Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European mailing list January 2011
Initiated by  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus at 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 3, modified by motions from 6 May and 13 November.


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

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

Amendment 1

 * Piotrus topic banned, modified bymotion 1, allowing edits to WikiProject Poland andmotion 2, narrowing the ban
 * This is a request to amend EEML Remedy 3 to end the topic ban that applies to Piotrus and allow him to edit articles related to Eastern Europe

Statement by Piotrus
More than a year has passed since the original remedy was instituted, yet close to three months still remain on the topic ban. Since March I have edited uncontroversially, and in May I was allowed to make suggestions at WT:POLAND; neither have been subject to any criticism. In November the topic ban was narrowed to "articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics". I tried my best to avoid approaching the rather blurry boundaries of that new ban (I raised concerns about it in the past several times). I will admit that despite my best intentions I have drifted a few times close to that blurry boundary. In all but one instance I self-reverted quickly. Sadly, battleground mentality in EE topics still persists among some, and this led to two AE requests naming me as a party - please note that both ended with no action taken towards my person, and the filling parties in both cases were subject to AE bans and/or blocks (AE 1,AE 2,related AE 3). Finally, just a few days ago I was suddenly blocked by an AE admin, who in good faith misinterpreted the topic ban; I was unblocked a day later following the input from three Arbitrators (appeal and relevant discussion here).

What finally prompted me to file this request now was a single edit I did not make: I wanted to correct the placement of a reference template in the Adam Mickiewicz article ( should be in the reference section, not at the very bottom of the article). But moments before I was about to hit the save button, I realized that the article seems to be in the midst of an edit war related to the subject nationality, and by making an edit there - even one totally uncontroversial and unrelated to the dispute - I could be accused of violating the topic ban. This is not the first time I halted myself like that; one of the self-reverts I mentioned wasthis edit to the article "Poland Anti-Religious Campaign (1945–1990), where I made an AutoEd/ce edit to a new article that popped up on the WikiProject Poland's new article report. This topic was never a subject to a dispute on Wikipedia (nor has it been since the article was created), but it does seem related to some dispute. And indeed, in the (dismissed) AE reports I mentioned, this edit of mine was part of the "evidence". Thus I am prevented from carrying out the copyedit of this article, moving it (the title needs to be decapitalized per MoS) and making other uncontroversial edits. After this last block-unblock incident, I am very wary of editing anything related to Eastern Europe at all (I was about to create a series of articles about Polish armoured trains, a plan I now put on hold, as I don't want my block log to witness more admins who could misinterprets my topic ban as including all military topics...). Even if I do my best to adhere to the topic ban, I can still be harassed by battleground-minded editors; worse, even neutral, good-faithed admins have shown they have trouble interpreting the topic ban, and the result is a lot of wikistress and time wasted on AE. I have to admit that I feel more stressed under this topic ban then in many preceding months, as I am always afraid I will make a good-faithed edit that will be seen as topic ban gaming, or that even if I won't, I will be dragged to AE again for more stressful battleground showdowns (and even if such reports seem to serve a useful function of identifying disruptive, battleground-minded editors, I do not enjoy being the lightning rod of their attention - which, considering that I am now the last editor with an EEML-related remedy still in force, is unlikely to diminish).

Lastly, I'd like to note that the EEML case was not about creating improper content, but about improper edit (revert) coordination and (vote) canvassing. That lesson, about impropriety of such actions, was learned by me and others long ago (I admited as much during the very case). I would like to resume creating content and building an encyclopedia (the 2010, due to the topic ban, was the first year I wrote no Featured Article, my Good Article and DYK writing were also cut down to roughly one fifths of the levels of the previous years;here you can see how the remedy affected my activity levels).

The topic ban will end in late March; I believe that I am as ready to resume constructive and uncontroversial editing in that area now as I will be in by then. In the past year, during discussions of subsequent amendments, the Committee members often spoke of the gradual return to the editing area. I hope that now, close to 13 months out of 15 in my remedies, we can finally put this behind us (I also selfishly hope that this request can be processed faster than the last one, which took two months).

New members of the committee may be interested in reading my statement from the 21 September from the amendment request that led to the motion narrowing the topic ban.


 * Comment to the points raised by involved editors:
 * 1) Upon my AE block by Mkativerata, as declared on my talk page, I sent an email to him asking for an explanation, providing my understanding of the situation and asking for an unblock. Assuming he may not be active at that time, and wishing to minimize any delays before the unblock (or AE unblock discussion), I send similar emails to several other AE administrators who commented, in a non-partisan fashion, on the recent AE requests involving my person (linked above). Being unable to post on AE for several days, I continued sending several emails to administrators discussing the situation there, clarifying certain things they asked for (or asking for clarifications myself). Obviously, I also contacted several members of the arbitration committee asking for their input (which was eventually provided, ending with an unblock, once the arbitrators have clarified the scope of the topic ban). I used emails because that was the only means available for me to contact other editors, and in doing so I followed advice offered to me by an Arbitrator some time ago ("if you end up being in the middle of an enforcement request, seek help from an arb to help clarify this"). Nothing in those emails was secret, and if the Committee wants to see them, I authorize their recipients to share them with the Committee if it is requested from them (as I sent most of them through wiki interface I don't have their copies to provide). I resent second or third handed description of such emails as canvassing or dishonest, although I am not surprised as those personal attacks are coming from a user with a very long history of assuming (and expressing) bad faith when it comes to my person. I will end by asking Deacon to disclose who was it that send him this email? Or are we dealing with another "anonymous whistle-blower" who is afraid to express his concerns publicly?
 * 2) Echoing sentiments expressed by several editors here, and at least one Arbitrator, I will ask the Committee to consider whether this forum does indeed allow editors to express profound bad-faith comments and carry out personal attacks on others without any consequences. On AE, editors making unfounded, bad-faithed accusations and contributing to the battleground atmosphere in EE area received AE and interaction bans. I would specifically ask the Committee to consider imposing an interaction ban on Deacon with regards to EE(ML) editors (and frankly, if the Committee would like to make it a double sided restriction, that's fine - I never commented on Deacon outside of the situations he commented on my person, and my only desire is for him to stop wikistalking/hounding my activity). Please note that Deacon's bad-faithed criticism of my person is not a rare or exceptional occurence. His first edit this year upon coming from a nearly month long wikiholiday was to post here; last year he made comments in AE requests involving my person and occasionally other editors involved in the EE(ML) case and in amendments . Also, despite being obviously involved in this area, he takes administrative actions (ex. ). In the years past, Deacon has presented evidence against me and other EE-related editors, been banned from EE-related arbitration pages due to incivility and battleground mentality , authored himself an entire arbcom case against me , and was mentioned in its findings , admonished  and reminded toassume good faith, remain civil and avoid personal attacks,. In April and in June 2009 I offered him a mediation (twice), he refused, twice  At that time I also specifically asked him to avoid commenting about me (and promised never to comment on him) - . As far as I can tell, he ignored this request of mine, not even replying to it. His "history" with EE-editors goes at as far back as 2006 (and on the subject of canvassing, here's a skeleton in a closet). Since it seems obvious that Deacon sees his vigilantism vigilance in this area as helping the project, and saving it from"the EE editors", perhaps the Committee could take a closer look at whether his attitude and activities are really benefiting that area (and the project in general)?
 * And now, can we please get back to the subject at hand (the topic ban), and try not to be distracted by some editors who are trying to derail this request by turning it into another battleground? Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 3) I consider allegations made in this post by Skäpperöd to be extremly uncivil and defamatory. I believe that the personal attacks contained in it are so serious that I am officially requesting that this diff isoversighted. Skäpperöd has the right to voice concerns and criticism, but the line surely is crossed when one makes allegations regarding another editors goals in contributing, character and personality, and bad-faithed interpretation of professional expertise to boot (not far from WP:OUTING, I believe).
 * Since an interaction ban was mentioned, I will also ask the Committee to consider whether this wouldn't be another good place for it. I respect Skäpperöd's content contributions, and have no desire to hinder them; however his constant critique of EE(ML) editors that shows no signs of lessening seems disruptive and conductive to recreating battleground mentality (if editors cannot WP:FORGIVE and move on, what can we expect in the near future? More drama, that's what). A review of his Wikipedia namespace contributions shows that 90% of them are related to criticizing EE(ML) members. In October last year heproposed an amendment indefinitely extending a topic ban of User:Jacurek, the proposal was quickly rejected by the Committee and Skäpperöd was warned to avoid battleground tone and mentality . That year he alsoobjected to lifting a sanction in an AN discussion, quickly launching another attack on a user who disagreed with him. Earlier, he opposed lifting the topic ban on Radeksz (it was lifted),opposed lifting the topic ban on me and proposed an indef extension (the topic ban was partially lifted by being modified to current wording),an amendment extending Radeksz topic ban for a year (rejected), objected to an amendment lifting my topic ban, using in edit summary phrases such as "malicious Piotrus" (I am loosing track here of which amendment request was that), objected to Radeksz amendment request (ditto),commented on AE that "It is neither bad faith, nor uncivil, nor a PA to state that Piotrus is discredited and banned, because he is",objected to am amendment allowing me to edit WT:POLAND (passed), criticized another EEML editor in March... those are just some of the diffs I could've cited, I don't really have time or will to provide more than just a sampling. I hope this proves the occurence of an unhealthy vigilantism clear here as well, and makes the case for an interaction ban. Once again, if the Committee wants to make it double sided, that would be fine (even through neither I nor to my knowledge anybody else has a history of following Skäpperöd around and criticizing him, damaging his reputation, and so on...). I do however strongly believe that as long as certain editors stay focused on flaming their opponents at every possible occasion, the EE conflicts won't dissipate. If some editors cannot learn to WP:FORGIVE and move on, I am afraid they have to be directed towards the reconciliation path. Please note that there is nothing that the project will lose if such interaction restrictions are implemented; instead we will gain some peace and quiet from dramu accusations, battleground atmosphere will dissipate as flaming goes away, and certain editors will no longer have to waste time they could spend writing content on launching attacks on others (or defending from them). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: Novickas. Regarding "evidence of a more profound change of hear", could you be more precise? And perhaps you could consider your own words in your own context. I appreciate you remain civil, but have you considered applying WP:FORGIVE and simply avoiding commenting on people you apparently see as your (former) opponents? I don't recall where was the last time (if any, outside arbitration) I (or another editor) discussed your person. Yet you seem to show up in quite a few of the EE(ML) related discussions, and never, ever, have you said anything other than voice more criticism and/or suggestions to decline all request for more lenient remedies:,,,,,... why do you keep fighting? I desire nothing but to collaborate constructively and in a civil fashion with other editors, you included. I have no desire to comment on your person. Why won't you display your own "change of heart", think about WP:FORGIVE andradicalization, and leave discussing my person and other EE(ML) editors to the uninvolved ones?
 * I once read this cartoon that explained some EE conflicts along the lines "this guy's grandfather killed my grandfather so now I have to get back at him". EE battlegrounds will not dissipate till editors apply WP:FORGIVE and stop giving others a reason to think "this guy tried to get me at AN(I)/AE/ARBCOM/etc. and now I have to get back at him, or at least show everybody else how evil he is." Each time editor A criticizes editor B, it becomes that much harder for editor B to keep assuming good faith about editor A. On the other hand, each time editor A stays quiet, avoiding criticizing former opponents, the axe becomes buried deeper, not to mention the times where editors A and B compliment each other or collaborate (and on that lines, I am happy to publicly state that I respect your content contributions and activity in copyright project, I wish you to be more active, and have no wish to see you restricted, even criticized, in any shape or form). Please consider that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mkativerata
In my view, the current wording ought to be amended for the reasons I, and other uninvolved admins, gave at the most recent AE. I have no opinion on whether the restriction ought to be lifted, other than to re-iterate my comment that if it is not possible to communicate Arbcom's intent in a clearly-worded editing restriction, it may very well be better to have no restriction at all.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the suggested wording (see PhilKnight). I'm not sure how an article can be the subject of a ethnic, national, etc. dispute. It can only be the subject of an editing dispute that may or may not be borne out of national, ethnic or cultural differences between the editors involved. The term "present-day dispute" might also be overly narrow: surely Arbcom wants to capture battleground venues like Mass killings under Communist regimes: those articles are about past ethnic or national disputes in relation to which there are severepresent academic and editing disputes. I don't mean to be unhelpful -- I've racked my brains to conceive of wording that would do the job Arbcom wants, but a solution may be elusive.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in the same vein as Deacon's post, I've been quite surprised by the off-wiki emails I receive from active EE editors, some of which are plainly designed to procure blocks of other editors (note Piotrus has not done this; I'm talking about others). I find this quite unacceptable. I think Piotrus would also do well not to make the kind of posts he made to NYB, Shell and Kirill's user talk pages after he was unblocked. I can understand Piotrus was relieved to have been unblocked and grateful for the arbs' intervention, but the messagesshould put their recipients in uncomfortable positions. For the record, I wasn't canvassed by anyone in relation to Piotrus' block or his appeal. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd only disclose the content of the emails and the identity of their senders if Arbcom asked for them. I'm certainly not going to do so as part of an amendment request related to a different editor entirely. I only do so to illustrate the point about the dangers of off-wiki conduct because it appears from Deacon's post -- and from the comments of one or two admins at the AE appeal -- that editors and admins were being asked off-wiki to "have a look" at the AE appeal. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
I support Piotrus' request that his topic ban be lifted. As recent events have shown, the current situation—in which the topic ban only applies to areas of conflict—is subject to different interpretations among administrators acting in good faith. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In light of the recent behavior by Deacon of Pndapetzim, both here and at WT:RFARB, I encourage ArbCom to consider sanctioning him. I also encourage ArbCom to consider whether it is appropriate to ban Deacon of Pndapetzim from speaking to, or commenting on, former members of the EEML. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that Skäpperöd has taken a prurient interest in my Talk page and e-mail. I don't know whether to feel flattered or harassed. I'd like to confess.
 * Several editors had been conspiring in a hidden corner of Wikipedia. On March 31, Piotrus sent me an e-mail message asking if I still thought it was a good idea, and who was going to pull the trigger. I don't read my e-mail often, so he left me a Talk page message. The subject of our top-secret cabal discussion? A request to amend the EEML decision that allowed Piotrus to communicate with other members of WP:POLAND regarding housekeeping matters. That's the whole juicy story. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens
What Mkativerata said. Apparently, what arbcom seems to mean by "articles about national, ethnic, or cultural disputes" seems to be "article about, or subject to, present-day  national, ethnic, or cultural disputes". As far as I know (perhaps, not being a native speaker, I have missed some special features of the English language?), that's not what that phrase usually means in normal English (even the Wikipedia dialect of it). I incorporate by reference my comments in the AE thread Mkativerata linked to. T. Canens (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Novickas
I've been conversing with P. about this at his talk page. My points were that I wouldn't have found it hard to stay well inside the newer topic ban restriction; that the Adam Mickiewicz article falls well inside the line and that describing his hypothetical minor edit to that article as a last-moment realization that he was about to edit an ethnic dispute article was misleading; that he remains free to bring up proposed-but possibly-problematic edits at the PL noticeboard; and that the various recent AE reports were not beneficial to the community at large. I objected to his statement above "...such reports seem to serve a useful function of identifying disruptive, battleground-minded editors...". and suggested finding a mentor.

