Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal	none	none	11 December 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for amendment

Use this section:

To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems.
To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly)

How to file a request (please use this format!):

Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment:
1. The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header),
2. The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision,
3. The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and
4. A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words.
Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European mailing list

Initiated by Biruitorul ^Talk at 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 19

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

N/A

Amendment 1

topic ban
This is a request to amend the EEML case in order to allow me (User Biruitorul) to edit and create articles in Category:Geography of Romania and Category:Geography of Moldova again. As such it is a partial appeal of the topic ban that was implemented in December as part of the case.

Statement by Biruitorul

Well, I've been stewing in my own juices now for six months since the EEML decision was handed down, and I feel it's time to open the windows a crack and let me resume some of my more worthwhile activities. No off-wiki coordination, no canvassing, no usage of hidden communication to create the appearance of a consensus: I get it now, believe me. Half a year of scrupulously having to avoid my favorite subject area has drummed these lessons into me. Truth be told, I haven't been too active here since December, but neither have I done any harm. The only possible blemish on my record is a non-event that led to a pretty disgusting decision. (Let's be serious here, you don't extend a valuable contributor's topic ban by five months because he's made a few harmless edits he thought he was free to make.)

What I'm proposing here is to be allowed to dip my toe in again, editing in the areas of Romanian and Moldovan geography, neither of which has been the subject of much controversy in the past, certainly not involving me. There is quite a bit I plan to do: to give one example, I plan to finish creating articles on the communes of Moldova, which I had nearly finished doing before being rudely interrupted by this overly broad topic ban. Let's see how this goes. If for some reason I can't handle it, throw the book at me. If, as I suspect, everything will run smoothly, then in a little while I'll have reason to appeal more of, or the entirety of, the topic ban. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion

Remedy 19 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Biruitorul topic banned") is amended to allow said user to edit and create articles in Category:Geography of Romania and Category:Geography of Moldova.

Request to amend prior case: Speed of Light

Initiated by Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Speed of light arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Hell in a Bucket, Count Iblis, David Tombe

Amendment 1

Requesting change to advocation restriction set to expire immediately or at end of Brews topic ban.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

As to this time I still completely disagree with how this was handled however it did quiet things down a significant bit which I think all of us appreciated. I think we are at a crossroads, well for myself anyways, Brews will have enough rope to show he is a valuable addition to our community and will have enough rope to work in relative freedom without incessant hounding over what may or may not be a physics article. While it's likely I would advocate for brews should the need arise I find it significantly reduced once the topic ban expires. If this isn't possible for all invovled perhaps the committe can review this on a editor by editor basis. (Note Likebox was not included as he is presently indeff'd.)

Statement by Count Iblis

I actually made a request by email a few weeks ago, asking for a more limited relaxation of the restriction. This was just the minimum of what is necessary for me to write up some comments on moderation of high quality forums that cover science and the difficult moderation problems you then encounter. ArbCom has notified me that they are looking into this. However, I do support Hell in a Bucket's request to completely lift the restrictions.

If Brews is back editing physics articles and the restrictions against me are still in place, then the most likely effect in practice would be that I can't say anything about Brews on Wikiproject physics. Realistically, in the early stages of a new problem, what I would have to say would likely be focussed on something directly related to the physics content any dispute is about. And we all know that in the old speed of light dispute, I, together with most other editors argued in opposition to the position held by Brews. So, at this level there certainly no issue with me not being objective when it comes to commenting on Brews.

Count Iblis (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

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

Statement by other editor

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

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

I am cautiously supportive of this request. I believe that the advocacy restriction was necessary because the advocacy was stirring up a hornet's nest that would otherwise have been calm. Once the underlying restriction has expired, it seems that the only circumstances in which advocacy would occur are those after the hornet's nest has already been stirred up. I'll ruminate on this for a bit, and am open to persuasion either way. Steve Smith (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would oppose removing the restriction immediately. I'm open to lifting it simultaneously. Cool Hand Luke 15:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any change. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Pseudoscience

Initiated by GDallimore (Talk) at 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Principle 15
Finding 9

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

None

Amendment 1

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious_pseudoscience
Request change as follows: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus~~, such as Time Cube,~~ may be so labeled and categorized as such without more."

Statement by GDallimore

Following this decision, the WP:Fringe guideline was modified to quote the above passaged: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience

It is also highlighted as notable pseudoscience: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Examples

This has essentially foreclosed any possibility of discussion on whether or not Time Cube is pseudoscience: [1][2]

In my view, it is a particularly poor example and should not be highlighted in the guideline. Specifically, it is not science, pseudo- or otherwise, but a semi-religious rant and Internet phenomenon. Labelling it pseudoscience actually gives it more credence than it deserves.

The requested amendment leaves the content of the statement unchanged, but removes the (arguably) inappropriate example.

Statement by other editor

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

Amendment 2

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Pseudoscience_2
Request change as follows: "Wikipedia contains articles ~~such as Time Cube (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), a theory of time,~~ on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics. ~~In the case of Time Cube, an anonymous editor, "Time Cube Guy," frequently reverts to his favored version."~~

Statement by GDallimore (2)

For the reasons given in amendment 1, referring to time cube as a [pseudoscientific] theory of time gives it more credence than it deserves. This part of the statement should be removed.

The reference to Time Cube Guy is out of place. He was not discussed or mentioned anywhere else in the decision and no remedies against him were proposed.

The amendment removes the (arguably) inappropriate example and needless mention of a particular editor but leaves the content of the statement unchanged.

