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 (3)

Initiated by Miacek 10:29, 28 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 20

[1]
This is a request to amend EEML Remedy 20 to end the topic ban that applies to Miacek and allow him to edit articles related to Eastern Europe.

Miacek (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

Statement of Miacek

As a result of this Arbitration case, I was topicbanned from articles on Eastern Europe. I would like to emphasise, that the overwhelming majority of my contributions has been to the Eastern European topics, in which I have hopefully have some expertise, or just interest.

As I tried to explain during the arbitration case, my active participation in the list was occasional, and I did not ask anyone to edit-war in tandem or to support my POV. It would have been difficult, too, because I happened to disagree with some users on issues of deletion etc. What I was found guilty of and what I cannot deny either was the e-mail I sent to the list, regarding the proposed deletion of an article I created (Derzhava). I will not canvass anyone in the future, nor will I join a list similar to the EEML (that I actually left a few months before it was discovered).

There is another thing that I was listed as guilty of, hence I will briefly have to comment on it [2]. I found it regrettable that this was included as evidence, because I strongly disapprove of sock puppetry, account sharing games etc. This comment was meant as an ironic note, because one of the list members had engaged in exactly this kind of misbehaviour. There was no serious offer: I would hardly want to share an account with Molobo, who has very different interests and POV compared with mine. I also had more or less normal relations with User:Russavia [3], with whom I sometimes disagreed but never considered him a menace, as some users (who were not topicbanned in December) actually seemed to do.

Because of the ban I have had to transfer my activities to Wikipedia editions in other languages, mostly German Wikipedia, with occasional edits to the Russian and Estonian Wikipedias. However, I find all those ('national') encyclopedias rather parochial and hence prefer the English Wikipedia with its more universal approach. During the last 6 months, I have made just over 300 edits here, most of those simple reverts of vandalism (my overall edit count should be around 6300 on en.wiki). Hence, I believe that lifting my ban would be beneficial for the Wikipedia, as I could start contributing to the Eastern Europe topics again. I have not been found guilty of repeated edit warring or POV pushing and will not engage in such behaviour in the future. I have tried to maintain a neutral, not nationally motivated stance on Eastern Europe topics, where pro-Soviet/anti-Soviet, pro-/anti-Russia POVs tend to occur and will do so in the future. I also promise to follow the remedies of the EEML case.

Some plans for the future

start/translate Zjednoczenie Patriotyczne "Grunwald"
Kharakhoba (a Russian exclave wihtin Azeri territory)
Rady Fisch, a Soviet orientalist
Union of Russian Patriots
Mi(k)hail Guboglo, a linguist of Gagauz origin.
post a proposal how we might stop persistent small-scale edit warring at Meša Selimović and find a compromise

Statement by other editors

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

Assuming the facts stated are correct, I support this amendment - this editor has clearly been more than sufficiently "punished" for very minor wrongdoings, and restricting productive editors is actually punishing not just them, but Wikipedia as well.--Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 30 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

Allowing a couple of days in case any other editors want to comment, but in the absence of any significant problems in the past few months not discussed above, I am inclined to grant this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand, I'd be willing to support. I'll wait for more comments. SirFozzie (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recused on EEML. Roger Davies ^talk 12:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European mailing list (2)

Initiated by — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk at 03:04, 27 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 3

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Piotrus

Amendment 1

[4]
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 Malik Shabazz

It has been more than six months since Piotrus was blocked and topic-banned. Since his return, he has been productive in other areas of Wikipedia. He has carefully observed the terms of his topic ban and avoided areas related to Eastern Europe.

Piotrus and I have a history. We got off on the wrong foot and found ourselves on opposite sides of edit wars that shouldn't have taken place. Since that time, he and I have mended fences. We've come to respect one another and I consider him one of my "Wikifriends". I was proud to have his support at my RfA.

Before his topic ban, Piotrus was very productive in articles having to do with Poland. He is responsible for 15 featured articles and 15 good articles (including 3 A-class articles) on Poland-related subjects.

In addition to his article-writing, Piotrus was the main force behind WP:POLAND. For a list of the tasks he performed, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 3#Future of WikiProject Poland - assistants needed. He carried out these duties without asking for any special recognition; his only "reward" was the satisfaction of improving the encyclopedia.

