Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) at 21:09, 21 August 2010 (→Arbitrator views and discussion: thoughts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
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).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 11 December 2024
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for amendment


Request to amend prior case: Fringe science

Initiated by GregJackP Boomer! at 13:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Fringe science arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Principle 1: Relevant comparisions
  2. Principle 2: Citations
  3. Finding 1: ScienceApologist
  4. Remedy 1: ScienceApologist topic banned
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • [1] (diff of notification of this thread on ScienceApologist's talk page)

Amendment 1

Statement by GregJackP

ScienceApologist views all dissent from the consensus scientific view as WP:FRINGE. An article on a book was nominated and assessed for GA status, passing here. Within 24 hours, ScienceApologist began an individual reassessment with an edit summary of "to fail." In numerous comments, ScienceApologist misapplies WP:FRINGE, analyzing the science that the book is written about instead of the book. See [2], [3] and [4]. In addition, ScienceApologist equates skepticism with denialism, as shown [5],

Comment by MastCell

Greg's definition of "fringe" doesn't seem right. AIDS denialism is a fringe view by any reasonable definition; yet I can easily name prominent adherents, including a member of the National Academies of Science, a Nobel Prize winner, and a former head of state. That makes it a notable fringe view. MastCell Talk 22:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScienceApologist (1)

Content ruling, beyond arbcom remit. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 2

Statement by GregJackP (2)

ScienceApologist has misrepresented what references actually state, and has misrepresented that the articles referenced are peer-reviewed when they are not. See below, Statement by GregJackP (3) for diffs and details.

Statement by ScienceApologist (2)

Statement by GregJackP that I "misrepresented what references actually state" and "misrepresented that the articles referenced are peer-reviewed when they are not" are both disputed by myself. No amendment of this sort is necessary.

Amendment 3

Statement by GregJackP (3)

ScienceApologist inserted negative BLP information [6], [7] stating that 3 references were peer-reviewed and that they stated that Anthony Watts was a global warming "denialist" when the references ([8], [9] and [10] (I can forward the last one to any ArbCom member that does not have access to this journal)) stated "skeptic" and were not peer-reviewed articles. He continues to assert that they are peer-reviewed and say denialist ([11], [12], [13], [14]) even when it is pointed out to him by Marknutley ([15], [16], [17], [18]), by GregJackP ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), by Slowjoe17 (as BLP vio, [24]), by NuclearWarfare ([25]), and by Polargeo ([26]).

Part mentioning me struck. I was only seeking clarification on the issue; I didn't get a chance to look into the issue fully. NW (Talk) 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification on my post re NW: the diff was to illustrate that you read the 3rd ref, did not see any evidence of Watts being labeled a "denialist" and asked ScienceApologist to clarify where it came from. It was not meant to indicate that you warned him nor that you took any administrative actions against him. GregJackP Boomer! 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScienceApologist (3)

  1. Claims of a BLP-violation seem specious since there is currently acknowledgment on the talkpage that a line identifying Anthony Watts as a denialist/skeptic/anti-environmentalist should exhist in the lead, perhaps with different wording than what I suggested. Whether inserting information that a living person is a "skeptic" or a "denialist" when sources are provided to that effect is a content dispute: beyond arbcom remit.
  2. Determining whether "skeptic" and "denialist" are synonyms or not is a content dispute beyond arbcom remit.
  3. Claims that the references are not peer-reviewed are subject to debate as to the strict or loose definitions of peer review within the fields of the social sciences. This discussion is not easily decided as a simple "yes" or "no". Additionally, with the sole exception of one diff from Polargeo, all the evidence above submitted is communication exclusively from editors with an acknowledged bone-to-pick with mainstream climate science and related issues. The statement made by Polargeo started a fruitful discussion on his talkpage that was resolved to my satisfaction. Discussion as to what that will ultimately entail is still ongoing. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming skepticism which is a currently-active AfD on a newly created article by GregJackP who created the article to prove his point.
  4. All areas of dispute resolution have not been exhausted before bringing this here, and there is no indication that arbcom should get involved at this time.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 4

Statement by GregJackP (4)

It is clear based on ScienceApologist's edit history and block/sanction history that there is a problem in his view of WP:FRINGE that has resulted in a number of disruptive or BLP issues. Previous attempts to address this problem area have not been successful, as noted above. A topic ban as outlined, which can be reviewed at some point in the future, may give him time to reflect and/or seek a mentor that perhaps can help him understand these issues. Until that occurs, it is best for Wikipedia that he not edit in these areas.

Statement by ScienceApologist (4)

The topic ban in question expired on December 12, 2009.

Since then, I have been subject to zero blocks.

No arbitration enforcement whatsoever has been requested or applied to my account since then until this malformed request.

Recommend dismissal on the basis of a bad faith filing and a sanctioning of the editor who brought this malformed request for amendment to this page since Wikipedia is not a battleground.

A brief history of this conflict

Until eight days ago, I have no recollection of ever encountering GregJackP.

I criticized a review that GregJackP did of The Real Global Warming Disaster, which is a book written from the perspective of global warming denialism about the history of global warming. The reassessment was challenged by GregJackP's acknowledged IRL friend, User:Minor4th who seemed to delight in his discovery that I was sanctioned by arbcom two years ago and then went on to write a summary dissent of my review explicitly referencing this. GregJackP then took over the job of being a enforcer of his idealization of Wikipedia rules and regulations and GregJackP then explicitly threatened me with retaliation at a separate article. He then went on to poison the well on the original article.

I normally take such attacks, which are common in the areas to which I contribute, in stride. The ideological battleground mentality of certain actors in fringe science areas is inescapable, in spite of some distasteful tactics, contributions from a wide range of people can be valuable to Wikipedia. I recommend that this malformed enforcement request be summarily dismissed with a caution to GregJackP about filing frivolous enforcement requests in the future. Allowing this kind of activity will encourage a situation similar to that which existed on this page two years ago when dozens of frivolous and ultimately dismissed enforcement requests were filed against me over the period of a year.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

@Krill. I agree, and I have notified him of this request, but I don't know how to get him to reply here. I would note that he has made comments on Polargeo's talk page showing that he is aware of this request. GregJackP Boomer! 01:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Smith. How can I clarify these issues? I do not intend Amendment 1 to be in regards to content at all, nor to fix exact boundaries. I believe that ScienceApologist views anything that is not the consensus view as WP:FRINGE (based on his comments) and is applying that standard to non-science articles, such as an article on a book that happens to be critical of the science. The key factor should be if the book itself is notable, and its reception, not whether the book was reviewed by scientists or peer-reviewed journals before it can be considered notable or to meet the standards for a Good Article designation. I did not view that as a content issue, but a procedural or policy issue. On Amendment 2, no admin has taken any action, although it is a clear violation of policy on referencing, but if this should not be here, my apologies. Where would I take that issue, if this is not the right venue? I view Amendments 3 & 4 as being closely related, should I combine those into one amendment? This is the first issue that I have brought here, so if I have made an error on something, it was not intentional, nor intended to be disrespectful of your time and attention. If I can fix any of the issues to be framed in a different manner to be in compliance with your guidelines, I will be happy to do so. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cardamon

As ScienceApologist is a main participant in this, Rlevse should recuse. [27] Cardamon (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

I would suggest that parties not bother ArbCom with this and instead head to the CC Sanctions board. That board is active until further notice. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by ScienceApologist

When I first saw this enforcement action being developed, that's where I thought we were headed. I'm surprised it ended up here. I was going to not comment at all, but the arbitrators actually asked for a statement from me. I obliged them. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

Given ScienceApologist's lengthy history in front of the Committee, I've actually been struck by the change in his approach (for the better) in his editing over the past few months. I don't really see the grounds for imposing an editing restriction at present, particularly not the extremely broad restriction proposed by Greg. It seems to me that 90% of Greg's complaint is based on simple disagreement with SA, and the remaining 10% consists of gray areas that seem to have been resolved in any case. MastCell Talk 22:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recuse. Risker (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amendment 1, as proposed, is a complete non-starter in my books: first, it drags ArbCom far too deep into evaluating an individual content dispute, one which we're entirely unqualified to resolve. The case already makes clear that there is a category between fringe science and majority scientific view, and an attempt to fix exactly where those boundaries are, especially with respect to a specific area of science, is beyond both our mandate and our competence. Amendment 2 is nonsense; if a hypothetical editor is currently not adhering to that rule, which is plainly stated in policy, what reason is there to believe that that editor would suddenly start adhering to it once it was plainly re-stated by ArbCom? I do not understand what action Amendment 3 is proposing, unless it is merely a justification for Amendment 4. I will have to investigate Amendment 4 further before commenting, with that investigation ideally to include reading a statement from ScienceApologist on the matter. Steve Smith (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting for response from ScienceApologist. Carcharoth (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to agree with MastCell (and take no action), but would add that ScienceApologist needs more than anything else to rein in any aggressive aspects to his postings. If he finds himself being annoyed by what others are saying, find ways to take a break or rephrase replies. It is a fine line between strong arguments for what you are saying, and being dismissive of what others are saying. I think both ScienceApologist and GregJackP are capable of sorting things out here if they make the effort, and possibly with help from others if they continue to end up in disputes. Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain recused. Cool Hand Luke 14:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything here that requires ArbCom intervention. Issues over content should first go through lower levels of dispute resolution (and aren't likely to gain tranction at ArbCom ever); other issues seem to be requests for enforcement rather than something that would require amending a case. Shell babelfish 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Speed of light

Initiated by Brews ohare (talk) at 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_restricted arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 3: Brews ohare restricted
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • JohnBlackburne (diff of notification of this thread on JohnBlackburne's talk page)
  • Sandstein (diff of notification of this thread on Sandstein's talk page)

Amendment 1

Statement by Brews_ohare

Repeal or amendment of this action by administrator Sandstein is the object of this appeal. The question of imposing a ban extending past the expiration date of the remedy used for authorization has been decided in the negative in this request for clarification. It also has been determined that the matter of repeal of the ban altogether is separate from the issue of its extending beyond this expiration date. See this diff.

This appeal was filed before at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, but was not ruled upon because it was taken to be outside that venue's responsibility. Comments by others can be found there.

I am presently subject to a modification of Case: Speed of light here. This modification refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.

This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.

This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked in this action, which extends the remedies of Case:Speed of light without ArbCom consideration.

I would raise the following points:

  • Although the restriction does not contain wording limiting the nature of sanctions to be imposed, I would take it as implied that any such sanctions are to run co-extensively with the authorizing motion; that is, until October 20, not indefinitely. Sandstein has exceeded the authority granted by this remedy. To extend a sanction beyond the time of the authorizing restriction itself requires a full arbcom hearing.
  • I was not, IMO, properly advised that such action was going to be taken. I believe that claims by Blackburne that I was warned that arbcom action would be taken are erroneous.
  • I immediately desisted when advised that arbcom was to become involved.
  • There was no warning of impending arbcom action; Blackburne's diffs that he interprets as warnings do not specifically indicate that unless I desist in talking about things on the Talk page, action would be initiated. In some cases, these remarks are simply bad tempered expressions of old wounds.
  • The quarrel is over Talk page discussion, not intervention on the main article page. There was no violation of Talk page decorum or standards of behavior. What did happen is that extended discussion of a number of points took place, in an entirely civil manner. As a result, some improvements of some topics on the article page were made by a variety of editors. Some issues remained open on the Talk page at the time of Sandstein's action. They did not involve Blackburne, who brought the request. It is probable that these matters would have been abandoned in due course due to lack of agreement, and there was no need to intervene with sanctions. Evidently, however, Blackburne decided that rather than add to the discussion, or suggesting to all that it end, he would resort to administrator intervention.
  • In view of the bad tempers and impatience exhibited by many on the Talk:Speed of light page, I volunteer that any future contributions to a thread that I might offer upon this Talk page will be limited upon request of any editor actively involved in that thread.
  • Sandstein is not an "uninvolved" administrator inasmuch as has conflicted with me several times in the past, in particular, in the Trusilver debacle when he overturned a block against me by Sandstein.