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.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

I am favourably disposed towards both of these amendments for the reasons given. If there are no objections in the next couple of days, I will propose a motion effecting both of these amendments. Steve Smith (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Steve, both of these requests appear to be good ones, although I'm a bit surprised that an example cited in the case would continue to carry enough weight to motivate them. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess is that it's because it's considered funny and funny Internet things always end up getting more prominence than they deserve (surprised it's not mentioned in WP:BIAS). People will always go the extra mile to ensure funny things are included. Usually it's harmless and fun to learn about these weird and wonderful things, but sometimes the joke can go too far. When I saw this article on the psuedoscience template alongside aids denialism and homoeopathy I decided it was time to reduce its prominence. GDallimore (Talk) 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point made in this request for amendment is well-taken, but what is obviously happening here is that undue weight is being given to what was clearly a throwaway remark in this three-and-one-half-year-old case. (I wish as much attention were paid to the core principles and findings of all of our cases.) Therefore, I am not sure that a formal motion to amend is necessary, though I will not oppose it. It would be courteous to notify the former arbitrator who wrote the Pseudoscience decision, Fred Bauder, and see whether he has any comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lesson here should be that formal motions probably shouldn't contain throwaway remarks. Steve Smith (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

The words "such as Time Cube" are struck from principle #15 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Obvious pseudoscience"). Finding of fact #9 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience") is amended to read "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics."

Support

Steve Smith (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced this motion is really necessary, per my comment above, but since it is here I will go along. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

I think Time Cube is not a terrible example, but I can also see that this example a content ruling. Torn; would gladly change it with the original drafters consent. Certainly a different category from homeopathy and the really influential pseudoscience. Incidentally, does anyone else think the image on Time Cube is inappropriate navel-gazing? Cool Hand Luke 02:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European mailing list

Initiated by radek (talk) at 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 10

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

N/A

Amendment 1

topic ban
This is a request to amend the EEML case in order to allow me (USer Radeksz) to edit articles in the Eastern European area again. As such it is an appeal of the topic ban that was implemented in December as part of the case.

Statement by Radeksz

In the winddown of the case, several of the arbitrators, past and present, indicated that they would be amenable to an appeal and lifting of the topic ban after suitable time has passed. It's been almost 6 months since the case. Furthermore, appeals such as this one are often made and granted in similar cases.

Activity since the case

Since the conclusion of the case I have been active in other areas of Wikipedia, such as Mexican History [3] and Economics [4], and I have tried to take scrupulous care to abide by my topic ban. I have avoided any controversy in the area of Eastern European topics, or any other topics for that matter. Also, through the two amendments that were passed which already narrowed my topic ban, here and here, I was able to source over 150, unreferenced Poland related BLP articles that might have been deleted otherwise. The lifting of the topic ban would allow me to improve the remaining Poland related BLPs (over 170 still left, as can be seen here) many of which are in need of expansion, tagging, and updating (many of them are several years out of date) in addition to sourcing.

Since this is likely to be brought up by someone else, I want to indicate that in one instance I did in fact apparantly violate my topic ban, by posting a comment at the AfD for the Ryszard Tylman article (I did not however vote in the AfD). Since the subject of the article is a Canadian I wasn't aware that the article fell within the scope of the topic ban and I removed my comment as soon as the matter was brought to AE.

Here's a list of some of the other things I've accomplished since December;

I created three articles which were reviewed and attained Good Article status: Treaty of Ciudad Juarez (now nominated for FA [5]), Battle of Ciudad Juarez and Confederate war finance. I plan on continuing to work on these to bring them up to Featured Article Status. I also have another article ~~currently going through the GA review process~~, which just made GA status, the Brander-Spencer model [6].

I created about 23 DYK articles since December, mostly in the areas of Mexican History and Economics. A full list is here.

I've been active in tagging and assesing articles within Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics as well as helping out in more minor roles on bringing the article on Price elasticity of demand to GA.

I've helped bring the article Nobel Prize to GA status (I was very careful to avoid sections which deal with Eastern European recipients of the prize so as not to violate the topic ban).

I've also *almost* hit 15,000 edits!

In carrying out this work, several times the topic ban limited my ability to fully improve/create some of these articles. For example, in my article on the Preston curve - a relationship between income and life expectancy - I avoided discussing the large drop in life expectancy in Eastern Europe in the early 1990's so as not to violate the topic ban - this was actually picked up on by an anon reader on the talk page of the article but I was unable to respond. In my other work on Economics related topics, I also was unable to assess and improve articles which tangentially might have to do with Eastern Europe and Poland - for example article on the famous Polish economist Michał Kalecki.

Plans for the future

If this amendment is succseful, I plan on creating and working on the following articles which are concerned with Economic History and Eastern Europe. I don't anticipate that any of them should prove controversial - of course, if any disputes arise in the future, I will be careful to observe high standards of conduct:

Domar serfdom model (did factor endowments (land-labor ratio) determine whether a pre-industrial economy ended up with slavery, serfdom or free labor?)
Brenner debate (related to the above, what ended feudalism in Western Europe but caused its re-emergence in Eastern Europe?)
Second feudalism (re both above)
Economic history of Poland (started, on hold since topic ban went into effect)
Piast monetary policy (of the Polish Piast dynasty; sometimes good, sometimes bad, just like Ben Bernanke today)

(among others)

I would also like to help out with the gnomish tasks over at WikiProject Poland to lighten the load on some of the editors who have picked up the burden. Furthermore I would very much like to resume my participation in the Wikipedia:Jewish Labour Bund Task Force project, which has become somewhat dormant since January - I believe I can revive it with new articles and activity.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, I plan on contiuning with the sourcing and improvement of Poland related BLPs. I would also like to expand/create several articles on some of the casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, since they are quite notable but lack adequate coverage on Wikipedia. In general, articles on "current events" in Poland, such as the May 2010 Central European floods, are always in need of knowledgeable editors and I can help a lot of with those.

Lifting of the topic ban will enable me to improve these and other articles, and it shouldn't be controversial. In addition I plan on continuing work on articles not related to Eastern Europe.

General statement

I would like to point out that both amendments which narrowed my topic ban went off without a hitch or controversy. I think this will continue if the topic ban is amended.

I left the mailing list which was the subject of the case in November 2009. I have not participated in any activities that were deemed objectionable by the 2009 ArbCom which led to the topic ban, since then.

Looking back on the case after 6 months I have to say that I have learned a lot since then. Basically, I still believe that the people who were on the mailing list, joined it with the best of intentions for Wikipedia and its policies. I do realize now however that at some point things were over the line and that, often out of frustration, members of the list, myself included, engaged in questionable activities for which I personally want to apologize.

