Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 56

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 → Archive 60
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126


Request to amend prior case: Race and intelligence (September 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Captain Occam (talk) at 18:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Case affected
Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent
  2. Captain Occam topic-banned
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Statement by Captain Occam

I’m replacing my statement with a comment on my continued interaction with Mathsci, because at this stage I think that’s more important than why I was looking for an interaction ban.

In his statement below, Mathsci says “I have not been responsible for proposing any action vaguely related to Captain Occam or his friends in the last few months.” At AE on August 31st, Mathsci proposed “I suggest that this opportunity is used to extend the indefinite topic ban on him and Ferahgo-the-Assassin to include an indefinite ban on participating in any requests at WP:AE related to WP:ARBR&I.” Mathsci made this proposal about me and Ferahgo eight days ago. This was the most recent example of him proposing action about me in the past month; it is not the only example.

Anyway, here is what I think really matters, and what has the potential to resolve the situation:

I do not have a problem with Mathsci’s request that I disengage from him, as long as he agrees to do the same to me and Ferahgo. I have told him twice that I would be willing to promise this if he could promise the same thing in return: once in December, and a second time in August. Both times that I made this offer to Mathsci, he refused it. I will now make the offer a third time. If Mathsci can promise to completely disengage from me and Ferahgo from this point forward (and this includes no more off-wiki sleuthing about us), then we can promise to completely disengage from him also.

This is really all I’ve wanted from Mathsci since December, and all of the drama between him and me since then could have been avoided if he were willing to agree to it. I would like to know whether he’s willing to agree to this now. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I’m still waiting for Mathsci to acknowledge the offer I’m making that he and I agree to leave each other alone. During the time since I posted it, he’s updated his statement below several times to add more diffs, but he’s continuing to ignore what I’m offering. If Mathsci really does care about us disengaging from each other, why can’t he agree to this? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

This request is frivolous and disruptive. It is wrongly framed since there are no active ArbCom sanctions in effect on me: all sanctions were formally lifted by a motion initiated by ArbCom in mid-December. (My self-imposed voluntary restrictions are still in effect, but do not extend to project pages; I committed myself to initiating cases on WP:AE only in exceptional circumstances.) The restrictions placed by ArbCom on Captain Occam have been extended since they were put in place.

At the moment I am not going to enter into any detail about the recent AE request concerning Miradre, the subsequent request for clarification and the AE appeal by Miradre against the one-month block which has just been declined by NuclearWarfare after comments by several uninvolved administrators (two ipsocks of Mikemikev, later blocked, aided Miradre in making responses!). The various AE requests and clarifications concerning Miradre, only one of which I initiated, have involved multiple editors almost all of whom have found fault with Miradre's general method of editing and use of sources. The request for an amendment in the middle of an AE appeal where Captain Occam might himself have been sanctioned seems like very odd timing: it is reminiscent of Captain Occam's disruptive activities in mid-December in multiple venues on wikipedia, when arbitrators were voting to lift my topic ban. [1][2][3][4]

Yesterday I sent a letter to ArbCom which I will reproduce here:

email to arbcom sent prior to this request

Dear arbitrators,

Captain Occam continues to misuse ArbCom pages to post requests out-of-the-blue for sanctions to be imposed on me. This seems to be a pattern of harrassment. When I made a report at WP:AE on Miradre, where his name was not mentioned, he used that as his first attempt to intervene and request sanctions on me. I no longer edit in the area of R&I but keep a lookout for sockpuppets and meatpuppets, because there has been a lot of anomolous editing since ARBR&I was closed, particularly by Mikemikev, but also by two identified meatpuppets of Captain Occam and Ferahgo-the-Assassin.

When I requested clarification about Captain Occam's involvement in the report on Miradre, he used that request for clarification to launch yet another attack on me. On Jclemens talk page he inidicated that he wished to have sanctions imposed on me, without producing any diffs to support his argument. Since EdJohnston already answered the question concerning Captain Occam's involvement at AE, I withdrew the request for clarification, which was then archived by Xeno. Many editors commented at the AE request re Miradre, which remained open for a long period.

Captain Occam then saw that I had recently been involved in a totally unrelated discussion on COIN, where Atama had advised me to be careful what I wrote (a BLP that was almost certainly autobiographical). Captain Occam on his own admission then decided that Atama was not well-disposed to me and requested that he close the AE request on Miradre. Atama duly blocked Mirardre for a month for violating a topic ban, the very opposite of what Captain Occam expected. That closure has been upheld by at least two regular administrators handling AE.

Miradre then made an appeal against the block from his talk page. Captain Occam used that as a third opportunity to launch an attack on me, demanding sanctions. I replied, suggesting that his topic ban should probably be extended to all AE requests concerning ARBR&I. He then lobbied NuclearWarfare to impose sanctions on me on NW's user talk page:

[5]

NW declined his request and Captain Occam concluded the discussion by writing that he would seek sanctions on me directly from ArbCom. He later lobbied Jclemens yet again on his talk page.

It appears to me that Captain Occam is intervening in processes in which he has no direct involvement solely to give the artificial impression of an ongoing dispute with me. Unless his meatpuppets choose to interact with me (principally <redacted> = SightWatcher, a personal friend of Ferahgo who started editing as soon as her ban was imposed), I would have no reason to mention Captain Occam. It is Captain Occam's responsibility that he has chosen to influence edits through meatpuppetry and quite outside my control.

All other interactions have also been one-sided, including most recently Captain Occam's disruptive postings described above. In addition in January Captain Occam wrote a letter to the Economist which he described in detail on Jimbo Wales talk page. Only part of the letter was published; they refused to publish a section which referred indirectly to me, where it was claimed that my editing had frightened a particular editor from wikipedia. In addition on FurAffinity two joke accounts, Mathsci and Muntuwandi, were created by friends of Ferahgo with pages containing crude sexual and racist comments, in which Ferahgo partipated. Finally in December 2010 Captain Occam made unfounded allegations about cronyism with Roger Davies.

I cannot see any merit in Captain Occam suggesting an amendment of any kind. What seems to be quite likely is that his topic will be extended by uninvolved administrators to preclude any participation in AE requests concerning ARBR&I.

As I have said before, I am not against Captain Occam's topic ban being lifted, but I would suggest that even if it is formally lifted, he voluntarily withdraw indefinitely from editing all matters connected with race and intelligence.

  • Shell Kinney has indicated that the email correspondence between me and her about SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 can be made available to other arbitrators. My understanding was that it was discussed by arbcom already in December 2010. Mathsci (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Request. I am an involuntary participant in this request, initiated by Captain Occam. I have not been responsible for proposing any action vaguely related to Captain Occam or his friends in the last few months. Even if Captain Occam continues persistently to express some general personal malaise to arbitrators and ex-arbitrators,[6][7][8][9][10][11] please could he be advised to disengage from me on wikipedia in the future? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Slrubenstein

I won't comment directly on the proposed ammendment, except that I have never seen any situation involving the parties where CIV, AGF, and of course editing content according to our core content policies and 3RR, have not been sufficient to ensure the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. I certainly have seen worse conflicts among users.

Frankly, I do not understand why Captain Occam and others cannot do what I have done in similar situations, where I have simply chosen never to respond to a particular editor. All Captain Occam has to do is ignore MathSci, and he can achieve his aim without any ArbCom intervention. No offense, but I think ArbCom should never get involved in a situation where there are other remedies.

But I do want to stress that whatever ArbCom does it should not use this ammendment as a means to limit MathSci's edits to science and social science -related articles (including "history of..." articles). MathSci is one of our best editors, in his ability to research a topic and provide neutral accounts of the significant views on topics from reliable sources. I cannot imagine anyone making a case that MathSci should be banned from editing on any topic, and we cannot let this proposal become a back-door means to have that effect. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Enric Naval

I was involved in the banning of Captain Occam, but then I stopped participating in R&I discussions. I have followed the topic only because WP:AE and the other arbitration pages are in my watchlist.

Generally, Captain Occam's participation seems limited to a) throwing all sort of obstacles in the way of banning tendentious editors that share his POV, b) trying to get Mathsci removed from the topic.

Mathsci is the most effective editor in getting said tendentious editors identified and dealt with. Removing him from the topic would just give freeway to said tendentious editors.

Since those tendentious editors share Captain Occam's POV, he is simply continuing his involvement in the area he was topic-banned from. I don't recall why Captain Occam was allowed to comment in R&I related arbitration requests, but the net effect has been quite negative. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ferahgo

Since I would obviously be affected by the outcome of this, I should start by saying that I, too, would really appreciate this proposed interaction ban. Over the past few months Mathsci has made it seem like he's following me around the internet, spying on me off-Wiki, and researching my friends. This comment here, about a friend who's never participated in Wikipedia at all [12], is extremely creepy to me. It appears that he has researched all of my friends even though I haven't participated in the topic area since sometime last year. There are other examples of him obviously trying to look up stuff about me off-Wiki also. Mathsci was asked months ago by Arbcom to leave this topic area alone, yet he can't seem to bring himself to do it.

His attitude towards his conflict with Occam seems to be another example of the same thing. He says he wants him and Occam to leave each other alone, but he still can't resist emailing Occam (and me), reporting him at SPI, etc. Roger Davies advised him in February that if an editor's conduct is egregious enough, it will be brought up by less involved editors. But I think he just can't stop himself, even though he knows that not interacting with Occam would be what's best for everyone and what ArbCom wants. An interaction ban would give Mathsci what he seems to know would be best, but doesn't have the willpower to actually do. More importantly, after the amount of off-Wiki research that Mathsci has apparently conducted about me, an interaction ban would make me feel safer and more at-ease editing on Wikipedia. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: My statement has been refactored for accuracy at Roger Davies' request.

Statement by Maunus

I am involved. I don't see the point of this request, what is it exactly that an interaction ban would achive that would not be achieved by Occam simply ignoring Mathsci as Slrubenstein and Coren suggests? I think it is reasonable to consider that Mathsci has been targeted for rather nasty off-wiki harrassment as a result of his ivolvement in the dispute, among them being labeled as a "Jewish Wikipedia editor" on Stormfront.org, and being the butt of malicious jokes on encyclopedia dramatica. On the other hand, what kind of interaction is it that he has engaged in with Occam? He posted a reply on Jimbo's page when Occam had first mentioned the dispute in which mathsci was involved in his letter to the economist, and then tried to appeal to Jimbo (with a suggestion to turn wikipedia's into a dictatorship in order to better protect the rights of minority editors...). I certainly don't see any evidence that would suggest that an interaction ban for Mathsci should be required. While there is probably no precedent for havign a unilateral interaction ban, I guess Occam could have one if he wants it, that way we might at least avoid more waste of arbitrators time. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Boothello

Captain Occam appears to be requesting special treatment from Arbcom. There's nothing unique about his situation, this is just standard for disagreements with Mathsci. I'm no stranger to this myself:

Mathsci only rarely edits the articles or their talk pages. But when I make an edit he doesn't like, he typically responds by immediately accusing me of policy violations and threatening me with sanctions as though he had the power or authority to do so. Some examples are [13], [14], [15], [16] and [17] These threats and accusations are the entirety of Mathsci's interaction with me. I've never seen the guy before until he showed up on my talk with these comments. He refused to stop posting on my talk when I asked him (at one point, the majority of total revisions to my talk were from him). The first diff above is especially vexing, as it seems to be threatening Risker because of her comments asking him to disengage: "I have privately sent messages about her comments to two members of ArbCom."

I certainly don't think this is good or fair, but I think Occam's request for an interaction ban is unnecessary. If an amendment is made, then I think we need something that's good for the community and not just for one editor.Boothello (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Aprock

It's been over two months since Captain Occam has edited an article page. Since that edit he's been able to generate 100+ non-article edits, nearly all of which orbit WP:ARBR&I. It seems like the most constructive thing that can occur going forward is for Captain Occam to fully disengage from R/I related issues and begin contributing in earnest to other article topics and pages. aprock (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Ok, parties, you've each had your say. Now I, for one, would like to see input from other community members, administrators, and arbitrators familiar with the situation. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Allow me to be more clear: I'd like to see input from others, and no additional back-and-forth between the parties. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't envision a scenario where it would be productive to enact this particular ban suggestion given the context and history here. If you don't want to interact with each other, then don't. I'd rather not provide a club to beat each other up with. — Coren (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • The short of it, Captain, is that interaction bans are used only as a very last resort in cases where two editors have been sniping at each other without cause for a long time. In this case, all it would end up doing is give you both yet another rule to brandish to claim the other violated it. If you're alleging specific misbehaviour from Mathsci, then bring it to normal dispute resolution with evidence; otherwise it just looks like you're looking for a new weapon to bring to the fray. — Coren (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You're right, I had forgotten this specific limitation. I think the best solution in this case might be for the committee to give leave to proceed with an RFC/U if you show reasonable cause; I'll ask the rest of the committee to take a look at this discussion to chime in and we'll see where we go from there. — Coren (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have recently become convinced that a committee-imposed interaction ban would be healthy for all parties involved. We've had enough spy vs. spy nonsense. Cool Hand Luke 23:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that Shell did not refer to Mathsci as a "spy." Upon further reflection, I'm not sure if an interaction restriction quite captures what I see to be the problem. On-wiki interaction is not what bothers me.
      Perhaps we should make clear that that R&I sanctions are imposed for continuing prior problematic behavior. I perceive too much focus on Amazon accounts and message boards, and not enough evidence of continuing the BATTLE. By focusing the inquiry on-site in this manner, uninvolved users could report future flare ups. I suspect that other users may need to be topic banned, but I wish Mathsci would take a step back. Cool Hand Luke 12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • After further reflection, I think an interaction ban is not necessary. Although Mathsci has been told that it would be wise to move away from the R&I topic, it is possible that no one has previously raised a concern about his sleuthing. It may have even been encouraged. Under these circumstances, and given that Mathsci is a long-term contributor and presumably responsive to good-faith concerns, it might be best to leave the matter here without further action. Mathsci now has notice that some of the behavior is thought to be a problem. I hope that is enough. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm also fed up with the spy vs spy stuff (as CHL so aptly puts it) along with the inordinate length of the relevant postings. I invite proposals to cover both issues.  Roger Davies talk 04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • @Ferahgo: please refactor your statement. Either quote what I said verbatim (here's the diff) or remove your wildly inaccurate paraphrase altogether.  Roger Davies talk 04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I will consider any proposals made, but my present inclination is that no action is needed at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • More than a week later, my views remain unchanged. Unless there is a new and unexpected development, I believe this thread can be archived without action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the parties should just each go their separate ways and ignore each other, but agree that probably no intervention is required at this time. –xenotalk 18:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: WP:DIGWUREN (September 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk at 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Piotrus

Several weeks ago, I've asked this question at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. I've done so twice, but despite some (limited) discussion by editors, no arbitrator, to my knowledge, has joined the discussion. As such, I am repeating my question here, as an official request for clarification.