Pursuant to the motion enacted May 5, Piotrus was allowed to "raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban" at WT:POLAND. I have found his assistance at that page to be invaluable. (Please see WT:POLAND#Piotrus' to do list #1 for examples of what's been involved.) I and a few others have tried to keep up with Piotrus' suggestions, but this represents but a fraction of what should be done for the WikiProject; it is also a very inefficient way of getting things done.

As one example of his noncontroversial editing this year, Piotrus has used his class at the University of Pittsburgh to improve the encyclopedia and try to bring several articles to GA status. (Please see Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Summer 2010 for details.) He has also become involved to a greater extent with WP:SOCIOLOGY. Since coming back to Wikipedia, he has had two (non-EE) articles promoted to GA and written 15 DYKs.

I believe Piotrus has learned from his mistakes in the EEML case and should be allowed once again to edit in the subject area of Eastern Europe.

Statement by Skäpperöd

Constructive edits to sociology topics, where Piotrus has some expertise, must not be used as a basis for granting Piotrus access to EE topics again, where he used the same expertise in a malicious way for years:

the 2006 RfC on Piotrus already contained evidence for canvassing and agitation in favour of his group and against his group's targets.
the 2007 Piotrus Arbcom has acknowledged the battlefield but tried an amnesty solution. This approach has failed and was replaced by the discretionary sanctions of the subsequent Digwuren Arbcom.
the 2008 Piotrus2 Arbcom (later renamed EED) acknowledged that off-wiki coordination by Piotrus' group is "almost certain", but refrained from passing a respective remedy because it lacked "definitive proof"
the 2009 EEML Arbcom was equipped with that definitive proof, identified Piotrus as a "ringleader" guilty of cover-up actions, abuse of administrator tools, a "variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring (...), abuse of dispute resolution processes (...), proxying for a blocked user (...) and encouraging and advising list members to circumvent Wikipedia policies", and canvassing
in Nov 2009, a month before the case's closure, Piotrus participated in the Tylman votestacking
in Dec 2009 Piotrus was identified by Radeksz as still coordinating off-wiki (the months thereafter, he served his block)

There are few editors with a similar record of disruption, which has already caused a huge level of stress and waste of time (add up the kB of the above linked cases for a start). What makes Piotrus' case quite extraordinary is his long-term successful deception, including impertinences such as:

Piotrus' proposed FoF in the Piotrus2 Arbcom, reading "There is no group (WP:CABAL, WP:TAGTEAM) of Polish editor acting together violating policies and damaging this project. Piotrus is not a leader of such a (nonexistent) group."
Piotrus' reply to Irpen's offer for a fresh start: "I have not done the things...", "I can promise you I will not 'call in reverts' to create battlegrounds, I will not stack votes with otherwise uninterested meatpuppets, I will not seek to block content opponents..."

The "prolific Piotrus" and the "malicious Piotrus" are one and the same person, and the latter had long enough been free to deceive the project, including Arbcom, hiding behind the first. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

I have asked Malik to post this request on my behalf, as a representative of WikiProject Poland and an editor familiar with my editing history (both past and present). I believe that Wikipedia is a project build on trust and cooperation among the users, and thus I am heartened that he has agreed to do this; his (and WP:POLAND's) support means a lot to me.

I have learned over the years that no matter how good one's intentions, it is all too easy to fall down a slippery slope. Having seen what happens when one descends this route, I plan on ensuring that errors of the past will not repeat themselves in the future.

It has been about a year since any complaint about my editing was raised (in the arbitration case I am asking to be amended). I have contributed, uncontroversially, to EE-related subjects for years before (including in the 4-month period that the case was ongoing). I have, over the years, till late December, contributed over ~20 FAs, ~20 GAs and ~300 DYKs, roughly ~90% of them in the Eastern European subjects). Even after the case ended, I was able to help out with addressing the BLP issues and then GAing Lech Wałęsa article. Throughout that time, I contributed uncontroversially to Polish Wikipedia, Polish and English Wikisource, and the Commons projects. I have written several GAs and over a dozen DYKs in the past few months on English Wikipedia as well.

