Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

Request to amend prior case: Arbitration enforcement appeal: Littleolive oil (May 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 olive (talk) at 07:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

[1]

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Ban review which only affects Littleolive oil

Amendment 1

Review of topic ban [2]. I was directed to this page by Shell Kinney. I'm pretty much in the dark as to how to file this per the format of this template, but Shell assured me this was the place to do it. Please move anything around that is out of place and if I need to add of fix anything please let me know. Thanks.

Statement by olive

Although, this ban expired yesterday, I’d respectfully like to request a review anyway. My concern at this point is with the blot on my record as an editor. Real life issues (including a wedding and a funeral) have made it difficult to focus on this until just recently, in part because this isn’t easy to discuss.

I was given a 3 month topic ban as the result of asking for a warning [3] for User:Jmh649, per the TM arbitration, [4] for removing with out prior discussion content with 5 reliable sources that were WP:MEDRS compliant, and three further reliable sources (total of 8 reliable sources). When I asked for clarification or reasons for the ban [5] since no evidence or diffs had been given, and while I’ve edited multiple TM articles; I was directed to one thread in a discussion, on one article, the TM article. For this apparently tendentious discussion I was given a 3 month topic ban. The thread Nuclear Warfare pointed me to [6] is actually two separate discussions in one thread, and not one long drawn out discussion. This is the end of the first discussion [7], and the beginning of the new discussion [8].

In the first of these discussion, issues centered around a highly contentious sentence that had been moved back into the TM article lead by Doc James. [9] (His claim by the way, that this is either a consensus version or was the conclusion of an RfC is untrue). In the second discussion, I had moved content into the article per agreement, that had included the same highly contentious sentence now back in the lead of the TM article. [10]. I didn’t think that it was appropriate to have the same sentence twice in one article, and still don’t. It’s just poor writing. I revised the sentence to be more specific to the sources than the more general, summary-style version in the lead, and also assumed this was a more accurate compromised version of the sentence that would be fine with everyone. When the discussion on all of this seemed to be going nowhere, I decided to leave the discussion, then hoped to try a mediation to see if an outside eye could help us work through the issues. [11] This is in no way the rhetoric of a tendentious editor, nor is the suggestion that we get some outside help to help us deal with this issue.

Actually there is a point where ongoing circular discussion is no longer a useful way to deal with some issues, and outside assistance is useful. This discussion started before the RfC on this same sentence months ago. There is no good reason to now not ask for help in dealing with this dispute. I'm out of the energy required to argue this further with the same arguments, and points. lets see if we can have an outside make this easier for all of us. Thanks.(olive (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Will Beback urged me to remain in this discussion, but would later support the ban based on tendentious editing. In this kind of situation I’m not sure what else an editor can do. If I’d continued to discuss I’d probably have been labeled as tendentious. So either I walk way, or walk away and ask for help. I tried to do both, but was labeled tendentious anyway. The contentious sentence itself is a separate but definitely connected issue to this ban, as it was “used” before in an earlier AE against me that despite the sanction, should any experienced editor bother to look closely at the evidence, failed to show any wrong-doing at all, let alone per the TM arbitration. I can go into that if needed. I’m also concerned about sanctions that are based on the term tendentious. When you have contentious articles, it’s very easy to use a term that relies on highly subjective judgment, and non-specific, non-concrete evidence as a kind of umbrella term under which an editor can be indescriminately sanctioned.

Ludwigs2, an uninvolved editor, after wading through multiple discussion pages on the TM article commented in the AE appeal I made [12] He has a grasp of the discussions, and in my opinion has a pretty accurate view of the situation.

Pertinent talk page discussion:[13]

@ arbs and Will Beback per Will Bebeack's statement:

• My reasons for posting this is clearly stated above. I am neither a liar nor manipulative so Will's suggested reason for my posting didn't occur to me. What I said is what I meant.

• I was encouraged to continue to deal further with the ban by these comments [14].

• I did leave out in my statement that there is a tendency to poison the well with statements like this.

"Olive has been warned amply. Some folks are what they are, and it doesn't matter how much you tell them to act differently they will stay true to form. That's admirable in some respects, but it may mean that they don't fit into a collegial project."

Will please provide diffs of my "ample warnings", and evidence for how I don't fit into a collegial (civil) environment. This statement presents an unfair, untrue picture of my editing and editing record.

*Per disruption: Will's statement was completely expected since he's used this kind of illogical, spurious statement before. Remove any "side" from a contentious discussion and you don't have any more discussion. Will you made a statement alleging disruption. Where are the diffs and context? And I'll remind you that discussion in a contentious area, is not disruption just because editors oppose your position especially when that editor has suggested numerous times that we get outside help. I also attempted to leave the discussion when it was going nowhere, but you pushed me to remain in the discussion, and while I did leave the discussion, you then support a ban for tendentious editing.

• I hope the arbs will look beyond Will's statement.

@arbs. Please give me a chance to respond later today. Sir Fozzie, that appeal was closed while two uninvolved editors had questioned the ban and while AGk specifically asked the case not be closed. This isn't the first time a case was closed before I could respond or someone else could respond to support me.

Will that's not what I said. Stop mischaracterizing me. I was in a discussion with you and Doc James. I left, and so yes with the content as you wanted it, and an editor removed things were quiet. I made a general statement, an analogy about discussion. You've made some nasty serious allegations here without evidence, and with the obvious intent of discrediting me.... again. Where are the diffs. Everyone here has seen the thread on the so called tendentious editing on the TM article, if they've read the evidence, so you don't need to go there, but show me the diffs on the multiple TM articles I've edited that show disruption. Since I know you can't because I'm neither disruptive nor uncivil as you say, you can put a lid on your mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, and you can start now.

@Jclemens: You probably have no idea what the comment you just made meant to me. Its reasonable and kind and gives me hope that I can continue to edit even in the face of what I've had to deal with. And you're right no one believes the kind of thing I 'd have to say, and the proof against the allegations against me would take a small book to rebut them, and after multiple situations like this one I'm pretty exhausted and am not sure I can continue to edit on Wikipedia. I do have concerns that other editors will be dealt with as I have been. Maybe that's something I can help with. Thank you for your thoughtfulness.

Question: I guess what is being said is once you are banned that's it, it doesn't matter if the ban and its appeal weren't appropriate or fair. How then does an editor make sure they get a fair hearing in the first place? How does a single, non admin editor who has not established supportive networks of like minded editors stand a chance if and when they are getting in the way of some editor and hisor her agenda. Warnings per the arbitration don't really exist. I'm not sure the arbs themselves agree on what is a warning. An arb for example, suggested that the TM arbitration itself is a warning, nothing else is needed. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of a warning which is to warn an editor they are moving into dangerous territory at least as perceived dangerous territory, when they aren't aware of it. What does one do when the same admins shows up as Future Perfect did on every AE or AE appeal, and in the first case sanctioned and closed the case before I could even defend myself. He is usually backed up by Cirt. Sandstein closed down the AE appeal when two editors indicated they thought the ban may not have been fair and where interested in reopening the case. What arbitration has to realize is that Wikipedia as it functions now favours certain kinds of situations, if an editor doesn't fit, they are doomed. This might be an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but it is not yet an encyclopedia where anyone can expect to be treated fairly. I would like to see a place where an editor can go to ask that a neutral, knowledgeable editor with the time and patience to watch a case, be asked to oversee AE and appeals if an editor requests it. I know that just those neutral eyes watching would thwart a lot of the goings on. At any rate I won't take this further based on Jclement's comments, unless something changes, and I thank all of the arbs for taking the time to look at this case.

Final comment to the arbs:

I've agreed, and think its best to move on per Jclemen's comments, but I wanted to make something very clear. The appeal was closed while two uninvolved editors, one an admin, were asking that the case be left open pending some serious questions about the legitimacy of the ban. The admin., AGK later suggested reopening the case. Since I wasn't sure what to do next, I asked an arbitrator, Chase Me Calvary, for assistance. He must have been called away because he didn't respond after the initial two responses, and when I asked again for help Shell kindly jumped right in to help. By this time 4-5 weeks had passed. Real Life kicked in, and finally, in the last two weeks, I had the choice to help two friends one who was dying, rather than deal with this appeal. I'm always happy to apologize if I've dome something that is a concern, but I didn't here, and that was starting to come to light. I don't buy conspiracy theories generally, but I've been dragged to AE too often on trumped up charges to not begin to ask questions. Anyway as I said, I am thankful to the arbs for their responses here and Jclemens has given me something to go forward on.

To Shell: "Complained extensively" I appealed this ban once and I then brought it here. The ban was a concern to other uninvolved editors who looked at it. Your comment is completely inexplicable. How is it that an editor who has concerns about a ban is then in the wrong. This situation is so convoluted as to be almost impossible to look at in depth and I don't expect that anyone had the time or inclination to do so, but please extend enough good faith to assume I might have a side to this story that is legitimate rather than imply out of hand there are problems with my behaviour. The implication is as well that once again I'm being judged with out a single diff. Shell you comment is unfair, and you are wrong in your judgement of me as well.

• You said: " Complained about this ban extensively" I brought appeals on this ban to an AE appeal, and then here.

• Per email to arbitration: I asked Arbitration on two ocassions where I should post following the appeal since an admin had suggested re opening my appeal, and since Sanstein in closing the appeal, prematurely it seemed, had said I should deal with ArbCom. This was confusing so I emailed Chase Me Ladies, one of the arbs listed in handling ban appeals. I was told by Chase Me Ladies he would get back to me. I can show you those emails. He didn't get back to me. After three weeks and noting on his talk page that said he could at anytime be called away, I emailed arbitration again asking for advice. You responded and told me to appeal here.

• Diff 1 [15] I asked Courcelles for diffs to support accusations against me when non were given.

• 2 and 3 [16][17] link to the same comment. I was banned for tendentious editing with no evidence given. I was asking for diffs. Complaining?

• [18] This did not concern my ban. This was a request for a neutral admin, in a request for an AE warning, for an editor who had a history of unilateral editing and had removed with out discussion, in direct violation of the TM arbitration, content for and based on 8, reliable, Wikipedia-compliant sources.

• The last three diffs are from the appeal to this ban. I made multiple comments in defense of my position. You could have linked many, many more comments made in this appeal by me and other editors. Should I have opened an appeal and not presented evidence?

• Shell. In your comment you are telling me I should not ask the arbitrators for help. I should not appeal a ban, or if I do, I shouldn't post any defenses of my position. I should not go the the ANI board to ask for help, asking if a neutral admin will comment. If I am banned with out diffs or evidence, I shouldn't ask for diffs or evidence. Is that what I'm supposed to be 'getting'? Its unfair of you make the kind of accusations you have, with the diffs you presented, and out of context of an editor's history, and its unfair to conflate legitimate avenues of appeal and discussion with behaviour that is sanctionable.

Statement by Will Beback

I'm not sure exactly what is being proposed here. I was just thinking to myself how peaceful the Transcendental Meditation-related articles have been recently. The result of this remedy has been a welcome break from tendentious prolonged editing disputes on these topics. The temporary ban was within the scope of discretionary sanctions and the AE, and did its job of preventing unhelpful disruption. Littleolive oil seems to be suggesting that the remedy should be nullified after the fact so as not to be used as a factor in future enforcement discussions, if any. If so, I disagree.   Will Beback  talk  08:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC) edited 20:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The relevant diffs were provided during the AE. It's incorrect to say that an entire side in the TM matter was removed. The other editors in the topic have continued to work together in the meantime.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Thryduulf (re: Littleolive oil)

While I have not investigated whether the topic ban was appropriate or not, nor whether the actions or inactions of people at AE were correct or not, I don't see the value to anyone in this request. I simply recommend that you move on, keep your nose clean and it wont be an issue again. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ludwigs2

I did look into this topic ban. There was no meaningful grounds for it and no real explanation of it given, either at the time it was given or during its original appeal. Yet another case of AE railroading... I suggest this topic ban be revoked after the fact, if only to keep it from being raised speciously to indicate a pattern of behavior in some future attempt to ban Olive. --Ludwigs2 20:59, 28 April 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.}

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

• It seems to me like it's a bit of a "barn door after the horses have already left" situation, reviewing a topic ban which has already expired, and I see no evidence that this raises to the level of egregiousness required for the Committee to step in after an appeal to AE was unsuccessful... SirFozzie (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• I pretty much agree with SirFozzie here. Risker (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• The unfortunate facts are that a "blot" on the Internet in general, and Wikipedia in particular, simply can't be erased. Even if there was a finding that the topic ban was inappropriate, there's a nonzero set of folks who would notice the ban but never read that far to see that it'd been amended. Speaking as someone who drew an RFC/U that I believed was an excessive reaction to the facts of the case, I can say from experience that the best way forward is to conduct yourself as if the topic ban was unnecessary in the first place--the Wikipedians who matter will respect you for your current collegial encyclopedia-building behavior, such as it is, rather than digging into your past. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Jclemens sums up what I would have said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with the comments by SirFozzie and Jclemens. PhilKnight (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Pretty much agree with what's been said here. I'd also note that you complained about this ban extensively and asked for its review more than once; the fact that it was never lifted should be a hint that there was something about your behavior that didn't meet the best standards. Shell ^babelfish 08:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • {copied from my talk)You've made the same arguments (you were wronged, people are uninformed and misrepresenting things): January on the AE board[19] and on your talk page[20], [21], and on ANI [22], [23] February on the AE board[24], [25], [26] and finally emails to ArbCom on two separate occasions. We may disagree on whether or not this is "extensively", but to me, it's a pattern of not getting it that seems to still be going on. Shell ^babelfish 22:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not saying any of that. The only thing I've said is that you've aired your side of the story multiple times and that your other reports about behavior in the topic area sound remarkably similar. I think it's unlikely that in all of these cases no one really understood you or the situation - I'm concerned that you've got a blind spot here and I hope you take Jclemens advice. Shell ^babelfish 02:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with all that has been said above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:06, 29 April 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: Pseudoscience (May 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 Tijfo098 (talk) at 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. "Deprecation by ScienceApologist" 11a) Using strong negative language, ScienceApologist has deprecated a number of persons and their theories "well-known woo-woos", The Electric Universe (book) "discredited" "Completely unauthorative, argumentative"
2. "Discretionary sanctions" 12) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Tijfo098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Maunus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

[27] (Maunus notfied)

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions
• I'd like the wording to be modified to include not only statements that some branch/discipline is pseudoscience, but more explicitly include equivalently derogatory labeling such as "cult".