I encourage everyone, former members of the list, as well as their "opponents" to undertake efforts which will reduce the battleground atmosphere in this topic area and lead to more collaborative editing. Somebody's got to make a show of good faith however, and I would like to say that I personally harbor no grudges against any other editor currently active on Wikipedia and am willing to work with anybody. I'm going to reset my "assume good faith" meter back to good faith and I hope others do likewise.

re to Skapperod

1. I did leave the list in Nov 2009. The precise date was the 21st of November, 2009. The oversighted edit in fact showed this exactly as it included the heading for my unsubscribe request. Since you went over that oversighted data with a fine comb, I am sure you are aware of this, so why are you misrepresenting the facts and in the process calling me a liar?

2. I have no idea what the relevance of the Wikipedia Review "diff" is to this appeal or what it has to do with me. Somebody there said the admin Adjust Shift was a sock puppet. So? What does that have to do with any of this? With my topic ban? With Eastern Europe? Nothing. What exactly are you alleging is the problem here? You are connecting completely unrelated and innocuous events in a questionable effort to merely sling mud and hope that somehow it sticks.

3. At the Tylman-related AE, administrators Future Perfect, Sandstein and Tznkai (maybe Stifle too, I can't remember) all stated that they believed I was not aware the AfD fell under the topic ban, although I should've been more careful. An assessment with which I agree and share.

4. I did not violate the topic ban when I commented on Molobo's request. I was clarifying a misunderstanding with regard to blocking policy and WP:OFFER on the part of another editor. Hey, Rlevse was right there and I responded directly to him as well - surely he would've noticed if this had been a topic ban breach. And I'm sure you, or someone else would've made a AE report out of it if you had had ANY confidence that it was indeed a topic ban violation. You didn't. It wasn't. You knew it then, you know it now.

Add: I've copied the relevant discussion that is supposed to be a "topic ban violation" , into a subpage so that it can be easily examined here. Please look at it and compare it to the false claim being made. Note also the "You are quite right, Radeksz." and the "Thanks for pointing out my mistake!" comments made by PhantomSteve, an uninvolved editor, which shows pretty clearly that (aside from the fact that this had nothing to do with the topic ban) I was not being confrontational or controversial in this case at all. This is really really fishing for a crappy reason to hang an "oppose" on.

I will reiterate my sincere hope that the editors active in this area abandon their battleground mentality and try to work constructively together.

re to Skapperod's further thoughts: Skapperod, you are again bringing stuff up from December - when the case wasn't concluded or any sanctions made. You are again bringing up stuff that's not from Wikipedia at all but from an external public website (which is read and occasionally commented on by some of the arbitrators - so they could've already read what I had to say there). And you are again completely misrepresenting what I said or did.radek (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skäpperöd

I am not convinced, considering:

the severity of the offense that led to the sanction.
the untrue statement of Radeksz above that he left the list in Nov 2009: evidently, he was enlisted and active in Dec 2009 which he revealed himself while proxying.
more off-wiki contact to listmembers while topic-banned targeting perceived opponents: Radeksz asked for this diff to discredit a former EEML-target on 5 Jan 2:16am at WR, received it on 5 Jan 2:31am at WR, and on 5 Jan 9:15am, the diff appeared on-wiki at co-EEML-member Molobo's talk page.
The abovementioned diff was removed by Molobo (27 Jan) when he prepared an unblock request (29 Jan). The request made it to AN/I, where Radeksz commented on 23 February, violating his widely-construed topic ban from EE-related process discussion.
Radeksz also commented on the AfD concerning the article of co-EEML-member Tylman on 30 April, violating his widely-construed topic ban from EE-related process discussion. Given the close ties between Tylman and Radeksz, the latter's argument that Tylman's Canadian citizenship made him think the AfD was excepted from the ban is not convincing - Tylman's connection to Poland is simply too obvious, and evidently Radeksz was aware of that since Poland-related topics, not Canada, was the common interest they shared and focussed on in the EEML, and Tylman's Polish background was emphasized in the article the AfD was about.
on 21 Jan, Radeksz removed his outburst with the edit summary "i miss the old times" to avoid the pending sanction.

I appreciate the above apology, but not its timing. I would have more trust in the apology if it was not made in the context of wanting the sanction lifted. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re @Radeksz

Re delisted: The diff shows that you continued the EEML and just changed the channel. It does not matter whether you use Digwuren's wpm or send circulars via other servers, what matters is that you maintain that virtual war room per se and the high traffic generated there, before and after November, resulting in coordinated actions on-wiki as demonstrated by the very action you performed resulting in that infamous proxy- and leak diff.

Re WR: In this context, it adds to my concern that a wiki-diff you gather at WR needs only a few hours to be posted by Molobo on-wiki. How could that happen without invoking off-wiki coordination?! And, since that diff consisted of mud to be slung at a former target, and since all of this happened while you were topic banned and Molobo was blocked, it has everything to do with a mentality the EEML sanctions, including this appealed one, were to remedy.

Concerning the topic ban violations, at least in the case of 30 April to 1 May it was obvious enough to result in a block. When Russavia left the obligatory AE notification on your talk, you did not accept that either and attacked him as a stalker.

Skäpperöd (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Igny and more thoughts/diffs

Of course battleground mentality is not shown openly on en.wiki while he wants to have his sanction lifted, in contrast to WR where Radek is more blunt, e.g.

Arbcom are "not just plain ol' assholses, like the ED folks, but they're creeps, self-righteous creeps";
also blame shifting on Lithuanian and Russian users).

The oversighted diff that brought about Offliner's sanction and the abovementioned pair of WR/wiki diffs show continued off-wiki coordination resulting in on-wiki edits. Radeksz also

advocated unblocking of his co-listmember Molobo in the course of DonaldDuck's unblock request [7] and on AN/I [8],
advocated in his co-listmember Tylman's AfD [9], attacking Varsovian as a "dick" in the same post,
attacked Matthead as an asshole [10],
attacked Dr.Dan as a troll [11] (following this one [12]),
and attacked Russavia as a "stalker" violating the interaction ban [13].

The last appeal Radeksz filed, against a previous sanction [14], was prepared on the EEML (see archive), where Radeksz also announced to keep "low-profile" until the appeal was through.