I would like to return to my former levels of activity, in my areas of expertise (Eastern Europe), just like after a six months break I was able to resume clean up work for WP:POLAND. I have a nearly finished Poland-history-related Featured Article rusting in my sandbox on Polish Wikipedia. I would like to resume my work on creating the economic history of Poland article. I would like to resume GA work on Juliusz Słowacki. A sample list of further article content subjects I plan to work on is visible on my userpage (usually I go through most of my to-do boxes in few months; obviously they have been mostly frozen since last December). There are also many wikiproject gnomish tasks I cannot help out with (and which are not being carried out) (more "to do" not being done). I often spot vandalism on my 3k+ watchlist, but instead of reverting it I have to report it to AIV or arbitrators I see online, which often means it takes hours between I see vandalism and it is reverted. And being able to answer simple requests from help, including those from sitting Arbitrators, instead of directing them to WT:POLAND, would be nice, too.

On a final note, I'd like to echo Radeksz calls for all editors in Eastern Europe to assume good faith and work collaboratively. This is what this project is about. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Skäpperöd (first and only, I don't intend to engage in discussion on those pages, per the rules here): I am impressed you managed to post your statement so swiftly, even before I managed to post mine. I will just repeat what others have said in response to your comments in other recent amendments: 1) do you have any diffs from this year to bring, instead of rehashing old history? 2) Can you explain how this amendment would damage (instead of helping) the project - i.e. focus on the future, not the past (again...)? And 3) please stop misrepresenting what happened: a) the 2006 (2006, seriously?) RfC had no evidence, but unfounded allegations, not supported by majority of editors b) the 2008 ArbCom finding you cite did not mention any side or editor, you insert "Piotrus' group" without any basis, badly misrepresenting that finding c) I was within my right to vote in that AfD, the vote was not coordinated d) the mailing group, as stated before (including, I am sure, in the evidence archive) was created in December 2008; please stop alleging to the contrary. Lastly: I respect the work you have done in relation to German-Polish history and related subjects, and I'd hope you could see beyond our differences, assume good faith and try to work together with me and others to create a better project, in the spirit of good-faithed cooperation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darwinek

I always perceived a global all-encompassing topic ban on Central and Eatern European topics as too harsh. One can edit or create articles about e.g. Poland or Belarus without any controversy. The current ban prohibits Piotrus to create e.g. even a tiny stub about, say, some Russian economist or Polish river. I think the current ban should be ammended and liberalized. I believe Piotrus will not misuse it and will be of great help to WikiProject Poland, where he was most active in the past. I am sure he learned from his past mistakes and would responsibly use his ability to edit the Central and East European articles again. - Darwinek (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lysy

If Piotrus served his so far de-facto probation well then it seems to prove that the sanctions did their job, are no longer needed, and in fact are harmful to the project content-wise. However, if the amendment is accepted and the ban is raised, I would suggest asking Piotrus for a parole, to help him remember that he should treat any Eastern-European issues in the same constructive manner as any other articles. Other than that, I'm totally for lifting the sanctions, as they seem to serve no purpose now. As for the Skäpperöd's comments, none of them seems relevant to the recent half a year period that is discussed here as the base for the amendment request. --Lysy^talk 08:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deacon of Pndpetzim

Essentially Piotrus' argument is: I might realise some of the things that happened in the past are unfortunate, but listen guys, I've been banned from this area for a few months and in those few months I haven't done anything bad in the area. So, obviously the ban is pointless and if you make me serve the ban I was originally given, you are being crueler than you need to be and depriving the 'Pedia of great content.

It is not news that Piotrus did a lot of writing for Polish and eastern European history articles. We knew that when we imposed the ban. The problem we had with Piotrus (or his side-kick Radek for that matter) is not this, nor that we discovered that all the allegations of co-ordinated bullying, edit-warring, wikilawyering and so on which had been leveled at him for years and ignored turned out to be true, but rather that that wasn't even the half of it.

You discovered that email archive, and you acted ... you sent out a message. You can of course be sure that they learned not to be so stupid as to have a email list that size and to record it so zealously. But you actually think they'll stop this kind of thing? Why would they? It was great for them ... and worked well, only trouble was that it leaked. So now that he has been caught and topic-banned, it is to be believed that he therefore saw the moral error of his ways? ;) Yeah, of course. He must have.

But sure, he might have ... he just might have. It is no matter, you guys don't know either way. And as appealing to your conscience as it might be to "give the benefit of the doubt", you have a responsibility to treat the possibility of gross misconduct as seriously as history suggests you should.

Moreover, you have already passed judgment on these offenses, offenses of the highest gravity. Is upholding previous ArbCom sanctions made in the aftermath of a long investigation against a background of rare community outrage really something that needs to trouble us as much as is being suggested? If the previous rulings were just a political show to quell the outrage which existed at the time, then sure you would revisit it after a few months. If you take it seriously otherwise, then overturning or significantly lightening the bans is very brave message to send to future perpetrators of such activity or to those contemplating such activity.