Statement by Tijfo098

It seems trendy to now bash on scientific theories and disciplines using language not directly covered by the pseudoscience arbitration case, but which have effectively the same meaning or worse. 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

To SirFozzie: because it's not clear (to me) that a WP:AE request would be considered in scope. The Electric Universe (book) is deleted now, so I have no idea what that was about, but I suspect it was a more wp:fringe topic than evolutionary psychology. On the other hand it's clear that many anthropologists (Maunus identifies himself as being one) do not hold EP in much esteem. For instance Thomas Hylland Eriksen writes in his book What is Anthropology? that "Most anthropologists are unenthusiastic about evolutionary psychology." (p. 138); and then describes some "academic turf wars". Is this sufficient to put the matter in scope of the Pseudoscience case? 21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For instance, Mathsci below writes that it doesn't fall withing that scope, so a clarification seems useful. I'm merely seeking a clarification for future events like this, not seeking to have anyone sanctioned in this particular incident, which appears resolved already. 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Another, kinder(?) commentary of User:AndyTheGrump is comparing EP with homeopathy, again without providing a source [28]. The current Wikipedia article on Homeopathy identifies it as pseudoscience and quackery. Does this type of "pseudoscience by comparison" declaration fall under the remit of the Pseudoscience case? Tijfo098 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, since some here make allusions to my motivation, my only recollection having participated in that article is responding to a RfC where I was in agreement with Maunus that sourced and attributed criticism of EP should be included, even if it sounded extreme. 01:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Maunus

I am not going to defend my use of the word "cult" which was clearly uncivil and uncalled for regardless of whether it is included in any sanctions, and for which I have already apologized.[29] I would like to note that this happened after a protracted dispute in which I have been repeatedly labelled as an "anti-EP'er" a "marxist" and a "cultural determinist" by the user to whom the comment was directed in spite of having made expicit statements that I am neither of those. It does not seem fair to me to single out my example of incivilty for an ArbCom remedy when other editors on the page have been repeatedly breaching WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. I apologize for my uncivil language, and accept any sanction that might be deemed justifiable as long as the transgression is seen in its proper context of prolonged incivilty by Memills (talk · contribs). ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record I do not consider Evolutionary Psychology to be a pseudoscience or a cult. I consider the particular editor to be unable to understand that there are different perspectives on the discipline and that not everyone who disagrees with some of EP's conclusions do so out of spite or for political motives. This obviously does not extend to all EP practitioners. It is correct that many of EP's critics have been anthropologists, but many have also been philosophers or psychologists from other subdisciplines. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Leadwind has repeatedly referred to anthropology as being the carrier of "Marxist ideology" does this mean that his statements fall under the scope of Eastern Europe arbitration?·Maunus·ƛ· 01:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by completely uninvolved Mathsci

This request seems absurd and WP:POINTY. It is related to a current thread on WP:ANI on Evolutionary psychology (EP) in which both named parties are participating. It is an unnecessary escalation of something that has been clarified by Maunus there (e.g. [30] where Maunus also makes an apology). This is forum-shopping gone wild. Although EP is regarded by some as controversial, it does not fall within the realm of pseudoscience (as far as I am aware). Mathsci (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Tijfo098 has explained some of his motives for tabling this amendment here. Mathsci (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy had its own case and rulings Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement about EP ResidentAnthropologist

Extreme EP theories tend to conflict with other fields of scientific knowledge and thus receive accusations of pseudoscience. Moderate theories of Evolutionary psychology have substantial recognition as scientifically valid theories and are used in the cross-disciplinarily in fields involving human evolution and Human cognition. The most vocal proponents are those who hold the extreme theories that rule out cultural elements and are the source of conflict between Anthropologists and EP. More Moderate Evolutionary psychologist who recognize the significant interaction between culture and the mind tend to work pretty much in harmony with Anthropologists. Two of my mentors are both Cognitive Anthropologists who work closely with Evolutionary psychologists so we must be careful when saying that they are competing disciplines 15:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Amendment 2

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
• Details of desired modification

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'm a bit confused. They may be using alternative language, but why wouldn't what your suggesting fall under: that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. I would think accusing other editors of being members of a cult would fall under the above? SirFozzie (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• I have reviewed this request and don't see a need for an amendment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• In regards to Amendment 1, being the request to modify remedy 12, I am also confused (or dont see the need) as the only mention of "pseudoscience" in that remedy is intended to be broadly interpreted.
  Regarding Evolutionary psychology, I suspect there are some individual theories within the field that should be referred to be pseudoscience, and would therefore fit within the remit of the Pseudoscience case, however the entire field is not. Comparing evolutionary psychology to Homeopathy, or referring to proponents of the former as a "cult", would fit within this arbitration case irrespective of where these comments are made, however that is up to the discretion of uninvolved administrators, who should be looking at context, and seeking corrections instead of remedies, unless it is a reoccurring problem. If inappropriate terminology becomes a reoccurring problem on articles relating to evolutionary psychology, unfortunately those articles would need to be included in the scope of the pseudoscience case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with SirFozzie and Newyorkbrad - I don't consider an amendment is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 12 May 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: Preliminary injunctions (May 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.

---

Statement by NuclearWarfare

• NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Just a small clarification requested about preliminary injunctions passed before the start of a case, such as this one. If the Committee ultimately votes to not accept the case, does the injunction cease to have force like it would if a case were opened and closed? NW (Talk) 15:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

• A case does not need to be opened to issue a motion, and arbitrators frequently explicitly reject opening a case if they believe that a motion is all that is required. Given this, I would expect that a preliminary injunction automatically becomes a motion if a case is rejected without it having expired or been explicitly withdrawn. An explicit statement would of course be preferable.
  In the specific case of the injunction relating to pending changes protection withdrawal, I think though that the most likely thing to happen is that the issue will be moot by the time the case is accepted or rejected as the injunction is self-limiting. By which I mean that it calls for an action that can only take place once per article, and so once it has taken place on every relevant article, whether it remains in force is an entirely academic question. There is a legal term that describes this situation but I can't remember what it is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

see wiktionary

• wikt:on the nose. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I don't know what the legal term might be either, but Thryduulf's interpretation is pretty much exactly on the nose. If there is a case, then the injunction ends when it close (at which point it will either have been made part of the decision, or superseded by it).

  If the case ends up being declined, then it's a motion that — theorically — remains until overturned but that quickly becomes moot as no more articles are left to be moved out of flagged protection. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds good...erm, "on the nose" in Australia would mean "smelly" but I think Coren meant something more along the lines of "astute" (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• ad finem? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that Thryduulf's interpretation is astute. The motion will become irrelevant once the articles are all moved out of pending changes protection, which will hopefully be fairly soon. PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 24 May 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: Jack Merridew unban (June 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 Skomorokh at 12:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

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

• Skomorokh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [account abandoned]
• 125.162.150.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notification

Statement by Skomorokh

The community ban on Jack Merridew was lifted by ArbCom in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion. Community discussion as to whether the terms of the unban have been violated has been inconclusive, and does not look to be going anywhere productive.

There's been quite a bit of disruption, bad blood and wasting of the community's time caused by Merridew-related matters recently, with questions of open proxies, civility violations, outing, hounding, admin abuse and a litany of other drama-fueling issues. This request is not about that.

I'd like to ask the Committee simply to clarify their reading on this narrow point, whether their unban is valid in light of Jack Merridew's apparent withdrawal of agreement to its terms. A yes/no will suffice, but if you want to address the broader issue by motion I'm sure that would be welcome. Thank you for your consideration, Skomorokh 12:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Barong, fka Jack

The ball has been in the ac's court since January, really. fwiw, I consider Risker involved. She's been feeding the sharks at ani, wadded into the indef of Gimme last August, and seems pissed about my comments re GregJackP. I did create another account and disclose it to John, yesterday.

is xeno back? count him as supporting me, as he said as much before. prolly more I need to go read.

Brad, this is the account I created at John's urging, yesterday. cf Barong (mythology). you have your answer; always have, really.

what I want is the old restrictions removed; they're an unwarranted tarring, at this point. I've agreed w/John to disclose any alternate accounts I create (atm, there are none). deal? Barong 03:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

SirFozzie; understood. Barong 03:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Roger, I have been patiently living under restrictions for more than 3 years (I'm counting the BANTIME). From my perspective, and many have said much the same, these restrictions are vestiges of long ago. They only serve to pass ammo to detractors from old disputes and are unhelpful. It's all scarlet letter, yellow ticket of leave, badge of shame, branded, &c. See, for example, the feeding frenzy on ANI. If this clarification is limited in scope to this account, I intend to take the above to /Motions. I will not participate in this project under indefinite restriction. Barong 06:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, of course not. There certainly has been controversy. We're supposed to be bold. That doesn't mean I've been wrong about most of it. It is my view that these restrictions are only serving as wiki-weapons to detractors, that they serve to keep me on a pillory, from moving forward. I think everyone knows I could have gone socking, again, with a serious intent to cover my tracks and simply get on with things like becoming an admin. But I sought to return via the front door and find myself with an indefinite leg iron leading back out the door. It was always understood that it was 'a road back'. It really should have been over at the end of a year of mentorship, but no, the sharks were going to have none of that. The remaining restrictions really amount to a sop to that crowd, and have lingered far too long. Even meataxe bans are typically limited to a year. I'm still bound by stuff that centers on 2005–2006. Barong 07:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Coren; see Jack's user page. People here *never* forget, never forgive. Time to figure that one out. Barong 14:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• lol; it's not like you folks are missing the shite that goes on here. Barong 15:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

George; restrictions to protect me from the mob? No, thank you; not my style and not going to work that way. By my count of the ani mess, there's a strong consensus for me. Of course, I use a harsher ruler than Reyk is, and discount rather more than one participant.

Anthony; spot-on ;) Barong 08:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jack Merridew
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Barong
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barong

wtf? Barong 11:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• 1 2 3 4

meet teh ACE2011 wannabes. Barong 05:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• I will not be participating in WMF under either of the (first) two motions below; someone add a simple lifting of the restrictions (or I will). Barong 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Coren; if your motion passes, there will be *no* on-wiki conduct for the three months, and likely beyond or beyond, for that matter. (fixed;)
• Thank you, Kirill. That's the ticket; you won't be disappointed (assuming this passes).

Barong 13:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Roger, re my future intentions:

At this point I may not participate even if motion 4 passes. Why should I? I would ask all to ask themselves why they continue to participate in a project that is so obviously fucked-up.

re Roger's specific querry about: "all past accounts unblocked and free to edit as legit alt-accounts."

I've a request at meta about the sul:locks. I can get them removed if I find a dev willing to reset the email so I may invoke the password reset function. I would like this done for all the non-sul:en:wp accounts, too. Why? Because they're me, they made my edits. 28bytes has picked up on my badges of shame comments and that's exactly what all the blocks, locks, sockboxes, and restrictions in perpetuity are. As he also says, it's about maintaining "leverage". It's about there not ever really being a road back, about being a permanent second-class editor.

It all loops back to this place having become the toxic-wiki. Am I illustrating a point with my 'disruption'? If so, it would be that the toxicity has saturated this committee. This whole page looks quite like a typical ANI thread, with the bickering mostly down in the bottom sections. Seems to me the upper sections have a consensus.

If I'm to bother here, I also want all of my prior accounts let out of gaol. I want no blocks, no locks, no formal restrictions. Get off me.

What would I do with them? Prolly not much; a few funny comments, gnome their user spaces. I was offered a return to unrestricted editing (see last motion). Why would I bother with trying for the front door for *years*. Because I was offered a lie; there isn't a road back, your committee as an institution has no honor.

@Phil; Thanks. I've demonstrated for years that I could abide by a one account restriction. Except for a bit w/Gold Hat, all my accounts have been sequential incarnations, not multiple voices in the same thread (a sock on the left hand and another on the right to create a false consensus). Gold Hat made only a very few edits until a year after the 2009 motion passed, and that was six months after Rlevse told me no one cared.

@Motion 5: Bzzzt.

Motion 'n': Ban reinstated; meh ;) teh xfd link up-top is looking more apt every day.

Q: Who's getting fed by this stupidity? Grawp, a whole slew of disruptive littluns that infest ANI, those with years of history nipping at my heels, the toxic-ones, those who make this place suck.

AGK suggested that I offer you "Old Jack" back. OK. Just learn to let the old shite go, to show a little good-faith. It's not like I'm asking for a block-exempt bit. I'm asking for a reason to bother continuing with this place.

Barong 09:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Moby Dick banned from certain articles

  Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues.

On the talk it says that the ambiguous term "article" is to cover all namespaces.

Does this five-year-old restriction still apply? ('cause I'm ignoring it;). I've never gotten an answer from teh committee about this (and I've asked).

Barong 14:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The Barong account was compromised by posting the password. It has also been sul:locked per my request on meta. The email has been blanked and another (unsaved) GUID pasted in as the password, and browsers and OS have had all recollection purged.