Lifting already lenient sanctions is not really solving the problem of malicious mailing lists - the next one just got busted [15] (Азербайджанский список рассылки). Skäpperöd (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Igny

Radek and I were opponents in several content disputes in EE area. However, I was against blunt topic bans during the EEML case and I fully support Radek's request to lift the ban on EE topics. After all, that area is where Radek is very knowledgeable and where his contributions would benefit the project a lot. I have looked over recent history of contributions by Radek and did not notice any of the "battleground mentality" (4 words to Skapperod: eye of the beholder). I would hope that everyone learned their lessons from the EEML case, and it certainly seems that way for Radek. (Igny (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

I think, the only EEML's sine was that they were creating a visibility of a consensus between allegedly independent editors whereas in actuality there was a strong coordination between them. In other words, they were creating a false impression that several independent editors were acting, although in actuality it was just one collective editor. The EEML group's punishment was correct, however, that does not mean that the ideas they were promoting should be banned. Since EEML members' actions de facto converted them into one collective editor, they should be treated as such, and that would be a solution, at least temporary, of the issue. In other words, the issue can be resolved if only one EEML member will be allowed to edit EE related articles. For example, if Radek wants to edit the invasion of Poland article, he is free to do that, however, by doing that he made the article banned for other EEML members. Of course, other members can discuss his edits with him, however, they will not be able to participate in the talk page discussions, in RfC's etc. I propose to lift a topic ban for Radek and for all other EEML members provided that two or more EEML members are not allowed to edit one article simultaneously (or to simultaneously participate in talk page discussions). --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. It is necessary to note that I also was an opponent of many EEML members.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Novickas

I see phrases used by R. above as not in keeping with a pledge to maintain high standards of conduct and minimize confrontation: 'misrepresenting the facts and in the process calling me a liar?', 'merely sling mud and hope that somehow it sticks', 'really really fishing for a crappy reason to hang an "oppose" on'. Addressing Russavia as 'my dear stalker' on April 30th[16] doesn't inspire confidence either. He could of course refactor or otherwise address those. But to me, using that language here says he hasn't internalized a less confrontational approach to WP disputes. It can be done - there are editors here working in really troublesome topics who contribute to resolution - in part by speaking calmly and neutrally. But I don't see R. as doing that at this point.

I like Paul Siebert's suggestion - altho it seems rather novel for WP. It wouldn't solve the problem posed by R.'s language, which has a conflict-escalating aspect, but it would act to reduce the teaming concerns. Like Paul, I note that I also was an opponent of many EEML members. Novickas (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I appreciate the support rationales. But I still worry that if R. returns to this area, and problems come up (they will), and other editors voice concerns, what if R again responds with 'my dear stalker'. You-all may, of course, feel that our skins should be thick enough to withstand those kinds of comments. I'd prefer to see first see some sort of commitment on R's part to moderate their language. Novickas (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those arbs supporting this motion - you are in effect saying it's OK that he used the words dick, troll, stalker, asshole, and quasi-Nazi after his topic ban. On the grounds that he made other valuable contributions. Now I don't think either Skap or I are asking for a groveling apology. There is a middle ground. That would be publicly acknowledging Skap's and my concerns in a respectful way. It's been done.

It would be nice if Coren clarified and expanded on 'any relapse is likely to be poorly received'. Do you, Coren, feel those weren't relapses; or that they were but they should be forgiven since enough time has passed since then; or that no evidence shows the kind of collusion he was topic banned for; or...? Novickas (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by dr.Loosmark

I cannot agree with the comments of the "opponent of many EEML members" Novickas and Skapparod too who seems to be blowing out of proportions old things, Skapparod's diffs seems to be from January!? To be totally honest I think it would be better if more really neutral editors would give input but ok that's not for me to say. Anyway I have carefully examined Radeksz's contributions to wikipedia since January and I don't see any problematic edits. Quite the contrary, I see he has really worked hard and made a huge number of quality contributions and there weren't any problems that I am aware of. Dr. Loosmark 18:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Recused from the EEML case. Shell ^babelfish 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct is that we should lift the topic ban, but I wonder whether something more nuanced and narrow can be written in its place. As Paul Siebert says, the problem was not lone editing, but banding together with other EEML members. Perhaps lift the ban, but impose a restriction on interacting with other former EEML members in EE topics. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This particular self-rightous creep is open to revisiting this sanction. One possibility is lifting the sanction for a trial period (say, a month) and seeing how things go. Another is to refer to the proposed narrower wording for all the topic-bans that I suggested on the proposed decision page at the time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

Remedy 10 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Radeksz topic banned") is rescinded.

(There being 14 arbitrators, five of whom are either inactive or recused, the majority is 5) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Steve Smith (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to explain my rationale, which is fair enough. The short version is that I think many of the EEML problems grew out of a bit of a mob mentality, and my experience with mobs is that once you get their members to engage as individuals, they're okay. Radek's plainly thinking for himself, has been well behaved during his sanction (including while editing on Poland-related stuff in response to the prior amendments to this case), and obviously has a lot to offer on Poland-related stuff, primarily on non-contentious Poland-related stuff. I'm not proposing this motion because I believe that the original sanction was wrong, but because I don't think it's serving much purpose at this point. Steve Smith (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer this to the status quo. Cool Hand Luke 17:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see good work being done since the time of the closing of the EEML case, and I believe a suitable period of time has passed. Risker (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the understanding that any relapse is likely to be poorly received. — Coren ^(talk) 20:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to try this (although it might be more clear if the motion said "terminated" rather than "rescinded"); see also my comments on the proposed decision page of the original case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate Skap's concerns and am almost swayed by them, I am going to support this per Risker and Steve. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Steve Smith. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Recused

Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Ferrylodge

Initiated by Anythingyouwant (talk) at 06:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Ferrylodge arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Ferrylodge Restricted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge_restricted
Restriction lifted

Statement by Anythingyouwant

First off, I want to notify Arbcom that I am now editing under a new username, instead of my old username which was Ferrylodge.

