Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Request for clarification: User: Marknutley (January 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 Stephan Schulz (talk) at 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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

• Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Stephan Schulz

User:Marknutley has been indef blocked by FloNight in early November 2010 in connection with WP:ARBCC topic bans. She instructed him to appeal to ArbCom for unblocking. On appeal, he had been told to wait for the new committee, and has received no feedback to his new request yet. I have no particular opinion on whether an unblock is a good idea or not, but I think it's unfair to let him hang out without any acknowledgement. ArbCom owes him at least an answer.

Statement by Petri Krohn

Mark's anonymous edits can most likely be found here: User:Petri Krohn/Pink proxy. There are however at least two other users using the same proxy farm. There was a related sock puppet investigation somewhere (now deleted). All the IPs have since been blocked as known and proven proxies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion about whether or not Mark should be unblocked, but as far as I know, there is nothing tying him to the so-called "pink proxies". I seem to remember he was indeffed for one edit as an anon from his own IP while he was blocked, but I may be wrong. --Sander Säde 10:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the indefinite block is not clearly documented, but I believe this was the reason. That administrator forgot to extend the block to indefinite, a mistake which was quickly corrected by another admin. HeyMid (contribs) 12:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by FloNight

User:Marknutley was been indef blocked by me after contacting him privately with my concerns about violations of our multiple account policy and he chose to be blocked rather than continue the discussion about the situation at that time. Before he was blocked the matter was also reviewed on the Functionaries mailing list.

Later Mark changed his mind and asked for his situation to be reviewed. It needs to be done by arbcom because it involves his use of various ip that should not be discussed on site.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Ban appeal cases are not usually quick, especially those involving private data; discussion of this one is still on-going. I would suggest patience is the best option here or Marknutley could always contact ArbCom directly if he would like an update - he's not done so since his initial request. It's only been 10 days at this point and there's quite a few new Arbs who need to review the original information from last year. Shell ^babelfish 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• As Shell notes, this is currently being discussed and should be addressed fairly soon. –xeno^talk 14:43, 14 January 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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light (February 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 Jayron32 at 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

• Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Notification of discussion

Statement by Jayron32

My request for clarification is two fold. First, does motion 4 (Brews ohare advocacy restrictions) expire with motion 6, or motion 5? If it DOES expire with motion 6, then does this page: User:Count Iblis/Speed of light, which is pretty much exactly the point-of-view that Brews ohare tried to push into the Speed of light article, count as advocacy, and more to the point, does this use of said page count as advocacy of Brews ohare's POV, something expressly forbidden by motion 4. --Jayron32 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Count Iblis: For the record, I have never, once, had an interaction with Count Iblis on the Reference desks, on any article, on any article talk page, or any discussion board ever as far as I can tell. If I have, it has been so fleeting as to have been insignificant. The first time I even interacted with him was to notify him of this clarification. This is a request for clarification, not an accusation of any sort. I have no idea if his edits are a violation of any restriction, I was asking if they were. If not, no harm no foul. As to my editing history, it is open for view by anybody, I have nothing to cover up or explain or answer for. I make mistakes, I own up to them every time they are pointed out, and everytime someone shows me to be mistaken, I apologize for my mistakes and thank the person for helping me understand better. I never claim to know anything about anything, least of all physics, of which my knowledge is pretty much zilch, which is why I am asking for clarification here. I know so little about physics that I needed to file this request for clarification for someone to clarify if Count Iblis was violating his sanction, not to actually accuse him thereof. --Jayron32 23:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

@Xeno: Absolutely, and that's why I request a clarification in this case; the greater issue to me is the ambiguity regarding motion 4. Even if this wouldn't normally count as "advocacy" for the purpose of enforcing motion 4 (and as I have said once, I don't even have enough physics background to tell if is or is not anything close to Brews O'Hare's position. Seriously. I can't tell whether or not this is Brew's position, oblique to it, or 100% the opposite of it. I simply don't have enough physics or mathematics knowledge to make heads or tails of either person's position on the speed of light.) Motion 4 needs clarification regardless. The fact that motion 6 came into effect means, to me, that it is unclear if the advocacy stipulation was supposed to expire or not. If it actually has expired, then the second question becomes completely irrelevent, and frankly, I could care less at that point. So, if motion 4 has expired, then I couldn't give a shit what Count Iblis does. If motion 4 has not expired, the rest of the questions then become relevent. And then I would care. --Jayron32 02:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Two remarks:

1) The link on my userspace is the view supported by many theoretical physicists, which was completely the opposite of the view taken by Brews Ohare. Basically, I'm with Michael Duff on this issue (I've actually had private communication with him about this issue a long time ago). While I know that this view is a bit controversial, it is still a fully mathematically consistent view and any objections are thus of a purely metaphysical/philospical nature (therefore completely irrelevant as philosphy is not a real science). What I've done on my userpsace is given a derivation of the usual equations of relativity containing c starting from natural units. This is never done in textbooks, because it is awkward and it goes contrary to how beginning students think of dimensional quantities. What happens is that later on theoretical students learn that dimensional constants are just conversion factors and not fundamental at all, however, one then never revists the elementary stuff and does the derivations without invoking any dimensional constants (because it is waste of time).

To give a more familiar example, comapre e.g. partial fractions. When professional mathematicians or physicists have to do this, they usually use Laurent expansions, instead of the standard textbook techniques. When students learn this for the first time, they don't know anything about complex analysis. When they later study that subject, they don't need to revisit partial fractions, as they already know how to do it, albeit it in the awkward way.

2) I have observed that Jayron often makes misleading comments on the Ref Desk about modern physics, e.g. on gravitons, Quantum Field Theory etc. I can tell from his answers that he bases his reasoning on popular books, not on real textbooks. I doubt he has ever worked through standard textbooks like this or this one, because his reasoning is easily debunked from what one can read in these books. Also, he argues a lot defending his personal views, e.g. on gravitons that go counter to the thinking in modern physics; the way he does it is misleading, as to lay persons it looks like he speaks from some authority.

Conclusion: Clearly Jayron is behaving a lot like Brews was perceived to behave. He is wrong about a lot of things on modern physics and pushes his views on the ref desk. He has now used this board while the disagreement seems to lie with a statement about the role of the speed of light which is a normal view held within theoretical physics (as opposed to the view held by Brews). Clearly he is unaware of the fact that it is a normal view held by many. He should have known that Brews's view is the complete opposite had he taken the time to check this out. Clearly he hasn't done that, so he is making a statement of a fact when he doesn't know what he is talking about. Presumably, all he has done is check that I was once (wrongly) restricted for "advocacy" and that Brews was topic banned, and then "concluded" that my view posted on my userspace is the same view held by Brews.

Count Iblis (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

Count_Iblis is certainly entitled to keep wikipedia-related text in his userspace.Biophys (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other users

Just looked through Count Iblis's user page on the speed of light. The math is a pretty standard deviation of classical Newtonian mechanics from relativity based on first principles. I'm not seeing any fringe advocacy here. The text is a little confusing, but looks to be a decent way of explaining some of the differences between Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sailbystars reading of Count Iblis's page looks about right to me. Brews's stuff was completely different and was nonsense. While the page might technically run afoul of NOTWEBHOST, I myself wouldn't bother kicking up a fuss about it. One idea might be for Count Iblis to transfer the content to Wikibooks:Special Relativity. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Added: yes, my understanding is that the advocacy restrictions are no longer in force. There was an incident last August that led to some talk of renewing them, but the renewal didn't happen. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Sailbystars. It's an interesting approach I haven't seen before, but on a quick read appears to makes sense (I did not read carefully). I'm not sure it would be the most helpful approach to present to a casual reader, so I am happy it is a user space essay and not the text of our article on the topic, but there seems to be no need for arbcom involvement or clarification - unless they want as individuals to engage in interesting discussions on physics. Martinp (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• On a plain read, and unless I've missed something, the advocacy restrictions expired at the end of June 2010 and were not renewed with the subsequent motions. –xeno^talk 03:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

  To be clear, I've only answered the first of Jayron's question. The second question (which I'm woefully ill-equipped to answer) only requires addressing if the restrictions are still in place (and I don't believe they are). –xeno^talk 01:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have a decent layperson's knowledge of physics, perhaps even above average, but that's all. I can try to opine on this issue, but am willing at least for now to defer to those who might know more of what they are talking about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it's become apparent that there is no issue requiring our intervention here, and that this request can soon be closed out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• I see nothing wrong with Count Iblis's user page (it it, indeed, an unusual but entirely uncontroversial derivation of Newtonian mechanics), and the restriction did end last June. — Coren ^(talk) 12:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• In general agreement with those above. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Xeno - the restrictions have expired. Otherwise, the restriction was clearly intended to prevent disruption, and a page in userspace isn't especially problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 27 January 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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (Wikipedia:Activist) (February 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 TS at 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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

• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)
• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

The essay Wikipedia:Activist was started last August by now topic-banned editor Cla68 (see early revision), evidently as a result of his experiences editing articles on climate change, although it is relevant to other controversial topics. In November it survived a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Activist).

In this arbitration case Cla68 and several other editors, including the listed parties ZuluPapa5 and William M. Connolley, were found to have engaged in "battlefield conduct" with respect to the topic of climate change, and subject to the following restriction:

Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

At first sight the recent edits by ZuluPapa5 and William M. Connolley at that essay seem to fall under clause (iii) and (iv).

Here four days ago now admin Nuclearwarfare fully protected the essay for 48 hours because, in his words "This essay and this talk page have completely devolved into utter uselessness. Nothing in these recent talk page discussions look like they have any promise of ultimately helping the encyclopedia." Since then Cla68 has engaged in discussion on the talk page.

A discussion involving Doc glasgow, "since when did essays need references", went in the direction of letting the parties squabble on an essay because it's of little consequence. That's arguable but the activity here seems to suggest that the involved editors aren't letting this matter go.

I want to solicit arbitrator comments on this matter, particularly comments about the likely outcome of any future review of the topic bans, in view of deliberate engagement in this topic. Also any decision to take this to WP:AE (an act that has had mixed results in the past) would be strongly influenced by arbitrator consensus. --TS 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In case anybody doesn't understand what this request is about, it's a request for arbitrator comment: viz, comment on the scope of the remedies pertaining to the case I cite and their implication for the editing of tangentially related essays. As far as I'm aware that's what this process is intended for: clarification. --TS 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

On reading Casliber's comments it occurred to me that a bold redirect to the essay Wikipedia:Advocacy may be more useful than trying to resolve the issues with this one. I've done it. Material from one essay may be merged into the other if necessary. --TS 14:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than getting ourselves bogged down in the pros and cons of the essay (which is apparently here to stay, at least for the time being) perhaps the arbitrators should address the way in which this document is being used to continue the bad faith and bickering that was hosted on the climate change articles until recently, apparently prosecuted by some of the topic-banned editors and their enablers. Surely this is something on which the Committee can suggest a way forward. --TS 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

The essay was found to be allowable at AfD, and some who demurred seem to have made edits which are, on their face, a bit less than helpful thereto. [1] is one thereof. Cla68 has made 6 of the last 250 edits, of which he made none since 25 December. Nor have any of Zulu's edits appeared to be in any way, shape or form disruptive to normal editing of essays. I would suggest a simple statement that disruption of editing of an essay for the clear sake of disruption has occurred, and should be denounced. Collect (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not just one example -- see [2], [3], ad nauseam. Collect (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See [4], [5] etc. In the words of Cicero, "How long, O Cataline?" applies. There are dozens of such edits - and this does not even begin to touch the weirdness found on the article talk page. Collect (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose "bold redirect" as essentially allowing the improper edits to have the effect they were intended to have - that is, deletion of the essay when it was not deleted at AfD. Allowing misbehaviour to circumvent WP policies is the worst possible sort of precedent imaginable. Collect (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ScottyBerg

I'm not certain of the purpose of this clarification request, or if one is needed. The essay was written while the CC case was underway, and nobody brought it up, and it was not mentioned in the decision. The sole diff diffs provided by Collect above is not worth making a fuss about. The essay has problems and should have been deleted. I do believe that it was at least in part influenced by the then-ongoing CC arbitration, but I don't see what needs to be clarified. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The cherry-picked diffs provided by Collect are of zero relevancy to this clarification request. If it is OK for topic-banned editors to create/participate in this essay, whether the edits are good or not is not an issue for arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Casliber's concern that the essay may "read like a manual for anyone wanting to push a fringe POV into gaming a battlefield with mainstream defenders." I was concerned about that from the beginning and wrote a section on "activism to advance fringe points of view." It was gutted without discussion and with the edit summary "trying to tidy some of the writing."[6]. Even with that section, the essay was problematic. In one of its most recent permutations it suggested that poor writing may be a hallmark of activists! Tony's redirect is the only solution. I see that edit warring has taken place to revert Tony's redirect, with, naturally, a "don't edit war" edit summary [7]. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ZuluPapa5

I sought clarification when entering the essay. I've seen no evidence but guilt by association in regards to the CC sanctions. Best I can tell, those working to keep CC banned editors out of the essay, are escalating the CC issues. Guess I'll have to start my own essay. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Bold redirect is battle like. The essay had progressed to address concerns. Have faith.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• [8] can we establish an clear issue before jumping to conclusion, I am befuddled why I was called in here, other then the pretext of my topic ban. The only way I have to satisfy concerns, is to apparently stay out of the essay for good? That is, after being forced to wear the badge of shame, called a battleground topic ban, until I can appeal on my building content record. How can I build content, if my actions continue to be called into question by association? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

The essay was originally drafted by me and several other editors, and presumably (in the case of the other participating editors) and for sure on my part, based on all of our experiences and observations participating in Wikipedia over a number of years. Once posted, I have participated in content discussions on the essay's talk page and, along with other editors, have added some more content. I have not, however, made a single revert to the essay. Some editors agree with what the essay says, and some obviously disagree, but I don't see any problem with that, as one of the purposes of Wikipedia essays are to provoke reflection, discussion, and critical thinking of issues involved in building an encyclopedia.