There has still been little reason offered for maintaining any restriction on me other than a galling failure on my part to hew to arbitry restrictions that long ago ceased being appropriate. About half the committee seems het up by my failure to respect their authoritah. You want my respect? Earn it.

125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

I am copying this post from the talk page of 125.162.150.88 at the user's request. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT?

Anyone following this?

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 16#User:Colonel Warden/RIP?

It's all connected; same-wiki-channel.

In that, Scott MacDonald offers this comment:

Our "rules" do not exist to keep things that serve no current purpose (whatever the original motivation in creating them) other than to disrupt. If the "rules" do point in that direction - then insisting they be followed is by definition "disruption to prove a point" and ignoring the letter of them is explicitly within the IAR policy.

— Scott Mac, ^cite

That's what's wrong with the view that my ignoring outdated restrictions is grounds for extending them. About half of the arbs are effectively disrupting teh wiki to prove the point that teh ac's authority must be respected.

125.162.150.88 (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from 125.162.150.88's Talk page at user's request.... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC))

re Scott MacDoc's comment:

Slightly out of context, since the essence of IAR is only ignoring rules where they "prevent you improving the encyclopedia" not just where they piss you off and restrict you from having more accounts.

The 'prevent' aspect would be the maintenance of a target on my back that emboldens many detractors to wage unrestricted wiki-war on Merridew. These restrictions create a loophole in most other policies and site norms re myself; they have made it impossible for me to effectively participate in this project. My objection is not to the specifics of any restrictions but to being restricted. Restrictions on me are unhelpful to this project; they concentrate negative attention on me and deter positive contributions. They abet harassment and feed trolls. Maintaining them in this context is bad faith.

125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098

Since this appears to be a case of Bishzilla envy (hi!), could the committee grant him the use of, say, 5 accounts? I'm not aware of an editor here using more concurrently for non-nefarious purposes. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

AGK, someone not being allowed to make joke/alt accounts is a cruel restriction? I see that humor accounts are enshrined in WP:SOCK#LEGIT, but is this all Barong was doing? 00:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• please, ask another question! The replies are pure gold. Barong 13:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Restrictions are completely pointless". They were indeed ineffective for their intended purpose, but are not pointless. Had they been pointless, we would not be here. They serve the following dramatic purpose: Barong ignores them as an act of "civil disobedience" against the oppressive ArbCom, while at the same time asking for them to be removed as unfair, to "clear his name". So, you see, they now serve to keep the "cold war" going. ArbCom can't spite itself by removing the restriction after they've been ignored, and Barong storms off once in while because of them. I'm sure a sociologist could write an essay on this. 13:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "by changing their cherished tables and infoboxes to improve the accessibility and compliance with MOS". Yes, we need more MOS warriors! 03:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Coren, you are so wrong. Take cue from Diannaa. The right question is "Barong: great editor or the greatest editor?" It's that simple! 03:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

Having ignored all of the unban and ANI drama, the volume of bad blood present within this whole sorry mess takes me rather by surprise. The purpose of Jack's recent actions seems to me to have been the removal of the archaic indefinite restrictions placed on him in his unban at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion in late 2009.

I am in agreement with Jack. Since he made his return to the English Wikipedia some time ago, he has been an exceptional and productive editor. I for one am confused as to why the Committee do not simply resolve by motion that all restrictions on Jack are lifted; he has proven his worth as a contributor a long time ago. If his conduct is regressing, it is out of frustration at the unnecessary (and therefore cruel) continued existence of these restrictions. Lift them all, as should have been done many months ago, and let him and the community move on. There is no reason not to. AGK [•] 21:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Tijfo098: No, that's not what I said. My thinking is that unnecessarily restricting the activities of an editor is unfair. Jack is making the point with these joke accounts that the restrictions are completely pointless. Whilst I do not agree with his methods, I do agree with his argument, and accordingly ask that the Committee resolve by motion that all restrictions are immediately lifted. As I said: there is no reason not to. AGK [•] 13:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Coren: I would not quite concur that your position is based on an ability to "let this go", but I whole-heartedly agree with everything else that RexxS says. I would encourage you and the other arbitrators to reflect very carefully on his well-written statement, because it perfectly summarises this whole sorry situation. AGK [•] 13:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Coren again: Okay, show me precisely where he has misbehaved. No, really, go on. I see lots of generalisations that "Jack/Barong hasn't earned a lifting of the restrictions", but, funnily enough, I don't see anything to substantiate those vague impressions. AGK [•] 11:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad: Thank you for your proposals. We need a resolution to this, even if it is a deferral of action until a later date. For the record, that is what I asked the Committee to do in my e-mail to them, and that is a proposal that would have my support. AGK [•] 12:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

"Arbcom is borked". Am I allowed to repeat that here? A response to Jimbo's comment that "RfA is broken" and one which Jack insisted should not be removed. Jack was right, and I feel hugely disappointed that I have to explain again why.

Jack was sanctioned over four years ago. Following a considerable amount of productive work on other wikimedia projects, he was eventually unblocked subject to eight conditions in December 2008 – that's approaching two and a half years ago. Since then he has edited very productively, displaying technical skill and offering help to all who asked for it, and I defy anybody to read the history of Jack's talk page or his contributions and reach any other conclusion. In December 2009, the conditions were revised, leaving effectively only a restriction on editing from a single named account. That restriction was actually requested by Brad on 27 April 2007 for the stated purpose of preventing "further attempts at evading the remedies against Moby Dick" (i.e. harassing Cool Cat), and has been in place now for four years. Since Jack's unblock two and a half years ago, he has not engaged in any of the behaviour that caused his original sanctions. That's not to say his editing has been without conflict. This is a wiki and differences of opinion are part of how articles are built, but Jack has tried to improve wikipedia by improving functionality, by increasing consistency, by encouraging references to be defined outside of main text, and many other innovations — see short footnotes {{sfn}} for an obvious example.

But when he recently asked to be allowed to be considered as a normal editor, he was met with blank incomprehension. You just didn't get it. He wasn't asking to be allowed to edit from more than one account so that he could make socks and go back to harassing Cool Cat – for heaven's sake, if that's what he wanted, he'd have done it, not asked for your permission. So Coren, you're quite wrong: ALL of this is about ancient misbehaviour. Because you can't let it go. Jack's behaviour over the last weeks has been born of frustration that his ancient misbehaviour has to be hung around his neck like an albatross. And frankly, when you say "paint within the lines for a while and people will forgive and forget", I just don't believe you, and I don't expect anyone else will either. Jack was painting within the lines throughout 2009 and 2010, and that wasn't enough for you, so what are you suggesting will be any different now?

Let's face it: ArbCom made a collective hash of Jack's request in February. Even now you have the chance to say, "Ok, you've served your time; we want to encourage you to contribute in the way we know you can, so we'll vacate your sanctions. Welcome back to the ranks of normal editors." But you can't manage that. You're still insisting on a further unspecified period of good behaviour with the promise of rehabilitation at the end. You ever played Portal? The cake's a lie, you know.

And that's why ArbCom is borked. --RexxS (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

it was Arbitration is Borked. same-same, but different ;) Barong 03:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to Coren

If you disagree with the premise that Jack's behaviour was good during the years of 2009 and 2010, then let's see the diffs or it didn't happen. The fact is that in those twenty-four months you'll find nothing more than the usual differences that most active editors are engaged in. Except because he is branded as a second-class editor, his detractors have an extra stick to beat him with. In that period, Jack was not experimenting on behavioural gulfs, he was diligently working to improve this encyclopedia. In doing so, he put out of joint the noses of a number of folks who OWN some articles, by changing their cherished tables and infoboxes to improve the accessibility and compliance with MOS. And his uncompromising response to those OWNers is the source of the current complaints. And as for that nonsense about "right to sock" – you still don't get it. He doesn't want a "right to sock"; he wants the right to have exactly the same number of accounts as any other editor can have. I really can't understand how you can't grasp the point: the nature of the sanction is utterly immaterial; Jack is upset and frustrated because a sanction of some form still exists after such a ridiculously long time. Ask yourself "what outcome do I want from this?", and if the answer is "I want Jack editing productively", then I assure you the best way to achieve that is to vacate this long-outdated and thoroughly useless remaining sanction. --RexxS (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to Tijfo098

"by changing their cherished tables and infoboxes to improve the accessibility and compliance with MOS". No, we don't need more MOS warriors. What we need is fewer crayoners who think because we can make 16,777,216 different colours, we have to have at least 16,777,215 of them on the same page. What we need more of is editors who take the time to understand how their choices affect the ability of other editors to access wikipedia, currently "the encyclopedia anyone can write, but only the unimpaired can read". Had you forgotten that accessibility is part of the MOS as well? --RexxS (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments on motions

It would be ungracious of me not to thank Brad for making proposals to move us forward, and I think everyone would accept that the intentions are good. However, it is in the nature of Wikipedia that protest is frowned upon; and Jack has certainly been protesting loudly of late. I believe he's fully cognisant of the potential consequences of going too far in making a POINT, so I don't see the need to reinforce that. Nevertheless, Brad is fully entitled to see that differently, and I respect that. Kiril has it right in my humble opinion. Leaving Jack with threats over his head for some more months is akin to painting a bullseye on him for his detractors to aim at, particularly if there's a deadline. I think that it would become an invitation for everybody who has a grievance against Jack to rush to ANI at the slightest opportunity, or for the trolls to have a field-day baiting him for a response. Let's avoid that sort of drama: give Jack a chance to prove himself a good editor on a level playing field, where he can see he's held in the same esteem as any other contributor. You can now give him that chance. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

On rights

the only "rights" to which participants are entitled are the right to leave and the right to fork - No, Coren, you're a long way short of enumerating the rights that contributors to this project enjoy. The fourth Pillar tells us that we can expect to be treated in a collegial manner, with a degree of respect and consideration by our fellow contributors. I have extended that courtesy to all of you and will continue to do so, but I honestly have found it difficult, observing the shameful way in which sanctions have been dragged out for such an extended length of time. Is there any other case of a currently active editor who still has a restriction hanging over him which dates back to 2007? Particularly one whose contributions for two years have been the subject of so much praise? We all know that Jack has been under stress IRL since last year, and that should help you to understand his recent protests – born of frustration. The key point you miss is that those protests are not disruptive in the manner described in WP:POINT. Ask yourself "Just whom or what did Jack disrupt when he scuttled his old accounts?" Himself – and that's about it. What heinous crime is Jack guilty of that he has not served his time for? Defiance? Really? It is surely time to get some perspective here: Jack has proved his worth to the project many times over since December 2008, and his current reactions can be directly traced to the treatment he received from ArbCom in February. Jack's a person, an adult, with feelings – not some abstract cypher on the internet – and deserves to be treated no worse than any of us deserve to be. You really don't lose face, you know, when you show some mercy. --RexxS (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

I agree with RexxS that a hash has been made, but I strongly dispute the revisionist claims made that Jack/Barong is behaving just fine now. There have been multiple disruptive actions in the last week, though Jack seems to have at least temporarily gotten the message to stop that.

There have also been numerous positive edits. Hence the community indecision and frustration.

The ANI ban thread is still running 2:1 in favor of re-community-banning. Our normal threshold for consenus is somewhat higher (75–80%) but the fact remains that this is viewed negatively by a supermajority of the community who have weighed in.

I am personally in favor of vacating the account name restriction, with the proviso that there be a linkage clearly established on a permanent basis etc.

It is not clear that permanently behaving himself has sunk in. Jack will be subject to enhanced scrutiny no matter what happens here; if he is freed of restrictions and then maneuvers himself into a long-term block next week, no good cause is served. If Arbcom can figure out a way through the giordian knot of doing Jack's good editing right, and discouraging both Jack and others from misbehavior that might lead to another block, that would be a most excellent outcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• By my count the support/oppose ratio is 14:11. Of those supports one is a troll and another is an editor whose only four edits in the last few years have been to attack Jack. I'm not sure where you're getting 2:1 from. Reyk _YO! 07:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There are 4 opposes that came in after I had last counted, the last 4 entries on the proposed ban subsection. 2 of those were after I posted. The ratio last I'd counted (an hour or so before posting) was 14:7. I believe that you are correct as to the current count. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Two of the Supports should not be included, as User:Okip and User:Shemeska have returned after long periods of inactivity pretty much solely to post to this thread. That makes the current tally 12:12. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not attempting to justify an edge case consensus determination here, and I am certainly not going to close the proposal personally as I blocked Jack for disruption earlier, but the closing administrator should take comments and motivations and activity into account for all participants expressing an opinion on both sides, not just count the numbers on either side. "reducing the count" as you have done is improper.

We have no threshold for activity for eligibility to comment on issues or !vote on community sanctions, but that should be taken into account by the closing admin. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of these facts. Doing a count just gives a quick off-the-cuff summary of the direction the discussion may be going. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by GiacomoReturned

I have hesitated to involve myself in yet another of Coren's crusades and persecutions against editors that he does not like, preferring to keep as much distance between him and myself as possible. However, this continued persecution of Jack is ridiculous, everyone can see it — what precisely is Coren's real problem here. I can see it quite clearly — is it something that we really need to spell out even more clearly — or will the arbcom be wise and just abandon this over prolonged persecution of Jack? I very much hope it will be the latter. Giacomo Returned 22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

;) Barong 05:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens

What a mess.

Back in January, I noticed Gold Hat (talk · contribs) and the fact that Jack/Barong/whatever is under a single-account restriction. So I talked to him, and then asked arbcom to clarify what's going on: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Request for clarification (January 2011). I noted that "if the committee is okay with these accounts (and I certainly perceive no problem with the edits of Gold Hat et al.), then it should either lift the restriction entirely or amend it to only prohibit illegitimate uses." One arbitrator commented, "I certainly think that viewing it as a breach of the restriction is — at best — an unwarranted overreaction". Other comments were pretty similar. So arbcom didn't really mean what it said. Odd, but fair enough.