Regarding WP:DIGWUREN (Wikipedia:General_sanctions), would it be:

  1. ) applicable to an editor who in a discussion, for example, at a general policy page (and not necessarily on an EE content article), makes bad faith / incivil remarks / PA regarding EE editors in general (for example, discussing the bias of "Slavic editors", identifying votes of editors as "X comes from a Slavic country" and makes similar arguments, the gist of which is arguing that EE editors are not neutral/biased
  2. ) applicable to an editor who in a discussion, for example, at a general policy page (and not necessarily on an EE content article), makes bad faith / incivil / PA remarks regarding another editor or editors by mentioning an EE-related ARBCOM case with expired sanctions to back the claim that "this editor is biased, as the XYZ case proves", "this editor has been found to be disruptive, to edit war, has supported editors who were found disruptive", and so on. In other words, is there any recourse when an editor is trying to damage another editor's reputation by citing/linking old ARBCOM findings, poising the well by reminding others "what bad, bad deed that evil person did X years ago"? To give more generic examples, related behaviors would include noting in a discussion that "should I remind you of the findings/sanctions of an arbcom case against you [implied: that editor has been sanctioned in the past, so his arguments should be suspect]", or more directly, "editor X was banned from this topic area [implied: so his arguments should be suspect]", or in a vote that "editor X was found to use a sock-puppet 3 years ago [implied: so his vote should count less]". Just to be clear, I understand that editors have the right to ask about another editor's history in discussions that center on that editors (such as during Requests for Adminship and other positions). My question relates to other, content-related discussions, where such comments are similar to a regular personal attack (but instead saying "editor X is a troll", what is said is "editor X has been sanctioned in the past"). Either comment is irrelevant to the discussion in question (sanctions in questions have expired), but the second one is more insidious, as by invoking administrative/arbcom findings/sanctions it creates the illusion of having the "Wikipedia rules" behind it.

If WP:DIGWUREN is not applicable, I'd appreciate comments what, if any, policies are, and where such behavior can be reported (or are editors just supposed to take such poisoned comments for years and decades)?

I will note that this request for clarification does not pertain to any current incident. Rather, it is based on numerous incidents I've seen in the past year or so, incidents which I believe keep the EE battleground still simmering, but which at this point I am not sure what is the correct avenue, if any, to deal with. Should a WP:DIGWUREN AE request be made in such cases, or...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Replies. Yes, Biophys, I am very fond of forgiving and forgetting, and yes, you are right that continued harassment leads to editor loss (some thoughts of mine on this). I have to say I am surprised that the comments from Arbitrators seem to indicate that they see nothing wrong with such combative attitude which is the primary reason why the old battlegrounds are still smoldering. I am also confused as those comments seem to be quite different from the comments that the admins make on AE (see for example current case here). Where the arbitrators seem to be very lenient, the AE admins seem to be rather strict. What am I missing? Are the interaction bans the only way that harassing and sniping, hounding can be stopped around here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

Piotrus, do you mean that everyone must just forgive and forget, and this is it? Yes, that would help to make this place much better, but this is also a dramatic attitude change. It is not uncommon that administrator X wants to block user A for doing something because user A did the same a couple years ago. It is also frequently claimed that user A (who currently is in good standing) should not switch to a different account because no one should be dissociated with his edit history, and therefore nothing can be forgotten. This situation forces some people to resign. I am not talking about things like the gradually increasing blocks for violating the same topic ban. But, yes, forgetting others would be a great idea, but this should start from administrators. Biophys (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that no one should use expressions like "EEML people" (e.g. here and here), which assumes a collective responsibility. Some participants of the mailing list did not receive any sanctions in relation to the list. One should only talk about individual editors sanctioned in EEML case if their sanctions did not expire. Biophys (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

I think that if an editor has a complaint about this that they should take it to ANI rather than AE. There is nothing in Digwuren or other AE cases to guide the administrators here. TFD (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • No, there is no sanction for using a user's own appropriate history in discussions of current behavioral problems. Wikipedia editors should be mature enough to know that 1) everyone makes mistakes, 2) good people move beyond them, and editors who edit without repeating problems in the distant past should be given appropriately more consideration than someone who's just come off of a block for the same action, and 3) one's reputation on-wiki is what it is. In general, I do not favor suppressing, via technical means or by prior restraints on on-wiki speech for mentioning, legitimate history. There is a way to overcome a sanction, and it is pretty straightforward: abide by it, and don't ever get involved in the same problems again. In that way, anyone who cares to bring up the past sanction just makes themselves look like a fool for doing so when the issue clearly does not apply to present reality. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In general, I think the answer is 'no'. If editors start arguing about Eastern European topics on an article talk page and the arguments spill over onto other pages, for example user talk or the admin noticeboard, and uninvolved admins apply arbitration enforcement blocks for those editors who were uncivil, regardless of where they were uncivil, that would be ok. However, I think the question here is significantly different, and under those circumstances it wouldn't be covered by arbitration enforcement. PhilKnight (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with both JClemens and Phil. SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Without endorsing the behaviour you're describing, I pretty much agree with above. It's simply not written into the (aging) case as described in your examples. This doesn't mean there aren't other dispute resolution paths or venues available. –xenotalk 23:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names (September 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Initiated by Fmph (talk) at 19:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by Fmph

Can I direct ArbCom's attention to the first motion in this case. It states that "... no page moves shall be initiated for a period of 2 years" and that ruling is in force until September 18, 2011. Can ArbCom please clarify what they expect to happen on the 18th September?

There have been continued 'suggestions' over the last 23 months that the articles should be moved. So the issue has not gone away. I have made a suggestion (in response to a question as to whether the prohibition should be extended) as to what should happen. If ArbCom think its not a bad idea, perhaps they would like to endorse it, or something like it?

I will notify the project that I have opened this clarification.

I note that PhilKnight has suggested closing this. Can I ask that if you do, that ArbCom should make a formal statement of its views before closing if at all possible. Even if that is only of the "Get on with it yourselves" variety. Thanks Fmph (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion by snowded

This was a deeply divisive and long running dispute and the closure last time was managed by some of the protagonists with consequent accusations of manipulation etc. I think there is a very strong case this time round for a strong mediation team of neutrals to structure the discussion. Possibly with a nominee of each side I'm sure we have some sleeper accounts in place ready for the debate and we had enough socks etc last time to be the subject of a whole dissertation. Best to manage it from the start than to be pulled in later --Snowded TALK 09:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Question from DrKiernan

While remedy 4 is clearly expired, I am not clear whether the motion Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names that restricts move discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is still in effect. The motion does not appear to be time-bound. Would the Committee please clarify whether the motion is still in force? BTW, I've come here from Template:IECOLL-talk which used to be on the applicable talk pages, and it is now not clear to me whether the template is redundant or not. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I think starting a thread on WT:IECOLL was a good move. I've watchlisted the page and will continue to monitor the discussion. Hopefully the discussion will result in a way forward. PhilKnight (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Awaiting further statements and comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Also watching the IECOLL discussion. I cannot say I know much about the current situation so getting more input would be helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It does look as though the current discussion is productive and that our involvement is not needed at this time. Mind you, I expect the committee would take a very dim view if editors take the expiration of the remedy as a permission for the level of hostility that led to it being imposed in the first place. Those who feel most strongly about the matter would do well to let the rest of the community handle the discussion. — Coren (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Recused due to my previous work in the related areas as an administrato.. but hope that they keep forward momentum going. SirFozzie (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • My sentiments mirror Coren's. Or, to paraphrase something said by many a parent, "don't make us come deal with this again, because I can almost guarantee you [the parties] won't like the results" Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure most of the relevant pages are move-protected, but just in case: the one thing you should not do is set about boldly moving pages as soon as the prohibition expires. Have the proper discussions, seek outside assistance to structure them if necessary, and hopefully achieve an end result that people are willing to accept. –xenotalk 23:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: WP:ARBPIA (September 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Cptnono (talk) at 05:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cptnono

I would like clarification on the often used phrasing "broadly construed". This includes a possible adjustment of the phrase used in enforcement and maybe even a change of standard practice (ie not using the term at all). Although this might seem simple enough, there have been cases of admins deciding that editors are not in breech of sanctions since some edits to articles in the topic area are acceptable if they do not touch directly on the conflict.

Since I am not good at explaining myself I am going to offer an example. I am sure the admins who deal with AE in the topic area know that there have been others. Recently, Biosketch opened up a request for enforcement based on Supreme Deliciousness editing an article that has previously had conflicts related to the conflict @ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Supreme Deliciousness (note that this will archive sooner or later). My request is based on the response of an administrator:

"'Tabbouleh' is neither directly involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor inextricably intertwined with it in such a manner that all edits to the article would fall under the topic ban. Nor are the edits at issue related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." [18] (note that the requester will probably get BOOMERANGED and no action will be taken against the other)

In this example, Supreme Deliciousness dabbled in an article that has previously had issues. To make it even worse, he was highlighting Syria's claim to the dish. I know that sounds silly but emphasizing the origin, popularity, world records, and such as it relates to one nation has been used to diminish the cultural identification another nation might have to the dish. Categories have historically been a focal point. So sticking the category Category:Syrian cuisine instead of Category:Levantine cuisine actually stirs some trouble (weird, huh?]

Conversely, Biosketch made a request that could be viewed as "gotcha" if you want to not assume good faith. The diffs were a couple weeks stale. They were not violations that could be easily assumed as problematic.

But this is exactly why we need to get this cleared up. An editor brought an enforcement request because another editor was editing an article with the ARBPIA tag. The wording is usually "broadly construed". Does anyone have ideas on how to adjust the wording commonly used at AE to fit with standard practice? Or, should admins be sticking to "broadly construed" as it is assumed to mean.

I don't want this request for clarification to be completely about the Supreme Deliciousness request. I would like it to be viewed as separate because that example is just one of at least a few. I am posting a link there since it has been brought it up, but I think it is important to get this straightened out regardless of the outcome over there. This is not for that request but instead for ones that will probably come up. Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So you guys have said what you think should be the way it is but you have disregarded the wording. "Broadly construed" can mean something that "nibbling at the edges" can take advantage of but does not need to mean the same thing. "Broadly construed" reads one way even if you do not like the implementation. Can you honestly say that "broadly construed" is not flawed wording? Just to be completely open, I do not think you can. I think admins are worried about gaming. Unfortunately the wording was put in place to prevent gaming. And modification of editors sanctions opens up a massive can of worms that needs to be addressed. But we only have ourselves to blame. Some editors took advantage of the wording to nail others while others made edits that were covertly political and said they were not. This is a problem and ARBCOM needs to address it since we have had too many arguments over what "broadly construed" means. Editors essentially asking admins to modify sanctions that are already in place based on manipulation of the wording. Sp stop being contrary and address the issue. Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Broadly construed means that one shouldn't attempt to "nibble around the edges", so to speak. If there's problems in topic area A, we don't want people to move on to "related topic B" and continuing. If there's doubt, don't do it, and get clarification first, like what's happening above. SirFozzie (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I can honestly say that "broadly construed" is not flawed wording. It prevents gaming of the sanction, and is to avoid endless wiki-lawyering. SirFozzie (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The point of topics that can be "Broadly construed" is indeed to prevent dispute to spread to marginally related fields where the same dispute can (in substance) be replayed. For instance, someone who had been topic banned away from "bread, broadly construed" because of a fundamental dispute about what "true" bread is would be correctly barred from continuing the same dispute at tortilla, or even wheat if the enforcing admin sees that the same pattern is being repeated. — Coren (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with SirFozzie and Coren. The intent of the discretionary sanctions is to prevent disruption, and I have no problem with reasonable interpretations of the sanctions which are intended to prevent disruption spilling over onto other articles. PhilKnight (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Per preceding - "Broadly construed" is prudent wording to prevent skirting round the edges of a topic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur with my colleagues above. If you have to ask, it's probably related. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur with the above. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • SirFozzie hits the nail on the head. The reason we use "broadly construed" in decisions is precisely to head off issues in related areas, as well as preventing bright line rule gaming. There's no further action necessary on this, I think. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys (September 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by EdJohnston (talk) at 18:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Case affected
Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) and Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Russavia-Biophys Remedy 6.3.1: Russavia restricted
  2. Eastern European mailing list Remedy 4.3.11A: Editors restricted (as modified by motion)
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Statement by EdJohnston

I propose lifting the interaction ban between Russavia and Tammsalu. They are both high volume editors and their usual editing interests may cause them to run into each other on a wide variety of Eastern European topics. There has been prior discussion at User talk:EdJohnston, User talk:Timotheus Canens, User talk:Russavia and User talk:Tammsalu. The EEML interaction bans have been been a recent subject of discussion at Arbitration Enforcement due to the filing of WP:AE:Vecrumba and WP:AE#Vecrumba 2. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has given an opinion that interaction bans don't work so well for people with 'narrowly intertwined content editing interests.' They are more suited for 'people who are locked in purely inter-personal conflict'. If lifting this particular ban works, it might be extended to other EEML editors in the future. If lifting the ban leads to poor results, it is understood that some of the topic bans previously imposed or the interaction ban itself might be restored through discretionary sanctions or by the Committee. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Note that Russavia has left you a response in his section, to the complaint by VM that you wanted an answer to. When I proposed this amendment, I perceived it as a sink-or-swim offer to Russavia and Tammsalu to show that they could interact diplomatically if they were allowed to. If they fail, it is easy to reapply sanctions at WP:AE. If they succeed, then we get some more good content without much trouble. The whole reason for bringing this to Arbcom is the technicality that the interaction ban is from Arbcom itself, so it can't be undone at AE. Please think of this as a low-risk issue, unless there is a pent-up desire within Arbcom to revisit Eastern Europe. I agree that people who have behaved badly in the past in EE are continuing to behave badly. Russavia continues to be the center of more drama than his role warrants. Since Arbcom faced that decision before, and chose to allow major content contributors who were the occasion of turmoil to continue nonetheless. I thought that bridge had been crossed already. Arbcom had a full-length case in which to consider the issue as recently as WP:ARBRB. That case was closed in May 2010. The decision in WP:ARBRB#Remedies was to place some interaction bans on Russavia but no topic bans. There is a certain amount of bad behavior in Eastern Europe that we can't do much about, unless we are willing to issue long-term topic bans to some the people who add most of the content. I will note that Vecrumba is not among the major content contributors, so his role is not so clear. This request is not about Vecrumba, however. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tammsalu

I concur. These Arbcom cases happened up to two years ago now and we have since moved on. There is an inflexion point when interaction bans become increasingly a hindrance to productive content discussion, and we have arrived at that point. Given the trust and good faith EdJohnston has invested in drafting this amendment, I'm sure he will come down on either party like the proverbial ton of bricks should our behaviour disappoint him in the future. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I see that so many others have commented here, and raise some issues of the general effectiveness of iBans which should be addressed. However Russavia and I have agreed to bury the hatchet and focus on content, we have communicated offline and there are some topics of mutual interest we want to discuss online, but this interaction ban just gets in the way. While the wider issue of these iBans should eventually be addressed in time, I don't think it should impact or delay particular cases were more jaw jaw, and less war war, is mutually desired. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, given that Russavia has apparently retired, can I undo some of his more contentious edits like this one? He removed some of the tags after I emailed him[19], but now that he is gone how am I suppose to deal with the remaining tags. The whole point of seeking a lifting of the interaction ban was to discuss why he tagged this article, but the whole thing seems moot now. In other words, does Russavia's retirement effectively suspend the iBan in terms of prohibiting reverts? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

The interaction bans do have a net negative effect on editors, if work on content is the number one priority. I edit heavily in all areas relating to Russia, but first and foremost in areas relating to the foreign relations of Russia, and on articles on how it interacts with and how it is seen by the outside world. This is quite a diverse area, and one which it is recognised by other uninvolved editors I do have a positive effect on. For example, or [[20]] from User:Miacek. From time to time, this diverse editing brings me to articles which aren't within my core editing interests, but I am brought to them all the same due to my interests first and foremost. The interaction bans, therefore, can have a negative effect as it can prevent article development, as has been seen.