Of Tony's actions here, I'm not sure that this is an appropriate request. He isn't asking for clarification, instead asking for "arbitrator comments". In other words, it looks like he's trying to pull some comments out of the arbitrators that he can use as weapons later to continue the battlefield behavior that he has exhibited since the close of the CC arbitration case. He has previously tried to make what appears to be an attempt to draw me and others back into a battle with him as the instigator. To be honest, I resent his attempts, whether intentional or not, to do so. I ask that the arbitrators not allow themselves to be drawn into whatever it is he's trying to do here, and let the rest of us get back to building an encyclopedia, of which some of us are actually trying to do. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Count Iblis...a few (fortunately, very few) editors involved with the essay have tried to turn it into a battleground over the CC topic. Most of the participating editors (including me, IMHO) have refrained from being drawn into that type of behavior, which is appropriate since the essay is not a part of the CC topic area. Personally, I am disappointed to see those few editors try to turn the essay into a CC battleground, but they are responsible for their own actions. Therefore, if the behavior of those few editors needs to be dealt with, then AE might be the appropriate forum, not here. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Solution: Make a template like this

with "article" replaced by "essay".

Clearly, there is a problem with the way the essay is being edited. The main points made in the essay are the same that the climate sceptical editors have complained about since 2007, however the essay formulates these abstractly, avoiding mention of climate change or global warming. Of course, editors are allowed to write such essays, but the problem is that there is no real collaborative editing going on. Moreover, many of the main editors were involved in the CC case, in fact quite a few were topic banned. So, i.m.o. one should make the essay subject to general sanctions. Alternatively, Cla68 could move it to his userspace. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ludwigs2

Allow me to point out that I have seen this issue raised many times on wikipedia - in at least three essays, and in countless talk page and ANI threads on multiple topics, so this in not something that's specific to climate change. I fact, it affects (to my personal knowledge) climate change, alternative medicine, fringe science issues, issues concerning israel and palestine, judaism more broadly put, socialism broadly put, and many issues in American politics.

The problem (put most generally) occurs when a number of editors implicitly or explicitly decide to coordinate their efforts in order to impose a particular viewpoint as truth on wikipedia. they may do this intentionally (as part of a real-world effort to use wikipedia for propaganda) or they may do it unintentionally (out of a personal conviction that what they are arguing for is the truth), but in either case they use the same series of edit-warring and shout-down tactics to achieve their end (basically a kamikaze approach that either gets them what they want or renders the article and talk page unreadable and uneditable). It's a major behavioral problem that wikipedia has not yet managed to master (because every time someone tries to address the issue, one or more of these loose coordinate groups feels threatened and shouts-down the effort).

There's more I could say on the issue (I could talk on this topic extensively) but I'll restrict myself to pointing out that if the raison d'etre for this request is that this is something specific to climate change, then this request is specious and should be dismissed out of hand. this isn't even remotely restricted to climate change. --Ludwigs2 00:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker

Calsiber gave an opinion on the Essay. However it was just that, an opinion. There is no arbcom ruling that overides the community decision to keep the essay. Casliber and all arbitrators are welcome of course to participate in any community discussion on the essay itself in their editorial capacity.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098

Casliber, you have missed User:Ravpapa/Tilt, which is far more hands on. I don't see how documenting the alleged practices is a "violation" of anything but WP:BEANS, an essay itself.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I must say I have a problem with the essay as is, as I am concerned that it reads like a manual for anyone wanting to push a fringe POV into gaming a battlefield with mainstream defenders...which strikes me as antithetical to the production of neutral comprehensive encyclopedia. For that reason, I am saddened that the deletion discussion did not come to a conclusion that a merge with Wikipedia:Advocacy. The rationale is that the discussion can be applied to mainstream and fringe activists, rather than concentrating on the former, which I feel is unhelpful. That said, we don't have a policy on merging essays, and we have over a thousand of them apparently - what worries me is a "not seeing the forest for the trees" - Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#essay - doesn't have alot to say. If it were up to me, I think the essay as is is a little too close to home to the recent arbitration case, and hence does have battleground elements to it, yet I recognise others don't see it as such. I would hope that in general, there is more of an effort to merge similar essays into more solid essays, which would helpfully give them greater weight, readability and legitimacy, and that if this is not spontaneous, then maybe an RfC into essays and looking at how to streamline them is fruitful. I note there is a new Essays Wikiproject which might be agood place to log centralised discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• At times in the essay, Cla68 may possibly allude to his role in the global warming articles dispute, but I don't consider that he has breeched the sanctions imposed on him. Otherwise, perhaps a future consensus will support a merge, a userfication or rewrite of this essay, however that's outside of ArbCom's prerogative. PhilKnight (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• This situation is being overblown on all sides. I do not presently see a need for arbitrator intervention here, although I hope I will still be able to make that comment a few days from now. I will add that when an essay proves to be this divisive in Wikipedia space, the obvious solution is often to userfy it; although perhaps this is more in the nature of an MfD !vote as opposed to an arbitrator comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The situation appears to have quieted down a bit. Can we close out this request? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that this situation appears to have been resolved without arbitrator intervention. My review of the recent edits shows that the worst behavior involved in the essay editing belonged to an editor who has since departed from Wikipedia for at least a year. The named Climate Change parties' edits, though inadvisable, do not appear to have risen to the level that AE would have been unavoidable. At the same time, had an uninvolved administrator sanctioned either one for their participation in the editing of this essay, I would not have objected. The clarification I would encourage all parties to take is this: finding proxy topics on which to snipe or snark at former opponents on topics from which one is currently banned is entirely against the spirit of such topic bans. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with the comments of my colleagues. I think this can be closed. Risker (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Concur also with the above.  Roger ^talk 08:22, 2 February 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: Eastern European mailing list (February 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 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 3, modified by motions from 6 May and 13 November.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

N/A

Amendment 1

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

Statement by Piotrus

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

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

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

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

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

Comment to the points raised by involved editors:

1) Upon my AE block by Mkativerata, as declared on my talk page, I sent an email to him asking for an explanation, providing my understanding of the situation and asking for an unblock. Assuming he may not be active at that time, and wishing to minimize any delays before the unblock (or AE unblock discussion), I send similar emails to several other AE administrators who commented, in a non-partisan fashion, on the recent AE requests involving my person (linked above). Being unable to post on AE for several days, I continued sending several emails to administrators discussing the situation there, clarifying certain things they asked for (or asking for clarifications myself). Obviously, I also contacted several members of the arbitration committee asking for their input (which was eventually provided, ending with an unblock, once the arbitrators have clarified the scope of the topic ban). I used emails because that was the only means available for me to contact other editors, and in doing so I followed advice offered to me by an Arbitrator some time ago ("if you end up being in the middle of an enforcement request, seek help from an arb to help clarify this"). Nothing in those emails was secret, and if the Committee wants to see them, I authorize their recipients to share them with the Committee if it is requested from them (as I sent most of them through wiki interface I don't have their copies to provide). I resent second or third handed description of such emails as canvassing or dishonest, although I am not surprised as those personal attacks are coming from a user with a very long history of assuming (and expressing) bad faith when it comes to my person. I will end by asking Deacon to disclose who was it that send him this email? Or are we dealing with another "anonymous whistle-blower" who is afraid to express his concerns publicly?

2) Echoing sentiments expressed by several editors here, and at least one Arbitrator, I will ask the Committee to consider whether this forum does indeed allow editors to express profound bad-faith comments and carry out personal attacks on others without any consequences. On AE, editors making unfounded, bad-faithed accusations and contributing to the battleground atmosphere in EE area received AE and interaction bans. I would specifically ask the Committee to consider imposing an interaction ban on Deacon with regards to EE(ML) editors (and frankly, if the Committee would like to make it a double sided restriction, that's fine - I never commented on Deacon outside of the situations he commented on my person, and my only desire is for him to stop wikistalking/hounding my activity). Please note that Deacon's bad-faithed criticism of my person is not a rare or exceptional occurence. His first edit this year upon coming from a nearly month long wikiholiday was to post here; last year he made comments in AE requests involving my person and occasionally other editors involved in the EE(ML) case ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) and in amendments ([18]). Also, despite being obviously involved in this area, he takes administrative actions (ex. [19]). In the years past, Deacon has presented evidence against me and other EE-related editors ([20]), been banned from EE-related arbitration pages due to incivility and battleground mentality ([21]), authored himself an entire arbcom case against me ([22]), and was mentioned in its findings ([23]), admonished ([24]) and reminded to assume good faith, remain civil and avoid personal attacks,. In April and in June 2009 I offered him a mediation (twice), he refused, twice ([25], [26]) At that time I also specifically asked him to avoid commenting about me (and promised never to comment on him) - [27]. As far as I can tell, he ignored this request of mine, not even replying to it. His "history" with EE-editors goes at as far back as 2006 (and on the subject of canvassing, here's a skeleton in a closet). Since it seems obvious that Deacon sees his vigilantism vigilance in this area as helping the project, and saving it from "the EE editors", perhaps the Committee could take a closer look at whether his attitude and activities are really benefiting that area (and the project in general)?

And now, can we please get back to the subject at hand (the topic ban), and try not to be distracted by some editors who are trying to derail this request by turning it into another battleground? Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

3) I consider allegations made in this post by Skäpperöd to be extremly uncivil and defamatory. I believe that the personal attacks contained in it are so serious that I am officially requesting that this diff is oversighted. Skäpperöd has the right to voice concerns and criticism, but the line surely is crossed when one makes allegations regarding another editors goals in contributing, character and personality, and bad-faithed interpretation of professional expertise to boot (not far from WP:OUTING, I believe).

Since an interaction ban was mentioned, I will also ask the Committee to consider whether this wouldn't be another good place for it. I respect Skäpperöd's content contributions, and have no desire to hinder them; however his constant critique of EE(ML) editors that shows no signs of lessening seems disruptive and conductive to recreating battleground mentality (if editors cannot WP:FORGIVE and move on, what can we expect in the near future? More drama, that's what). A review of his Wikipedia namespace contributions shows that 90% of them are related to criticizing EE(ML) members. In October last year he proposed an amendment indefinitely extending a topic ban of User:Jacurek, the proposal was quickly rejected by the Committee and Skäpperöd was warned to avoid battleground tone and mentality ([28]). That year he also objected to lifting a sanction in an AN discussion, quickly launching another attack on a user who disagreed with him. Earlier, he opposed lifting the topic ban on Radeksz (it was lifted), opposed lifting the topic ban on me and proposed an indef extension (the topic ban was partially lifted by being modified to current wording), proposed an amendment extending Radeksz topic ban for a year (rejected), objected to an amendment lifting my topic ban, using in edit summary phrases such as "malicious Piotrus" (I am loosing track here of which amendment request was that), objected to Radeksz amendment request (ditto), commented on AE that "It is neither bad faith, nor uncivil, nor a PA to state that Piotrus is discredited and banned, because he is", objected to am amendment allowing me to edit WT:POLAND (passed), criticized another EEML editor in March... those are just some of the diffs I could've cited, I don't really have time or will to provide more than just a sampling. I hope this proves the occurence of an unhealthy vigilantism clear here as well, and makes the case for an interaction ban. Once again, if the Committee wants to make it double sided, that would be fine (even through neither I nor to my knowledge anybody else has a history of following Skäpperöd around and criticizing him, damaging his reputation, and so on...). I do however strongly believe that as long as certain editors stay focused on flaming their opponents at every possible occasion, the EE conflicts won't dissipate. If some editors cannot learn to WP:FORGIVE and move on, I am afraid they have to be directed towards the reconciliation path. Please note that there is nothing that the project will lose if such interaction restrictions are implemented; instead we will gain some peace and quiet from dramu accusations, battleground atmosphere will dissipate as flaming goes away, and certain editors will no longer have to waste time they could spend writing content on launching attacks on others (or defending from them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Novickas. Regarding "evidence of a more profound change of hear", could you be more precise? And perhaps you could consider your own words in your own context. I appreciate you remain civil, but have you considered applying WP:FORGIVE and simply avoiding commenting on people you apparently see as your (former) opponents? I don't recall where was the last time (if any, outside arbitration) I (or another editor) discussed your person. Yet you seem to show up in quite a few of the EE(ML) related discussions, and never, ever, have you said anything other than voice more criticism and/or suggestions to decline all request for more lenient remedies: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]... why do you keep fighting? I desire nothing but to collaborate constructively and in a civil fashion with other editors, you included. I have no desire to comment on your person. Why won't you display your own "change of heart", think about WP:FORGIVE and radicalization, and leave discussing my person and other EE(ML) editors to the uninvolved ones?

