I was topic banned from editing political articles becuase I had created new political articles that, while very well sourced, were deleted based on consensus. The deletion discussions for these articles was wasting the time of other wikipedia editors, who otherwise would have been spending their time on better, more productive ways to improve wikipedia. I now realize that just because a subject is well covered in the media, such as Michelle Obama's arms, or Barack Obama swatting a fly, does not, in and of itself, justify the creation of an article on that subject. When I created those articles, I thought I was following Wikipedia:Be bold. However, I now realize that I was being too bold. As an example of how I have learned my lesson since then, after Michael Jackson died, I thought about creating Death of Michael Jackson, but then I decided not to, because I realized that just because the subject was heavily covered in the media, it did not necessarily justify it having its own article. Eventually, somoene else created the article, which is why it is blue instead of red. I have learned my lesson, and I am being much more restrained when it comes to creating new articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You filed this as an amendment. There is nothing for arbcom to amend as arbcom had no role in this. Have you use the prior steps in WP:DR? Based on current evidence, this repeal of the topic ban should be handled by the community, such as at WP:AN, rather than arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Rlevse here. Go to the community first, and only then come back to us if you feel you need relief from this topic ban. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with above, arbcom has no role here. Wizardman 15:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you, all of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2009, I appealed to the ArbCom to lift all the remaining sanctions applied to me as a result of the EK3 case in November 2005. The ArbCom declined to do so, although it agreed to some easing of the severity of the restrictions. More than six months have passed since then, and nothing has occurred with regard to the case; I have not been blocked or warned in any way. The sanctions serve no purpose and exist in relation to a dispute that has been dead for several years, and I once again request that the ArbCom release me from them. Everyking (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Brad says he wants to maintain my sanctions for reasons he won't state publicly. If he thinks I should be under a perpetual restriction, I'd like to know why. There is nothing pertaining to any of this that I wouldn't want to be discussed openly on-wiki, and I feel like the ArbCom's decision-making on this issue is being based on things that I'm not even aware of, which is unfair. Everyking (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to Roger: you guys voted to lift all the non-Phil restrictions in January, including the appeal limitation. Everyking (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Coren: if this is "an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past", why do you want to keep me under this restriction? It seems inexplicable to say that the restriction serves no purpose while also maintaining that it should remain in place. Everyking (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• I am not quickly locating an archive of our most recent discussion in which most of the restrictions on Everyking were lifted; could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a link to that discussion, and could a Clerk please make sure it is archived properly. My recollection, though, is that the only restriction that remains in effect is that against Everyking's interacting with Phil Sandifer. Is that correct? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul August has been kind enough to point me to the motion we adopted earlier this year. (It probably should still be archived more prominently.) This confirms that the restriction against Everyking's interacting with Phil Sandifer ("Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner"), a ruling that is to be construed reasonably, is the only remaining restriction on Everyking that is still in effect, even though the request above repeatedly uses the plural. I am not inclined to lift this sole remaining restriction, for reasons that I do not believe it would be in anyone's interest (including Everyking's) to go into again on-wiki. No inference of any current misconduct by Everyking should be read into that position. If this matter is to be pursued further, Phil Sandifer must be advised of this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse on this request to ease Everyking's concerns that past arbitrators unfairly influenced past decisions about him. Hopefully, the recusal will make it easier for him to accept the decision one way or the other. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no reason to amend this. If Everyking has no intention of interacting with Phil Sandifer, then the restriction has a net effect of absolutely zero. If the objective is to gain permission to resume interacting with Phil, then that permission will not be forthcoming (nor is it likely that it ever will).

  If Everyking is simply hoping for a declaration that he is "an editor in good standing", then I am glad to reiterate it; that remaining restriction in now way reduces any standing he may have in the community. In fact, it would be an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past were it not for the fact that Everyking himself persistently raises it at regular intervals. — Coren ^(talk) 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I meant that this would be an old and forgotten issue if it wasn't being raised at regular intervals. — Coren ^(talk) 14:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with my colleagues. I also note that Everyking may appeal the restriction annually and July 2009 is well short of the next review date, January 2010.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No Why so soon after the last one? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, I am lost, what other sanctions are you referring to (i.e. non-phil one(s))? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll repeat what I said last time:

  "...suggest some thought is given to when and how any future appeals on this remaining sanction should be heard (i.e. to prevent excessive and repeat filings of appeals over the coming year). One other thought has just occurred to me. Despite this remedy remaining in place, would a motion saying that Everyking is a Wikipedian in "good standing" be possible or make any sense? The protection that Phil desires would still be in place, while Everyking would get his wish to be considered "in good standing"." - Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  We didn't in the end explicitly restrict Everyking to appealing once a year, but we should have done. There are certain editors who appeal their restrictions again and again and again. In the end, they do their own cause far more damage by that, than any of the original actions could have done. Suggest a motion be proposed to set the date of the next appeal at January 2010, and once per year after that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty much reiterating what others have said, the only reason anyone might be holding you to this issue is because you keep bringing it up over and over. I'm also not convinced that if this restriction were appealed, it would be the end of it. Is this appeal really just to remove this restriction and this being the end? Wizardman 21:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

This page has been deleted for a year, despte Arbcom promisin to deal with it, and undelete it.

You have been promising to deal with the minor issues raised of someone having changed his name from a non-identifying nickname to another non-identifying nickname, and a page that dealt with him being sanctioned or something under the first nickname having been linked.

Since the arbcom recently saw fit to out me to my real name in their amendment to the Matthew Hoffman case, one would think that this minor issue could be dealt with soon, particularly as a different user, Dana Ullman, who was blocked for a year, has recently returned, and the documentation of all the massive problems he caused last time is going to be important in stopping him quickly should he do so again. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that's a lie. One person linked to my real name - which everyone knows now, since Arbcom revealed it, so there's no point responding. I linked to - I don't know what it was - but a RfC or sockpiuppet report or something under what the person had said was just a nick he was changing because he preferred the other one, and had no reason to think that the old nick was either identifying or meaningful. Please get your facts straight before making accusations. Furthermore, they do not go back to the start, because most of them were oversighted, and, secondly, the user in question only suddenly claimed that linking to problems he had been involved with before was outing after he had gotten blocked for it, which rather makes one think he was just trying to get people in trouble. Furthermnore, the previous request for clarification said it would be undeleted eventually. If that's not the case anymore, ten the situation isn't the same at all, and the arbcom has repeatedly lied when they assured everyone it would be dealt with. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bainer, please stop making an accusation of bad faith on my part which you cannot back, and which I cannot even defend myself from because the page in question, showing the harmlessness of the link that accidentally outed the user in question, is deleted by the Arbcom. This is a partticularly egregious accusation, because you are well aware that the truth of the matter can only be seen by oversighters. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYB: Several of the users in question are back, including DanaUllman. Should problems arise, I would much rather be able to point to the evidence I spent hundreds of hours preparing to show his abuse of sources and so on, rather than have to collect all the evidence over again, particularly as the ban was passed without any mention of the evidence that caused it to be passed. Unless Arbcom thinks "DanaUllman has engaged in advocacy of homeopathy on Wikipedia." - the only finding of fact about him - is sufficient without the dozens of pages of evidence that led to that decision. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all the arbitrators: I have asked several times that Mr. Bain withdraw his false accusation. As much of the evidence is oversighted, I would appreciate it being made very clear that this was not (or, at least, since you're not me, that there's no evidence that this was) "Tit-for-tat" or intentional outing on my part, while the other side was edit warring to reveal my name shortly after the Matthew Hoffman case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, after being e-mailed the text, I dealt with the issue in two minutes, following the suggestion of Newyorkbrad, which was also that of FloNight and a few others, as I recall, in the past. Delete it if you want, but you've been talking about doing that for 11 months now, and it's ridiculous that you spent that long complaining about how difficult it was, when it took all of two minutes to do. Now, if you'll deal with Stephen Bain's accusation we can all go home. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the deleted page and I think I found the "outing" done by SH to which Stephen Bain refers. If this deleted revision relates to the general basis of Bain's claims, I think the reasons presented for keeping the page deleted are proverbially overstated. The user in question changed his or her name with a public request at Wikipedia:Changing username, the previous name is readily apparent in the current ID's usertalk archives, and the third most recent edit in the current userpage history tab is labeled "moved User:X to User:Y: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "X" to "Y"). I can't find a WP:RTV request by the user in question, so are we to assume the "arbcom/otrs email" cited in the deleted revision was a de facto RTV? If so, it was so poorly done as to make the prior ID of this user astonishingly easy to determine and there are a number of pages that should be deleted. If not, why is a set of public information being used to keep the evidence page deleted? Am I missing something more? — Scientizzle 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the GFDL issues are prohibitive here. The main concern on SH's part - the reason for this request - is that some parties sanctioned in the case are once again active. Should these parties repeat some of their earlier problematic behavior, it might be useful to have a record of evidence which was compiled for the previous case.

I would suggest that I, or another admin, simply email a copy of the deleted page to SH. The page doesn't need to be restored on-wiki, and an emailed, offline copy would be sufficient in terms of preserving relevant diffs and evidence should further action become necessary. I don't see that emailing the page to SH violates anyone's privacy, since he is already well aware of the account in question's identity, and as Scientizzle points out, the rename was carried out in such a way that it's not exactly hard to put 2 + 2 together if anyone cares.