As per Carcaroth's comments at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions, I am focussed on content, and am willing to collaborate with all editors who are sick of the battleground in the EE area. I'm more than happy to support this amendment, though I would like to be sure that the amendment only allows interaction about the content and not comments about the editor. --Russavia Let's dialogue 08:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to comments by 2 arbs

Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who!

It is the interaction ban which has caused everyone, including the uninvolved, to focus on winning debates like those. I want to get back to content, and discussing content. Consider my contributions even whilst these issues are ongoing; I continue to work on content, both on WP and on Commons.

I won't comment on the allegations raised by Radeksz/Volunteer Marek here, but there are a few useful elements to be found in there. For the most part, please refer to my statement above, where I have supplied a link to an uninvolved editor who believes that I am obviously a positive influence on articles relating to the Estonia-Russia relationship, and also supply information relating to myself and User:Miacek.

I agree that these interaction bans aren't working well while we continue to work in overlapping topical areas. Refining or removing select interaction bans, such as is being requested here, are a way to look forward (for the optimistic among us) or the last vestige of hope (for the pessimistic among us). It was never the intent of Arbcom to use interaction bans as a way to stop editors from working on content; the intent was to get editors to stop commenting on other editors. Only by way of having editors refocussing on content, instead of concentrating on the editors themselves, can editors in this general topic area who want to look forward are able to.

Additionally, for example, from here, it is an offence for me to comment on arbitration matters relating to EEML members, and hence the reverse is true as well. Rather than asking me what I think of an editor's statements, given this and this, perhaps the committee should indeed consider whether an editor's insinuations about my editing and my motives is appropriate. I don't think Tammsalu would be too pleased about Marek's, Vecrumba's and Piotrus' continued interjections into subjects which do not constitute legitimate dispute resolution for them (all are under interaction bans with myself), given that Tammsalu and I are trying to negotiate a way to move forward collaboratively in this area, and concentrate on content.

I have taken Carcaroth's words in for many, many months now (refer to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions), and I believe that Tammsalu is committed to also focussing on content, rather than editorial motives and other petty rubbish, so this is the most pertinent thing that the committee should be looking at; who wants to look forward, and who wants to stay engaged in a battleground. I have been in the former for a long time. --Russavia Let's dialogue 08:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to Committee

It is disappointing that this amendment request has not yet received the attention it deserves. Having said that, Tammsalu and myself have discussed the interaction ban, and we have both agreed, given that the "dragging of feet" by the Committee is only hindering our ability to work on articles which are of mutual interest, that we agree to interact with one another so long as content is the focus. Interactions between ourselves are already taking place on Talk:Occupation of the Baltic States, and although there is a difference of opinion on some things, the interactions are mutual, and are constructive; not unwanted and destructive. Interaction bans were never meant to stop collaborative editing, and this an example of such. Tammsalu and I, jointly, would like to ask that the Committee attend to this amendment as soon as possible, possibly they can peruse our recent interactions to see if our joint request is not without merit, and that the interaction ban as it stands now is "technically" hurting our ability to act collaboratively, something we have both agreed to do. Cheers, --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Response in relation to EdJohnston

Under construction

Response in relation to Volunteer Marek

Under construction

Response in relation to Piotrus

Under construction

Response in relation to Vecrumba

Under construction

Response in relation to Biophys

Under construction

Harrassment during this amendment request in relation to dealing with conflict of interest editors

Under construction

Request to the Committee

There are quite a few issues here which need to be dealt with here. I will be collating some diffs and the like for your review, and will post something here in the next couple of days. I trust that committee will give me the time to respond, because it is obvious that you want to look at the entire area, rather than just Tammsalu and myself being willing to try and move forward in this area. Russavia Let's dialogue 06:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by your username Volunteer Marek

I have been peripherally involved in this latest bruhaha, mostly as a commentator and a observer who is also under an interaction ban with Russavia, hence, as an editor who is affected by how these interaction bans are interpreted. I have not been involved however in any of the specific edits or reverts that provoked these AE requests.

It's been somewhat frustrating to get people to listen here but my sense of it is that the situation was/is getting dangerously close to a replay of the battlegrounds that raged in 2008/2009. Why? Obviously I have a personal opinion on the subject but I think Sander captures it quite well here [21] and he's much better than I am at avoiding strong language. To summarize the situation in my own words though, here's what happened:

  • Two months or so ago, Russavia began making edits to a number of articles which generally have not been of interest to him, but which are of interest to editors he has an interaction ban with - i.e. mostly articles concerning the Baltics.
  • A few of these edits constituted outright violations of the interaction bans and as a result he got a well deserved block for violating his interaction ban [22].
  • Despite this, about a month ago (around the time of Shell Kinney's resignation from AC) he accelerated this practice and this led to the current spate of AE requests and counter-requests.
  • The AE requests and counter-requests got bogged down in a discussion of what does or does not constitute a violation of the interaction ban, as well as the standard mutual accusations of "personal attacks" (honestly, not much more than criticisms of another editor's editing practice - it's not like anyone's momma was called any names or nothing).
  • Still, the wishy-washy nature of how these interaction ban violations were dealt with only inflamed the situation. They invited reciprocal AE requests in kind and allowed for more gamin of the interaction bans.

Throughout this episode, Russavia's defense has been that the provocative edits he has made (on articles created, or heavily edited by the people he's supposed to avoid) are "content edits", hence exempt from the interaction ban. Well... ok, if you're gonna go by the letter of the law rather than the intent, which is to separate these warring parties. You can mess with another editor by explicitly criticizing them in procedural discussions such as AN/I or AE (which the interaction ban clearly prohibits), or, if you really don't like them, you can mess with them by fucking with their articles and just trying to make their life difficult on Wikipedia (the basic example here is of Russavia nominating Martin's article for AfD, or of slapping up Baltic-related articles with nasty POV, etc. tags). Russavia basically has been busy gaming the latter loophole.

I have an interaction ban with Russavia. I don't want anything to do with him and I would also very much appreciate it if he, per his ban, stayed far away from me as well. But it is this last aspect which really concerns me here. Russavia seems to think that he has found a loophole in how interaction bans work which allows him to renew and carry out the battlegrounds of two years ago, while still pretending to observe the interaction ban. In this particular episode he has very much been the harasser not the harasee - none of the editors on the "opposite side" went and tried to edit articles or topics that Russavia primarily spends his time with (aviation, embassies, etc.). Hell, none of them even touched RUSSIA related articles. I don't know, maybe he's trying to get some kind of payback for perceived slights from two years ago, but honestly, that's not just not very helpful. I just want to make sure that this doesn't spill over further.

Bottom-line is that I actually think this proposal is ill-advised. These editors are under an interaction ban for a reason. A good reason to remove the interaction ban would be if there was evidence that they have managed to forgive and forget each other's trespasses and are now ready to work collaborative together. But just the opposite is the case!!!!!! - they (mostly Russavia, with undue language from Vecrumba as a response) are trying to renew the battles of old. Their support for this amendment (on both sides) appears to be motivated by the fact that the interaction ban stands in the way of them "going at it again" and they're just itching for some old fashion Wiki war.

What - and please, show me something specific - have any of the parties involved done to deserve the relaxation of the ban? Where is the evidence of collaboration? Of cooperation? Where has one of them said something nice to another? The only argument seems to be that the interaction bans are "old" (yes, but still useful) and that they impinge upon content creation (bullshit, for the most part, when not pursuing personal grudges these editors edit completely different topics). They basically want to go at it again and thus the thrust of this request.

My sense of it is that the topic area of Eastern Europe over the last two years has become a lot more friendly and cooperative, editing-wise. One piece of evidence for this is that we've managed to avoid a "Eastern Europe" related ArbCom case for the past two years, whereas before 2009 they were essentially perennial. And I do strongly believe that the interaction bans played a significant role in improving the atmosphere here. Now editors can focus on content creation, useful gnomish tasks, vandal clean up etc. rather than wasting their time on useless distractions like AE, AN/I or AbrCom cases (be honest, your job's at its best when there's the least to do). Let's not go back to where it was before.

So:

  1. Decline the proposed amendment as stated (or else I'll be here in a few months saying "I told you so")
  2. Clarify the nature of the interaction bans in precise terms or...
  3. ... convert the interaction bans into topics bans (which are much less easier to game) which will accomplish the same thing. This would involve topic-banning Russavia (and friends) from topics which they do not usually edit but which they occasionally stray into just to kick up some trouble - Baltics, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus. And banning Martin and Vecrumba from topics which they do not usually edit but which they might (hypothetically) go into just to mess with Russavia - aviation, diplomatic relations, Russian space program. If you'd like these topic bans could be "narrowly construed".
  4. Impose a general injunction on ALL editors involved in the EEML and the Russavia-Biophys case from filing AE requests on each other for a period of at least six months. AE is supposed to be for enforcing ArbCom decisions not making a mockery of them. People are expected to act like adults. If they engage in this "he pushed me first!" "no he pushed me first!" "I pushed him but he's not supposed to report it because of the interaction ban!" crap then just take that playground away from them.

Ay, it's a mess I know. As I wrote this I started to loose hope that this area remains relatively calm. Too many loopholes... Put your finger in the hole in the levee please. Not put a bigger hole in it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems I'm a minority in my opinion here. Anyway, I've played my Cassandra role, so I don't really have anything else to say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@Colchicum - yeah I saw that, and yeah, it's a violation of his interaction ban, but whatever - I just figured it was another provocation and hence not worth bothering about. Anyway, it seems that now Russavia has retired so the whole point of this amendment is moot. Right? Is there any reason to lift an interaction ban between editor A, and editor B, if B has "retired"? Volunteer Marek  01:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

First, if my comment here violates my interaction ban with Russavia, please let me know and I'll self-revert. My understanding of an interaction ban was, until recently, that editors under it are not allowed to comment on one another. I tried to get a clarification here, but if the discussion produced one, I am still not seeing it, instead it raised some questions about the scope of the i-bans that I have not thought of before, and my last comment and question there have not seen any reply for two days (and either way, it was mostly me and VM speaking to one another, without much input from the admins). In either case, I am not going to comment on Russavia, but on interaction bans in particular.

As I stated three days ago [23] (again, no response was given), I think that the interaction bans can and perhaps even should stay, but that they should be clearly limited to discussing others, not to editing content. As I explained in my model of wiki conflict, the problem is not (never was) content disputes. Those were never a significant problem in the EE area; sure there was an occasional revert war or canvassed vote stacking or such, but the primary problem was that editors who were unable to win content disputes (lacking reliable sources, etc.) started a campaign of harassment. As VM notes, this continued through several arbcoms, which in vain tried to address content issues, till interaction bans finally narrowed down on the real problem by putting an end to certain editors being able to comment on others. As a proof of that, note that despite all topic bans and such having expired, there are no more any revert wars or disputed votes in the EE area; all that remains is the occasional (and now, growing) attempts to "get the other editor" through some arcane violations of wiki rules (the rules, in this case, being the imprecisely worded interaction bans).

Thus, some potential loopholes have been found and are apparently being tested. This is worrying; I for one have no desire to return to the stressful period of few years ago, and the recent rise of AE activity and related discussions, like this one, is giving me a bad deja vu feeling.

Again, as VM notes, I see no indication that certain editors have learned to forgive; in fact I see indications of a contrary mentality (the proverbial grudge being unburied, and the sound of an old axe being regrind).

At the same time, the murkiness of interaction ban is doubly worrying. Consider this edit, where an editor under an i-ban with me has added a template to an article I've created and significantly expanded. Now, I don't believe that it was in bad faith, and I wouldn't necessarily even remove it, but I'd like to comment on it on article's talk - yet this raises some potential red flags. Should editors under i-bans be be expected to check history of all articles we edit to see if an editor under an i-ban has edited it? As somebody who sometimes edits dozens or even hudrends different articles per day, I think this would be ridiculous. At the same time, if the answer is no, this creates a loophole that can be easily gamed - according to some interpretations of an i-ban, I cannot revert or even discuss this template, because it was added by an editor whom I am supposed to "not see" on Wikipedia. I can see this spiraling as we template one another older articles, add controversial categories or adjectives, or make edits to articles that we think would be interesting to the other party, to try to bait them into making edits to them, or just wait for it, and report it to AE... a near perfect ground for radicalization, scary, scary, scary. And totally unnecessary, as I said, in the past, editing the content and discussing it was never an issue, what was, was when some gave up on that and started discussing others, in an attempt to chase them off Wikipedia. This cannot, should not be allowed to repeat itself.

As such, I'd strongly urge the ArbCom to clarify or amend the interaction bans so that they permit editing of content and discussing it, including interaction with editors under i-ban, with the very, very strict note that those editors are not allowed to discuss one another other, because they most apparently have not learned how to say anything about one another that isn't a more or less clearly veiled personal attack (criticism). In other words, I believe than an editor who has a mutual i-ban with me should be allowed to edit the same articles I do (and vice versa), up to an including tagging and AfD them, provided I have the right, just like every other editor, to revert them and discuss their edits (but not themselves!) on talk (i.e. saying "the template added to the article is/isn't fine because policy blah blah" would be ok, but saying "because editor X who added it is biased and evil" would not be allowed, and treated like a reportable i-ban violation). An exception could be added allowing the editors to say nice things on one another (this is the era of WikiLove promotion, after all, and perhaps enough sugar talk will sooth the old wounds, eventually). You could also see this as forcing a very strict and scary interpretation of PA/AGF and such with regards to editors under an i-ban, to ensure they never, ever comment on one another again - but without the need to worry about what they do in the mainspace (if they start edit warring, well, 3RR or AE should be able to handle it).