I once read this cartoon that explained some EE conflicts along the lines "this guy's grandfather killed my grandfather so now I have to get back at him". EE battlegrounds will not dissipate till editors apply WP:FORGIVE and stop giving others a reason to think "this guy tried to get me at AN(I)/AE/ARBCOM/etc. and now I have to get back at him, or at least show everybody else how evil he is." Each time editor A criticizes editor B, it becomes that much harder for editor B to keep assuming good faith about editor A. On the other hand, each time editor A stays quiet, avoiding criticizing former opponents, the axe becomes buried deeper, not to mention the times where editors A and B compliment each other or collaborate (and on that lines, I am happy to publicly state that I respect your content contributions and activity in copyright project, I wish you to be more active, and have no wish to see you restricted, even criticized, in any shape or form). Please consider that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Other statements. NW (Talk) 18:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mkativerata In my view, the current wording ought to be amended for the reasons I, and other uninvolved admins, gave at the most recent AE.[35] I have no opinion on whether the restriction ought to be lifted, other than to re-iterate my comment that if it is not possible to communicate Arbcom's intent in a clearly-worded editing restriction, it may very well be better to have no restriction at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Re the suggested wording (see PhilKnight). I'm not sure how an article can be the subject of a ethnic, national, etc. dispute. It can only be the subject of an editing dispute that may or may not be borne out of national, ethnic or cultural differences between the editors involved. The term "present-day dispute" might also be overly narrow: surely Arbcom wants to capture battleground venues like Mass killings under Communist regimes: those articles are about past ethnic or national disputes in relation to which there are severe present academic and editing disputes. I don't mean to be unhelpful -- I've racked my brains to conceive of wording that would do the job Arbcom wants, but a solution may be elusive.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Perhaps in the same vein as Deacon's post, I've been quite surprised by the off-wiki emails I receive from active EE editors, some of which are plainly designed to procure blocks of other editors (note Piotrus has not done this; I'm talking about others). I find this quite unacceptable. I think Piotrus would also do well not to make the kind of posts he made to NYB, Shell and Kirill's user talk pages after he was unblocked. I can understand Piotrus was relieved to have been unblocked and grateful for the arbs' intervention, but the messages should put their recipients in uncomfortable positions. For the record, I wasn't canvassed by anyone in relation to Piotrus' block or his appeal. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I'd only disclose the content of the emails and the identity of their senders if Arbcom asked for them. I'm certainly not going to do so as part of an amendment request related to a different editor entirely. I only do so to illustrate the point about the dangers of off-wiki conduct because it appears from Deacon's post -- and from the comments of one or two admins at the AE appeal -- that editors and admins were being asked off-wiki to "have a look" at the AE appeal. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by Malik Shabazz I support Piotrus' request that his topic ban be lifted. As recent events have shown, the current situation—in which the topic ban only applies to areas of conflict—is subject to different interpretations among administrators acting in good faith. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC) In light of the recent behavior by Deacon of Pndapetzim, both here and at WT:RFARB, I encourage ArbCom to consider sanctioning him. I also encourage ArbCom to consider whether it is appropriate to ban Deacon of Pndapetzim from speaking to, or commenting on, former members of the EEML. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I see that Skäpperöd has taken a prurient interest in my Talk page and e-mail. I don't know whether to feel flattered or harassed. I'd like to confess. Several editors had been conspiring in a hidden corner of Wikipedia. On March 31, Piotrus sent me an e-mail message asking if I still thought it was a good idea, and who was going to pull the trigger. I don't read my e-mail often, so he left me a Talk page message. The subject of our top-secret cabal discussion? A request to amend the EEML decision that allowed Piotrus to communicate with other members of WP:POLAND regarding housekeeping matters. That's the whole juicy story. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by Timotheus Canens What Mkativerata said. Apparently, what arbcom seems to mean by "articles about national, ethnic, or cultural disputes" seems to be "article about, or subject to, present-day national, ethnic, or cultural disputes". As far as I know (perhaps, not being a native speaker, I have missed some special features of the English language?), that's not what that phrase usually means in normal English (even the Wikipedia dialect of it). I incorporate by reference my comments in the AE thread Mkativerata linked to. T. Canens (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by Novickas I've been conversing with P. about this at his talk page [36]. My points were that I wouldn't have found it hard to stay well inside the newer topic ban restriction; that the Adam Mickiewicz article falls well inside the line and that describing his hypothetical minor edit to that article as a last-moment realization that he was about to edit an ethnic dispute article was misleading; that he remains free to bring up proposed-but possibly-problematic edits at the PL noticeboard; and that the various recent AE reports were not beneficial to the community at large. I objected to his statement above "...such reports seem to serve a useful function of identifying disruptive, battleground-minded editors...". and suggested finding a mentor. He responds by saying that I cannot put myself in his shoes when I say it wouldn't be hard, since I don't contribute as much as he does; that the admins who evaluated the various topic ban AE reports disagreed among themselves, showing that observing the boundary is indeed difficult; and that he would avoid all EE topics instead (presumably if this motion doesn't pass.) He asked for a specific suggestion as to how to rewrite the Adam M. part of this appeal - I haven't got one - and acknowledged he knew this article was the subject of an ethnic dispute. I would prefer that the topic ban be carefully re-worded rather than lifted. Accompanied by a call for mentor volunteers - maybe mentor isn't quite the right term; just someone he could talk to when he feels a strong inclination to edit these articles. Or he could post them to my talk page, I wouldn't file an AE report. But as things have worked out some of his ventures have resulted in what I consider wikilawyering on his part. IMO we shouldn't be asked to evaluate the accidental-ness of an edit [37] or weigh his blurry-boundary edits against the greater good to Wikipedia, and he should demonstrate his readiness to rejoin the community, and his self-control, by sparing us these discussions and disputes for the duration. Novickas (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC) So is this OK with you guys - that he rewrote the Stanisław Koniecpolski article today? [38] A Pole who was 'despised in Ukraine'? [39] Sheesh. Novickas (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC) There is nothing unusual in raising questions about impartiality after socializing. The NYTimes wasn't sanctioned for publishing this editorial about Scalia and Cheney [40]. Given the circumstances, she might have expected this issue to come up if she discussed P's amendment two days later. It was not a full recusal. I note that no one criticized this user [41] for opposing an amendment last June, mentioning P's history and saying 'evidence of a more profound change of heart' was lacking. I don't see that evidence yet myself. Novickas (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by Courcelles I don't really have an opinion about lifting the restrictions, but something must clearly change here. When three or four admins have one interpretation of what an ArbCom decision means, and the Arbitrators themselves have another interpretation of their words, the wording of the remedy must be considered to be suboptimal. AE matters are, if not the hardest, one of the toughest admin chores we have to do, and this wording makes it just that much harder. Mean what you say- a paragraph of clear restrictions is both easier to follow and easier to enforce than the ambiguous sentence we now have. Courcelles 05:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek I am essentially going to echo the sentiments of the AE admins above. The present situation only invites frivolous AE requests and pointless arguing about what is or what is not an EE dispute. It opens up the door for the many people who are holding a long term grudge against Piotrus - and let's be honest here, we all know that there are some individuals here who are still holding on to 5+ year old grudges and who make a regular appearance at these motions (and don't contribute much to Wikipedia besides) - and only encourages the battleground atmosphere that permeates this area. This is not Piotrus' fault, rather it reflects on the folks who seemingly just can't let go. Either do or don't. And I suggest you "don't" keep the sanctions. None of Piotrus' edits in the past year have been controversial in any way. Except in the way that a bad faith editor can always make a controversy out of nothing, like for example, pretending that minor gnomish edits to articles that have NEVER been a subject of controversy suddenly (after five years of quiet) break the "the letter" of an Arbitration remedy that was actually intended TO GET RID of these kind of onerous restrictions. Usually we call that "wikilawyering" and "battleground behavior". Now, THAT wastes people's time. Yes, Novickas, is one of these editors and quite, frankly I can't quite understand why Piotrus is even replying to him. Look at the exchange at Piotrus' talk page [42] and tell me that this isn't straight up "baiting a topic banned editor" or, in the words of the directions of the AE page, "poking a caged animal with a stick" - however politely/hypocritically worded Novickas' comments may be. The sanctions on Piotrus were not enough, the purpose of comments such as these - however politely they are worded - are only to try and humiliate Piotrus further, an editor that has done far more for the encyclopedia than any of his critics. This has been going on again and again, every-time this kind of motion has come up in the past months. By this point it's become a form of kitsch. However much I've disagreed with various people on Wikipedia in the past, I've never understood this apparent desire on the part of some to try and not just "win" these perceived battlegrounds but also this constant effort to denigrate, kick while they're down, and humiliate other editors - apparently for some people it's personal and they enjoy that sort of thing. If you want to know why this is a battleground area - that's it right there, however politely these statements are sometimes worded. For what it's worth, Piotrus would probably disagree with my assessment above since he seems to always believe that for all it's faults Wikipedia is a great social experiment, while I'm much more cynical about it (though I recognize the good about Wikipedia I also think it's an insanely dysfunctional millieu). Don't hold my own personal negativity against him. Removing the sanction completely will quiet shit down in the EE area by removing this perverted incentive for battleground warriors to constantly file spurious and pointless requests and allow Piotrus to get back to the simple grunt work (formatting, assessing, writing non controversial content) that no one appreciates anyway. Which is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, right? Volunteer Marek  07:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Btw (I can't resist a snide comment here), since Novickas is pretty convinced that "if (he) were in Piotrus' shoes" he'd know how to "stay within the line" (just to spare others the aggravation of having to wikistalk his edits, not that anyone, least of all Novickas, is wikistalking Piotrus' edits of course) and that he is so sure that he "personally would know how to stay well inside the topic ban boundary" (which insinuates that Piotrus hasn't, while in fact Piotrus HAS - crafty how he sneaked that in there, ey?) I say let him show how well he can stay within the bounds of some topic ban. Since he's asking for it, topic ban Novickas from EE topics for a year (for battleground behavior if nothing else), see how well he does at obeying it, and then a year from now, if all goes well, I will offer him my most sincere apologies, write a sonnet in his honor, and bake a complimentary cupcake for his enjoyment, or something. Volunteer Marek  08:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Just for the record I wanna say that I haven't send any block-shopping emails to Mkativerata or any other admin. Based on what's been going on in the past few months, I'm guessing that these emails were sent by the 'anti-EEML' crowd (though this is just a suspicion). In fact I'm wondering who was the intended target here. So for once I support Skapperod's question (though his intentions in asking it leave a lot to be desired). Volunteer Marek  17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Confession by Volunteer Marek Re Skapperod. Here you go, the whole scoop, nothing left out The whole horrid story in all gory detail Since both Shell and Malik have confessed to their unsavory part in all of this I might as well confess too. It's true, Piotrus and I coordinated off wiki in order for Piotrus to "decorate me" with the "bear barnstar" award. This has been in works for months but alas, our nefarious plan has been exposed, with one brilliant stroke by Skapperod [43]. It went down something like this: I emailed Piotrus saying, hey you, how about giving me a barnstar with a bear on it. Piotrus emailed back saying, oooh, that's a good plan, do you think we'll get away with it Then I emailed him again with a message consisting solely of "bwahahahahaha" Then he emailed saying ok, which bear barnstar do you want And I emailed saying the one with the angriest bear possible And he replied good thinking, the angrier the bear in the barnstar the more damage to Wikipedia it will cause And I said yes thasrite And he said how about this one? And I said, no angrier! And he said how about this one? And I said, no angrier! And he said this is the best I got And I said ok it'll have to do, but let's get our cabal to photoshop that image up a bit to make the bear look even angrier Months and months of coordination and making the bear barnstar look angry followed. All kinds of auxiliary characters were involved. The conspiracy ran so deep that even a couple members of the Article Rescue Squadron contributed. Finally the angry barnstar was angry enough Piotrus emailed me saying ok we ready to go with the angry bear barnstar And I emailed saying oh crap that bear don't look no angry it look like laughing And Piotrus said it both angry and laughing. You know, it mocking Wikipedia And I said oh ok, green light The angry/mocking bear barnstar was shipped across the borders in a sealed freight train to insure utmost secrecy. When it was crossing the Alps there was an unexpected delay due to heavy snow. The plan was almost exposed when an innocent five year old, Bardamu Masthed, began making uncomfortable inquiries But the mountain passes were cleared just in time and the barnstar commenced upon its fated journey. File:Angry bear barnstar crossing the alps.jpg Angry bear barnstar crossing the alps, which is actually the actual event that triggered the debate It was while it was being transported down the Nile that we first began to suspect that Skapperod's agents were on our trail. A certain half-Tunisian, half-Livonian, named Dripplenard Aloyzee MacFintz, was booked on the very cruise ship which contained the unmarked crate with the angry/mocking bear barnstar, and throughout the journey expressed suspicious interest in the cargo of the lower deck on which the crate was hidden. The matters came to a head when Mr. MacFintz, in trying to sneak a peak at the contraband ended up releasing the Barnstar which then proceeded to wreck havoc among the ship's crew and passengers. It ran amok, angry, and mocking. It slaughtered the captain and the first mate. It drove the survivors under the deck just as the Egyptian night had fallen. It stalked them through the twisted maze of cargo boxes and ate them one by one. It was death on de Nile. It was like the zombie movie except it was an angry/mocking bear barnstar instead of zombies. Anyway, the barnstar, after it had its fill of mayhem and killing escaped into the deepest regions of Africa. We had to track it through the snows of the twin peaks of Mt. Kilimanjaro, by using our undercover social network of an interest group. In our pursuit through the driest sands of Sahara we were once again almost thwarted by Skapperod, when another one of his agents, a Miss Gella Abadonn Checkers, a powerful sorceress summoned up a sand storm which threatened to burry us along with our camels (that's right, we had some camels, or actually CaEEMLs). Thankfully we were rescued by a band of Hyrkonian nomads under the leadership of a wild