I will say upfront that I'm not really familiar with the extent of privacy issues in this case. Given that, and the fact that Oversight is involved, I will not proceed with this suggestion or email anything to anyone unless I hear from the Committee that they think this approach is reasonable and respects the privacy of those concerned. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I should probably note, since SH has posted an emailed copy of the evidence page, that I have not emailed him. I did not consider the discussion by the Arbs below sufficient go-ahead. No opinion on whether or not it should be posted, but I thought I'd make clear that I did not email it. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I know that someone said that it was a lot of work, but could some nice arb or admin go to the deleted history of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence and delete the offending paragraphs revisions? It's not just Shoemaker's problem here, it's also that User:DanaUllman's ban has expired and people is commenting at an ANI thread bout his return without the possibility of pointing them to the evidence page so they can see what were the alleged problems.

Also, an oversighter please confirm that the other user (whoever he is) has oversighted edits outing Shoemaker, and please link to the deleted revisions so we people will not say that they don't exist.

Also, please solve this before Shoemaker hurts himself.

Also, consider telling bainer to not open the topic anymore.

• I've retitled this from Request to finally do what you've been promising to do for an entire year: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence (which is a little too long). AGK 21:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing has changed since the prior request for clarification. Two users - one of whom was yourself, Shoemaker's Holiday - were engaged in outing each other on the evidence page, going back to some of the earliest revisions. As MBisanz said in his comment during the last request, even putting GFDL issues aside, it's not feasible to reconstruct a coherent version of the page. There are only two findings of fact in the case, neither of which suffer egregiously from the evidence page being deleted (the statements, along with article talk pages, largely cover it), so there is no benefit to be gained substantial enough to justify expending many hours of volunteer time on such a task. --bainer (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally, arbitration pages are at most courtesy-blanked rather than deleted, but if there is a need for deletion of this page, I don't see how the deletion is causing any specific ongoing harm, so I would urge the requesting party to be more specific if he wishes to pursue this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MastCell's suggestion might be one possible solution here; another is that any administrators who might need to address issues for the returned editors can simply be pointed to the page and check the deleted revisions (I know that is not perfect, as non-admins couldn't access it, but it still seems reasonable to me so far). I will add, though, that if someone wanted to restore a redacted current version, I don't see any GFDL concern, because all the posts on an evidence page are labelled with the proposer's name anyway, so that's not an issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting here that of the current 14 arbitrators, 10 were not arbitrators in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday, when you file amendment requests to old cases, and comment on the promises or actions of past ArbComs, please bear that in mind. My view is that the evidence should be available, if some way can be found to remove what needs to be removed. Like Newyorkbrad, I don't see the GFDL concern as prohibitive. Constructing an author list is possible in this case, and this is in any case an internal page, not intended for publication. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy "Ryulong admonished"
2. Enforcement "Ryulong and users' identity seeking"

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [1] (Ryulong)

• "Ryulong admonished" (term A)
• From the current wording: "(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from seeking Mythdon's identity off-wiki, identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt to seek Mythdon's identity off wiki or in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;"
• Modifying to "(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;""

• "Ryulong and users' identity seeking"
• That this enforcement be terminated.

I am requesting an amendment to "Ryulong admonished" and the enforcement "Ryulong and users' identity seeking".

Taking a good look at the findings and evidence, there is no finding or evidence that Ryulong was seeking any users identity. Finding "Ryulong discussing the identity of Mythdon" makes no mention of identity seeking, but mentions identity discussion, if anything.

I think it is totally unjust to make a remedy on something that isn't found to had been going on—Trying to solve what is not happening. This is one of those cases. Was there a finding or any actual evidence that Ryulong sought any user personal information? No. Sam Blacketer voted against this enforcement for exactly that reason. Therefore, I request that we terminate this enforcement, and modify the admonishment to only direct Ryulong to refrain from doing what he was found to do. Note that this is not based on my personal preferences, but based on what is necessary for the cases judgment. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am pursuing this because there is no finding of fact or evidence that Ryulong was actually seeking my identity. Arbitration remedies are to ensure that problems don't recur, not to ensure a problem never starts. It is not whether I give him permission to seek my identity, but whether the arbitration remedies serve a purpose. These do not obviously serve any purpose other than, if anything, prevent problems that have never occurred. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Recused - Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused - Tiptoety ^talk 03:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Recused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• On reading this, I am open to this. As the underlying meaning isn't changed, but the wording is made more neutral (?) Can I ask why you are pursuing this Mythdon? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Casliber, I'm uncertain as to what the point of all this is. It should be Ryulong filing this kind of request for amendment, not Mythdon. It seems very strange for Mythdon to be filing this request. I am not minded to grant this request unless Ryulong asks for it himself. Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

• That my editing restrictions be replaced with a restriction to have no involvement in the mass delinking of dates nor changes to WP:MOS or WP:MOSNUM (and their associated talk pages) regarding the formatting and linking of dates for a period of four months.

What ArbCom did here with me isn’t right. Even though there were admins aplenty on WT:MOSNUM, some of whom were hip-deep in the date delinking debate, I was never once blocked for incivility towards another involved editor in the date-delinking debate, nor was I once blocked for edit-warring, sock puppetry, deleting others’ RfCs or posts, nominating others’ pages for MfDs, or any sort of *creative disruption* or malfeasance in connection with date delinking.

It is not right that ArbCom later goes in and uses a far more critical litmus test for determining who is good editor and who is a bad editor that “Wikipedia needs protection from” than was ever required of editors during the debate. The debate on WT:MOSNUM has developed a direct, “gloves-off” style where admins who frequented the associated venues didn’t see a need for a block. So it seems wrong for ArbCom to later employ a 50-power retrospectoscope, review months-old, cherry-picked “evidence” slung about by one’s adversaries, and come back not with an appropriate-length first block to wake up an editor and correct his or her behavior, but to instead issue months-long and even indefinite restrictions on a broad range of issues. Such ArbCom actions have a chilling effect, is harmful to the mood of the community, and lessens respect for Wikipedia’s institutions.

If administrators didn’t once step in to protect Wikipedia from me in connection with the date de-linking debate, then perhaps Jimbo, ArbCom, and the Bureaucrats need to huddle and think about how to modify the behavior of administrators so they start enforcing the standard of conduct ArbCom thinks is befitting Wikipedia (or better yet: what the community thinks is befitting). It is simply not right that there be two standards: one that passes for months or years with administrators who are right there watching it all and see no reason to block an editor, and yet another that ArbCom thinks ought to be the gold standard of civility—but only after a metric ton of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Greg L (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Having slept on the above post, I realize I should add some important points that speak to ArbCom’s thankless job and what I need to do from hereon.

  I certainly have the capacity to learn; I seldom make the same mistake twice. During the course of the date de-linking debate, I had been taken to WQA with charges of incivility. The consensus of that WQA was that the allegations were being blown out of all proportion and it was all just a “content dispute.” So nothing came of it. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia. Between this experience and the fact that no administrator ever felt the need to once block me for incivility regarding date linking (and there was a fair-minded administrator who shepherded WT:MOSNUM), I perceived that there was nothing wrong with my conduct on that issue.

  I can certainly see that ArbCom has an utterly thankless job of trying to keep Wikipedia, which is a purely collaborative writing environment, from decaying into a morass of uncivil bickering. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Osama bin Laden himself was POV‑pushing on 9/11 attacks and you gave him an indefinite ban from the article, you would be severely criticized from some quarters.

  I had gotten swept up in the wikidrama of the debate for a few months and allowed myself to assume the worst of intentions from the opponents. I promise to not allow that to happen again. Greg L (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• P.P.S. I have nothing further to say on this subject, Newyorkbrad. I want to go back to the unencumbered editing of science-related articles and contributing to science-related discussions on WT:MOSNUM. I have no stomach whatsoever for the backdoor quid pro quo politicking and back-scratching that can be at times helpful for editors in situations like this. Wikipedia is as much a social experience for deeply entrenched editors as it is an encyclopedia to which one can contribute. I am interested in the latter part, and hope to never get so entrenched that I can pretend to fully fathom the former. You simply have my pledge that I will be at all times civil. I am done with my editing my appeal here. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Greg will acknowledge that administrators would be wrong to block an editor with whom they are involved in conflict, so failure of those admins to block him needs to be taken in context. Nevertheless, at some point ArbCom will need to revisit the indefinite topic bans. Greg has now made a pledge not to allow himself to be caught up in drama in future, so it is pertinent to ask what sort of evidence of good behaviour, over what timeframe, might ArbCom require to rescind the indefinite topic ban? With that in mind - and considering all of the other parties who received indefinite sanctions - would the arbitrators be minded to at least reduce the breadth of some of the sanctions to areas directly related to date-delinking? If affected editors are unable to participate in a relatively normal way, it may be difficult for them to demonstrate the desired modifications to behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like most editors, Greg deserves a second chance. He has valuable knowledge on scientific topics, on which discussions frequently arise on MOS talk pages. I will remind ArbCom that unlike other parties of the case, Greg did not engage in mainspace edit warring over date links, so the restriction on mainspace editing is a little strange. On a more practical level, I think there are two choices WRT amendments: 1) For all editors restricted from certain discussions, the scope of the restrictions is reduced to date linking/autoformatting, broadly interepreted; or 2) Greg's (also applying to other editors who are similarly restricted) topic ban is given a cut-off point, and from then on, he is put on a 0/1RR for the guidelines themselves and put on some sort of parole (not necessarily related to civility) for discussion pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per RexxS and Dabomb87. Tony (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Awaiting further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, to clarify for Greg L., I meant that I was awaiting further statements from other editors over the next couple of days after which I will review your appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In case I don't visit the amendments page for a few days, and motions are posted, please could my colleagues or a clerk mark me as recused in any motions either here or at clarifications, relating to the date delinking case. Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

