topic ban placed to make sure that we did not get anywhere near Juan Manuel de Rosas (and let's point that both topics are not even contemporary; the war started almost 30 years after Rosas was ousted in the distant Buenos Aires). The topic ban does not prevent MarshalN20 from discussing with or about Keysanger as a user (for example, providing evidence in a sock puppet discussion about Keysanger). Neither should be forbidden to talk about the articles as articles (as in "X user has been editing Y article"), as long as he does not discuss the content of the article or try to influence the way it is being edited (and note that when Keysanger says that MarshalN20 provided info in a sockpuppet discussion related to the War of the Pacific, he's not pointing that the user under investigation is him). He describes a diff as "was involved again in a discussion about Socketpuppetry in the Article War of the Pacific", which is a completely inaccurate description of the discussion linked (note that admin EdJohnston saw no problem in that discussion; a newbie asked MarshalN20 for help and he simply told him someone else who may help). As for the wikisource link, which is the alleged problem? Here in wikipedia, the name of the article about a document would be that document's name, and I'm sure that the same applies in wikisource; there can hardly be a hidden agenda if we simply call a spade a spade. In any case, have in mind that Keysanger already held several disputes with different users about the war of the pacific, in a short investigation I have seen two mediation attempts (see here and here), an edit war that led to article protection for two months (here), and another edit war that had him blocked (here, the admin points that "The saga of the War of the Pacific continues"). Cambalachero (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by BarrelProof
I was dismayed when the topic ban was imposed on MarshalN20 (on 23 June 2013), and I expressed my disappoinment on MarshalN20's User talk page at the time. I have interacted with MarshalN20 for some years here, and have personally always found MarshalN20 to be a helpful and constructive contributor who seems to be here to help write a good encyclopedia. I also recently encouraged MarshalN20 to request for the ban to be lifted (on 3 July 2015), which at the time I thought was one year after the topic ban was imposed, but actually I now notice that two years has passed by. I think enough time has gone by to further demonstrate that this user is a very helpful contributor to Wikipedia. The user has also expressed regret for the prior behavior that led to the ban, which further demonstrates a willingness to do better in the future. I never really thought I properly understood the prior dispute, but have always thought MarshalN20 was a generally good editor who should be allowed and encouraged to help further improve Wikipedia – in all areas – and especially for the history of Latin America, as that is a subject on which MarshalN20 appears to have considerable expertise and a commitment to try help and to try to improve accuracy and NPOV (e.g., with regard to political and nationalistic biased editing). I thus strongly support removal of this old topic ban. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Keysanger
The ban was imposed on 23 June 2013. Since then MarshalN20 has broken the ban a lot of times, always in an agressive manner:
 * On 21 October 2013 MarshalN20 commented in the talk page of the War of the Pacific: diff
 * On 27 Feb 2014 he wrote Hopefully now that Keysanger has "retired" the editing of War of the Pacific articles will have less conflict. diff (BTW he is canvassing votes for his nomination of an article)
 * On 6 Mai 2014 he participated in a investigation about my contribs in the War of the Pacific : Sockpuppet investigations/Keysanger/Archive
 * On 29 May 2014 he wrote  I am still concerned by the behavior of these users. Their contribution history is filled with combative nationalist behavior in controversial articles (please see ).  diff
 * On 27 June 2014 Cloudac seeks advice by MarshalN20 how to proceed in the War of he Pacific diff
 * On 21 October 2013 diff MarshalN20 induced Darkness Shines to gather information against an editor of the article War of the Pacific (Darkness Shines is now blocked for different causes) ... My only recommendation is that you document all of the nonsense and later present it at AN/I or an RfCU for review...
 * On 22 October 2013 diff Darkness Shines asks MarshalN20 for information to post to the War of the Pacific article EMail me the full quotes please
 * On 22 October 2013 diff MarshalN20 sent the information needed for reaking the ban. He knew that he was breaking the ban but he didn't care: ''The information is found in the second paragraph of page 192. I'd rather not take any further action at this point without listening to Basalisk's advice. Nonetheless, if Basalisk thinks it's appropriate, I can also just write the text to your talk page (both in Spanish and the translation). I am honestly not trying to mock the topic ban (and have been mindful of it in my actions); in this case, the issues of vandalism and conflict of interest are pretty blatant.
 * On 23 October 2013 Darkness shines explained to MarshalN20 which is the best way to break the WP rules diff: : Spanish is not my language, posting on my talk page would violate the TBAN, mailing it to me will not.
 * On 27 July 2014 Darkness Shines reverted my proposal at the article War of the Pacific: diff
 * On 28 July 2014 Darkness Shines was congratulated by MarshalN20 for breaking his ban:diff Stay strong, friend. Don't lose your cool in the face of stupidity.
 * On 4 August 2015 was involved again in a discussion about Socketpuppetry in the Article War of the Pacific: diff

It doesn't belong to the scope of this committee, but this intervention demostrates the true intentions of MarshalN20.