maned Cimmerian. File:Angry bear barnstar on the nile.JPG Angry bear barnstar on a ship on de Nile where it unleashed havoc. How come that isn't being debated? In the jungles of Congo we heard rumors that an angry/mocking bear barnstar had established itself as one of the local warlords. It grew powerful and none could stop it because, Skapperod's secret agent #3, Azazello Turbin, had taught it the language of insects, which allowed the barnstar to know everything that was happening in the bush at all times. But such powerful knowledge also came at a terrible price - that of sanity - and by the time we caught up with it it was ill and near death. We placed it on our sloop and set out for home. It died a few nights later after screaming "the horror! the horror!" obviously wracked by overwhelming guilt over our nefarious plan to coordinate the decoration. It was at that point that Piotrus said what we gonna do now our plan looks fail? And then I said there must be something let us not give up And Piotrus said we need a shaman or a monk, from Tibetia And then I emailed and said why need a shaman? Piotrus said we can resurrect the angry/mocking bear barnstar though there will be a price I said I already sold my soul last time around when EEML case was ongoing and all I got for it was an "Abstain" vote from NYBrad I'm all out of soul No, no, Piotrus said, no soul. It'll only be 145.99$ that's the standard rate I said ok I use my credit card but where we get shaman? Piotrus said he was going to find shaman at a meet up That's right, the shaman was Shell and the whole point of the Wikipedia Pittsburgh meet up was to resurrect the angry/mocking barnstar. But wait you say? Didn't the meet up take place AFTER the decoration took place. That's right. Don't worry about that. Well... ok I tell you. That was Malik's part in all this. Piotrus wrote Malik hey we need to travel in time to resurrect the angry/mocking bear barnstar Malik said ok I know some people that can help us but they are aliens I said from the outer worlds? And he said yes they know hot to rip the fabric of the space time continuum I said but what if that destroys the universe And then Piotrus just wrote back an email with only "Bwahahahaha" in it And Malik said, it's ok there are always other universes, like de.Wiki So Malik used his other worldly connections as well as the "accumulated, considerable expertise and infrastructure" with an interstellar mafia of aliens, run by a fella named Stupendous Ramiz, to arrange a break in the time space continuum. We were to randezvous at the Remediosconstellation at 6:30 in the after noon, after Piotrus was done with his classes. Something went wrong though and instead of Piotrus traveling into the future he actually wound up in the past. He found himself in March of 2009 and he emailed me from the past Hey he said I have a chance to undue everything that happened there will never be an EEML case Using intertemporal email I said that was dangerous But maybe it is worth the risk Piotrus said I can end the list and there won't be no topic bans or outing or harassment But then I got an email from the future (not Piotrus' March 2009 future but the future of today future). The email was from the Deacon of Bildgewater and it only contained the future photograph of Shell and Piotrus at the Pittsburgh meet up. You could see that Shell and Piotrus were both fading from the photograph. I emailed Piotrus in the past You and Shell is fading from a photograph from the future I said You mean from my current future Piotrus asked No I said from the future of the current Huh? You know, when you mess with the past of today you upset the balance of the universe like Malik said So if I end the list and prevent the EEML case from happening I will cease to exist, Piotrus asked? And I said yes thasrite Unfortunately by that time Piotrus had already put his plan to end the mailing list early and prevent the ArbCom case from ever happening into action. His and Shell's image on the photograph from the currents future, which is actually today's past was fading even more. Anyway, he had to fix the intertemporal shifts by participating in various wacky hijinks, riding a skateboard, rewriting a lot of emails that were never sent all by himself from memory, and getting Biophys to go to a prom with Risker. Or something like that I forget the exact story. The photograph from the recent past's then future which is now past send from the further feature, which illustrates what happens when you monkey around with time travel But it was fixed, the list was outted and the EEML case happened. Then using his "sociological skills for manipulation" Piotrus manipulated the weather into providing him with twenty one point two gigawatts of power necessary to get him to the future's future (er...) He arrived in Pittsburgh even though for me it was still the present which is now the past, and met with Shelly as Skapperod has conclusively proved. There Shell the Shammy resurrected the angry/mocking bear Barnstar But it was brought back, undead, unliving, somewhere in between, like fat free butter. Here is proof. If you look carefully at the angry/mocking bear barnstar you can see a sad, wistful, longing in the bear's eyes (along with the anger and the mocking) as it pines for the immortal life it once had. That's the "came back all wrong" part. File:Angry bear barnstar resurrected.JPG The Angry/mocking/sorrowful barnstar resurrected! Anyway, there is more to this story, since the angry/mocking/sorrowful bear barnstar still had to be transported from the then-future into the now-past so that Piotrus could put it onto my talk page. This involved a labyrinth, a minotaur, a garden of forking paths and an otherworldly infinite version of the Wikipedia where every article that could ever been written already has been written (inf.wiki, they're super inclusionist over there) beginning with the letter Aleph. But in the end, on August 31, 2010, Piotrus successfully "decorated" me, according to our deeply coordinated plan, with the bear barnstar. And we would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for that pesky kid! Statement by nihil novi I agree with the observations and sentiments offered above by Piotrus, Mkativerata, Malik Shabazz, Timotheus Canens, Courcelles, and Volunteer Marek. Continuation of the ambiguous topic-ban against Piotrus serves no useful purpose. Nihil novi (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnston I don't think it is worth trying to tweak the language of the restriction. Piotrus's topic ban should just be lifted. It is going to expire on 22 March anyway and maybe this discussion will still be going on then. Discretionary sanctions are available under Digwuren for this topic area so if any ban relaxation turns out to be premature, AE can deal with it. Should the arbs feel they want to keep the ban, they should add a provision for somebody (AE?) to authorize Piotrus to edit a particular article. This would avoid him needing to edit first and then see if he is sanctioned, which is a peculiar system. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by Ohconfucius It seems clear from the evidence and Sysop views above that the 'broadly construed' nature of this topic ban is being used by some editors generally hostile to harass Piotrus, game the system, and create drama. Bearing in mind the lack of demonstrable conflict and controversy on his part, and the imminent expiry of his topic ban, I submit that the risk of disruption from an unbanned Piotrus is minimal. Once the ban is terminated, Sysops and others can get back down to business of creating content and not generating or managing drama. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by Septentrionalis (PMAnderson) I support relaxation or removal of Piotrus' ban; I have always found him a voice of reason within his faction - and there are equally unreasonable opposing factions. At present, for example, I should like to ask him to reason with an editor (whom I will not yet name) who is going about "enforcing" the Gdanzig decision - under his own set of interpretations - as though no progress had been made since 2005 - but his ban forbids him to intervene. I would prefer to have either Piotrus' assistance in reasoning with this person, or Piotrus' reformulation of his position into something I could live with, to proposing an amendment against this person; but his ban prevents either. If Adam Mickiewicz is ethnically disputed (as it is), then "article about, or subject to, present-day national, ethnic, or cultural disputes" includes virtually all Eastern European articles - and is therefore a tightening of the present condition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim Mkativerata had no choice to block after previously letting him away with several violations of his restrictions. We are now searching for a new wording to reflect how NYB wants Piotrus to be 'restricted', since apparently ArbCom messed up with the current wording. I should point out that NYB wanted this a long time ago, but the ArbCom of the past was wiser, resisted NYB's urgings and imposed the original broad restriction on Piotrus. Arbcom later reduced this restriction, but this was a bad decision, for a variety of reasons (fuelling resentment among opponents, boosting the appeal of gaming methodology, inviting more appeals/amendments across the board, and so on). Now that the reduced restriction has proved lawyerable we want to drop all restrictions? Not sure what the big deal here is supposed to be! Piotrus obviously knows very well what he is not supposed to do, and everyone here ought to know already that if we aren't super-humanly careful in phraseology, he will simply wikilawyer himself out of most AE requests. All arbs should know enough about Piotrus and EEML now to understand and take measures to prevent it. How does capitulating to it help? What does that say about ArbCom? The previous relaxation of restrictions on Piotrus simply validated old methods and brought the troubles back (so far as it could). Piotrus is a decent content contributor, sure, but he is pressured both by his own ideology and by his 'support network' to become embroiled in nationalist disputes and resort to wiki-gangsterism in areas he has little expertise. Piotrus is a victim who needs saved just as much as his own past and future victims. Being restrained from this area, he contributes productively to fields where he actually possesses expertise and is of benefit to the project. But even if he is released back into the area, he should at least serve his time. Nothing will cause more resentment among his opponents than Piotrus once again escaping through this kind of pressure. PS ... I am not very impressed with NYB's intervention in the AE thread. ArbCom get to make rulings, individual arbs shouldn't try to enforce (or suggest on their authority) a preferred interpretation on AE admins (we have Clarification anyway). All users need to be protected from the caprice and injustice that this would cause. AE admins have a duty to ignore arbs if they try to interfere in the process, but the arbs themselves should know better (this is not addressed to Kiril or Shell, who are recused). The current wording is indeed badly written, but clearly implies that Piotrus should not be allowed to edit any EE article if there is likely to be some kind of nationalist dispute involved. It is established principle of AE enforcement that rulings are interpreted broadly. You may be telling the truth regarding your own intent, but it is irrelevant, since you didn't word the draft well enough to make that intent clear. If you wanted something that allowed Piotrus to edit uncontroversially in the area, that may be respectable ... but it needed more thought. Piotrus could have been restricted to Poland-only articles with content not impinging on the histories of other European countries (as presently defined). He would probably try his luck at stretching and lawyering this, but it is a set of limits that AE admins don't need expertise to enforce AND would fulfill much of the purpose. Disclosure requests I received an email from a non-involved user in this matter informing me that he was canvassed for the AE thread by Piotrus. The email itself contained a quite dishonest account of Mkativerata's block. Because of this I think it would be of benefit to the project if those canvassed would disclose that they were canvassed. I'd also like to request that all arbitrators who have met Piotrus personally disclose this. This in itself is not a reason for recusal, but the onlooking community are entitled to know if any users subject to ArbCom rulings may have been able to exert more influence than others. Response to NYB Newyorkbrad, yes, you may have envisioned your draft in a particular way, but that doesn't mean other arbs who voted on it did; and even if other arbs now claim to have had the same understanding, there is no way of verifying this. AE admins are entitled to use the most obvious meaning of a text, and one individual arbitrator trying to insist on [the] one 'real meaning' [he happens to like] of a resolution after the resolution has passed is ill-advised. Imagine if this were to happen all the time. ;) Response to Shell I think Shell's comments here and on my talk page should speak for themselves. In response, I'd point out that she was accusing me of several things, including bearing a grudge against Piotrus. This is frequently stated by EEML because they wish to defuse the impact of my comments. SK's has seemingly been inadvertently co-opted as a mouthpiece. My previous interaction with her came when she lambasted me for complaining about Piotrus closing a 3RR thread Radek was involved in and warning his opponent as an admin. I don't wish to have any dispute with her, but being attacked seems to be a consequence of sticking up for wikipedia on this matter. Incidentally, I didn't 'dig up' the photo, I was sent a link to it by an anonymous Wikipedian. I merely asked if they were RL friends. She didn't really have any reason to get so worked up with bad faith about this, as she is recused and is free even to join EEML if she wants. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC) PS, I don't think it is credible for Shell to be claiming neutrality at this stage (if that's what she's doing), not with edits like this so recently. It is well known that Piotrus' best skill, as boasted in the archive, is befriending users likely to intervene in EE disputes (amicable co-operation, followed by 'advice' stage). She's now calling for gagging order on me, something long desired by Piotrus and the EEML (Feb 5, 2009 at 20:49); however she had been relying on Piotrus' advice for banning users in pre-EEML days (22 June 2009 16:05) and her largely favorable of history decision-making and spokeswomanship vis-a-vis EEML led a member of the EEML to describe her as a potential "asset" [6/28/2009 4:19:31 P.M]. Not that I am alleging corruption or anything (it should be clear that I'm not), I just think she may have lost her way a bit. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Re Shell ... the time and date are references to EEML archive emails. Sorry for not making that clear. I will continue this discussion with you on your talk page if you don't mind, since a big back-and-forth here is probably not very useful. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC):I responded to Shell, but unfortunately she is not willing to take the back forth off this page and would prefer to escalate her dispute with me here.[44] I am not willing to dilute my comments here any further with what will only be perceived as squabbling, but can at least say I tried to take it elsewhere (and she can continue the convo on her own page any time she likes whenever she calms down). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by Vecrumba There is no "wikilawyering," the so-called "conflict" related to the representation of the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe and other current conflicts regarding historical representation/legacy are what are in scope to "conflict" which Piotrus should still continue to avoid until expiration of the current ban or lifted. I suggest topic bans be more precisely worded in the future and adjusted as needed. An admin (Deacon) leveling accusations of wikilawyering is unhelpful when a ban is demonstrably open to misinterpretation as worded. I am disappointed by Deacon's inability to move on from his past (content, spilling into his filing an arbitration request) conflict with Piotrus. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Consider my disappointment to be escalated to outright alarm based on Deacon's grossly poor judgement exhibited here, which appears to be little more than an escalating vendetta against all past EEML members. I sat out my topic ban only to have an admin propose—over a year later—institutionalizing permanent abuse? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC) re: Mkativerata: I occasionally contact admins et al. to express my concerns when doing so on-Wiki would lead to accusations of block shopping, needless escalation of conflict, et al. (I recall a note to Mkativerata some time ago, we had a cordial exchange.) I always include a clear statement I am not block shopping. An admin who becomes active in EE topics should expect to receive complaints and commentary from the full spectrum of EE editorial contributors. Mkativerata should not be "surprised" about being contacted. And why bring contact up if there has been no inappropriate contact here? Witness the needless drama already caused with Skäpperöd's resultant (and not wholly unwarranted given the implication of inappropriate contact) witch hunting. I would request that if any admin feels anyone has contacted them inappropriately (block shopping et al.) that an AN/I be opened and the inappropriate contact be addressed. Seeking sanctions behind editors' backs is a perpetual problem in many areas of conflict and should be addressed and discouraged. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC) re: Timotheus Canens, the locus of contention is present day conflicts in the portrayal of Soviet legacy, also, more widely but to a lesser extent, other Eastern European/Central Eastern European conflicts regarding portrayal of topics, e.g., people names and place names ("which language" is uber alles, etc.), similarly with roots in historical representation. Obviously, some of this will also pertain to armed conflicts between parties. However, a past war in some century is not an in-scope conflict if there is no scholarly dispute regarding its portrayal—or any differences in historical sources have been dealt with amicably and constructively. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. So thank you for T. Canen's wording suggestion, that is sufficient to address. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC) @Skäpperöd, really this is bordering on harassment. Irpen also denounced me for personal attacks when I simply indicated he misrepresented sources, Irpen is hardly an editor to hold up as an example of WP rectitude regarding the so-called EE dispute. We are moving on, you are moving backwards as demonstrated by bringing up EE warrior Irpen from three years ago. Lastly, please refrain from presenting you characterizations of personal correspondence as fact. EEML is closed. If it's not, I'm sure ArbCom will let us know, in which case I would also take a different course of action from moving on. Until then I suggest you move on before this starts looking like a vendetta. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK Statement by Skäpperöd Question to Mkativerata Who sent you those e-mails? I am asking because trying to influence/cause administrative decisions by coordinating e-mails etc to AE sysops like Thatcher, Sandstein, Jehochman etc was one of the verified tactics employed by the EEML group, usually coordinated by Piotrus. If this strategy is now being re-activated, there ought to be consequences. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Extended content Can you actually link to a "verified e-mail coordination to sysops" finding by arbitrators in EEML ArbCom case, or is this yet another imaginary horror that EEML is supposed to have done, despite not a single shred of evidence? --Sander Säde 17:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Are you one of the senders? If that is the case, you are welcome to self-identify and explain yourself in your own section. I don't want a threaded discussion here. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC) So, you are unable to link a such finding. Maybe because there never was anything like that? And no, I have never sent an e-mail to Mkativerata. --Sander Säde 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC) The EEML archive is available to the arbs, they (should) have read through it and be aware. I am happy to hear that you are not among the senders, but please, don't post here anymore, this is not the place for a threaded discussion. You are free to create your own section. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Re Shell Kinney ShellKinney and Piotrus on 15 Jan 2011, the picture that triggered the debate I understand you are upset about Deacon asking you about how close your contact to Piotrus is. If you take a step back and look at the issue from an outside point of view, and if you recall that manipulating sysops was one of the EEML's objectives, you may find that it is reasonable to aks such questions: Please imagine how a random observer must react to the picture showing you looking at Piotrus. I found it interesting to see an arb having RL contact to a user desysoped and convicted because of several cases of off-wiki-coordinated disruption. You probably underestimate the impact such photographies may have on people. To the personal atmosphere between Piotrus and you suggested by this photography, it adds that few other wikipedians were there, and you signed up when Piotrus was already on the list [45], your short on-wiki chat with Piotrus [46] [47] and the lack of such an exchange with other participants you responding first (and positive) to Piotrus' call for another meeting [48] Imho none of this proves that Piotrus and you are really close friends, but your contact and the fact that the EEML was about social networking of an interest group, using Piotrus' sociology expertise for manipulation, may reasonably give rise to concerns about what's going on there. And what has happened now is that Piotrus has already used your comments here to call for action against his long-time target Deacon [49]. Please keep in mind that it was Deacon who started the Piotrus2 arbcom, and had arbcom not been fooled in that case and taken preventive measures, the whole EEML fuzz would not even have happened. You should AGF that Deacon, who was proven more than right during the EEML arbcom, is doing nothing but protecting wikipedia now as he did back then. You should be aware of what makes protection necessary, as you removed a bunch of Piotrus' deeds from his last amendment request [50]. Re Shell (2), Piotrus Shell, in the edit summary of your response [51] you ask "what's the proper punishment for having looked at another wikipedian?" I think you completely missed the point here. Nobody is calling for punishment, the whole point is that you are not just two random wikipedians, and that the whole Piotrus/EEML case is about maintaining an undercover social network of an interest group who, among other things, has tried to manipulate sysops multiple times already. Piotrus and other members of his group have accumulated a considerable expertise and infrastructure to further their interests on-wiki, and make what is in fact staged and the result of sophisticated, co-ordinated manipulation look like it was proper application or the result of wikipedia processes: This was noticed by the community (2006 example), (2007 example), (2008 example) and brought before Arbcom in the Piotrus [52] and Piotrus2 (later EE disputes) cases (2008/09: "meatpuppetry", "teamwork", "coordinated edit-warring", "improper use of off-wiki channels"), yet Arbcom then gave him the benefit of doubt [53]. When part of Piotrus' group's off-wiki mail traffic was forwarded, the existence of a mailing list (WPM aka EEML), an instant messenger group and the development of a secret wiki on Piotrus' initiative was revealed. In the infamous oversighted edit where Radeksz (now renamed Volunteer Marek) posted his inbox on-wiki [54] when the EEML case was about to be closed, he revealed that the EEML core group was still active and even recruiting new members Piotrus was the most active sender of mails Other indications of Piotrus continuing to make politics off-wiki in 2010 are that he established off-wiki contact to MalikShabbaz [55], who took care of most of Piotrus' "task lists" at the Poland noticboard and is now commenting in his favor and calling for sanctions for Deacon. he apparently requested a revert off-wiki, to some Lithuanian nationalist organization [56] Some continuation of on-wiki advocacy for his group is also traceble for 2010: Piotrus lobbied for EEML member Radeksz at AE [57] and decorated him [58], he comforted EEML-associate and ex-Arbcom candidate Loosmark [59], he lobbied for EEML member Martintg at AE [60], he initiated an AE against EEML target Dr. Dan [61], he asked sysop Sandstein if he could comment on an AE report against EEML member Biruitorul, and when that was denied [62] he asked sysop AGK at the next request and it took an intervention by Deacon to make AGK aware (I agree with your (i.e. Deacon's, Sk.) comments at AE, and I certainly would have advised Piotrus differently than I did had I then been aware). Keeping in mind that Deacon initiated the Piotrus2 arbcom, and all the efforts Piotrus made back then to convince the arbs that Deacon was wrong while he was proven more than right in the subsequent EEML arbcom - yes, Piotrus would certainly appreciate it if Deacon was silenced. And keep in mind the methods employed by Piotrus to achieve his goals, revealed during the EEML case, which included getting people to make the "right" comments and take the "right" action at the "right" time to his benefit. In this request, Mkativerata has expressed concerns about the mails he received Piotrus is supported by users he has off-wiki contact with Piotrus is trying to get disagreeing users sanctioned Piotrus even linked to this request at the Poland board I see no indication that Piotrus will avoid problematic behaviour in the future; I see no indication that the core group of the "EEML" has dissolved, while there is some indication that it is not; I see no tools/remedies in place that would enable Arbcom/the community to detect and prevent further off-wiki co-ordinated disruption. Well before the EEML case, in 2008 (!), Irpen asked Piotrus to agree to avoid just three kinds of behavior in the future: logging followed by uploading log's excerpts to boards with the purpose to get the opponents blocked using off-line channels to recruit help in revert wars or to stack votes in surveys, using private channels, such as #admins or direct mail to other admins to discuss people behind their backs and call for the sanctions.[63] Piotrus promised to not do that. Then came WP:EEML. I think Arbcom ought to be more cautious here. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Re Georgewilliamherbert I disagree about the "punishing not preventative" part. Arbcom has taken no precautions at all against the continuation of the EEML, except for the topic bans. The topic bans are therefore preventative. Instead of lifting the bans one by one, arbcom should think about how future detrimental EEML activity may be prevented. Skäpperöd (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by Shell Kinney I suppose it was too much to hope that the usual players in these disputes would have decided to put this behind them during the past year. It's disappointing to see Deacon re-entering this same dispute against Piotrus after so long. It's a bit worrying to see that he dug up a picture, hours after it had been posted, identified both people in the picture (despite there being no names posted at that time) and is using it to suggest that having been to the same (large) Wikipedia event with someone is somehow evidence of impropriety[64]. Shortly thereafter, he accused me of slander for pointing out these concerns, which is wholly inappropriate to say the least [65]. If one must really reach that far to find a grue, perhaps the grues are just a figment of your imagination (or in other words, if someone thinks I was actually discussing ArbCom business during a Pittsburgh playoff game and Wikipedia birthday party, their poor opinion of my social life is noted but unsupportable). Shell babelfish 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Deacon speaks volumes about "being attacked", yet he seems to be the only one hurling accusations here (sans diffs) as he now blithely claims that independent editors should be disregarded as mouthpieces and can go join EEML. On one hand he's terribly concerned that people are getting emails off-site, and on the other, a mysterious stranger, not he, was responsible for the creepiness over the new image and he's just the harmless by-stander who received an email. I'm concerned that this point that we're seeing a rather obvious reemergence of previous battleground behavior now that so many of these topic bans are coming to a close. Perhaps this is another place where an interaction ban would be appropriate. Shell babelfish 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Deacon, I guess I'm at a loss to understand what you're getting at here? Can you explain what exactly you find nefarious about the single diff you've provided to back up your claims whose content is nothing more than "Aww you left a few minutes too early."? Or perhaps explain why the other accusations you made aren't accompanied by diffs while some give only a date and time? I'd suggest that you've not got a very clear view of my administrative actions in the EE topic area if you think the outcome of investigations such as this one were favorable to one side. You've already mentioned that you feel you're defending Wikipedia here[66] but from what exactly? Shell babelfish 01:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately since you made these claims here in public, I'd prefer you deal with them here as well rather than take it off to my talk page. You've now made accusations against me based on private emails to which I have no access from a mailing list I had no part of and left me with no ability to review this supposed evidence or defend myself from it. I guess I'm just not understanding the zeal to paint me as involved or acting inappropriately here. You are aware that I'm recused from this case because I presented evidence against Piotrus? Shell babelfish 02:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I don't think a simple request that Deacon either provide some basis for these escalating accusations or strike them is unreasonable. Perhaps a good first step would be to remove anything based of a "personal feeling"[67] so that other editors can review anything based on evidence and give us some guidance on whether or not they consider me biased or a mouthpiece of EEML here. Shell babelfish 02:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Deacon, Skäpperöd, I've had some time to think over your concerns, I believe you may really be on to something here. Having looked at a number of other photographs from that evening, it's clear that a disturbing pattern emerges; I imagine you'd shudder just to see them. It turns out several other photgraphs caught me looking at people, obviously in the midst of plotting some dastardly scheme. In others, you can easily identify who I've managed to recruit as I was seen to be shaking hands with them to seal the deal. There are also photos of me flitting from person to person, most certainly canvassing for additional support and even supplying them with small trinkets to ensure their loyalty. And finally, the most damning of all, one clearly subsurvient Wikipedian was forced to give up his chair for me just so I could order from the bar. In all, an incredibly productive night for my plans to take over Wikipedia. If only there wasn't photographic evidence!</humor> Apologies to those who don't necessarily appreciate using humor here, but I honestly couldn't come up with a serious answer to defend myself from having been caught looking at someone. Shell babelfish 08:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by Georgewilliamherbert Specific to this removal request - I believe that there's credible evidence that the restriction is at this time merely punitive and not preventive of abusive behavior. This is reinforced by other comments which seek to use it in a punitive and not preventive manner. Pursuant to our general policy and lack of evident current or recent abusive behavior by the requesting party, that seems to argue for early removal of the restriction. If misbehavior appears again it's easy enough for admins to intervene within our usual scope and authority. Generally - There seems to be lingering bad blood on several parties' account, without justifiable ongoing provocation, to the extent that an interaction ban is called for. This seems like not the right venue for that, but it may be appropriate on AN. I'm not starting one right away, but that seems like the next step. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by Biophys You can safely lift all topic bans in the areas of discretionary sanctions for editors who are active and follow the rules. If they still have trouble, they will be quickly brought to AE and sanctioned by AE administrators. This can be said not only about Piotrus. There is nothing wrong with talking or sending emails. If there is an evidence that the content of recent emails by Piotrus or conversations with Piotrus was indeed inappropriate, then it can be treated accordingly. However, repeatedly making personal accusations at public forums without any evidence about Piotrus and everyone who talks with him is a serious violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE and must be prevented from repeating in the future, for example by issuing interactions bans for the parties guilty of the violations. The photo is not an evidence because talking with Piotrus is not a crime. Telling "thank you" to others after coming back from his block is also not a crime. This story is a blow to wikipedia public relations. Who will attend your meetings? Biophys (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Re to Skäpperöd [68]. Remove all very old diffs, and there is nothing illegal by Piotrus except your suspicions. You tell that he "comforted" A, "decorated" B and supported ("lobbied for") C. Yes, he helps others. Is it bad? How about all of us just helping each other? Too many good contents contributors received topic bans, and this is detrimental to the project. Biophys (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC) A lot of accusations by Skäpperöd, with whom I never had any content disputes... I can not tell for others, but I disconnected my wikipedia email and have no off-wiki contacts with any member of the mailing list for a very long time. However, I am going to support on-wiki any user I know and wish to support, in full accordance with our policies. Hence I am here. As about accusing (rather than supporting) established contributors, this is a completely different matter and must be avoided at any cost, as I have learned hard way by receiving my sanctions. Biophys (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor (2)