VM raises the idea of topic bans; my problem with that is that they would prevent potential good content creation. At the very least, editors should not be banned from areas they have never edited, or have edited rarely, but uncontroversially, just because the other party to the i-ban "staked their claim first". Only areas in which their edits have contributed to battleground creation should be considered. Perhaps, few editors should be banned from nominating Estonian articles for AfD. Anyway, please think more scalpel, less nuclear sanctions. We have a pretty decent mid-level sanctions - the i-bans - already; they just need clarification.

So in the end, I hope that you'll allow the content creators to work in peace, without having to worry about a battleground atmosphere that can arise when otherwise good editors give in and start commenting on (attacking, harassing, stalking, whatever) others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor (2)

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

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Am I alone in finding the number of "issues" involving Russavia et al to be, if anything, increasing? I would suggest that all of the involved editors be instructed to finally drop the "but he was in the EEML" arguement from any noticeboard, that they be instructed to be exceedingly cordial in all posts which impact any other editors, and that they be individually and corporately barred from making noticeboard postings seeking enforcement actions against each other, or participation in any such actions in which they are not specifically and directly involved. This, as one may note, is effectively a ban on any interactions other than polite ones specifically aimed at improving articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the interactions between Russavia and Off2riorob concerning "libel tourism" and related topics at the Berzovsky article are again showing a rather ill-suited combat mode on Russavia's part. [24], [25], [26] (with its content of Of course, now, I expect for you all to rush over like good little battlegrounders, and remove it from that article, and then use the same argument of it not being in that article. lol. showing quite clearly the combat mode being used there. I suggest that the result be less than favourable to such a mode on Russavia's part. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


Russavia is making multipe noticeboard posts, accusations of 3RR violations etc. with such colorful edit summaries in some edits as [27] FUCK OFF, which may be an indication of a need for "vacation by motion" on the part of the committee. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

To Volunteer Marek's point,

  • we have Russavia's provocative AFD already discussed (and over which Russavia has filed an AE request against me labeling my objective expression of disappointment a personal attack)
  • in the midst of these various proceedings we have
    • request to delete and article critical of myths including those perpetrated by the current Russian administration, the article had not been touched in 17 months and Russavia posted no concerns on talk
    • a lengthy diatribe invoking charges of "black propaganda" regarding Putin's infamous "dead donkey ears" comment on the territorial dispute with Latvia, charging "hoax"—while technically not incorrect (the citation of two items to the one source was in error and the original site is no longer available), the "dead donkey's ears" comment was certainly no hoax and the constructive action would have been to correct, not delete; see full discussion thread
      • only after my pointing out no hoax, Russavia did a partial restoration but leaving out Putin's colorful statement as potentially confusing to readers
        • only after my pointing out that the manner of delivery of a message is as significant as the message, he indicated no objections to restoring the quote if covered in a suitable source (he objected to Forbes, which put a rather Mafia-esque spin on the ears)
          • that said, no blood was shed (anticipating my point on rules of engagement below)
    • and now we have wholesale removal of a source widely cited in WWII related articles on Wikipedia, regardless of its "self-published" nature (it is fully annotated regarding original sources), and promise to delete content unless new sources are found; it is coincidence that the article in question paints a sorry picture of the Soviet attempt to wipe out the last bit of Latvia not occupied by the Red Army, where Stalin threw in division after division to their slaughter—whereas Soviet historiography regarding the Courland Pocket pretty much states it was insignificant and was bypassed, the German divisions there being hemmed in. Given widespread use of the source elsewhere, the appropriate action would be to involved outside editors at the appropriate forum discussing reliable sources. I expect, however, the citations will be re-populated over the coming weeks.

To the more general point of disruption escalating in the topic area, we now have Vlad Fedorov, who once exclaimed that my ignorance in international law was legendary, returning to WP after nine months of inactivity to file an AE in the topic area he is otherwise banned from. You can follow the discussion thread on EdJohnston's talk.

But, back the topic at hand, we are presented with the contention that Russavia, who is a prolific (creating content) editor elsewhere, in the realm of Baltic topics inimical to the Soviet legacy, can only manage to be prolific at deleting content when insuring the quality of content intersecting the Baltic-Soviet/Russian relationship and is forced to rely on editors who should be banned for months, if not permanently (myself, I'll spare the diffs) to come up with links to the Russian President's web-available archive. (And perhaps it is only myself that finds this particularly ironic, given Russavia's fluency in Russian and my abject lack of same.) This is an odd form of cooperative editing in the Baltic et al. arena, but if it is deemed to be constructive and in no way provocative on Russavia's part after due consideration of his editorial choices and timing, then I am certainly glad to abide by the rules of editorial engagement being established here. As I've indicated, I've never had any issue debating Russavia, Nanobear, Vlad Fedorov, or any other editor on sources.

I concur that the only way forward is to have a means for editors who create content co-exist and co-contribute. Artificial barriers lead only to unintended consequences. Interaction bans have shown themselves to be tools for conflict, not conflict resolution. They only work (my experience) where one or the other editor/side completely disengages from any participation in the area of conflict. Where there is conflict, I do suggest that self-moderation in discussing deletion of content first, as opposed to deleting content and posting "I deleted X..." would go a long way toward an empirical show of good faith as opposed to professing to pursue particular behaviors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Colchicum

There is no harm in letting Russavia and Tammsalu interact, if they both wish so. I very much agree with the concerns voiced by Volunteer Marek, however. There are other people under mutual interaction bans with Russavia, editing in the same topic area as Tammsalu, who are less than enthusiastic about the possibility to interact with the former. So, I'd say, lift that particular ban with the understanding that the other interaction bans are still in place and testing their limits (and edits by Russavia to articles concerning the Baltics may be construed as such) will not be tolerated anymore. Perhaps lift the interaction ban in exchange for topic bans for Russavia from Latvia, Estonia and Poland and for the other party from aviation and Russian embassies/foreign relations, with the exception of Latvian, Estonian and Polish aviation and Russo-Latvian/Estonian/Polish relations, narrowly construed, as a testing ground for both parties to improve communication, for the beginning? Colchicum (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Since when is Russiavia allowed to comment on Volunteer Marek, Vecrumba and Biophys? [28]. The lifting of these topic bans are not even being considered, and a comment on a partisan user's talkpage is certainly not an instance of necessary dispute resolution, no matter how broady the latter is construed. Colchicum (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved Novickas

I strongly support this amendment. It looks to me like a small but promising step forward. How could two editors agreeing to discuss only content be wrong? The earlier Miacek-Russavia bilateral relations amendment is working out, is it not? Volunteer Marek seems to think Tammsalu and Russavia will get into interpersonal conflicts again and that this will be a burden on the system – to forestall that possibility, can you add a clause to the effect that a single complaint from either party in this regard, made at any administrator’s talk page, is grounds for revoking the amendment, without any more ado? VM asks for evidence that they’ve said something nice about each other; that’s asking too much, committing to content-only discussion is enough. The broader issues raised by VM about the scope and effectiveness of interaction/topic bans are IMO best discussed in a wider venue. This is just about two editors and their particular interaction ban. They seem be in agreement about it, judging from their recent discussions at Tammsalu's talk page [29]. Novickas (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


Note regarding Russavia

[30] states that Russavia is "Retired." Per what appears to be normal procedure, I suggest this request be closed, that Russavia be reminded that "retirement" is not to be taken lightly, and that any alternate personas used to evade any bans or sanctions shall be dealt with quite severely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that this constitutes an obligation on his part to retire. It is entirely up to him. Nor do I believe that he will indeed retire. Ban evasion is prohibited, but it's another matter, independent of any retirement, and I haven't seen evidence that he is going to resort to it. Colchicum (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • At first glance this request seems reasonable, but let's allow a couple of days for additional statements, including from Russavia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Russavia's endorsement is noted, but so are Volunteer Marek's points. I will want to look into this whole area more closely, which will have to wait until after the holiday weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • We've had less input here than I expected, as it happens. Volunteer Marek's points have a certain amount of merit overall, but I think that lifting this particular interaction ban is probably safe if both users are agreeing to it. Perhaps lift it for a trial period (three months?) and evaluate then? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I, too, would like to see a satisfactory reply from Russavia to what Volunteer Marek has asserted. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The allegations made by Volunteer Marek are of great concern; and, given Russavia's refusal to comment on them, I'm forced to conclude that he does not intend to dispute their veracity. In these circumstances, I fail to see why we should reward what appears to have been a successful attempt to game the terms of the interaction bans by lifting them; if anything, we should be tightening the terms to explicitly prohibit the use of such underhanded tactics. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • @Russavia: my colleagues above indicated (some weeks ago, and yesterday) that they would like to see your response to the statement by Volunteer Marek, so your suggestion of feet-dragging on the part of the committee rings a little hollow. –xenotalk 15:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Given that Russavia has signaled their retirement and not edited since, I think that this request can probably be closed as moot. –xenotalk 20:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Considering the events of this request; I think it's best if we leave the interaction ban in place for now. SirFozzie (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names (October 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by DrKiernan (talk) at 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

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

  • N/A

Statement by DrKiernan

While remedy 4 is clearly expired, I am not clear whether the motion Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names that restricts move discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is still in effect. The motion does not appear to be time-bound. Would the Committee please clarify whether the motion is still in force? Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

I'm obviously recused here (as an Arbitrator) due to my past involvement as an administrator, but wanted to make this statement. I agree with my colleagues that the motions ARE indefinite, but I have concerns that we are walling off the problem, rather than fixing the base issue behind it. If it was listed at Requested Page moves as well, at least we would get SOME new blood looking at the request, other then the "same old faces in the same old ways". However, I don't think willy-nilly pagemoves are a good idea, so agree to keep it restricted in this fashion, but I urge uninvolved Arb-watchers (is there a version of talk page watchers for ArbCases/Clarifications etcetera? :D) to keep an eye on the discussions, and contribute there if you can. SirFozzie (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • On a plain read, it does seem to have indefinite length. Would like to hear from those of my colleagues who were around back then to clarify the intent, though. –xenotalk 12:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Building off what SirFozzie has written above, I see no problem with having a pointer from the WP:RM page, and any other relevant pages, to any centralized discussion being held at WT:IECOLL. –xenotalk 18:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Given that project is as good a place for collaboration, and for new editors with strong feelings on the matter to be educated by their peers on the history and necessary associated decorum of such move requests, is there any proposal that it not remain in force? Jclemens (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Those motions are indefinite because of the long history of problems with naming discussions occurring all over the place. An amendment would be needed to change or remove it, and I would oppose any changes for a few months. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, both motions remain in effect. While I would be open to reconsidering them in the future, someone would need to make a reasoned case for why centralizing discussions to a single venue is not a net benefit. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with my colleagues' comments above. Unless anything further is being asked of us, I believe this request can be archived soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: WP:DIGWUREN or WP:ARBMAC (October 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by TransporterMan (TALK) at 21:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by TransporterMan

Do articles about Slovenia or Slovenian matters come within the Eastern European or, less likely, Balkan discretionary sanctions and, if so, which? I am not advocating for inclusion or exclusion, just wish clarification, but would note that Doremo and Doncsecz are involved in a long term slow-motion edit war at Slovene dialects which might cool if one or the other of the sets of sanctions apply. (To their credit, they are seeking dispute resolution at Third Opinion.)

@ArbClerks: When archiving occurs, I request archiving to both Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Fut.Perf.

Answer as a non-arb, but as somebody who has been active in enforcing both sets of sanctions: my personal stance would be that, since both decisions allow for a "widely construed" field of application, I'd have little qualms in using either or both in respect to this country. Where I come from, "Balkan" certainly comprises all of former Yugoslavia. However, my willingness to invoke these sanctions would depend to a high extent on the question whether the type of conflict involved in a given case is comparable with the typical profile of conflicts these sanction rules are made to handle – i.e., mostly, inter-ethnic and nationally motivated historical and political conflicts. In the specific case you mention, the issue seems to be much less political and more of an internal language-related kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Doremo (party to dispute)

Geographers disagree on the eastern/central and Balkan/non-Balkan categorization of Slovenia. So it's difficult to say what the scope of the discretionary sanctions are in relation to Slovenia. User Fut.Perf. is correct that the dispute involves a language issue and not a political issue; that is, it does not have an inter-ethnic/national dimension. The slow-motion edit war ended on 8 September after I refused to revert. I've tried to summarize the issue at Talk:Slovene_dialects#What_is_this_fight_about.3F. In any case, the dispute appears to be inactive now because I was successful in soliciting a 3rd opinion as well as additional input from another editor at WikiProject Slovenia at the suggestion of user TechnoSymbiosis. The result is that consensus was achieved, user Doncsecz himself/herself reverted his/her changes, and another editor (Yerpo) restored balance (removed undue weight) from the article. Doremo (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Generally agree with FPaS that it would probably fall under the category of broadly construed. SirFozzie (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Future Perfect and SirFozzie, the sanctions apply in this instance as Slovenia is part of Eastern Europe and The Balkans, broadly interpreted. PhilKnight (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that the original intent when we said "Eastern Europe" is mostly about cultural rather than geographical lines; and given that we gave leeway to construe the field broadly, then I agree with FPaS and my colleagues above that Slovenia is reasonably included. — Coren (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur with the above. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Also concur. It's worth noting, incidentally, that the question of which set of discretionary sanctions is applicable here is essentially an academic one, as any particular sanction may legitimately be imposed under the terms of either case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe this can be archived. –xenotalk 14:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Digwuren (October 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... at 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Case affected
Digwuren arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 12: Discretionary sanctions
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

  • That the topic bans placed on The Last Angry Man and Igny here be modified to allow participation in the current Mediation Cabal case.