A topic ban should not be punitive, but should be preventive, that is it schould protect the others editors working in Wikipedia. And the quality of MarshalN20's edits, if any, say nothing about his capacity to team work. There is al lot of "good" editors that have been blocked or are unable to work in team.

In the light of MarshalN20 breaks of the ban, can anyone guarantee that MarshalN20 will respect the Rules of Wikipedia this time?. No. He didn't respect the rules before the ban and not during the topic ban and he will not respect the rules if the ban is lifted.

I thus strongly oppose removal of this neccesary topic ban. -- Keysanger (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Argentine History: Clerk notes

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



Argentine History: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It would be most appreciated if and  could comment here. That being said, provided there are no serious objections, I could see using the same method we've used before, with a probationary lifting of a ban for a year followed by lifting entirely if no incidents occur. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read through the objections, and don't find anything recent and seriously concerning there. I've proposed a motion accordingly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with Seraphimblade,  Roger Davies  talk 07:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think Seraphimblade's proposal of a probationary lifting is a good way forward here, and pending any credible objections I recommend we follow that route. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that a probationary relaxing of the restrictions would be a good precursor to fully lifting the ban. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 09:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I may as well pile on here and agree. Seems a very reasonable course of action. Doug Weller (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Motion: MarshalN20 topic ban suspension


Proposed:


 * Remedy 2 (MarshalN20 topic banned) of the Argentine History case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should MarshalN20 fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.
 * Enacted - L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators

Amendment request: Revised plan for relocating arbitration pages (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by NE Ent at 22:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_2


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Change the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests (with active talk page) transcluding: .... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Change the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests (with active talk page) transcluding: .... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
 * to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement will have its own talk page.