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

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Motion

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

Majority reference
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For this case there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 4 recused. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority. Majority reference Abstentions Support votes needed for majority 0 8 1–2 7 3–4 6 Iridescent is recused on Piotrus matters. Kirill Lokshin recused on the last Piotrus motion. Roger Davies recused on Piotrus matters. Shell Kinney recused on the entire case.

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Recuse:

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

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

---

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: Date delinking (Ohconfucius) (February 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 Ohconfucius (talk) at 09:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedies

• 18): "Ohconfucius is limited to using only the account "Ohconfucius" to edit"

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• n/a

Amendment 1

• Suggested motion: "Remedy #18 ("Ohconfucius accounts") of the Date delinking case is terminated, effective immediately, and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is permitted to use alternate accounts subject to normal community guidelines.

Statement by Ohconfucius

It has been three months since the previous amendment concerning me on the date-delinking case was passed. During this time, in addition to my content work, I have made edits to a large number of articles using scripts in furtherance to my stated objective to ensure date formats of articles are uniform, in compliance with WP:MOSNUM.

Since my last amendment, I have continued to perform valuable work in good faith for Wikipedia. 2010 Nobel Peace Prize has been declared a Good Article mainly through my efforts; I have also made significant improvements to the coverage of Paul Chater and Robert Hotung, Ho Tung Gardens, amongst others, in addition to a large number of minor, “gnoming” edits.

I hope to write a bot largely based on my WP:MOSNUMscript to reduce the manual gnoming effort, thus freeing more time for content-related work, which I love the most. I believe that the thousands of edits made using this script in article space in the last three months have proved to be highly successful, with almost no false positives and to my knowledge no objections by editors. To execute same by bot, I hope to submit the proposal, under an alternative account, for approval of BAG in due course once this restriction is lifted.

• Pursuant to the brief discussion below, I have today submitted a bot request, without creating the account MOSNUM bot (talk · contribs). --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

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

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I see two justifications listed--in short "I've been good" and "I want to run a bot on an alternate account", but I don't yet see a proximate lack of potential benefit to the project. Pending more input and simply looking at the request at face value, I'd be inclined to address this by permission to run a single bot account, conditional on BAG approval for the task, and address a wholesale removal of the restriction once that has proven to be successful. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting any input, but my initial inclination is per Jclemens. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Also awaiting any input, and also noting that my initial inclination is per Jclemens. Risker (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Pending more input, I also agree with the approach outlined by Jclemens. PhilKnight (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with the approach suggested by Jclemens. Shell ^babelfish 19:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Per Jclemens. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC) per my recusal on initial case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• That would be my recommendation also. He hasn't made a case for needing multiple alternates, just a bot account. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion

Remedy 18 of the Date delinking case, which limits Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

Since there are 17 non-recused arbitrators, a majority is 9.

Support:

1. There appears to be good reason and consensus for this modification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Have no problem with this. SirFozzie (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Shell ^babelfish 03:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
7.  Roger ^talk 11:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Concur with the rationale offered. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
9. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
11. Cool Hand Luke 14:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. per my recusal on initial case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 14:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 8 February 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: Date delinking (Lightmouse) (February 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 Lightmouse (talk) at 11:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC) ; Case affected : Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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

• supplement): "Nonwithstanding remedies #7.1 and #8, Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1

Proposed amendment:

• Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for another single automation task authorised by the Bot Approvals Group.

Statement by Lightmouse

• A single automation task was authorised by the Bot Approvals Group. See: Lightbot approval. The task ran between 18 December and 14 January for about 2500 edits. Lightbot has been dealing with units of measurement since June 2008 and has played a part in significantly improving the accessibility, consistency and smarter linking of units of measurement that we now see on Wikipedia. The task recently approved by BAG was confined to adding conversions to feet and miles. I'd like Arbcom to give BAG the scope to permit Lightbot to convert inches in addition to miles and feet.

Question by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Given that the motion says that the account is authorized for a single automation task authorized by BAG, I think what Jclemens says would still apply. If BAG amended the single automation task (be it in terms of duration or nature), then the motion is still being complied with (making this request for amendment somewhat unnecessary). Is that correct? Or is this a drafting issue where arbitrators meant to write (in that motion) that the account is limited to the single automation task authorized by BAG (as set out at Lightbot 5) and that this task cannot be amended at any time without prior approval from ArbCom? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Gigs

There were some minor concerns voiced about the most recent run, but nothing too serious. Jclemens wording seems to be the best way to clarify, as it was my understanding all along that the limitation was to one active task, not one task ever. Gigs (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting input. Comments by those who have interacted with Lightmouse's recent automated edits, and can comment on their quality and adherence to policy, would be especially helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Rather than "one task" and "one additional task" and "one additional task", I would be more inclined to support one floating task at a time, which Lightmouse can negotiate with the BAG. If he's got an ongoing task which really needs doing on an ongoing basis, he should feel free to transition that to a bot operator not currently under a germane sanction. Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with Jclemens, but would also particularly appreciate the comments requested by Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Jclemens - support a single floating task to be agreed with the Bot Approvals Group. PhilKnight (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Adding inches to the bot would still seem to fall under the same "dealing with measurements" task. Shell ^babelfish 19:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Per NYB - some feedback would be nice. Eventually I guess we can take the lack of same to mean a lack of problems, in which case per Jclemens. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC) should strike this. see below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion

Remedy 7.1 of the Date delinking case, which as originally written prohibited Lightmouse (talk · contribs) from utilizing any automation on Wikipedia, is amended by adding the words "except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group." Remedy 8, which limited Lightmouse to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

Since there are 17 non-recused arbitrators, a majority is 9.

Support:

1. There appears to be good reason and consensus for this modification. I am not sure that the limitation to a single task (or group of related tasks) is essential, but I have no problem with moving one step at a time here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Don't see any issue with this. Shell ^babelfish 03:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
5. SirFozzie (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
7.  Roger ^talk 11:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
9. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
11. Cool Hand Luke 14:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Mailer Diablo 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. due to recusal from initial case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 14:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 8 February 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 motion: Jack Merridew (February 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 Jack Merridew at 01:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• sulutil:Jack Merridew
• X!'s Edit Counter

Motion affected

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion:

Dec 2009:

Jack Merridew is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban. On review of the past year, the Arbitration Committee replaces the previous motion with the following conditions:

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.
4. User:Jack Merridew will note his agreement with the terms of this motion on this page.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• self-request

Amendment

• all restrictions lifted per bullet #2's reference to "unrestricted editing", all past accounts unblocked and free to edit as legit alt-accounts, freedom to rename primary account; to not be a second class editor.
  • request withdrawn. Jack Merridew 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Neutralhomer

I have worked with Jack recently and I think he has made a great comeback from his ban. I recommend all restrictions be lifted. I would recommend, also, that admins do keep an eye on Jack's edits for 3 more months while he is off restrictions. This was done with me after an unblock from an indef block (of course after my mentor gave me the green light). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

I hope ArbCom will indulge my making a presentation so similar to my earlier one [69], but I'm unsure if the transition from previous to current ArbCom had fully taken place at that time.

Background

In November 2008, Jack's ban was reviewed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion and I'd recommend reading that discussion as background.

• The result was that on 9 December 2008 Jack's ban was lifted subject to 8 conditions.

In December 2009, the motion to amend Jack's 2008 unban motion was agreed, reducing the conditions to three, plus his agreement to them (which he gave on 11 December 2009):

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.

Commentary

The third condition applies to all editors. The second condition has now certainly been met (at least in spirit). Jack has around 170 talk page watchers, and his talk page is often used as a "reference desk" for technical help – which Jack is always happy to give, as anyone can see from viewing it – and I'd encourage arbitrators to read at least some of his talk page to get a flavour of how well he is regarded by other editors, as well as the generosity with which he gives his time them. I submit that Jack knows whom he can turn to to seek advice, and there is no reason remaining for any restriction on his editing.

That leaves the restriction to editing from only one named account. I know Jack has been considering a name change, to leave behind the baggage of the Lord of the Flies avatar, and the third restriction would technically need amendment to allow that to happen. Nevertheless, the important point is that Jack has spent the two years since his unblock contributing constructively and collaboratively. I see no suggestion that he is in any way likely to return to abusive sockpuppetry. Jack has two alternative accounts Gold Hat and Merridew which are linked to Jack Merridew and neither of these has made any remotely abusive edits.

Jack has a considerable quantity of edits on other wikimedia projects, although I'm not sure how relevant arbitrators will feel that is to this request. I believe that it is a further demonstration of his commitment to the betterment of our projects.

I'd ask ArbCom to review Jack's contributions and interactions with other users, and to consider whether they would agree that unnecessary restrictions do no more than create a "second-class" user. Jack's ban was lifted over two years ago. The current restriction is now over a year old, and I'd suggest that it's time to remove it.

Disclaimer: I'd consider myself a "wiki-friend" of Jack's – and proud of it. Nevertheless, this statement is unsolicited, and is my own unaided analysis of the request. --RexxS (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

@Elen

I'm pretty sure that there is no limit set on the number of accounts that a user (except Jack and a few others) can operate. As long as these are transparently linked and are not simultaneously used in discussion to create false consensus, there is no problem. Many admins have a second account that they use when logged in at public terminals or when travelling to limit the potential damage if that account became compromised. I strongly recommend that to anyone who carries advanced permissions. Some editors have multiple accounts to divide up their work: content creation on one; gnoming, vandal-fighting on others – it helps to compartmentalise interactions with others and allows multiple watchlists (which is very useful if you participate in multiple areas). A few editors have multiple accounts because they can be a refuge from the sometimes humourless tasks that we take on when we contribute. Wouldn't you like to get away from your current wiki-persona once in a while and comment from the perspective of a gigantic reptile or an aggressive, ankle-fixated fish? Jack's no different. He'd like to be 'Gold Hat', the Texan/Mexican gunslinger, every so often. It's not going to break the wiki to let him. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Question by Casliber

• Why do you feel the need to continue with multiple accounts, even if identified as such? Can you consider the fact that given the past, that it might be seen in poor taste by some? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Question by Elen of the Roads

• Jack, if you're only supposed to have one account, how come you've got three? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions by BOZ

When I have observed Jack over the past couple of years, I have seen him on a road from outcast to accepted, and this can only be a good thing. It seems like he has been very helpful as a technical advisor, and as a general wikignome, so despite our mostly completely incompatible wikiphilosophies, I'd say Jack is currently a net positive to Wikipedia. However, his answers to Casliber and Elen's questions seem wholly unsatisfactory to me, so I'll follow up with a couple of my own:

• What is the purpose of continued use of the sockpuppet accounts (both those made before the ban, and those made after)? Why request the unblock of the Moby Dick account?
• What do you intend to do with these accounts if your restrictions are lifted? What do you intend to do with them if your user name is changed?