He responds by saying that I cannot put myself in his shoes when I say it wouldn't be hard, since I don't contribute as much as he does; that the admins who evaluated the various topic ban AE reports disagreed among themselves, showing that observing the boundary is indeed difficult; and that he would avoid all EE topics instead (presumably if this motion doesn't pass.) He asked for a specific suggestion as to how to rewrite the Adam M. part of this appeal - I haven't got one - and acknowledged he knew this article was the subject of an ethnic dispute.

I would prefer that the topic ban be carefully re-worded rather than lifted. Accompanied by a call for mentor volunteers - maybe mentor isn't quite the right term; just someone he could talk to when he feels a strong inclination to edit these articles. Or he could post them to my talk page, I wouldn't file an AE report. But as things have worked out some of his ventures have resulted in what I consider wikilawyering on his part. IMO we shouldn't be asked to evaluate the accidental-ness of an edit or weigh his blurry-boundary edits against the greater good to Wikipedia, and he should demonstrate his readiness to rejoin the community, and his self-control, by sparing us these discussions and disputes for the duration. Novickas (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So is this OK with you guys - that he rewrote the Stanisław Koniecpolski article today? A Pole who was 'despised in Ukraine'? Sheesh. Novickas (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual in raising questions about impartiality after socializing. The NYTimes wasn't sanctioned for publishing this editorial about Scalia and Cheney. Given the circumstances, she might have expected this issue to come up if she discussed P's amendment two days later. It was not a full recusal.

I note that no one criticized this userfor opposing an amendment last June, mentioning P's history and saying 'evidence of a more profound change of heart' was lacking. I don't see that evidence yet myself. Novickas (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Courcelles
I don't really have an opinion about lifting the restrictions, but something must clearly change here. When three or four admins have one interpretation of what an ArbCom decision means, and the Arbitrators themselves have another interpretation of their words, the wording of the remedy must be considered to be suboptimal. AE matters are, if not the hardest, one of the toughest admin chores we have to do, and this wording makes it just that much harder. Mean what you say- a paragraph of clear restrictions is both easier to follow and easier to enforce than the ambiguous sentence we now have. Courcelles 05:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
I am essentially going to echo the sentiments of the AE admins above. The present situation only invites frivolous AE requests and pointless arguing about what is or what is not an EE dispute. It opens up the door for the many people who are holding a long term grudge against Piotrus - and let's be honest here, we all know that there are some individuals here who are still holding on to 5+ year old grudges and who make a regular appearance at these motions (and don't contribute much to Wikipedia besides) - and only encourages the battleground atmosphere that permeates this area. This is not Piotrus' fault, rather it reflects on the folks who seemingly just can't let go.

Either do or don't. And I suggest you "don't" keep the sanctions. None of Piotrus' edits in the past year have been controversial in any way. Except in the way that a bad faith editor can always make a controversy out of nothing, like for example, pretending that minor gnomish edits to articles that have NEVER been a subject of controversy suddenly (after five years of quiet) break the "the letter" of an Arbitration remedy that was actually intended TO GET RID of these kind of onerous restrictions. Usually we call that "wikilawyering" and "battleground behavior". Now, THAT wastes people's time.

Yes, Novickas, is one of these editors and quite, frankly I can't quite understand why Piotrus is even replying to him. Look at the exchange at Piotrus' talk page  and tell me that this isn't straight up "baiting a topic banned editor" or, in the words of the directions of the AE page, "poking a caged animal with a stick" - however politely/hypocritically worded Novickas' comments may be. The sanctions on Piotrus were not enough, the purpose of comments such as these -however politely they are worded - are only to try and humiliate Piotrus further, an editor that has done far more for the encyclopedia than any of his critics. This has been going on again and again, every-time this kind of motion has come up in the past months. By this point it's become a form of kitsch.

However much I've disagreed with various people on Wikipedia in the past, I've never understood this apparent desire on the part of some to try and not just "win" these perceived battlegrounds but also this constant effort to denigrate, kick while they're down, and humiliate other editors - apparently for some people it's personal and they enjoy that sort of thing. If you want to know why this is a battleground area -that's it right there, however politely these statements are sometimes worded.

For what it's worth, Piotrus would probably disagree with my assessment above since he seems to always believe that for all it's faults Wikipedia is a great social experiment, while I'm much more cynical about it (though I recognize the good about Wikipedia I also think it's an insanely dysfunctional millieu). Don't hold my own personal negativity against him.

Removing the sanction completely will quiet shit down in the EE area by removing this perverted incentive for battleground warriors to constantly file spurious and pointless requests and allow Piotrus to get back to the simple grunt work (formatting, assessing, writing non controversial content) that no one appreciates anyway. Which is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, right?  Volunteer Marek  07:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw (I can't resist a snide comment here), since Novickas is pretty convinced that "if (he) were in Piotrus' shoes" he'd know how to "stay within the line" (just to spare others the aggravation of having to wikistalk his edits, not that anyone, least of all Novickas, is wikistalking Piotrus' edits of course) and that he is so sure that he "personally would know how to stay well inside the topic ban boundary" (which insinuates that Piotrus hasn't, while in fact Piotrus HAS - crafty how he sneaked that in there, ey?) I say let him show how well he can stay within the bounds of some topic ban. Since he's asking for it, topic ban Novickas from EE topics for a year (for battleground behavior if nothing else), see how well he does at obeying it, and then a year from now, if all goes well, I will offer him my most sincere apologies, write a sonnet in his honor, and bake a complimentary cupcake for his enjoyment, or something.  Volunteer Marek   08:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record I wanna say that I haven't send any block-shopping emails to Mkativerata or any other admin. Based on what's been going on in the past few months, I'm guessing that these emails were sent by the 'anti-EEML' crowd (though this is just a suspicion). In fact I'm wondering who was the intended target here. So for once I support Skapperod's question (though his intentions in asking it leave a lot to be desired).  Volunteer Marek  17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Confession by Volunteer Marek
Re Skapperod. Here you go, the whole scoop, nothing left out

Since both Shell and Malik have confessed to their unsavory part in all of this I might as well confess too. It's true, Piotrus and I coordinated off wiki in order for Piotrus to "decorate me" with the "bear barnstar" award. This has been in works for months but alas, our nefarious plan has been exposed, with one brilliant stroke by Skapperod.

It went down something like this:


 * I emailed Piotrus saying, hey you, how about giving me a barnstar with a bear on it.
 * Piotrus emailed back saying, oooh, that's a good plan, do you think we'll get away with it
 * Then I emailed him again with a message consisting solely of "bwahahahahaha"
 * Then he emailed saying ok, which bear barnstar do you want
 * And I emailed saying the one with the angriest bear possible
 * And he replied good thinking, the angrier the bear in the barnstar the more damage to Wikipedia it will cause
 * And I said yes thasrite
 * And he said how about this one?
 * And I said, no angrier!
 * And he said how about this one?
 * And I said, no angrier!
 * And he said this is the best I got
 * And I said ok it'll have to do, but let's get our cabal to photoshop that image up a bit to make the bear look even angrier

Months and months of coordination and making the bear barnstar look angry followed. All kinds of auxiliary characters were involved. The conspiracy ran so deep that even a couple members of the Article Rescue Squadron contributed.

Finally the angry barnstar was angry enough
 * Piotrus emailed me saying ok we ready to go with the angry bear barnstar
 * And I emailed saying oh crap that bear don't look no angry it look like laughing
 * And Piotrus said it both angry and laughing. You know, it mocking Wikipedia
 * And I said oh ok, green light

The angry/mocking bear barnstar was shipped across the borders in a sealed freight train to insure utmost secrecy. When it was crossing theAlps there was an unexpected delay due to heavy snow. The plan was almost exposed when an innocent five year old, Bardamu Masthed, began making uncomfortable inquiries But the mountain passes were cleared just in time and the barnstar commenced upon its fated journey.



It was while it was being transported down the Nile that we first began to suspect that Skapperod's agents were on our trail. A certain half-Tunisian, half-Livonian, named Dripplenard Aloyzee MacFintz, was booked on the very cruise ship which contained the unmarked crate with the angry/mocking bear barnstar, and throughout the journey expressed suspicious interest in the cargo of the lower deck on which the crate was hidden. The matters came to a head when Mr. MacFintz, in trying to sneak a peak at the contraband ended up releasing the Barnstar which then proceeded to wreck havoc among the ship's crew and passengers. It ran amok, angry, and mocking. It slaughtered the captain and the first mate. It drove the survivors under the deck just as the Egyptian night had fallen. It stalked them through the twisted maze of cargo boxes and ate them one by one. It was death on de Nile. It was like the zombie movie except it was an angry/mocking bear barnstar instead of zombies.

Anyway, the barnstar, after it had its fill of mayhem and killing escaped into the deepest regions of Africa. We had to track it through the snows of the twin peaks of Mt. Kilimanjaro, by using our undercover social network of an interest group. In our pursuit through the driest sands of Sahara we were once again almost thwarted by Skapperod, when another one of his agents, a Miss Gella Abadonn Checkers, a powerful sorceress summoned up a sand storm which threatened to burry us along with our camels (that's right, we had some camels, or actually CaEEMLs). Thankfully we were rescued by a band of Hyrkonian nomads under the leadership of a wild maned Cimmerian.



In the jungles of Congo we heard rumors that an angry/mocking bear barnstar had established itself as one of the local warlords. It grew powerful and none could stop it because, Skapperod's secret agent #3, Azazello Turbin, had taught it the language of insects, which allowed the barnstar to know everything that was happening in the bush at all times. But such powerful knowledge also came at a terrible price - that of sanity - and by the time we caught up with it it was ill and near death. We placed it on our sloop and set out for home. It died a few nights later after screaming "the horror! the horror!" obviously wracked by overwhelming guilt over our nefarious plan to coordinate the decoration.

It was at that point that Piotrus said what we gonna do now our plan looks fail?
 * And then I said there must be something let us not give up
 * And Piotrus said we need a shaman or a monk, from Tibetia
 * And then I emailed and said why need a shaman?
 * Piotrus said we can resurrect the angry/mocking bear barnstar though there will be a price
 * I said I already sold my soul last time around when EEML case was ongoing and all I got for it was an "Abstain" vote from NYBrad I'm all out of soul
 * No, no, Piotrus said, no soul. It'll only be 145.99$ that's the standard rate
 * I said ok I use my credit card but where we get shaman?
 * Piotrus said he was going to find shaman at a meet up

That's right, the shaman was Shell and the whole point of the Wikipedia Pittsburgh meet up was to resurrect the angry/mocking barnstar. But wait you say? Didn't the meet up take place AFTER the decoration took place. That's right. Don't worry about that.

Well... ok I tell you.

That was Malik's part in all this.

Piotrus wrote Malik hey we need to travel in time to resurrect the angry/mocking bear barnstar
 * Malik said ok I know some people that can help us but they are aliens
 * I said from the outer worlds?
 * And he said yes they know hot to rip the fabric of the space time continuum
 * I said but what if that destroys the universe
 * And then Piotrus just wrote back an email with only "Bwahahahaha" in it
 * And Malik said, it's ok there are always other universes, like de.Wiki

So Malik used his other worldly connections as well as the "accumulated, considerable expertise and infrastructure" with an interstellar mafia of aliens, run by a fella named Stupendous Ramiz, to arrange a break in the time space continuum. We were to randezvous at the Remediosconstellation at 6:30 in the after noon, after Piotrus was done with his classes.

Something went wrong though and instead of Piotrus traveling into the future he actually wound up in the past. He found himself in Marchof 2009 and he emailed me from the past


 * Hey he said I have a chance to undue everything that happened there will never be an EEML case
 * Using intertemporal email I said that was dangerous
 * But maybe it is worth the risk Piotrus said I can end the list and there won't be no topic bans or outing or harassment

But then I got an email from the future (not Piotrus' March 2009 future but the future of today future). The email was from the Deacon of Bildgewater and it only contained the future photograph of Shell and Piotrus at the Pittsburgh meet up. You could see that Shell and Piotrus were both fading from the photograph.

I emailed Piotrus in the past
 * You and Shell is fading from a photograph from the future I said
 * You mean from my current future Piotrus asked
 * No I said from the future of the current
 * Huh?
 * You know, when you mess with the past of today you upset the balance of the universe like Malik said
 * So if I end the list and prevent the EEML case from happening I will cease to exist, Piotrus asked?
 * And I said yes thasrite

Unfortunately by that time Piotrus had already put his plan to end the mailing list early and prevent the ArbCom case from ever happening into action. His and Shell's image on the photograph from the currents future, which is actually today's past was fading even more. Anyway, he had to fix the intertemporal shifts by participating in various wacky hijinks, riding a skateboard, rewriting a lot of emails that were never sent all by himself from memory, and getting Biophys to go to a prom with Risker. Or something like that I forget the exact story.