A little less than two months later, Jack asked for the restriction to be fully lifted. All out of a sudden the extra accounts become the central issue. According to the same arbitrator, "they certainly speak loud and clear against lifting the restriction." Wait, what? Honestly, that was not the response I expected at all from the committee; I'm fairly sure that's not what Jack expected as well. And it's not his fault.

From a process prospective, moreover, the combination of the two separate requests created this anomaly: a sanction which is still on the books, which the committee recently reviewed and declined to lift because of violations, nonetheless will not be enforced against said violations. It's like saying "you are topic banned, and we won't lift the ban because you have violated it, but we won't block you either". T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Diannaa

Here is a recent example where Jack makes clueful contributions to a discussion about seemingly inconsequential changes to info box parameters: Wikipedia:Ani#Yobot and inconsequential changes yet again. The change that the bot is doing is preliminary work needed in advance of site-wide changes to the way we do our collection of infoboxes. This is the kind of behind-the scenes technical stuff that he is good at, and that is beyond the comprehension of many of us on the site. Another matter he has been working on recently is helping me pursue some much needed changes to accessibility in our collection of succession templates. Here is what is happening with that project: BrownEyedGirl is the one who came up with an elegant solution to the problem, but it was Jack who encouraged me to pursue the matter in the first place. I am presently working on converting some garbage-y templates from outdated HTML to wiki mark-up that will be easier for people to edit and uses a lot less code. Example: {{House of Normandy}} is the first in a series of templates that are about the kings and queens of England since the Norman invasion. That one I could manage on my own, but I don't think I could make {{periodic table}} comply with accessibility guidelines or make it comprehensible to someone looking at it with a screen reader. How 'bout you? Could you do it? There is stuff like this all over the wiki that needs to be dealt with and if talented, even brilliant, people like Jack are willing to pursue these improvements in their leisure time, we need to encourage that. There is no reason to believe that at this point in his career he would resume the activity that led to the arbcom restrictions, and I think the last of those restrictions should be removed, making him once again a full citizen of the community. Thanks for your time. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

endorsed ;) Barong 05:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the motions

Motion #4 is the best way forward, in my opinion. David/Barong will remain at the forefront of some controversy, with the work he intends to tackle. People don't like change and he hopes to make some. So there will be some dramas for sure, but there won't be any further problematic socking. Waiting won't change that, and admonishments like proposed in alternative #1 are unnecessary. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

An hour after Coren's infamous "smackdown" remark, David requested all his user pages be deleted and walked away from the Jack Merridew account. David is not a child, his photograph proves that, and you should not be treating him like a rebellious teenager who needs to be taught his place. Grawp was onto something with his rant: Know your role and shut your mouth…Jack Merridew. Is that the kind of place you want this to be? Know your place and shut your mouth, indefinitely, or for another six months, or another year, and then if you're good we'll see? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Another reminder

He had the Gold Hat account since June 2010. He communicated at various times with four different admins using the Gold Hat account—Shell Kinney, T. Canens, Bish, and myself—before he posted to Arbcom asking for a lifting of his final restriction. He likely felt that under these circumstances asking for official permission to carry on with it was merely a formality. So I imagine it was quite a shock to find that the last arbcom restriction would not be lifted, in spite of the years of productive editing, and the tacit agreement of at least four admins that the Gold Hat account was OK. I would encourage you to re-think your stance on this. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Other administrators were aware of the Gold Hat account though they were not contacted directly. The strong consensus here on this page is that the user deserves restoration of full rights in equal standing to other editors on this site. The notable exception is Beyond By Ken, who is not ignorant of David's work as he claims, but was actually a member of Wildhartlivie's coterie during the filmography tables dispute, and is thus quite familiar with the user formerly known as Jack Merridew and thus definitely has a dog in this hunt. The on-wiki activity since his arrival in Bali has been an attempt by David (a very successful attempt) to create a shitstorm to draw attention to his cause and the bad decision making that is happening in this case. I know it's a bit of a leap of faith here to ignore this behaviour and restore his rights, but Option 5 is no longer viable anyway as the Barong account has ceased to exist. The type of stand-alone decision making that was necessary in the dire emergency of the Rodandhullemu case is not appropriate here. By ignoring the will of the community and insisting on a paternalistic "Arbcom knows best" ruling means you yourselves are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 10:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

@Coren, there is a right to create alternative accounts, both disclosed and undisclosed. Do I need to use latin in order for you to believe this?? Just tonight I advised someone on managing an undisclosed sock in order to create an article where they have legitimate fears of state reprisal. Whether or not Barong/Jack Merridew needs alternative accounts is not the point — ArbCom needs to justify continued sanctions and/or reduce them where possible.

@Roger, are people who reform expected to abstain from all controversy and be seen and not heard? He isnt a saint. He is pretty helpful tho.

This is turning into another Everyking vs ArbCom. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by.. er.. Bishonen!

Coren: There is no putative "right to sock" to be unjustly deprived of. Wait, what? [Darwinbish bites Coren decisively on the ass.] O RLY? There is! darwinbish ^BITE 16:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC).

Comment to Coren

Coren, I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but I'm rather surprised that you reply to darwinbish below (grudgingly), while you don't reply to the exact same point — about the right to create alternative accounts — as made by John Vandenberg. Don't you think intra-AC comments would be at least as interesting to the community, even allowing for the fact that John is recused? Darwinbish is only a small greatgrandsock of mine, and I'm only a modest admin. John on the other hand is an arb, and he has spoken directly, and sharply, to you just above ("@Coren, there is a right to create alternative accounts, both disclosed and undisclosed. Do I need to use latin in order for you to believe this??"). I understand that darwinbish caught your attention by biting you on the ass, which John didn't. But really that's just different cultures. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

Heim says stuff

Arbs who are opposing all motions: Are you then saying "stay with the status quo"? Because the status quo here is "Barong is prohibited from using any additional accounts, but who's going to enforce that, least of all us?". If you really want that, I've got to question why we're even going to have a committee. If you believe the restrictions should not be lifted, at least support a motion saying so and making it clear that admins should enforce it if Barong edits anonymously or makes any more accounts. I would not agree with this, but at least the committee would be bothering to do its basic job. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• @iridescent: I saw Fozzie opposing them all, not noticing who else had. As for any other arb who did and "explained in detail why": quite bluntly, explaining is not going to cut it in this case. T. Canens has already shown quite clearly that the committee muffed this one up badly by changing its story from one incident to another. We've got to have clarity here, so no amount of explaining what's unsatisfactory about existing motions is going to work: There must be a new motion to clarify (Roger Davies seems to acknowledge this). Fozzie, to his credit, has at least supported something by this point (even though I disagree with it). I'm really hoping the other arbs will all find some clarification they can support so we can eventually have an answer, even if it's not one I support. (For the record, I'm in support of either lifting the restrictions or at least providing a pathway to their lifting.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• @All: Got to agree with Roux here. Not one of the committee's better moments. The committee needs to get its stories straight and not send the community mixed signals about how to enforce its decisions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Pablo says other stuff

It doesn't seem to be clear what the desired outcome is here. I thought it was clarification of the AC's intentions re past decisions, and the signals they have sent to this user do seem to have been somewhat mixed.
Re Motion 1 - is the stipulation to abide by guidelines necessary? No other editor is obliged to do so.
Re Motion 5 - is there any time limit on this restriction, or is this some more indefinite baggage? pablo 19:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@ SirFozzie - the problem as I see it with "causing issues" is that the user formerly known as Jack Merridew is held to a higher standard of, well, everything than other users. Over the last year or so, ANI and ban discussions have been the first port of call for anyone with whom he has been in dispute, whether over content, style, civility or whatever.pablo/pedro (potato, patata)19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from N419BH

@SirFozzie: Are you completely discounting the previous two years of stellar editing? Hasn't the guy waited long enough? What more does he have to prove? N419BH 19:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: He's taken the bad with the good for two years. What does he have left to prove? N419BH 19:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: The guy couldn't edit under any of his accounts because he scrambled all of them after the last request for amendment went south. He contributed under an IP in an attempt to meet the spirit of the restriction, edit warred over the inclusion of his name on what I'd call a veiled attack page, was fairly quickly noticed as "Jack Merridew" and dragged before ANI for banning due to violation of the restriction. An arb then told him to make an account, thereby meeting the spirit of the restriction. Furthermore, the previous Gold Hat incident proved that while the current "Barong" is de jure restricted to one account, that restriction is not being enforced, so therefore he is de facto unrestricted already. Continuing with the restrictions after two years is akin to telling every indeffed user, "Don't bother trying to come back legitimately, no matter what good work you do, you will always have your past held over your head." I'm not saying Barong et al is a saint, but there are highly experienced contributors here with far worse WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL problems who remain unrestricted to this day. Continuing with the restrictions amounts to nothing more than persecution for one's past. I think Barong has made his intentions clear. He wants to move on from his past as a "Street Legal Sockpuppet" and become just a regular editor like the rest of us. It looks like he wants to have a go at adminship. He wants control over his accounts so he can link userpages and continue to own his past. He probably wants to use Gold Hat a la DarwinBish, a humorous sock poking people who know the account name. His days as a disruptive user are over, and have been for two years. He will remain under intense scrutiny but it's time to move on, if that's even possible (I certainly hope it is). N419BH 20:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@All: It's kind of a moot point as Barong will be gone if any motion besides 4 passes, but would proposal 5 remove the other restrictions or simply modify the existing "Jack Merridew" restriction? N419BH 21:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by 28bytes

I'm encouraged to see five (so far) members supporting Motion 4, and I urge the members opposing it to reconsider. Clearly Jack/Barong has pissed people off over the years, got into fights he shouldn't have, and made other errors of judgment, including (as the most relevant example) the decision to protest the editing restriction "badge of shame" via the creation of the Gold Hat account rather than first lodging a formal appeal with the committee.

But I'm very sympathetic to his frustration at being tagged with these "badges" long after the original incidents that brought them into being, and I hope that the committee will consider the fact that simply lifting the restrictions, as Motion 4 would do, does not provide him any sort of immunity against administrative action should he violate WP:SOCK or otherwise act badly in the future. I sense that the committee does not want to lose any "leverage" against Barong for any future bad behavior that he may engage in, but I think it should be clear that the committee is still well within its rights to later reinstate the restrictions if it's obvious that the good faith extended by lifting them is not well-placed.

Let's give Barong a chance to contribute as a "normal" editor. Either he will reciprocate this gesture of good will by editing in accordance with the site policies as all editors are expected to do – in which case the lifting of the restrictions will be clearly seen to have been a wise decision – or he will not, in which case the committee can truthfully say that he was given every opportunity to become a "first-class editor" and failed to do so. Enough people are watching this editor that if the latter turns out to be the case, the committee will quickly know about it and have the opportunity to act. 28bytes (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved 81.164.215.61

Jack Merridew/Barong's recent behaviour has been unacceptable: one need only look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination) and the history of User:Colonel Warden/RIP itself to see so. A person who violates policy so blatantly should not be released from his restrictions: instead, they should be restricted further. 81.164.215.61 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved roux

Well done, Arbcom. See what happens when you treat adults like rebellious thirteen year olds? Good show, really, great job all around. This seems particularly appropriate. → ROUX ₪ 19:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken

@Roux: Actually, if Jack behaved like an adult, there might be some bite to your comment, but that's really not the case. He's behaved much more like a spoiled teenager than a responsible adult, slamming the door of his room and pouting on his bed when his parents tell him he can't have that new video game he wants. His message has been clear throughout this affair: "I will only accept my terms, and I'm willing to extend the conflict as long as necessary in order to get them." As a negotiating tactic, that's hardly calculated to induce a compromise, and the predictable result when it became clear that he wasn't going to get his way was yet another tantrum by Jack.

I've never examined his contributions for their value to the project, but I do have to ask those members of ArbCom who appear to be bending over backwards to accomodate him: "Why?" Is it really the case that the harm to the project of not having his contributions will be so great that it's worth putting up with his incivility, uncollegial attitude and childish behavior? Do will really want to create yet another "untouchable" editor who can't be controlled or disciplined? The message that sends to other content creators is hardly calculated to induce them to behave within acceptable limits.