• That my editing restriction be replaced by an admonishment

• Basically the editing restriction on me was punitive, unnecessary, and far too harsh given the extremely minor degree of "edit-warring" demonstrated. I take particular offense at being subject to the same restriction as Tennis expert (talk · contribs) (see here), when the nature of our respective involvements and our editing histories and block logs are so very different. Newyorkbrad was the only arbitrator to oppose the sanctions, though three others abstained. It is not clear to me that those arbitrators who voted against me before I had the chance to defend myself, actually read the evidence I subsequently presented. Verdict before evidence seems an egregious breach of natural justice.

• Many editors and admins who I respect have come out, both on and off wiki, and stated that they find my restriction to be over-harsh, which is why I am minded to make this request. I received an email today from yet another editor who I have had no previous dealings with asking if I planned to appeal. Without wishing to be over-dramatic, let me be clear that I have no interest in contributing to improving articles, when doing so would expose me to the very real risk of a block. I'm proud of never having been blocked and wish to be able to edit without this unwarranted and unnecessary threat hanging over me.

• If this appeal is unsuccessful it is unlikely that I would continue to throw shit around the place; it is more likely I would just leave, and take away a very poor impression of our community's dispute resolution process. Even if I do leave, I still believe that my service to the project entitles me to a fair hearing, and a proper explanation of just why these restrictions are deemed necessary. To minimally restore my faith in this current Arbcom, if this appeal is unsuccessful I request to see proper rationales from those opposing it. Obviously I would prefer to return without any restriction as there are several articles I would dearly love to improve. I hope I am not asking too much. Thanks for your consideration.
• (See User:John/ArbcomAppeal for a longer treatment.) --John (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for this request. I have worked with John a long time and have nothing but the deepest respect for him. The finding and sanction were misguided and far out of proportion to any actual harm caused the project by John's wikiGnoming. He showed at the time of the case that the allegations were unwarranted, and I sincerely believe he intended no harm whatever. Unlike some of the editors sanctioned in this case, John is the sort of editor we want more of, not less of. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Septentrionalis/PMAnderson/(??) - You say "That editors should not willfully distort other usernames"... I'm not sure I understand the relevance of that request by you to the request here before us to vacate the unjust sanction on John. However, I must ask, what exactly do you mean by that request? What is your username or desired appelation? I confess I have no clear idea of the latter. You sign as "Septentrionalis PMAnderson" ... is your desired appelation "Pmanderson"? "Septentrionalis"? Something else? How is one to know? I think you should consider having your username be what you want people to call you, and then sign using that username, or else not take any umbrage if people don't call you exactly as you like. My username is "Lar" (long A, short for Larry) but people call me "Lars" a fair bit. Rather than getting upset I just point out my desired username is singular, not plural, and they should be glad there's but one of me about, and everyone has a smile and that's that. No worries. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYB had asked for time to allow others to comment (until Monday, was my read)... It's now (early) Thursday. Has everyone commented that NYB expected? Is there more to be done before arbs can vote on the motion presented? I'd like to see this not peter out without a resolution, or drag on for weeks or months while we wait for someone to make some contribution or another... I've had that happen and it's no fun at all. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Either Pmanderson or Septentrionalis will do; wiki-friends have nicknames. But "Mandy" or "Manderson" are intentional pinpricks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying that, helps indeed! (I leave it to a clerk to decide if that response needs to be moved to Pmanderson's section, it is less disjointed here but... the forms must be obeyed :) ) ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this application for vacation of the remedy imposed on this user. John made a few reasonable edits which fell into a broad category that was much later determined to be controversial. The edits did not violate any policy and none of them were recent, and as Lar says above, appear relatively harmless. Additionally, an investigation of John's broader contributions reveals a high-calibre, dedicated editor with solid content contributions - we are not talking about a disruptive editor or one who needs to be contained or curtailed here. The edits he made are similar to several hundred I made at around the same time using a script (also in good faith, and not one of them challenged or reverted) following the MOS change, and yet myself and others who edited in the same area and even commented and voted on the issue were never mentioned in the case - I am unsure why John was even identified. John has also identified issues of due process/natural justice with regards to his late addition to the case and that voting commenced before he could present a defence.

The "preventative, not punitive" mantra of actions on Wiki should firmly apply here - this sanction prevents no disruption at all, restricts John from editing in the forums where he is of best use to the project and has been very useful over a long period of time, and has simply had a chilling effect for good-faith contributors in what it communicates: if they do anything at all, ArbCom could come back 6 months or a year later, rewrite the rules (which is perfectly OK in and of itself - they needed to be rewritten) and unfairly restrict the user for no better reason than that somebody names them on an evidence page and provides a few diffs out-of-context. Of all the sanctions imposed in the case, this one (identical to that given to editors in the same case who had aggressively edit-warred for months, attacked fellow contributors and wantonly obstructed community processes) genuinely shocked a rather large number of admins and editors.

I urge ArbCom to reconsider this penalty. Orderinchaos 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rlevse - While I don't wish to undermine any measure to relieve the sanctions on John, is there any serious suggestion that he has edit-warred, or deserves admonishment as against any number of people (eg Lumos3, and *many* others) who failed to be mentioned at all in the case? Orderinchaos 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: I also believe that both the HJensen and Kotniski cases raised earlier, both of which were somewhat left hanging and now have both been archived without conclusion, should be considered in a similar vein - although their cases were slightly different as unlike John they were actual disputants rather than Wikignomes caught in the crossfire, they were not significant disputants and any alleged behaviour stopped well before it became problematic, and sanctions on these two users serve no clear preventative purpose and impede them in assisting the project productively. Orderinchaos 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was shocked to see John added to this case, so I spent many hours reading through this case and the related diffs, evidence etc and I find the findings and remedies against him alarming and I urge, as strongly as I possibly can, the committee to reconsider their decision in respect to this user. I have known John and worked with him since before either of us became administrators and he is a user for whom I have an immense amount of personal and editorial respect. I believe John made all edits in good faith and with the best of intentions and not as a participant in any kind of ideological dispute or edit war and I find the evidence of "edit warring" unconvincing at best and insufficient to even justify his inclusion in this case over many other people who have made similar edits in the past. Let's be honest, those edits would not be sufficient to justify a charge of "edit warring" against an editor on the noticeboards or anywhere else on the project. While I'm sure this decision was written carefully and with the best of intentions, the reality is it is punitive, unnecessary and profoundly unfair and overly harsh, and this is the case above all others that has turned me into a fierce critic of this committee. It also happens to be a case that could easily be brought against many of us, and I'd wager a lot more than just one administrator or arbitrator would be vulnerable to a retrospective cherry-picking of their edits months, years after the fact in an evolving culture. This is why this decision is so alarming and it leaves a chilling effect as editors have good reason to fear edits made in good faith may be censured retrospectively months, possibly even years later and bring them into disrepute in the eyes of the committee. As an established editor and administrator who has never previously been blocked, cautioned, reprimanded, or sanctioned, John deserves to be treated better and not to be branded as an "arbcom restricted user" because of some strangely overly broad casting of fishing nets. This isn't protective or preventative in any constructive sense; it's damaging the project as we lose an experienced, intelligent, educated and well-meaning editor and administrator. As others have said, John is the kind of editor we need more of around here, not the kind we want to drive away. I urge the committee to rescind all findings and remedies against John and allow him to return to us as an unrestricted user in good standing. Sarah 04:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I largely echo the comments above. Like most people, I was surprised when I saw John included in the list of "victims". Compared to the "evidence" collected for the original parties of the case, the evidence for John is sparse and very suspect. That he should receive the same degree of punishment (because that's what it is) as me is a travesty. According to our blocking policy, blocks should only be used when the editor's disruptive behavior is "persistent", or "lesser measures are inadequate". I see no evidence that John was persistently disruptive or that lesser measures, such as an admonishment, would have not sufficed. Compared to the original parties, John's participation in the date linking discussions was much less, and he was probably not aware that the issue was so controversial and had spawned so much ill will and disruptive editing. An admonishment would do much to remind him to make sure his edits follow consensus (and it could be argued that they did, although it was hotly disputed at the time). Instead, the Committee assumed that he had made like the others and was disruptive, slapping him with a 12-month restriction. Now, the Committee may not think that the restriction is much, but when WikiGnoming and copy-editing (I dabble in both), it is quite absurd to not be able to correct others' good faith edits (superior word choice, sentence structure, MOS issues that have clear consensus). The Committee has the power to do as they wish, and should know that the chance of retaining an excellent editor and administrator is at hand. I will remind them that while good users are not indispensable, they are certainly not inexhaustible. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A kindly reminder from a recused clerk that if an arb is even considering an amendment, it is best to post the motion as soon as they think of it. Many of the these threads go stale because the arbs keep saying they want to do something, but no one ever posts a motion, or by the time they post a motion all of the other arbs have read the thread and don't come back to vote. Just a suggestion to NYB that you get a motion on the ground as soon as you know what general thing you are contemplating as a change. MBisanz ^talk 15:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the restrictions are unduly unfair towards John. A handful of reverts and no history should not have landed John with the same restrictions as applied to someone such as Tennis Expert who made over 750 reverts and had a related block at the time. I believe that even admonishment is over-the-top in this case.  HWV258  01:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own transgressions should not disallow me from making yet another impassioned (yet reasoned) plea on behalf of John, who as seen from the statements already posted, is a dedicated editor with an unblemished record. There are elements in this case where justice has not been done, and/or has not been seen to be done. John's case is perhaps one of the most obvious travesties of justice (I would mention en passant that I believe the admonition of TheRamblingMan would also fall into that category). We all agree this has been a long and complicated case, and even Jayvdb admits the inquisitional work was incomplete (reference to the edit warring by Lumos3 which was not even mentioned in the judgement). Based on that, and on my own observations, other instances of reverts or deliberate re-linking of dates also escaped detection. I am not saying that Lumos and others should have been hauled in and sanctioned, but rather that Arbcom should have remained focussed, instead of trying to be exhaustive.