But it was fixed, the list was outted and the EEML case happened. Then using his "sociological skills for manipulation" Piotrus manipulated the weather into providing him with twenty one point two gigawatts of power necessary to get him to the future's future (er...)

He arrived in Pittsburgh even though for me it was still the present which is now the past, and met with Shelly as Skapperod has conclusively proved. There Shell the Shammy resurrected the angry/mocking bear Barnstar

But it was brought back, undead, unliving, somewhere in between, like fat free butter. Here is proof. If you look carefully at the angry/mocking bear barnstar you can see a sad, wistful, longing in the bear's eyes (along with the anger and the mocking) as it pines for the immortal life it once had. That's the "came back all wrong" part.



Anyway, there is more to this story, since the angry/mocking/sorrowful bear barnstar still had to be transported from the then-future into the now-past so that Piotrus could put it onto my talk page. This involved a labyrinth, a minotaur, a garden of forking paths and an otherworldly infinite version of the Wikipedia where every article that could ever been written already has been written (inf.wiki, they're super inclusionist over there) beginning with the letter Aleph.

But in the end, on August 31, 2010, Piotrus successfully "decorated" me, according to our deeply coordinated plan, with the bear barnstar. And we would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for that pesky kid!

Statement by nihil novi
I agree with the observations and sentiments offered above by Piotrus, Mkativerata, Malik Shabazz, Timotheus Canens, Courcelles, and Volunteer Marek.

Continuation of the ambiguous topic-ban against Piotrus serves no useful purpose. Nihil novi (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
I don't think it is worth trying to tweak the language of the restriction. Piotrus's topic ban should just be lifted. It is going to expire on 22 March anyway and maybe this discussion will still be going on then. Discretionary sanctions are available under Digwuren for this topic area so if any ban relaxation turns out to be premature, AE can deal with it. Should the arbs feel they want to keep the ban, they should add a provision for somebody (AE?) to authorize Piotrus to edit a particular article. This would avoid him needing to edit first and then see if he is sanctioned, which is a peculiar system. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius
It seems clear from the evidence and Sysop views above that the 'broadly construed' nature of this topic ban is being used by some editors generally hostile to harass Piotrus, game the system, and create drama. Bearing in mind the lack of demonstrable conflict and controversy on his part, and the imminent expiry of his topic ban, I submit that the risk of disruption from an unbanned Piotrus is minimal. Once the ban is terminated, Sysops and others can get back down to business of creating content and not generating or managing drama.-- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis (PMAnderson)
I support relaxation or removal of Piotrus' ban; I have always found him a voice of reason within his faction - and there are equally unreasonable opposing factions. At present, for example, I should like to ask him to reason with an editor (whom I will not yet name) who is going about "enforcing" the Gdanzig decision - under his own set of interpretations - as though no progress had been made since 2005 - but his ban forbids him to intervene. I would prefer to have either Piotrus' assistance in reasoning with this person, or Piotrus' reformulation of his position into something I could live with, to proposing an amendment against this person; but his ban prevents either.

If Adam Mickiewicz is ethnically disputed (as it is), then "article about, or subject to, present-day national, ethnic, or cultural disputes" includes virtually all Eastern European articles - and is therefore a tightening of the present condition.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim
Mkativerata had no choice to block after previously letting him away with several violations of his restrictions. We are now searching for a new wording to reflect how NYB wants Piotrus to be 'restricted', since apparently ArbCom messed up with the current wording. I should point out that NYB wanted this a long time ago, but the ArbCom of the past was wiser, resisted NYB's urgings and imposed the original broad restriction on Piotrus. Arbcom later reduced this restriction, but this was a bad decision, for a variety of reasons (fuelling resentment among opponents, boosting the appeal of gaming methodology, inviting more appeals/amendments across the board, and so on).

Now that the reduced restriction has proved lawyerable we want to drop all restrictions? Not sure what the big deal here is supposed to be! Piotrus obviously knows very well what he is not supposed to do, and everyone here ought to know already that if we aren't super-humanly careful in phraseology, he will simply wikilawyer himself out of most AE requests. All arbs should know enough about Piotrus and EEML now to understand and take measures to prevent it. How does capitulating to it help? What does that say about ArbCom?

The previous relaxation of restrictions on Piotrus simply validated old methods and brought the troubles back (so far as it could). Piotrus is a decent content contributor, sure, but he is pressured both by his own ideology and by his 'support network' to become embroiled in nationalist disputes and resort to wiki-gangsterism in areas he has little expertise. Piotrus is a victim who needs saved just as much as his own past and future victims. Being restrained from this area, he contributes productively to fields where he actually possesses expertise and is of benefit to the project. But even if he is released back into the area, he should at least serve his time. Nothing will cause more resentment among his opponents than Piotrus once again escaping through this kind of pressure.

PS ... I am not very impressed with NYB's intervention in the AE thread. ArbCom get to make rulings, individual arbs shouldn't try to enforce (or suggest on their authority) a preferred interpretation on AE admins (we have Clarification anyway). All users need to be protected from the caprice and injustice that this would cause. AE admins have a duty to ignore arbs if they try to interfere in the process, but the arbs themselves should know better (this is not addressed to Kiril or Shell, who are recused). The current wording is indeed badly written, but clearly implies that Piotrus should not be allowed to edit any EE article if there is likely to be some kind of nationalist dispute involved. It is established principle of AE enforcement that rulings are interpreted broadly. You may be telling the truth regarding your own intent, but it is irrelevant, since you didn't word the draft well enough to make that intent clear. If you wanted something that allowed Piotrus to edit uncontroversially in the area, that may be respectable ... but it needed more thought. Piotrus could have been restricted to Poland-only articles with content not impinging on the histories of other European countries (as presently defined). He would probably try his luck at stretching and lawyering this, but it is a set of limits that AE admins don't need expertise to enforce AND would fulfill much of the purpose.

I received an email from a non-involved user in this matter informing me that he was canvassed for the AE thread by Piotrus. The email itself contained a quite dishonest account of Mkativerata's block. Because of this I think it would be of benefit to the project if those canvassed would disclose that they were canvassed. I'd also like to request that all arbitrators who have met Piotrus personally disclose this. This in itself is not a reason for recusal, but the onlooking community are entitled to know if any users subject to ArbCom rulings may have been able to exert more influence than others. Newyorkbrad, yes, you may have envisioned your draft in a particular way, but that doesn't mean other arbs who voted on it did; and even if other arbs now claim to have had the same understanding, there is no way of verifying this. AE admins are entitled to use the most obvious meaning of a text, and one individual arbitrator trying to insist on [the] one 'real meaning' [he happens to like] of a resolution after the resolution has passed is ill-advised. Imagine if this were to happen all the time. ;)
 * Disclosure requests
 * Response to NYB

I think Shell's comments here and on my talk page should speak for themselves. In response, I'd point out that she was accusing me of several things, including bearing a grudge against Piotrus. This is frequently stated by EEML because they wish to defuse the impact of my comments. SK's has seemingly been inadvertently co-opted as a mouthpiece. My previous interaction with her came when she lambasted me for complaining about Piotrus closing a 3RR thread Radek was involved in and warning his opponent as an admin. I don't wish to have any dispute with her, but being attacked seems to be a consequence of sticking up for wikipedia on this matter. Incidentally, I didn't 'dig up' the photo, I was sent a link to it by an anonymous Wikipedian. I merely asked if they were RL friends. She didn't really have any reason to get so worked up with bad faith about this, as she is recused and is free even to join EEML if she wants. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim( Talk ) 22:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Response to Shell
 * PS, I don't think it is credible for Shell to be claiming neutrality at this stage (if that's what she's doing), not with edits likethis so recently. It is well known that Piotrus' best skill, as boasted in the archive, is befriending users likely to intervene in EE disputes (amicable co-operation, followed by 'advice' stage). She's now calling for gagging order on me, something long desired by Piotrus and the EEML (Feb 5, 2009 at 20:49); however she had been relying on Piotrus' advice for banning users in pre-EEML days (22 June 2009 16:05) and her largely favorable of history decision-making and spokeswomanship vis-a-vis EEML led a member of the EEML to describe her as a potential "asset" [6/28/2009 4:19:31 P.M]. Not that I am alleging corruption or anything (it should be clear that I'm not), I just think she may have lost her way a bit. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re Shell ... the time and date are references to EEML archive emails. Sorry for not making that clear. I will continue this discussion with you on your talk page if you don't mind, since a big back-and-forth here is probably not very useful. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC):I responded to Shell, but unfortunately she is not willing to take the back forth off this page and would prefer to escalate her dispute with me here. I am not willing to dilute my comments here any further with what will only be perceived as squabbling, but can at least say I tried to take it elsewhere (and she can continue the convo on her own page any time she likes whenever she calms down). Deacon of Pndapetzim( Talk ) 02:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba
There is no "wikilawyering," the so-called "conflict" related to the representation of the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe and other current conflicts regarding historical representation/legacy are what are in scope to "conflict" which Piotrus should still continue to avoid until expiration of the current ban or lifted. I suggest topic bans be more precisely worded in the future and adjusted as needed. An admin (Deacon) leveling accusations of wikilawyering is unhelpful when a ban is demonstrably open to misinterpretation as worded. I am disappointed by Deacon's inability to move on from his past (content, spilling into his filing an arbitration request) conflict with Piotrus.P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 23:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Consider my disappointment to be escalated to outright alarm based on Deacon's grossly poor judgement exhibited here, which appears to be little more than an escalating vendetta against all past EEML members. I sat out my topic ban only to have an admin propose—over a year later—institutionalizing permanent abuse? P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 04:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * re: Mkativerata: I occasionally contact admins et al. to express my concerns when doing so on-Wiki would lead to accusations of block shopping, needless escalation of conflict, et al. (I recall a note to Mkativerata some time ago, we had a cordial exchange.) I always include a clear statement I am not block shopping. An admin who becomes active in EE topics should expect to receive complaints and commentary from the full spectrum of EE editorial contributors. Mkativerata should not be "surprised" about being contacted. And why bring contact up if there has been no inappropriate contact here? Witness the needless drama already caused with Skäpperöd's resultant (and not wholly unwarranted given the implication of inappropriate contact) witch hunting. I would request that if any admin feels anyone has contacted them inappropriately (block shopping et al.) that an AN/I be opened and the inappropriate contact be addressed. Seeking sanctions behind editors' backs is a perpetual problem in many areas of conflict and should be addressed and discouraged. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 03:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * re: Timotheus Canens, the locus of contention is present day conflicts in the portrayal of Soviet legacy, also, more widely but to a lesser extent, other Eastern European/Central Eastern European conflicts regarding portrayal of topics, e.g., people names and place names ("which language" is uber alles, etc.), similarly with roots in historical representation. Obviously, some of this will also pertain to armed conflicts between parties. However, a past war in some century is not an in-scope conflict if there is no scholarly dispute regarding its portrayal—or any differences in historical sources have been dealt with amicably and constructively.P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. So thank you for T. Canen's wording suggestion, that is sufficient to address. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 17:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Skäpperöd, really this is bordering on harassment. Irpen also denounced me for personal attacks when I simply indicated he misrepresented sources, Irpen is hardly an editor to hold up as an example of WP rectitude regarding the so-called EE dispute. We are moving on, you are moving backwards as demonstrated by bringing up EE warrior Irpen from three years ago. Lastly, please refrain from presenting you characterizations of personal correspondence as fact. EEML is closed. If it's not, I'm sure ArbCom will let us know, in which case I would also take a different course of action from moving on. Until then I suggest you move on before this starts looking like a vendetta.P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK

Question to Mkativerata
Who sent you those e-mails? I am asking because trying to influence/cause administrative decisions by coordinating e-mails etc to AE sysops like Thatcher, Sandstein, Jehochman etc was one of the verified tactics employed by the EEML group, usually coordinated by Piotrus. If this strategy is now being re-activated, there ought to be consequences. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you actually link to a "verified e-mail coordination to sysops" finding by arbitrators in EEML ArbCom case, or is this yet another imaginary horror that EEML is supposed to have done, despite not a single shred of evidence? -- Sander Säde 17:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you one of the senders? If that is the case, you are welcome to self-identify and explain yourself in your own section. I don't want a threaded discussion here. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you are unable to link a such finding. Maybe because there never was anything like that? And no, I have never sent an e-mail to Mkativerata. -- Sander Säde 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The EEML archive is available to the arbs, they (should) have read through it and be aware. I am happy to hear that you are not among the senders, but please, don't post here anymore, this is not the place for a threaded discussion. You are free to create your own section. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Shell Kinney
I understand you are upset about Deacon asking you about how close your contact to Piotrus is. If you take a step back and look at the issue from an outside point of view, and if you recall that manipulating sysops was one of the EEML's objectives, you may find that it is reasonable to aks such questions:

Please imagine how a random observer must react to. I found it interesting to see an arb having RL contact to a user desysoped and convicted because of several cases of off-wiki-coordinated disruption. You probably underestimate the impact such photographies may have on people. To the personal atmosphere between Piotrus and you suggested by this photography, it adds that Imho none of this proves that Piotrus and you are really close friends, but your contact and the fact that the EEML was about social networking of an interest group, using Piotrus' sociology expertise for manipulation, may reasonably give rise to concerns about what's going on there. And what has happened now is that Piotrus has already used your comments here to call for action against his long-time target Deacon.
 * few other wikipedians were there, and you signed up when Piotrus was already on the list,
 * your short on-wiki chat with Piotrus and the lack of such an exchange with other participants
 * you responding first (and positive) to Piotrus' call for another meeting

Please keep in mind that it was Deacon who started the Piotrus2 arbcom, andhad arbcom not been fooled in that case and taken preventive measures, the whole EEML fuzz would not even have happened. You should AGF that Deacon, who was proven more than right during the EEML arbcom, is doing nothing but protecting wikipedia now as he did back then. You should be aware of what makes protection necessary, as you removed a bunch of Piotrus' deeds from his last amendment request.