At this point, Jack has, once again, put himself beyond the pale, and I suggest to ArbCom that it would be best to just leave him there. Six months to a year of exile might be useful in bringing him to understand his place in the scheme of things, and impress upon him the value of editing Wikipedia to him, as opposed to his perhaps somewhat overblown estimation of his value to the project. That's not a call for his head, as characterized below, just for cutting him down to size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

@Rossrs: You know I've always had the utmost respect for you, and you make a good point that I should examine Jack's contributions, but I'm afraid I can't agree with your characterization of his behavior. He was restricted for good reason, and he has no right to have those restictions lifted. If he hasn't been able to convince various permutations of ArbCom that he deserves to edit free of restrictions, that's perhaps a blow to his ego, but does not in any serious way restrict his ability to contribute here. That he chose to act out, behaving as if some inherent human right was being denied him, scrambling accounts and attempting to dictate terms to ArbCom, is a good indication that this is no well-considered protest, it's just a temper tantrum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Reyk

@Beyond My Ken: What planet are you living on? Why would anyone believe Jack will be treated decently after six months or a year on the sidelines? He's lived under restrictions for two years already, done a lot of good work on this site without making a pest of himself, and been treated like shit for it. I don't think he's doing himself any favours by throwing his toys out of the cot but let's have a bit of perspective here. Since he applied for the restrictions to be lifted Jack has been trolled, impersonated, dragged to ANI by someone who considers sortable tables a personal affront, hassled and insulted. And his request was denied because he acted on ArbCom's advice, which was then held against him when ArbCom changed the tiny chunk of ossified cartilage that passes for its mind. Newsflash: being treated like shit makes people angry. If I were in Jack's shoes I would be livid too. Reyk _YO! 08:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Rossrs

Jack does two things that a lot of editors don't do. One, he treats Wikipedia as an entire project and rather than edit within a small sphere, he takes a broader view and implements site-wide policies/styles into a range of articles. In doing so, he often falls foul of wikiproject ownership issues. Two, when he sees that the bar is set low, he attempts to raise it, so he'll change the format of a table so that it is more accessible, rather than just "pretty", and he'll defend his viewpoint when challenged. All things considered, he's patient and willing to discuss, but he doesn't pretend to be wrong, when he believes he's right. I don't think he seeks out controversy, rather I think he doesn't avoid it. And why should he? Several of the disputes he has with editors can be traced back to that type of initial interraction. The problem is that he has a target on his back, which is a result of bad behaviour of a few years ago, which he has admitted and sought to rise above, and after spending a couple of years working within the lines - but not avoiding controversy - he reached what he thought was the end of the road, only to discover that it wasn't the end of the road at all. I think that realization must have been pretty dreadful for him. I agree with RexxS's comments, with Diannaa's, and with others.... I agree with Reyk's comment that he's not currently doing himself any favours, but it's true that Jack "has been trolled, impersonated, dragged to ANI by someone who considers sortable tables a personal affront, hassled and insulted". Jack hasn't asked to be allowed to sock or to misbehave or any of the other red herrings that have been thrown at him. He's only asked that the target be taken off him, and that he be allowed to edit like the rest of us, given that he's "done his time". I used the word "allowed" very deliberately. There are trolls and bad-faith editors who will not allow Jack to do this. How else do you explain "retired" editors who only show up to attack Jack when he's down?

@Beyond My Ken: If you haven't looked at the value of his contributions, in fairness you should. The support that many editors have for him is not spontaneous. It's been earned, and it reflects a considerable amount of effort and time Jack has put into improving the project, by working with and educating its editors. It's as much a part of his history as the things you disapprove of. Can Wikipedia survive without him? Of course it can. Would his absence be a loss or a gain for the project? In my view, a loss. Jack is only willing to accept "his" terms, because they were the terms he believed in good faith he was working towards over these last few years. He was given an expectation, so in that sense, they're not "his" terms. Meeting those terms would not make him untouchable, but it may elevate him from his current status as a second-class editor and ultimately that seems like a fair objective. Rossrs (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, when you describe Jack's behaviour as that of a spoiled teenager, I think you trivialise the substance of his grievance. I see his actions as a protest rather than a tantrum. Whether it helps or hinders him is another story, and we'll have to wait and see, but his grievance is valid, in my opinion. Rossrs (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Boing! said Zebedee

I've not been involved in the back story here, but I think I have a fair enough understanding of it now. My real feeling in all of this is of sadness, as I think the worst possible outcome has been achieved - a lose/lose result. I think it comes down to intransigence on both sides, an unwillingness to put aside years-old disputes, and lawyering over meaningless detail. As I say, sad -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Floquenbeam

Prisoner's dilemma. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse. AGK [•] 21:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• If Jack Merridew wants to edit Wikipedia properly, then as far as I'm concerned he is still welcome to do it (and I don't care which account he does it from, although he needs to stay in one place for awhile). If Jack Merridew wants to be disruptive and annoying and to waste people's time, he should go away, and if he doesn't go away on his own then someone will have to send him away. I expect within the next few days it will become obvious which of these paths he wants to take. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • We need to address this situation one way or another; the current impasse, coupled with Jack Merridew/Barong's truculence, is wasting too many people's time. I've proposed two alternative motions below, taking different approaches and indicating my preference. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• My thoughts are that Jack Merridew has come very close to, if not already over the line of WP:POINT. This needs to stop now, or he should be made to stop. SirFozzie (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Giano, you are incorrect. This is nothing like what you are insinuating. SirFozzie (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Per my colleagues. Our patience is not without limits.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Barong: is it your suggestion that you have played no part whatsover in providing ammunition to your detractors? That you have spent the past three years in uncontroversial obscurity?  Roger Davies ^talk 07:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• @Heimstern. I agree that the current motions are not particularly satisfactory, failing to find consensus and perhaps leaving questions unanswered. I am thinking of offering a new one to try to resolve this. It would help considerably if Jack made his future intentions clear on this page as at least one of my concerns is his earlier requst to have "all past accounts unblocked and free to edit as legit alt-accounts".  Roger Davies ^talk 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Barong, you're not "bound by stuff that centers on 2005–2006" — you are bound by your own inability to control your apparent desires to make points disruptively as early as days ago.

  Stick to that new account you made and paint within the lines for a while and people will forgive and forget. If you keep on stretching everybody's patience like you have recently, you might be able to deftly avoid being banned by keeping just barely within the lines — but you'll never get people to move on.  — Coren ^(talk) 14:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  • There seems to be a misunderstanding about my (and, I expect, many other arbitrators') rationale for not lifting the one-account restriction. Some people make the argument that given Barong's good behavior, the restriction should have been lifted and that the current incidents are just expression of frustration at this injustice. I simply disagree with the premice that his behavior was good to begin with.

    There is a vast gulf between "has not misbehaved egregiously enough to be further sanctioned" and "well-behaved"; and Barong has been very diligent in experimenting on exactly how wide that gulf could be made. Has he made positive contributions to the project? Yes. This is why he is welcome to contribute from exactly one account. There is no putative "right to sock" to be unjustly deprived of.  — Coren ^(talk) 20:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • @Bish*: No, there isn't. Your various accounts are tolerated because you've never abused them. — Coren ^(talk) 18:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not overly concerned about the change of account name, provided there's a link from the old account. However, I agree Brad that it would be wise to stay in one place for a while. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Heimstern Läufer—who is your comment aimed at? There's only one arb who's opposed all four motions, and she's explained why at great length. – iridescent 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have as well.. but I will post a motion 5. SirFozzie (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@Pablo: No time limt, but if Barong has six months or so of productive encyclopedia work without causing issues, I wouldn't mind another request then. Considering the history here, I don't think automatically dropping them is a good idea. SirFozzie (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@N419BH: The fact that Barong has good edits is the reason they have not been removed from this project. But to go with the good edits is an extremely checkered history. If we as arbitrators have to take the good with the bad, they have to take the bad with the good. SirFozzie (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@N419BH2: That he can edit Wikipedia without disrupting it to make a point? SirFozzie (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@John Vandenberg: No, there is no "right" to create alternate accounts on Wikipedia. Nor, for that matter, does this project purport to guarantee "rights" to due process, or equality before the law, or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right; the only "rights" to which participants are entitled are the right to leave and the right to fork.

Now, what you may mean is that, as a matter of policy and practice, the community generally allows participants to use multiple accounts; and I agree with you that this is the case, and has been since the founding of the project. This does not mean, however, that the use of multiple accounts cannot ever be prohibited, whether in particular settings or for particular participants. The question here is not whether Jack may be restricted to a single account, but rather whether he should be. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Motions

Motion 1

The existing formal restrictions imposed by the Arbitration Committee on the user currently editing as Barong (talk · contribs), formerly Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) et al., are terminated, effective immediately. However, this user is cautioned that some of his recent conduct has been unacceptable, and that like all other users, he is required to abide by all applicable site policies and guidelines—including but not limited to the admonition against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point—and is subject to sanctions should he fail to comply.

As there are 13 active, non-recused arbitrators, a majority is 7.

Support:

1. Proposed. Frankly, I do not see this as an essential step as Barong does, but I am prepared to AGF for a last time here and give Barong a chance to prove that if the restrictions he sees as so onerous are removed, he will contribute only in a positive fashion. I can remember at least one previous instance in which removing vestigial restrictions seemed ultimately to resolve a perennial problem, after one last completely unnecessary flare-up; perhaps this will be a second. Barong will probably object to the second sentence of the motion, but I regard it as necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Per discussion on my talk, I could see a case for removing the words "and guidelines" here. (Incidentally, Barong's comment does not belong in this section, and he knows it, but meh.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Second choice. I don't really see the need to beat the general policy reminders to death at this point. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Second choice, as Kirill. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
4. First choice. After seeing all five(!) motions for the first time, I'm surprised that the first is the best. Would support the copyedit NYB refers to above, or as written. (No doubt this means I'm part of the NYB mafia.) Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The previous instance Brad remembers didn't play out quite that way; there was indeed a motion made that removed the restriction, but only after a period of time has passed without problems. I'd support something along those lines, however.  — Coren ^(talk) 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Either the restrictions remain in place and the warning is moot, or the restrictions are lifted and the warning is implicit. There's no need to spell out something with which all editors agree to abide. – iridescent 16:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Per Iridescent. Shell ^babelfish 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Per Iridescent and my comments at Motion #4. Risker (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
6. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Per Iridescent. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
8. I'm afraid that the second sentence will likely go in one ear and out of the other.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral:

Motion 2

The Arbitration Committee affirms that the existing restrictions against the user currently editing as Barong (talk · contribs), formerly Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) et al., remain in effect. The Committee will consider an appeal seeking to lift these restrictions in three months; Barong's user conduct in the interim will be taken into account in deciding on any such appeal.

As there are 13 active, non-recused arbitrators, a majority is 7.

Support:

1. As a second choice to Motion 3 below. I'd rather be preemptive that repeat past performance with another editor and revisit the issue ad nauseam twice a year or more.  — Coren ^(talk) 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Progressive non-compliance is a poor basis from which to seek a removal of sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
3. I strongly support the sentiment here though not entirely the wording.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Proposed as alternative. I am opposed, but let's have a decision here one way or the other, as administrators are understandably confused about how to handle the current situation. Of course, any of my colleagues is free to propose another alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
2. This would be merely dilatory. If the restrictions are to be permanent, then we should say so and avoid going through appeals every few months. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Roughly per Kirill. Either the restrictions should stay in place or they shouldn't; there's no reason to think anything will change in three months. – iridescent 15:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Not really useful. Shell ^babelfish 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Per Kirill and my comments at Motion #4. Risker (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
6. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
8. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Useless. Cool Hand Luke 03:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral:

Motion 3

Having considered the request to lift the existing restriction against the user currently editing as Barong (talk · contribs), formerly Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) et al., the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire three months after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date will be reset to one year following any future infraction or unsuccessful appeals of this restriction.

Support:

1. First choice. In other words, stick to that one account for three months and the restriction will expire on its own.  — Coren ^(talk) 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   To make things extra crispy clear: an "infraction" is simply making edits not from the account he currently uses (Barong), nothing more complicated than that. Not making any edits for three months is unnecessary and regrettable, but also wouldn't be an infraction and would see the restriction expire just as uneventfully.  — Coren ^(talk) 14:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Weak support, to be invoked only if nothing else is passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
3. First choice - stop the silly behavior, briefly even, and there ya go. Shell ^babelfish 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Probably the best route under the circumstances though it might need some tightening up/wordsmithing if it looks like it's going to pass.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Unless we very clearly define what an infraction is with regard to these restrictions, this is only going to confuse the matter. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Per my comments on motion 2. Given the timescales so far, there's no reason to think anything will change in three months; either the restrictions should be permanent, or they should be lifted. – iridescent 16:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Unclear what activities would result in the reinstatement of the restriction. Also per Iridescent and my comments at Motion #4. Risker (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
4. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
7. I really don't understand the point of this. Cool Hand Luke 03:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral:

Motion 4

The restrictions imposed by the Arbitration Committee on the user currently editing as Barong (talk · contribs), formerly Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) et al., are terminated, effective immediately.

As there are 13 active, non-recused arbitrators, a majority is 7.

Support:

1. First choice. It should go without saying, of course, that any future disruption will be dealt with harshly. If Jack can move on from this and maintain an acceptable level of conduct, that's great; if it winds up simply being rope handed to him, that's also acceptable, albeit disappointingly so. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Second choice for me, prefer 1 (possibly with a copyedit), but let's get this resolved one way or another. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
3. First and only choice. I have a suspicion that this will go badly—Jack will be under scrutiny from a lot of people looking to jump on any slip-up—but he deserves the chance to prove them wrong. If this does go wrong, reblocks are cheap and at least we'll have given the chance. I oppose 1; "abide by all policies" is implicit for every account, and "abide by all guidelines" is unfair since many guidelines are contradictory and/or widely disregarded. In this case I don't think the "in three months" proposals are worthwhile, since it's unlikely the situation will substantially change. I do think there's a good case for drastically tightening the rules on multiple accounts, but this isn't the place to be having that conversation, and as long as they're permitted there's no compelling need to continue singling one editor out. – iridescent 15:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
4. First choice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
5. First choice. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 03:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Actually, strike this. His recent behavior does deserve a note. Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1.  — Coren ^(talk) 13:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Joke accounts I don't care about (and said this in earlier requests here), but recent bothering of other editors with anon or "alternate" accounts leads me to believe that this is a poor idea. "I didn't get my way so you can't blame me for misbehaving" just doesn't wash. Shell ^babelfish 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
3. A major aspect of Barong's/Jack Merridew's/Davenbelle's/Moby Dick's initial ban was the abusive use of alternate accounts. On the rare occasions when the Arbitration Committee and/or the community agrees to permit an editor to return despite such a history, the conditions invariably include a restriction to editing with a single,identified account with no logged-out editing (with rare exceptions for approved bot accounts). To my knowledge, neither the Arbitration Committee nor the community has ever removed those restrictions, and certainly never when the editor has already violated the restrictions. I do not see a broadly based community support for acquiescing to the use of multiple accounts in this specific case and note in addition that the community has become ever more conservative in its views about the acceptability and appropriate use of alternate accounts. Note that this comment applies to all of my !votes in this area. Risker (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
4. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
6. I'm not a great believer in removing restrictions from someone who is playing up, in the hope that it will encourage them to stop.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral:

Motion 5

The restriction on using multiple/alternate accounts on User:Barong, formerly known as User:Jack Merridew is modified as follows:

User:Barong is directed to edit solely from that account. Should Barong edit from another account or log out to edit in a deliberate attempt to violate this restriction, any uninvolved administrator may block Barong for a reasonable amount of time at their discretion.