Statement by Steven Zhang

The administrator who placed the topic bans, Mkativerata (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), detailed that the topic bans of three and six months for TLAM and Igny respectively would also prohibit participation to the Mediation Cabal case. In my opinion this is not in the best interests in the mediation. For mediation to be successful in the long term, participation from all parties is required, and a short term topic ban which includes the mediation case may make any agreement from the remaining parties have less chance of being an agreement that will stick. If incivility or bad faith accusations are a problem, perhaps the committee could consider a penalty for further incivility or bad faith behaviour at MedCab, say, their topic ban length is reset. But I think it's wise to allow them to participate in the case, and request the Committee modify the topic bans to allow this. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Mkativerata, I agree that the behaviour of the named editors has been substantially below par. We need to make it in the interests of the parties to not disrupt/be uncivil/bad faith the MedCab process, for example, a three strikes rule. All parties have been put on notice, but perhaps strike one, warning, strike 2 is one week topic ban, strike three is one year/indef topic ban. None of us are admins, no but this could be delegated to us to deal with incivility etc at MedCab. As for blocks , we have over 1000 admins to deal with blocks. From past experiences with MedCab cases that have topic banned editors excluded generally causes issues once their topic bans expire. The mediation has more chance of long term success if they are included in the discussion. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To respond to a few points that were raised,

  1. On AE being the proper forum to take this, I didn't consider taking this to AE as my understanding is that appeals by the sanctioned users were to be made there, not amendments requested by outside parties. TLAM and Igny were topic banned under the discretionary sanctions from the Digwuren case, so to me this was the most appropriate place to raise the matter.
  2. On MedCab being informal dispute resolution, I agree, in the past it has been an informal dispute resolution method. A recent reshuffle of the DR hierarchy has made MedCab more of an intermediate option between MedCom and lower forms of DR, such as Third Opinions and the dispute resolution noticeboard. In theory this could be kicked up to MedCom and someone there could take over, but in all honesty I think the three of us are competent mediators and see no real reason ArbCom can't make an exception to the rule in this case.
  3. On appointing an administrator to deal with conduct issues within the MedCab, I hardly think this is necessary or required. I think I can be trusted enough and am experienced enough to keep an eye on behaviour, and request administrator assistance from one of the 1000 or so administrators we have if required. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@ArbCom (especially Risker), in my opinion the key is a balance between giving too much slack and strangling them with a choke chain. If these users are put on such a short leash that one misstep gets them automatically topic banned for a year, we risk stifling the mediation as they fear anything they say could be used against them. That's why the Mediation Committee has privileged mediation, to facilitate open discussion between parties in order to achieve resolution. Another concern I have is that putting these two users only on such a short leash opens them up to potential baiting by the other parties. In theory, the other parties could be slightly uncivil etc, and they could do nothing about it, if they were to respond in kind, they'd be instantly topic banned. Some time after the Prem Rawat 2 closed, I requested the Arbitration Committee to extend this normal privelige that MedCom cases get to that MedCab case. Instead the case was kicked up to MedCom, where I partly helped assist resolve the dispute. Such action isn't really possible nowadays, as I am told MedCom has updated their policies etc.

I am somewhat conflicted as to whether to request this MedCab case be offered that privilege. On one hand I do think it will help facilitate open discussion, on the other hand there is the potential for it to be gamed. I realise that such a suggestion will also be met with opposition from various people commenting on this request. While I realise that what I have requested her is unusual, I have been doing content dispute resolution for quite some time and have had my part in a fair few tricky disputes. I wouldn't make such requests if I didn't think it would provide long term benefit to the dispute. I also note that all parties have agreed to the ground rules that I laid down at the start of the case. Perhaps something could be implemented where only proceedings on the MedCab case page are privileged, but with the caveat that any abuse of this to be uncivil, excessively rude etc could be reported to an administrator at our discretion.

With all due respect, I know how to mediate. I feel I am perfectly capable of dealing with uncivil behaviour and requesting administrator assistance if so required, and don't feel it necessary to have an admin appointed to watch over the case. If one is really required, I would prefer AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). These conditions would not apply outside of MedCab, and we are happy to keep a close eye on discussions that occur outside of MedCab to ensure that no one crosses the line on behaviour. In the end, it is your decision as a committee. In my opinion, doing nothing would be a mistake. While I'm no fortune teller, this dispute is not going to have a quick fix, it will potentially take months to resolve. As it stands, one topic ban expires in 3 mths, one in 6. If the mediation is still open at either point, we risk having to re-discuss or do a backflip on proceedings, and in my opinion this is not a positive thing if there is another way to make this work (like I have suggested). I can't tell you what to do, only what I think is right, but I hope you will consider my opinion when making a decision. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 07:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

@TransporterMan, you've hit the nail right on the head there. I agree that this is a simple request and it should not be overly complicated. As for TLAM commenting here, he is free and able to do so. Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement are two general exceptions to topic bans. Perhaps you could post a reminder to him with the details on his talk page. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

@ArbCom, I must say I am a little disappointed that this is still sitting here without further comment. Sure, I could go to AE, but in my opinion it's a bit of a waste of time, and process for the sake of process. Two things could happen, 1) The decision at AE is to allow the topic banned users to participate, which means we reach the same end result as we would have here but waste more time doing so or b) The decision at AE is to not allow the parties to participate, which means I would come back here and appeal that decision. Either way time is wasted. I'd urge the arbitrators to consider IAR for a minute and make a decision here and now. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

@ArbCom, I refer to this AE request where it has become apparent that AE will not produce a result as suggested by several arbitrators below. As Tznaki stated, "I think the end result here will to be to bounce back to ArbCom with AE deciding not to overturn". Therefore I bring it back here to request ArbCom to make a decision either way, as I think this thread being open for weeks or months will be unprofuctive. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@Tznkai, for what it's worth, I count NuclearWarfare, T.Canens, Cailil and yourself in favour of allowing the exception, with the banning admin and EdJohnson opposing. Seems like a consensus to me. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@Tznkai, very well then. Not overly happy with the outcome but apparently my views don't matter as much as I thought. There's not a lot I can do about that. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mr. Stradivarius

I am another mediator in the MedCab Holodomor case. I agree with Steven Zhang - I think the result of the mediation will stick better if Igny and The Last Angry Man are both allowed to take part. I also agree that maintaining civility in the mediation is of utmost importance, and that proceedings could be hampered by incivility or personal attacks. I am not sure if/how this should be enforced, however, and I will be happy to accept the arbitration committee's judgement on the matter. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to some of the points made so far. First of all, sorry for the venue confusion - I wasn't aware of the fine distinctions in ArbCom pages when I first commented on Steven's proposal. Second, I would agree to have an uninvolved administrator monitor the mediation for civility violations. I don't agree with Steven here - I appreciate that we have the RfA process for a reason, and I wouldn't be comfortable with being delegated power to block users without having the community approval that passing an RfA entails. Third, Tammsalu makes the good point that Igny may not have participated very much in this mediation anyway. I think it would be a good idea to hear from Igny and The Last Angry Man themselves to hear what their attitudes to the mediation are. Their stances may have changed after the topic bans and after reading the comments here and in the AE thread. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
After reading the statement by TransporterMan, I have to concur with his stance on the strictness of the participation conditions. While of course, incivility and disruption by the topic-banned editors should not be tolerated, making the conditions too strict may well stop them from voicing their opinions, and could open them to baiting from other editors. Rather than very strict conditions and constant monitoring, I think the effectiveness of the mediation would be better supported by slightly more relaxed conditions and a highly structured mediation process. (Steven has outlined the process at the mediation page here, and you can see the draft proposals page here.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mkativerata (admin who applied the topic bans)

I explicitly included MEDCAB in the topic bans, as would ordinarily be assumed to be the case. The topic bans were for behaviour that included, among other things, TLAM referring to his opponents as a "pro communist cabal" ([31]), and Igny saying in the AE itself that "I will add more comments here after the WP:EEML team rushes here for TLAM's defence and mud slinging." I judged that this was plainly not behaviour consistent with engaging constructively in dispute resolution. I believe I was correct to make that judgement, and that Arbcom should find no reason to interfere with it. I also note that none of the mediators appear to be admins. If I am correct in that, they would not have no power to block either user for disrupting the MEDCAB process, or for transgressing their topic bans, whether on a MEDCAB page or elsewhere. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Just one point. Yes we have 1000 or so administrators. But Arbcom will be well aware that only a very small fraction are willing to put their hand up for arbitration enforcement. Just look at the current AE page. We shouldn't overburden the admin corps more by allowing two users topic-banned for largely behavioural reasons to participate in non-binding dispute resolution under the supervision of a volunteer administrator. Our finite resources can be much better targeted than by an indulgence of that kind for two editors, who I should not have so far neither appealed their bans nor made any request to participate in MEDCAB despite them. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: WP:DIGWUREN, which is the authority for the topic ban, says: "The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." It needs not be said that when an editor is "banned from any editing related to the topic" for battleground behaviour, the ban includes content-related dispute resolution processes. In any case, I would have included MEDCAB within this ban regardless of whether doing so is the norm. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

After this matter has returned to AE by way of an AE appeal, I have modified the topic bans for Igny and TLAM in accordance with these terms. The terms were worked out in consultation with Steven Zhang and fellow AE admins. I think that means there is no more work for Arbcom to do here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

statement by uninvolved Collect

Propose a "short leash" rule. On the first use of any inapt language on the mediation pages, or any pages relating thereto in any way (including user talk pages), the topic ban be fully reinstated and doubled - that is, if either makes posts or edit summaries which are uncivil or accusatory of others being in any "group", "team", "mailing list" or "cabal" without furnishing specific and compelling evidence thereof, that the offender's topic bans be doubled in length and that they be so informed upon entry to the mediation. I further suggest that this be dependent on MEDCAB obtaining approval from a fully uninvolved adminstrator willing to examine the posts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I concur that altering another's posts on this page is a serious violation of etiquette no matter what the point the person is making. Cheers.Collect (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

This is not a matter to be decided by Arbcom. Of course they could remove completely all discretionary sanctions in Digwuren case, but that was not requested. Making a specific exemption for two editors would be inappropriate interference in AE business. If these two editors want their AE sanctions to be modified or lifted, they must submit an appeal to AE, as stipulated in previous Arbcom decisions. Biophys (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with EdJohnston below. The mediation can proceed without these editors. Biophys (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It also might be good to appoint an additional mediator (as Newyorkbrad suggested). However, this is not admin versus non-admin question. That should be someone familiar with the subject of the dispute, someone like Moreschi. Actually, this is the biggest problem in the entire AE area right now: admins rule on behavior of users, but the behavior can be misleading. Of course they also read content of discussions, but non-expert admins tend to make two common mistakes:
  1. If a research publication was widely debated in press and by peers (praise and criticism as usual), they tend to assume that it was "controversial". Actually, such publications are either the best as the most highly cited (if written by experts on the subject, e.g. "Gulag Archipelago") or the worst if written by revisionist pseudoscientists like Dyukov. But one needs to know who is who.
  2. If a user does not curse others, talks a lot, copy-paste numerous quotes from sources he likes at article talk pages, and denounce sources he does not like as "non-academic", admins tend to think that he is an expert. No. Real experts are too busy with their studies in real life and have no time for creating walls of text on wikipedia talk pages. Biophys (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by EdJohnston

By going directly to Arbcom, this request seems to take a shortcut around AE. Unclear why there is any need for that. The first step would normally be to ask the admin who imposed the sanction (Mkativerata) to consider modifying the restriction. Since the sanction was for WP:BATTLE behavior, it is not obvious why adding these two parties to the mediation would be a win. Their absence might actually lead to a swifter conclusion of the mediation, if all the charges are correct. Finally, this request does not ask for any actual amendment to the DIGWUREN decision. Neither Igny nor The Last Angry Man was placed under any particular sanction by Arbcom in the DIGWUREN case. The topic bans we are discussing were placed by Mkativerata under discretionary sanctions. There is a whole different appeal process for that. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Paul Siebert

From the very beginning, I proposed to exclude the MedCab case from the topic ban, and I do not find the initial Mkativerata's explanation (or the lack thereof) convincing. In my opinion, the most reasonable proposal has been made by Collect, and I would like to develop it a little bit further to address some Mkativerata's and Newyorkbrad's concerns. In my opinion, TLAM and Igny may be allowed to participate in the MedCab provided that they will strictly observe all possible decorum rules; any violation of these rules, if reported by the mediators (not by other participants), will automatically lead to one year topic ban. I see no technical problems with realisation of this proposal, and I do not understand how the mediation process may be impaired by that.
One more point. It is quite possible that the MedCab will last more than 3 months, which means that one of two topic banned users will join the discussion, and we will probably need to go back to address some of the arguments he was not able to put forward timely due to his ban. That will disturb the mediation process, and I do not think this is a result the admins want to achieve.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Tammsalu

User:Igny mentioned he was pulling out of mediation in any case due to real life issues[32], so discussion of his possible participation is moot. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by TransporterMan

I'm one of the MedCab mediators on this case and apologize for being late to the party; real world issues have interfered over the last week. In some ways, the decision on this request goes to the positive and negative reasons for why DR exists and why it is here: to benefit Wikipedia by settling disputes, hopefully positively through consensus, but sometimes negatively by just getting them settled to stop the disruption. If we have editors who feel so strongly about this that they're just going to wait out their topic bans and start changing the article again, then the mediation is a waste of time without them. Getting them in and allowing them to help craft the solution at least potentially avoids that result. I therefore support the idea of allowing an exception to the topic ban for The Last Angry Man (noting that Igny has chosen not to participate). It seems that the solutions to this request are becoming too complicated with a montoring sysop and double or nothing sanctions. The sanctions in question are a "voluntary" topic ban, in the sense that he has not been blocked and is capable of editing anywhere he pleases to do so. No one is officially or semi-officially monitoring TLAM on that ban at the present time. Various eyes could be watching, of course, but should he violate the ban it would far more likely that someone would just happen to have to come along, just happen to notice the violation, and choose to report it to AE. All we are requesting here is that the topic ban be relaxed for MedCab and that Steven (or perhaps any two of the three mediators if you do not want to just let one do it) be given the right to reinstitute the full breadth of the ban should TLAM's behavior deteriorate in any of those venues to the point the mediators feel that it is interfering with the mediation process, with the only needed action being:

  • To relax: A note on TLAM's talk page by Mkativerata or an ArbCom member or clerk setting the parameters of the relaxation and the mediator(s) right to reinstitue it, along with a corresponding note at Digwuren's Log of blocks and bans, and
  • To reinstiute: The mediator(s) leaving a note reinstituting it on TLAM's talk page and at the Diguren log.
A strict "one bad word and he's gone" standard, especially (but not only) one which either is being continuously scrutinized or second-guessed by parties outside the mediation or which results in a longer ban is inimical to the mediation process. Indeed, my feeling is that the only consequence of behaving badly in the mediation ought to be the risk that he will be excluded from it, not that he will suffer blocks or bans because of it. (The flip side of this, however, should be that any decision of the mediator(s) to reinstate the full breadth of the topic ban should not be appealable: the relaxation should be considered to be an act of grace entirely for the benefit of the mediation and thus the encyclopedia, and not to the slightest degree for TLAM's personal right or interest, which can be revoked without cause or explanation at any time it appears that the encyclopedia is not receiving the desired benefit.)