 * Re Shell (2), Piotrus

Shell, in the edit summary of your response you ask "what's the proper punishment for having looked at another wikipedian?" I think you completely missed the point here. Nobody is calling for punishment, the whole point is that you are not just two random wikipedians, and that the whole Piotrus/EEML case is about maintaining an undercover social network of an interest group who, among other things, has tried to manipulate sysops multiple times already.

Piotrus and other members of his group have accumulated a considerable expertise and infrastructure to further their interests on-wiki, and make what is in fact staged and the result of sophisticated, co-ordinated manipulation look like it was proper application or the result of wikipedia processes: This was noticed by the community (2006 example), (2007 example),(2008 example) and brought before Arbcom in the Piotrus and Piotrus2 (later EE disputes) cases (2008/09:, "teamwork","coordinated edit-warring", "improper use of off-wiki channels"), yet Arbcom then gave him the benefit of doubt. When part of Piotrus' group's off-wiki mail traffic was forwarded, the existence of a mailing list (WPM aka EEML), an instant messenger group and the development of a secret wiki on Piotrus' initiative was revealed.

In the infamous oversighted edit where Radeksz (now renamed Volunteer Marek) posted his inbox on-wiki when the EEML case was about to be closed, he revealed that Other indications of Piotrus continuing to make politics off-wiki in 2010 are that Some continuation of on-wiki advocacy for his group is also traceble for 2010: Piotrus lobbied for EEML member Radeksz at AE and decorated him, he comforted EEML-associate and ex-Arbcom candidate Loosmark, he lobbied for EEML member Martintg at AE , he initiated an AE against EEML target Dr. Dan , he asked sysop Sandstein if he could comment on an AE report against EEML member Biruitorul, and when that was denied he asked sysop AGK at the next request and it took an intervention by Deacon to make AGK aware (I agree with your (i.e. Deacon's, Sk.) comments at AE, and I certainly would have advised Piotrus differently than I did had I then been aware). Keeping in mind that Deacon initiated the Piotrus2 arbcom, and all the efforts Piotrus made back then to convince the arbs that Deacon was wrong while he was proven more than right in the subsequent EEML arbcom - yes, Piotrus would certainly appreciate it if Deacon was silenced. And keep in mind the methods employed by Piotrus to achieve his goals, revealed during the EEML case, which included getting people to make the "right" comments and take the "right" action at the "right" time to his benefit.
 * the EEML core group was still active and even recruiting new members
 * Piotrus was the most active sender of mails
 * he established off-wiki contact to MalikShabbaz, who took care of most of Piotrus' "task lists" at the Poland noticboard and is now commenting in his favor and calling for sanctions for Deacon.
 * he apparently requested a revert off-wiki, to some Lithuanian nationalist organization

In this request, I see no indication that Piotrus will avoid problematic behaviour in the future; I see no indication that the core group of the "EEML" has dissolved, while there is some indication that it is not; I see no tools/remedies in place that would enable Arbcom/the community to detect and prevent further off-wiki co-ordinated disruption.
 * Mkativerata has expressed concerns about the mails he received
 * Piotrus is supported by users he has off-wiki contact with
 * Piotrus is trying to get disagreeing users sanctioned
 * Piotrus even linked to this requestat the Poland board

Well before the EEML case, in 2008 (!), Irpen asked Piotrus to agree to avoid just three kinds of behavior in the future: Piotrus promised to not do that. Then cameWP:EEML. I think Arbcom ought to be more cautious here. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * logging followed by uploading log's excerpts to boards with the purpose to get the opponents blocked
 * using off-line channels to recruit help in revert wars or to stack votes in surveys,
 * using private channels, such as #admins or direct mail to other admins to discuss people behind their backs and call for the sanctions.

Re Georgewilliamherbert
I disagree about the "punishing not preventative" part. Arbcom has taken no precautions at all against the continuation of the EEML, except for the topic bans. The topic bans are therefore preventative. Instead of lifting the bans one by one, arbcom should think about how future detrimental EEML activity may be prevented. Skäpperöd (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney
I suppose it was too much to hope that the usual players in these disputes would have decided to put this behind them during the past year. It's disappointing to see Deacon re-entering this same dispute against Piotrus after so long. It's a bit worrying to see that he dug up a picture, hours after it had been posted, identified both people in the picture (despite there being no names posted at that time) and is using it to suggest that having been to the same (large) Wikipedia event with someone is somehow evidence of impropriety. Shortly thereafter, he accused me of slander for pointing out these concerns, which is wholly inappropriate to say the least. If one must really reach that far to find a grue, perhaps the grues are just a figment of your imagination (or in other words, if someone thinks I was actually discussing ArbCom business during a Pittsburgh playoff game and Wikipedia birthday party, their poor opinion of my social life is noted but unsupportable). Shell  babelfish 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Deacon speaks volumes about "being attacked", yet he seems to be the only one hurling accusations here (sans diffs) as he now blithely claims that independent editors should be disregarded as mouthpieces and can go join EEML. On one hand he's terribly concerned that people are getting emails off-site, and on the other, a mysterious stranger, not he, was responsible for the creepiness over the new image and he's just the harmless by-stander who received an email.  I'm concerned that this point that we're seeing a rather obvious reemergence of previous battleground behavior now that so many of these topic bans are coming to a close.  Perhaps this is another place where an interaction ban would be appropriate. Shell   babelfish 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Deacon, I guess I'm at a loss to understand what you're getting at here? Can you explain what exactly you find nefarious about the single diff you've provided to back up your claims whose content is nothing more than "Aww you left a few minutes too early."?  Or perhaps explain why the other accusations you made aren't accompanied by diffs while some give only a date and time?  I'd suggest that you've not got a very clear view of my administrative actions in the EE topic area if you think the outcome of investigations such asthis one were favorable to one side. You've already mentioned that you feel you're defending Wikipedia here but from what exactly? Shell   babelfish 01:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately since you made these claims here in public, I'd prefer you deal with them here as well rather than take it off to my talk page. You've now made accusations against me based on private emails to which I have no access from a mailing list I had no part of and left me with no ability to review this supposed evidence or defend myself from it.  I guess I'm just not understanding the zeal to paint me as involved or acting inappropriately here. You are aware that I'm recused from this case because I presented evidence against Piotrus?Shell   babelfish 02:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think a simple request that Deacon either provide some basis for these escalating accusations or strike them is unreasonable. Perhaps a good first step would be to remove anything based of a "personal feeling" so that other editors can review anything based on evidence and give us some guidance on whether or not they consider me biased or a mouthpiece of EEML here. Shell  babelfish 02:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Deacon, Skäpperöd, I've had some time to think over your concerns, I believe you may really be on to something here. Having looked at a number of other photographs from that evening, it's clear that a disturbing pattern emerges; I imagine you'd shudder just to see them. It turns out several other photgraphs caught me looking at people, obviously in the midst of plotting some dastardly scheme. In others, you can easily identify who I've managed to recruit as I was seen to be shaking hands with them to seal the deal. There are also photos of me flitting from person to person, most certainly canvassing for additional support and even supplying them with small trinkets to ensure their loyalty. And finally, the most damning of all, one clearly subsurvient Wikipedian was forced to give up his chair for me just so I could order from the bar. In all, an incredibly productive night for my plans to take over Wikipedia. If only there wasn't photographic evidence! Apologies to those who don't necessarily appreciate using humor here, but I honestly couldn't come up with a serious answer to defend myself from having been caught looking at someone. Shell babelfish 08:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert
Specific to this removal request - I believe that there's credible evidence that the restriction is at this time merely punitive and not preventive of abusive behavior. This is reinforced by other comments which seek to use it in a punitive and not preventive manner. Pursuant to our general policy and lack of evident current or recent abusive behavior by the requesting party, that seems to argue for early removal of the restriction. If misbehavior appears again it's easy enough for admins to intervene within our usual scope and authority.

Generally - There seems to be lingering bad blood on several parties' account, without justifiable ongoing provocation, to the extent that an interaction ban is called for. This seems like not the right venue for that, but it may be appropriate on AN. I'm not starting one right away, but that seems like the next step. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys
You can safely lift all topic bans in the areas of discretionary sanctions for editors who are active and follow the rules. If they still have trouble, they will be quickly brought to AE and sanctioned by AE administrators. This can be said not only about Piotrus.

There is nothing wrong with talking or sending emails. If there is an evidence that the content of recent emails by Piotrus or conversations with Piotrus was indeed inappropriate, then it can be treated accordingly. However, repeatedly making personal accusations at public forums without any evidence about Piotrus and everyone who talks with him is a serious violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE and must be prevented from repeating in the future, for example by issuing interactions bans for the parties guilty of the violations. The photo is not an evidence because talking with Piotrus is not a crime. Telling "thank you" to others after coming back from his block is also not a crime. This story is a blow to wikipedia public relations. Who will attend your meetings? Biophys (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Re to Skäpperöd . Remove all very old diffs, and there is nothing illegal by Piotrus except your suspicions. You tell that he "comforted" A, "decorated" B and supported ("lobbied for") C. Yes, he helps others. Is it bad? How about all of us just helping each other? Too many good contents contributors received topic bans, and this is detrimental to the project. Biophys (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of accusations by Skäpperöd, with whom I never had any content disputes... I can not tell for others, but I disconnected my wikipedia email and have no off-wiki contacts with any member of the mailing list for a very long time. However, I am going to support on-wiki any user I know and wish to support, in full accordance with our policies. Hence I am here. As about accusing (rather than supporting) established contributors, this is a completely different matter and must be avoided at any cost, as I have learned hard way by receiving my sanctions. Biophys (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * We will allow a few days in case any other users wish to comment on this request, before considering whether to take any action. Comments may focus on whether the topic-ban should be lifted altogether, as Piotrus requests, and/or on whether its current wording ought to be clarified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that my prior attempt to word a narrower restriction has become the subject of criticism, that it placed a burden on the sanctioned user and on the AE administrators, and that the new group of arbitrators can take a fresh look at this matter, I will leave it to my colleagues to propose any desired motion here. For what it is worth, I disagree with any suggestion that it was improper for me to post to clarify the intent of a sanction I drafted; I see no downside to having done that when the issue came to light, rather than awaiting an appeal that probably would have taken longer than the block length. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to either modify the wording in the manner by described by T. Canens, that is change from "articles about national, ethnic, or cultural disputes" to "article about, or subject to, present-day national, ethnic, or cultural disputes", or alternatively remove the ban outright. PhilKnight (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically what Phil, and Brad stated. My first thought is to modify, second is to remove. SirFozzie (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I note with alarm the escalation in the rhetoric and the public displays of ill-will that is happening. Please folks, back to your corners, more light, less heat? SirFozzie (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I doesn't seem like a good use of time to agonize over rewording/modification to be more clear when the restrictions will expire in a little over two months - so my first choice would be to simply lift the restrictions early. – xeno talk  19:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say I agree with Xeno here. It's a New Year, there's a new committee, and I personally think all involved can turn over a new leaf. My first choice is to remove the restrictions early. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Motion
The topic ban placed upon in Requests for arbitration/Eastern European mailing list and subsequent motions is lifted, effective immediately. Piotrus is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.


 * Iridescent is recused on Piotrus matters.
 * Kirill Lokshin recused on the last Piotrus motion.
 * Roger Davies recused on Piotrus matters.
 * Shell Kinney recused on the entire case.


 * Support:


 * 1) Proposed. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) As above. The topic ban is expiring soon, and is demonstrably causing confusion as well as apparently preventing constructive work from being done. – xeno  talk 16:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't believe that the current restriction is truly confusing or ambiguous, but it's certainly complicated.  At this point, I agree it will be more productive to lift it entirely rather than increase its complexity further to relax its application.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) The intent is to avoid further dispute as to the scope of the topic-ban, which would soon expire anyway. I would not expect to see Piotrus jumping full-bore back into highly contentious articles and discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) SirFozzie (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Newyorkbrad and Coren. Piotrus is reminded that the topic area remains under Arbitration Committee sanctions, and to conduct himself accordingly.  Risker (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * 1) I'm going to sit this one out. I don't have a lot of heartburn about an early termination of restrictions, but nor do I have sufficient confidence to endorse the motion. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Jclemens. Mainly posting so we can get a quorum. Casliber (talk ·contribs) 22:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Recuse:


 * 1) I've usually recused on Piotrus-related matters.   Roger  talk 08:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) As I've worked with Piotrus's students in the past, I don't think I should be voting here. – iridescent  16:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Recused on EEML. Shell  babelfish 19:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Motion enacted. NW ( Talk ) 15:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European mailing list July 2011
Initiated by  Russavia Let's dialogue at 15:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Case affected :
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) EEML
 * 2) ARBRB


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


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

Amendment 1

 * EEML and ARBRB
 * Amend restrictions to allow interaction between Russavia and Miacek

Statement by Russavia
Both restrictions prevent two-way unnecessarily interacting between myself and Miacek, however, for the betterment of the project, it is necessary that the two of us be able to interact and collaborate onwiki.

Some interactions between Miacek and myself include the following: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and it can go on. I also commented at his request to have his topic ban lifted, because as Miacek mentions in that very request, relations between the two of us are normal. We have also been in occasional email contact, the last time just the other day, when I emailed him for fixing an issue on the Donavia article after he saw my note on my talk page.

All interactions between the two of us have been cordial, collaborative and consentual, therefore, it makes no sense to have bureaucratic restrictions in place which prevents two editors from interacting for the betterment of the project.