Brews ohare (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sandstein: Sandstein suggests that my “ statements of intent (then or now) to stop editing the article and its talk page can[not] be taken at face value”. I'd suggest that Speed of light behavior is not an issue. Where Talk: Speed of light is concerned, Sandstein's ban can be rephrased to allow my participation subject to constraints. I have suggested that a request to stop discussion by an editor actively involved in a thread on Talk:Speed of light could suffice. I think that is a very severe restriction upon my Talk page interaction, and clearly would accomplish its goal. Brews ohare (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Roger Davies: The clarification question as to whether “sanctions cannot run past the expiry date of the restriction” is a general technical point, and its accidental origination in my particular case really has little bearing upon the broad issues at stake. On the other hand, this appeal is very particularly related to myself, and involves some matters entirely separate from the broad questions needing resolution in the clarification. I believe the spreading of the clarification proceeding to become in effect a hearing on my appeal is (i) a distortion of what the clarification should be about, and (ii) an invalid hearing of this appeal in a context where my views cannot achieve proper expression, and all the issues pertinent to this appeal cannot be raised or discussed. Brews ohare (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further reply to Roger Davies: You have asked what this appeal is about, besides the point of Sandstein's using an ArbCom decision of limited duration to authorize his action to act alone in applying a single-handed action of indefinite duration without any further ArbCom participation. That aspect involves a broad decision on such matters, which then can be applied here; however, that broad decision should be drafted to be applicable in general, and not limited to this accidental instance. The answer to your question is the three other aspects of this appeal: (i) the warning of ArbCom action required by the authorizing remedy was not given; (ii) the disturbance required by the authorizing remedy did not occur; (iii) if there is disagreement that the preconditions were not met, the action by Sandstein is excessive – I have offered an effective remedy that is less severe. I would add (iv): Sandstein is not an "uninvolved" administrator inasmuch as has conflicted with me several times in the past, in particular, in the Trusilver debacle when Trusilver overturned a silly impetuous block against me by Sandstein. Brews ohare (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Cool Hand: You insist that this is a topic-related issue, I guess because the problem arose on a particular Talk page. However, I'd suggest there is zero evidence that that occurrence was anything but accidental. Might as well say that the problem is DVdm and Blackburne, because they also were present, and in fact were present at some other fluff-ups too. Although I think that might be a more accurate assessment, I'd take a bit more distant stance and say the problem is as I have said: talking on the Talk page past the endurance of some editors, who then take umbrage instead of discourse as their modus operandi. That could be fixed by limiting my Talk page interactions, for example, as I have suggested. Brews ohare (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Steve Smith: Steve, you say “All I can say in response is that I have examined in some detail the disputes in which Brews has been involved, both before the topic ban was first placed and since it was lifted, and he has not managed to successfully apply Wikipedia's content policies.” The policies about content I have failed to apply are not identified. Perhaps you refer to WP:OR or to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, as these are the only content policies that have come up on Talk pages. Of course, content policies are usually considered to be matters outside the purview of ArbCom, and better left to the experts on Talk pages. In any event, they absolutely do not justify ArbCom punitive actions, which are to govern behavior not content. A page ban should be used to prevent things like edit wars on the article page, not to suppress discussion. However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, I am willing to subject my Talk page activity to ArbCom control, but in a different manner than a page or topic ban. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment upon first motion below: The motion proposed is worded in the same fashion as the remedy that led to this appeal, and is subject to the same ambiguities. It suffers from the following: (i) no clarity about the nature of the warning; is the indication of execution of this remedy to be explicitly mentioned in the warning? (ii) no clarity about what constitutes a violation: it is up to the "discretion" of an "uninvolved" administrator. Some guidelines should be provided, an example, does it apply to civil and reasoned insistence upon a Talk page of some clarity and consistency with established sources? This is the type of "disturbance" of WP that I have engaged in so far.

Observation on second motion: As noted long ago by DickLyon in the old Case:Speed of light, the issue is not one of topic, and is one of my behavior. Hence, the present motion is wrongly conceived. I have presented a simple and effective remedy, namely, impose a limitation upon the extent of my Talk page activity. The problem is not willful disruption, as claimed; that statement is insulting and blind to my contributions. It also is not WP:SOUP, although I understand that mischaracterization, as argument over a formulation sometimes can appear to be hairsplitting, particularly to an uninvolved observer. Rather, the problem has been outlined above: exhaustion of the patience of other editors on Talk pages, and an effective remedy also has been proposed.

About both motions: A lock-step repetition of remedy that is poorly phrased and irrelevant to the problem, and prone to litigation and abuse because of its ambiguities, does not reflect well upon ArbCom's ability to understand the matter before it. (What exactly is “physics-related”? Math? Engineering? Astronomy? Geology? Circuit analysis? Chemistry?... DickLyon suggested my insertion of a figure on the definition of a property of an ellipse was ‘physics related’.) The present motions abandon ArbCom's responsibility to some future unknown "uninvolved administrator", who individually is apparently more skillful and wise than ArbCom, and able to decide an issue that ArbCom cannot fathom. Brews ohare (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appeal of a sanction by Sandstein regarding the Talk page of Speed of light has morphed into a hearing on my behavior in general, but without observing that such an expansion of the purpose of the appeal constitutes a widening far beyond that envisioned. I believe that expansion to be unwarranted, and if it is to be done, a new case is required wherein my overall behavior can be assessed properly within the enlarged boundaries. Brews ohare (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the assumption is made here that the problem is one of topic, as though the difficulties related to subject matter, and to the pursuit by myself of erroneous views in the face of reasoned and authoritative opposition. ArbCom is incapable of making such an assessment: technical matters of subject are beyond their interest and capacity. In fact, nothing said here addresses this framing of the subject: it has been leaped into without careful examination. What ArbCom can do is assess behavior, that is: Is discussion proceeding? Or, is it degenerating into incivility or straying to personal attack? That has not happened. What has happened is that I have pursued discussion to the extent of trying the patience of some editors, who in exasperation have appealed for administrative action. They have options other than ArbCom action. That is the matter that needs to be addressed here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have volunteered to curtail my Talk page discussion upon request by editors involved in a thread. If ArbCom doubts my sincerity, they can make this a formal requirement upon me. That action directly addresses the problem. A page ban does not. General probation that can be acted upon by a single so-called "uninvolved administrator" is a draconian action that abandons ArbCom responsibility and leads to nonsensical administrative actions because the rules of engagement are hopelessly vague and are open to crazy ideas, as my personal history under similar remedies attests. Any dyspeptic editor can find a hair-triggered admin to exercise a block that then cannot be overturned by any other administrator regardless of circumstances. See the Trusilver debacle for an instance. Brews ohare (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear how the page ban motion addresses the appeal brought. Sandstein's action that brought this matter here has not been addressed. Instead, a broad and imaginary issue has been posited to exist without being properly examined, and treated using what is commonly called cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides ignoring the original purpose of this appeal, also ignored is (i) the lack of evidence for disturbance of ‘decorum or standards of behavior’ , that is, there was no crime, (ii) the lack of notice that ArbCom action would be sought, that is, conditions required for activating the appealed action were not satisfied, nevermind conditions for implementing a general hearing of this kind, and (iii) there is no stated basis for the motions considered in terms of WP guidelines, that is the proposed remedies are not related to the five pillars or guidelines. There is every appearance that this hearing was hijacked to alleviate preexisting prejudices, and all rules and the good of WP were set aside to accomplish that aim. That impression should be corrected, for the good of WP and of the reputations of its administrators. Brews ohare (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

Unless asked to do so now by an arbitrator, I intend to comment on this request after the related request for clarification is resolved.  Sandstein  17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Steve Smith, I am not sure as to whether this request does supersede my request for clarification as long as the question asked there has not been answered by a majority of arbitrators and a motion is being voted on. But here's what I can say now:

  • The question of whether discretionary sanctions can outlast the remedies authorizing them is for the Committee to decide (hence the request for clarification); should it do so in the negative, I will of course amend my sanction accordingly.
  • As concerns the other procedural issues raised by Brews ohare, the AE thread contains a diff of what I think is an adequate prior warning; the remedy does not require that Brews ohare be warned of AE action specifically. In view of his long history of disputes and sanctions related to this topic, I do not think that his statements of intent (then or now) to stop editing the article and its talk page can be taken at face value; also, if these statements were meant in earnest, there would be no need for Brews ohare to contest my sanction so persistently.
  • On the merits, I think what I wrote at the AE thread is still valid and accordingly I recommend that this request be declined insofar as it is an appeal against the substance of my sanction. But the review of all of Brews ohare's recent edits that you intend to make is a good idea, and of course I do not object to any action, including limiting or extending my sanction, that arbitrators may want to take on the basis of that broader review.  Sandstein  18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brews ohare's now-added opinion that I am not "uninvolved" is incorrect. My few interactions with Brews ohare have all been in my capacity as an administrator reacting to arbitration enforcement requests; per WP:UNINVOLVED, such administrative interactions do not require me to recuse from future administrative actions. I have never voiced an opinion about the content issues underlying these AE requests, nor have I (to my knowledge) participated in any discussions about Brews ohare's conduct other than in the course of these AE requests.  Sandstein  15:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JohnBlackburne

(this is just my comment here but copied here to reply to the same points by Brews)

The diffs were provided to show that a number of editors - most of the participants of the talk page - had objected to Brews' editing over the space of a only a few days. That some reference the previous arbitration case is unsurprising as it concerned the same page and is hardly "old wounds" as it is still in force. I'm not sure why you expect them to show a "warning of impending ArbCom action".

On civility I again point to [28] and [29], your characterising other editors' contributions as "stupid" and "lazy" respectively. Or only yesterday more recently, perhaps more typically, three good faith attempts by different editors to address your concerns were dismissed like so: [30]. Whether any of this is bad tempered or impatient I'm sure editors can judge for themselves.