Finally, before much more time is spent on this it would be well to find out if TLAM wants to participate further in the mediation, but of course he cannot comment on that question unless he is given permission. Would Mkativerata consider relaxing the ban to at least allow that question to be asked and answered here on this page? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

@Russavia: Per this it would appear that the sockpuppetry issue has been settled unless you have new evidence. If you do, are you going to take it to SPI? If so, it might influence how I feel about this. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
@Russavia: Thank you for the link to the clarification request, that helps clarify the present situation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
@Russavia: I've not examined the evidence and do not know or, at this point, have an opinion about whether or not TLAM is or is not a sock of Mark Nutley, but I'd like to presume for the sake of this question (only) that he is, indeed, a Nutley sock. I can certainly understand why that ought to cause TLAM to be blocked altogether and indefinitely but unless that is going to happen then I would ask you why that fact ought to otherwise bear on this request. To say it in another way: He's either (a) a sock and ought to be gone altogether, which would solve the question of his participation in the mediation, or (b) he's not a sock and would be valuable to the mediation process for the reasons stated by the mediators here, or (c) he's a sock (or strongly suspected but unproven sock) that the community has chosen to tolerate. The question is this: If the community isn't going to do (a), why should there be a difference between (b) and (c) for purposes of this request? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
@Mkativerata: I wish I had noticed this much earlier, but Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans expressly allows a topic-banned editor to participate in good faith in dispute resolution:

Unless stated otherwise, a restricted editor may make edits that would otherwise be a violation of the restriction if it is part of proper dispute resolution, so long as it is done in good faith. For example, an editor who is restricted from interacting with an another editor may ask an administrator to look into conduct by the other editor.

The "unless stated otherwise" clearly applies in this case, as you expressly mentioned "No exception for MEDCAB" in your AE ruling. But I must wonder whether you would have included that restriction had it not been for Paul Siebert expressly (but, in light of policy, unnecessarily) requesting an exception from MedCab. Would you have? And if you would not have included, would you have gone back and expanded the topic ban to include it if you had learned that he was participating in MedCab under the authority of the banning policy exception? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Qwyrxian

I volunteer to be the monitoring admin. I'm the admin who fully protected the article, and who opened the mediation request. I am not a party to the dispute. I have, as far as I am aware, never been a party to any dispute relating to WP:DIGWUREN]. Assuming that the arbitrators find that this is the appropriate venue, that it is a positive solution to have one or both of these parties involved in the mediation, then I am willing to monitor the mediation for any improper behavior. I am also willing to discuss any possible problems with the mediators themselves. I won't be reading any of the actual sources, nor do I have any interest in actually forming an opinion on the article contents themselves--I would strictly be monitoring from improper behavior on the part of these two editors. I would prefer that the consequences for violating these conditions be made quite clear though--specifically, does a violation in mediation actually count as a "normal" violation, thus extending the current 3 months topic? Regarding whether or not allowing a specific exception? My opinion is that it is a good idea, as pointed out above. There's no sense in working really hard for several months to get a consensus, just to have LATM come back in 3 months and say "But none of you accounted for X, Y, and Z, so I cannot accept the results of this mediation. Revert." This exception would essentially be given with the understanding that if LATM violates the conditions, they're essentially forfeiting their "right" to object later (if a stable consensus is achieved). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, this presumes that TransporterMan's statement above is accurate and the user in question is not a sockpuppet of a banned/blocked/topic-banned editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Tristessa de St Ange

As a member of the Mediation Committee who used to be coordinator of the MedCab. I would be happy to endorse on AE/AN that an exception should be permitted for the purposes of the MedCab case and take responsibility for supervision. This case could alternatively be referred to us at the MedCom, but I would prefer to see the existing mediation case allowed to continue as it stands before a request for formal mediation being made. I am also willing to be the uninvolved administrator/mediator mentioned by Newyorkbrad if necessary. --Tristessa (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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 TLAM

In response to the question posted on my talk page the response is yes, I believe mediation will help improve the article in question and also give myself an insight into how mediation works. I should like to thank the mediators for their requests in relaxing the topic ban to allow myself to continue with the dispute resolution process. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

Should there not be some expectation of decorum here? I did not join WP to read fulminations on canine genitalia. And is there a reason some editors continue to advocate for outright bans of others whom they disapprove of? That is not seeking resolution of conflict, rather, that is escalating conflict. I've already commented elsewhere on the alleged sockpuppetry. Whatever is decided here should be consistent with the past and be on solid enough ground to be a basis to set a precedent going forward. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

Under no circumstances should TLAM be allowed to participate in anything on WP. Refer to WP:SOCK and User:Marknutley. It is disappointing that Arbs are suggesting that an obvious sockpuppet should be allowed to participate in anything on WP; particularly given the clarification request. Russavia Let's dialogue 19:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

TransporterMan, there is currently a clarification request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors in relation to this. The committee has yet to comment directly on this case at that request, and it should be making comment directly in relation to it. I have provided a few admins confidential evidence, some of which has already been given to the committee, but the other half has not yet been provided to the Arbcom. When almost every uninvolved admin has stated their belief that this is a sockpuppet, I am not yet going to file any SPI, only because to do so would be to be required to divulge evidence which gives Marknutley/TLAM insight into his editing traits that have given him away. I have already provided a few of these traits. Any editor is welcome to do their own comparison of MK/TLAM and his other socks, to see that the behavioural evidence is there. Russavia Let's dialogue 07:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
And a quick additional comment, I am not going to supply the Committee with the additional evidence, because to do so will to allow them to ignore clear behavioural traits, and totally convincing traits at that, as they have already done. Once they fob off yet more evidence, and refuse to even so much as remotely answer direct and straightforward questions in relation to this case, that evidence will become off-limits and unusable. Hence why any evidence has thus far been limited to trusted admins, whilst other editors are welcome to do their own investigation and comparison of edits; it took me all of an hour or so to compile a convincing list; and only a few minutes to find traits that stuck out like dog's balls. Perhaps once Arbs attend to the clarification request with direct answers, instead of beating around the bush and refusing to comment on the case directly, I may then provide them with evidence, but not whilst they are engaging in murkification instead of clarification. Russavia Let's dialogue 07:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

Given the nature of AE, we have tended to be, and last I checked still are, rather deferential to the enforcing administrator. Going above our heads, such as it is, is probably more efficient, especially when seeking to directly overrule a ban provision. I personally do not see a problem with letting any sort of mediation, formal or informal, go forward, so long as we trust the person managing the mediation. If a MEDCAB'er is volunteering their time, let them. Spill over effects should be minimal at best, and bans are easy to reapply.--Tznkai (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out to me by Transporter man on my talk page, Mkativerata's statment that "It needs not be said that when an editor is "banned from any editing related to the topic" for battleground behaviour, the ban includes content-related dispute resolution processes." is in conflict with the written banning policy. I changed the policy text but not the substance on 29 September. The relevant provision was

The following exceptions to article, topic and interaction bans are usually recognized:

  • [...]
  • Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason.
I replaced that with:
  • Unless stated otherwise, a restricted editor may make edits that would otherwise be a violation of the restriction if it is part of proper dispute resolution, so long as it is done in good faith. For example, an editor who is restricted from interacting with an another editor may ask an administrator to look into conduct by the other editor.
  • A restricted editor may always ask for clarification about their restrictions, appeal the restriction in the appropriate forum, and may always respond to threads on administrative noticeboards that directly complain about, or seek to sanction the restricted editor.
I'm not sure if this issue is on point or not, and I believe my revised text is faithful to the policy as it actually exists. I again reiterate, that both personally and as a matter of Wikipedia norms, we should pursue resolving disputes when possible, rather than managing disputes by topic bans. Hope is not a strategy.--Tznkai (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Just want to point out that AE is not a court of appeals, and what is actually happening so far is nothing. as I've stated here we are, and should be, very deferential to decision the "man on the spot" as it were. I disagree with Mkativerata's decision and his reasoning thus far, and hope he changes his mind, but I do not believe it is my place to overturn it, barring establishing a consensus of some sort. That does not mean that the Arbitration Committee should be as deferential. Indeed, it shouldn't, because there is no effective review of discretionary sanctions other than the committee. The arbitration enforcement structure essentially leaves us answerable to only one authority. If ArbCom isn't at least willing in the abstract to review sanctions, it should set up some sort of fairly muscular and agile (read: small) review process. The alternative is an incentive structure where AE admins will rush to get their decision in "first" and then go about in an imperial manner, with their decisions essentially untouchable.--Tznkai (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
RE to Steve's point on headcount, no, you should count my !vote as a provisional oppose. My gut instinct is that Mkativerata's reasons for making his decision are much better than they have been described already. As I said, I would have made a different decision, but there is nothing thus far that gives sufficient reason to override someone else's decision. To do that, I would have to be convinced that the original decision was extremely defective.--Tznkai (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Now that the sanctioning administrator has agreed to modify the ban he imposed, I believe this discussion is moot? NW (Talk) 18:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The Clerk is asked to archive this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Biophys is partly correct. ArbCom should not be the first stop on appeal AE sanctions, but if the resulting discussion is unclear on the consensus, then bringing it to us would be the next logical step. Normally, we allow exceptions to sanctions for the purposes of "formal dispute resolution" (such as Mediation Committee and/or Arbitration Committee) cases. However, the Mediation Cabal is INformal dispute resolution. (per its mandate). Therefore my suggestion is that the proper venue for this request is an AE Appeal (either at AE, or one of the AN noticeboards), and coming back here if unclear. SirFozzie (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • My initial inclination would be to allow these two users to participate in a MedCab mediation if an experienced mediator opines that this would be useful, as appears to be the case here. If they or anyone else become disruptive of the mediation pages, they can and should swiftly be disinvited. ¶ I note Mkativerata's last point, that the mediator is not an administrator and therefore might need help keeping order on the mediation pages, and I think it would be useful if an uninvolved, experienced administrator were to volunteer to assist with this mediation. ¶ Regarding the proper forum for this request, those opining that it should be presented as a discretionary-sanctions appeal on AE are correct as a formal matter; however, I am increasingly concerned that (not due to anyone's fault but simply the accretion of safeguards and procedures over time), the different types of requests and forms of appeal are becoming an impenetrable bureaucratic thicket to the vast majority of editors who are fortunate enough not to live their wikilives on the arbitration pages. At some point, something must be done about this, but I am not sure what. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
    • As this request has now been granted at Arbitration Enforcement, I agree with the Clerk that the request here has become moot. The Clerk is asked to archive the thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I kinda like Collect's "double-or-nothing" rule. I think that's something that AE could explore, but again, not sure if ArbCom needs to be the body ruling on it. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree with some of my colleagues about the proper venue; the option is an "either/or" one, and this is as appropriate a venue as is Arbitration Enforcement. While I would be willing to consider lifting the sanction strictly for the purpose of participating in mediation, it would need to be on the proviso that *any* violation would reinstate a full topic ban, that an uninvolved administrator agree to monitor the situation and respond to concerns expressed by the mediators, that the mediators undertake to notify this administrator of any potential violation, and that removal of one or more of the parties from the scope of the mediation due to sanctions in the mediation process or any other process will not immediately invalidate the mediation. I would not want to see a potential resolution of the dispute go down the tubes because one or more of the parties is unable to proceed partway through. Risker (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with my colleagues above that this is best brought to AE. I'm certain that the considered opinions of the mediators is going to be taken into account when the discussion takes place there. — Coren (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Having looked at the comments at AE at the time the topic ban was imposed, especially in light of the re-emergence of the sockpuppeting allegations which question arbcoms unban decision, and the comments above, I dont think that there is a good reason to overrule the AE admin. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In general, I think ArbCom should only overrule a decision made by an admin if the decision was seriously flawed, or if new information has come to light. In this case, the decision made by the admin was an entirely reasonable judgment call, and in this context, I don't think we should overrule the decision. PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Δ (November 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Uʔ (talk) at 17:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by ʔ (formerly Have mörser, will travel)

There has been a proposal (at WP:VPR#Δ proposed task #1) to relax the community restrictions on Δ as to allow him to remove deleted images from articles. One administrator, Chris Cunningham, has expressed the following concern:

Waaaaay too close to the original nexus of all Beta-drama. The community simply does not trust Beta to remove links to images. Allowing him to do so en masse is simply asking for trouble. The sky will almost certainly not fall down if this has to be left to the rest of us. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've discovered that Δ is subject to a separate ArbCom-imposed ban on "making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed" (imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Modified by motion). What does ArbCom think about this community-proposed task—removal of deleted images? Does it fall too close to the NFCC-enforcement ban, or not? 17:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment. I agree with Risker and SirFozzie on the issue that the current community sanction is drama prone because of the varying interpretations of "pattern" in the community. Just search for this key word in the ANI and VPR threads, and you'll see what I mean. I was reluctant to open a full case just because of that though. There are also some editors who think the community sanction is completely unnecessary now, not just ambiguous. It's true that programming skills can progress quite a lot in three years. [By the way, I asked for my account to be renamed away from "ʔ".] Uʔ (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

See also: The 9+ proposals to amend or clarify the community restriction in addition to the 20 task requests which follow the requirements of the current restriction, as Hammersoft correctly points out below. Uʔ (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

If the image has long-since been deleted, and presumably not be Delta's hand, I would think that removing the dead image call from a file is not an NFC case since we would do the same for free images that happen to later be deleted. That is, the take would not be specific to handling NFC, but any media content. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

To the ArbCom members (Based on comments below): The current situation is as follows:
  • Delta's been running his manual script-enabled tool, under the community throttle, to make various wikignoming/cleanup tasks on pages (8000 as he's claimed). They range from redirection fixes, whitespace cleanup, reference cleaning, etc.
    • During this period, there were some of Delta's semi-automatic edits that likely were not well defined within MOS (reference restructuring), or, while not breaking anything visually, had a secondary side effect (linking to a bad version of a page (404) at Wayback when adding archive links. When pointed out, Delta (appeared to) drop them. (I didn't do more than spot check, but they were no longer problems after notification).
  • As noted, about two weeks ago, Delta is suddenly blocked as this was seen by one admin as a pattern of edits. The block presumed that Delta would not communicate with the blocker and raised several questions on that , but it highlighted to the community that Delta has been doing these 8000 edits that some have taken to be a "pattern of edits".
  • ANI blows up. (As someone has jokingly said, there's a law, if Delta has been blocked for X, then the accompanying ANI thread must last for 10X).
    • As noted in the Arb comments: the bulk of the ANI thread is over what the phrase "pattern of edits" is to be taken as, as well as what timeframe or other limits there are on the "25 edits" could mean.
  • Hammersoft, knowing that Delta is not the best communicator to the masses, offers to bring Delta's current script tasks to VPP per the community restriction to gain consensus irregardless of the resolution of the ANI thread (as this process would appear to satisfy the first community restriction about getting permission). Delta provides on his talk page the lists of changes that his semi-automated tool makes that he has to verify before submitting as an edit.
    • One of these tasks involved the removal of long-deleted image files (non-free or not), hence the question raised here about Delta's NFCC handling.
  • The enumeration of the tasks has not gone well, with some outright blanket opposes, and about half the tasks that involve any type of subjective handling typically being opposed, leaving the list of tasks those that could be handled by a bot but that Delta is willing to do. Some have accused Hammersoft of being pointy in this effort, despite the fact that some were asking for exactly this.
I would say that it would be helpful of ArbCom, ignoring the drama of the whole issue, to provide guidance if what Delta's 8000 edits should have been taken as a pattern of edits (hence requiring the VPP part), and whether the VPP thing going on now is an appropriate part of the process set by the community edits and whether the types of actions being sought are within the bounds of the community edits. (In addition to the whole NFC issue). --MASEM (t) 13:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
To SirFozzie: {{BCD}} gives Δ for this specific purpose. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft

I agree with Masem for the most part. I could see someone making a case out of this by saying "Well, you deleted a link to a deleted image which the deletion log shows was deleted for failing NFCC policy". But, this seems a stretch to me. Further, it isn't NFCC enforcement, even if the image was a non-free image and deleted for NFCC reasons. The NFCC enforcement already happened in that case. And a bit of nitpick; The proposals made are not requests to relax his restrictions. They're being made in accordance with restrictions. He is not currently forbidden from deleting links to deleted images. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

Whether removing links to deleted images is related to NFCC enforcement, broadly construed, depends on how broad is broad. There is a nexus here of the sort that has concerned the community. First, Delta's long interest in non-free images has been a flash point for concerns about incivility, subterfuge, unauthorized use of tools, failure to respond or communicate with the community, errors, and disregard of consensus process. Widening the scope to all images doesn't remove the fact that it affects non-free images, because one subsumes the other. Second, although I have no specific information I would guess that many to most images that are deleted despite being used in articles have been deleted on NFCC grounds, so this is NFCC cleanup. If they were deleted for being redundant, or some other technical reason, then the right action would be to find the surviving image and link to that, not remove the link. Which gets to the third point, although Beta was particularly strident about NFCC policy, his use of automated tools in all areas has been a problem. We can't assume that any particular automated task is harmless or approved. For instance, a different editor might instead leave a hidden comment or make a log entry so that other editors would improve the article with a replacement image instead of deleting the link. If there is a potentially undesirable result from these link removals, it is the same as when targeted more narrowly to nonfree images: loss of encyclopedic content, and lots of manual work by others to fill the holes, if an automated process is done blindly without careful input, planning, or execution. I have no opinion on what the outcome should be, just saying that if you cast the net broadly there is some connection here. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Caution regarding present motion. What mandate does Arbcom have to consider overturning for a second time the decision of the community in how to deal with Beta? It seems that Arbcom is disrespecting and thereby hampering, the ability of the community to resolve long-term concerns involving prominent editors. A consensus arose, incrementally over the span of years, that Beta exhausted too many last chances, and is simply unlikely to edit in certain subject areas or using certain tools without creating another mess if given yet another chance. Simply taking up the motion gives Beta another chance, because if the sanctions are re-examined in a new light, then unless there is some kind of meltdown or misbehavior during the case it's inevitable that ArbCom will put its own stamp on something then see, over the course of months and years, whether that works. That means two more angst-filled years of AN/I cases, Arbcom motions, unauthorized bots, personal attacks and accusations between editors calling each other enablers or stalkers, etc. If ArbCom wishes to jump in, the measure should be how can it more strongly ensure stability in the project, not whether it should undo existing efforts to keep things stable. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by CBM

I made the following comment on the village pump:

The arbcom motion only covers non-free image enforcement "broadly construed". But it is in Beta's interest to avoid image-related work entirely, I believe.

I do think that if he removes links to images that were deleted for NFCC reasons, that would be NFCC work broadly construed. But the overall goal of maintenance work is that it should go on behind the scenes, so to speak, so that nobody bothers to comment on it. Δ has proven, numerous times, to be unable to meet this goal. Previous efforts to help Δ by giving him a loose editing restriction have only given him enough room to cause trouble for himself. This includes the community editing restriction he is currently under, which I helped draft in 2008 [33]. We should begin to think about more tightly restricting him from maintenance work, since he has not proven able to self-modulate his work in this area. His 2,000 unapproved edits in the last two months, with identical edit summary "cleanup", are a typical example of this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Two arbitrators asked whether the edits were going smoothly. One problem with the edits is that they all have exactly the same edit summary, so it is hard to find examples of any particular type. But here are links to discussions on his talk page in the last 2 months.
  • Relocating references (violates WP:CITEVAR) [34]. This appears to be a similar complaint: [35]
  • Adding "release date" to book references [36]
  • Cleanup script issues [37] [38]
  • This edit [39] removed the word "is" from the lede, making it ungrammatical. It is hard to tell that, however, because there is so much noise in the diff. This particular edit was pointed out by Lexin [40].
  • This diff by Fram [41] reports other errors in the "cleanup" edits
If more links are desired, it would be possible for someone to make a list of them, but I think this conveys the general point that that the tasks Δ was doing were a combination of discouraged edits (changing reference formats), non-improvements (adding release dates for books), trivialities (changing Image: to File:), and occasional errors. Making this sort of change en masse would lead to complaints if any editor did it, and indeed the links above show different people noticing different problems and pointing them out on Δ's talk page.
One germane task I am aware of in the edits is the removal of links to deleted images. This is a classic example of a large-scale task for which Δ needed to get approval before commencing (and it runs into his restriction on NFCC work). Had he not obfuscated his edit summaries, this would have been noticed sooner as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tristessa de St Ange

As the administrator who blocked Δ and hence started this most recent chapter of the perennial brouhaha, I'd like to say that I would recommend he stay away from image-related tasks altogether based on history, though I can't see any reason why he shouldn't be allowed to perform removals of images that 1) are already fully deleted; 2) aren't in the process of community discussion; and 3) have nothing to do with the former points of contentious editing, e.g. are not related to NFCC or similar issues. --Tristessa (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Δ

The reason that Hammersoft is making this request is that at the time I was blocked. There was a discussion less than 30 days ago where my edits where deemed acceptable, yet Tristessa de St Ange out of the blue (over three weeks afterwords) blocks me for the exact same edits that I was making 30 days ago and according to AN where acceptable. I really wish arbcom would grow a spine and put a stop the this harassment in general, but I know they dont have the balls to make a stand and actually support those of us who actually care about the pedia. Instead they choose to play politics and popularity games like this is High School. I have been doing missing/deleted cleanup for years without any issues, hell I have made over 8,000 edits of general cleanup, earning several thank you's and a barnstar or two. However the Hell Hounds choose to talk and harass every edit that I make. I know for a fact that if I had a different username other than what I have I know people would be heaping praise and thank you's without any issue. However because I am Betacommand it doesnt matter what the hell I do, everything is wrong, and I must be banned. Hell I know I could retire this username and quietly return, amass 20,000 or so edits, run for RFA and pass with flying colors if I could forget my past. However because there where issues years ago people feel that I shouldnt be allowed to edit. CBM is a classic example of that, it doesnt matter how productive I am, I get bitched at. Removing deleted/missing images is not NFCC enforcement. Its just going back and cleaning up after lazy admins who delete files without first orphaning (which is the recommended practice). I have pushed a feature for tracking these pages into mediawiki because I know so few people who do this kind of work, and that maintaining a personal list is difficult. Category:Pages with missing files is my brain child and I know few people who bother with this cleanup and instead leave articles with upwards of 20 deleted/missing files on a regular basis. I dont know about you but I find that extremely ugly and gives us a bad perspective when readers come across an article with those broken links. But I know my comments here will be ignored just like they are every time I come to this committee. The odds are that this committee will not have a backbone and sanction me further, instead of realizing that I have been the victim of stalking and harassment for years and actually do something to ensure that those users who improve the pedia are protected, instead of pandering to those who haunt the drama boards and do very little to improve the peda. Just let me know how badly I am going to be ArbFucked™ this time. ΔT The only constant 02:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Response to arbs

Other than a very few minor errors it has been very productive and frictionless. I experimented with google books, which didnt work out. But other than that its been very quiet and Ive even earned a barnstar for my gnoming/cleanup. If anyone other than myself where making these edits there would be zero drama. ΔT The only constant 13:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sven Manguard

It's well known that I fall on Delta's side in most cases. Yes, he's occasionally overly abrasive and under-communicative, but at the same time, yes, he most certainly has been terribly harassed, by multiple users, over a long period of time.

I am urging the Committee to open up a new case, which would completely overrule the current ArbCom case sanctions, the community restrictions, and the ArbCom motion filed earlier this year by Roger Davies, and if ArbCom decides it necessary, impose new restrictions in their collective stead. At issue, Delta is entangled in a web of sanctions that are in not only in conflict with one another, but are so awfully written that just about anything he does can be pointed to as being in violation of the sanctions, whether or not that was the intention of the authors or not.

I also urge the committee, when handling the case, to look at all parties as components of this ongoing dispute, and come in with no prejudgements. I believe you will find that Delta was targeted by somewhere around three specific users, who either initiated each AN/I thread, or rushed there to increase the drama level. This is not to say Delta is without guilt, that is untrue, however it is to say that incidents involving Delta cannot be taken out of context from the users who are frequently in conflict with him at AN/I.

Finally, and this will be an odd request, I'm sure, I am urging the committee to initiate this after the upcoming election. I do not think that he can receive a fair shake under the current composition of ArbCom. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Response to Thryduulf

It seems like what you're proposing is that ArbCom:

a) take a look at everything that's happened surrounding Delta; and
b) reapply all of the sanctions already applied to Delta

I don't think that they can actually do both, or at least, if they do a good job with 'a', then 'b' won't go down the way you are saying.

Mind you, ArbCom has the technical ability to just unify the sanctions and dismiss the affair, but I'd be disappointed if that's all they were able to do; at the very least some of the current sanctions are obsolete or unwarranted, some of them need tightening or clarification, and a few people need interaction bans from Delta, because a whole lot of drama is stirred up by less than a half dozen users bringing Delta to the boards so often that it's becoming a cry wolf affair. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Second response to Thryduulf

Oh. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


Reply to the motion and direct comment to the Arbs

A applaud your opening a case on the matter, however I still worry that at least one Arb in particular (who I will choose not to name because it is his responsibility to decide whether or not to recuse) has become too involved and has formed too strong of a negative opinion of Delta, for it to be fair for him to actively participate in the case. Yes, I realize that since this is not Delta's first time being brought before the committee, there is a great deal of prejudicial antagonism floating about, however most of the Arbs have remained publicly neutral, or at least moderate, on Delta issues, while one or two have not.

Secondly, (if you're still listening), I ask you to amend the motion to include a line that explicitly allows Delta to continue to make maintenance edits manually, and in numbers above 25 a day, while this is pending. I fully expect that people will immediately rush to claim wrongdoing the moment he hits 25 edits of any one type, or will rush to say he's gaming the system if he stops below 25 each day, even if he's doing his edits manually. Yes, we can't really prove that he's doing it manually, however we can look at his edit rate for a good indication of, at the very least, whether he's working slow enough to conceivably be working manually and reviewing his edits.

Finally, the motion would nullify the approval of several proposed tasks that have received support, in some cases overwhelming support, at the recent request for authorization thread started by Hammersoft on Delta's behalf. I believe this is your intention, however I wanted to make sure you all knew that some of the tasks were, in fact, supported by the community. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


Comment towards Delta

Dude, don't blow this chance by flaunting the restrictions imposed by the motion.

Yes, the community has wronged you; yes, ArbCom has wronged you; but this is perhaps the best chance you have for achieving some semblance of normalcy again. If you ignore this whole thing and start making automated edits while the motion is active, not only are you handing a good reason to ban you to the small group of people on the committee that have been seeking it for a while, but you'll lose any semblance of community support you have.

I've had your back, quite vocally, and probably more often than would be good for my reputation, because I genuinely believe that you've been wronged in this affair. To me, it's obvious that you're not innocent, but it's just as obvious that neither are a whole lot of the people that consistently rally against you. I'm telling you now though, that if you blow this — if you make the choice to ignore this chance — I will be right with the people calling for you to be banned, just like that. I will know that I tried my very hardest to help you and that you spurned it.

Don't betray the people that are still fighting for you; let this play out. Please. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


Comment towards John Vandenberg

You were not the admin that I had in mind when I said that there was an Arb on the committee that really ought to recuse himself from this case. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


Response to Crossmr

There's more than enough evidence in that particular RfC alone to play accusation ping pong for days on end. You accuse me of bad faith and uncivil insults, but consider myself very much justified in making the identical claim against you. I, however, carefully avoided naming names in this initial stage of what is increasingly looking like a full blown ArbCom case. Had I done so initially, yours would be the very first name on my list of antagonists in this sad affair.

I also disagree with your characterization of Delta being used as a figurehead, however your comment does give me insight into why you and others responded in that thread in the way that you all did. I was defending a person, you were going after a perceived institution. That we were all operating from fundamentally different perceptions of the situation goes a great deal towards explaining how communication between the sides was so damned hard. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


Second response to Crossmr

I believe that I was justified in the conclusion you quoted. Yes, Delta is a problem user, but no more so than a dozen other problem users that often get brought to AN/I. The difference between him and these other users is twofold. First, by being sanctioned by ArbCom, he instantly became a free target; whereas going after other users without sanctions has a political cost built in, going after Delta does not. Secondly, he is one of the only users to actively patrol what is an immesnely misunderstood and unpopular area, the NFCC. One thing spending time at FfD has shown me is that people don't like having images that they've uploaded get deleted. Even if the deletion is 100% correct the uploader often is bitter, and occasionally goes after the person who listed their upload for deletion. Combine the fact that Delta is doing NFCC patrolling in high volume with the fact that he really dosen't have a tremendous amount of tact, and what you have is a large group of people who are angry with him, revenge-filled even. It's a formula that sets Delta up to fail every time, even in instances where he hasn't done wrong. Once his name hits AN/I, a whole lot of people come out of the woodworks for the wrong reasons. Yes, I acknowledge that in this Delta appears to be the architect of his own demise, but at the same time, he's not being treated fairly by a very, very long shot. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

For the sake of the community's time and the satisfaction of all parties, I think that a case re-examining:

  • all of Delta's contributions
  • the various restrictions placed on him (including the discussions relating to their interpretation by all parties)
  • the behaviour of those regularly interacting with him with regards to reporting/enforcement of restrictions, etc, and anyone alleged to be (trying to) goad him into breaching restrictions, etc.
  • the behaviour of those regularly speaking/acting for him, on his behalf or advancing what could be described as "pro-Delta" arguments/positions (whether Delta has asked them to or not)

This would be with a view to determining whether any restrictions are currently warranted, and if so what they are, and looking to word them to be as unambiguous as possible.