Finally, Piotrus has expertise in sociology and economics, and it is good that he can focus his attention there. It is good that he can focus his efforts there rather than in areas where he has a strong bias and a history of using wiki-gansterism and co-ordinated edit-warring in pursuit of ideological goals, where he has previously conspired to and succeeded by such methods in undermining and circumventing natural wikipedia safeguards like WP:NPOV, WP:BRD, WP:EW and so on. It is however very important for Piotrus to learn ... and for others to learn ... that once you do certain things, Wikipedia will come down on you and you won't get out of it just by waiting a few months and convincing a friend in good standing to make a case for you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Charles Matthews

My experience as a past ArbCom member is that Piotrus is rather good at the wheedling tone (which he can employ on behalf of allies, however egregious their shortcomings). As editors, we have met on the site infrequently, but when we did it was shortly after the close of the second Eastern Europe case. My impression was that Piotrus had learned nothing: plain advocacy of a Polish-centred POV, warnings against conspiratorial Lithuanians, and so on. I think the ArbCom should apply here a thought from the old book of remedies, namely that sanctions which create a good editor out of a troublesome one are advantageous to the site. I would oppose varying them until there was evidence of a more profound change of heart. This seems a routine appeal based on the passage of time. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kotniski

As usual, I fully support relaxation of Piotrus' restrictions, which seem to serve no purpose except to deprive Wikipedia of the useful contributions of a very productive editor. Whatever he is supposed to have done wrong, I think it's pretty clear he isn't going to do it again now that all eyes are on him.--Kotniski (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nihil novi

The lifting of over-reaching sanctions seems to me the preferable course. Everyone commits transgressions, and these should be monitored for. But one no longer imposes long-term banishments or capital punishment for the hundreds of crimes and misdemeanors for which such drastic sanctions were applied as recently as a couple of centuries ago. Nihil novi (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Igny

My statement seems superfluous by now, but after looking over recent history of Piotrus contributions, and knowing quite well the positive influence Piotrus had on all the usual hotheads in EE disputes, I fully support lifting the sanctions. (Igny (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Jan eissfeldt

i contributed to the amendment-request in april by raising the point of his university cooperation projects. therefore, i have the feeling that i have the duty to report the review results of his spring-project (may-june):

as long as i can see now, it worked without guideline problems or conflicts and the participants improved social- and political science related articles like periphery countries and great divergence. his project reached the well-established standards in the content- as well as the perspective of civilized behavior, best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 15:20, 2 July 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

I have always thought that some of the remedies in the Eastern European mailing list case swept much too broadly, although my suggestions to this effect (see the proposed decision page in the case) were not agreeable to the other arbitrators. In this instance, I think some relief from the sanction is appropriate at this stage, but I am not sure whether the better course is to lift it altogether (and then closely monitor developments!) or to more narrowly tailor it to the specific areas of conflict. I would appreciate some input on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recused on EEML. Roger Davies ^talk 12:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts at this point are not to lift the sanctions in this case. SirFozzie (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Lysy

Yes, absolutely. Both proposed categories are lacking a lot, so having an active editor there could only be of benefit. Besides, it would allow Biruitorul to prove that he/she can edit in a harmonious and proper way in his/her area of interest. Eastern European topics lack good, mature editors. --Lysy^talk 13:58, 27 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

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

Remedy 17 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Biruitorul topic banned") is lifted.

Support

Of the sanctioned parties, Biruitorul's misbehaviour was among the mildest. He/she has acknowledged the misbehaviour, and has had not conduct issues of which I am aware since the case. Steve Smith (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With appropriate cautions. SirFozzie (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Six months sounds like enough to me. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Steve. — Coren ^(talk) 14:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I would hope at least some discussion will be forthcoming as to why not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Amendment 4 to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light ("Brews ohare advocacy restrictions") expires concurrently with remedy 4.2 of the same case ("Brews ohare topic banned"), as amended by amendment 3 ("Brews ohare").