Support:

1. The community doesn't mind (to a point) alternate accounts used in a humorous fashion. They can be a good tension breaker if used properly. That's why they are tolerated (grudgingly in some cases). However, considering Barong's contentious history, I have no confidence that they would be used properly. As Roger says above in Option 4, violating a restriction deliberately and in a forcing manner is not a good way to convince others that lifting the restriction is a good idea. Considering that there was a recent ANI request to ban Barong for those violations (amongst other things), I see no reason to lift the sanction. I'd also like to note that I'm not setting a mininum or maximum in the restriction above, the reason for that is: That if Barong truly makes a mistake and accidentally makes one/few edit(s) as an IP, we shouldn't be screaming "off with his head".However, should Barong take further actions (for example, deliberately compromising his account to claim that he should be allowed to post from another account, or just flat-out ignoring the restriction and posting from multiple accounts/logging out to continue actions that could be construed as WP:POINT, an administrator will be able to take appropriate action as they deem fit. SirFozzie (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Third choice. I'm concerned the problem has shifted from the original reason for this restriction to a personal dispute with ArbCom, where Barong is being defiant instead of demonstrating the restriction is no longer necessary. In this context, I think it would be in the best interests of the project to completely remove the restriction, and to rely on admins enforcing policy in the normal manner. However, if that isn't the consensus view of the committee, this at least clarifies the present situation. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
3. As a last resort (if nothing else passes), and with some regret. I think having some way of phasing out the restriction would have been best; but that even the committee is divided on how that can best be done is indicative of how insidiously disruptive this has been. I remain open to a request to lift that restriction in a while. — Coren ^(talk) 23:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Grudgingly as a last resort if nothing else passes. I think both Wikipedia and Barong would be much better served by lifting the restrictions and letting him sink or swim. The only merit to this proposal is that it clarifies the situation, but at least a clarification of the situation (even if it's something neither Barong and his supporters, nor those calling for his head, actually want). I concur entirely with Kirill below that the time and effort involved both in people enforcing this, and in Barong testing the limits of the restriction, would be much better spent elsewhere. – iridescent 18:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Pragmatic first choice. Like iri I'd rather try the "sink or swim" approach, but as that doesn't have a chance at passing I think this is a better approach. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Third choice. Cool Hand Luke 03:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Risker (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Quite honestly, I don't think the putative disruption prevented by continuing this restriction warrants the time and effort that will be spent enforcing it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
2. I have mixed feelings about all of this, and still think the best approach would resemble my original motion 1 (minus the words "and guidelines," which I acknowledge could add too much subjectivity—although I've used it in a dozen prior motions and case remedies and no one ever questioned them before and I don't believe they've ever caused any problem). At this point, though, my view is probably closest to Kirill's and (above) Iridescent's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral:

Discussion

• Note: Barong has deliberately compromised this account as well, both here and on Meta, and is currently indefblocked. The motions are still active for voting, however. SirFozzie (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked and unblocked within 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's to be noted the unblock is mostly cosmetic given that the account is globally locked. — Coren ^(talk) 21:15, 15 May 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: Amnesty in Middle East editing area (June 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 Ravpapa (talk) at 04:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Cases affected

• Gilabrand
• Nishidani
• Possibly others

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Statement by Ravpapa

This rather unusual case is a proposal for a general amnesty of Wikipedia users who have been blocked or topic banned from articles dealing with the Israel-Arab dispute. The proposal is the result of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Taking stock and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Amnesty for topic banned and blocked users. It is our belief that an amnesty could alleviate tensions in the project, improve the editing environment and improve the quality of the articles.

In those discussions, editors looked at some of the measures implemented to improve the quality of editing on the project. On the one hand, we felt that centralized discussions had helped to resolve numerous editing conflicts over general issues (such as the way to treat settlements in articles) and that the 1RR restriction had added to the stability of articles and succeeded in moving disputes from the article to the talk page.

On the other hand, we felt that vigorous enforcement by Arbcom has done little to reduce the level of conflict on disputed articles. We feel that an amnesty of banned or blocked users would not increase conflict, and, on the contrary, would improve the overall atmosphere and restore a number of productive editors to the project.

We suggest that the conditions for amnesty should be:

• the candidates have made substantive contributions to articles (and not just talk page contributions).
• They are not single purpose editors, but have contributed in a number of topic areas.

In our discussion, two editors came immediately to mind: User:Gilabrand and User:Nishidani. I am certain that there are other editors that also meet these criteria.

This amnesty proposal is supported by editors from both sides of the conflict. It should be clear that granting amnesty does not suggest that administrators condone the acts for which the editors were blocked, but only that they believe that these editors' commitment to improving the Wikipedia will override any recidivist tendencies they may have.

In addition to myself, User:Nableezy and User:CarolMooreDC support this proposal.

Statement by Nableezy

Unsubstantiated accusations about ignoring topic bans or "problematic behavior" aside, the topic area needs knowledgeable editors. Both Gila and Nishidani have a lot to offer, more than most. Gila's only real problem here has been ignoring a topic ban/block. If she were to commit to not doing so in the future I see no reason why she should stay blocked. As for Nishidani, there are very few editors here that have the patience or skills to do such in-depth research using the best sources. The topic area has not improved as a result of the WB/JS case, and I honestly cannot tell why after 2 parties of that case were discovered to be socks ArbCom has not simply vacated the case. As it stands right now, the only editors that are not editing in the topic area as a result of the case are Nishidani, G-Dett, MeteroMaker and Pedrito. Jay had his ban rescinded following an appeal, which is great, but NoCal/Canadian Monkey have never left us (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NoCal100). So the net result of that case is that one of the more prolific sockpupeteers on WP was able to instigate edit-wars with several users, using several user names, and succeed in the aim of having them topic-banned. Should the editors not have reverted as much? Sure. But you cannot look at what happened without keeping the fact of Isarig's multiple personalities wreaking havoc across the topic area coloring your view.

This is not a "general amnesty", there are two users listed for consideration. Ravpapa, with good intentions no doubt, may have made this a bit more complicated by suggesting conditions that would apply to others. Id prefer to talk about just those two users as those are ones that a. show an interest in improving the articles, and b. know what they are talking about.

If you wish to increase the quality of the articles in the topic area there is no reason to not lift these users sanctions.

Statement by JoshuaZ

As proposed this seems like a bad idea. Each editor is a unique case. Some have been better than others about keeping in line with the sanctions than others. Some have been more productive in other areas than others. And there may be other considerations. I would rather have each editor considered individually with each editor in question making a case for the removal of their sanctions. Since there are now only five editors who are relevant this should not be that much more work. But a blanket pardon in this context seems like a recipe for disaster and is also unfair to the editors who have toed the lines and worked hard to rehabilitate themselves. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved Rocksanddirt

Amnesty no. individual topic ban reviews yes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Amendment 2

The topic ban on Nishidani is rescinded. The indefinite block of Gilabrand is lifted, subject to her agreeing to use one account and not editing as an IP.

Statement by Nableezy (2)

I doubt a general amnesty will go through, but I think ArbCom should consider these two specific cases. Gilabrand has, for many years now, made important contributions to a wide range of articles, both within the topic area and outside of it. Her refusal to abide by her topic ban was frustrating, and the disingenuous nature of her response to being caught pretty much red-handed socking did her no favors, but her block does nothing but punish Wikipedia. Nishidani is, in my opinion of course, one of the most thoughtful and well read editors that was willing to spend any time at all in this time suck we call the ARBPIA topic area. Both of those editors have much to offer, and Wikipedia loses by restricting their accounts. We need editors like these. The bans have not done anything to make the topic area better in any way. Instead, the same fights with lower quality arguments are being played out over and over. This is repeated from above, but if you wish to increase the quality of the articles in the topic area there is no reason to not lift these sanctions. By keeping them in place you damage Wikipedia. By that I mean the articles, not some imaginary harmony among users, you know, what is supposed to count here.

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 from Cptnono

Nishidani has ignored his topic ban multiple times. The topic area is cooling down a bit. The last thing we need is another editor who repeatedly asserts a battlefield mentality. He has not shown any remorse for his actions and letting him off the hook simply because the ban was some time ago is silly. If anything he has only served a couple months if you count the most recent breech. Will only serve to add fuel to the fire. When the editor actually fesses up to what he did wrong then it should be entertained until then we are simply cycling in another problematic editor to fill the shoes of another banned one.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement from Michael C. Price

I find it alarming that Nishidani is specifically named ready for the amnesty. I second all the points that Cptnono makes, and add that Nishidani's problematic behaviour (which almost defies description, it is so egregious) extends to many other areas of the project. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Since evidence has been asked for, here's a sample:

• [[31]] “I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”
• [[32] – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."
• [[33]] "There's edit-warring and edit-whoring, and you practice both."

Has he really reformed?-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael, if you were replying to my comment, what I actually asked for substantiation for was the assertion that Nishidani breached his sanction on multiple occasions. The block logs indicate that that can be nothing but a personal opinion and, as a personal opinion, of no worth or significance.     ←   ZScarpia   23:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for it. And it wasn't my opinion. It was the administrators'. But it was way more than a couple months now that I look at it again so that was my bad (I guess time flies). Unfortunately, in those 10 months there were problems in other topic areas (I don;t know the details) and now he has retired. So why are we having this conversation if he doesn't wish to volunteer here? Very little activity on the account since this.Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you substantiate your allegation: yes or no?     ←   ZScarpia   17:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See the edit-summary of why here. My retirement has nothing to do with my wishes, but a perception that editors with a real commitment to the encyclopedia are being systematically picked off, and that further work outside the area of my permaban (which I have quietly followed for 2 years), were this state of affairs to persist, was inappropriate.

Work here is voluntary. One reads extensively, and takes time to transfer one's acquired knowledge to topics for the benefit of a global readership. This means that if, while working on any article you come across information that makes the side you are identified as favouring look bad, this, for example, you don't hesitate an instant to include it, but put it in, because it is relevant and strongly attested in RS. You do not calculate the advantages of withholding it, or smile as you quietly ignore the unpalatable fact. It means that if you see news describing some desperate injustice visited on a people for whose historical condition you have some sympathy, you don't just rush to plunk it in to make the other side look bad. You examine the whole history and background, and, if you find out far more information concerning the glories of its Jewish past in RS than you find about the woes of its native peoples, as I did at Susya, you write up that research comprehensively, and add it, even if in doing so you, as an editor, know that the article will risk looking like a cultural justification for the side opposed to the local people whose plight worries you.

That incident played a key role in my permaban, one admin told me. I had written the history of the synagogue, and silence prevailed. I then added a few sad notes on the history of eviction and expropriation, and all sorts of objections flew my way, esp. from a notorious sock-team. Admins do not evaluate the overall picture; they have no hands-on intuitions about socking games yet to be uncovered; they examine the only behavioural evidence that counts, whether an editor is complying or not with that terse, rule-focused urbanity all are asked to acculturate themselves to ideally. The system is the way wiki works, and has its logic and advantages, though its underside is that it tutors the malicious to be twee as they pettifog, and run around with a smiley syntax, while wreaking havoc on RS by endlessly polite equivocation.

In a stray remark, I failed the test, and I cannot complain that I was asked to pay the penalty for that lapse. They were perfectly right technically. I would be insincere were I to hide the feeling that contextually, to deny a builder permission to finish the roof, after he has erected singlehandedly a substantial piece of form-work and bricked it in, on the grounds that he kicked some dust off the scaffolding that got into the eyes of a few bystanders who strongly objected to the makeshift loo in the backyard, was to ignore the big picture. It is certainly true that, given the intensive boredom editing difficult articles (I like difficult stuff) demands of editors, that one occasionally lapses into smart cracks to relieve one's exasperation. Of several hundred pages of extensive explanations I have had to write over 5 years to justify edits that seem obvious before fellow-editors who cannot see it, several lines are flagrantly flippant or acerbically venomous. If the patience of Job or sainthood is required under the Nacht and Nebel of obfuscation, I'm not your man for all wiki seasons. But I can trudge through the bleakest of wintry landscapes, and plant a fruitful crop once the sun shines.

To return to the point of my retirement. It struck me that, under present circumstances, I was being asked, as a donor with a comfortable income of knowledge, to contribute my tithe exclusively to wealthy causes (untroubled articles) while abstaining from donations of intellectual capital to the poor (i.e., articles in an area that is widely thought of by authoritative admins even as a 'time-suck', a 'crapfest', i.e., wikipedia's I/P ghetto where Dante's: lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate evinces the abiding truth). Superlatively good editors there, rigorous, precise, if they are on the wrong side can get subjected to a minuteness of surveillance and pettifogging complaint of an order few would put up with. I think this true of recent circumstances regarding one of the proposers. I retired because I think the 'behavioural' criteria used to evaluate people here is unfocused, or rather, it all boils down, 'faute de mieux, to scrutinizing p's and q's, and evaluating endless whingeing over technical cavils, while the essential behavioural evidence about an editor, his or her track record of dedication to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, article building and above all, respect for whatever quality sources say irrespective of what POV they appear to support, is ignored.