Statement by Count Iblis

Comment about the proposed motion. My concern is that given the way Brews' edits are scrutinized, issues like this have to addressed. Count Iblis (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reply to Brews and Jehochman on my talk page is perhaps useful to the Arbitrators. Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Community dynamics constrains how far Wikipedia can evolve the smart thing to do is to leave Wikipedia, just like our early ancestors left the Chimp community. Count Iblis (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I don't have anything to add to the comments made under motion 2 (as of the time of writing this) except my endorsement. Thanks also for the courtesy notification of the merging of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Protonk

My comment on the clarification request also applies. Motion 2 seems to simply settle the matter (for the most part). Protonk (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hell in a Bucket

Wow! That's all I can really say. I'm surprised and actually disheartened that instead of trying to look at everything that happened it appears Arb is symbolically washing their hands and letting the mob rule. It's a tad ironic you would ban advocacy for brews but no one looks into the headhunting that has really happened here, but hey if history is any judge why should we have suspected different? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:41, 14 August 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

  • Speaking only for myself, Sandstein, I think it would be useful to hear from you now; this amendment request seems likely to essentially supersede that request for clarification anyway. On the merits of this request, I'm examining Brews' editing of the contentious areas since the lifting of the topic ban in some detail, and expect to reach some conclusions in the next couple of days. Steve Smith (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of initial thoughts:
    First, the premise that sanctions cannot run past the expiry date of the restriction, it seems to me, is fundamentally flawed. Blocks arising out of sanctions, for example, run over all the time and nobody would expect anything else of them.
    Second, the currently ongoing request for clarification doesn't reflect anything very much yet as, absent affirmative assent to the contrary, the status quo prevails.
    Third, it doesn't seem to me necessary at all to meet to treat this as separate to the request for clarification. It is just making work for all concerned. Roger Davies talk 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If, Brews, the basis of your appeal is not the technical point about remedies extending past the sell-by date, what is your basis for it?  Roger Davies talk 03:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with Carcharoth that Sandstein is uninvolved for enforcement purposes. As for motions, I am also inclining towards the view that the two relaxations of the original restriction were probably premature and that complete disengagement from the topic for a longer period would perhaps have been more appropriate.  Roger Davies talk 01:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting here that Sandstein is correct to say that he is not involved here. He has only, as far as I can tell, acted to carry out administrative actions. I suggest that Brews Ohare read WP:INVOLVED, and realise that not everything can be appealed to ArbCom. Thousands of editorial and administrative decisions are made every day on Wikipedia, and while some may be poor or incorrect, anyone disputing them (even those who have been through an arbitration case) still needs to work with others rather than relitigate the case. I am minded to support the motion below, but will wait and see if any alternatives are proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brews: you say that the original purpose of the appeal has been ignored. I don't think that's true. You brought an interesting issue to our attention: whether enforcement restrictions can persist after a remedy has expired. As it turns out, there is no ArbCom consensus on this matter. However, having brought this matter to our attention, it seems that the arbitrators generally do agree that a restriction similar to the one that Sandstein imposed is appropriate. The proposed amendment therefore supersedes Sandstein's enforcement action, which resolves the underlying dilemma. Cool Hand Luke 17:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

1) Remedy #3 ("Brews ohare restricted") of the Speed of light case is replaced with the following:

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on him if, despite being warned, he repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Actions taken under this provision are subject to the relevant rules and procedures for standard discretionary sanctions.

Support
  1. The easiest way to avoid the procedural uncertainty here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Un-gameable, and easily enforced. I see things in this area backsliding to what they were before (which caused sanctions to be mooted against both Brews and some of his supporters), and I am not really wanting to go through that whole thing again. SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I don't see it as helpful to increase sanctions' severity to make them easier interpretatively. We don't do due process, of course, but this offends something. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to that, the stuff that's going on now at ANI and elsewhere does not strike me as a ringing endorsement of the existing general restriction; I don't see extending it as self-evidently useful. Steve Smith (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absurdly open-ended. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer motion 2. Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 2. - Mailer Diablo 19:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer 2. Shell babelfish 20:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

2) Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.

Support
  1. I am uncomfortably aware that a law student who used to tutor some high school physics proposing to ban a professor emeritus of electrical engineering from physics-related pages will strike a lot of people as emblematic of what's wrong with Wikipedia. These people may very well be right. All I can say in response is that I have examined in some detail the disputes in which Brews has been involved, both before the topic ban was first placed and since it was lifted, and he has not managed to successfully apply Wikipedia's content policies. Moreover, his response to criticisms of his edits is generally, by accident or design, reminiscent of WP:SOUP. Insofar as I am qualified to judge (i.e. not very far at all), his edits are scholarly and accurate, but he appears unwilling or unable to engage with Wikipedia as it is, rather than as he believes it should be. Whether his vision of Wikipedia would be preferable to the status quo is an open question, and one outside of the Arbitration Committee's remit.

    To tidy up some other loose ends, I concur that Sandstein was uninvolved for enforcement purposes. I do not agree with Roger that enforcement actions may extend beyond the life of the remedy authorizing them, and would have supported reducing the length of the speed of light topic ban on that basis (while specifically recognizing that Sandstein's decision to make the term indefinite was authorized by the general view expressed by arbitrators at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Statement by Ncmvocalist). As this motion would subsume Sandstein's sanction, however, there is no need to do so. I trust that my support of this motion says all that needs to be said on my view of the substance of Sandstein's enforcement action. Steve Smith (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Support in all particulars. SirFozzie (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am extremely disappointed. I was originally reluctant to topic ban Brews ohare at all; he manifestly has scientific competence that would add to the project. However, he chooses to willfully disrupt it instead—there's no other plausible way to interpret it. I am not happy with imposing this remedy, but I do think it's for the best of the project. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Brews' "about both motions": I consider the hard core of this topic ban to be the speed of light, units of measurement, and fundamental constants. If you are editing articles on non-physics topics in math or chemistry or geology that do not heavily involves these issues, I think you're fine. You can quote me on that. If you start editing that Avagadro's number is unmeasurable because it relies upon the axiom that carbon-12 is exactly 12 g per mol... well, I think you'll be on the far side of the topic ban.
    Use your best judgment. If you're editing innocuously about ore types, no one in good faith could say that you've violated the topic ban. The activity that precipitated this AE, on the other hand, was not a close call. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Works as well. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice, with regret. To be interpreted, in my view, per Cool Hand Luke. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. A very unfortunate support. As others have pointed out, I believe that Brews contributions to the content of these articles could be excellent and find it very disappointing that he's unable to moderate his behavior in a manner that would allow him to continue to participate. Shell babelfish 20:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain

Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf

Initiated by Miami33139 (talk) at 06:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Tothwolf arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 1
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

  • Tothwolf restricted
  • This recently expired. It should be extended for one year without opening a new case. It should be amended to include making accusations.

Statement by Miami

[31] On the xpiration of his Arbcom sanctions, Tothwolf recently started an ANI discussion accusing me of hounding and harassing him again in the same manner that brought this issue to Arbcom the first time. He singled out the handful of deletions that involve him and his preferred editing area (IRC clients) from the dozens of deletion areas I have been working in (Table-top role-playing games, Web browsers, media players, firewall software, and other miscellaneous software).

In finding 3 of the Arbcom case it was found not credible that I was singling him out.

In finding 6 & 7, it was found that Tothwolf's repeated accusations (against many editors, including myself) were often in bad faith, against evidence to the contrary, and poor decorum.

Evidence in the Arbcom case showed Tothwolf has a history of "crying wolf" (making accusations) when people edit in his area.

In this ANI post, he is essentially repeating the accusations of persecution that he made about myself and others in the Arbcom case. He blames Arbcom for his troubles. I do not feel I should have to defend myself all over again when he has sympathetic administrators (his claim) on ANI ready to pounce on his accusations.

I understand that deletion of material often upsets people and I have acted at Arbcoms suggestion on my deletion activities. I have slowed down the rate of proposing deletion and deletion requests to be more managable. The overlap with Tothwolf is minor and not any sort of personal vendetta against him. Requesting MfD requests of deleted articles kept in userspace is simple followup of deletions made six months or a year ago.

Response to Seth Kellerman

2% of my editing in the last two month has any overlap with Tothwolf. None of these overlapping edits are about him. Even while nominating his two userspace articles at MfD I did not direct any commentary to or about him. His accusation that a small handful of edits are persecuting him are non-credible.

Response to Carcharoth

Do you actually think since after the close of the Arbcom case and prior to the ANI that my editing had any interaction with Tothwolf? My nominations of two of his userpages for MfD particularly avoided discussing him and only focused on the fact that the content was previously deleted and stale. How could I be harassing Tothwolf without interacting with him? Tothwolf needs to produce evidence, please, that predates the ANI discussion.

Response after Uncle G

I see based on Uncle G description, how the timing of the MfD of Tothwolf userpages could appear baiting. It was not. I did know which article Tothwolf kept in userspace and did mean to ask to be deleted. It was not timed for baiting purpose. I knew it was many months since they were deleted at AfD. I verified they had not been worked on since deletion. I nominated. All I ask is AGF. Uncle G was actually inflammatory role here. Uncle G advertising MfD in various places, using phrases like "flaring up" "not wise" and "being gamed" and highly suggestive of his opinion. This drew !voters questioning motives rather than the straight content issues raised about WP:FAKEARTICLE. WP:FAKEARTICLE is a standard rationale at MfD. These MfD would have concluded without drama had Uncle G not advertised them.

Uncle G show no other evidence, except bad faith on my motive, that I harass Tothwolf or that my editing shows substantial interest in Tothwolf. I have no interest in Tothwolf other than followup to delete articles in userspace that were previously deleted. I have been engage at userspace issues two years before any intersection with Tothwolf [32].

Uncle G raise deletion activity which is not at all related to Tothwolf and Uncle G show no connection to Tothwolf in my activity. Uncle G claim I have not adjusted my actions towards deletion. Prior to Arbcom I would propose or nominate many pages each day for deletion. After Arbcom I do maybe one per day. I have nominate for deletion less than 20 Wikipedia articles in more than two months, which is a drastic change. Uncle G claim I am careless about deletion. In fact, of last nine closed AfD where I nominate, 5 were deleted with consensus of community. 2 were close as no consensus. 2 were keep. I do not think this is a record showing carelessness.

My deletions have nothing to do with Tothwolf or any other volunteer. I follow a template like Template:Web browser or Category:Open source games and open each article. The ones which look bad, I nominate. Another volunteer is heavily interested in web browser or open source games so Tothwolf "stalking tool" will show overlap between our edits and he claim I stalk other volunteer. This type of accusation is most frustrating to me!

Uncle G also has a different Wikipedia philosophy than me, and is hardly neutral towards my deletion activity which is why he raised it. Uncle G take out of context my statement "I vote delete on everything" from a prior AfD. I made that comment because I rarely vote Keep. I do not vote Keep often because other editors have already said it and my opinion not necessary. I made that statement to give weight to fact that I voted Keep on that AfD. Uncle G also has philosophy about sourcing requirement of articles. Uncle G claim at AfD that people like me are required to put source in article. Untrue according to Wikipedia guideline, it is burden of person adding material to add source material. It is indeed, "Somebody Else's Problem" to source article. This is basic conflict of Wikipedia editing and deletion philosopy between Uncle G and myself but this is a schism between all volunteers on Wikipedia. My own opinion, that material should be cited before it goes into article, is not unique [33] and even agrees with Jimbo, that unreference material should be deleted [34]. I should not be punish for disagreeing with Uncle G on Wikipedia philosophy.

Uncle G raise significant issue with evidence on questionable deletion activity involve JBsupreme. He can defend himself. When reading Uncle G statement, be careful to differentiate JBsupreme edits from mine. I should not be punish for JBsupreme activity. JBsupreme obviously in contradictory philosophy to Uncle G too.

Uncle G make some claim about Theserialcomma. He can defend himself. Undoubtedly Theserialcomma have Tothwolf pages on his watchlist and follow to MfD. His involvement on WP sporadic for several months. Since at least April I see no other intersection between him and Tothwolf. I hardly think two delete !votes[35] constitute some major Wikipedia crime or evidence of baiting.

Statement by Seth Kellerman

This stems from an ANI initiated by Tothwolf at Wikipedia:ANI#Wikihounding_and_disruptive_editing.3F

As an outside observer it appears to me that Tothwolf has been failed by the wikipedia system repeatedly throughout this ordeal. Baiting is difficult to demonstrate, and more difficult to demonstrate without walls of text. Tothwolf tends to be verbose and disorganized with providing difs, and he (IMO) Plaxicoed himself during the case itself with his brazen taunting (i.e. repeatedly telling others to "kick rocks"). Tothwolf's actions during the case were not excusable, however, Principle 3 states Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards. It is disappointing that such little scrutiny was given to the behavior of Miami, JBSupreme and Theserialcomma, especially with such a parade of users who suffered bad experiences at their hands submitting evidence.

Furthermore, there appears to be much consensus among editors that Miami was attempting to deliberately provoke Tothwolf.