It looks like Jack has been using these accounts for a bit of levity recently, and I recall some sort of amendment request weeks ago where there was a very minor uproar about them, which was laughed off. While there is no specific prohibition from using alternate accounts in a non-disruptive way, nor is there any specific prohibition from having "joke" accounts, it doesn't especially benefit the project in any way to use these alternate accounts (except for a bit of comedy, and usually in-jokes at that), so it would be nice to hear a bit more of Jack's perspective before the Arbs decide whether to lift his restriction on using only one account at a time. BOZ (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Can the committee at least please figure out what exactly is the right way to view Gold Hat (talk · contribs) etc.? Last time I brought this here, Coren declared that viewing them as a violation "is — at best — an unwarranted overreaction". Now Risker is saying that the accounts should be blocked? Can we get some semblance of consistency in arb pronouncements that are barely a month apart? T. Canens (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by N419BH

My first interaction with Jack was soon after joining the project in earnest in April 2010. Being a newbie editor Jack helped show me the ropes, guide me, and mentor me. I soon discovered he had a history, but unlike several other editors here he prominently links his history on his main account, along with revealing all his other accounts. A couple clicks on his userpage, some ...light... reading, and I knew the whole story. As others have mentioned, his talk page is an informal "village pump" for technical questions. He makes a habit of fixing the HTML code in signatures on his userpage. He reaches out to certain recently indef-blocked users who he feels can be mentored to productive editing. In short, Jack is a massive net positive to the project.

All Jack is asking here is for his restrictions to be removed. They serve no purpose anymore except to cause confusion as the "Gold Hat" question of last month indicates. His restrictions are no longer preventing damage to the encyclopedia. In actuality, they are becoming a punitive punishment by turning Jack into a "second-class" editor.

Jack has many talk page watchers, including me. He can be set loose on the wiki safely. He's an administrator on WikiSource for what that's worth here. Remove the stigma by unblocking his previous accounts and ending his arbcom restrictions. N419BH 07:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

• Lift the restriction on good ole Jack. He's been a great help recently with uploading regency maps from Indonesian wikipedia and helping with the regency articles. Certainly a net positive to wikipedia even if he can be a little cheeky at times!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Rossrs

• User:RexxS made a comment above, describing Jack as a wiki-friend, and I would happily use the same term. At first glance that may look like bias, but people regard Jack as a friend because his presence and contributions are seen as positive. I've known Jack and interracted with him for about a year, and to be honest I did not much care for him to begin with. He has a direct approach that is sometimes blunt and lacking in tact, but I feel my initial impression of him was a little hasty. I believe that everything he does is ultimately with the aim of benefiting the project, and that every article edit is intended as an incremental improvement, and every talk comment as a step forward. I've noticed that he presents his opinions and arguments very lucidly and with reference to policies and protocols, and that he remains patient and focussed even when discussions veer off track. His talk page is full of requests for help, and he has always responded quickly, helpfully and with good humour, and I think he's helped quite a few editors find their feet. His range of knowledge and interest is expansive, and he has a lot to offer. The thing that impresses me most about him is that he is consistent, and that he speaks for what he believes is right, and when something requires participation, he participates. He holds strong opinions, and is willing to express them, and I've also seen him take on board the opinions of others and modify his stance. He is a collaborative editor, and in that regard, I don't think any more could be asked of any editor. I think he's made a substantial contribution to Wikipedia and to maintain these restrictions would serve no purpose. He is a "net positive", and that's something to be encouraged. Rossrs (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Okip

I see the same disruptive, abrasive, abusive edits which got him blocked originally, and which the Arbcom choose to dimiss last time. Okip 16:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Xxanthippe

In view of Jack Merridew's atrocious history on Wikipedia and flippant treatment of the sock issue, I think that sanctions should not be lifted. I am disturbed that an administrator should behave in this way. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Statement by Protonk

I've never seen the point to additional accounts (I think I made one once), and I agree that Jack's history is quite egregious, but this is well in the past. The restrictions should be lifted. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

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

• Recused as involved. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• While I personally don't see the need for other accounts either (I have enough trouble with one), I can't see a problem with them if they are all joined up. The other restrictions appear superfluous at this juncture. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Recused as involved and also because Jack Merridew is a sysop on English Wikisource. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting further statements, but I am minded to lift the restrictions: they no longer appear to be serving any useful purpose. –xeno^talk 18:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  @Okip: including diffs with your statement would be appreciated, as would an explanation as to how your statement relates to the request to lift a restriction on alternate accounts. –xeno^talk 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm actually surprised that nobody has blocked the additional accounts, which give the impression of thumbing one's nose at the relatively minimal restrictions that Jack Merridew has been under, a behavioural pattern that is in keeping with the escalation that was seen in the period before Jack required serious sanctions. Frankly, if not for the defiance in creating these additional accounts, I'd have seriously considered lifting all of the remaining sanctions; however, at this point I'd say block the non-bot socks (acknowledged or not) and keep that restriction in place. Risker (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• As I've stated the last time one of those "joke" accounts came up: they are technical violations not worthy of rigid enforcement.

  But, as I've also stated the last time this came up, they are an unwise violation: they may not be worthy of a smackdown, but they certainly speak loud and clear against lifting the restriction. We're here to write a collaborative encyclopedia, not to experiment with the concepts of online identity or to horse around with collections of accounts. I'm certainly not going to support lifting a restriction that is being flaunted repeatedly — even if the individual violations are, in isolation, more ridiculous than harmful. — Coren ^(talk) 16:05, 24 February 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: Race and intelligence (February 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 Mathsci (talk) at 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

WP:ARBR&I

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

• Remedy 4, Captain Occam topic-banned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• {{userlinks|Ludwigs2}}

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [70] [71]

Amendment 1

• Captain Occam is site-banned from wikipedia for a period to be determined by ArbCom. The topic ban imposed on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin could be extended to the two users privately mentioned in evidence to ArbCom.

Statement by Mathsci

Members of ArbCom have been aware for some time of ongoing issues of meatpuppetry following the topic ban imposed on Captain Occam and later on Ferhago the Assassin, per WP:SHARE. Evidence has been provided privately to ArbCom about two users associated off-wiki with both Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin.

At the end of January, unprompted, Captain Occam's editing on wikipedia entered a new stage of disruption. Members of ArbCom are already aware of the public letter written under his real name to the Economist. He has used this letter on wikipedia as a springboard to reopen the closed case WP:ARBR&I and renew allegations on wikipedia that have not been accepted by ArbCom. Captain Occam appears to be fanning the flames in several venues, entirely against the spirit of his topic ban. His edits at the moment suggest that, not only is he still in conflict with users previously involved in WP:ARBR&I but no longer active on the articles, but that he is in conflict with ArbCom itself. He has not moved on from the ArbCom case, nor does he seem to take any responsibility for his own actions.

Previous procedural disruption occurred in December when ArbCom had already voted to lift my topic ban on their own initiative. In these circumstances, and in view of his lack of openness in addressing the outstanding issues of meatpuppetry, even when questioned by arbitrators, some form of site-ban unfortunately now seems necessary. Diffs can be provided on request, but almost all recent non-article space postings are relevant. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I am referring to what Captain Occam has written on wikipedia, not what was in the letter to the Economist. The publication of the letter has been used as a pretext for making distressing statements on wikipedia, some concerning me, which appear to contravene Captain Occam's extended topic ban, or at least the spirit of the ban. On User talk:Jimbo Wales, Captain Occam stated that the submitted letter contained a reference to Varoon Arya and the claimed circumstances under which he stopped editing. Captain Occam explained that that part of the letter was not published. The passage he mentioned is an unambiguous reference to this part of Captain Occam's evidence in WP:ARBR&I and concerned only me; those claims were not accepted by arbitrators. Captain Occam's initiation of a discussion on that point out of the blue seems disruptive. He has made further statements which also do not tally with the ArbCom findings here. I am upset that he mentioned my name, when there was no reason (see below). The events that led up to the ArbCom case had no particular logic: misjudgements and serious failings occurred which were accurately pinpointed by members of ArbCom; their findings and remedies appeared to resolve matters in a completely satisfactory way, at least as far as I was concerned. I have only praise for the way every arbitrator handled things.

Following the close of the case, however, Captain Occam has firstly attempted to get his girlfriend to edit on his behalf and then, when that failed, they jointly brought in at least two other friends, whose real life identities are known to ArbCom and who have been editing R&I-related pages fairly recently. The discussions that Captain Occam has started at the moment seem equally unhelpful. If they were general and intended to improve wikipedia that would be fine; but the starting point was the ARBR&I case and repeatedly users and past events that should absolutely not be discussed are mentioned. In the statement in the diff above, Captain Occam wrote (I think to Ludwigs2 amongst others), "You probably remember the way this went when we were dealing with Mathsci’s personal attacks last spring. Some of the comments in question were completely obvious and clear-cut violations of WP:NPA, and ArbCom eventually agreed with us about that, but every time this issue was brought up at AN/I most of the people there ended up supporting Mathsci regardless, and it was impossible to find a sysop who was willing to do anything about how he was acting. How can we be confident that this same situation won’t arise when someone is trying to report a popular sheriff who’s abused his power?" Surely sanctions were intended to prevent exactly statements of that nature being made. My name was brought up when it had no relevance to the discussion. That kind of behaviour is not very different from the accusations that Captain Occam made about Roger Davies just before Christmas, also on User talk:Jimbo Wales, just after the vote to lift my topic ban. Roger had proposed the motion and I think Captain Occam was suggesting that the proposal was out of order because he suspected I had influenced Roger behind the scenes. I would understand Newyorkbrad's point if Captain Occam had been talking about someone other than me; but unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

• I was unsure how to deal with the incidents described above: because of private information, the issues of meatpuppetry (the details of which have been passed on to ArbCom) could only be dealt with by ArbCom.
• Captain Occam officially invited Ludwigs2 to comment here [72] having added his name to the list of parties. [73] Why he did he add Ludwigs2?
• Zarboublian, editing after a month's absence, is very probably an alternative account of Quotient group, himself an alternative account of A.K.Nole, formerly editing as The Wiki House (with Kenilworth Terrace and Groomtech); he is now in a slightly different geographic location in the UK. I discussed this about a month ago with Shell Kinney. Mathsci (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Apart from stalking me on several wikipedia pages, Zarboublian made the error of making an edit to back up Kenilworth Terrace on an otherwise completely obscure article. [74][75] They concerned this sequence of edits. [76][77][78][79] His latest posting seems to be an admission of guilt. His demeanour and editing patterns are indistinguishable from those of A.K.Nole/Quotient group. [80] [81] Here is yet another of his sockpuppet accounts [82]. Mathsci (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Shell Kinney has confirmed that Zarboublian is an alternative account of A.K.Nole, who was formally banned from interacting with me. Mikemikev, currently site-banned by ArbCom and also indefinitely banned by the community, has just made a contribution as 212.183.140.52 using a vodafone mobile access account. Both their contributions have some similarity with those of Ludwigs2. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yet another IP sock 207.203.80.20 has been trolling this page, undoubtedly Mikemikev. (My talk page is semiprotected for that reason.) As far as Xxanthippe's remarks about "obsessive stalking" are concerned, that is what A.K.Nole (Zarboublian) was banned from doing a year ago. Best not to use these terms in the wrong way, because of some of old grudge. Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Xxanthippe has written that she thinks that the above comment "implies" that she is a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole. That is a totally incorrect misreading. Off-wiki Shell Kinney has very kindly dealt with A.K.Nole's wikistalking over a long period of time. Mikemikev' postings through the ipsock 207.203.80.20 [83] have continued on User talk:Newyorkbrad. (Mikemikev self-identifies himself by referring to previous sockpuppet postings made by him using a mobile vodafone account in the UK.) Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

More diffs of Captain Occam's comments

• on User Talk:RegentsPark [84] "What you need to understand about this now, Mathsci, is that the problem pointed out in my letter has now been acknowledged by a large enough group of people that it’s highly unlikely something isn’t going to be done about it. Even Jimbo Wales has recognized the existence of the problem, in this comment. Enough other people have gotten involved in this issue that even if I were to have nothing to do with it anymore, something would still probably end up being done about it, although the solution may end up being quite a bit different from what I originally proposed to Jimbo. (Which is fine with me.) It’s completely to be expected that you’ll be resistant to this change, since the lack of balance the way things currently are is something you’ve benefited from, but eventually you’ll need to accept that this benefit probably isn’t something you’ll continue having indefinitely." This was written in response to me suggesting to Captain Occam that he should move on and not discuss the case. Instead he make the unequivocal statement that I was treated in an unduly lenient way by ArbCom and administrators.

• in his first comment about the letter tot he Economist [85] on User talk:Jimbo Wales, Captain Occam wrote, "The user I was referring to is user:Varoon_Arya, and my letter is summarizing the reason for quitting the project that he gave in this comment." As explained above, in his evidence to WP:ARBR&I, Captain Occam blamed me for that. In my perception much of that post was an attempt to re-open matters which should have remained closed following the ArbCom case, and concerning me in particular.