I only noticed that this was being discussed two days ago. I haven't commented till now because I thought anything I might say will only be jumped on as infringing my permaban. Perhaps it does. Still, since I have been described as consistently evincing behaviour so egregiously outrageous as to defy description, I really can't let that pass. l'd like to express here my appreciation of the expression of confidence in my bona fides by the two proposers, with whom, for the record, I have not discussed the present suggestion. I won't certainly be around for the summer, since work offline engages me. I don't think I should venture to say more than what I have said above. I am constitutionally incapable of trying to claw back a right I have lost by pleading at the bar. I leave it to others to review or reject the proposal. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This does sound compelling. But I disagree that you were asked, as a donor with a comfortable income of knowledge, to contribute my tithe exclusively to wealthy causes (untroubled articles). No there are a huge number of equally contentious topic areas outside of I/A, from Kosovo to Climate Change, from Mass Killings by Communist Regimes to Evolution. Try Cold Fusion. Also, I have no interest in exploring your history, but it is not easy to earn a permaban by a slip of the tongue. But I AGF and would support your unban. I think your statement satisfies my criterion below. But it seems arbs are not enthusiastic, to put it mildly. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite acute in picking a hole in the analogy, Boris! Still the metaphor translates the following section of the relevant decision.

'The Committee will . . look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews.'

The Arbcom decision asked that those who wished to be pardoned participate in producing featured content articles. It is not particularly difficult to do this actually, if you choose to write up articles on topics that are devoid of controversy. But (a) it is almost impossible to fulfil that remit if you go to 'equally contentious topic areas'. Those areas you name are strewn with the corpses of defunct editors, some quite brilliant. I don't go to articles because they are contentious. YHWH forbid. (b) I go to articles about which, outside of my professional interests, I have some reasonable knowledge, and where I can be assured that I won't step on the minefield of my own prejudices or ignorance. Your premise assumes I like contention. I hate it. I must admit I have not fulfilled that remit, however. My participation in the Shakespeare Authorship Question, which passed FA, and the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates page, which got a DYK, had nothing to do with purposive work to redeem my fallen fortunes. I stumbled on them, and on several articles (Franz Baermann Steiner etc.,) I wrote up, with a little help from friends, by chance. Here and, in life, if people have a poor opinion of me, I just can't work myself up to try and persuade them differently. They're entitled to that view, their view may indeed be grounded in evidence they think decisive and incontrovertible by their lights, and were I to be upset, and struggle to improve my 'public' image, I'd only feel that I must, unconsciously, be suffering from a guilt complex, or be motivated by some obscure narcissistic wish to win the esteem of my fellows. Thanks anyway for the AGF. Best Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders, I stand by my description of Nishidani's behaviour. And as usual he protests his innocence. As Boris says, "it is not easy to earn a permaban by a slip of the tongue". Indeed. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

Cptnono and Michael C. Price have stated that Nishidani has ignored his topic ban multiple times. Given Nishidani's block log and the ARBPIA log of blocks and bans, I doubt that they can substantiate their claim. Given the ARBPIA log of blocks and bans and Cptnono's own block log, perhaps Cptnono in particular should be being a little less condemnatory.     ←   ZScarpia   16:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Thryduulf

I don't work in this area, and don't recall interacting with any of the named users, but the thought of a general amnesty scares me. The ending of topic bans and other restrictions should be considered on an individual basis taking into account the reasons it was imposed, when it was imposed, what they have been doing since the imposition, etc.

I equally don't think that a meta request like this is the right way to go about examining the merits of removing restrictions on specific editors in several different cases. It is of necessity either going to be an unwieldy list of sections containing comments for and against ending restrictions on several users; or it's going to be a complete mess with little structure making it very difficult to determine which comments are about which people. Chances are there will be few commenters who hold the same opinion about everyone discussed, and it would not surprise me if one or more arbitrators felt the need to recuse with regards to one or more of the people being discussed, but I would be quite surprised if any felt the need to recuse for all cases under discussion.

In short, I just can't see this working. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"General amnesty" is, I agree, not the right term. The idea is that only editors who meet the two criteria above - (1) have made substantive contributions and not just argued, and (2) have edited in a variety of topic areas - would be eligible for the amnesty. The criteria must be clear and objective, otherwise, as you say, we may find an Australian prison ship on our shores.

As I mentioned above, fears that the return of these editors could heat up the topic area are not shared by the editors who participated in the discussion. Our feeling is, on the contrary, bans and blocks have not contributed to improving the editing environment. This step, an act of trust and good faith, could, on the contrary, make things better rather than worse.

Also, this is not an irreversible act. If these guys act up again, they're out. So the risk is negligible. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG

I like the spirit of this proposal but I think the two conditions are not enough. Additional conditions are needed, in particular admission/remorse concerning past transgressions for which they were sanctioned. If an editor thinks he/she has done nothing wrong, then it is obvious they will do so again (they have done nothing wrong!). Basically if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have a regular appeal, not amnesty.

Statement by CarolMooredc

I have been generally suspicious of some of these bans, though reading the above does make the reasoning more clear. I basically agree with BorisG. The one time I got blocked after getting angry at harassment and attacking another editor, I felt very righteous and it took some real prodding to make me see for myself that the specific attack I made was just a variation on the ones that others have used against me. So when I understood that, I did feel remorse and learned better not to make that mistake again. So if a person keeps making the same mistake, they haven't "gotten it" yet. Maybe they just have to keep communicating with a sympathetic editor who can explain it again and again til they get it and then can have block/ban lifted. Also, if they keep slipping, they can always be reblocked as a "time out" for a week or two until they realize they went too far. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ynhockey

I am strongly against the proposal in its current form. The I–P area has the same problems today as it ever had, but each time one of the problematic editors is banned, the area becomes much nicer to edit, and gives good editors more time to concentrate on contributing content, instead of arguing. I think we should be lenient with editors who actually contribute to the encyclopedia, even if they make serious mistakes, but most of the editors permanently banned in I–P were banned after not one but a large number of serious mistakes. Most of them (except one editor whose ban was already lifted) have not shown that they can contribute constructively to the encyclopedia post-ban. Making small contributions here and there as some have is just not enough to justify bringing back more major problems to I–P. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another statement by Ravpapa

Okay, you have convinced me. I agree with Nableezy: let's limit this to Gilabrand and Nishidani. Do I need to open two new motions for this, or can we continue to discuss them together here? Because, in my mind, they are related - both outstanding editors, on opposite sides of the dispute, and their return is supported by editors from both sides. It would only do the project good. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen

I would support the lifting of the restriction on Nishidani. His three edits that have been picked out above are all over a year old. Nishidani has made thousands of edits in the interim. So, if he has a continuing pattern of problematic behaviour, it should be possible to find more recent issues. Also the three edits were brought to Arbcom's attention during the SAQ case in which Arbcom chose to act against the fringe theorists with whom Nishidani was in disagreement and not against Nishidani.

I don't know the context of the issues with Gila. My presence on Wikipedia dropped in the latter part of last year and has only picked up somewhat recently and I think I must have missed the drama around this. I know she was on the "other side" of the I/P business from me but she had not stuck in my mind as someone particularly problematic. I notice she has been indef blocked only recently for socking. If the problematic behaviour has been through the socks, I don't see what Wikipedia gains through the blocking of the main account. She is fairly prolific and if she has not recently been problematic with the main account then this seems to be a use of blocking as punishment rather than as a means of protecting Wikipedia. Maybe someone who has looked at things more recently could explain the logic of the block.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• First thought is that a general amnesty is not workable, that there's "too many and too much" to consider. SirFozzie (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with SirFozzie - I'd prefer to consider each case on its merits. Suggest putting in separate requests for the editors and include links to collaborative editing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• The two "sides" aren't the only victims of the acrimony in this area; the ability of casual editors to visit these topics has been damaged by the polarization here, and I'd need to see a widespread groundswell of support from uninvolved administrators who've had to deal with these conflicts to even consider such a motion. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm with Jclemens on this one - while it has been stressful for those involved, it's also had a significant impact on this topic as a whole. I would prefer to consider each case on it's own merits. Shell ^babelfish 01:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Concur pretty much with Jclemens. Risker (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys (June 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 Hodja Nasreddin (talk) at 14:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

• Remedy 3
• Remedy 4

Amendment 1

• Biophys topic_banned
• I ask to review topic ban after one year, as suggested in the original decision by the Committee

Statement by Biophys

I would like to apologize for contributing to disruption and ask to lift this topic ban after one year. During this year I followed the rules and was not involved in a single edit warring incident. I was never reported to noticeboards and received no blocks and no warnings, even though I occasionally commented at AE and debated with people who edit in conflict areas (AA, RI and IP). I promise to follow all the rules in the future, work collaboratively, and do not jeopardize work of other editors who contribute positively in the area.

During this time I stayed out of trouble by following several rules:

1. Never revert other editors back if they reverted your edits. Start talking to clarify the situation if it is not already clear. Go edit other articles if consensus cannot be found after brief discussion. More advanced stages of dispute resolution (such as RfC) should never be used because they only increase tensions.
2. Do not edit any articles in a state of active editorial dispute between multiple parties. This is waste of time, although occasionally commenting at talk page or making a single compromise edit may be acceptable.
3. Never report other users at AE/ANI. If others started something, try to comment in a reasonable and neutral fashion. Do not comment about users with whom you have a current content dispute.
4. Do not be too active in any "difficult area". Leave the area at the first sign of trouble.

• I will have no problem with editing in the Russia/SU area based on these principles, and especially #1 ("no editorial conflicts"). This area is a desert, with many neglected or non-existing articles and few active contributors. Yes, there are several flash points, like "communism-terrorism", Baltic republics or "mass killings under communist regimes", but I would be an idiot to start editing them (#2). Let me emphasize: I have absolutely no hard feelings with regard to anyone who edits in this area including participants of this case. I also feel very comfortable talking with anyone who wants to discuss content matters or avoiding anyone who does not.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

Amendment 2

• Biophys restricted
• I ask do not enact this additional preemptive restriction for the second year.

Statement by Biophys

During this year I did not make a single revert that could be interpreted as edit warring. If I start edit warring again, someone will bring me to AE next day. This is obvious. I am asking about this amendment because I want to put the problems behind, return to normal editorial process and be again an editor in good standing. I do not care about DYKs, barnstars and other signs of recognition. But it is extremely important for me to have the same rights as every newbie. It hurts to be declared a permanent policy violator. I can not be very active in this project if I am no longer welcome. That's why I was not really active during last six months since the rejection of my previous request for amendment. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

response to Nanobear

I would like to remind that subject of this discussion is only review of my behavior during last year. Whatever had happened before (some diffs are dated 2007) belongs to drop the stick. But none of my recent comments violate any policy. The diffs to examine my alleged "mindset" are taken out of context and therefore do not support your assertions, but my "mindset" is not really relevant, as long as I follow all rules, and no one officially complained about my comments during this year, including AE administrators.

My behavior is impossible to predict? Oh no, I am very much predictable when it comes to sanctions or even recommendations by Arbcom. In fact, I followed exactly three previous recommendations (even if they did not mention my name or were not included in final decision): not talking about certain subjects, not communicating with Commodore Sloat and unsubscribing immediately from EEML, and I respected this sanction by editing in allowed ares and not being involved in any edit warring. If "Biophys - once again - returns to his old disruptive ways", he will be topic-banned at AE next day, and it will be no one to blame except Biophys himself. That was my first official sanction by Arbcom, and I am not going to be sanctioned again. Believe me. Yes, I certainly admit making a lot of mistakes in the past. But can we just WP:FORGIVE and drop the stick please, just as I am trying to do?

response to DonaldDuck

Yes, I probably should not be editing these articles, but two first diffs are minor Geography/Ethnography edits, 3rd diff is about a British historian (this diff includes nothing about Russia), and 4th diff is about work by a former Russian scientist in US (the edit includes nothing about Russia).

response to Paul Siebert.

Thank you for your last words. There is no such thing as EE Mailing List for almost two years, or at least I know nothing about it. I do not have off-wiki communications with any former members of the list. I have no interest in struggling or creating alliances with people previously involved in EE disputes. Yes, I would be involved in this subject area. Yes, I agree with you that constant references to the EEML are hardly polite and civil. But then why constantly make these references?

Statement by Nanobear

Before his topic ban, Biophys was one of the most biased and disruptive editors I have ever seen. Has he reformed? Difficult to know, although there are worrying indications that Biophys is planning to revert to his old ways after the ban is lifted.

What information do we have to judge this appeal?

Previous promises. We know that Biophys has made several promises before[34][35], but has always broken his promise and resumed his disruptive activities after the threat of sanctions has dissipated.[36][37] During the WP:EEML case, the wise ArbCom gave Biophys the benefit of doubt (although Biophys was a core member of the EEML and heavily participated in the group's campaigns.[38]) Soon after this decision, Biophys once again returned to massive disruption, quickly performing over 65 reverts in the first months of 2010.[39]

Point-of-view. There are clear indications that Biophys still has his old strong POV. [40] (yes, this is Biophys' "dissident" - a notorious banned edit warrior and sockpuppeteer.) We also know that Biophys' still advocates for the community banned HanzoHattori [41] (HanzoHattori is "best WP editor" according to Biophys[42]) after proxying for him in early 2010. [43][44]

Contributions outside his POV area. We know that Biophys is able to edit positively and constructively in non-Russian topic areas, where doesn't have a strong POV - as he has admirably done during his topic ban.