The restriction was imposed in 2007. Since then, I have edited many articles, including the articles subject to the restriction, and yet the log of blocks and bans is empty. Unless this was intended as a lifetime restriction, now would seem as good a time as any to lift it. This was a mild restriction, which did not prevent me from editing any article, and it would seem that a mild restriction is more appropriate for lifting than a more serious restriction. Lifting the restriction would allow me to interact with other editors on an equal basis, though of course I would abide by all applicable guidelines and policies (as I have been doing at the articles in question ever since the restriction was imposed). Thanks.

@Carcharoth - You're right, there have only been a few edits to that range of articles since April 2010. I just made a couple more a few minutes ago. None of them have been controversial. I only realized today that I should let ArbCom know about the name change, and I wasn't previously aware that it was an issue. Anyway, I would be glad to refrain from editing that range of articles until this request for lifting is disposed of. If the restriction is lifted, then I'll be in the position of everyone else who changes his/her name, and would be glad to do whatever they usually do. As far as notifying the old Arbitrators, I'll go do that now, and provide the diffs here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Since my present and past user and talk pages now cross-reference each other, I guess there is no need to refrain from editing any articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - Okay, here are the diffs (for all the old Arbs except Kirill who is apparently a glutton for punishment): Yellow Monkey/Blnguyen,jpgordon,Jdforrester/James F.,Morven,FloNight,Fred Bauder,Charles Matthews,Mackensen,Uninvited Company.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - Sure, I'll try to redirect the old userpage and user talk page and have a note on my new user page disclosing the previous username. I thought it might be simpler to just refrain from editing the articles in question until we see how this amendment request goes, but it's no big deal, I'll go do it and make a note of it here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - Okay, my new talk page and user page now say what the former user name was. However, I cannot edit the Ferrylodge talk and user pages, because they're protected. Please feel free to do the redirects, given that I apparently can't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - I took eight months off from Wikipedia,during which I did negligible editing, and then last month I started again with some IP edits before re-opening a named account. I mentioned at the named account talk page that I made some IP edits, just to be very open and unambiguous about it. I would be glad to provide diffs of those edits as best as I can reconstruct them (my IP address was not always the same). However, it would be much easier to just provide the diffs regarding edits to the range of articles in question. Would that be adequate? I'll get started on it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - Okay, by way of introduction, I was the main editor who brought the Roe v. Wade article through Featured Article Review in 2007,[17] and I think that's the only relevant article where I've made IP edits, all of which were made a few days ago before I resumed full editing under a username. Here are the diffs in chronological order (most of them were consecutive and none have been reverted or contested): [18],[19],[20][21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32] (the last one reverted vandalism while the edit summary had some slight humor).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - I don't think the remedy in my case authorized any admin to impose a topic ban; at least, I've not heard that said before. It was an article-by-article remedy: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." And, of course, I was never subsequently banned from any such article. Nada. As for the other thing, yes, I am clear why the remedy was imposed in the first place, and will be much more careful so as not to return to the conduct that led to that remedy being imposed. With one caveat. Part of the remedy was to overturn a complete ban from Wikipedia, which was a completely absurd ban as ArbCom recognized (much like the later failed attempts by involved administrators to have the article-by-article remedy enforced). I do not feel responsible for ill-advised administrative action that may occur in the future, though I will do my best to avoid it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - Sure, I'll try to track that stuff down.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - Here ya go: [33],[34],[35],[36]. All were properly denied because there was no violation of the remedy. Frankly, the repeated requests for enforcement, even though unwarranted, have disinclined me somewhat to edit the articles in question, because responding to such things is a real pain (as was participating in the ArbCom proceeding in 2007, no offense intended).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - The previous four links were from Arbitration Enforcement. There were also a couple further rejected requests that got ArbCom involved again; see the bottom of the talk page for the Ferrylodge Arbcom case.[37]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell - MastCell and I have had interactions at other articles that I have edited, in addition to articles that are within the scope of this ArbCom remedy. Call that a coincidence if you like. If I were an Admin, for example, I would have blocked him long ago for POV-pushing, harassment, wiki-stalking, and vandalism at the Clarence Thomas article. But, as I said, that's all outside the scope of this ArbCom remedy, and MastCell has not linked to any article that is within the scope of this ArbCom remedy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shell - I left Wikipedia for eight months because of what happened with MastCell at the Clarence Thomas article, which included expansion of my block log. If that incident (and a comment I made about it) is to be ArbCom's reason for maintaining a lifetime restriction on me for an entirely different set of articles, then perhaps you should look at what happened at the Clarence Thomas article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ - KillerChihuahua, the comment MastCell linked to relates to what happened at a completely different article, unrelated to the set of articles at issue here. Please note that the "very long ANI thread and subsequent Rfc" that KillerChihuaua mentions is from three years ago, and is therefore unrelated to events after the restriction was imposed on me in 2007. And in answer to KC's question ("Why, is he planning on being disruptive?") the answer is of course "no." I am tired of having to defend against meritless enforcement actions, and interminable requests to expand the remedy, which have made me reluctant to touch the articles in question. I want to be treated as an equal, instead of as a pariah forever. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ - KillerChihuahua - KC is incorrect that I've not significantly edited the articles in question since 2007. As Risker mentioned, I have indeed done so. For example, as KC must know, I started and MCed the biggest and longest RFC that has ever occurred at the Abortion talk page, resulting in substantial edits to that article. I've also tried to maintain the Roe v. Wade article as a featured article. Plus various edits to other articles in this category. I can provide a list of diffs going back to 2007 if people want. If I had not been editing the articles in question, then there would not have been four groundless enforcement requests, and two groundless further requests to ArbCom regarding the remedy. All the same, KC is correct that I have given up on the Fetus article, though I documented at that talk page why the article is a hopeless POV propaganda piece.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist - Thanks, but I'd rather do without that luxury. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell - Thanks for not objecting to lifting the remedy. Regarding the Clarence Thomas BLP that MastCell thinks is significant here, anyone can go look in my block log, see that I was blocked for 3rr at Clarence Thomas, and then confirm that I did not revert three times within 24 hours (MastCell requested the block though another admin implemented it). Moreover, anyone can confirm that what I removed from that article was a single item by a source and publisher that had called Thomas a "rodent in robes", after I specifically explained at the talk page that the source was not reliable and violated BLP policy. So, sure, if people want to make this about an article that has nothing to do with the ArbCom remedy, please do. And you can go look at the exact time when MastCell showed up at the Clarence Thomas article, and compare that with the time when he finally ceased the multiple groundless remedial actions against me regarding the present remedy. And go look at the Clarence Thomas talk page as it exists right now, to see MastCell trying to explain why he removed two New York Times footnotes from the article without so much as mentioning such in his edit summary, and completely failing to rebut an accusation that he was inventing stuff "out of thin air". Do I have to agree with every single administrative action that has ever been taken against me at unrelated articles?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Coren - The diff to which you refer was mainly about the Clarence Thomas article, and did not mention any article subject to the present remedy. Is that Thomas article within the scope of the present remedy? My many edits at the articles subject to this remedy have not been disruptive during 2008, 2009, and 2010 which kind of indicates (to me) that I know how to not be disruptive. I have no desire to go through this nightmare again, so you can be assured that I will not be as confrontational. The log of blocks and bans is empty. What more can I do?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - OK, thanks. By the way, I realize that an apology from me, or something like that, might be helpful to getting the remedy lifted. But all I can say is that I'm older, wiser, and less confrontational now than before. Also, I am glad to support people like KillerChihuahua when I think she's right.[38]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocksanddirt - Like Coren, you cite a comment of mine that MastCell linked to. That comment of mine did not mention anything about this restriction, or anything about any article subject to this restriction. If ArbCom wants to turn this into a lifetime restriction based on an unrelated comment of mine, then I suppose ArbCom can do that. But the fact is that MastCell joined me at another unrelated article, and requested that I be blocked me there. I still disagree with that block. But can we consider the articles subject to this restriction, please? I am not disagreeing now with any prior block at those articles. I would have done differently in those situations if I could do them over again, but don't take my word for it. Look at the emptiness of the log of blocks and bans for this ArbCom case, despite numerous edits at the articles in question. I've acknowledged responsibility for this restriction. Was I acting in a vacuum, and was everyone else involved behaving with utmost purity? No, I don't think they were. But I should have done better myself. I feel entitled to be upset about the many dozens of hours and days that I had to spend fending off MastCell's multiple unsuccessful requests for arbitration enforcement and remedy expansion. All of those attempts were denied, because my edits did not justify them. Surely, my being upset about all that wasted time does not mean that the whole arrangement needs to be extended for the rest of my life, does it?..Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlevse - You say, "Oppose changes per Coren." But Coren said, "I would not oppose a lifting of the sanction." Please clarify. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, if you unlike Coren are opposed to lifting this restriction, I'd just like to emphasize that (to the best of my recollection) MastCell had no involvement whatsoever with the imposition of this restriction. So, I don't see the relevance of the remark to MastCell that you're relying on. When I expressed frustration with MastCell, it was not because of imposition of this restriction, but rather because of other stuff that I've briefly described above (e.g. repeated unjustified attempts to enforce and expand this restriction, plus events at the Clarence Thomas article). I don't know how the record over the past 2.5 years could be any clearer, or my remarks here in this thread could more clearly show that I have no intention of doing anything that would get me blocked at the articles in question. If people edit-war or hurl insults or do anything else that I don't like at the articles in question, I'm not going to respond in kind. I haven't for the past 2.5 years, and won't in the future. What more assurance can I give?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