To put an end to any wikilawyering or uncertainty about intent, relevance, appliccablity, etc, about restrictions, I would encourage the committee upon opening the case to enact a motion superceding all existing restrictions on Delta (wherever, whyever and whenever imposed) and replacing them with a very simple set of restrictions that are not subject to interpretation. I would suggest something like:

  • Delta may not make more than N edits in any X-minute period, by any method, for any reason.
  • Delta may not make any automated or script-assisted edits, by any method, for any reason.
  • Delta may not make any edits, by any method, for any reason, with the sole effect of changing styles, layouts or presentations, whether these are in accordance with the manual of style or not.
  • Delta may not make any edits, by any method, for any reason, that result in no changes to the display of the page, whether these are in accordance with the manual of style or not.
  • Delta may propose edits of this nature on relevant article or project talk pages. They may not be implemented by any party to this case, nor without consensus to do so. Any proposal affecting more than N pages must be linked to from [an appropriate case page].
  • Delta may propose automated tasks at [appropriate page], these must reference specific pages that will be effected. These tasks may not be carried out without consensus, nor may they be carried out by any party to this case. All such proposals must be linked from [an approrpiate case page].
  • No party to this case may propose any tasks/edits on behalf of another party to the case.
  • Delta may not make any edits, by any means, for whatever reason, enforcing the non-free content criteria - i.e. he may not:
    • Delete any image marked for NFCC
    • Delete any image for violating the NFCC
    • Nominate any image for violating the NFCC
    • Discuss the nomination of any potentially unfree image (with the sole exception of images he uploaded)
    • Discuss at deletion review any image deleted for being unfree
    • Inform any user that an image they uploaded is or might be unfree
    • Remove any image from any page for being unfree, potentially unfree, or for violating the NFCC
    • Initiate or contribute to a discussion about whether one or more images on a page (individually or collectively) violate the NFCC.
  • Delta may privately inform a nominated member(s) of the arbitration committee or any other user nominated by the arbitration committee of any image or series of images he feels is unfree or which violates the NFCC (individually or collectively). The informed user may or may not take action (e.g. deletion or nomination of the image) at their discretion. The intent of this being private is to prevent any drama associated with the nomination being linked to Delta. If more than one user is nominated they should communicate to prevent gaming the system or playing one off against the other.
  • Delta may remove redlinks in the article or portal namespaces to images deleted for being unfree or violating the NFCC provided all of the following are true:
    • The image was deleted at least 1 week ago
    • The image was not nominated or deleted by him or any other party to this case
    • There is no ongoing discussion about the image on the talk page, at deletion review, the deleting admin's talk page, the uploader's talk page, or any other page linked from these places.
  • Delta may note on the article/portal and/or project talk page, or an appropriate case talk page, the existence of a redlink that these restrictions do not allow him to remove. This may optionally be by means of an edit request.
  • Each violation of these restrictions will result in a 1-week block of the infringer. Such blocks will be regarded as arbitration enforcement blocks.
  • No party to this case may block or unblock another party to the case for any reason.
  • No party to this case may revert another party to this case for any reason. Clear vandalism may be reported at WP:AIV or another suitable

These are deliberately very stringent restrictions, but they are only proposed to be for the duration of the case. I anticipate that the committee will find that if any restrictions are required on a longer-term basis that they are not this strict, but they are designed to be black and white - either a restriction is violated or it is not (this is why they are so long). Although they are framed above with reference to Delta (or all parties), some or all may be applicable to other parties too. I do not claim these are perfect, nor do I expect the committee to adopt them verbatim, I provide them and my reasoning to express my view. If desired by the committee, I would agree to be a party and/or edit under some or all of these restrictions.

There is the potential for editors to try to prolong the duration of the case to extend the duration of these stringent restrictions, but I would hope the committee would see this as sanctionable disruption.

In response to the comments above calling for any case to be delayed until after an election, I strongly disagree. I do this solely because I think that this would prolong the status quo which neither the 'pro' nor 'anti' Delta sides of the dispute are happy with. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Sven Manguard

Yes and no:

a) Yes, in my opinion everything and everyone involved here needs to be looked at.
b) No. I think they should:
  1. Throw out the current restrictions
  2. Place Delta and other relevant editors under simple but hard, strict temporary restrictions for the duration of the case
  3. Examine all the evidence, then either
    • Remove all restrictions;
    • Make the temporary restrictions permanent; or
    • Replace the temporary restrictions with more focused, probably lesser, restrictions with no loopholes that are much better worded than those existing currently.

I personally think that some restrictions on Delta are currently required, and hopefully ones that are less strict than the temporary ones I propose will be necessary. However, until the ongoing drama stops and the evidence can be presented and examined, it is not going to be possible to determine what restrictions (if any) are actually warranted. Unfortunately for Delta, I can only see the drama escalating while he edits in a manner that some, in good faith, see as contrary to his restrictions (regardless of whether they are or not). That some users in good standing acting in good faith believe that Delta's actions are contrary to the restrictions, and other users in good standing acting in good faith believe they are not is more than enough evidence (for me at least) that the restrictions are not fit for purpose (given that their aim is to prevent exactly the kind of situation we are in now), and so retaining/reinstating them would be the worst outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment to SirFozzie/other arbs re existing approved tasks

Given that it has sometimes been very contentious whether there is consensus for some bot/script/whatever tasks and that at least some of the reason why there is almost certain to be a forthcoming arbitration case is problems about interpretation of restrictions on Delta, I think it very important that all motions be very clear about what is an is not permitted. As such, if the restriction on (semi)-automated edits is not to be total, could I very strongly ask the committee to explicitly list (or explicitly link to an existing list elsewhere) all the tasks that they consider to have community approval. Without this I sadly forsee more drama. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Crossmr

As I'm often labelled one of his most vocal critics, I guess I should say something. As it was mentioned, Arbcom should look at all his contribs. But they should actually look at everything. His entire wiki-career. This is a user that the community has fought over endlessly. I would recommend Arbcom look at Delta's behaviour over the years and see what's changed, what's remained the same, and look at the communities reaction to it at various times. I know last time around in June/July of this year, I was getting some serious flashbacks to certain behaviour issues that were one of the main problems 3 or 4 years ago. That was telling me then, that despite everything, all the bans, blocks, endless discussion, nothing was really changing on a fundamental level.

Sven is also right that the behaviour of those surrounding this should probably also be examined. Delta doesn't exist in a bubble, and frankly one of the problems in dealing with Delta has been the other users, especially those trying to use him as a figurehead rather than address him as the user he is. Last time around one of the most common arguments from those supporting him was that any attack on Delta was an attack on NFCC, so that meant a blanket support of anything he did. 2-3 years ago an administrator had threatened to go through and block all those who had been support Delta when it was once again shown to be waste of the community's time. Unfortunately he never followed through on that. A few months ago I brought a topic to AN/I regarding Delta's edit warring on NFCC and the first 4-5 (I'd have to check) opposes all came with a heaping side of bad faith and uncivil insults, including from Sven himself.

@Masem: in fact no one asked for what Hammersoft did. People asked Delta to submit a specific task for approval. Hammersoft instead submitted 20 tasks, of an indefinite and open nature individually. 8 of those tasks were added after it was clear that out of the first 12 that had been proposed only 1, which was a bot-like task already covered by a fairly quick bot, had remotely gained any traction. That's why his behaviour was viewed as pointy.--Crossmr (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@alexandria has the bot been functioning without issue? if so, I wouldn't have a problem with it continuing in it's current scope as is. I'm not an arb member, but as I often disagree with what and how delta does things that should count for something.--Crossmr (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Sven you're free to pick apart my contributions if you like. There is a great difference between someone willing to carry the debate and those who cannot do so without resorting to personal attacks, insults and insinuations. There was a time when anyone who raised the slightest objection to anything Delta was doing was met with nothing but those things. As far as communication problems, go back and read the debates. Notice how frequently those supporting Delta were bringing up NFCC and framing their response in the context that Delta somehow represented NFCC. Some of them even flat out said "This is an attack on NFCC". Very few, if any, who were speaking against Delta were speaking against NFCC, it was those defending him that were trying to muddy the issue by creating strawmen based on NFCC. That was why that discussion never got anywhere. If you took out all the people supporting him who couldn't do so without coloring their support as such, he had almost no supporters left. That includes you, did you not write in your opposition to the suggestion to topic ban him from NFCC This is a clear case of people not liking the message, so going after the messanger.? and yet, arbcom stepped in and did just that. Do we continue to have the same drama over NFCC issues? Was the problem really the message or the messenger? Quickly eye-balling that discussion of the first 15 or so opposes I read, almost every single one tried to attack the call to topic ban Delta from NFCC as an attack on NFCC policy. No, you were right. It's entirely appropriate for arbcom to be giving this a thorough look.--Crossmr (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Question by Alexandria

As the case appears to be opening shortly and the user formerly known as Betacommand appears to be restricted as follows: "While this case is open, Δ is directed to cease all large scale editing tasks of 25 edits or more, be they fully or semi-automated. All edits must be fully scrutinized for technical issues before submission." Would this include his bot which does a lot of functions on the WP:SPI page that make our lives as SPI clerks a lot easier. Alexandria (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting further statements, including input from Δ. Apropos of nothing, I have serious doubts as to whether "ʔ" is a useful username from the point of view of helping editors communicate with one another. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Δ, your comments are obnoxious. I am thick-skinned enough not to hold this against you in addressing this request, but it is time you realized that there is no virtue to obnoxiousness. As for the substance of the request, I would appreciate some input regarding whether Δ's recent edits are useful or not—or put differently, if they would be controversial or problematic in any way if anyone other than Δ were making the edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is Hammersoft proposing all these proposals on behalf of Δ rather than Δ propose them himself? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Aha, my reply would pretty much echo Brad's - are the edits in and of themselves been going harmoniously or has there been friction? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think a clarification will do no good here, we may need a full case to look at the situation, ditch the current sanction (as seen, it has enough holes to drive a Mack Truck through, causing aggravation on both sides), and come up with a fresh idea (whether that is to restrict Beta fully from this kind of thing, or to come up with a tightly worded restriction). SirFozzie (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • @Sven: I don't think the situation is settled enough that putting it into a holding pattern and then dropping it in the laps of the Committee and its new members in January is a particularly welcome (or indeed plausible) idea. If we do take this as a full case, I think anyone who is unable to judge this fairly will recuse. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
      • @WikiDemon: To answer your questions: What mandate does the Committee have in this case? Well, being the last step of Dispute Resolution on Wikipedia does help. And with no offense intended towards the people who voted on the restrictions in the past (both community and Committee), the situation here is about as UNstable as possible, (the fact that I looked at the existing wording and found it had holes you could drive a mack truck through, depending on your interpretation. So, we're going to look at it, tighten and clarify as needed, loosen and remove as not needed. SirFozzie (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • A few points. First, Tristessa, could you please log your block here? Secondly, I am inclined to agree with SirFozzie; the case, and the sanctions involved, date back over three years, and even the provisional suspension of the community ban dates back over two years. Throughout the intervening two years, there have been recurrent issues from all sides. I think this is going to take more than a mere clarification to resolve. Risker (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Block noted as requested. --Tristessa (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Motion

The Arbitration Committee declines to issue a clarification of Δ's current restrictions, and instead will direct the clerks to open a full case, tentatively entitled Review of Δ sanctions. While this case is open, Δ is directed to cease all large scale editing tasks of 25 edits or more, be they fully or semi-automated. All edits must be fully scrutinized for technical issues before submission.

For this motion, there are 15 non-recused arbitrators, so 8 is a majority.

Support
  1. I wish there was an easier way to accurately refer to Beta (that is still accurate). It is a pain to have to use the special symbol Δ all the time. We need a blank slate to review these issues, and I think until we can do a formal review, it would be easiest for Δ to cease these tasks rather then risk ongoing sturm und drang. Needless to say, we would look at all parties involved, and not just the current patchwork hodge podge of restrictions on Δ. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  2. I'm really not happy at the prospect of an arbitration case over this matter, but the fact is that Δ is currently under a complicated mishmash of variously interpreted community sanctions, and is the focus of much dispute around many the edits he does (which are also just as varied and impossible to qualify as a whole). It is not entirely clear either how much of those disputes can be attributed to Δ himself. Untangling this to try to solve the problem will indeed require more than a simple clarification or motion work. — Coren (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  3. I agree with this approach - the issues here are too complex for a clarification, and are worthy of a full case. PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  4. Not unpredictable, and part of the reason I advocated dealing with this particular problem last go 'round. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  5. Worth a full review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)
  6. There have been so many actions and changes in the period between the original case, the community ban, and the present matter that it is time to review what makes sense and does not make sense, and to give some more solid guidance to all involved in this situation. I would suggest that the task related discussion currently occurring at the Village pump be included as "evidence" (perhaps putting it on a subpage of the VP and providing a link would be sufficient) to help sort out the current community perceptions. Risker (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  7. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  8. Conditional support, the condition being that one or preferably two arbitrators step forward to be hands-on drafters here, as the case pages are likely to require some supervision and the case will require careful, detailed review and analysis of the evidence and history. Given that I drafted the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, whose principles were well-received but whose remedies patently did not solve the underlying problem, I'd prefer for other arbitrators to do the main drafting this time around. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  9. Existing sanctions are useless for anything but drama - there has to be a better way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  10. I am happy to be a drafter for this case. I would prefer to be a secondary drafter, but am happy to be the lead drafter. I've had a fairly 'involved' relationship with Delta, but it hasn't been onesided; e.g. unblocking him when the technicalities were being used against him[42] and also asking him to stop recently (User_talk:Δ/20110701#please_stop). If Delta wants me to recuse, I will. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks Sven; I wasnt sure, and I can appreciate that Beta/Delta may be concerned about whether I am biased or not. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  11. Yes, it makes sense to review this. As NFCC features heavily, and is the most controversial aspect, hat would be helpful would be an analysis of some of this editor's edits. Some numbers would be more useful than allegation/counter-allegation, so say the 250+ link removals on 30 June 2011. Such an analysis could be broken down into percentage of files that were false positives (ie there was already a rationale); percentage of files that were deleted as actual vios; percentage of files that were only deleted because they'd been orphaned but had a rationale; percentage of edits reverted etc.  Roger Davies talk 01:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
  1. Before I actually support this, I think we need to be answering AlexandriaB's question re: the SPI bot that she has pointed out above. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. I would personally state that the direction above would only apply to new tasks, existing bots and such that have already been approved and are in use currently should not be affected. SirFozzie (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_56&oldid=1067413046"