The restrictions placed on John are out of proportion to others whose disruptive behaviour was manifestly deliberate and of a scale several orders of magnitude beyond those of John. I feel that any accusations that he had not acted in good faith (and edit warred) were rather tenuous. His handful of alleged tag-team edit-warring, if applied to ordinary everyday situations, are completely within the realms of reasonable editing behaviour, and yet he is suffering because of some arbitrary decision to include him after he was found, completely by accident (per Jayvdb), to have delinked a few articles more than once. The remedy does nothing to prevent future disruption, yet gives further opportunity for wikilawyering by editors who may be in dispute with John, for whatever reason. It would place him at a great risk of blocking although there is nothing in his dealing with others which would suggest he has disruptive or tendentious editing traits. Most importantly, as John stated above, he was not given adequate time to defend himself - the late motion to impose remedies on him left him little time to prepare his defence before Arbs voted. The decision against John should be quashed, and John's name cleared. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris. HJensen's appeal deserves to be considered favourably too. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the heat of the case has dissipated, I believe sufficient time has elapsed to review the sanction placed on John. I would ask arbitrators to judge whether the sanction is commensurate with the offence. Please consider in particular the comments linked here. I stand by my view that, through his wikignoming, he was caught up in a dispute that he was never part of. His only offence was to revisit a very small number of articles and perform the same cleaning-up that had been blindly reverted. He has accepted that, and has apologised for it. I can understand the ArbCom's desire to modify behaviour, but in this case, I do not agree that the sanction against John is helpful: the stress of this case will have surely made its point already, and a continuing sanction does nothing but embitter a valued, productive editor and admin. I can also understand ArbCom's intention to reduce the tension over date-delinking, by placing preventive restrictions on the parties: my view is that John was not a party, but a victim of the collateral damage this conflict caused, and sanctions on him in no way further that intention. I urge arbitrators to now reconsider the value of this sanction, and to vacate the restriction placed upon John. --RexxS (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to PMAnderson

I believe you are mistaken. In each of those three articles, prior to OhC's edits there was a mixture of dmy and mdy. He did not change the entire format wholescale as the dmy dates there were untouched. I agree he has almost certainly chosen the wrong format to regularise to, and you are entitled to point that out. If, on the other hand, you are complaining about editors who are amending articles with a mixture of dmy and mdy to a single format, then please make that clear. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What ArbCom did here with John isn’t just. He was never once blocked with even a three-hour warning block for incivility towards other editors involved in date-linking debate. He wasn’t once blocked for edit-warring or sock puppetry or any malfeasance during the course of that debate.

It is not right that ArbCom later goes in and uses a far more critical litmus test for determining who is good editor and who is a bad editor that “Wikipedia needs protection from” than was ever required of editors during the debate. Such ArbCom actions have a chilling effect, is harmful to the mood of the community, and lessens respect for Wikipedia’s institutions. ArbCom’s actions are seen as tantamount to the “nanny squad” going to a construction site where a high-rise is being built and saying “oh my goodness, that construction worker over there said ‘damned’ on two occasions while trying to get a beam to fit into place.”

If administrators didn’t once step in to protect Wikipedia from bad-ol’ John, then perhaps Jimbo, ArbCom, and the Bureaucrats need to huddle and think about how to modify the behavior of administrators so they start enforcing the standard of conduct ArbCom thinks is befitting Wikipedia. It is simply not right that there be two standards: what passes for months or years with administrators, and what ArbCom thinks is right using their 50-power retrospectoscope when reviewing months-old, cherry-picked “evidence” slung about by one’s adversaries. This is no way for any organization to run. Greg L (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the many bad outcomes from the whole date delinking case, this was the worst. It simply looks as though ArbCom were determined to punish everyone however distantly involved in the dispute, without bothering to make any discrimination. ArbCom has a choice here - they can embitter and drive away valuable editors with years of conflict-free work behind them, or they can regain some respect by addressing this appeal sympathetically (and also HJensen's, whose appeal appears to be languishing in limbo). Colonies Chris (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal comment on this proposal. I do recall some discussion on this matter suggesting that John was more involved in this quarrel than he now admits, but I cannot find it.

• If WP:ARBDATE is going to be amended, I would suggest the narrow wording: the restricted editors are not to discuss the linking of dates or (perhaps, as another wording) the formatting of dates. As Ohconfucius' persistent question makes clear, the broader and vaguer language may not make this decision easier to enforce.

(Would some Arbitrator please comment on his question, asked here and, originally, here: were these restrictions ever intended to apply to the Naming Conventions?)

I would also appreciate consideration of the following limitations:

• That editors should not willfully distort other usernames, as in this edit (I say willful to exclude typoes, which this is not). Ohconfucius and GregL have picked up this minor obnoxiousness from Tony, who seems to have reformed.
• A restriction on changing format in dates between "July 17, 2009" and "17 July 2009". This is most of what some editors have been doing in article space; it was the only merit of date autoformatting that it squelched this sort of thing, which is as silly as the yogurt/yoghurt war. MOS expressly disapproves such changes between permitted formats (with a narrow and reasonable exception for strong national ties; Gordon Brown should be formatted in the present British system, and Barack Obama in the American).

I have listed three undesirable edits below, from a large collection; I have reverted a couple others, which seemed to me unusually bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich of Russia (1856–1929)
• Nicholas Alexandrovich, Tsarevich of Russia
• Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia

• You dramatically referred to one of my edits as 'date warring'. On such an occasion, I am not afraid of repeating myself: I would point out that my primary mission with those particular edits of mine, as has been for some months now, has been the alignment of dates within articles.

  Someone has drawn my attention to the fact that I may have chosen the wrong date format to unify to. I would say that the choice of format was inadvertent, as I did not bother checking the earliest version. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's because it is; you changed the entire format wholesale from one style to another. See the jguk case for ArbCom's opinion of this practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the process of finding this link, I find that WP:MOS is (again? still? does it matter?) protected for revert-warring, although it was unprotected when ARBDATE closed. Now that the Macedonia disaster has been dealt with, it is the worst snake-pit on Wikipedia. ArbCom may wish to consider much the same remedy: empower a few uninvolved admins to ask of each provision "Is there any consensus for this? Does it in any way serve the encyclopedia?", which would include "Is this what English actually does?" I have doubted for some time that most of MOS would pass either test, but let neutral admins find out.