I'm not necessarily opposed to lifting the sanction (it was ineffectual anyway, and efforts to enforce it tended to bog down in legalistic parsing of "articles" vs. "pages"). I do hope that the reviewing Arbs will look at the enforcement requests linked by Anythingyouwant, since I don't personally think they're as he's represented them. I do think that there should be some straightforward means of addressing a return to the previously recognized "long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion", short of returning to ArbCom, but that's just me. In contrast to Carcharoth, I am not particularly optimistic about Anythingyouwant's assurances that he understands the reason for the findings against him, based in part on these sorts of responses. MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to break my rule. What happened at Clarence Thomas doesn't seem particularly relevant here, but it's a matter of record should anyone care. Ferrylodge accepts no responsibility for the actions which led to his block, and instead views it as an unfair machination on my part. As a result, I don't share Risker's optimism that Ferrylodge's outlook has changed. But I don't really object to lifting the remedy - as I mentioned, it proved unworkable and toothless in practice anyway. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

I have seen nothing to indicate that Ferrylodge, now Anythingyouwant, has any concept of why he was placed under restriction - the comment MastCell linked to indicates denial and hostility, not understanding and determination to amend his ways. I have seen similar denial when he was blocked by Bishonen for harassment (of me, incidentally) - he carried his strident denial of wrongdoing through a very long ANI thread and subsequent Rfc, and never indicated he understood the problems his behavior caused. I do see him requesting a lifting of what amounts to a gentle admonishment, combined with a heightened scrutiny, or to put it another way, a lower tolerance, as he has - to be somewhat vulgar - "used up" his allotment of reminders and passes. In short, he requests that the sanction that he can be blocked or banned from an article in the topic area where he has caused massive problems before, if he is disruptive, be lifted. Why, is he planning on being disruptive? I ask not to be sarcastic but in all seriousness, as a Socriatic examination of rationale. If he has no plans to be disruptive, to push the envelope, to see what he can "get away with", I fail to see that he would gain anything. If, on the other hand,he does feel the need to have this lifted, my concerns are raised that perhaps he plans to re-enter the "arena" as it were, with renewed vigor. That is not a desirable thing to happen. I recommend the sanction, such as it is, be left in place. He will have no concerns if he keeps his manner civil and his editing collegial. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FL is correct in that I have no recent encounters with him - he virtually ceased from editing Abortion related articles after 2007, and indeed retired for some time. That I cannot comment on his recent record is due to the issue that there is not much of a recent record on which to comment, rather than that he's been editing peacefully and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