  • Miami nominated userfied articles within Tothwolf's userspace for deletion. I have no difs to provide as the articles have been moved several times and may be deleted, but Miami should not have done this.
  • In response to Tothwolf's post on ANI, Miami responds with "tl;dr" [36], he has yet to explain why he chose to do that.
    • In that same dif, he said "Paranoid ramblings of Tothwolf", "Other than his walled garden, I ain't following his editing or hounding him", "enough paranoia", "paranoid ranting"
  • Miami subsequently posts on JBSupreme's talk page "Call the Waaaambulance that same old someone had a fit again."
  • Miami posts the same on Theserialcomma's talk page, with the addition of an edit summary "whine one one"
  • Despite requests from myself and Crossmr, Miami has declined to explain why he mocked Tothwolf with "tl;dr". He justified the taunting posts on the talk pages of JBSurpreme and Theserialcomma based on Tothwolf not having notified them of the ANI discussion.

In conclusion.

  • Miami33139 and JBSurpeme are in violation of policies WP:HARASS, WP:CIVIL, WP:BAIT and WP:HOUND.
  • The sanction against Tothwolf, that he shall not cast aspersions without evidence, is irrelevant as the general consensus on ANI is that he has evidence and that he has a good reason to feel he is being hounded.

Seth Kellerman (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments in regards to Miami33139 and JBSupreme's participation in deletion discussions. Finding 3 of the arbitration case states Miami33139 and JBsupreme are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing. Although I am admittedly ignorant of all things IRC and not a good judge of reliability of sources and thus notability of software, I can see bad deletion discussions.
It does appear that Miami has improved his deletion practices somewhat. His AfD nominations have all been reasonable. I am still seeing the old "That source isn't notable enough" arguments in other discussions, though.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orion_Network_Licensing_Platform (Miami argues with Hobit over whether a mention in a reliable source is trivial)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Labyrinth_Lord ("The Ennie awards are a bunch of fandom nerds.")
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shuttle_Inc. Although Miami votes keep, he comments "I vote delete on everything".
It does not appear that JBSupreme has improved his deletion practices any more than he improved his civility. I am particularly concerned about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_mobile_Internet_Relay_Chat_clients_(2nd_nomination). This discussion was initiated by JBSupreme, with Miami33139 showing up to support him. This article was kept nearly unanimously during its first AfD, with the only delete !votes being JBSupreme and Miami33139. As of this posting, during the second AfD, again the only delete !votes are from JB and Miami.
I also find Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Hm2k/MIRCStats symptomatic of WP:HOUND
Seth Kellerman (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk

I am uninvolved w/ the case, but left some comment on the AN/I discussion. With regard to the furor over the use of tl;dr, perhaps he felt that totwolf's comments were too long, and didn't read them? I know it was probably meant to mock the editor, but how much blood can be squeezed from that turnip? The comments were retracted. Protonk (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tothwolf

I know I made some huge mistakes in allowing myself to be baited back in December while the original case was open. While not an excuse for my own behaviour in how I responded, at the time I was extremely frustrated with how long the case had been dragging out without any resolution to the wikihounding, baiting, taunting, etc which was still ongoing. I also know the evidence I presented during the case [37] may have actually been too detailed, potentially making it difficult to parse.

I believe I also made a mistake when I presented evidence during the case which focused mainly on my own interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139 and JBsupreme. It was later explained to me that it might have been better had I focused more on showing how they had been doing similar things to other editors. Towards that end, as I mentioned on AN/I, while I was blocked by Sandstein I spent a considerable amount of time reviewing and documenting both my and other editors' interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme. That documentation can be found here. While the sections which cover Miami33139 and JBsupreme's behaviour and interactions with other editors are far from complete, the section which covers Theserialcomma's behaviour [38] is fairly complete and gives a pretty good overview of their interactions with other editors. Note that while that page is currently protected from editing by the general public, it can be transwikied if needed.

The statement made by Uncle G to which Carcharoth referred to below was on WP:AC/N. [39] I had replied to Uncle G via email after he left a notification on my talk page [40] of the two MFDs which Miami33139 had initiated. [41] [42] When Miami33139 initiated those MFDs, I hadn't even edited since June, [43] which as I explained on AN/I was due to the combination of the continued wikihounding and my workload. As I also mentioned on AN/I, Theserialcomma and JBsupreme also became involved in these two MFDs. [44] [45] [46] [47] At the time Theserialcomma became involved, they were not even actively editing. [48]

I'd also really like to see JBsupreme provide an answer for the question DGG raised in one of the above MFDs [49] as the answer which JBsupreme gave previously [50] seems to be more of a dodge than an answer.

Another example of the continued disruptive behaviour can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ircle. I think this AfD is representative of the continued disruption and misuse of deletion processes by these individuals. This article was nominated for deletion by Miami33139 shortly after I contested the prod deletion with the admin who deleted it. There are other articles that were similarly prodded/deleted which should also be contested, but that is not something I have the time to work on right now. While not showing the larger pattern, the edit history for {{IRC footer}} [51] will begin to help show why Miami33139 has intentionally targeted articles like Ircle which are within the scope of WP:WPIRC.

Upon Miami33139's return, not only did he resume his wikihounding of myself, but also other editors. An extreme case can be seen in Miami33139's interactions with Beyond My Ken (and his former usernames). Beyond My Ken also made a statement regarding Miami33139's behaviour which should also be taken into account. The wikihounding of Beyond My Ken by Miami33139 can be easily seen in the edit histories of the articles from these links: [52] [53] [54] Note the massive numbers of automated or semi-automated edits by Miami33139 which remove Beyond My Ken's changes to the articles. I also noticed that the script Miami33139 uses for this task doesn't function properly in that it often improperly re-orders navigational and stub templates and removes intentional formatting changes which fix things like bunched-up edit links.

While this is an incomplete list, other editors which Miami33139 is known to have followed and wikihounded include: Mabdul, Neustradamus, EdoDodo, and Hm2k. I note that Mabdul in particular has been a target of particular interest to Miami33139. He has worked very hard on expanding articles about FTP clients, web browsers, email clients, etc which Miami33139 began to target after he noticed Mabdul was also a member of WP:WPIRC. [55] Oddly enough, today Mabdul removed himself from the WikiProject's participants list. [56]

I think these diffs should also be taken into consideration: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] I previously presented these in the original evidence, [64] but as I mentioned above, because I gave so much detail, they would have been easily overlooked.

While I would very much like to return to actively editing Wikipedia, as it stands now I don't feel that I can unless the disruptive behaviours from Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme are fully addressed. When I'm not here editing, these individuals are not as readily able to tendentiously target articles/pages I would otherwise be editing, which ultimately results in less harm to the encyclopedia. That said, while I certainly felt less stress when I stopped editing, the behaviours clearly continued even in my absence, as even when I wasn't here they continued to target both my past contributions and other editors. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Carcharoth

I'm really not sure what else I can add here in addition to what I brought up on AN/I but I'll see what I can come up with in the next day or so.

I do wish these editors would stop with the personal attacks though. I don't really care to be called "paranoid", "delusional", etc and the semi-constant claims of WP:OWN and WP:COI are not in any way helpful.

I'm not really sure that a simple non-interaction restriction would help resolve things either. Jehochman and I discussed just such a potential solution before the original ArbCom case was filed. I have a strong feeling that if a simple interaction-type restriction were put in place, these editors would still follow my edits in order to remove content from or nominate articles and pages for deletion, or attempt to superficially involve themselves in related topic areas such as technology and computing where they did not edit previously (as they've already been doing) in order to block or restrict my edits while claiming they were already editing articles in those topic areas.

Sigh, I dunno... Seth Kellerman really is correct above where he mentions that I Plaxicoed myself when I fell into the baiting which was happening while the original case was open. I really want to be more careful with what I say here this time so as to not say the wrong thing and otherwise somehow make things worse. I think at this point I'd really like to see what the community decides in the AN/I discussion before we go too much further here. My own stress levels went down as far as the wikihounding goes when I simply stopped editing entirely, but it didn't fix the problem, it just meant I wasn't here to feel stressed out about it. If AN/I is ultimately unable to resolve things, I think I'd very much support reopening the original case. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Uncle G

I've found it largely counterproductive to argue with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme, or attempt to edit an article they've nominated for deletion. They argue against reliable sources, revert/remove my edits, or otherwise attempt to discredit me in some manner, often claiming WP:OWN or WP:COI.

As for User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clients and User:Tothwolf/List of quote databases, I was advised not to participate in the MFDs that Miami33139 initiated, which seemed sensible to me given the past results of interacting with these three individuals. With Ircle specifically, I emailed an arbitrator to ask how I should handle this action by Miami33139 [65] but haven't yet received an answer. After the AfD was closed as keep, Miami33139 removed the bulk of the article stating "I have remove information that is uncited and is not found on product web page.". As far as I could see, every single fact there can be cited, with the reference that Miami33139 also removed easy to locate via archive.org [66] and also via a simple Google search. [67]

There are tons of things which I really should get back to editing. I still have a number of in-progress Template: namespace projects such as {{Cite IETF}}, {{External link}} (created for Category:External link templates standardisation work), and the reimplementation of {{LSR}}/{{LPR}} that I largely put on hold starting in November 2009 when the ArbCom case was initiated. As I've previously mentioned, I really do not feel that I can edit while the wikihounding and harassment is taking place and I found it much less stressful to instead focus on my work outside of Wikipedia.

Just as a general question to whomever wants to answer, wouldn't this [68], followed by [69] (history) be considered both disruptive and wikihounding? I created this LSR template on July 9, 2009 (using the same method we use in the majority of Category:Software comparisons) to make it easier for the anonymous editor to update the version information, which previously resulted in nearly daily edits to the large comparison tables. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

When someone chooses to harass a person here, there are two things necessary in the target: some weakness that an be exploited as the basis for the harassment, and a tendency to sometimes reply inappropriately. In a sense, almost anyone meets these requirements to be a target: Any active editor has made mistakes, and very few people can be fully calm after sufficient insults--and, in particular, while being set upon by more than a single harasser. As applies here: some of the IRC articles were rather weak; the subject is not really among the best-controlled tenth of WPedians; the almost simultaneous actions from three people would be enough to infuriate almost anyone. As I see it, concerted harassment should be treated as a major aggravating factor or even as meatpuppettry, whether done by coordination or just from exploiting the opportunity. And one sure sign of harassment is when it takes more than one route, or when it continues after the success of the initial round; I see the MfDs in exactly these lights: carrying things to that extent is persecution. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, by request

I've been asked to comment here, by two people. I've hesitated because I really don't want to get entangled in this. There's not much that I can add, strictly speaking, that isn't already available for perusal. Apart from the electronic mail messages sent to me by Tothwolf and two administrators, it's all on-wiki, albeit that there's not a central collection of diffs and links.

As I suggested at the ACN talk page, it does look like things are being gamed here. This request to mute Tothwolf is more such. I'm not sure that we should be continuing to buy the self-descriptions that aren't borne out by actions over the months, or the It's-not-interaction-if-I-nominate-a-user's-draft-article-userpages-for-deletion-just-before-the-previous-restrictions-are-set-to-expire-as-long-as-I-don't-mention-the-user-by-name argument. I think that, as I questioned before, it was most unwise of JBsupreme and Theserialcomma to jump on Miami33139's bandwagon there. It was particularly unwise of Theserialcomma, who otherwise has mostly lifted xyrself out of this, it appears to me.

This leaves us with Miami33139, Tothwolf, JBsupreme, and all of the people who have, variously, interacted with them over the months.