The most impressive piece of evidence for this is this curious comment, in which one editor shows that he supports one style of punctuation in order to get back at the liberal arts professors who downgraded him for using the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do any of these points relate to John's request for relief? If you wish the general case amended, open your own proposal under its own heading to do it. Orderinchaos 05:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the first sentence does; there was discussion of John's deeper involvement, even if I don't care enough to find it. I have extended to other suggestions because NYBrad suggested that I make such points on this page, rather than his talkpage; NYBrad is considering a proposal for sweeping revisions, which would also relieve John, but should have community input; and the last thing the arbitration pages need is another locus for discussion of the date-delinking case (Ohconfucius's unnumbered one makes how many (six, I think?) already, and his went unobserved for days). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression (although NYB is free to correct me) that re "sweeping revisions" he meant with regards to the individual remedies on a number of users. That would be fair, given some of the users were not terribly culpable (or in John's case, really culpable at all). One can leave the principles unchanged while varying the specific findings of fact and remedies; any change to the principles or on generally applicable FoFs or remedies would need to be considered on its own merits, hence my suggestion of opening a new heading to address it. Orderinchaos 16:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He asked for ideas. The second paragraph here, which I will make a bullet-point, would seem a reasonable restriction for several editors (including Ohconfucius and myself). If he doesn't want a broader proposal, that's up to him; I will consider whether to make it myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrary and vindictive nature of some of the punishments handed out by the members of the Arbcom in this case (with the notable exception of Newyorkbrad) have greatly reduced my respect for them as an institution. The treatment of John is a case in point. In this case, I can only concur with every single statement made above. -- Earle [^t/_c] 15:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Earle said.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't believe it when I saw that ruling. The ruling was arbitrary. Essentially the message is that if anyone performs a couple of edits with one theme, then maybe a few years and a score or so thousands edits down the line if a related theme gets heard by ArbCom and your edits are spotted, you can have your name blackened and your editing restricted. How much sense does that message make? ArbCom is here to solve intractable disputes, not to seize on any opportunity presenting itself to tarnish the reputation and editing ability of good users. How exactly does this ruling help solve an intractable dispute? The ruling in question has done ArbCom's credibility a lot of damage btw, you should use this appeal as an opportunity to fix your mistake. I hope you do, though honestly I'm not that optimistic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per RexxS. Tony (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Recused MBisanz ^talk 12:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Awaiting further statements. However, at present I believe that our decision was much too harsh with respect to this user, and my preliminary view is that I would grant the application. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would any other editors with comments please submit them within 48 hours (i.e. by Friday evening UTC), after which I will decide whether to offer a motion. The motion, if offered, may or may not apply more broadly than to this individual appellant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By way of update, I've received a request to wait until early next week before proposing anything, as someone who wants to contribute to the discussion has limited availability until then. I will accede to that request, and therefore, anyone with comments should try to provide them by then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur, motion below. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Noting that I'm aware of this thread and the motion but awaiting further comments per Newyorkbrad's explanation. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting here my recusal in the motion below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling restricting User:John, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#John_restricted, is vacated and replaced with "John (talk · contribs) is admonished for edit-warring to remove the linking of dates"

Support

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fair enough (the 12 month restriction was overkill) Wizardman 16:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. Carrying over here my recuse from the original case, so as not to affect the voting (merely saying nothing would count as an oppose). Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. As much of the appeal is directed against myself. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Case affected

Prem Rawat 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 4 - Mediation encouraged.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Steve Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mediator)
• Involved parties

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Article talk page)

I will keep it brief. I'm conducting this MedCab, once again, and I think that in the interests of mediation, and freer discussion, that the committee bestow this mediation case with the same protection that MedCom cases automatically acquire, that the contents of the mediation are priveliged, and cannot be used in other DR proceedings, such as ArbCom.

Last year, I observed this sort of behaviour quite a lot, and while I can't provide diffs (they've been lost in time), I observed that it had a stifling effect on the mediation. People would often hold their tongue, and not express their points of view on certain areas of the dispute, out of fear of retribution. This, as well as other things, caused the mediation from last year to have limited success.

I've thought this out quite a bit, and I do think it would be in the best interests of this case to pass a motion somewhat similar to this. Adjust it at your will.

4.1) The contents of mediation proceedings in disputes related to Prem Rawat will be priveliged, and cannot be used in other forms of dispute resolution. However, deliberate attemps to game this remedy, such as delibeate bad behaviour, will not be looked upon kindly, and may be dealt with, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee.

Obviously, there will be some conduct issues within the case, but that's inevitable, and it's something that I am able to deal with myself. I have the means and the methods to do so. But making the mediation priveliged would allow freer, more candid discussion, and I think that's for the best. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Newyorkbrad

It's long-standing policy that cases mediated formally by the Mediation Committee are protected from use in other dispute resoltuion proceedings. This request is basically asking for the same protection. I'm mediating this in a formal manner, quite like how a case would be mediated at MedCom. I'm happy if this is voted in with a simple motion that doesn't set any precedents, but I feel that this would be for the best. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jayen466

The wording of the motion was meant to make clear that the mediation would be protected by the same privelige that MedCom cases get, however attempts to game this privelige would be looked upon unkindly, and may be dealt with. I think Coren is thinking along the same lines as I am. In response to Wizardman, I'd like a motion to be written up, if possible. The wording in my motion isn't quite up to scratch. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Seddon

I'm not suggesting that all medcab cases be granted the standard privelige that MedCom cases get, only this case. It's a contentious area, and i wish to remove the eggshells, so to speak. But i'm happy if arbcom notes this is a one-off, which won't set precedent.Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's something else I want to address. Two matters, one, relatively simple, the other, somewhat controversial. One, it's been suggested that all the Prem Rawat articles be blanket semi-protected, for an indefinite duration. As an outsider, I can see the benefit to this. While, yes, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's not the encyclopedia that anyone may edit. The fundamental principle of the wiki is that anyone can edit it's articles, however it doesn't give anyone the right to do a drive-by edit, repeatedly, without discussing their reasoning, which has happened, on several occasions. This has obviously caused some disruption, and I'd suggest an additional motion (no idea where it would go in the RFAR) be added, to note that all the articles related to Prem Rawat, are semi-protected, either indefinitely, or liberally at the discretion of administrators. I'm not really sure, but I think it's unfair that users in this mediation will agree to refrain from editing disputed content while it's under discussion within mediation, and anon users don't have to abide by this agreement, which would undermine the mediation process. I guess this needs to be discussed more.

Secondly, this is somewhat more controversial, but I think it might be wise if this mediation is given a little more teeth. The problem that I've observed over the past 15 months or so is that, due to the fact that mediation, in any form, is not binding, when discussions within last year's mediation achieved a clear consensus and were implemented, any new user could just say "I don't like this", make large changes, and dig their heels in when reverted. I'm not suggesting that the result of this new mediation, when achieved, should be permanently binding, but I would like to see some clause included that once issues in this mediation had a clear consensus, there needs to be a clear consensus before significant changes to that content are made. An exemption to the 1RR rule has also been discussed, but I guess this is for the committee to discuss. I realise that the committee normally won't involve themselves in content disputes, in any shape or form, but this is a long-standing dispute on Wikipedia. Numerous attempts to solve this dispute, in prior times, have proved mostly fruitless. Some "teeth" is required, to help solve, in part, this dispute. The other part of solving, or at least, managing this dispute, would be providing long term mediation of the article. Perhaps article mentorship might be a good idea, as well?

I know what I'm asking is complicated and somewhat controversial, but this hasn't been something I've rushed to thinking about. I've considered it for a day or two before deciding what I'd say here, and how I would say it. Please do consider this carefully, as I think this would make a great improvement to the prospects for this article to succeed at mediation, and we all want that, right?

There was somethnig else...but I've forgotten it. For the time being, I'll leave it at this. Regards, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording needs to be tweaked. It says "cannot be used in other forms of dispute resolution", but then says, "may be dealt with, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee". On the face of it, that seems contradictory. Also, it should be clear that the arbitration remedies will continue to remain enforceable during mediation. JN466 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as both a mediator on MEDCOM and as a former coordinator at MEDCAB, I must say that extending the priveleged nature to MEDCAB, across the board, would be a mistake. The privileged nature is a tool in mediation rather than something that should be used regularly. This applies to Prem Rawat as a whole too. It would be better to state that if a mediator wishes for a case to be exempt from future DR, that he apply to arbcom.

In addition to that, Steve Crossin isn't going to be the only mediator in this area and wont be around forever himself, and I consider it unwise for unexperienced mediators (like at medcab) to be using this priviledge. Steve has a decent level of competence, but it is worth considering having a fresh set of eyes to help him out on this. I do not believe that he nor anyone could handle this by themselves.

May I also point out that the priviledged nature which is applicable at MEDCOM exempts the mediation from being used in Arbitration cases and given the nature and size of this dispute, anything less is worthless in my opinion. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make a statement last night, but didn't get around to it. Pretty much, I fully agree with Seddon - extending this to all MedCab cases would be a mistake and lead to gaming (as there's very little screening of MedCab cases, nearly anything could therefore qualify for privilege simply by having one of the parties file a case). However, I agree with Steve and Seddon that extending the privilege to this case as an individual exemption would be worthwhile. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that a lack of candor was a problem with the last mediation, nor do I expect it to be problem with future mediation. However, this dispute needs all the help it can get and if this helps even a little it is worth trying. There are even more significant problems that we face and I expect Steve or another editor to bring additional amendments to the ArbCom for consideration.   Will Beback  talk  09:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have multiple comments to make (from my position up here on the peanut gallery) - which I hope will be of some use.

On extending the 'privileged' nature of mediation to all mediation cabal proceedings: I do not think that would be a good idea, and so would agree with Seddon and Daniel (above). If a case is problematic enough to be ripe for arbitration (and thus for it to be at all likely that the mediation privilege would be exercised), then I should hope that deferring the dispute to formal mediation would be a step that would have been already undertaken. Consequently, there seems to be no need to accord the privileged nature of mediation to cabal cases. (I am, of course, aware that Steve is requesting no such thing; I am commenting in response to requests below for input on this issue.)

On this application to extend the privilege: I suppose I am minded to support this application for a one-off extension of the privilege to Steve Crossin's MedCab case. If the resolution of this dispute is being hampered by a reluctance on the part of many participating in the proceedings to engage in discussion because of a worry that what they say will be used as evidence against them in a future arbitration case, then I suppose there is no option but to extend the privilege. However, I would ask that we consider whether a number of the reluctant parties are simply seeking a license to act without checks on their conduct – or, in other words, to disrupt.)