I am asking the Committee to amend the two restrictions to specifically allow interaction between myself and Miacek. And I foresee no reason why the Committee would not agree to this amendment request, as it serves as an example of what editorial interactions in EE topics should be like.

Statement by Miacek
Russavia has informed me of the amendment request and I do support this request. As Russavia has summed up above, the relations between two of us are constructive and there's no need for the clauses. In fact, only yesterday did I realize that it's still forbidden for me to interact with Russavia - my topic ban was lifted in the summer of last year, but the other clauses remain in force. All things considered, I see no reason for restricting our interaction anymore and ask for the clause to be lifted. In fact, I actually look forward to a point in the future when the clause could also be lifted viz-a-viz other ex-EEML members. Miacek 16:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys
I support this request because Russavia and Miacek had no conflicts at the first place. They have always had good relations and share similar political views.

The bans between Russavia and other former EEML members can also be lifted if two conditions are met: (a) the sides did not violate their bans (this is standard), and (b) they demonstrated an ability to constructively edit the same article(s)  (not prohibited per WP:IBAN), and especially such article(s) where they had problems in the past. Biophys (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with statement by AGK below. Biophys (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG
I see no valid reason to keep this restriction in place. - BorisG (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
I am an administrator who recently enforced the EEML interaction ban, and who is active in arbitration enforcement, so perhaps my view (for whatever it's worth) would be useful. In my experience, there has not been any problem with contact between Russavia and Miacek, and in this case alone I would be happy to support an exemption being made to the general interaction ban. Having briefly checked the overlapping contribution history of the two users, I see no reason not to go with my general and initial impression. As an aside, in the event that an amendment precipitates similar requests from other editors who are affected by the interaction ban, I would caution against making similar exemptions without fully examining the history of the two users; off-hand, I can think of several editors between whom contact is disruptive to some degree. AGK [&bull; ] 21:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Allowing a few days for any further statements, but tentatively support this request, based on the agreement of both parties that they feel able at this point to interact civilly and collegially. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a reasonable request. As the two interaction bans were fairly widely-construed, I see no reason not to narrow them as requested. – xeno talk  16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have no problem with narrowing as requested SirFozzie (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with this request. Shell  babelfish 02:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems appropriate. I know firsthand that wiki-relations can thaw and one can work hand-in-hand with former "sworn enemies" (if such truly exist...) Jclemens  (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Motion proposed below. – xeno talk  14:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion
The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek.


 * Support
 * Proposed. Feel free to tweak or copy edit as needed. – xeno talk  14:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the interests of collaborative editing, yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 05:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Motion implemented. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: EEML
Initiated by  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me at 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by Piotrus
I am seeking clarification of EEML ("The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.").

Let me state, clearly, that I have no desire to interact with Russavia, and that to my knowledge, he has not commented on me. This is, in fact, not about Russavia at all, but about the interpretation of the interaction ban (if I was to put it simply, how close can I get to a discussion in which Russavia is involved?).

Here's the short sequence of events that lead to me posting this clarification requests:
 * Biophys posts an AE request on Russavia; I have no interest in it, have not read it then or even now;
 * VM comments in that thread; I have no interest in it but as he is a fellow editor I respect for his essays and thoughts on wikipedia, I read his post there. Of further note for my eventual involvement is the part where VM notes that he found an article edited by Russavia by following edits of other editors;
 * discussion grows and brings an increasingly large peanut gallery; I still have no interest in joining it, nor do I read most other comments, beyond admin's;
 * FSP makes a comment on the futility of interaction bans in general, suggesting that admins should not enforce them. That makes me concerned, as I credit them with lessening the amount of hostility directed at me since they were put in place. Next, FSP comments that VM "went there [to the article edited by Russavia] after him [Russavia]". At that point I decide to post a comment, stating that as a party to the bans, I've found them helpful, if in need of some clarification; I also point out to FSP that VM has already explained how he became involved in this issue. I also noted that if any admin considers my comment in this thread to be a violation of an i-ban, to let me know that and I'll remove it. Please note that I have not commented on Russavia, only on the i-bans in general, and on VM comment in particular;
 * almost at the same time I posted my comment, SarekOfVulcan blocks both Russavia and VM for a week. I expressed my disagreement with his action on his talk page in User_talk:SarekOfVulcan, pointing out to my comment and suggestion for i-ban clarification, and suggesting reducing blocks, in particular for VM who I believe has been involved in much lesser violation of the ban. I also note on SoV's talk page (User_talk:SarekOfVulcan), again, that if any admin believes my involvement there is in violation of the i-ban, to let me know and I'll remove my posts. (Having been blocked once by a trigger happy admin who misunderstood a topic ban, and unblocked through AE appeal, I prefer to be very careful with regards to such restrictions, and ask for clarifications, rather than an unblock);
 * approaching the end of this story, an admin (FSP) did post to my talk page, suggesting that my involvement in that thread was a violation of an i-ban (I also note that he has not responded to either of my two comments directed at him w/ regards to his posts in that case). In any case, I have self-reverted my three relevant posts (one to AE and two to SoV page), in a show of good faith (when in doubt, self-revert and ask for a review).

So now I am asking for a review and clarification. I do not believe I have breached the i-ban: I am not concerned with Russavia, I am not commenting on him; at AE I was simply commenting on i-bans in general (an issue of interest to me since I am under one), and later, on SoV's page, commenting on a block of VM (with whom I have no i-ban, of course). VM's ban was related to Russavia, but that is of no concern to me, I am concerned that an editor (VM) was treated unfairly, and I believe I have the right to express my opinion on this (he was not treated unfairly by Russavia, so I am not commenting on any action of his). After all, we have freedom of speech on Wikipedia, and I believe we are allowed to comment on anything that is not explicitly prohibited (I am explicitly prohibited from commenting on Russavia, but not on VM's block, whatever its circumstances are). To put this in a wider perspective, I believe that if editors A and B are under i-ban, and editor A becomes involved in something - like designing a policy, or is part of an arbitration, or an enforcement that results in a policy change, or block or such, editor B has the right to participate in the discussion (policy discussion, etc.) and/or comment on the outcome (a policy change, or a block of editor C, with whom B have no i-ban), as long as he does not comment on editor A or interact with him directly. Or am I wrong?

I'd appreciate Committee's thoughts, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie and Colchicum: I am puzzled what kind of clear topic ban would be an improvement here. Who would you topic ban and from what? Now, I am not following the edits of most i-banned editors, so for all I know some of them may have main space topics they clash on.

@Everyone: I am also afraid that this request for clarifications is being hijacked to discuss other issues than I asked for. In the example given above, which did not involve me editing any mainspace article, how on earth would any t-ban help? I'd kindly request that those who want to discuss changing the nature of i-bans in general make their requests somewhere else, and clearly indicate which editors' i-bans need revision. This clarification request, with regards to me, seeks to answer a simple question I posed above (was my commenting on i-bans and VM block a violation of interaction ban with R. or not?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Everyone: I would assume that Russavia is allowed to comment in this forum and in this request in particular. I do, however, repeat my earlier question (still unanswered), taking this new development into account: if he is allowed to comment here (Which I am fine with), why was I (according to FSP) not allowed to comment at AE (in a request NOT started by Russavia, and where I DID NOT comment on him, only on another user, and on i-bans in general)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 05:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Everyone: As my initial question has not been answered, and this request was hijacked (in AGF-meaning of this word) to discuss another issue, I do indent to repost this request when it is archived (which I expect will happen soon, as no arbitrator has commented on this in the past 20 days). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 20:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys
I think that interaction bans are important and usually work, unless some people do not follow their editing restrictions (not sure why FPS was so skeptical ). Please note that I do not have interaction ban with Russavia, or at least this is my understanding. It was clear that Russavia did not obey his interaction bans almost a month ago, but that only involved him reverting my edits in the area where he is a good contributor. Therefore, I simply left him the article in question and did not report anything at the moment. However, he later started doing the same with other contributors and in other areas. I asked him to stop, but he refused, which forced me to bring this matter for administrative review (diff by Piotrus above). Of course I could ignore Russavia and others, but that would only make their conflicts worse. There was no one else to do it, because administrators apparently decided to ignore Russavia, exactly as FPS suggested (diff above). That brought me a lot of trouble. I tried to explain. We later had a discussion with Greyhood about this.

So, with regard to question by Piotrus, I believe he did not violate the letter and even the spirit of his restriction, because the instruction tells exactly this: "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other", and that is what he did. By the same token, two mutually i-banned editors can easily edit the same article, as long as they do not conflict. Actually, they are only required to conduct the ordinary non-controversial editing. Editor A makes an addition to article X. Then B comes to add or modify, but not revert something. Two i-banned editors can easily collaborate in the same article without even talking (if they really want collaboration!). But if one of them jumps to revert a legitimate edit of another, this is a reason for immediate sanction. And it does not matter who of them edited this article first, who knows this subject better, or who contributed most to this article. Really, I do not see anything complicated in i-bans.

As about question by SirFozzie, I think we should not introduce t-bans only because some editors do not obey their i-bans. Violations happen all the time. That's why we have AE. Instead, the existing i-bans must be strictly enforced, as clearly explained in the instructions. In fact, I asked already at AE for i-enforcement, and thanks to AE administrators, it has been properly enforced so far. If the problems continue, then topic bans are in order, but that should be decided at AE using the existing discretionary sanctions. On the other hand, if Arbcom wants to intervene here (which I am not sure), then the proposal to submit an amendment with t-bans may have some merit. Biophys (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Main question to be clarified here is as follows: should the mutually banned editors A and B be allowed editing the same page as long as they do not interact with one another, or they should not? If they are not allowed to edit the same page, then version by NW would be a good approximation. Otherwise, I agree with improvement by Collect, except that his last phrase ("No editor under any interaction ban...") seems redundant. Biophys (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Colchicum
Enough is enough. I am about to request an amendment which would replace i-bans with topic bans. FPS now thinks (somewhat inconsistently, to the point that it is beginning to look like he is taking sides here, but whatever) that i-bans are not enforceable. Very well, topic bans would be. Colchicum (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare
This is how I envision interaction bans to work: "Imagine there are two editors, editor A and editor B. They have been mutually interaction banned from each other. If A edits Foo, a page B has not edited before, then B is expected to make no more than insignificant changes to Foo. If B wishes to make substantial changes to Foo, they should first clear their decision with an administrator. They should also not revert A's edits or engage in talk page discussion. At the first hint of conflict, B is expected to leave. Now we have editor C. Editor C has been interaction banned from editor A, but A has not been interaction banned from C. Editor C is expected to follow all of the same rules as B above. In addition, if C is editing Bar, a page A has not edited before, and A comes along and makes substantial changes to Bar, C should cease editing Bar. If they feel that A's edits were made for the purpose of harassment, they should informally speak with an administrator and ask them to speak with A. Modifications to the ban can be made, as appropriate, by that administrator."

That's not an ideal, in my opinion, but is it at least an adequate understanding of how things should work in cases where the two editors' edits overlap? NW ( Talk ) 21:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Collect
Interpreted strictly, interaction bans appear to be a far greater problem than they are a solution. By the time one gets to "6 degrees of Interaction Bans", one could conceivably be unable to post on any noticeboard or talk page at all.

Therefore, why not reduce what it means to what we actually wish to prevent:
 * No person restricted from 'interacting' with a specific other editor shall make any post directly to any such editor, or referring to any such editor by name except where required by Wikipedia procedures.  No person under such a ban shall make any edits clearly affecting specific edits made by the other editor, whether on articles or on any other Wikipedia page, including, but not limited to, redacting or refactoring of any such edits.  No editor under any interaction ban shall post to 'any' other editor requesting that the second editor undertake any action which the first person is barred from doing.

Thus reducing the absurd situations the committee has seen in the past regarding the multiple-ban-combinations which do, indeed, occur. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nug (aka Martin Tammsalu)
Since the previous AE cases, and a subsequent amendment request and some emails, I had hoped that Russavia and I had come to some kind of understanding to focus on content. However in this latest AE case (which I have not involved myself in) brought against Russavia, his very first response was to attempt to implicate me as possible "collateral damage" by pointing to an edit I made, which unfortunately was a breach of the spirit of the understanding I thought we had. I have since removed that edit. In that light I should note that Russavia appears to be continuing the same behaviour as before, following edits of his perceived opponents in articles for which he has not any real interest and making contentious edits like placing tags. In the Occupation of the Baltic states he tags my edit as dubious, how am I suppose to respond? In Courland Pocket, an article Russiavia has never edited before he removes a reference. I also note that Russavia continues to breach his iBan by continuing to comment upon Volunteer Marek despite for being currently blocked for breaching his iBan. Just recently he unilaterally moved an article of interest to me, but I cannot respond due to this iBan. I don't go tagging, moving and AfDing aviation articles he has worked on, so I don't know why he feels he must persist with this. Clearly this iBan is not working. Can the Committee please clarify and/or ammend this into something workable for all. --Nug (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Greyhood
This post by Russavia outlines two problems:
 * Interaction bans, if in place, should be mutual. If user A is placed on interaction ban with user B, than user B should be placed on interaction ban with user A as well. Otherwise this does not work. It allows one editor, for example, to comment the other's actions, prompting some kind of response, or even to post on the talk page of the other, which collides an interaction ban with a need of a common courtesy of an answer.
 * Off-wiki activities of the editors with known identity, when they comment on the editors with whom they have interaction bans, at least when such comments are obviously provocative, should be considered breaching the interaction ban. Grey Hood   Talk  21:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To make my position clear, I do not exactly like the idea of interaction bans in principle and I'd prefer to see the involved editors able to interact in a normal way without any prohibitions. But if such a measure is taken, it should be mutual, or not taken at all. Grey Hood   Talk  14:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some editors here are talking about more loose interaction prohibitions, allowing editors to talk which is other if they follow certain rules. This very well might work, but still if both editors are placed on the same level of restrictions. And of course, an editor A should have a right to request editor B not to post on A's talk page at all, if A doesn't find interaction possible or desirable. Grey Hood   Talk  20:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek. I do not quite understand why have you brought this recent issue here. In the case of that particular discussion I've taken your side and not Russavia's. Still I should note that for some reason the opposite opinion has a very high support by other people including many aviation articles editors. Russavia didn't started the merge proposal, he avoided direct interaction with you, the topic is his typical area of interest and expertise where he is free to voice his opinion. So what's the problem? Grey Hood   Talk  22:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba
My preference for what an "interaction ban" means is clear and unambiguous:


 * 1) One does not contact the other i-banned editor on their talk page (I won't keep repeating i-banned)
 * 2) One does not mention or discuss the other editor in any manner on any talk page, their own, the other editor's, or an admin's or ArbCom member's or refer to them in any administrative proceeding unless as part of an action instituted by another editor specifically regarding the other editor (NB, dredging up the past, re #3 following, is prohibited)
 * 3) One does not mention or discuss past administrative procedures, actions, etc. regarding the other editor  in any manner on any talk page, their own, the other editor's, or an admin's or ArbCom members or at proceedings except as noted at #2; the editor does not have to be specifically mentioned, group mention is sufficient for violation of the ban
 * 4) One does not file AE enforcement requests, notifications, et al. regarding the other editor; if someone's conduct is egregious, there are plenty of other editors to report inappropriate conduct
 * 5) One may request arbitration clarification in the event of questions
 * 6) One may interact on articles, article talk, project pages, etc. with the other editor, providing:
 * 7) Discussion focuses on content (one may address @editor on talk without violating the i-ban)
 * 8) Discussion avoids comments regarding editors' past conduct, perceived POV, "teams," "tag-teams," "sides," "XYZ-puppets," et al. (that violates #2 above)
 * 9) Reverts are discouraged, but not prohibited ; prohibition encourages predatory edits; 1RR enforced INCLUDING the precipitating edit; that is: (a) editor A makes (predatory) edit, (b) editor B reverts edit = one revert [restored status quo](c) editor A reverts back to their edit = 1RR violation. Similarly,  (a) editor A makes (predatory) edit, (b) editor B reverts edit = one revert (c) editor (not i-banned) C reverts back to editor A's edit (d) editor B reverts editor C = 1RR violation; however, if editor C is also under an i-ban with editor A, their original revert counts as a 1RR violation.
 * 10) Uncivil conduct including disparaging commentary regarding the subject matter or editors at a topic where the "other" editor is also involved violates the i-ban regardless, immaterial as to whether or not directed at the other editor or an identified group they may be considered part of.
 * 11) Interaction bans are bilateral and do not ascribe guilt to either party, meaning, they do not get to be cited as evidence of wrongdoing in other proceedings except as directly pertains to a violation of said i-ban.
 * 12) Editors (i-banned pairs) may jointly petition for the lifting of a mutual i-ban after sufficient evidence of collegial interaction.

Anything else continues to allow waging content control via administrative actions and creates article ownership for whoever gets there first.

Lastly, a single central repository who is i-banned with whom is essential as it's too easy for editors or admins or ArbCom to lose track, causing needless recriminations and drama. Quite frankly, I'm not clear who<->who is i-banned at this point with regard to the community of editors active in Eastern Europe, Soviet legacy, and contemporary Russia geopolitics articles.

An i-ban is put in place, ostensibly, to promote a more collegial atmosphere. Clearly, as currently interpreted, something else is being produced. An i-ban should NOT be used to prevent collegial interaction regarding WP content between two otherwise i-banned editors. If we're going to learn to play together, the opportunity must be presented. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @SirFozzie, your analysis of effective topic ban => topic ban easier to enforce is a gross accusation of bad faith on the part of i-banned editors and ups the ante/reward for editors to provoke other editors into poor conduct to get them out of the way (i.e., no more i-bans, go directly to topic ban). P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

 * The comments below have been sent to arbcom via email and have also been placed on my user talk page**

In relation to where I am to post anything onwiki, can someone please advise me where this should be done?

Also, I would like to request the committee to consider that there are 3 distinct issues that need dealing with and/or clarifying here. As such, I would like the committee to deal with one at a time, and in doing so forbid the usual peanut galleries from both sides from commenting.

Issue #1 -- following of my edits by Biophys, his using of a one-way interaction ban as a weapon to lock me out of articles I am clearly editing at the time, and his following my edits in the obvious hope of finding something he can report me for. Only Biophys needs to comment in relation to this -- no other editor has anything of any use to add in relation to this, due to their uninvolvement. There is still an open request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia in which FPaS is looking at the placing of discretionary sanctions on Biophys forbidding him from interacting with myself. Whilst I thank FPaS, is this still able to be dealt with at the AE level? Or would the Committee prefer to do it?

Issue #2 -- following of my edits by Volunteer Marek, his claiming that he wants me to stay away from him, yet outright reverting of any of my edits, his overly combative attitude (not only directed towards myself, but other editors as well), and successful claim of ignorance of what interaction bans entail, and other information at User_talk:Russavia - no-one else can add anything in relation to any of this due to uninvolvement, except perhaps with the exception of Miacek (now Estlandia), who I know has been attacked continually by Marek (as per the links on my talk page)

Issue #3 -- interaction bans between myself and Martintg aka Tammsalu aka Nug, and to a lesser extent Vecrumba. No-one else has anything of use in relation to this.

I am requesting the above because editors who are not involved directly in the issues above have unfortunately resorted to misrepresentation of issues, either possibly due to their not being involved, and in a couple of cases, due to long-stated desires that I should not be dealt with on a collaborative basis and trying to get me sanctioned for things that are based on pure hogwash. Russavia Let's dialogue 02:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
Well, the latest reincarnation of this ongoing problem is here.


 * On November 4th, Piotrus comments that someone should create an article on Tadeusz Wrona (aviator)
 * Later that day I created the article.
 * The next day, Russavia, fresh off his block for interaction ban violations, shows up and suggests that the Tadeusz Wrona article should be AfDed. He explicitly acknowledges that he cannot do this himself because he is under an interaction ban, so instead he's here asking for someone else to do it for him. His precise words: I was about to take it to AfD, but luckily I checked the history as it was created by an editor with whom I am currently banned from interacting with, and them with me....Would another editor like to instigate the merge discussion in relation to the Wrona article?.
 * So basically, he is canvassing others to carry out edits which if he performed them would violate the ban. This is a straight up instance of WP:GAME.

Subsequently Russavia takes part in the ongoing discussion, for the most part avoiding any direct interactions with me or Piotrus.

However, today in the discussion I noted that Wrona has been awarded a top level Polish state decoration. Russavia replies immediately below trying to argue that that is somehow not enough for notability. The problem is that he also presents some incorrect statistics and information. And I can't even respond to his interaction ban violation by saying "no, that's wrong, here are the real numbers" because that *might* be an interaction violation by myself.

I don't see why Russavia feels it necessary to continuously insert himself into disputes which already involve people he has interaction bans with. I don't see how any of these kinds of edits are conducive to resolving these perpetual conflicts. I don't see how they even contribute much to the discussion (best case scenario, he says something that someone else - who is not under any interaction bans - is going to say anyway).  Volunteer Marek  20:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Greyhood, You know, if this was just a one off thing than you'd be right and I wouldn't even bring it up. But the fact that this is part of a continuing pattern which does not appear to be abating is where the trouble is.  Volunteer Marek  00:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Generally, interaction bans mean that one should take every opportunity to NOT seek out areas where you would likely interact with the other side. This area is contentious enough that it could already be considered a topic ban as there's not many areas that one or the other is not involved in, and once one side of the interaction ban is involved in a topic/discussion, the other is defacto not to get involved. Would it best to formalize this and remove all chance of these interactions by placing topic bans? I'm waiting for more statements, however, before proposing anything and am just musing out loud here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This has become stale, and I think we can archive this with no action taken. SirFozzie (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that some clarification is needed here. I have not personally interpreted an interaction ban between A and B as prohibiting A and B from editing the same article that is within their common area of interest (unless the decision expressly provides for that), though I would interpret it as meaning that they should refrain from edit-warring with each other. So we may want to do some clarifying here. I would also like to suggest (as a general matter, not a finding in a particular instance) that where it appears a user may have made an edit that violated a sanction, but he or she apparently acted in the good-faith, reasonable belief that the sanction did not apply to that edit, then a warning rather than a block will usually be the more proportionate response (at least the first time it happens). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Recused on main EEML case,  Roger Davies  talk 06:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Much like Brad above, I agree that in general an interaction ban does not preclude editors editing the same article. That said, reverting each other would be, and given that editing a more controversial article is likely to to require discussion on the talk page to settle on consensus, editing those can turn out to be immensely delicate as well and probably best avoided. As with all sanctions around topics (or, in this case, editors), some judgement and reasonableness is presumed from all parties.  Avoid seeking out potential interaction and conflict, but don't go out of your way to find some where none can be reasonably said to exist simply because two edits occurred in proximity.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: EEML
Initiated by  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me at 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * 

Statement by Piotrus
I am regretfully reposting this request for clarification, as it was archived without a single arbitrator commenting clearly on the issue I asked. Instead, the previous request seemed to have been hijacked (in an AGF meaning of this world) by the off-topic (to my request) discussion about the effectiveness and applicability of i-bans with regards to other editors. I kindly ask editors to not comment on broad topics; my question is very narrow and simple: was FSP correct in declaring that I was violating my i-ban and thus threatening me with sanctions if I failed to remove myself from the AE discussion or not?

I am seeking clarification of EEML ("The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate  and necessary dispute resolution.").

Let me state, clearly, that I have no desire to interact with Russavia, and that to my knowledge, he has not commented on me. This is, in fact, not about Russavia at all, but about the interpretation of the interaction ban (if I was to put it simply, how close can I get to a discussion in which Russavia is involved?). I participated in a discussion where I did not interact nor comment on Russavia, but I was nonetheless warned by an admin that I violated the i-ban. Did I indeed do so?

Here's the short sequence of events that lead to me posting this clarification requests:
 * Biophys posts an AE request on Russavia; I have no interest in it, have not read it then or even now;
 * VM comments in that thread; I have no interest in it but as he is a fellow editor I respect for his essays and thoughts on wikipedia, I read his post there. Of further note for my eventual involvement is that I took the notice of the part of VM's statement where he notes that he found an article edited by Russavia by following edits of other editors;
 * discussion grows and brings an increasingly large peanut gallery; I still have no interest in joining it, nor do I read most other comments, beyond admin's;
 * admin FSP makes a comment on the futility of interaction bans in general, suggesting that admins should not enforce them. That makes me concerned, as I credit them with lessening the amount of hostility directed at me since they were put in place. Next, FSP comments that VM "went there [to the article edited by Russavia] after him [Russavia]". At that point I decide to post a comment, stating that as a party to the bans, I've found them helpful, if in need of some clarification; I also point out to FSP that VM has already explained how he became involved in this issue. I also noted that if any admin considers my comment in this thread to be a violation of an i-ban, to let me know that and I'll remove it. Please note that I have not commented on Russavia, only on the i-bans in general, and on VM comment in particular;
 * almost at the same time I posted my comment, SarekOfVulcan blocks both Russavia and VM for a week. I expressed my disagreement with his action on his talk page in User_talk:SarekOfVulcan, pointing out to my comment and suggestion for i-ban clarification, and suggesting reducing blocks, in particular for VM who I believe has been involved in much lesser violation of the ban. I also note on SoV's talk page (User_talk:SarekOfVulcan), again, that if any admin believes my involvement there is in violation of the i-ban, to let me know and I'll remove my posts. (Having been blocked once by a trigger happy admin who misunderstood a topic ban, and unblocked through AE appeal, I prefer to be very careful with regards to such restrictions, and ask for clarifications, rather than an unblock);
 * approaching the end of this story, an admin (FSP) did post to my talk page, suggesting that my involvement in that thread was a violation of an i-ban (I also note that he has not responded to either of my two comments directed at him w/ regards to his posts in that case). In any case, I have self-reverted my three relevant posts (one to AE and two to SoV page), in a show of good faith (when in doubt, self-revert and ask for a review).
 * for the full record, do note that VM's block was indeed shortened.

So now I am asking for a review and clarification. I do not believe I have breached the i-ban: I am not concerned with Russavia, I am not commenting on him; at AE I was simply commenting on i-bans in general (an issue of interest to me since I am under one), and later, on SoV's page, commenting on a block of VM (with whom I have no i-ban, of course). VM's ban was related to Russavia, but that is of no concern to me, I was concerned that an editor (VM) was treated unfairly, and I believe I have the right to express my opinion on this (he was not treated unfairly by Russavia, so I am not commenting on any action of his). After all, we have freedom of speech on Wikipedia, and I believe we are allowed to comment on anything that is not explicitly prohibited (I am explicitly prohibited from commenting on Russavia, but not on VM's block, whatever its circumstances are). As a reminder, the i-ban I am in states: "...prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia" - yet despite the fact that I was not commenting on or interactign with Russavia, I was threatened with sanctions by an admin.

To put this in a wider perspective, I believe that if editors A and B are under i-ban, and editor A becomes involved in something - like designing a policy, or is part of an arbitration, or an enforcement that results in a policy change, or block or such, editor B has the right to participate in the discussion (policy discussion, etc.) and/or comment on the outcome (a policy change, or a block of editor C, with whom B have no i-ban), as long as he does not comment on editor A or interact with him directly.

'''Is my interpretation correct and I did not violate my i-ban by commenting on VM's block? Or is my interpretation wrong and I violated it, and thus FSP was right to threaten me with sanctions?'''

If the latter, I'd very much like a clear explanation how one can stretch "prohibited from interacting with or commenting on editor A" to "prohibited from commenting on editor B". It is my belief that if such acrobatic justification is presented, it will support some extreme interpretation of i-bans, encourage admin abuse of powers (confirm that they can threaten editors with sanction on such extreme interpretations) and thus be a blow to free speech on Wikipedia. I hope that the Committee will not open that Pandora's Box, but a ruling on who was right here is necessary to clarify the situation.