In an event that it is lifted, and then the sanction needs to be reimposed, the community already has a growing list of matters where sanction proposals need to be put out there to be enacted (see my talk for an example) - it doesn't need yet another one on the list if a previous remedy could have stayed for the time-being. This is not an actual topic ban or page ban or wide-encompassing probation that needs to be lifted. I also don't see any evidence of editors citing the restriction to intimidate Anythingyouwant, so I'd reject the argument that there is uneven footing here that disadvantages Anythingyouwant. On a simplistic level, the only difference is others don't have the luxury of being article-banned instead of being blocked from the entire site if they edit disruptively. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, that is probably why it was/is involuntary. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved User:Rocksanddirt

In the original community ban discussion, the appealant in this case made a tremendous amount of arguementation around and beside the question of editing restrictions, but not addressing the concerns that were raised. This seems to be the case in this request also. Based on the comment in the link from mastcell, I don't think the user understands why an editing restriction was placed and why a community ban/restriction discussion happened. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Earlier comments collapsed for readability

Waiting for statements from the other parties that have been notified, but making initial comments as well. It would be courteous to also notify the (mostly now former) arbitrators who made this decision, as they may have some insights here as well. While we wait, I've been checking that the return of Anythingyouwant (who was renamed from a previous username) all got sorted out OK. I see the talk page was fully restored, but there are some deleted edits at the old user page, what should be done with those? Also, I think the old userpage and talk page (before the rename in July 2009) should be redirected to the current pages or some notice placed there for those who click on the old username which is still linked from several places and in histories. There was also something last year about ArbCom restricted users not renaming, but as your case was in 2007, and you renamed in 2009, you might not have been aware of that. The one additional question I have at the moment is whether you edited articles subject to the restriction since April 2010 (when you returned), as it might not have been clear to everyone who you were? I see only one edit, which was after you filed this amendment: [39]. You really need to make clearer who you used to be before you make edits in that area, as otherwise you are effectively evading scrutiny that could be applied under the restriction you are asking to be amended. Not everyone will realise or know what your former username was. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notifications, Anythingyouwant. Do you think you could also redirect the old userpage and user talk page and have a note on your user page disclosing your previous username? This is not normally required, but it is in this case because in order for the remedy to have any meaning, people need to know that you are still (despite the rename) under this remedy. Once we get to that point, we can then wait for others to add their statements. Carcharoth (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Update: I've unprotected and redirected the old user pages - there is also an entry at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians that needs removing or updating. 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, another question has occurred to me. In a thread in the history of your talk page, you mentioned that you had done occasional editing as an IP before returning to this account. To properly assess the amendment request, we would need your full editing history here following the case. It would be best if you fully disclosed those edits, either here or by e-mail (the latter if there are privacy concerns). Would you be prepared to do that? Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further updates. Provisionally, I can't see any reason not to lift the remedy (which wasn't an actual restriction, only providing admins the option ~~to topic ban you~~ for article-by-article bans), providing you are clear why it was imposed in the first place, and won't return to the conduct that led to that remedy being imposed. I say provisionally, because I will still be watching this request to see what those you have notified (one of whom has been inactive for nearly a month, the other having been more active recently) have to say, plus any former arbs who chose to comment, and obviously what the rest of the current ArbCom have to say (and they would have to vote on any motion as well). But I'm happy there is enough information here to go on so far. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Quibble addressed. 19:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, you say there were "failed attempts by involved administrators to have the article-by-article remedy enforced"? That sounds like something that should be in the records somewhere and could be linked to. Could you link to those discussions please? Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my views here to say that I share the concern by some that Anythingyouwant does appear to be somewhat abrasive at times, while noting that this behaviour is seen in others who edit the articles in question. I would prefer to see the restriction lifted and the community (and if necessary ArbCom if community-level actions failed) to review the behaviour of all parties at such articles. While the Ferrylodge arbitration case did include a finding against the editor now called Anythingyouwant, my impression from reading through the pages and histories in question is that this is a hot-button topic (much as some of the US politics that has been touched on here is a hot-button issue as well) and if anything more people should be under such restrictions (there may even be a case for discretionary article or topic sanctions). But rather than leave old restrictions in place (there is no real justification for restrictions of this nature to remain in place for what is now 2.5 years), it would be better to have them lifted to enable a proper review to take place after a few weeks or months of editing by the current community of editors at those articles. I would point out to Anythingyouwant, though, that even if the remedy is lifted, your history here would mean that you would be likely given harsher sanctions if any subsequent dispute returned to ArbCom and you were found to be at fault. And Ncmvocalist is correct to point out that the lifting of this remedy would give other editors more latitude to propose site bans for disruptive conduct, though as I said before, I would hope that the conduct of all involved editors would be reviewed if it ever got to that stage. More generally, given that the committee members who have commented so far are fairly evenly split, I will wait a bit longer before proposing a motion - it may be several weeks before this gets fully resolved, so please be patient. Carcharoth (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a few more comments here than just the appellant, but right now I don't see any reason to remove the restriction. There don't appear to be any current article bans in place, so I don't believe this will prevent you from editing but we have very little to go on here and edits like the one MastCell points out aren't very promising. This gives administrators a tool to deal with any behavioral concerns given your past history of them. Shell ^babelfish 14:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. I've edited cooperatively with the user. Cool Hand Luke 15:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support lifting remedy - Ferrylodge (editing under that account name) appears to have been constructive in his editing of Abortion and Talk:Abortion in the fall/winter of 2008-09; there were no sanctions imposed on him at that time, nor was he restricted by administrators. I appreciate that his behaviour in the period before the sanctions were imposed were sufficiently unacceptable to lead to an arbitration case and sanctions; however, there does appear to have been a tacit recognition that his behaviour needed to change. In the current editing climate, the community (and individual administrators) is much more willing to address problematic behaviour without the direct intervention of the Arbitration Committee, and I have little doubt that if there are recurrent problems, the community can at least get the ball rolling on any needed sanctions. Risker (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I can empathize with the desire to see a restriction lifted, even though it has no effective effect at this time, statements like this worry me enough that you might not have understood why it was imposed to begin with to make me hesitate. At this time, I see no compelling argument either way, and while I would not oppose a lifting of the sanction I cannot support it either. — Coren ^(talk) 22:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changes per Coren..."statements like this worry me enough that you might not have understood why it was imposed to begin with...I cannot support it either." — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf

Initiated by — Jeff G. ツ at 05:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Tothwolf arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

JBsupreme warned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Jeff G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

JBsupreme (diff of notification of this thread on JBsupreme's talk page)
Jeff G. (diff of creation of this thread, for completeness)

Amendment 1

The link to the remedy is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#JBsupreme_warned.
I would like to change the remedy to:

1) JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Statement by Jeff G.