On why the privilege exists only for formal mediation: Taking a flippant attitude to the privileged nature of mediation would be unwise. The mediation committee is a formal institution of Wikipedia (inasmuch as such things can exist on this project), lead by an appointed chair and staffed by vetted editors. Consequently, it can probably be trusted to play sensibly with the privileged nature of mediation. MedCab is by no means a 'free-for-all', but it does operate a more informal role. As an organisation, it is simply not subject to enough oversight to make it wise to extend to all its cases the privilege. I never thought I would say this, but there are some things that only a committee should handle. (Additionally, upon the MedCab's establishment, nobody actually instituted the privileged nature of mediation - unlike the creation of the MedCom.)

On Steve Crossin as the sole mediator: Steve has considerable experience with the Prem Rawat dispute. To my mind, he is a suitable mediator for these proceedings. As I have elsewhere opined, however, I think this dispute to be one that is too complex and on too large a scale to have only one mediator staffing it. I would like to see additional mediators—from the mediation cabal's regular team or elsewhere—join Steve in guiding this dispute through mediation. Resolving this disagreement is undoubtedly not going to be an easy process, and fresh eyes would be of value. (I may, in the end, put my money where my mouth is and offer to assist Steve, but for now I'll settle for directing a plea to others.)

AGK 14:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Recuse. I have had some involvement in the Prem Rawat dispute (as a third party and as an advisor to the mediator), which I think would make it sensible for me to defer all paperwork on this topic to another clerk. AGK 13:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The general principle that conduct during a mediation convened by the Mediation Committee cannot be cited in arbitration proceedings, although it has not actually been an issue in any case that I can recall since I've been arbitrating, is recognized in the Arbitration Policy. The suggestion here is that that the same "privileged" status should be accorded to this mediation even though it's being run under the auspices of the Mediation Cabal rather than the Mediation Committee. I am not as familiar with the history of MedCom and MedCabal as I am with that of ArbCom, so I can only speculate on why this distinction is currently made. I invite comment on this broader issue as well as the narrow proposal offered by the mediator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd favor expanding the protection afforded to the Mediation Committee to the efforts of the Cabal as well— good faith efforts to solve a dispute should not be used as bludgeons in later dispute resolution. I would make certain, however, that the wording isn't inclusive enough to cover behavior outside the actual mediation or gaming disruptive to it: paying lip service to mediation as a license to misbehave in the disputed area should be strongly discouraged. — Coren ^(talk) 13:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I support the medcab mediation being privileged; if a motion needs to be written i'll put one up. Wizardman 15:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the comments of the people most familiar with the difference between the Mediation Committee and the MedCabal, I agree that extending privileged status to all MedCabal case is not a good idea. I see no reason that in individual situations that all parties to a case and a mediator could not agree to using this model for that situation. I would honor such an agreement that was put in writing and signed by all parties and the mediator whether it was some done through the MedCabal or another informal mediation in a different venue. My suggestions get agreement from all parties and the mediator and sign a statement to that effect. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunray, thank you for updating us. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Flo. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to have been adequately resolved. I endorse the outcome here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

In response to Steve Crossin's request and in light of discussion here and on the MedCom list, MedCom has agreed to accept this case with a MedCom member assisting Steve. As a MedCom case, privilege is automatically extended to the participants once they agree to the mediation. This decision is specific to this case only and was based on the long history and circumstances of this dispute. Sunray (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Obama articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Findings 7 through 15
2. Remedies 4, 5, 10, 10.2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Username2 (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
• Username3 (repeat above for all parties)

• See below. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent passing of remedies in the Obama articles case presents a worrying outlook on how Wikipedia policies and guidelines are enforced, and of the current Committee. There are really several points that need to be made, so forgive me for overstepping the five-hundred word limit:

• BLP enforcement: the Arbitration Committee has, in past cases (most notably and controversially, Footnoted quotes), held that BLP enforcement should be encouraged and thus editors should be given wide leeway in enforcement. However, the remedies passed make no recognition of BLP enforcement although the findings of fact implied that it was needed. This is related to the following point...
• Sanctions: the sanctions do not reflect prevention of any problem at all. Were this a case where BLP enforcement was considered, the sanctions would be vastly different, if not one-sided. I have a gut feeling that these sanctions may have been motivated by an effort to avoid the appearance of a "liberal bias". Furthermore, the findings of fact, especially mine, were criticised: the word "fuck" does not an attack make (I refer the ArbCom to George Carlin's infamous routine about the word), and the diffs regarding my reversion of Stevertigo outside of the Obama articles was intended to combat disruption (indeed, one of the two diffs provided shows me reverting an action that the ArbCom mentioned in the previous finding of fact!). This leaves only the edit war. Which I admit, I did get confrontational on that FAQ. However, the remedy for an edit war in aid of BLP enforcement should not be a twelve-month 1RR/week sanction. It should be a simple admin protection. Other remedies for both sides vastly exaggerate the problems in the FoFs, which themselves vastly exaggerate the actions described therein.
• Restrictiveness: the remedies passed are too restrictive on the parties of the case they are applied too. Again, I'll use myself as an example: as one of the Doctor Who WikiProject's more prolific editors, I find myself editing related articles a lot. And these are verifiably popular articles; the articles Eleventh Doctor and Matt Smith (actor) were in the top two spots of {{Popular articles}} for several hours of 3 January 2009, so, understandably, there's a push-and-shove effort in trying to maintain article quality. In fact, it's not strange for an editor to revert more than three times in 24 hours after an episode airs, but such behaviour isn't met with blocks as it's not edit-warring in the spirit of 3RR. Luckily, this has not affected my editing too much; normally, the end of June comprises the Doctor Who season finale, but this year is a "rest year" for the show and as such all that is happening wrt Doctor Who this summer is the currently airing Torchwood serial Children of Earth, but, come winter, given what we know is going to happen then, it will be an uphill struggle to maintain article quality and normalcy and will need as many hands as possible. Even if I don't take an active role in combatting the inevitable disruption, the ruling would effectively lead me unable to edit the articles properly until several weeks after the episodes air, affecting the usually high turnover rate in article writing (which, for articles about fiction, is a Good Thing). So these sanctions do not prevent disruption; quite the opposite, they make it easier!
• And finally, communication: the case really highlights the lack of communication between the arbitration committee and other users. Wizardman left only two days between posting on the workshop and on the proposed decision page, and most of us didn't notice until the latter occurred. Even so, the Committee made no visible effort in reading the workshop, the talk pages, or otherwise listening to users, despite the fact there was a considerable opinion by both sides that the proposed decisions were flawed. This is a problem that, while only peripherally relevant to my argument, needs to be countered for the sake of the community.

So, what am I proposing, exactly? Basically, I am requesting:

• A complete re-examination of the findings of fact and removal of any material which exaggerates or mis-characterises an editor's actions (hence why I've listed all nine editors for which findings were passed, although some may need not be edited).
• The vacation of any sanctions applied to myself and Scjessey, and the editing of Stevertigo's sanction so that it applies only to Obama articles, not a project-wide restriction (because Steve's really not a bad guy).

Thank you, Sceptre ^(talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my comments to indicate an "willingness to edit war". Edit warring is born from a dispute where a set of editors continually reverting each other where there is a legitimate content dispute. With regard to the Doctor Who articles, this is not the case. The WikiProject has formulated a policy-compliant manual of style and uses that and related policies to maintain article quality. Think: breaking the letter of the 3RR after an episode air is almost never "punished"—except in the case of disputes about non-free images—because it is not edit warring in the strictest sense. There was also no legitimate content dispute regarding the existence—or lack thereof—of a criticism article; as it has been shown, the vast majority of people complaining were single-purpose accounts. Reversions of BLP violating material, which was commonplace in March when the case was open, are explicitly not edit warring as it's not a legitimate content dispute. And reversions of, for example, Stevertigo on WP:IAR or WP:DRV was not edit warring. Why? Again, there was no legitimate content dispute. No person would seriously suggest, for example, that IAR be marked a historical policy, at least without a solid rationale, which Steve lacked by miles. Additionally, the reversion of disruption must never be considered edit-warring, as it sends a negative message to editors that they can gain more from trolling than doing actual work. RickK quit in June 2005 because good editors were given less respect and assitance than those who wanted to disrupt, and it's saddening that four years on, it appears to continue.

Regarding your comment about communication, I fail to see how your description of the process matches up with what actually happened. Of course, in theory, what you say is correct. But I feel there was a lack of communication in practice. On the PD talk page, only one arbitrator of the seventeen we have, John Vandeberg, took an active job in answering most of the questions, and even then little appeared to be done. An example is my objections to remedy #5, which got no reply from an arbitrator on that talk page, despite three weeks elapsing between the question being asked and the closure of the case.