Or the committee can just say that I was within my rights to comment on VM's block, admins should be more conservative in i-bans interpretations and threats than in the instance discussed above, and we can move on.

I'd appreciate Committee's thoughts, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

@FSP: "To my mind, this was a clear breach of the interaction ban." The problem is that your mind and the wording of the i-ban ("prohibited from interacting with or commenting on R.") exist in two different universes. Did I interacted with R.? No. Did I comment on R.? No. It's as simple as that. By interpreting it wider you assume bad faith, encourage wikilawyering and battleground mentality. If the Committee or anybody had a problem with me being able to comment on AE in general, or on other editors in general, or on VM in particular, or from discussing i-bans, and so on, they would have issued other tailored restrictions and banned me from AE, from interacting with VM or others, and so on. Since they did not, the only restriction on me is from "interacting with or commenting on R." which I most explicitly did not do. I believe I was within my rights to go to this AE thread and dispute the length of VM's block. Whom I was there for should be crystal clear from what I was asking: I was asking for a reduction of block on VM, not for an extension it on R. And there is nothing, nothing in the restriction on me that should prevent me from being able to discuss VM's block. Your arguments to the contrary are, I believe, an attempt to reduce my right to free speech on this project, with no basis in any existing restrictions. I am saddened to see that you assume bad faith on my part and that you assume that I came to the discussion to support an editor because of who he is, not because of the unjustice I perceived (and that was eventually recognized by others and led to the shortened block). From where I stand, sadly, if I was to abandon good faith, I could say that your action looked like you did not take kindly to me disagreeing with you, and threatened to sanction me if I did not withdrew from the discussion (with a distinct ring of admin power abuse in the air). But I refuse to let bad faith take me over; instead I still believe you acted in an attempt to improve the situation, not for any selfish personal reasons. I do believe, however, that you misinterpreted the boundaries of the i-ban in question, and in consequence, you set a dangerous precedence (see below for why and on what). Lastly, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd AGF my actions and consider I am acting for the good of the project ("believes an editor was wronged and acts because of that"), and not for any personal ("defends a friend because he is his friend") reasons. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

@FSP and others: "If A is in a conflict with B and admins are considering sanctions against either of the two, and C is a friend of B's but interaction-banned from A, then the last place in the world C has any business hanging around is that noticeboard thread." I disagree with this. First, I do not believe this is covered by the i-ban. Either the i-ban need to be clearly clarified with this very example, to prevent future confusion (because at least for me, this does not flow in any way whatsoever from the wording "C is prohibited from interacting with or commenting on editor A", or a separate sanction should be applied to relevant cases (stating that "C is also prohibited from commenting on any editor whom A is in conflict with". Second, I believe such a restriction of free speech for no good reason would be detrimental to the spirit of this project in general, and would deprive those discussions of valuable input. I understand the need to limit the criticism and negative reinforcement, this is the purpose of i-bans I fully support. But the above interpretation would achieve the contrary - limit support and positive reinforcement. In other words, we do not need more persecutors, but we do need more defenders and advocates for leniency that can stand up to to the system and its enforces (admins) and speak out in favor of the accused. Penalizing people for saying good things on others and arguing for more lenient approaches is, to me, very much against the spirit of this project. PS. I linked a number of essays I wrote on the subject of wikigovernance to reinforce my arguments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @FSP: I am willing to consider that some of my references that you cite where too direct and should not have been made, even if they were made with regards to another editor, and where not intended as criticism, merely as a comparison example. At the same time, you have already alleged here that there was something improper in my first post at AE you've cited, and your lack of clarification as to what you considered problematic caused me to also blank this post. Whereas I can see where you are coming from with regards to my second post, I stand by what I said above with regards to my first and third posts. In hindsight, I think that the best way to deal with this would've been for you to ask me clearly to blank my second post only. If you would agree with me that nothing in my first and third post constituted a violation, I can certainly take your comments about the second post to heart, and we could end this discussion here and now, shake hands, both of us having learned a little through this, and hope to avoid misunderstanding in the future. (For the record, we wouldn't be here if you had replied to me directly with clear examples and explanation earlier when I posted on your talk page in reply to your message to me (here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba
I have previously stated my detailed proposal for how i-bans should work, which I can re-post here. i-bans should in no way accord de jure ownership of any page on WP based on who got there first. That's censorship, plain and simple. The current interpretation of i-bans is inappropriate and an open invitation for abuse, aggravating—not dissipating—acrimony. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.
@Fozzie: Let's not mix up the issues. This wasn't about "forcing people out of topic areas", and it wasn't about commenting on any article topics. I do in fact share your reservations about the use of interaction bans when it comes to article editing, but the case Piotrus is asking about was something different. It was about commenting on an AE thread. And this, I maintain, is the one area where interaction bans actually do make sense, and I therefore stand by the warning I gave him in the situation. One of the core problems with the EEML team back in the day was that they had this habit of always turning up together as a tag team in noticeboard threads, supporting each other and pressing for sanctions against their common opponents together. This, I understand, is the main reason why the interaction ban with respect to Russavia was imposed. And these tag-teaming structures are still very much active. Even today, you will hardly find an ANI or AE thread involving any one member of the EEML team where at least one or two of the others don't immediately turn up in his support.

In the present instance, there was an AE thread in which Russavia was one of the parties involved, and had received a sanction, and his opponents were other members of the EEML group. Piotrus, who had no prior involvement in that specific conflict, turned up to argue for the use of interaction bans in general [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=457676385&oldid=457675566], which, in this situation, amounted to an argument for applying sanctions against Russavia. He then made another comment to the administrator who had just imposed sanctions on Russavia and one other party (Volunteer Marek) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&diff=457679084&oldid=457678215]. In this comment, he was making a comparison between Russavia and VM which was designed to paint Russavia in a worse light than the other party; hence, this too amounted to an argument in favour of sanctioning Russavia. He can now argue all he likes that he wasn't there because of Russavia but because of the other guy, but the fact remains that the effect of his intervention was to add pressure to the anti-Russavia side. To my mind, this was a clear breach of the interaction ban.

This is the message we really want to send through interaction bans: people, stay away from noticeboards; mind your own business. If A is in a conflict with B and admins are considering sanctions against either of the two, and C is a friend of B's but interaction-banned from A, then the last place in the world C has any business hanging around is that noticeboard thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Piotrus: are you still denying you were commenting on Russavia? This is mind-boggling. I'll quote from the exact posting of yours that's at issue here: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&diff=457679084&oldid=457678215] "an editor with a history of i-ban violations and multiple diffs showing recent violations […] one editor has two previous blocks (including from this summer) […] I do not believe they deserve equal-length blocks […] the number of current incidents/violations […] the number of sanctioned violations […] one editor has been asking a lot about the i-ban, and presumably knows a lot more about the boundaries than the other one" – The "one editor" to whose sanctions you were referring was Russavia. Can you tell me in what world of your imagination each of these sentences is not a "comment about Russavia"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * About your first posting at question [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=457676385&oldid=457675566]: If editor A has an obvious stake in a noticeboard thread, because he is either the principal instigator/accuser or the principal defendant in the complaint at issue, or the potential subject of sanctions being deliberated, then any posting in that thread amounts to "interacting with" editor A. That, to me, is so basic and so blindingly obvious I really have to wonder why you apparently can't wrap your head around it. About the content in detail: you were responding to a posting that could be understood as an argument in favour of not sanctioning R.; you were arguing against that view, so you were, in effect, implicitly arguing for sanctioning R. Which means you were not just interacting with R by virtue of simply being there; you were negatively interacting with him (independently of course of the merits of your arguments, or of the preceding ones you were answering to.) More directly, though perhaps less importantly, there was also your question "why is a post by a non-admin still present in the admin only discussion?", which was referring directly to R. and obviously constitutes a direct comment on him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Question from Russavia
For the Committee, I only have one question...in 27 parts.

If you refer to ARBRB, I am restricted from interacting or commenting with editors from the EEML case. Firstly, this is somewhat vague, because one could wikilawyer until the cows come home (as is evidently prevalent in this area) that this could prevent me from interacting with say FPaS, given that he gave evidence, and hence is "from the EEML case". However, common sense, and the non-wikilawyering editor, would tell you "from the EEML case" clearly means EEML members. This restriction was placed on me ostensibly for reporting editors who were breaking their topic bans, or acting on behalf of banned editors, and at no time were my reports found by the Committee to be vexatious in nature (this was even stated by Shell Kinney).

On the other hand, we have EEML, only those editors who were named in sanctions are banned from interacting or commenting on me. This, ostensibly, is because of issues such as harrassment and vexatious reporting as described at EEML.

I made mention of this weird interaction ban at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision. One can refer to the current amendment request for a prime example of how that problem has played out.

A few weeks ago, I became aware of a potential sockpuppet of the indef blocked User:Poeticbent (User:A. Kupicki). I was made aware of a possibility that Poeticbent was socking. Once I glanced at the talk page, it was plainly obvious that we had another sock on our hands. Because of the interaction ban which the Committee placed on myself, I didn't report it. But it makes no sense to me that I, as an editor in good standing, would be unable to directly bring to the community's attention a sockpuppet of an indeffed user. This is kind of unusual, in that I have zero tolerance for sockpuppets, as does the larger community, but in this situation I was unable to do anything about it at the time. Some four weeks after I was made aware of the sockpuppet, another editor has obviously clued in on the situation and the sockpuppet has now been blocked. But shouldn't socks be nuked on sight? Eight weeks of clear sockpuppetry is eight weeks too much.

Additionally, although I tend to stear clear of topics which are magnets for nationalistic POV-pushing and which are favoured by these sockpuppets, instances can arise whereby I could find myself editing an article which has seen editing from an editor who is such a sockpuppet. What is one supposed to do in such circumstances? Because happily editing along with someone who the community has indefinitely blocked for abusive sockpuppetry is not something that any editor should need to put up with. There should be an avenue in which I can openly bring to the community's attention evidence of sockpuppetry. I would ask the committee to look at that, and advise accordingly, because it makes no sense that I should be prevented from presenting evidence on disruptive banned users having a presence on WP. This would entail and  and I should state that whilst I do not keep tabs on any editor, obviously situations will arise where it is necessary to address issues, and without fear of dramuh or sanctions being enacted upon me.

Additionally, I would also like the committee to look at formally completely lifting the one-way interaction ban on myself with the following editors:, ***, **, , *, *, *, *, *

My reasoning for this is as follows. Those without * identifiers are active users, but I have not interacted, nor commented on them, since I don't know when (long time ago). Those with a single * are only occasional editors and it makes no sense to prevent editing on my part when things such as WP:BRD can easily be adhered to in instances when they are required, whilst also ensuring that commenting is only related to content. Those marked with ** are indefinitely blocked from the project. Those marked with *** (i.e. Digwuren) are still technically under EEML, to be followed by EEML, and then followed by EEML; in this case it makes no sense to technically stop me from editing when for all intents and purposes this editor has abandoned the account completely.

In many instances, I have never actually interacted with some of these editors, and my only involvement with them is that they were EEML members. So I would request that the committee look at those, and lift the interaction bans with individuals accordingly.

Given that Piotrus has stated that he has no desire of interacting with me, which has thrown me aback somewhat, interaction bans with Piotrus, Radeksz, Martintg and Vecrumba can stay in place, until such time as amendments are brought for the committee's action. The rest I see as a partial way to look forward in editing, which can only be a good thing. Russavia Let's dialogue 15:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I've stated before I have concerns that if Interaction Bans are being used as a blunt force instrument to force people out of topic areas ("I'm there already, so you can't edit the article because otherwise you'd be breaching the interaction ban!" Perhaps it's time to convert them into topic bans, to reduce the chance of this occurring. Furthermore, there is such a web of inter-connected people in this area that it becomes impossible to comment on one part of the topic area without engaging others in which you are not supposed to be interacting.. again, it argues that a different tact needs to be taken. I am disinclined to tell admins working in this highly heated topic area to be looser on the reins, but I will wait for further statements. SirFozzie (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was answering one side of this, while looking at the other side (which I touched on in my previous statement). The question I would ask myself in enforcing the interaction bans... "Would a reasonable person consider this commenting on the person they have an interaction ban with". If the answer to that is yes, then there's your answer if it's a violation of the interaction ban or not. A reasonable person would conclude that yes, he's at least bringing up the person he has an interaction ban with, so it would be a violation, and as such, should at least be warned not to continue with that line of conversation. SirFozzie (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If the issue in a noticeboard discussion is "did X violate a sanction?" and Y is banned from interacting with X, then Y should not comment on the issue. On the other hand, if the discussion evolves into discussing a much broader general issue going beyond the specific case (e.g. "how should interaction bans work?) that can become a precedent, then I can understand why Y would want to comment and could reasonably perceive he was not violating the ban. I think this is such an intermediate case. Unfortunately, I don't think there can be a bright-line rule for these situations, and all I can do is urge both Piotrus and the AE administrators to be cautious and thoughtful and to avoid borderline cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Recused on EEML,  Roger Davies  talk 15:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Banning policy mentions interaction bans, and says that if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, then editor X should not make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly. In this context, commenting on an editor in a noticeboard discussion could be an infringement of the ban. It's worth noting that emailing the Arbitration Enforcement admins isn't a violation of an interaction ban, so the banned editors thoughts can still be considered. PhilKnight (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

== Amendment request: Eastern European mailing list ==

Initiated by  Nug (talk) at 21:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Notified The remedy of the Eastern European mailing list case is amended to lift the interaction ban between User:Russavia and User:Nug.
 * Case affected :
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Eastern European mailing list Remedy 4.3.11A: Editors restricted (as modified by motion)
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (formerly User:Martintg)
 * (formerly User:Martintg)
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Information about amendment request