Whilst Tothwolf has apparently resisted temptation to blow xyr top this time around, xe still hasn't done xyrself any favours. Actually rolling up xyr sleeves and editing User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clients (MfD discussion), User:Tothwolf/List of quote databases (MfD discussion), User:Tothwolf/MIRCStats, or even Ircle (AfD discussion) would have probably resulted in snowball closures of the discussions that Miami33139 initiated, with Miami33139, JBsupreme, and Theserialcomma more clearly standing out as the dissenting trio, instead of the more mixed reaction that occurred. So there is some fault for the continuance of this whole mess to be laid at Tothwolf's door. But extending restrictions doesn't address it in the slightest. All that the restrictions have done is supply parties to the case with something to game.

Which brings me to the best practice reminder in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf. It, too, doesn't appear to have worked. If anything, things are worse now than they were at the time. Neither Miami33139 nor JBsupreme are following best practices, or indeed deletion policy, despite the attempts of myself and others to persuade them to do so, time and again. I know that for at least one other editor the assumption of good faith has been negated by months of evidence, here; and as Seth Kellerman points out above, Miami33139's "I vote delete on everything." rings much truer than the statements to the contrary on xyr user page, given what can be found in Special:Contributions/Miami33139 in the project namespace over and over again. What we really have here are two accounts that have failed to follow good practice for a long time, and have reached what is probably an all-time low (more on which later) quite recently, primarily in conflict with an editor that in turn does xyrself no favours by not actually getting down to writing.

I can understand why the assumption of good faith has gone out of the window for that editor that I mentioned. It's fairly clear from the actions by JBsupreme at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clientsuser that there's action in bad faith occurring. Here's the sequence:

  1. JBsupreme says that the page is close to "an abuse of userspace".
  2. After the MFD discussion has run for several days, Tothwolf requests speedy deletion, which xe notes on the Administrator's Noticeboard and Village Pump.
  3. JBsupreme, some 45 minutes later, renames the page into xyr own user space and removes the speedy deletion request.
  4. When asked about these actions by DGG, xyr response is "Do you really not know? I think you do."

Yes, I think that we really do know. We really do know that JBsupreme is acting to always oppose whatever Tothwolf happens to want here, rather than in pursuance of xyr stated position, and not acting in good faith. It flies in the face of reason to assume that an editor who declares something an "abuse of userspace" one minute is acting in good faith when xyr next actions, in relation to the editor who is, supposedly, abusing that userspace, are to then attempt to re-claim, and prevent the deletion of, the page in xyr own user space.

There's plenty more evidence to be found. I'm not going to provide an exhaustive list because, as yet another editor has said, doing so is a large task (and I really want to get around to society page, which I keep getting distracted from, some time this century). Here are some of the highlights, therefore:

So it seems to me that nothing particularly good has come out of the previous arbitration case. The interaction restrictions are being gamed, the taunting continues, and the behaviour in deletion discussions is even less an example of good practice than it was those several months ago. I think that it's time that the arbitration committee, or the community at large, address some of the clearly unaddressed problems here, that we are being deflected away from by motions such as this one, more directly. If Tothwolf were subtracted from this entirely, there would still be concerns to answer on the parts of the other accounts. Tothwolf hasn't behaved well, and clearly could have garnered more sympathy by writing and contributing, rather than arguing. But Tothwolf being the focus, or the entirety of the cause, clearly isn't correct. As observed, Miami33139's actions are serving quite ironically here to show that the spotlight should be shining on other accounts a bit more than it has done.

To that end, I suggest that it is in Tothwolf's best interests to concentrate upon article writing, rather than this, for a time. I suggest, for starters, getting ircle past stub status.

Uncle G (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, ominously

I will take resolute action next time Tothwolf complains to me about baiting, taunting or bullying by the folks who've already been warned. Those folks would do well to steer a wide path around Tothwolf, and to scrupulously avoid committing similar abuse of any other editors. You have the chance to make exactly one more mistake. I especially like DGG's analysis.Jehochman Talk 11:33, 16 August 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

Collapsing earlier comments
  • Having read the ANI thread that led to this, I think what we have here is a case of WP:BOOMERANG. From what I've seen so far, I'm more inclined to propose amending the case to restrict User:Miami33139 (who filed this request). I'm particularly unimpressed by the "Waambulance" and "whine one one" taunts. I would like to see statements from Tothwolf and JBSupreme and theserialcomma, and also (if he is prepared to make a statement) Uncle G, who left a note about this on an arbitration page somewhere recently saying that things were boiling over in this area again. I'm also concerned about comments that the civility restriction passed on JBSupreme is not having any effect. Possible ways to proceed here would be a wide-ranging non-interaction restriction between Tothwolf and JBSupreme, theserialcomma and Miami33139, or even reopening the case in light of this continuing behaviour. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Miami33139 I'm saying I'm unimpressed with your conduct at the ANI thread and the comments you left. You seem to be under a mistaken impression about the conclusions of the arbitration case. Changes in conduct was expected from all parties, and returning to the conduct that led to the arbitration case is likely to see a re-imposition of sanctions and/or warnings. Currently I'm waiting for my colleagues to comment on this amendment request, but in the meantime it would be good to see some more statements here. Tothwolf has mentioned Uncle G above, so I will ask him if he is able to make a statement here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking

Initiated by Lightmouse (talk) at 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
Remedies
  • 7.1): "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."
  • 8): "Lightmouse is limited to using only the account 'Lightmouse' to edit."
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • [70] (diff of notification of this thread on Jarry1250's talk page)

Amendment 1

1The relevant part from the BAG approval is:

”I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing units of measure in a variety of forms.

  • A 'unit of measure' is any sequence of characters that relates to measurement of things. This includes but is not limited to units defined by the BIPM SI, the US NIST or any other weights and measures organisation or none at all. This includes but is not limited to time, length, area, volume, mass, speed, power.
  • Edits may add or modify metric or non-metric units.
  • Edits may modify the format.
  • Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve units.
  • Edits may add, remove or modify links to units.”
  • 7.1) amended to: "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia, except that he is permitted to do so in the field of ‘units of measure’ on a three-month trial basis, under the supervision of User:Jarry1250."
  • 8) amended to "Lightmouse is limited to using only the account 'Lightmouse' to edit, except that during the three-month trial he is permitted to use the account 'Lightbot' to edit only in the field of units of measure, under the supervision of User:Jarry1250, in accordance with the relevant section of the BAG approval.1"

Statement by Lightmouse

I've been a Wikipedian for more than six years, and have played a key role in ensuring that metric and non-metric units are provided in the clearest and most conventional ways for our international readers. I was early in recognising the value of automation for janitorial work in such a large, global project, and taught myself automation skills. I believe I have significantly benefited Wikipedia. Many editors have used and continue to use my scripts; some have been inspired to create their own.

I edited first as Bobblewik (talk · contribs), then as Editore99 (talk · contribs), then (from 2007) as Lightmouse (talk · contribs). The name changes were due to forgotten passwords. I created two bot accounts: Bobblebot (talk · contribs) (unused) and Lightbot (talk · contribs).

I became a key player in encouraging a more discerning approach to internal linking, particularly dates and times. In the early days this resulted in a number of blocks. I probably didn't respond in the right way to sysops who blocked me, finding it easy to think of them as "involved". I believe I’ve learned from this. I’ve always been polite to users who have questioned my edits.

Finding the adversarial atmosphere of the case difficult to cope with, I ultimately declined to defend myself. I now regret my failure to participate properly, which I realise is frowned upon. I was strongly criticised during the case over a bot application to BAG in which I failed to declare previous usernames, and blocks thereunder. I realise this lack of transparency on my part made me look untrustworthy. My wikifriends have convinced me not to state that I didn’t appreciate the significance of this lack of disclosure because it would not be credible to the Committee. I can only apologise for my actions and for any other perceived indiscretions, and state that I have learned from these situations.