Support

Per my comments above. Steve Smith (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have my concerns, but, I'm willing to see how this turns out. I must caution against backsliding however. SirFozzie (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As with my comment. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the understanding that all of the users whose sanctions will be lifted contemporaneously understand that a repeat of the prior behaviour will not be acceptable. Risker (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I share some of the concerns expressed by my colleagues, but I agree that those sanctions are logically dependent on one another. Further attempts at filibustering will be met with a proportional response, however. — Coren ^(talk) 14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Ferrylodge

Initiated by Anythingyouwant (talk) at 06:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC) WithdrawnAnythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 25 June 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,[5] 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): [6],[7],[8][9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20] (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.Anythinyouwant (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: [21],[22],[23],[24]. 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.[25]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.[26]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]

@Arbitrators - I'm not sure what else to say. My purpose at the articles in question has always been NPOV. They're very controversial articles, and many disputes arise. I think I was unfairly singled out, but I also acknowledge reacting badly in some of those disputes. It hasn't happened again (witness the empty log of blocks and bans for this case over the past 2.5 years). It also won't happen again. I think a lifetime sanction in this instance is unwarranted. As a gesture of good faith to break the gridlock, I'd like to commit to a voluntary 1rr at these articles for six months after the restriction is lifted. And please note again: my comment to MastCell cited by two arbitrators did not mention this restriction; it was a complaint directed at MastCell, and he had nothing to do with the imposition of the restriction, as best I recall (MastCell had me blocked at another article unrelated to this case, and he also pursued multiple arbitration enforcement and expansion requests that were all rejected by ArbCom). Thank you, and I'm genuinely sorry if this has proven a difficult decision for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker - During the past couple weeks I've made a few edits to the abortion article, because I thought it would be an apt time to demonstrate the unobjectionable nature of my edits. You indicate that I've almost gone too far. A diff would be helpful to me. As far as crossing a line, I would much prefer the opportunity to cross a line and be topic-banned rather than be perpetually labelled as a suspicious character who's restricted for life. I have been careful not to canvass for support here, so it's kind of hard to see how the few third-party comments here reflect "the community". In any event, I wish you would look carefully at my edits rather than going by what you think "the community" wants. I continue to feel subject to viewpoint discrimination for opposing the ideological slant that exists at the articles in question. In any event, if you all are afraid that I'm going to become disruptive, then please give me the rope to hang myself; if I don't hang myself then your fears are proved unwarranted, and if I do then the problem will be permanently resolved. I stand by every edit I've made the last few weeks (despite some criticism from an involved editor).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators - I withdraw this request. We all know where it's going, and there is no need to prolong the process. Perhaps in another decade or so, ArbCom will be more inclined to remove what has become a very unusual and discriminatory lifetime restriction. I have already apologized numerous times for disruption which, by the way, did not occur in a vacuum. The idea that I might not understand why the restriction was imposed is patently absurd, given that the log of blocks and bans for this restriction has remained empty for 2.5 years, despite numerous edits to the articles in question. And I regret that no arbitrator has seen fit to provide a diff of any recent objectionable edit to the articles in question. ArbCom is walking a very fine line here, between legitimate concern for harmonious editing, versus targeting a neutral and good-faith editor who has sought to bring NPOV to some very slanted Wikipedia articles. Thanks for your time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:06, 25 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 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).

This request has been withdrawn and will be archived in 48 hours. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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: [27]. 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]

On looking further, I see that Anythingyouwant is editing in a way that is getting close to the edge of going too far in recent weeks, although not to the level where a topic ban would quite be justified. I think, overall, it is better to leave this restriction in place, because I believe it may be keeping Anythingyouwant from crossing the line. I do see Carcharoth's point about having an article-specific (rather than editor-specific) sanctions, but that does not appear to be the view of the community. Risker (talk) 01:40, 25 June 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]
Oppose I find myself agreeing with Coren and Rlevse. Roger Davies ^talk 15:45, 25 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[28] 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. [29][30][31][32]·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.[33] — Jeff G. ツ 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object "to making this a new remedy (2.1?) rather than having it replace the current, still applicable remedy". — Jeff G. ツ 20:30, 22 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: [34], [35])[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]
Note: I was inactive on this initial case and will remain inactive for the purposes of this amendment request. Clerks, please note when calculcating the majority. Risker (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

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.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Either as a supplementary remedy or replacing the previous remedy. SirFozzie (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Carcharoth had something more modest in mind, but I support this—as supplement or replacement. Cool Hand Luke 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it needs to replace the current remedy, but I support either possibility. — Coren ^(talk) 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Recuse

This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]