Accompanying edits with diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued (since the warning in the original remedy) making edits with problematic edit summaries, which are uncivil, contain personal attacks, or contain assumptions of bad faith. This behavior has been despite the warning in the original remedy, and despite attempts to change the user's behavior (since the warning in the original remedy) via user talk page posts by multiple editors, including Amalthea, Jéské Couriano, Maunus, and Will Beback. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive531#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries_.28again.29 for background. In addition, that user's user talk page currently stands at a rather unwieldy 228 kilobytes, and the user has actively declined to archive it or even index it. — Jeff G. ツ 05:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor: User:Maunus

It seems to me that this amendment is necessary in order to have any kind of administrative leverage against this long time pattern of verbal abuse which does not contribute to making wikipedia a friendly and good work environment. It seems to me that JBSupreme is wilfully ignoring any request about changing his behaviour and the banner above his talk page[40] suggests the same. It feels to me like the system is being intentionally gamed here in a fashion that cannot be avoided untill an amendment like the proposed one is applied.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JBSupreme is editing again. [41][42][43][44]·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeff G. (2)

Many others have tried to counsel JBsupreme by posting on that user's user talk page, only to be countered by summary removal of their posts by that user. For further background, please see:

11 September 2008 - Reversions by user JBSupreme
25 April 2009 - User:JBSupreme's continued inappropriateness
11 May 2009 - JBsupreme edit summaries again

Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Niteshift36

There wasn't a lot of support about this at ANI and for good reason. The complainant seems to be making a project out of this. While JB might not be polite, he's really not making personal attacks (which was the original complaint). Further, this seems to have started when the complainant kept trying to add a link to a deleted article onto a list (for reasons he has yet to explain) and got his nose out of joint over it. As I said at ANI, frankly, I just don't care if some vandal gets his feelings hurt and I think it's a big waste of time to jump through all these hoops over it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeff G. (3)

I would also like to change the heading for that section to a more appropriate one, such as "JBsupreme restricted". — Jeff G. ツ 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries_.28again.29 has now been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries_.28again.29. — Jeff G. ツ 01:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking note of Maunus's post here of 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC) and Will Beback's post here of 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC), JBsupreme used this edit to delete Newyorkbrad's post from their user talk page, and has not commented there or here in the 69.5 hours since then, despite 20 intervening edits in two sessions, and has thus posted with four more questionable edit summaries and has continued "refusing to respond to good-faith criticism". — Jeff G. ツ 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request has been open for a month now. JBsupreme is editing again, has deleted Maunus's post to their user talk page, continues "refusing to respond to good-faith criticism", and continues using questionable edit summaries.[45] — Jeff G. ツ 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

I have no involvement in this matter other than leaving a note on JBsupreme's talk page and some minimal comments at ANI. However I see that, in addition to incivility, the previous decision also faulted JBsupreme for "refusing to respond to good-faith criticism". JeffG posted his ANI complaint at 05:33, 14 May 2010. JBsupreme made his most recent edit 05:15, May 14, 2010, just 18 minutes earlier. It appears that he has not responded to the good-faith criticism on his user talk page, on the ANI thread, or here. Will Beback talk 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrencekhoo

I had some brief interactions with JBsupreme a couple of years ago and found him problematic to work with. He's not very response on talk pages, and his edit summaries tend to the impolite. Perusing his edit history, it appears that he has only gotten worse in that respect. LK (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

JBsupreme hasn't edited since May 14. Pcap ping 17:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's been six days now. There is no rush (a look at his contributions during the current calendar year shows that he has had periods of at least a week's absence before), and the thing to do now is be patient and wait, but at some point we will need to work out another way to resolve this if there is no response after 10 days or so. Carcharoth (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the post Brad made earlier can be assumed to have been read by JBsupreme (blanking such messages is not disallowed), and there was a follow-up post here. I would much prefer JBsupreme to make a statement here, and now that they have edited since the amendment was opened, I will ask them to make a statement here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

No time to write a full response here, but on an initial perusal of the edit summaries used by JBsupreme, I am not impressed at all. All those edit summaries are viewable by anyone reading or editing this website, and are undoubtedly read by more than just the people they were directed at. I will wait to hear what JBsupreme has to say, but I am tempted to add an enforceable remedy to this case by motion to address this ongoing conduct. A general observation I would also make is that while it is tempting for any editor to act the way they want to act, or feel they can act, some restraint is needed, and gratuitous incivility and lack of restraint over a long period of time is something that should be addressed eventually, especially when it is possible to say the same thing in a more restrained manner. There is no prize for coming up with the most cutting and biting edit summaries possible. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC) (Noting here to maintain a transparent record of earlier dialogue: [46], [47])[reply]
I'm in agreement with Carcharoth here; the edit summaries provided seem well outside of the normal decorum expected when editing. Shell ^babelfish 06:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carcharoth, Shell Kinney, and several of the commenters that the pattern of edit summaries is unbecoming and unhelpful, particularly in light of the warning in the prior case. I also take note that JBSupreme has not edited for almost two weeks. In that light, rather than keep this request open indefinitely, I am going to place a notice on his talkpage calling his attention to this request and asking that his edit summaries adhere to the guidelines of civility and NPA in the future. Hopefully this will resolve the problem; if it does not and JBSupreme continues to submit inappropriate edit summaries, the request for an amendment may be renewed, with a link to this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's been editing again, and at least four people (including NYB and Carcharoth) have left messages about the summaries. He's not responding. Support a motion. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

Remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf ("re JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) is changed to read "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

Support

— Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - generally support this, but would there be objections to making this a new remedy (2.1?) rather than having it replace the current, still applicable remedy? Steve Smith (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Recuse