Since my return after the 12-month ban I have resumed manual janitorial work. I would like the chance to show good faith in the use of my skills in automation for the benefit of the project. Therefore, I am applying for an amendment to two of the three current remedies so that I might return in an open, narrowly defined way to automated editing. A sysop member of the BAG, Jarry1250 (talk · contribs), has agreed to supervise my contributions during a trial period. Lightmouse (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikipedia benefits from experienced automation experts such as Lightmouse. When I first became aware of Lightmouse, I found that he was always acutely sensitive to feedback from upset editors after a bot produced unexpected and undesirable results. He quickly (typically in a matter of hours) would tweak the code to make the bot properly deal with whatever novel situations arose. Much of the to-do with Lightmouse’s involvement with date-related bot activities arose from his moving forward when he believed a clear community consensus existed on date linking. In the end, the consensus he believed existed at that time proved to be well founded and is the current consensus today—and our guidelines reflect that consensus. Since the date-related conflict was rather unique (a particularly contentious issue with impassioned editors on both sides), there is no reason to think that Lightmouse can’t be trusted to go back to doing what he did before he got swept up in the date-jihad maelstrom: make and run sophisticated bots that improve Wikipedia far more consistently and faster than humans can. Greg L (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found Lightmouse proactive, reactive, and curteous at all times. Lightmouse has been a great inspiration to me, not only because he demonstrated to me that he cares deeply about the project, but also because he understands the potential benefits of automation for this project, which is filled with quirky inconsistencies due to the inherent collaborative nature that lend themselves well to standardisation and automated maintenance. I missed his presence from the project, and have been motivated thus to take up scripting myself - of course, I cannot fill the huge gap left by Lightmouse. His remorse appears sincere and heartfelt; his gradual return to automation, under the parameters laid out appears to be well thought out, and seems to me to correctly balance the safeguards which the project may reasonably expect with the right of editors to engage in automation. I heartily support this appeal. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too have always found Lightmouse helpful and unfailingly courteous, and always willing to act promptly to fix any problems (which were few) in his scripts and bot. I believe that WP has benefited greatly from his involvement and will continue to do so if he's allowed to use his skills to the full. I heartily support this request. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the statements by Users Greg L, Ohconfucius, and Colonies Chris. I would like to say that my own experience strongly supports what they say. Tony (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much more I can add to the above, except to say that I wholeheartedly agree.  HWV258.  09:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say anything else about Lightmouse without repeating what those above me have already said, so I won't. I urge the ArbCom to give Lightmouse a second chance, as they have with other parties to the date delinking case. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have, to the best of my knowledge, never interacted with Lightmouse before this present appeal - that is to say, I have no prior axes to grind, only good faith. Okay. So now I think about it, it seems the best plan is thus (and I shall post this suggestion to Lightmouse's talk momentarily): 1) Lightmouse submits a new (date/unit) BRFA; 2 or 3) The BRFA is endorsed by Arbcom - they amend prior remedies to allow its passage; 3 or 2) The BRFA passes (or fails) the standard process, which will include a short trial. 4) Instead of being free to continue as he pleases, Lightmouse will remain under trial conditions for three months. Put simply, he will be on best behaviour and expected to be a top operator in responding to comments and complaints; he will be expected to, and I will, check a sample of his own edits at regular intervals; admins and others will be more heavy-handed in stopping the bot from continuing. That is my recommendation at least. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. The BRFA will be called 'Lightbot 4'. It will be a copy of the units of measure section of Lightbot 3. It will not contain any reference to dates. Thus the text will be:
"I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing units of measure in a variety of forms.
  • A 'unit of measure' is any sequence of characters that relates to measurement of things. This includes but is not limited to units defined by the BIPM SI, the US NIST or any other weights and measures organisation or none at all. This includes but is not limited to time, length, area, volume, mass, speed, power.
  • Edits may add or modify metric or non-metric units.
  • Edits may modify the format.
  • Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve units.
  • Edits may add, remove or modify links to units."
If I need to start the BRFA now, just let me know. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA started, as directed by Kirill. See BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Lightbot_4. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to pick up on one point made above, add a general point about bots such as this, and point out one illuminating exchange that occurred elsewhere.
  • (1) Ohconfucius talks above about "...the potential benefits of automation for this project, which is filled with quirky inconsistencies due to the inherent collaborative nature that lend themselves well to standardisation and automated maintenance". In my opinion, this strikes to the heart of the conflicts that arise between those who would like to see the guidelines presented in the Manual of Style implemented and enforced across the entirety of Wikipedia with the use of bots, and those who think that such an approach will create more drama and conflict than it is worth (as individual editors and groups of editors object to bots sweeping through and making changes that at times seem arcane to those who have not followed the discussions at the Manual of Style). The fundamental divide is between those who want to see order and consistency brought to pages across the whole of Wikipedia, and those who think an organic process is better and less disruptive. I would have thought a wider debate on precisely when automation on this sort of scale is needed (and when it is not needed) would be a good idea, and would be a good idea for any process that has the potential to affect every page on the whole of Wikipedia.
  • (2) In my experience with bots such as this, a common problem is that they try to do too much and over-reach. Even the best bot operator in the world will get overwhelmed if they try to run a bot that makes thousands of similar but slightly different changes, that many people won't understand. Such bots need to be split into smaller tasks and those who frequent the Manual of Style pages and support such bots should have the patience to wait for a series of smaller tasks to be run, rather than everything being done in one go.
  • (3) There are still levels of aggression, incivility and battling to be seen with those who support this and similar proposals. The first two editors above (Greg L and Ohconfucius) who showed enthusiastic support for Lightmouse were also the first two editors from this request to turn up at the bot request (where a discussion was already in progress), where they promptly escalated matters with these edits: [71], [72], [73] (note the reference to gatekeepers, enemas, and the gratuitous insertion of a link to an image depicting a 'gatekeeper'). Tony1 was quick to intervene and restrain them with this advice, and Dabomb87 moved the comments to the talk page, but I would suggest arbitrators consider what happened there and whether any form of restrictions are needed to prevent a similar dynamic arising again where a familiar group of users turn up to use inflammatory language to defend Lightmouse, his bot, or his proposals.
I hope that some of the problems that occurred with this sort of approach in the past can be avoided here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth, I agree Greg's and Ohconfucius's comments were a bit over-the-top and reminiscent of the old toxic MOSNUM discussions, but I think further restrictions, given that this was a one-time incident quickly contained, would be a bit much. Of course, if that occurs again, I couldn't blame you (or rather, the non-recused ArbCom members) for pursuing additional action. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. My intentions didn’t come through as I had intended and I must apologize for my post, now located here. When I wrote that, I perceived that Lightmouse was the recipient of unnecessary third-degree by Anomie. But, apparently that is a legitimate role of Anomie’s so I shouldn’t have criticized him for being out of line. I am truly sorry for that. As for my “gratuitous” image when I linked to “gatekeeper” I had intended that to be a bit of humor to defuse the seriousness of the matter. Seeing Carcharoth’s reaction, I clearly failed at that too, and just made things even more serious. For that too, I apologize. Greg L (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say this request encourages me. The best summary of the situation is this comment from Anomie: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4 is a vague request (it took a while even to get specifics out of Lightmouse) for a general-purpose bot which can do anything Lightmouse fancies on a wide array of topics, some of which aren't even units.
The assertion above that Lightmouse is particularly competent at automation seems rather doubtful; he admits he cannot write a bot which will count how often it has edited a page or queue changes; he is unwilling or unable to produce a bot which will write edit summaries reflecting what it actually does; and I see no reason to believe that this bot (if overriden by a human editor), will not come back and revert war.
Anomie also remarks, correctly, that the request for approval is backed by Lightmouse's fanclub at MOSNUM; so - aside for Jarry (I hope he realizes what he is getting into) - is this request for amendment. This is the same group and the same situation as the date-delinking case; a small group of editors would very much like to make sweeping changes of format for which they have no consensus beyond themselves - so they want a bot to do whatever changes to units they decide they want. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, date-delinking was born out of a desire to improve WP. Date-delinking received enormous community support (via the various RfCs), and the end result of delinking was the removal of almost all linked dates (and date fragments) on millions of pages—something that has received little negative feedback. The hard-working and dedicated efforts of the "fanclub" [sic] should be commended as the results are a simpler and easy-to-use WP for all viewers and editors.  HWV258.  21:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly; all these disruptive initiatives have been produced by a desire to improve Wikipedia. The reason for the ArbCom decision was the absence of any consideration that others might not feel the same about what does improve it; this proposal that Lightmouse/Bobblewick, of all people, should have a general purpose bot to impose his whims shows that nothing has changed, and the children of Robespierre still wish to improve us, whatever we may want. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you, PMA: …children of Robespierre still wish to improve us. Robespierre is the architect of the Reign of Terror and was executed in a coup d'etat. The issue here is the technical merits of the bot. Calling others “children of Robespierre” was designed to provoke. I know that; you know that. Moreover, both “bot to impose his whims” and “[who] still wish to improve us” are failures to assume good faith and are arguably personal attacks. Please behave yourself if you are going to weigh in here. Greg L (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are failures to observe good faith. It was a bad idea to give the Jacobins a guillotine; I'm not sure giving these doctrinaires a bot is a good idea either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the status of this amendment request? As far as I can see, the bot request is still in progress (it has been open for 22 days and is still being edited), and that request needs to be either accepted, or modified and accepted, before any motions can be proposed here by arbitrators (per Kirill's statement: "Lightmouse/Jarry, please go ahead and move the request through BRFA; once it's verified and approved by BAG, we can pass the necessary motions on our end to allow you to actually implement it."). Until that happens, things here are on hold. As far as I can tell, the bot request isn't making very fast progress. I would also ask arbitrators to read through the bot request (both now, while it is in progress, and once it is closed) before proposing or voting on any motions. The underlying tension at the request seems to be between a desire on the one hand for simple bot requests that are easy to check, run trials on, and approve, and on the other hand a desire to have a more open-ended, flexible request approved, that allows the bot operator to reprogram the script without constantly going back to BAG. The problem being that open-ended requests are harder to assess and approve, which is (in my view) why the request is still open and struggling to make progress. Carcharoth (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the user who I think has been the only active BAG member on this matter has now gone on vacation until 16 August. I have no idea about BAG processes, but I wonder whether it is possible for other BAG members to be requested to be a little more active. Tony (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Tony that other BAG members should be urged to comment. I think Carcharoth has a point about the inherent tension in the 'open' nature of the bot request, and the demands within the BAG for it to be firmly nailed down. I would like to remind all that the objective of this appeal is the first step in the rehabilitation of Lightmouse. On one hand, it is to give the community some sense of security that LM will not be allowed complete free reign to once again commit whatever 'errors' and 'negligences' he is alleged to have committed; OTOH, it is as much for Lightmouse to demonstrate that, without being put into a straightjacket where he cannot possibly do anything wrong (after all, what's the point?), he is responsive and capable of running a bot in a responsible manner.

    That the BAG operation should fall within the auspices of Arbcom in this particular instance may be a factor in the low participation rate there. The balance is not being struck apparently because an unnecessary complication – behavioural considerations – has been brought in. IMHO, behavioural matters are Arbcom's province; the BAG's role thus ought to be limited to technical considerations. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

This is an update. We have been in discussion at BAG for a month and a bit about reviving Lightbot with just the units of measure component. I thought it was simply matter of restating the previous Lightbot BRFA with just the units component, and amending if needed based on real examples of where it may have made systematic errors. Unfortunately, I was wrong about that top-down approach.

I'm now proposing a very limited trial (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4) with just a small set of units. It is possible to use automation to maintain/convert units of measure. Using automation to maintain/convert units is a 'good thing' and I'm sure we'll find a way. There aren't many editors contributing to the discussion and it'd be useful to have a wider range of views. Feel free to comment there. Lightmouse (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous debate at BAG (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4) became bogged down in detail. A new discussion (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5) but I'm not sure when that will end. As far as Arbcom is concerned, the connection with BAG and Lightbot is only relevant to:

  • remedy (8) "Lightmouse is limited to using only the account 'Lightmouse' to edit."

I had thought that the BAG revival of the unit portion of Lightbot would be a mere administrative matter. I was wrong. Some editors involved in the date delinking debate (from both sides) have become involved in the debate about units. Nobody (apart from me) appears to be considering moving forward to a trial. So we're still a long way off. The caution is understandable but it may lead to the debate taking a lot longer. It may also lead to BAG deciding not to revive the previous permit of Lightbot to add/maintain units.

Consequently, this is a formal request to Arbcom. Please allow progress by amending the remedy that also applies to the Lightmouse account:

  • remedy (7.1) "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."

Add/maintain units is rather tedious work when done by hand. An amendment would allow me to do what many editors do, use a normal account to use semi-automation to add/maintain units of measure. Hopefully, the new fear, uncertainty and doubt relating to bot usage for similar tasks will be resolved at some point in the future. Lightmouse (talk) 12:40, 18 August 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

  • Recuse, as I presented evidence in this case. Steve Smith (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse as I recused in the original case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Have now made a statement above. 01:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lightmouse, I am willing to give you another chance to engage in automation work, provided that it is done under appropriate supervision from BAG to ensure that we don't fall back into any repeats of your past conflicts. Having said that, the Lightbot 3 BAG approval request included a number of functions that are not relevant to what you seem to be proposing, or that would be inappropriate in the current circumstances. I would like to see a current statement from BAG indicating specifically which functions you will be performing during this trial, and how they will monitor the results, before we move forward. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lightmouse/Jarry, please go ahead and move the request through BRFA; once it's verified and approved by BAG, we can pass the necessary motions on our end to allow you to actually implement it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally I agree with Kirill; I'd like to make sure we've got the details down before going any further here. Shell babelfish 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Kirill. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Kirill; I'd like to see the BAG reviews before implementation but, if all looks good, then it will be a straightforward matter. Risker (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed as well. I'm not opposed to allowing a BAG reviewed automated process. — Coren (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as it's reviewed by the appropriate people and the details made clear, I have no problem with it. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, broadly per Kirill.  Roger Davies talk 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally agree with my colleagues who have commented on this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any update on the status of this, or currently pending request for action? If necessary, this request should be withdrawn and re-filed when it is ready for action. I don't think it's a good practice for requests to stay open on this page indefinitely. (This is a process point, not a criticism of anyone.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current configuration is wholly dependent on BAG. I thought BAG would simply revive the relatively uncontroversial non-date portion of Lightbot. Unfortunately, those involved in the date delinking dispute (on both sides) have become involved. I think we'd get an early and defendable decision if we had a new BAG application (e.g. Lightbot 6) with contributions only from editors uninvolved with date delinking. Also, did you see my [formal request]? I don't want the one year restriction to go much further into its second year. Lightmouse (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European Mailing List (4)

Initiated by Martin (talk) at 20:58, 7 July 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
  1. Remedy 7
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • N/A

Amendment 1

  • [74]
  • This is a request to amend EEML Remedy 7 to end the topic ban that applies to Martintg and allow him to edit articles related to Eastern Europe.

Statement by Martintg

The locus of the WP:EEML case relates to off-wiki co-ordination and canvassing, which was done via a mail list. In the nearly eight months since I've taken stock, while taking a break to pursue some postgrad study. During that time I've reflected on what went wrong. I joined the maillist primarily as a convenient way to socially network with a bunch of people I've come to know through contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately this convenience led members of the list, myself included, into behaviour that crossed the line. This was due to a kind of mob mentality and a sense of hubris that developed along with it. This I regret. Prior to joining that list I was an editor in good standing, a clear block log, no ANI reports, no 3RR reports, no RFC/Us, no ArbCom cases about me, nothing.