Statement by NE Ent
The Wikipedia watchlist software links talk pages to their corresponding page, so that users monitoring a particular page can be notified of discussion about it. Given that Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (WP:AE) is generally monitored not by arbitrators, but rather dispute resolution volunteers, including the administrators who are expected to enforce committee decisions with ideally, minimal to no involvement from the committee itself, it is counter productive to community discussion to have to host discussions about WP:AE on a page (e.g. WP:AN which may not be watchlisted by the participants.
 * , per usual practice, any policy proposal than occurred at WP:AE could be linked to from WP:AN (or the central noticeboard). NE Ent 23:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by L235
I fully support this proposed change. However, the Committee needs to make sure to set rules to sure that, as Anthony puts it, the page does not become an annexe of AE proper. The Committee may want to consider who will have the responsibility to maintain and enforce decorum at it, admin patrollers at AE or the clerks. (In theory, the clerks' remit extends to AE, but AFAIK the Committee don't want us to, preferring us leave that to admins at AE.) My opinion is that the clerks are more suited to it (it's not a part of AE, it should be lower-traffic, and whatever purposes the Committee assigns it, it's likely it will be similar to a chunk of WT:A/R), but the Committee definitely needs to make it clear, one way or another. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 04:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 24.151.10.165
I believe that this proposal was made in response to an AN discussion about banning IP editors from initiating AE reports. As I commented there [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators'_noticeboard&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=678781258&oldid=678770551 diff]: In the extremely unlikely event that as an IP editor I should ever need to initiate a report at AE, I would expect to be able to so, unless the page was temporarily semi-protected due to ongoing vandalism, in which latter case I would hope to be able to submit a semi-protected edit request on the talk page as with any other semi-protected page. Presumably no confirmed editor would approve a frivolous talk page request. Having a talk page would facilitate such vandalism-related temporary semi-protection. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad
Pinging Kirill Lokshin for any thoughts he might have, as I believe he helped design the current set-up of these pages (though I don't know that he's followed them recently). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz
Thryduulf, I think the particular discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 9. The talk page archives regarding the arbitration committee are not centralized, unfortunately. I believe there also might have been a discussion about having a separate AE talk page at WP:AN at some point. Liz <font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">Read! Talk! 01:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Revised plan for relocating arbitration pages.: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse as a clerk to make a statement. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 04:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Revised plan for relocating arbitration pages.: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * As you said, WP:AE is monitored primarily by dispute resolution volunteers. MediaWiki allows one to watch an article along with its talk page; you cannot watch a talk page alone. So persons who are interested in the process and procedures of WP:AE but disinterested in following closely the day-to-day proceedings of the page wouldn't watchlist it anyway. Centralising such P&P discussions on WP:AN or WP:ARCA is beneficial for that reason.
 * That said, I agree that administrators actively actioning enforcement requests would be interested in . I don't have particularly strong feelings as to whether WT:AE continues to be a redirect or not, but holding discussions there seems poor.
 * Perhaps Flow will fix all these problems eventually. *ducks* L Faraone  22:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * fair enough. For clarity, I don't oppose this change. L Faraone  03:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a good initiative. I would support converting the redirect of WT:AE into a stand-alone talk page. (Care will need to be taken that the page does not become an annexe of AE proper – it seems best that it be used for procedural and meta-discussion only.) AGK  [•] 23:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I support this per AGK. The talk page should have a notice about the purpose of the page, and I'd support this being monitored by admins in the first instance (with no restriction on admin arb clerks monitoring it in their admin capacity if they want). If that isn't working then we can revisit it if needed. A couple of months back there was another discussion about doing exactly this that I think had quite wide support but I can't immediately find it. Thryduulf (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Like on AN(I), if a discussion is started on the talk page that belongs on the primary page, it can easily enough be moved over or removed with instructions where it should go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on this matter -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, no real downside. NativeForeigner Talk 23:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible enough to me. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 09:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine - can't see any problems with the proposal. Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Implemented: I have re-created a stand-alone talk page for arbitration enforcement. This amendment request could presumably now have the distinction of being the first thread to be archived to the resurrected WT:AE. Many thanks to NE Ent for bringing this proposal. AGK [•] 22:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Callanecc at 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARoscelese&type=revision&diff=671728779&oldid=671640137 Roscelese]

Statement by Callanecc
Following an AE request (I'll add a permalink when it's closed) could the Committee please clarify what the second part of dot point one in Roscelese's restriction ("and is required to discuss any content [emphasis added] reversions on the page's talk page") applies to.

My suggestion would be that the bit in brackets for the first clause could be made to apply to the second clause as well, or if WP:BANEX could be applied to the whole dot point?

Roscelese may wish to make request regarding exceptions for dot point 2, but I'll leave that up to her. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That really depends, currently there is no mechanism other than a formal amendment for the arbitrator comments below to be taken into account (or even found and referred to) for any enforcement in the future. If the Committee doesn't have an appetite for a formal amendment by motion perhaps they could do it through this request by foot noting the remedy with a summary of the arb comments here (though that would probably need to be done by an arb rather than a clerk). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually given that not all of the arbs commenting have answered:
 * Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts?
 * Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)?
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing to consider here (and something which has come up in the past) is that if the admins involved in the enforcement of the Committee's decision don't understand or need clarification to confirm their interpretation (whether the interpretation is correct or not) then the Committee should provide that clarification as clearly as possible. The comments here are equivalent to obiter dicta on the PD page and they disappear to the case talk page, that is, you'd look at the decision the Committee has passed when deciding whether to report/enforce not the case talk page. In this case the dot points are separate items and so don't necessarily rely on the conditions set in in each other, so in this case the questions being asked are valid and may very well come up again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Roscelese

 * Obviously, I agree with the arbs who have commented here; if the user had provided some reason for removal (either in the edit summary or the talk page) I wouldn't have reverted with a simple "?" ("why did you do this?"), which seemed like a nicer thing to say than "rv vandalism" despite the lack of a summary, the fact that the text was cited to reliable sources, and the absence of other edits on the account. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz
I don't see any reason to make material changes to the sanctions. The sanctions involved in my initial filing set minimum communication requirements. She breached; no one seriously argues otherwise. Claiming her breach was justified by WP:BANEX simply doesn't fly; BANEX requires that "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible explanatory edit summary or that you link to an explanation detailing the exemption". That's pretty much equivalent to the communication requirement that Roscelese didn't comply with; it would be rather silly to say she should provide an edit summary explaining why she didn't have to provide an edit summary. Perhaps the Committee might amend the second clause of the remedy to allow an appropriate edit summary in lieu of talk page comment when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations, but Roscolese didn't even make that minimal effort here. The more significant issue, as I saw it, was the violation of sanction 2, making an automated rollback-type edit without providing an edit summary; given that rollback-type edits are pretty much limited to situations which would fall under BANEX, it seems clear to me that no exception was indicated by the Committee's language. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Christianity and Sexuality: Clerk notes