• here [86] Captain Occam reverted a comment I made on User talk:Jimbo Wales. When I restored the comment, Captain Occam wrote,[87] "Also, I would appreciate it if someone could do something about personal attacks in this thread. I have a problem with Mathsci’s suggestion that I attempted to commit libel in my letter to the Economist, and that this is the reason why my letter was edited before publication. If anyone actually believes this, I guess I’d be willing to post the un-edited version of my letter on-wiki, so that others can see that this assertion is false." He claimed that my post was a personal attack and that something should be done about it. Cool Hand Luke corrected Captain Occam fairly soon.[88] This misrepresentation by Captain Occam of others, of himself, of arbitrators, of administrators, of the outcome of the ArbCom case, has occurred frequently in interactions with arbitrators, in particular Roger Davies and Shell Kinney. Here is the thread on User talk:jimbo Wales where Captain Occam repeatedly made unfounded accusations about Roger Davies and a claimed friendship with me: apparently this was based on idle speculation, hearsay and tittle-tattle coming from Ludwigs2. As Roger Davies wrote: "Close personal friend", been in touch "regularly", "apparently known Mathsci for a few years". It's all completely untrue. The thread also contains references to the two meatpuppet accounts. Shell Kinney interacted with Captain Occam on that topic. Those two users, one of whom is not particularly old, made a series of mistakes which allowed their accounts to be identified. Editing as a WP:TAG TEAM was precisely what was criticized in the findings of fact on three of those sanctioned under WP:ARBR&I. Captain Occam is the user who appears to have problems with openness and the inappropriate use of friends on wikipedia, not Roger Davies and not me. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2's comments

I left a link in bold above to the discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales that took place a week before Christmas. There Shell Kinney quoted a statement by Ludwigs2 on wikipedia:(od)Erm, you did notice that Ludwigs2 said "Mathsci may have friends on the arbitration committee (I don't know if that's true or if that's just another elements of Mathsci's preening bluster)". Since that's a rather vague insinuation which he admits to not knowing the truth of coupled with a personal attack thrown in at the end by someone who's been in repeated disputes with Mathsci, do you think it's possible that there isn't really anything to the accusation? Shell babelfish 00:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Captain Occam

I need to make it clear what’s happened here. The Economist published a letter from me which did not mention any specific editor or arbitration case by name, and suggesting some possible reforms in Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process. Since the reforms I had in mind could only be implemented by the board of trustees, I brought up my letter in Jimbo Wales’ user talk to make sure he was aware of it. My initial post in Jimbo Wales’ user talk also did not mention the R&I case by name, although it referred to one editor (Varoon Arya) who had been involved in it. Jimbo Wales made it clear that he thought this was an issue worth discussing ([89], [90]) and Cool Hand Luke appeared to think so also. ([91] [92]). I think it’s fairly clear that none of this, at this stage, was a violation of my topic ban.

After I had started this thread, several other past participants in the R&I case noticed either my letter or the thread in Jimbo’s user talk, and figured out that the R&I case was what I was referring to. It’s not hard to figure out, since that’s the only arbitration case I’ve been directly involved in. Two of them (Mathsci and Muntuwandi) showed up in the thread in Jimbo’s user talk challenging me about specifics, and a third (Slrubenstein) made a pair of personal attacks against me in someone else’s user talk. (The attacks have now been deleted using RevDel, so I can’t link to the diffs.) Before these editors began challenging me, I’d had no prior contact with any of them in the past month.

The real mistake I made here was a lack of foresight. Even though my initial statement in Jimbo Wales’ user talk did not violate my topic ban or refer directly to any of these editors, I should have predicted that they would view it as an invitation to engage me in further discussion about the R&I case. That said, I need to emphasize that my intention was not to continue this conflict, and I had no involvement with Mathsci, Muntuwandi or Slrubenstein over this issue until they chose to become involved in it themselves.

I would still like to be able to work towards improving Wikipedia’s dispute resolution system, if there’s a way for me to do that without it being interpreted as continuing the R&I conflict. I am open to advice from arbitrators about whether that’s possible or not, and if ArbCom decides that it isn’t, I’ll stay out of discussions about this from now on. Maunus has offered to become my mentor, which is something else I’m willing to accept if ArbCom decides it’s appropriate. However, I think a site-ban is obviously excessive here. I’m currently in the middle of a major expansion of the William Beebe article, Ferahgo (who would presumably also be covered by a site-ban, due to WP:SHARE) is midway through writing an article about Gerhard Heilmann’s book The Origin of Birds, and we are essentially the only editors working on these articles. If we get site-banned, both of these articles would have to remain indefinitely in their current half-finished state. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to SirFozzie

I would really appreciate some guidance from ArbCom about what is and isn’t covered by my topic ban in this respect. I was under the impression that I’m allowed to make general comments about how Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process could be improved (as I was doing in Jimbo Wales’ user talk), and that I’m allowed to comment in response when someone else has brought me up by name (as in the case of Slrubenstein’s comments). Although the comments from SLR that I was discussing have been deleted using RevDel, arbitrators should still be able to see them, so I’ll link to them anyway: [93] [94]. If I was wrong to assume that I’m allowed to do these things, and ArbCom can give me clear instructions about that, then I can agree to refrain from doing them in the future. But it’s important that this be as specific as possible. Just being told that I need to avoid re-fighting past conflicts isn’t going to be as helpful, because that doesn’t tell me what I should do in situations like this one, where I was discussing something that I considered unrelated until other past participants in the R&I case followed me to the discussion and began discussing me elsewhere. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to LHVU

The reason why I didn’t use the e-mail feature to contact Mr. Wales privately was because my intention posting about it in his user talk was more than just to make sure he noticed my letter. I thought that this was an issue where it would be beneficial to have a community discussion about it. The same problem described in my letter had been described by Sandstein in his ArbCom application, and my post in Jimbo’s user talk also quoted Sandstein’s comment, so at the very least I wanted him to be able to participate in the discussion if he wanted to. Sandstein ended up not participating in it, but I still feel that my posting there led to a productive discussion between myself, Jimbo Wales, Cool Hand Luke, and Ludwigs2, Mathsci’s reaction notwithstanding.

However, per the advice from Newyorkbrad and Roger Davies, I’ll be more cautious in the future to avoid initiating discussions that others could see as related to the R&I topic, even if I don’t see them that way myself. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by (non-involved) Ludwigs2

I have struck my name above, as I am not involved in or affected by this in any way.

I think this is a case where BOOMERANG ought to apply. Even though this arbitration case is long over, Mathsci is still obviously holding a grudge, and still trying to find any excuse (no matter how far fetched) to get the people he was arguing with in trouble. I'd like to ask the committee to impose the following sanction on Mathsci:

• For a period of one year, Matchsci is prohibited from making any comment whatsoever, anywhere on project, about other editors or their activities.

Mathsci has an unfortunate tendency to to rely on ad hominem arguments in his complaints; his posts to me invariably contain some snide reference or demeaning comment, and the only reason he doesn't treat me with the overt hostility he shows to others from the R&I case is that I disengage from communication with him as quickly as possible. A year in which even mild rudeness and personal attacks are sanctionable might encourage him to develop more socially responsible forms of raising and addressing project issues.

I will open a second amendment thread on this request, if that is needed. I am really tired of this kind of crapulence, and would like to see it put to a stop.

The request against Occam strikes me as silly, sophomoric and tendentious. It does not serve the project's goals, but merely feeds some apparently unquenchable vindictive urge that Mathsci is subject to. --Ludwigs2 23:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

comment to Mathsci

M, I don't "tittle-tattle" (whatever the hell that means). I'll remind you again not to make up stupid crap about me, because I will call you on it every time. Please redact that comment. --Ludwigs2 02:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to sysop: I am tired of Mathsci's mindless crapulence. Would a sysop please ask Mathsci to either redact the lie he said about me above or provide a supporting diff to justify its inclusion? If I do not get a response from a sysop here today, I will take the matter up at ANI - I am not in the mood to put up with this bull, and am happy to export this trivial matter to whatever forum I need to export it to get satisfaction. thanks. --Ludwigs2 15:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to Mathsci: thanks for providing source for that lie you told about me. Please note that the original context of that quote (which I am sure you are aware of) was in response to Occam accusing you of having personal relationships with Arbs (a misperception which you fostered steadily on the R&I talk page). I was in fact telling him that it was not the case so far as I know. So in fact I was not 'tittle-tattling' on you, but rather defending you by defusing one of Occam's more extreme concerns (though with admittedly snide overtones). If you want to complain about my being uncivil I would happily accept that as true: I might produce several dozen diffs in which you say things that sound tremendously like preening to my ear in order to justify the comment (and which would also explain how Occam got bamboozled into thinking you were more tightly connected than you actually are), but even then you'd have a point. but do not make up lies about me. I'm still waiting on you to redact. --Ludwigs2 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

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

• comment I don't think that topic bans imposed at wikipedia extend to other public news media - I think that censoring someone because of participating in the public debate about wikipedia would be a bad move, and promote a kind of wikipedia community we don't want. People should be allowed to discuss their wiki experiences, also the bad ones, in other venues without that having any bearings on their editing. However, the appeal to Jimbo was clearly a bad move on the part of Captain Occam and does suggest that he is having more than a little trouble dropping the issue here on wikipedia. I think Mathsci is als inflaming the issue and that a more becoming mode of action for him would have been to simply leave it alone, since Occam's communication with Jimbo is not really harming anyone and is unlikely to have any effect on the particular issues covered by the R&I topic ban. I think an indef ban is excessive if Captain Occam recognizes having been in error and shows a will to proceed to become a valuable editor in other venues as he is currently showing good progress towards (e.g. at William Beebee). ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This accusation must be supported by diffs. Mathsci levels several serious charges - meatpuppetry, disruption, reopening a closed case, renew allegations, several venues, violation of topic ban, irresponsibility. The sanctions called for are equally serious - site banning. It really seems inadequate to airily allude to "almost all recent non-article postings" to support multiple highly serious allegations - serious accusations require serious evidence to be taken seriously. Zarboublian (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Here Captain Occam says, "I wrote a letter to The Economist which did not mention any specific editor or arbitration case by name." On Jimbo's talk page he wrote, "The Economist edited my letter...[and] also left out where I mentioned who was the user whose reason for leaving I described in detail." Professor marginalia (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Appears to be cup of tea time rather than an ArbCom melee. Collect (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment so is there anything for arbcomm here or is it just an excuse for Matchsi to rant aganst people he doesnt like? 212.183.140.52 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Advise take no action on proposed amendment. Obsessive Wiki-hounding by MathSci. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

In his edit of 11 February MathSci implies that I am a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole (Zarboublian). This is false, as may be checked by CU. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC).

• Comment Why is Mathsci allowed to engage in systematic persecution of those whose beliefs he deems offensive? --207.203.80.20 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If someone has had a letter published off wiki, regarding issues relating to Wikipedia, and regards forewarning Jimmy Wales of the fact as necessary - why not use the email facility, rather than one of the most highly trafficked pages on the project? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 12 February 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 yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• From my perspective this appears to be more of an arbitration enforcement report than a request for amendment. Captain Occam is already restricted by an arbitration enforcement decision, and his recent comments are arguably in breach of this restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Phil here. Comments made off of Wikipedia are definitely outside our remit as far as restrictions in almost any case, but there are comments onwiki that may be considered breach of prior restriction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• It does appear to me that Captain Occam is doing his best to re-fight old battles, and this needs to stop. SirFozzie (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Captain Occam should stick to mainspace for awhile, and work on articles far removed from those that got him into difficulty. Mathsci should allow others to keep an eye on Captain Occam's activities at this point rather than worrying about them himself. Absent additional problems, I do not favor any action by the committee at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Per all the above, moving away from the area needs to happen and a warning should be sufficient. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• It would be best for everyone to move on within their respective restrictions. I do not think a modification is warranted at this time. Cool Hand Luke 14:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think this amendment is warranted just yet though I do concur with what my colleagues have said about WP:AE perhaps being pertinant. Other thoughts?
  @Captain Occam. In its simplest interpretation, the amended restriction requires you to disengage completely both directly and indirectly from the topic ("including user talk pages"), unless specifically responding to others ("They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned"). This means it prevents you making even coded or oblique references. If you wish to avoid further sanction, perhaps the safest way for you to interpret how this applies to you is to ask yourself before you make an action/edit how you would perceive the same edit/action if it had been made by a topic-banned adversary of yours. If you conclude that such an action/edit of theirs arguably breaches the restriction, don't make a similar one yourself.
  @Mathsci. I expressed the hope in the motion lifting the topic restriction that you'd walk away entirely from R&I-related issues. This is because I do not believe that participants in cases are the best people to push for enforcement as it only opens old wounds (as has happened here). If another editor's conduct is egregious enough, it will be noted by other - less involved - editors, who can initiate appropriate action. That advice still stands and I urge you to follow it.
  @Ludwigs: I'm surprised by the tone of your comments and must ask you be to be more circumspect.
   Roger ^talk 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Agree completely with Roger Davies. ALL of you need to step away from this topic area in any way, shape or form. This appears to be an AE issue. Risker (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Better part of a week later, and I have nothing to add to what Risker said. Let it go. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 20 February 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.