And finally, I must disagree with your comment about the sanctions. As the evidence shows, while not limited the Obama pages, all of the edit warring given derives from the Obama dispute. If there was no Obama dispute, Steve would not have edit-warred on, say, DRV or IAR. It's more that tempers were a bit heated then because of the dispute. Hence why I suggested the restriction on Steve be only on Obama articles; other than the Obama articles, he has not shown a history of continual edit warring (based on the WP:EW-backed description above, rather than the erroneous "reverting is automatically edit-warring" belief, although he was desysopped in 2005 for edit-warring). And it can be shown with most editors for which findings were passed, they have no history of continual edit warring outside the Obama dispute before or after. I was going to suggest a similar change in the restriction for Grundle2600, but his recent topic ban indicates that he does have an edit-warring problem. This appears to be an exaggeration on ArbCom's part, extrapolating a small, limited-time dispute as evidence of a massive behavioural problem and passing according remedies. At the very most, all the arbitration committee needed to do with the editors in this case was to give them an admonishment for misbehaving and warn them not to do it again. If the ArbCom wanted to pass a 1RR/week restriction that didn't look foolish, or at the least, strange, to an outside observer, they should've shown in the findings of fact that there was a sustained problem, with several more diffs (as plenty were offered in evidence). But the findings of fact indicate that, in reality, there is not, and thus the sanctions do no work in preventing disruption of Wikipedia and instead serve to punish editors for a minor offense that would've, under any other circumstances, resulted in just a 24-to-48 hour block or a protection. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EW, like other policies, requires application of common sense on top of the letter of the policy. While there are only a few exceptions listed in the letter of the 3RR policy, it does not mean they are the only exceptions. Admins often overlook breaches of the letter of the 3RR if a) the spirit has not been broken (i.e., no harm has come to the wiki or the wiki process), or b) there is no "tangoing". Whether reverts in aid of article maintainance is a violation of the spirit of EW is debatable; while arbitration cases and edit warring reports have indicated that it is, the content assessment process generally takes the view that it is not; or, at the very least, it is not sufficient enough to warrant opposition to a page's asssessment as GA/FA for being unstable. The whole article maintainance argument is peripheral to the main argument, in that, at least in my case, there is only one edit war shown, and any other reverts were performed in aid of combatting disruption to the project. If we are at a stage that reverting disruption is considered edit warring, it presents a very bleak outlook of the Wikipedia community, and it would be unfitting for an arbitrator to hold this belief too. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My accusation of bias is only a "gut feeling", and it's a known fact intuition is a double-edged blade. However, the rulings do imply a new bias in ArbCom, or at the very least, a departure from the pro-BLP-enforcement bias from the ArbComs of old. I don't know if it's a conscious decision, or unintentional from a desire to purge the cause or experimentation. As an aside, it's obvious the new ArbCom have been more deliberative and experimental, as opposed to last year's pro-active and brisk ArbCom. The problem is, both are problematic. By the end of May, I had pretty much forgotten about the case. I was talking to a clerk about COM's statement below, which dovetailed into a discussion about the case and how problems such as this could be prevented, or at least minimised. One idea that we discussed was having laymen serve as advisors and/or safety valves: i.e., if a ruling appears too weird or strict or lenient to them, they could give a nudge and say "this doesn't look right". Perhaps it could be a subject for discussion on arbcom-l... but I digress. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the motions: I'd be willing to settle with the current proposal, with possible re-examination in fall/winter, though I would prefer to see mine and Scjessey's completely vacated. I'm a bit wary of editing restrictions 9.2 and 13, though, as Grundle and CoM haven't shown any cessation of disruption, to the point that Grundle was topic banned. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the wisdom, hard work, and decisions of the committee, even if I don't fully agree with some parts of the outcome. They say that a good decision leaves everyone a little unsatisfied, so that's probably what's happening here. I'm pretty sure that every finding of fact and every sanction was thought through and made deliberately, so there's no mistake to correct. The case took a lot of time and effort, and the arguments among parties grew unpleasant at times. The outcome includes a couple of no-interaction orders among the parties, which I think have done some good in terms of calming tensions and getting people back to productive work. I don't think those are up for discussion, but opening the case again nevertheless brings us all back to the same page, and brings some potential for renewed friction. The Obama articles have been very quiet since the case was decided, and for the past couple of months overall. So all in all I just don't think it's worth re-opening that proverbial can of worms.

Although I don't want to re-argue the case, I do see the merits of Sceptre's point. A few of the editors on whom revert restrictions were placed have never shown editing problems outside of politics articles, so in their case the restriction would seem to be overbroad. However, in theory that shouldn't be much of a burden because we should all be at 1RR all the time... The arbitration findings deal mostly with the behavior of a small subset of the editors over a short span, four months ago now, and largely gloss over the larger issue of article probation. There seems to be no movement to convene the Obama article probation working group contemplated in the decision, much less to review the workings of probation or suggest improvements. But again, the articles have been stable and calm, so if I may be permitted one more cliche: "If it isn't broke, don't fix it".

I agree with the part that says, "the remedies passed are too restrictive on the parties of the case they are applied too." All I have ever done here at wikipedia is add well sourced information to articles. This punishment makes wikipedia worse, not better. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that more consideration and leniency should have been given to those who were working to combat the incessant wave of single-purpose account, obvious/egregious POV-driven editors and the like. The reputation and representation of of public figures here and the WP:BLP policy that governs their treatment should be of the highest consideration, and those that work to uphold that singularly-important policy should be given a bit of support during what amounted to an off-Wiki orchestrated and fabricated attack. Civility is important as well, and admonishments were properly handed out there, but the findings of fact that those working to uphold BLP policy were edit warring should be toned down or stricken. Scjessey has noted that the restriction outside of Obama-related articles would impair his ability to edit in other areas, and I feel that that is a sound argument.

I am not so sure about others, however. ChildofMidnight has tested the edges of the topic ban twice now, once a mild reminder as it may have been unclear if AfDs were within the scope, and the second one like would've earned a block in the opinion of that admin, if a formal WP:AE report had been filed.

Grundle2600's restrictions from the committee were lesser than some of the others, but since then has earned a topic ban for 3 months for "clearly problematic editing issues, and [his] general approach".

Response to ChildofMidnight

Honestly, as long as you're going to continue with both attacks against me and the anti-cabal missives, i.e. "misleading statements and trumped up evidence presented to Wizardman", you're only going to put yourself in a worse light. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vassanaya

At the very least, I would say that the 1RR in non-Obama related areas should be lifted. IMO the spillovers, i.e. WP:IAR were unfortunate, but were not severe enough to warrant such a heavy restriction. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the arbitration process to be a disappointing experience. I had expected that there would be a healthy dialogue between arbitrators and named parties that would lead to a resolution, and I was surprised by the lack of communication that took place. I had assumed that the arbitration committee would focus on trying to create a productive editing environment in the Obama-related articles by offering advice and guidance. I had imagined it would examine the conditions that created the difficult environment and make suggestions about revising and enforcing related policies. I thought the committee would investigate the effectiveness of article probation and offer opinion about how it could be improved. In particular, I expected specific commentary and rulings on BLP-related issues and agenda-driven editing. Instead, the committee appeared to focus solely on meting out punitive measures that seemed to take into account what was happening, but not why it was happening.

Almost all of the disruption surrounding these articles stemmed from agenda-driven editing, and this problem was not addressed by the committee. It is a huge problem on Wikipedia, particularly on articles related to politics or religion, and it isn't going to go away with the imposition of a few topic bans and editing restrictions. ArbCom will continue to face cases such as these as long as this matter remains unaddressed.

The 6-month topic ban I was given had no effect on me, as I had already withdrawn from editing Obama-related articles 3 weeks before it was imposed. The restriction on interaction with User:ChildofMidnight has proved somewhat awkward, because I have to keep checking the history of an article I am about to edit to make sure I am not treading on any metaphorical toes - not really a big deal, but aggravating.

I have found the "one revert per page per week" sanction to be extremely restrictive. It does not impede my ability to make minor edits across a large number of articles, but it makes it largely impossible for me to focus my attention on any articles in particular. Reversions are a necessary part of the editing process, and 99 times out of a 100 they are uncontroversial reversions that could not be described as "edit warring" (in spirit, at least). I believe the scope of this restriction was over-broad and based on a mischaracterization of my editing contributions, and it left me with a strong impression that some members of the arbitration committee may have based their decisions on what parties said happened, rather than what actually happened.

I'd like to comment about Wizardman's proposal to limit the scope of the edit restriction to just Obama-related articles. Although it would make it much easier for me to be a productive editor in other articles, such a change would make the restriction only come into effect once my 6-month topic ban expired. I'm perfectly okay with that, but it does seem like a peculiar situation.

Let me take off my defendant's hat and try to think like an arbitrator for a second. It would seem that the topic ban has been an effective punitive measure with the happy side effect of instantly diffusing the hostile editing environment in the Obama-related articles. I think that measure should definitely remain. The editing restriction, however, has been a purely punitive measure with no obvious benefit to Wikipedia. I would think a better solution would be a "suspended sentence" with some form of probationary period. Editors who have learned from their mistakes would be able to remain fully productive, but those who "violate" their probation could have the full, Wikipedia-wide restriction applied.

I support a lessening of the sanctions on the good faith content contributors and article builders who were and are subject to the well documented harassment, personal attacks, and POV pushing from the self-appointed "patrollers" and "protectors".

• Baseball Bugs and PHGustaff have repeatedly come trolling on my talk page since the Arbcom decision harassing me incessantly by posting numerous unwelcome and unhelpful comments that have nothing to do with article building or the discussion of article content.
• Tarc continues his incivility and attacks on article talk pages, refusing to focus on content and pushing his personal POV in violation of our core neutral point of view policy. He's continued to threaten editors and to try to delete content he personally disagrees with.
• As Wikidemon points out, the articles have been stable and as the good faith contributors who have created many articles and added a lot of content on these subjects have been banned and blocked. Improvements won't be made until the ill-considered bans are revoked.

The enforcement and encouragement of bias and censorship by this committee, based on misleading statements and trumped up evidence presented to Wizardman even after his mistakes were pointed out to him need to be corrected. The encyclopedia is severely damaged and its integrity has been violated by the actions of this committee. I welcome a review of the sanctions on the good faith contributors who have worked diligently on improving Wikipedia's coverage and who have demonstrated a willingness to collaborate across a broad range of article subjects.

Their efforts have been stymied long enough by this ill-considered decision and moronic remedies. Obviously I'm not talking about Sceptre, who has made no effort to clean up his history of abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped interacting with CoM on July 8th, and he's presenting the above as if I were still interacting with him. He also failed to inform me that he's taken my name in vain here. That is typical behavior on his part. He accuses others of POV-pushing on Obama, when in fact it is he that is the POV-pusher. His early complaint about the Obama articles was that "there's not enough criticism".[2][3][4] Hardly the complaint of someone with a neutral point of view. He threw the gauntlet down to me on the night of March 8/9 with this offensive, insulting essay [5] wherein his biases became all too clear, as he took the side of a brigade of POV-pushers from WND. Any alleged "harassment" of him by me is because I won't let him forget about his obnoxious behavior on that March night - from which he has not backed off one iota, of course. He wants the sanctions lifted for one reason only, and that is so that he can resume his tendentious, POV-pushing editing on the Obama articles. I strongly urge the committee to keep all sanctions in place as originally prescribed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that his complaints about "patrollers", i.e. editors who watch pages to try to keep them the way they should be under wikipedia standards, aligns with his ordering me to stop watching his page (which I have done) - he wants to be able to edit however he feels like, pushing his anti-Obama biases, without anyone watching him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In looking through his history, it seems CoM was taking verbal shots at anyone who disagreed with him, including Mr. Wales [6] which is why it was around that time (March) that a topic ban on CoM re:Obama was first being discussed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that it was PhGustaf who tipped me off about CoM's backstabbing here, otherwise I would not have known about it. CoM has made it clear that I am not worthy of CoMmunicating with him, but apparently that goes both directions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG - Sceptre did indeed inform me of this page. I responded that I wanted nothing more to do with the subject, or with CoM in particular. However, tonight I was alerted to the fact that I was being maligned by CoM, so I thought I should come here after all and see what this is about. I say again: The original topic-ban should stay in place - or at least certainly it should for CoM, as he has not changed his tune at all since March, and will continue to be a tendentious editor on the Obama topics. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So this makes twice now, at least, that CoM has thrown down the gauntlet to me. The first was in March. If not for that nonsense, he would likely not have come to my attention. And now this. He wants me to leave him alone, yet he continues to dredge my name up. I would not have come here tonight except for his backstabbing. I want nothing more to do with that guy, who I consider to be a disgrace to wikipedia. Yet he keeps trying to drag me back into the argument. I'll make him a deal: If he never mentions my name again, then I'll never mention his name again. Even when the inevitable vote to ban him from wikipedia comes, which he is slowly working towards, I will refrain from voting on the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It concerns me that Grundle's and CoM's statements suggest that neither has considered, even for a moment, that the pickles they're in are in any manner their fault. I suppose that in this sense the sanctions have failed. It seems very likely that they'll both go back to their old ways immediately once the sanctions lapse, and it would be wise for the arbitrators to let them know that they will be on short leashes indeed. PhGustaf (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. CoM, next time you malign me in a venue where I'm not otherwise involved, please mention it on my talk page. PhGustaf (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh again. I checked, and I've made only a half dozen edits to CoM's talk page ever. We once had a very pleasant chat about clams. I hardly consider that "trolling" or "harassing". Till now, CoM has never suggested I was unwelcome on the page. PhGustaf (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Wikidemon's comment is fairly persuasive. In addition, I do not see an convincing rationale to revisit this decision, even in the absence of Wikidemon's observations. Addressing Sceptre's points: Regarding BLP enforcement, the edit warring was by no means limited to BLP enforcement and implications to the contrary are blatantly misleading. Regarding sanctions, I reiterate that point. Also, edit warring (as a whole in the case) took place across six namespaces. Warnings, article probation, and other extant measures failed to sufficiently modify and/or restrict the problematic behavior, thus the sanctions do indeed serve a preventative purpose. Regarding restrictiveness, I do not find the argument raised convincing. On the contrary, the willingness to edit war is deeply concerning and reinforces my perception that the restriction is needed. Tying back to the BLP enforcement point raised, the 1RR restrictions still permit exceptions (as per normal policy) for clear cut vandalism and BLP violations. Regarding communication, I can understand the concern that it may have moved too quickly from the workshop to the proposed decision page. That said, the concerns raised are not overwhelming, convincing, nor entirely accurate. The proposed decision and voting lasted over three weeks, providing plenty of time for feedback and comments. Arbitrators did respond to posts on the PD talk page. I know that I and a number of other arbitrators were aware of the PD talk page and workshop comments, taking them into consideration. Additionally, I do not agree with the characterization of the comments' breadth and substance. All that said, the editor histories and conduct issues presented in the case seem to support the sanctions issued. For example, it is suggested that Stevertigo's restriction be more limited, but his edit warring was not limited to the scope requested. --Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In reply to Sceptre, it seems from my perspective that you are essentially arguing more against policy than with ArbCom's decision (which is based on policy). WP:3RR leave very few exceptions to the general rule and even goes so far as to note that even acting under those exceptions could still be considered edit warring. If you wish to see other exceptions granted, or wish to document exceptions commonly granted by the community, a broadly advertised discussion at WT:EW is the appropriate route. I will not endorse exceptions that are contained neither within the letter nor spirit of the policy as currently written and presented, especially when multiple arbitration cases and numerous edit-warring reports have rejected the rationale that enforcing style and presentation standards is not subject to the edit warring rule. --Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In response to Tarc, in the context of presuming sanctions are warranted and necessary, what alternative sanctions that are better targeted would you recommend? Please bear in mind that while the dispute centered around the Obama articles that it was exported to other areas of the wiki and that much of the edit warring bore little to no relation to BLP enforcement. --Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In my votes on the proposed decision, my opinion was that several of the adopted remedies were too harsh, and so I agree that there is a case to be made for modifying some of them. But given that on many of the paragraphs I was the sole dissenter, I suppose I am not the one that the editors seeking an amendment need to persuade. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the argument for the complete 1RR restrictions being too harsh is a valid one to at least look into. Yes, my proposed remedies were very harsh, and given the climate that's what was needed. If lightening this will keep the obama articles from falling into the old patterns and help out the affected editors, then it's a possiblity. Granted, saying I'm encouraging bias and censorship when I did the best I could with a very hard case given the feelings of the editors does not help one's case at all. Wizardman 00:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Vassyana. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting here my inactivity on the original case, expressed as an abstain on the motion below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 12 active arbitrators, making 7 a majority.

1) The remedies 4, 5, 9.2, 10.2, and 13 are rewritten as follows: (User) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, User is subject to an editing restriction for one year. User is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should User exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support

1. In retrospect, the remedy was awfully harsh, so I'll lower it for those that received it. Wizardman 16:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. As I understand it, the change being made here is to apply the 1RR restrictions on the specified editors only to reverts on Obama-related articles, as opposed to all articles as currently stated. Given that I opposed these remedies as overbroad insofar as they were not limited to Obama-related articles to begin with, I support the motion. The editors affected are Stevertigo, Sceptre, ChildofMidnight, Scjessey, and Grundle2600. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Note that as I read it, this motion does not alter the topic-bans against those editors who were topic-banned, as those were contained in separate paragraphs of the decision, not mentioned in the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. I'm not impressed by arguments that anyone needs to be able to revert casually even in less disputed areas, but the objective of the remedy was to stop the warring on those articles specifically and I see no great harm in focusing the remedy there. I should remind everyone touched by this restriction, however, that bringing the behavior that led to this case to other venues after this has been modified would be viewed very dimly indeed. — Coren ^(talk) 13:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Okay, per preceding. I am prepared to reduce the scope to Obama-related articles. Like Coren, though, further infractions would be viewed with past history in mind. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Casliber and Coren.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. I feel the spread of the dispute among six namespaces justifies the broader restriction, but I will not impede this amendment if my fellow arbs feel it is appropriate. --Vassyana (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm not convinced that modifying the editing restriction for all the named users is for the best. But if we are not going to do individual motions then I don't want to stand in the way of some users getting their restrictions altered. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Abstain. I was inactive on this case, so I will defer to those of my colleagues who were active on this case and know the background here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]