In support I would like the committee to consider:

  1. my previously un-problematic record (clean block log prior to joining the EEML and this affirmation of my previously good standing), indicating there is no issue of recidivism
  2. my previous relaxation [75] had caused no problem
  3. no violations of any WP:EEML sanctions since the case closed
  4. your support for the relaxation of the topic ban for other editors
  5. my expression of regret at the trouble caused by EEML membership and undertaking to put all that behind me

Since December I have created some articles on German politicians and political organisations and had sourced a small number of Estonian biographies without any issues (many were not notable so I hadn't bothered with those) after I requested and was granted a relaxation to my topic ban[76].

In regard to my plans in the area, I would like to continue to expand the range of arts and literature topics for Wikiproject Estonia. Previously I had filled in many significant gaps such as Culture of Estonia, along with a lot of related articles on literary figures (for example August Sang, Villem Grünthal-Ridala, Johannes Aavik), movements (e.g. Arbujad, Young Estonia and Siuru) and institutions like Art Museum of Estonia and Estonian Literary Museum. (A more comprehensive list is on my user page). There is still a lot to do, as you can see by the red links in Template:Culture_of_Estonia. Despite my continuing studies I expect to devote a little more of my time than in the past few months, as I do enjoy contributing my free time to Wikipedia.

Having ended such off-wiki co-ordination, and given an undertaking not to engage in such behaviour going forward, the conditions that led to the problematical behaviour no longer exists. I have learnt my lesson, will ensure any similar will be avoided in the future.

On a final note, I could have just as easily waited out the remainder of my topic ban and quietly slipped back into editing the area without subjecting myself to this, without having to acknowledge the issues that led to topic ban or make an undertaking in regard to the future. The fact I am requesting an early relaxation and thus am prepared to acknowledge these issues and make the undertaking should be viewed as a positive development by the committee and be applauded, not ignored or viewed sceptically (which would be wholly unjustified given my previous good standing and good behaviour since).

Response to Igny's comments
Response to Igny's comments

Shortly after being granted permission to source a number of BLPs, I had an opportunity to undertake some study. Unfortunately about a month later, Igny involved me in an SPI case, however somebody kindly informed me of this via email. I can't recall having really interacted with him that much prior to the EEML case, so it was somewhat surprising that he would go after me like that.

Russavia also became involved in this SPI case too, as he did in a number of other AE cases launching complaints against Radeksz, Biruitorul and Biophys. Consequently the Russavia-Biophys ArbCom case was opened. I took that opportunity to request an interaction ban for Russavia. I believe I conducted myself correctly in that case and Shell even appreciated my decorum [77]. Igny ended up getting blocked for 31 hours[78] for misconduct on the case workshop.

Igny states I wasted everyone's time in that ArbCom case. It is true that I did waste a bit of time, it could have been spent more productively on my studies, but I think given the outcome it was well worth the effort. It's not a nice experience to be informed by email that some are still on the warpath. The way I see it, the bulk of the problems really boil down to personality clashes, some people are just implacably opposed to each other no matter what. Sad, but it's a fact of life. Probably in such cases interaction bans are the way to go when editors can't voluntarily refrain from finding fault and battling with others.

I'm perplexed at Igny's comments here, given that he hasn't made that many recent edits himself either. We all operate under different constraints. After completing the semester I found time from family and friends to source those BLPs that I had committed to sourcing. Wikipedia is a free project, which also means that anyone can devote as little or as much time as they can. I believe I'm a competent editor with an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I've had a long time to re-think things during my self imposed "site ban", and I do "get it" now. I just want to get on and derive some enjoyment from contributing to topics that interest me while allowing others to do the same, without this battleground BS. 2009 was an adventure I do not want to repeat. --Martin (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further response to Igny's comments

I am some what mystified by Igny's claims of "our personal clashes in the past", as I can't recall a single instance where we might of clashed personally, apart from the recent SPI[79] Igny launched against me while I was away, let alone interacted to any significant degree on any particular article. I just scanned the EEML archive and Igny isn't mentioned at all, so he didn't appear on the list's radar. Perhaps he may have been somewhat radicalised by the EEML case itself, and may have adopted other people's past battles as his own. I hope that is not the case, since from what I have seen of Igny in the past, he seems to be quite a reasonable person with which I could work with.

As to Igny's question whether a topic ban is designed to demonstrate if an "editor's problematic behavior occurs again when he returns to the EE disputes", note that I had edited German related topics in January and February with no problems, and I think I amply demostrated decorum in my response to an EE dispute not of my making thrust upon me by Igny in the form of the SPI in March and again in the follow-up Russavia-Biophy case (and note that I didn't involve Igny in my proposals presented in the case workshop). So the risk of problematic behaviour has been demonstrated to be nil. --Martin (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Biophy's comments
Response to Biophy's comments

Notwithstanding the fact that Biophys may well be risking a violation of his topic ban by commenting here, my involvement in the Russavia-Biophys case was related to Russavia's behaviour in the SPI case[80], revealing personal information even when asked to stop, for which there was a FoF[81] and an Admonishment[82] and a Restriction[83]. It is true that I spent a bit too much time at the end of the case arguing for more equitable topic bans for the parties with Shell, as that end part did impact my study time a bit, and I probably ended up just annoying Shell too (sorry Shell). In that sense it was a distraction, but in terms of seeking an reciprocal interaction ban (which remains in force regardless of whether or not my topic ban is relaxed) was necessary and unavoidable under the circumstances. --Martin (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no battleground here. People are free to express their views or concerns on this page. I welcome this as it gives me an opportunity to respond as necessary to allay any legitimate concern. --Martin (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is true that I have commented in a few ArbCom cases, but my conduct in doing so has been exemplary and I was motivated by the desire to reduce the level of conflict in that space. If some people are upset that I did comment, well I guess that is to be expected. The Committee can and does examine the behaviour of anyone participating, as they did in the Eastern European disputes case. Krohn's mysterious emailer had every opportunity to present evidence against me, and I'm sure they did during that case however the Committee exercised their judgement. --Martin (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to The Four Deuce's comments
Response to The Four Deuce's comments

I've virtually never interacted with TFD in the past, the first time being when I voted "Keep" at this AfD [84] which resulted in "No Concensus". I did canvas that on the EEML and that was wrong, no bones about it. After the EEML ArbCom case began there a two more AfDs [85][86] where only two or three EEML members independently voted and these resulted in "No Concensus", despite the closing admin being made aware of the existance of the EEML case and its membership. Finally a 4th AfD[87] was initiated this year where absolutely no one from the EEML voted, yet it resulted in a "Keep". While it was clearly wrong to canvass the first AfD, non-involvement in the 4th actually resulted in an outcome I would have wanted anyway. Go figure.

And yet TFD appears to be continuing to invoke the EEML bogey man in that article, recently claiming "When the article was listed for deletion, they decided off-wiki to rename the article", when in fact the original move discussion had no EEML involvement and predated the AfD, in fact the very first AfD comment confirms that. I don't know why The Four Deuces is singling me out in particular and WP:Poking me with untrue stuff.

TFD's statement has in my view many misleading points, so I'll address them line by line:

  • "Martintg's defence is basically that he fell into the wrong crowd and he is sorry."
No, I didn't say that at all. There is nothing wrong with the individuals, but unfortunately a mob mentality developed and led some of us of otherwise good standing (I had a clear block log prior to joining the EEML) to cross the line, which I regret.
  • "However, Martintg does not mention any actions he took that he regrets, any articles that he and his colleagues edited and now wish to repair or any editor he offended he now wishes to apologize to."
Sure, the canvassing was wrong, I accept that, but I stand by the substance of all my edits (but in some cases not the form, i.e. the occasional edit warring). I not sure why I need to apologise to TFD though, I've not known TFD prior to the EEML case.
  • "This group shared a minority political point of view and damaged the neutrality of numerous articles and continued to collaborate off-wiki even after the case was presented against them."
This is an incredible blanket statement. TFD has no idea what my politics are, or that of other members, and I ended collaboration with the list at beginning of the case. The political viewpoints are as diverse as can be expected by the differing backgrounds and locations of the group members. For example, in my estimation, the majority of the group is for gun control and against Arizona's immigration laws.
  • "They do not accept that Wikipedia articles should be neutral and tied up the time of numerous editors. While it may be that they will no longer coordinate their efforts, their approach as individuals is damaging to neutrality."
Again this is a nonsense blanket statement. I've always striven for neutrality, as you can see from the many articles I've created.
  • "It is irritating that as I and other editors were arguing with Martintg and his colleagues and they were presenting arguments against us that off-wiki there were agreeing that our arguments made sense and trying to develop a new approach."
This is an absolutely, flat out untrue.
  • "Surely editors like this drive away most of the editors we want to attract, people who have the ability to write articles and those who remain are tied up in silly disputes."
I don't know who TFD is referring to here, but I don't think I should become the whipping boy of all that he thinks is wrong with Wikipedia.
  • "Dispute resolution, reporting editors for 3RR, writing Wikiquette and ANI reports are extemely time-consuming and allowing editors like Martintg will only discourage capable editors who are discouraged by the processes to counter editors like Martintg."
Again I don't know who TFD is referring too here, my record shows that I have a relatively clean record in this regard, apart from a block for a 3RR violation that was applied 20 hours after I had undone my 4th revert, and a mis-applied block for alleged OUTING that never ocurred. In fact the Committee previously scrutinized my record and found no substantive policy violation [88]

I don't understand what TFD seeks to gain in continuing to flog the EEML dead horse, even insinuating there is some kind of far-right anti-Semitic agenda at play[89] (not the first time either, having to redact similar comment previously [90]), which I find somewhat offensive. I do wonder why I have become the whipping boy of people like TFD who I have never crossed paths with in the past. Nor is it likely that I will interact with him in the future as our interests are divergent. At least Piotrus has the benefit of real opponents with real history of interaction and real issues which can be worked on. But as far as I'm concerned, the EEML horse is truly dead and buried. --Martin (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Rlevse
Question to Rlevse

Could you provide some guidance as to the reasons for your opposition, given:

  1. my previous relaxation [91] had caused no problem
  2. my previously un-problematic record (clean block log prior to joining the EEML and this affirmation of my previously good standing), indicating there is no issue of recidivism
  3. no violations of any WP:EEML sanctions (unlike Biruitorul and Radeksz, both who have had their topic bans lifted)
  4. my expression of regret at the trouble caused by EEML membership and undertaking to put all that behind me
  5. your explicit support for the relaxation of the topic ban for Radeksz[92] despite the strong concerns expressed by several editors who have a long history of interaction with him.

I just want to use my time to contribute something useful to the topics I've indicated above, all I ask is that I be treated fairly. --Martin (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Rlevse remains unconvinced. The locus of the WP:EEML case involved off-wiki co-ordination and canvassing, which was done via a mail list. Prior to joining that list I was in good standing, a clear block log, no ANI reports, no 3RR reports, no RFC/Us, no ArbCom cases about me, nothing. Having ended such off-wiki co-ordination, and given an undertaking not to engage in such behaviour going forward, I don't understand the basis of Rlevse's reluctance, given that he was previously supported lifting the sanction of another editor with a similar FoF. The conditions that led to the problematical behaviour no longer exists, and having learnt my lesson, will ensure any similar will be avoided in the future. --Martin (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Petri Krohn's comments
Response to Petri Krohn's comments

What can I say in response to a guy who claims I am the "chief battle axe" "promoting a fringe nationalistic agenda" that "has taken the form of a global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th century", while associating himself[93] in his statement to a radical political organisation operating in Finland then accusing me of attempting to "distort Wikipedia to fit his political agenda". Hmmmm. I don't have any political agenda, I've never have been a member of any political group, let alone one with a published manifesto. Nor have I ever agitated at protest events or even have a blog, let alone write letters to editors. I'm just a regular Joe who enjoys editing Wikipedia in my spare time, attempting to reflect reliable sources with due weight to the best of my abilities. I would suggest that Petri Krohn removes his huge political plank from his eye before complaining about the speck he perceives in my eye.