Should this appeal be granted or declined? I have no recommendation. My only wish is that ArbCom take full responsibility for their decisions and stop looking for scapegoats when things go wrong. In the Russavia-Biophys case, three editors were banned by ArbCom because they reverted Biophys' disruptive edits. One of them, User:Ellol, has now even left the project, partly because of the topic ban prevented him from participating in the only topic area that interested him, and partly due to Biophys' constant harassment of him.[45] The possibility of Biophys taking yet more editors down with him if released from jail is worrying indeed.

If this appeal is granted, and Biophys - once again - returns to his old disruptive ways, it is the ArbCom we have to blame. And if he doesn't - then we have the ArbCom to thank. Nanobear (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Three further points:

• 1. It's interesting that Biophys is appealing that the 1RR restriction which was supposed to come after the topic ban, is not enacted (please note the slightly misleading wording in his appeal). No one needs to edit war, so why is he asking for the ability? It is not far-fetched to assume this means Biophys plans to return to edit warring once again as he has done previously.
• 2. It's irresponsible of the ArbCom to release Biophys from his topic ban and then rely on other people to report him if the resumes his disruption. History has shown that everyone who reports an EEML member to a noticeboard is immediately attacked in the harshest possible way - regardless of the whether the report has merit or not. Piotrus' comment on this page is a good example: it displays all the hallmarks of these personal attacks. I'd like to encourage the ArbCom to study it thoroughly and also look at previous admin board and AE reports to see what kind of problem we're dealing with here.
• 3. Biophys claims that he stopped tag-teaming but in reality this is not the case. Look at his courting of User:Mbz1: Mbz1 has had no connection to the EE topic area to the users in it. Courting him was started in 2010 by Vecrumba [46] (related to this [47]) and was continued by Biophys.[48][49][50] Biophys' teaming with Mbz1 has got to the point that third-party editors are complaining about it. [51]. After the previous amendment request Biophys tag-teamed at three arbitration enforcement requests: [52][53][54][55][56]. Nanobear (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

[57] -> Pot calling the kettle black. Seriously, such continued bad faith/harassment (negative comments on one's "opponents") instead of trying to mend fences is what makes such wiki conflicts persist. If editors leave the project, it is because they are constantly thrown mud at (I've written more on that here).

This seems quite simple to me. As Biophys sais himself, if he errs again, he will be punished, and likely, with a harsher sanction. That sounds reasonable, and I would not be commenting on that, other than that while everybody deserves a chance, they also deserve not to be constantly bathed in mud and feathers. Credit where due, WP:AE application of WP:BOOMERANG I've seen in the past year or so was refreshing. It would be nice if good faith and civility were to be more actively enforced on other arbitration pages, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I regret that Nanobear in particular has seen this as an opportunity to relitigate and escalate past conflict and accusations of conspiracies and hope that is seen for the unconstructive and disruptive behavior it is and is dealt with appropriately.

Hodja Nasreddin has been scrupulous in their Wiki-related behavior from all I have seen over the past year. Additionally, he has not contacted me in any way off-Wiki or on-Wiki to solicit any sort of behavior on my part other than their occasional friendly on-Wiki advice I should get a life (that is, step away). Any uninvolved review of Hodja Nasreddin's activities will confirm that. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie, Nanobear has not been active at all editing in the area of contention. His comments here should not be taken as polarization in any topic area (which ergo requires protection from Hodja Nasreddin). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 07:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, I thank you for your willingness to AGF at the outset of your statement. I regret that you saw fit to add speculation clouding the issue at hand. I do not lobby to restrict your editing on a content base inclusive of edits by other editors with whom I believe you share a similar editorial POV. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement mbz1

I am saddened by user:Nanobear comments. All differences presented in that user comments are more than a year old, all of them are referring to the edits made by Biophys before they were sanctioned.

I believe responding a complex question, if Biophys's topic ban should be lifted, is as easy as responding a few simple questions:

1. Does Biophys have the right to appeal their ban now? The answer to this question is: "Yes"
2. Has Biophys admitted that the sanctions were fair? Yes, they have. The editor writes in this very request "I would like to apologize for contributing to disruption.
3. Has Biophys demonstrated their ability to contribute constructively to the other areas of the project during their topic ban? The answer to this question, is :"Yes".
4. Has Biophys violated his topic ban ever since they were banned? According to the editor block log, the answer to this question is: "No".
5. Is Biophys promising to behave in a feature? Yes, they do "I promise to follow all the rules in the future, work collaboratively, and do not jeopardize work of other editors who contribute positively in the area."

According to all of above I believe Biophys's topic ban should be lifted. If the members of ArbCom have some doubts (and I see no reasons for such doubts) the editing restrictions could be lifted gradually. For example an editor is allowed to make contributions to the articles discussion pages for 2-3 weeks, then the topic ban is lifted completely, then in a month 1RR is lifted.

Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

response to Nanobear

I was so astonished by your unbelievable assumption of bad faith that at first I even did not know, if I should cry or laugh over it. In the end I decided to laugh. You allege: "Courting him was started in 2010 by Vecrumba secretly [58] (related to this [59])" "Secretly" you say? I guess it was sooo "secretly" that I have never been able to figure out (up to now that is) what that message left on my Wikimedia Commons talk page was about, and who wrote it. So, thanks, for helping me out :-)Now I know that it was Biophys who under an undercover name of "Vecrumba" tried to court me :-)

To members of ArbCom.

I of course know Biophys, but it is not why I am here. I am here because I am a strong believer in giving a second chance to editors. Biophys has been topic banned long enough. At this point declining an appeal only because the editor caused disruptions more than a year ago seems rather as a punishment that topic bans are not.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by DonaldDuck

Over the past year, there were some minor topic ban violations by Hodja Nasreddin: 1, 2, 3 4.

Hodja Nasreddin edited constructively in the other areas of the project. But will he behave, if he returns to his old topic area? I have some doubts. I believe, his revert restriction should not be lifted immediately after lifting of his topic ban. It should run for 1 year consecutively with the topic ban, as in original Arbitration Committee decision. --DonaldDuck (talk) 04:20, 25 May 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 Paul Siebert

I have had some experience of interaction with many EEML (currently ex-EEML) members, and I have no ground to believe that Hodja/Biophys hasn't learnt due lessons from this case. I do not see any reason for not lifting the sanctions; moreover, I even do not see the need in 1RR/week restriction for Biophys. However, I think that one restriction should probably be considered instead, namely, the prohibition to pretend to be an independent editor when Hodja is acting in concert with other ex-EEML members. Concretely, during last year I found that some ex-EEML members are still acting in concert in some WP articles. Although their actions are quite civil, and they do not go beyond the limits set by the WP policy, we must remember that all of them have strong personal ties, and are probably watchlisting the edits made by other members. In other words, despite the absence of off-Wiki coordination, the team still exist, and the members are still able to help each others even without resorting to on or off-Wiki canvassing. In connection to that, I, as well as some other editors, encountered a problem: when two or more ex-EEML members are participating in, e.g. RfC, I cannot openly declare that the opinions they express are not quite independent, because constant references to the EEML are hardly polite and civil (moreover, since some of them have changed their usernames, to refer to their EEML past can be considered as outing). However, to ignore the fact that their voices are not totally independent is also incorrect, because the failure to take into account this fact may affect the results of the consensus decision. In my opinion, this issue can be resolved if Hodja will be prohibited to participate in RfC where other ex-EEML members already expressed their opinion, unless he is coming up with some principally new viewpoint (in other words, the posts like "Support X" are not allowed, but the posts where a new viewpoint, which contains no repetition of the ideas expressed by other EEML member, or which is based on some new reliable source presented by Biophys, are allowed). Similarly, Biophys should be prohibited to continue a series of reverts initiated by other ex-EEML members if the total length of the chain of these reverts exceeds three. In my opinion, imposing these restrictions would allow us to lift all other sanctions imposed on Biophys previously, and that would allow him to work freely and productively in all areas of his interest.
In addition, in my opinion, the idea that an editor cannot continue a series of reverts started by others when the length of the series exceeds 3 reverts is universal, and I even suggested to add that to policy here. Interestingly, this idea has been supported by one ex-EEML member (Piotrus| talk ), which is a convincing demonstration of Piotrus' good faith, but it has been opposed by two other ex-members of this currently non-existing list. One of those two users was Hodja, and that fact may serve as an indirect evidence that he hasn't completely ruled out a possibility of his participation in future chains of reverts started by his ex-colleagues. By applying the above described restrictions, we would protect him from a temptation to do that (and from being sanctioned for that), and simultaneously will allow to edit relatively freely.
In summary, I support lifting of all sanctions imposed on Hodja previously, however, during his future WP activity he should remember that he cannot be considered as an uninvolved editor when he is acting in concert with other ex-EEML members.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Responses to arbitrators

@SirFozzie. If you mean me, then no, I do not have ill-will. I only want to be again an editor in good standing and peacefully contribute in this area. I worked hard towards this goal, and I hope to deserve it. If you mean others, let everyone be responsible for his own actions. In fact, my help is needed in this area. There were several Russian-speaking editors who came for help to my talk page, even during my topic ban [60]. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens. Yes, I know the dangers and who is doing what in this area. Hence I must be very careful. I do not enjoy conflicts and therefore may not be very active in this area, especially if you enact 1RR restriction (almost any two non-consecutive edits in the same article during a week may be interpreted as edit warring and collected to bring them to AE). Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

@John Vandenberg. The most complicated dispute was certainly that one. It was related to this template created by me and significantly improved by Boghog and a couple of other templates. The dispute involved several parties and even outside organizations, although I would rather not discuss details. The matter was beautifully resolved when one of outside labs has improved their software to better fit the needs of wikipedia and other their users [61] (whole discussion). The dispute was about linking wikipedia templates to different external biological databases (PDB and PDBsum). As an outcome of the discussion and the hard work by outside developers, both databases made changes to allow easily runnable queries from wikipedia templates. Now the template links to all three major resources in this area: PDB, PDBe and PDBsum, and there is a much better view of results in the source databases, especially PDBsum. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are looking for. For example here someone reverted my edits. We talked and came to an agreement after discussion. There are other cases like that. The entire point of my strategy (see above) is to avoid creating difficult situations and do not contribute to development of difficult situations. This requires leaving the disputes as soon as discussion becomes unproductive and other parties start edit wars. It goes like that. I made a compromise edit [62] and corrected wrong quotation [63]. Someone is working towards a compromise version [64]? That's fine. I work together with you [65]. And I explain my edits at article talk page [66]. But someone did not listen and reverted to a month old version with misleading edit summary [67] (there was an extensive discussion and no serious objections to my edits)? Good bye. I am not going edit this article. I have had enough. P.S. Obviously, "the most difficult editing situation" is the one where you can do nothing. Yes, that's the one. But it is important to know your limits. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@PhilKnight. I think the 1RR restriction is completely unnecessary based on my behavior during this year (not a single episode of edit warring). Besides, two-year sanctions are questionable. One year is a lot of time. If someone does not get a message during one year, he must be indefinitely banned. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad. Yes, I certainly would like to contribute in the area of my current topic ban, as should be clear from my statements above. Thank you and all others for willingness to lift the topic ban and possibly reconsider 1RR restriction at an earlier point. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Xeno. If this matter has been resolved, could we please decide something, for example, along the lines you suggested? Biophys (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• As stated above, I assume Bio realizes that stepping out of line will probably be met with a quick hammer and harsher sanctions. I'm open to lifting the ban provided that everyone knows going in what will result if further disruption occurs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm of two minds. A) Yes, I agree with David F above me. However, I have concerns that this area is so polarized by past issues that my general thought is that any return to the area is fraught with drama and ill-will, and am wondering if it would be better to leave it in place. SirFozzie (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• SirFozzie makes a good point, but fundamentally we must presume that editors are adults who are capable of exercising appropriate self-control. If Biophys wants the fence taken down so he can ride his pogo stick into the minefield... he appears to have adequately met the parameters needed to do that. Wise or not, I don't see any reason we should either stand in his way, nor give him another chance if he blows this attempt to return to the topic area. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Hodja Nasreddin, could you provide a brief outline of the most difficult editing situation that you found yourself in during the last 12 months. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That dispute was resolved by external changes. Could you describe a content dispute you were involved in where compromise was needed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks; that is what I was looking for. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm ok with lifting the topic ban, however I'd prefer to enact the 1RR/week restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Point of order, but it's already enacted. –xeno^talk 14:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• My inclination at this time is to lift the topic-ban, with a proviso that if problems recur, it can be reimposed at Arbitration enforcement. As for the 1RR restriction, see my comments on the proposed decision at the time it was voted on; my current inclination is to leave the restriction in place at this time, but allow another amendment request to revisit this issue after three months of reasonably collegial editing in the Eastern European topic area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Question to Hodja Nasreddin: I am considering making a motion, but I also see the wikibreak template on your userpage. I assume you would like to keep doing some editing and want us to go ahead with this request, but please confirm that. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm always favorable, in principle, for a good faith return after a sanction. I will support a motion to lift it provided it is clear that the community (and, I expect, the committee) would have little patience for a return to problematic behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• As with the others above, I am willing to support the expiration of the topic ban, but think that the 1RR restriction should remain in place for the time being. I would be willing to revisit the 1RR restriction in six months and would be prepared to lift it at that time provided there is sufficient evidence of problem-free editing in the topic area. –xeno^talk 14:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As an FYI, the SPI request linked by Nanobear has been closed with no action [68]. Nanobear, please do not frame unproven suspicions as accomplished fact. –xeno^talk 14:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion

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

Support:

1. With a reminder that this activates remedy 4 of that same case ("1 revert per week per article in the topic area"), which remains in force. We can then revisit that restriction in a few months. — Coren ^(talk) 16:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 16:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
4. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Per Coren. I hope that I won't regret this vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Shell ^babelfish 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Per Coren and Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Mailer Diablo 13:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

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.