Statement by Nug
EdJohnston had previously requested that the mutual topic bans between Russavia and I be lifted Unfortunately after some editors objected due to their apocalyptic fear of our possible collaboration might turn the world up side down, it was declined. Given that Russavia has since been site banned for a year and indef topic banned and the chance of now interacting reduced to zero, can this restriction be now lifted? I'd like to edit articles like 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic, but I cannot remove those tags placed by Russavia almost a year ago without breaching my interaction ban. --Nug (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Clerks, I fail to see how Paul Seibert's comments have any relevance what so ever to a request to amend a redundant interaction ban, and I ask that they be removed. If Paul has issues he can air them in a more appropriate forum (along with linked evidence) where they can be discussed in full without derailing this specific amendment request. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Courcelles, Russavia is indefinitely topic banned from EE, see this, in addition to the one year site ban. --Nug (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the problematic behaviour occured solely in the EE topic area, an indefinite topic ban in EE is virtually an indefinite site ban in any case. --Nug (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Link to discussion on Courcelles' talk page. --Nug (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand the point of Courcelles' concern, which apparently is related to Russavia's behaviour when he returns from his site ban. Courcelles claims that Russavia's disruptive behaviour extended outside of the EE topic area, but I cannot find any evidence of this. As EdJohnston states, discretionary sanctions remains available under the existing authority of WP:ARBEE, this request is merely to enable editing of articles that Russavia is indefinitely banned from editing without breaching my Iban. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update Brad, this is an intriguing and dramatic development. As I recall Russavia had previously supported the lifting of our mutual iBans, so I hope this evidence is germane to the issue of the iBans, rather some unrelated and unsubstantiated allegations which would more likely be evidence of where his own head is at, more than anything else. Anyway, I await with interest. --Nug (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @SilkTork, Roger Davies, The point of an interaction ban is to stop interaction between two parties, if one is indefinitely topic banned from the area of conflict there can no longer can be any interaction, and thus it is redundant. What you appear to be suggesting is that you believe the edits of a banned editor should be preserved by keeping an interaction ban in place. The reason no editor has been "moved to remove" these tags is simply because there isn't anyone who cares a cat's fart about certain obscure topics. Tags are not meant to be used as tools to further battles but to alert editors to real potential issues, but no one has responded in almost twelve months. The reason why they were placed in the first place along other tags and immediately nominated for deletion was more to do with the same battleground attitude that eventually got Russavia site banned for one year and topic banned indefinitely.
 * It is just absolutely astounding that you, both Arbitrators, would contend that there should be mutual agreement from an indefinitely topic banned editor prior lifting an interaction ban. In any case I provided evidence of such prior mutual agreement in an earlier request. If Russavia has since withdrawn that agreement in some email to the Committee, then that is further evidence of his battleground mentality as there is no cause for him to withdraw such agreement. I just don't see what these implications that SilkTork alludes to other than to perpetuate conflict that Russavia and I agreed to leave behind and to hold hostage some topics to the whim of someone who forfeited their right to edit that area for an indeterminate period.  --Nug (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
Yeah, me too. It's sort of pointless now. Volunteer Marek 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ed Johnson - I'm pretty sure that there are no remaining sanctions from the EEML case and there haven't been for awhile (btw, as an update, EE topic area is actually doing pretty well). And even the sanctions themselves were pretty mild to begin with. Some people keep dredging the case up in the standard battleground tactic of poisoning the well but honestly, that stuff's old news, there's nothing left, nobody, including AE admins, is paying much attention. The interaction bans are the last remnants of the case (well, actually, more from the R-B case) and even those, obviously, are no longer much relevant. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul - Paul, when I wrote ""keep dredging the case up in the standard battleground tactic"" I actually did NOT have you in mind. Rather just some more peripheral users. Keep in mind that lots of folks from what can be described as the "anti-EEML" side managed to get themselves banned/blocked/topic banned just fine without any help from anyone on the list in the months following the case, thank you very much. I was thinking more of these guys who sometimes keep coming back as IP addresses or fresh starts or sock puppets, who pretend to be new to Wikipedia but somehow have this magical knowledge of the EEML case which they try to use win arguments and battles in which they got blocked for in the first place.

Anyway, more general point is that aside from this interaction ban there are no outstanding sanctions from the EEML case. This is a good opportunity to put it all to rest. Volunteer Marek 04:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert
@Ed Johnson & Volunteer Marek. First of all, I always supported the idea to lift all remaining individual sanctions against ex-EEML members. However, this my post is mainly a responce to the Volunteer Marek's post where he mentioned some people who "keep dredging the case up in the standard battleground tactic". In connection to that, I would like to remind VM that I was among the users who had conflicts with the EEML cabal, and, I recall, someone (probably user:Viriditas) strongly advised me to read the EEML archive and present the evidences against them when the case was open, because the cabal had been contemplating some actions against me. I refused to do that, however. I believe, the fact that I had been silent when the EEML case was open, and that I decided to return to this issue now is per se an indication that something happened during last year that forced me to express my concern now. The major EEML violation, their coordinated edits is the fact that is extremely hard to establish. As far as I understand, the community became aware of the existence of the EEML cabal purely by accident, and there is absolutely no guaranty that no similar cabals currently exist. By writing that, I do not imply that the EEML member continue to coordinate, however, it would be equally incorrect to claim that their one year long topic bans may guarantee that no coordination can exist between them. In connection to that, I believe the behaviour of EEML members must be absolutely transparent to dispel any suspicions. Concretely, I am not sure ex-EEML members have a moral right to simultaleously participate in votes or RfCs when no fresh arguments are brought by each of them (i.e., the posts such as "Support a user X", without detailed explanation of one's own position should not be allowed for them). Similarly, joining the chain of reverts where other EEML members already participate should not be allowed also. We all remember that these users massively coordinate their edits in past, we all (including the admins) have absolutely no tools to make sure such coordination does not occur currently, so we have a right at least to express our concern in a situation when such coordination cannot be ruled out. The fact that they cannot be considered as uninvolved parties when they join the action of their peers should also be clear for everyone. In contrast, we currently have a directly opposite tendency: any mention of the EEML is treated as a "battleground tactics", many EEML members changed their usernames to protect their privacy and, simultaneously, to disassociate themselves from their past violations, and many of them continue to concurrently edit the same articles. In my opinion, the EEML pendulum is moving in the opposite direction, and now it has already passed its lowest point...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, with much respect, the conduct you describe as suspicious due to the potential for off-wiki collaboration, is suspicious without reference to off-wiki collaboration. If discussion closers are poorly closing discussions on the basis of !votes, rather than on the basis of quality and influence of independent arguments, then this is a problem with closers.  If a number of editors happen to have the same reversion style, which appears to an editor to be against policy or consensus considerations, then that is already a matter for content dispute resolution.  The conduct you're describing is unacceptable regardless of demonstrated past off-wiki collaboration, or the potential for off-wiki collaboration. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@ VolunteerMarek. Thank you, Marek. In actuality, I also didn't mean all EEML members in this my post. Behaviour of majority of them is almost impeccable, and they do their best to dispel any doubts about any possibility of coordinated edits. The problem is, however, that some mechanism is, nevertheless, needed to eliminate any possibility of resurrection of this story (with the same or different participants, no matter). In connection to that, I proposed some modifications to the EW policy. To my great satisfaction, one of the EEML members, whom I sincerely respect, Piotrus, supported this proposal (which, in my opinion, would eliminate any possibility of tag teaming). However, some other EEML members opposed to that, and my proposal went into oblivion. Maybe, it makes sense to return to this issue?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @MVBW. In my opinion, the idea of amnesty should come from some third party, not from the EEML members themselves. Frankly speaking, I do not support a blanket amnesty. Whereas some ex-EEML members fully learned due lessons from this story, some other members still demonstrate partisan behaviour.
 * Moreover, in my opinion, the right of amnesty should be earned. By earned I mean, for example, the following. You guys should come together and propose some changes to policy that would make any tag teaming, as well as other manifestations of edit warring impossible. For example, you may propose a following change to the policy: every user who joins a chain of reverts started by others is responsible for edit warring even if his personal 3RR limit has not been exceeded (a kind of "collective 3RR", we can discuss technical details elsewhere). Two years ago, I proposed this change to the policy, I was supported by one of the EELM member, Piotrus, - but two other EEML members opposed to such a change! What is the most logical explanation for that? The most obvious (although not necessarily the most correct) explanation is that you guys (of course, just some of you) still have not fully abandoned your battleground mentality. Again, if you guys will propose, and persuade, our community to make this, or similar modification of the policy that will help to prevent future edit wars - I will fully support a wholesale amnesty, and, probably, even deletion of the EEML case from the archives. However, for now - no.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Frankly speaking, I agree with this Vecrumba's argument. It would be more reasonable not to focus on the interaction ban between Nug and Russavia, but to fix a ridiculous situation when the interaction ban between the user A and B becomes a tool that allows one of them to seize a control over some article by making edits scattered through the whole article. Fixing of this issue will be tantamount to lifting of the Nug/Russavia interaction ban. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
I have to say that this proposal makes sense to me. Russavia probably can't remove any tags himself under his own restrictions, and it makes no sense to have possibly now irrelevant tags remain in place because the person who placed them can't do so himself. I might request Nug start a discussion on the talk page before removing tags or maybe making substantial changes to an article not necessarily directly related to recent developments, under the circumstances, but I can't see how it makes any sense to allow people who have been banned from the site and a given topic to in effect continue to have a degree of control over them, through such things as dubiously placed or now irrelevant tags. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
There would be a benefit to making EEML obsolete, and the Committee could pass a motion to lift all remaining bans and restrictions from the original WP:EEML case. The understanding would be that any bans that turn out still to be necessary can be reimposed via discretionary sanctions under the existing authority of WP:ARBEE. The only nuance might be that some of Russavia's restrictions come from WP:ARBRB which is thought of as including all of the former Soviet Union. So the Committee might clarify that WP:ARBEE will allow discretionary sanctions relating to any countries of the former Soviet Union. In actuality, the only provision of EEML that hasn't expired is Remedy 11A, the one that prevents the EEML editors sanctioned by name from interacting with Russavia.

Statement by Vecrumba
To the point at hand, I support lifting of the ban. In particular, any evaluation of editor behavior needs to be from here forward, not, as as has been implied, saddle particular editors with a permanent stench. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the IBAN mechanism, I have commented elsewhere on its completely inappropriate enforcement which invites conflict. I thank Paul Siebert for his stated agreement with my position. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I move not only that the ban be lifted but that the IBAN policy be strictly interpreted. If two editors are "banned" from interacting with each other, that should not be construed as a ban on their constructively interacting on content, addressing content and not each other. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
It should be noted that the ban/block on Russavia was a strange reaction to a harmless cartoon, and therefore could be overturned at any time. Rich Farmbrough, 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Clerk notes

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


 * Comment. I have left a note on User:Russavia's talk page, as they have yet to comment. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Russavia cannot edit own talk page. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements, but I'm inclined to seriously consider this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless anything new and concerning is raised in the comments, I'll propose a motion on this in a couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The delay is because the Committee received an e-mail from Russavia indicating he has some evidence we should consider. I'm allowing a little more time for him to send it to us. Note that I wouldn't take any action (or refrain from taking any action) based on such evidence without giving anyone else mentioned in it an opportunity to comment on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is little value in maintaining interaction bans that have been mooted by one of the parties being banned. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the banned party is not banned indefinitely, so that is a mitigating concern... when that party returns to Wikipedia, will the interaction ban save strife? Courcelles 20:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nug, topic bans don't really change the usefulness of interaction bans to my mind, I'm only concerned about Russavia's site ban here. Courcelles 02:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also concerned about the implications of lifting an interaction ban because one party is currently blocked - that appears one-sided and simply delaying potential conflict. I would rather lift an interaction ban because BOTH parties are in a position of agreement. If the tags that Russavia placed are significantly inappropriate, then another editor would be moved to remove them. It doesn't need to be Nug.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much per SilkTork.  Roger Davies  talk 09:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nug. A topic ban and an interaction ban are two very different things. I'd be prepared to lift the interaction ban for both parties, but would like to hear from Russavia first.  Roger Davies  talk 12:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that we've lifted other individual sanctions in this area on the basis that the discretionary sanctions are sufficient to maintain order in the future, I don't see a particular need to retain this one, especially on the off chance that the conflict might resume once Russavia's current ban ends. I'll propose a motion to that effect below. Kirill [talk] 01:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Motion (Eastern European mailing list)
1) The interaction ban placed upon and  in the Eastern European mailing list case is lifted, effective immediately.  The users are reminded of the discretionary sanctions authorized for their area of mutual interest.



Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Per the discussion above. Kirill [talk] 01:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [Switched from oppose],  Roger Davies  talk 05:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no benefit to retaining this sanction. AGK  [•] 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, per Roger Davies. Risker (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * This is a one-sided discussion. Prefer to discuss it if the other party returns. In the meantime, Nug is able to edit Wikipedia without the ban interfering. Having assisted on the main aspect of the ban that Nug had problems with (and willing to help out in any other areas that remain) there is no valid reason for lifting the ban. If the ban on Russavia was permanent, then yes, but he may return on successful appeal.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  19:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per SilkTork, especially the part about that Russavia's block is time-limited changes the discussion considerably. Courcelles
 * It is not an interaction ban in the conventional sense. It restricts a group of editors from commenting on or interacting with Russavia. I would like (1) to hear from Russavia about this before amending and (2) to consider removing the restriction entirely from the group of editors rather than lifting it piecemeal. In the meantime, I am not persuaded that it continuing in force is onerous.  Roger Davies  talk 07:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Having heard from Russavia, I'm switching to Support in this instance,   Roger Davies  talk 05:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * Holding my vote, for reasons similar to Roger's. AGK  [•] 13:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)  Voted.  AGK  [•] 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Russavia will contact us with his views over the weekend. AGK  [•] 15:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)