What is even more spooky is his accusation that "this has extended to multiple forums on the Internet outside Wikipedia" and that "evidence sent to me were new instances of this campaign". Okay, should I be getting scared now that this individual appears to be stalking me outside Wikipedia gathering non-existent "evidence" of this "global ideological war"? Petri Krohn threatens to start an ArbCom case against me should this motion pass, he is free to do so if he wishes.

Petri Krohn has also appended what seems essentially to be a polemic written by someone "who wishes to remain anonymous" presented as evidence. Who ever this anonymous person is, perhaps it is Petri Krohn himself, I will never the less address the main points:

  • All the diffs cited in point 2 in relation to the article Denial of the Holodomor are from 2008. Edit warring in that article was investigated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. I don't think it appropriate to re-litigate something from 2008. In any case I've not edited that article since September 2008.
  • Regarding point 3, whether a topic ban extends to commenting on a particular editor when there is no interaction ban in place is a grey area that certain admins have taken a position on. I note that Biophys has commented upon myself despite his topic ban here in this amendment request without consequence. However, when advised by such admins to desist in particular cases I have complied.

Petri Krohn admits that his involvement here was a result of being canvassed offline by someone unknown, stating "However, someone, who wishes to remain anonymous, contacted me, and – knowing the strong feelings I have privately expressed about the issue at hand – implied that I am a pussy if I do not express my strongest objection to this motion". So evidently there is an element of off-wiki co-ordination going on here. (Perhaps TFD was also canvassed off-wiki to comment here, that would explain his involvement given no real history between us, who knows). It is a pity that Petri has chosen to resume this troubled path of confrontation, apparently driven by what he perceives as his "global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th century", but I'm simply not going to buy into it.

Why should some one like Petri Krohn, apparently an activist with a clear and documented political agenda, be allowed to smear me and sour my editing experience because he imagines me to be his political enemy solely because I happen to have an interest in Baltic topics? --Martin (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I'm intrigued by Krohn's reference to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in his statement. I checked out that article and found and fixed some issues. But I don't see the relevance here, unless Petri Krohn is attempting to insinuate something that editors were warned not to do in a previous ArbCom case[94]. --Martin (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vecrumba's comments
Response to Vecrumba's comments

Well sure, if the Committee wants to impose some kind of conditionality, that's fine with me. ArbCom wouldn't even need to be watching that closely, as it's been demonstrated here that there are more than enough eyes to scrutinise my behaviour, even by those wiki-warriors who believe there is a global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th centuryTM. Note that I did complete BLP sourcing after a previous relaxation[95] without any issue or drama, so it would be disappointing if the Committee where to now apply the brakes and not relax the topic ban further in some way. I could have just as easily waited out the remainder of my topic ban and return to editing later, I've got plenty of other things to do in the mean time. However the fact that I am requesting an early return should be viewed as a positive development as it indicates that I have acknowledged the issues of the past and have undertaken to more forward. --Martin (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Igny

I can not recommend the lift of the ban for Martin based on his recent WP activity. In the recent 100 edits he just wasted everyone's time when participating in Russavia-Biophys EEML-related ArbCom case, and after some break just when EEML case was due for review and just when others filed for an amendment Martin rushed with several BLP fixes for EE related persons as if it was simply done to satisfy the previous amendment and justify a new one. (Igny (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Update: I understand I could be too harsh in my statement and quite possibly our personal clashes in the past contributed to this. But in any case a "site-wide self-imposed ban" is not the right way to deal with topic bans. Topic bans were placed in part to reduce battleground mentality in controversial areas and productive work elsewhere was needed to demonstrate how an editor in question copes with withdrawal from the battleground. Just going into self-imposed exile for the length of the topic ban (regardless of the real life constraints) does poor job answering the question whether editor's problematic behavior occurs again when he returns to the EE disputes. I still think that Martin's lift of the ban is premature at the moment. Also tu quoque was not the right counter-argument to my point above.(Igny (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Re NYB and SirFozzie, I understand that you are willing to put your trust in that Martintg will not return to the "previous behavior". Could you clarify by showing examples of particular behavior that might warrant reinstatement of the ban? (Igny (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Biophys

I support lifting the ban for Martin because he was productive and created sixty six new pages. Whatever problems he might have in the past, six months was a long time, and Martin was never a major "violator" anywhere. So I wonder what was the reason for the statements against him? Most probably, this is happening because he commented in a number of cases, including my case (which he was allowed to do). He should not be commenting on any cases according to the anonymous e-mailer to Petri. No so. In fact, the comments by Marting on-wiki were very much legitimate, much better than the cowardly letter by the anonymous emailer to Petri. Biophys (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

I object to lifting this remedy. Considerable time was spent on the EEML case and its members, rather than accepting the facts presented, wasted months of time of arbitrators and witnesses and were very offensive to them. Martintg's defence is basically that he fell into the wrong crowd and he is sorry. However, Martintg does not mention any actions he took that he regrets, any articles that he and his colleagues edited and now wish to repair or any editor he offended he now wishes to apologize to. This group shared a minority political point of view and damaged the neutrality of numerous articles and continued to collaborate off-wiki even after the case was presented against them. They do not accept that Wikipedia articles should be neutral and tied up the time of numerous editors. While it may be that they will no longer coordinate their efforts, their approach as individuals is damaging to neutrality. It is irritating that as I and other editors were arguing with Martintg and his colleagues and they were presenting arguments against us that off-wiki there were agreeing that our arguments made sense and trying to develop a new approach. Surely editors like this drive away most of the editors we want to attract, people who have the ability to write articles and those who remain are tied up in silly disputes. Dispute resolution, reporting editors for 3RR, writing Wikiquette and ANI reports are extemely time-consuming and allowing editors like Martintg will only discourage capable editors who are discouraged by the processes to counter editors like Martintg. TFD (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petri Krohn

I loathe getting in any way involved in the Wikipedia arbitration process and have thus far been able to avoid any involvement – so much so, that I have not even written a word to my defense in the now infamous WP:DIGWUREN case. However, someone, who wishes to remain anonymous, contacted me, and – knowing the strong feelings I have privately expressed about the issue at hand – implied that I am a pussy if I do not express my strongest objection to this motion. He also sent me evidence (see appendix) he had prepared in response to Martin's latest comments.

Martin's actions on the Internet, on and off Wikipedia, show that his only interest on the web is promoting a fringe nationalistic agenda, or in Wikipedia terms, he is a single purpose account. Since our paths first crossed sometime in early 2007 the underlying dispute has taken the form of a global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th century. I believe in some ways the early editing disputes and the formulation of opposing positions on Wikipedia talk pages have later influenced the positions some of the main players in this battle have taken. I may be as much involved in this ideological battle as Marting is. However I have not used Wikipedia article space as a platform to promote my fringe ideas. I will rather let the Historical Truth Commission and the Simon Wiesenthal Center speak for me.

From this POVish point of expertise I can testify that Marting is the chief battle axe of the opposing side. He is not the benign Wikignome he now pretends to be. Anything he touches will turn into distortion of facts or into a political battlefield. His presence on Wikipedia, in the contested subjects, is venom to the key principle of neutral point-of-view. So far he has shown no interest in editing outside his chosen battlefield, for example in his field of professional expertise.

For several years now Martin has been waging a politically motivated attack campaign against me, that is my Wikipedia account and the real life me. This has extended to multiple forums on the Internet outside Wikipedia. In the evidence sent to me were new instances of this campaign, unknown to me previously. If this proposed motion were to pass, I feel that I will finally have to start an arbitration case against Marting on this issue.

I have no objections to Martin using his freedom of speech to promote his ideas on the Internet. However, I cannot see why – having broken the key principles of Wikipedia – he should again be given a license to distort Wikipedia to fit his political agenda. -- Petri Krohn (talk)

Appendix: Evidence in response to Marting

Let me respond to Martintg's argumentation addressed to Rlevse because the points are so easily refutable.

1) of course the previous relaxation had caused no problem. Nor did Radeksz's or Piotrus's. In all cases they were used as basis to demand more like a slippery slope.

2) you never had a previously un-problematic record. Since the start of your Martintg account you revealed what Arbcom referred to as "poor behavior". Arbcom claimed no "good standing" in the Eastern European disputes arbitration, just that no actionable evidence against you was provided and that was the case. You were all battering Irpen, who refused that the scope should be changed from Piotrus and was overwhelmed by what became known as the EEML team. Provision of actionable evidence and the existence of actionable evidence is not the same, e.g. Irpen was sanctioned on the evidence of 22 reverts in the Holodomor denial article [96] put on an indefinite 1RR per week with the obligation to discuss every single one. [97]. One could have equally added Martintg's 15 reverts in the previous months on that article

[98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112]

3) Martintg did little else than take exceptional efforts to violate the spirit of the topic ban and remain an attention-seeking nuisance in the EE topic area despite topic ban. Immediately after the Arbitration ended, Martintg was back on arguing at Mass killings under Communist regimes, [113] falling into the scope of the ban. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&diff=prev&oldid=335698266 Next, he violated the spirit of the Russavia interaction ban and the EE topic ban with a comment about Russavia that sounded positive but had teeth [114] and needed to be reminded [115] Next, Martintg disrupted an EE-related AE and was warned by Sandstein. [116] Still showing the finger, Martintg violated the topic ban again voting on Petri Krohn [117] that was removed [118] Martintg reverted the admin [119] and continued [120], getting warned again [121]. Next came Offliner [122] and soon after the Biophys arbitration [123]. AE request on Biruitorul? Martintg was there.[124] Finally came Radeksz's amendment request.[125]

4) Let me sum up what you wrote: you're all innocent, joined good-heartedly and suddenly became a victim to a mob mentality and hubris and crossed the line. That's not accepting fault but whitewashing and playing down.

5) The destruction of Radeksz's topic ban led to this [126] [127]. For some reason this looks just like the pre-EEML-discovery Radeksz.

Statement by Vecrumba

To TheFourDeuces' gross misrepresentations, suppositions, and personal attacks, I invite him to provide evidence where anything I (or other EEML members) have represented on Wikipedia is other than a fair and accurate representation of reputable sources—and representing majority scholarly opinion on the Baltics and Eastern Europe. I regret that more than half a year has passed since imposition of the topic ban and TFD is not alone in continuing to demonstrate offensive bad faith in re-litigating EEML with unfounded charges.

I believe Martintg is ready to return to productive editing. If his behavior is less than exemplary, ArbCom will be watching. Perhaps a review at three months to "re-up" the lifting of his topic ban for the rest of the original term if impartial, uninvolved editors have a genuine concern. Martintg has nothing to fear from objective scrutiny. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:27, 24 July 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

will think on this more. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply unconvinced. Would reconsider around Oct. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with some of the other editors who were sanctioned in this decision, I would be agreeable to at least some curtailment or narrowing of the remedy—partly based on the feeling that the breadth of the remedy may have been wider than necessary to begin with, and in any event due to the lapse of time. Of course, if the remedy is lifted or narrowed, there would be a strong expectation that the problematic behaviors addressed in the original decision must not recur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at this, I'd be willing to let this go, with the caveat that there's not much wiggle room here, and that a return to previous behaviors will mean it's near-immediate reinstatement. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider a lifting or narrowing of the restrictions now, or in the future between now and October, but will not be initiating that myself. I think more arbitrators need to comment first. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=380212389"