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



Christianity and Sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Generally speaking, an unexplained removal of large chunks of an article, especially by a very new editor, is reasonably treated as a vandal or test edit. Roscelese was well within reason to do so here. I would see the meaning of "content revert" as the reversal of a content edit, which would exclude vandalism. Regardless, I'm not inclined to require Roscelese to start a talk page discussion every time she removes "HI JOE!!!!!!!!" type vandalism from a page. If, of course, that editor comes back and provides a reason they believe the material should be removed, that would then bring these restrictions into force should Roscelese revert it again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just re-read the restriction in question and was surprised to see that we did not explicitly say it did not apply to reverts of obvious vandalism/BLP violations; that said, I agree with Seraphimblade. It would be a waste of time to have Roscelese open a thread whenever she were to revert vandalism. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * i agree with both of my colleagues. Next time we must make this explicit. Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Having thought about this more since my comment at AE, I think all that is needed for vandalism reverts is an edit summary that notes it is vandalism being reverted (which is good practice for everyone). I'd be happy to amend the wording of the restriction to make this clear if people think that would be worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * to explicitly answer your two questions:
 * Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts? It is neither required nor prohibited.
 * Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)? An explanation is needed, but an edit summary noting the nature of the revert (i.e. that it is reverting indisputable vandalism or BLP violations) is sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to examine the full relevant sentence of the restriction being clarified: Given that reversions are expressly defined as excluding "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations", reverting simple vandalism is outwith the scope of the restriction. In my view no amendment is needed and the answer to the question seems fairly plain. AGK  [•] 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually the second bullet point that clarification is being sought with regards: While that contains no exceptions on it's own, it unclear whether the exception in the first bullet is intended to apply only to the first restriction or to both restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, thanks Thryduulf. I think all of the above in any case have answered the question from that angle fairly exhaustively, so I still concur that no amendment is required. AGK  [•] 03:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Yes it applies to both"; or "yes it applies to the first only"?. I read it as applying to both. There can be a need to revert vandalism immediately; there is not a need to revert without explanation.  DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I read it as no discussion is required for reverting obvious vandalism, and Rosclese did nothing wrong here. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that Roscelese should not be required to start a talk page discussion for reverting obvious vandalism. An edit summary mentioning that this was vandalism wouldn't have been a bad choice, but I'm not terribly concerned by "?". If we need to modify restrictions so that this is more clear, so be it, but I think that the exception of obvious vandalism is implied. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think at this point we need input. Do or anyone else feels that the clarifications are sufficient as they stand or whether we need to amend the wording? Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mildly surprised this is necessary, but suggest we add "except when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations" so that the sanction is clearer for anyone considering it at AE. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , that would have to be done by motion, but it is not a bad idea. I'm going to write one, hopefully this is noncontroversial, and we can get this out of here. Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Motion proposed inline with my opinion. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Roscelese restricted


Proposed:


 * Remedy 2 (Roscelese restricted) of the Christianity and Sexuality case is modified to read the following:
 * is subject to the following restrictions. Other than in cases of indisputable vandalism or BLP violations, they are indefinitely prohibited from:
 * making more than one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
 * making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
 * is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.
 * These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.
 * Enacted: L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 03:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Courcelles and I predicted this was going to be needed in the first place, so rolling it out. Please feel free to C/E as needed. Left the third part out as I see no reasonable case where it would need that exception. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * With mild copy edit (revert if disagree). With the insight of a couple of months I think the original case restrictions were probably too strict, but the above motion has the virtue of addressing this specific ARCA request, and given the age of this request it's time to pass it and move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 10:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is necessary, but won't be harmful, so no objection. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As Seraphimblade. Doug Weller (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Euryalus that these restrictions could stand some loosening. Courcelles (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators