Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) at 15:18, 13 November 2010 (→‎Arbitrator votes and comments: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: Climate Change

Initiated by Hipocrite (talk) at 17:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

  • New finding of fact

Sphilbrick has edited

27) Sphilbrick has edited pages related to Climate Change.[1]

Clarification 2

  • Regarding topic bans

Are topic banned users permitted to !vote in RFA's related to people who have once edited climate change articles? If yes, are they permitted, on request, to justify their vote, as long as such justification is not a re-fighting of the same thing?

Statement by Hipocrite

Sphilbrick is currently in the middle of an RFA. If he were an admin at the time the CC case went through the motions, I would have sought to have him mentioned similarly to StephanS. Since he was not an admin at the time, and was not a major participant in the troubles, he was ignored by most. However, as he is nearly an admin now, I think that it is important and relevant that ArbCom note that he edited Climate Change articles. It should also be noted that making this finding of fact will subject Sphilbrick to the "Involved administrators" standing order that individuals identified by name in the decision are not permitted to impose sanctions. Sphilbrick has already consented to avoid using any hypothetical admin tools to administrate CC articles in [2].

Further, I was recently blocked for a week as I !voted in an RFA, but when asked for a justification was forced to dodge said with the comment that I was topic banned. Was that the appropriate response, or should I have never !voted in any RFA related to any Climate Change related party, or should I have just provided a climate change related justification? (Or should I just have lied about my concerns?)

My goal, as I have stated before, was to leave the topic area behind, and I have done that. I was not involved in any of the flare-ups, but I don't think that I should be forced to have my voice discounted. I can provide other circumstances where I have dodged discussing climate change, if the committee desires. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYB - I was blocked for a week for my comment. I don't think my comment was incorrect. Please confirm if my comments were correct or incorrect. Coren [3] had previously commented that my understanding of my topic ban was overbroad. Hipocrite (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottyBerg

I agree with Hipocrite. His request was occasioned by an absurd block of him and Connelly for participating in that RfA. I would take his request one step further: topic banned users should receive a safe harbor from blocking, and should be permitted to vote and comment on RfAs, without restriction on their comments concerning CC. This trigger-happy blocking must stop; it is preventing a free exchange of ideas in one of the most crucial parts of Wikipedia. Come to think of it, this experience has made me change the view that I previously expressed on Arbcom voting/discussions as well. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Arbitrator votes and comments

  • As Hipocrite correctly points out, in his RfA, Sphilbrick has already acknowledged that he has edited climate change. He also has confirmed (partly in response to a question by me) that if his RfA is successful, he will take no administrator actions in that topic area. I perceive no need to amend the closed case to make a historical finding of a clearly undisputed fact. (If we are asked for an amendment every time an editor on an article subject to discretionary sanctions starts an RfA, we are going to be very, and unnecessarily, busy on this page). ¶ The scope of the topic bans needs, as we have said several times before, to be interpreted in a common-sense manner. The observations made by several of us on various other requests for clarification on this page apply equally here. ¶ (Disclosure: I have cast a support !vote on Sphilbrick's RfA, raising a potential recusal issue. I see no value to recusing from making a general comment here and posting pro forma in another section. If a motion is proposed, I will reevaluate any need to recuse at that time.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not going to retroactively add a finding to the case every time someone who has edited in the area requests adminship. The remedy prohibiting enforcement by named administrators was created in the context of the specific administrators who were actually named in the case, and based on the nature and degree of their involvement; it was never intended as a general sanction against any administrator who might have a similar background. Further, given that Sphilbrick has voluntarily agreed to avoid any potentially controversial administrative actions, I see no reason for the Committee to be involved at all. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Kirill and Brad have said, no need for the amendment. As far as the clarification goes, that should technically be on a different page, but the question might as well be answered here. My view, as I stated elsewhere, is that civil and reasonable RFA comments that help the bureaucrats, that contribute constructively to the discussion, and do not stoke drama, are perfectly acceptable. Please avoid purposefully reigniting disputes over the disputed topic area (the topic area that is the subject of the topic ban in question). In other words, provide the bureaucrats with enough information to weigh the value of your comment, but also pay heed to the topic ban. If you are in any doubt, ask for clarification. It also helps to state whether or not you regularly participate at RFA and undertake a careful review of the candidates, or whether you tend to comment only on RFAs of those that you recognise. If you are only aware of an editor and their RfA because you've previously interacted with them in the disputed topic area, then that is less acceptable than if you've interacted with them elsewhere and are prepared to comment on their editing and actions outside the topic area. If you have no interest in anything outside the disputed topic area, that indicates a loss of perspective and an excessive focus on one topic area. So my advice to topic-banned editors who wish to comment on RFAs of editors who they are mostly aware of due to their editing in the disputed topic area, is to look at their editing and actions elsewhere, to review that, and then make a comment at the RFA accordingly. That allows you to contribute constructively, and avoids drama. Let others comment on the editing and actions of the editor in question in the disputed topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking

Initiated by Gigs (talk) at 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Supplemental motion: "Nonwithstanding remedies #7.1 and #8, Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever."
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1


Statement by Gigs

Lightmouse has engaged in high speed semi-automated editing without BAG approval in apparent violation of the previous sanctions, such as: [5] [6] [7] [8], as a small sample. These edits drew several complaints as to their accuracy and appropriateness, including feedback from myself of a general nature, before I realized that Lightmouse was under ArbCom sanctions. This is documented at: User_talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2010/October.

There are several currently pending BRFAs:

  1. Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightbot_7
  2. Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightbot_6
  3. Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightmouse
  4. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5

Note that the sanctions limit Lightmouse to a single BAG approved task, so it is unclear to me what action BAG should take regarding these BRFAs. Rlevse approached Lightmouse asking for an explanation of the apparent violation, but now that he is gone, I'm not sure if anyone is following up on this. I am asking for an official response from ArbCom in order to bring clarity and closure to this, regardless of whether my amendment is accepted.

My involvement in this is limited to relatively brief conversations last month on WT:MOSNUM and on Lightmouse's talk page urging him to take complaints about his semi-automatic editing much more seriously. Gigs (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Gigs

To clarify, the sort of dismissive behavior that I observed on WT:MOSNUM and Lightmouse's talk page is what prompted my concerns. (i.e. [9] [10] [11]) This is exactly the same sort of behavior that lead to the sanction in the first place. Editing rates peaking at 5-8 edits per minute on systematically selected alphabetized articles surely does not fall under "manual editing". The editing stopped 2 weeks ago only because Rlevse approached Lightmouse and asked for an explanation of the apparent violation. Gigs (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Statement by Ohconfucius

I'm baffled too, but no more so than by this amendment. AFAIK, Lightbot hasn't been in operation for over a month now, BAG has been unresponsive to repeated requests for the bot. Lighmouse himself hasn't edited in two weeks, some 48 hours before Vanished 6551232 (talk · contribs) (aka Rlevse) posted his message on Lightmouse's talk page. Prior to those two weeks, I see nothing "high speed", just some 'normal' (by that, I mean manual) AWB actions at an average rate of 50 edits per hour to remove overlinked common terms (hour!, kilometer!!, minute!!!, ) and some years. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC), amended 02:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Gigs' "additional statement", I combed through Lightmouse's contributions history for the last 2,600+ entries. Therein, I noticed nothing incompatible with the editing speeds achieved for human-supervised AWB usage. I examined in excess of 50 edits, and found that rarely did each edit contain more than one or two changes, such as removing wikilinks to days of the week, years, and other common terms such as 'week', 'day', 'hour', 'second'... which I note is firmly endorsed by WP:Linking. There were occasionally more changes, which included insertion of '{{convert}}'. As for the complaints on LM's talk page... Rifleman complains here that Lightmouse has been systematically removing repeat links, implying that he should be careful not to disturb his misleading piped links notwithstanding; once again WP:Linking is firmly on Lightmouse's side. The diff used above of the post from pdfpdf clearly shows Gigs was aware of the belligerence of pdfpdf, who not only expressed his displeasure of having the {{convert}} foisted upon him in articles he had on his watchlist, calling them "non-consensus changes" (viz: "'If you think square kilometres are confusing, just remove them.' - For heavens sake! We are NOT your mother nor your housemaid nor your servant. YOU made these non-consensus changes. YOU fix them!!"), he repeatedly replaced the message despite its removal by the owner (and by me, a talk-page stalker) insisting it wasn't uncivil – I would actually call it harassment even though LM was firm but always polite with visitors to his talk page. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

As I understand it, the Lightmouse account can be used with automation relating to units of measurement. Coren said the expectation was “it would cover the ‘’normal’’ work around a 'bot’ task: That includes the usual dry runs in user space, the test runs okayed by BAG, and whatever minor tweaks are generally included in a single bot request”. I’ve done tests in accordance with this. BAG has been unable to respond for weeks if not months.

If I've misunderstood the situation, I'd be grateful for more clarity.

I'd like to correct the false impression that "The editing stopped 2 weeks ago only because Rlevse approached Lightmouse and asked for an explanation ...". I was told by one editor quoted in this discussion to "get a life" and sworn at (details not pleasant), well I do have a life outside WP which took priority over WP. I stopped editing articles on 28 Oct. Rlevse wrote a note on my talk page on 30 Nov. The event didn't precede the cause.

I'd like to correct the false allegation that I was 'dismissive'. From time to time, an editor will say that I shouldn't add metric units, in circumstances that aren't documented anywhere on WP guidance. Or they want me to add a different format/unit of their choosing. I always try to be polite. But sometimes the debate becomes circular or is entirely subjective. I may invite editors to take WP style issues to the WP style talk page, or I may take it there on their behalf. That's an attempt to be helpful and inclusive. Where I say that an editor is free to remove a metric unit or change it, I'm not 'dismissive', quite the reverse. I'm trying to collaborate and add calm.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting statements from Lightmouse and/or BAG; I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify whether Lightmouse has BAG approval for the edits he's making. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting statements and join in Kirill's request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys

Initiated by Biophys (talk) at 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
List of users affected by this amendment

Amendment 1

Statement by Biophys

I would like to apologize for contributing to disruption and ask for review and direction at this point, almost six months since the beginning of my topic ban. During this time I was active, edited in allowed areas, avoided conflicts, and tried to deal with problems noted in your findings of fact [12].

What was my problem? I edited 4,000 different articles (and a lot of them are related to my Russian cultural background) and created 250 new pages. Few my edits caused anyone's objections, but I always returned back to the articles where someone reverted my edits to be engaged in prolonged disputes, edit warring and complaints. It came at no surprise that the trouble happened in a difficult area that has been already a subject of numerous sanctions.

To avoid this problem in a future I am going to leave any article to others and edit something else if a dispute can not be quickly resolved by talking and compromising. It is enough to remove an article from my watch list. I did just that during my topic ban. This helped me to make exactly zero reverts that could be interpreted as edit warring during all this time (a few “undo” are fixes of obvious vandalism problems). Here are a few examples of someone recently reverting my edits [13] [14][15],[16],[17], and I walked away from these articles. Yes, I fully realize that every editor had his reason for reverting my edits, even though I happened to disagree with them and explained why [18], [19], [20],[21]. There is nothing wrong with returning later to these articles. The entire point is to avoid creating the conflicts.

If there is something else I must do, please tell. I could not care less about ethnic and territorial disputes, but I may have a bias related to human rights issues, no matter if the victims were Russian [22], German [23] or Korean [24], except that I know Soviet subjects much better. But my edits usually describe mainstream majority views and are referenced to books by the best experts, as in the diffs above.

In summary, I only wanted to tell that I am ready to contribute positively in this area. If you do not want to see me there, that's fine. No, I do not feel any rush to return back to difficult subjects, but I am ready to make such decisions for myself. I am asking for an amendment mostly because I feel extremely uncomfortable being a subject of indefinite sanctions [25]. I simply want to be a normal editor again and stay as far as possible from all administrative pages. You issued a good preventative topic ban that helped me to spend my time in the project more productively. But it is no longer needed.

Response to Offliner

Offliner provides this diff. No, I did not really make such promises since they are not included in the final version of my statement [26]. Still, this is something reasonable and involves three different issues.

(1) Yes, I left EEML mailing list.

(2) With regard to edit warring, I thought it was enough to limit myself mostly to 1RR per article per day. That was a serious error of judgment, and Arbcom made it very clear to me that edit warring is totally unacceptable, no matter how frequently one does it. Hence I changed my behavior and was not involved in a single edit warring incident during last six months. But edit warring is only a symptom. The real root of the problem are serious personal conflicts, which is something very much different from debating content disagreements. The only way to avoid the conflicts in this environment is to leave an article (or a disputed part of the article) to your opponent if you can not come to an agreement. That is something I was doing during these six months and will do in the future. This is a serious commitment. If everyone made such commitment, the conflicts would disappear.

(3) My comments at administrative noticeboards. Yes, it was my intention to avoid any comments in such places. But after thinking a while, I realized that such position is wrong. The problem is not the comments per se, but the message. The comments may create or fuel the conflicts (and that is what must be avoided!), or they may help to make a correct decision, find a proper consensus, and minimize the conflicts. Besides, the involvement in such discussions may help someone like me to understand better the policies. Yes, I tried to help by commenting recently, and you can judge if my comments were made in a good faith [27], [28], [29], [30][31][32][33](those are most recent diffs provided in reverse chronological order). But since this becomes an issue, I am going to stop.

The alleged battleground on my part. Unlike some others, I did not file a single official complaint about others to AE, ANI or other similar places for at least a year. Offliner brings here an episode when Colchicum made an AE request about Russavia still stalking my edits. Yes, I get excited when Jehochman, Petri and Russavia started claiming that it was me who actually violated the ban, despite to clarification by Shell. However, Offliner forget that I striked through my comment as soon as realized that it was indeed inappropriate [34], and I did not object to the non-administrative closure of the AE case by Petri Krohn [35]. I regret about commenting anything at all in this case.

Yes, I was concerned with certain actions or words by Vecrumba, Radek and Martintg and left them a few friendly comments about this [36] and [37] (diffs by Offliner). I do not think that Vecrumba or Radek were offended by my comments. And frankly, there are too many bad faith accusations in the statement by Offliner. I remind to Vecrumba about Russian editor who was indefinitely banned, mostly for contributing in irrelevant discussions. I am telling Radek that "winning" is not the goal, and it might be better for him to loose a dispute or two. I am looking at new editors, like Marknutley and Collect, and ask one of them if she is aware of potential problems. Is that an evidence of the "battleground" by me?

Finally, I needed to submit this amendment precisely because I wanted Arbcom to reconsider its decision about me. It's noteworthy that Russavia-Biophys case concerns mostly behavior by the sides during only first three months of 2010, although there are also long-term problems with behavior of everyone involved. So, I thought that six months might be reasonable to make some corrections if needed.Biophys (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Offliner

I don't think there is sufficient reason to believe Biophys would not return to his old disruptive ways if the sanction is lifted. He has made several promises before (e.g.[38],[39]), but these never caused him to alter his behaviour (see here). Biophys also continued to participate in battleground discussions during his topic ban, defending certain editors [40][41], while attacking others [42][43][44][45][46]. Biophys' battleground mentality is still here, as clearly evidenced by diffs like this and this. Anyway, the sanction says that the topic ban is to be reviewed no sooner than after one year, not now. The ruling was pretty clear here, and modifying it now would make the original sanction look strange, even misleading. Offliner (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba and in Response to Offliner

Re: Offliner's reference of an exchange on my talk page here, Offliner's characterization is rather a misrepresentation as I was attempting to work through some conflicts in the topic area in question (and have received positive responses regarding my participation); Biophys' statement was one that I took as asking why I would seek out some area of controversy that is a known battleground (there was a raging Arbcom going on at the time I took interest to the articles in the area of dispute). Observing that there are battlegrounds and offering the observation that an editor might have better places to spend one's time is hardly exhibiting a "battleground mentality." What does appear (my perception) to be a battleground mentality is Offliner always seeming to be the first to show up at these affairs to denounce those who might in some circles be considered his editorial opposition. I'll spare diffs on his block shopping with regard to myself. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as Brad. Statements if any should focus on this narrow issue only, not the broader topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to please get some views from those familiar with Biophys's editing who were not involved in any of the previous cases? Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Kehrli

Initiated by Kkmurray (talk) at 23:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Kehrli arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 1.1) Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z.
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

  • Remedy 1.1) Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z and from articles related to Kendrick mass and mass units.

Statement by Kkmurray

There is a dispute regarding WP:OR and WP:NPOV at Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit) that is a continuation of the dispute previously discussed in the resolved arbitration case Kehrli that involved the mass and unit articles Mass-to-charge ratio, Thomson (unit) and Mass spectrum. User:Kehrli has resumed aggressive POV editing related to mass and unit articles. The locus of discussion for this dispute is Talk:Kendrick_mass.

As in the resolved arbitration case, User:Kehrli has over several months pushed original research and POV in mass and unit articles. He has used the general guidelines documents such as ISO 31, the IUPAC green book and a minority view from a single primary source document [47] to justify POV pushing and original research in mass units. He rejects [48] multiple secondary sources [49] and is not abiding by WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE and WP:OR in article editing.

As in the past dispute leading to the resolved arbitration case, User:Kehrli has engaged in disruptive activity such as deleting talk page comments [50], inappropriately flagging other users talk page comments.[51][52], merging without consensus.[53], removing page flags during discussion, [54][55][56], WP:PERSONAL [57] and lack of WP:AGF [58][59][60].

Dispute resolution steps so far

This dispute has been discussed extensively for several months (primarily at Talk:Kendrick mass) and has gone through a proposed merge, request for comment, and informal discussions with prior case administrators. The discussion has been useful in establishing the views of the editors and several new scientific references have been found that provide additional facts that shed light on the dispute. Informal discussions with administrators from the prior dispute process have led to further clarification of the situation, [61] It appears that further discussion will not likely be useful as User:Kehrli does not seem willing to compromise. [62]

Specific dispute resolution steps:

Kendrick unit article created December 18, 2009 by User:Kehrli [63]

PROD January 17, 2010 by User:Glenfarclas [64]

dePROD January 17, 2010 by User:Glenfarclas [65]

Move Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass January 25, 2010 by User:Kkmurray [66]

Reverse move and redirect Kendrick mass to Kendrick unit August 17, 2010 by User:Kehrli [67] [68]

Restore Kendrick mass and propose merge from Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass August 17, 2010 by User:Kkmurray [69] [70]

Request for comments from WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Mass spectrometry, September 24-27, 2010 by User:Kkmurray [71] [72] [73]

Open RfC October 17, 2010 by User:Kkmurray [74]

Informal request for assistance from prior case administrators November 1, 2010 User:Nick Y. [75] [76] [77] [78]

Examples of recent original research related to Kendrick mass

Statement by Nick Y.

I am very busy right now and won't be able to spend much time explaining this situation. However, I will state here that the examples given by Kkmurray are original research. The OR is logical and helps to resolve some outstanding issues in the scientific literature. In other words it might make a good, as in thoughtful and compelling, opinion article in a scientific journal. There are multiple sources that conflict with one another. Rather than stating such Kehrli has chosen to resolve the issues here at wikipedia with his thoughtful suggestions as to how things should be done. His suggestions make sense and are logical and consistent with how units of measure should be defined by the strictest of rules. It simply isn't his role as an editor at wikipedia to define new units of measure, or even clarify the definitions of things that look like units of measure and are present in the scientific literature in some form. We are here to summarize and report accurately, even when what we are reporting on is a mess or conflicting with conventions. The new behavior is essentially the same as what happened last time. I wholeheartedly endorse Kkmurray's course of action here as it is clear that Kehrli is unwilling to understand or accept any feedback on the scope of his responsibilities as an editor. I also find no faults in Kkmurray's position on the substance of this issue. --Nick Y. (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Amend or Restart To my understanding the purpose of sanctions is not to punish but to incontrovertibly inform and allow for some time and reflection. It is not alright to return to the same behavior after sanctions expire. The sanctions should have informed you that you need to listen and understand appropriate editing and behavior. Amendments to previous finding should be primarily for completing this job. "Is the same behavior persisting?" "What is it that is not clear about what is or is not OR?" "How can we help this editor to understand how to contribute effectively?" "Do sanctions need to be extended since they persist after previous sanctions, clarifications and admonitions?" The expiration of sanctions doesn't mean that the findings have expired and that the offending editor is free to return to their previous behavior. It means that the editor now has another chance to contribute as a good wikipedian.--Nick Y. (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting statements; will comment thereafter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have some mixed feelings here. On the one hand, Kirill's point is well-taken, and it's difficult for us to talk about renewing remedies from a 2006 case given the time that has elapsed and the fact that not a single current arbitrator was on the committee in 2006. On the other hand, if, as appears to be true, an editor is currently engaged in exactly the same behavior for which he was sanctioned in 2006, it doesn't seem that the entire panoply of a new case should be required. Or, if we do ask for a new case, we should do our best to expedite it, which in the context of a one-editor dispute should certainly should be doable. In any event, waiting a couple more days (but only that!) for any additional statements to come in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further clarifying my thinking, and responding to the latest comment above, whether we act (if at all) through a motion or a new case might depend in part on what Kehrli has to say. At the moment, he hasn't said anything, but then again, he hasn't edited at all in the week since this request was posted (whether that's cause-and-effect or not is impossible to say). So, I think we need to wait a little while longer and see what happens next. My views might be very different depending on whether he offers a reasonable explanation of why the current circumstances differ from 2006, or whether he goes back to editing while ignoring the request, or whatever else he might do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting statements also - please note that as this is a case from 2006, I will only be reading the final decision as background. If more background reading is needed, please indicate this in statements. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having looked at the old case, the remedies there have expired, so if anything was done here we would be reinstating (and extending) them, rather than amending them. In essence, this should be treated as a request to reopen the case. My view is that given the period of time that has elapsed, and the complexity of the matter, the best thing to do is to reopen the case (or start a new one) rather than attempt to work out on the amendments page what is going on here. But I'm holding off on my final decision here until Kehrli has had a chance to make a statement. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general point, I'm opposed to the idea of dragging a four-year-old case from the grave to impose new sanctions; arbitration remedies are not meant to be a perpetual hammer hanging over editors' heads long after they've expired. If there's a dispute that needs our attention, it would be better framed as a new case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: EEML (2)

Initiated by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk at 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 3
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • N/A

Amendment 1

  • Piotrus topic banned
  • This is a request to amend EEML Remedy 3 to end the topic ban that applies to Piotrus and allow him to edit articles related to Eastern Europe.

Statement by Piotrus

The amendment proposed last June concerning my person was described as "premature" and the Committee members suggested it should be revisited in one to three months time. As three months have passed, I would like to ask the Committee to consider it now (the topic ban is now in its mid-length, with six months passed, and six months to go).

I would like to repeat what I said three months ago (update: which I could summarize as "I apologize for becoming radicalized and violating WP:CANVASS and I promise not to repeat those mistakes") and to confirm that three months later I have still not been involved in any controversy or dispute resolution and that I am still actively contributing to English Wikipedia and other WMF projects. Notably, there have been not a single complain about my WikiProject Poland related activity, allowed by the amendment from May. I would like to resume carrying out clean up work on articles myself (instead of having to report all issues, even obvious vandalism, and burdening other editors with carrying out the tasks I can do myself). Further, I would like to resume regular new content creation (see how much content I created before and after the topic ban). I was the author of many uncontroversial Poland-related Featured Articles; in fact I have had a draft of a now-defeatured Poland-related article ready for transfer to en wiki for several months now (the article even passed a mock GA review a while ago)... is the project really benefiting from me not being able to fix this article and others...?

I would like to stress that content I created was never an issue of concern, the EEML case was about inappropriate canvassing. If the Committee has any lingering doubts, I can promise to voluntarily abstain from casting votes in Eastern European related discussions (moves, deletions, etc.) for the remainder of the topic ban original duration.

To the expected peanut gallery, I have this to say: I am here to build an encyclopedia, and I invite you to join me in good faith in this collaborative effort. To the "Piotrus is EVIL" chorus, I have this to add: I forgive you (you should try it, it does wonders for one's wikistress). To those who have supported me in the past and will do so in the future, I want to say thank you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ghirla

"The absence of Piotrus from the Eastern Europian minefield made it a much safer and pleasant place than it used to be". Really? Given this, the numerous AE threads and even the discussions here, including some recent Arbitrator comments below, sadly, I am not seeing this. The dramu continues, without the dreaded EEML members. I wonder why... weren't we the root of all evil after all? :>

Anyway, here's a piece of ancient history: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla and User:Durova/Mediation. I stood by and still stand by your request and my promise - I have never commented on you since that mediation. It saddens me to see that you are not returning this favor, even through you made a clear promise: "I promise not to mention his [Piotrus] name in similar circumstances" (the similar circumstances being "to stop discussing [the other editor] on public noticeboards".

I was disappointed when you withdrew from that mediation, but till now, we have not interacted, and I considered our ancient disagreements a thing of the past, and the hatchet well and deep buried. I appreciate your uncontroversial content contribution to the EE topic, and your lack of involvement in the surrounding dramu; till your present comment on my person I thought you were the model reformed, deradicalized editor we could all learn from (create content, avoid conflict and dramu). I'd really appreciate it if you could reconsider your involvement, and rebury the hatchet. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Offliner

You ask for some valid statements/links, and I am happy to provide them.

  1. "a real admission of all transgressions (not just a single one like "EEML case was about inappropriate canvassing", which is even in the passive voice) & a real apology": if you'd prefer an active voice statement, here you go: "I was involved in violations of WP:CANVASS during the EEML period, for which I apologize." Please also see here;
  2. "a real promise that nothing similar to the transgressions will recur": repeating from three months ago: "I plan on ensuring that errors of the past will not repeat themselves in the future";
  3. "perhaps proposing measures that will discourage relapse". In addition to the links above, please see here, here and here. Sadly, those proposals were not met with much discussion, amid calls for blood and such. I wonder, were this not the case, would the EE arena today be still as battleground-ish as it is now? Blocks and bans are simple, but not that effective, as experience shows. What is needed is a desire for participants to bury the hatchet and talk things over. Nothing less will fix the situation, I am afraid. Anyway, this is not the best forum for discussion, but I invite you to read my thoughts on this issue here and comment on the talk page.

In exchange, could you point me out to the apology you have made for the events that led to your block on January 15, a promise not to repeat the actions that led to it and any proposals to discourage relapse you have made? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "4+1+40 Offenses": I did and do acknowledge, apologize and promise never to repeat all items that the arbitrators listed in the findings of the case (what you refer to as "4 Offenses", which includes canvassing; I refer to the other items as "radicalization" and I mentioned that in my recognition&apology&promise above). I have never seen this bizarre "40 Offenses" list; it was certainly never a part of any proposed (or passed) finding. It looks to me like your own version of the official findings, in many instances differing substantively from them (and as such not something relevant to this amendment). In fact, some of your claims directly contradict the Committee findings (to start with your first claim - I will not discuss others for reasons of space and relevance - is that I was the list founder and organizer - the Committee found otherwise). Let me remind you that that this is not the place to re-litigate the case by bringing concerns from that time that were not taken up by the Committee, but in any case I do agree that the behaviors you describe should be avoided (by me and others). Once again, I did and do apologize for the relevant ("4") offenses and plan never to repeat them again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Skäpperöd

This is ridiculous, or bad faithed, or both... sigh. Regarding the note to Jusdafax, I found some anon vandalism, and I reported it to an admin that already reverted part of it. Months ago Coren has already confirmed I can report vandalism to administrators; the topic ban prevents me from undoing it myself but certainly does not mean that I should keep mum when I see it (oh, and during the period I was banned, I emailed info on vandalism I spotted to several arbitrators regularly, too). Sigh. This "evidence" gets even more ridiculous. Forced labor in Germany during World War II to which I made just a single mostly automated c/e edit concerns multiple nationalities, not to mention Germany is not in Eastern Europe the last time I checked; see also article's talk page and categories which do not contain any EE projects nor categories, just German ones. The only edit to Second Northern War I made was adding an uncontroversial talk MILHIST assessment template; in any case, just like the previous article, this article deals only marginally with Poland, probably as much as generic World War II article (for example); further the MILHIST template when assessed by another editor did not merit inclusion of a Poland-taskforce.

In fact, to make Skäpperöd's job easier, let me report myself for many similar edits. In the past few weeks I have made edits to pages like Wikimania (2010 edition of which was held in Poland), Revolution (I am sure some occurred in Poland), Pax Mongolica (Mongols invaded Poland at one time, you know), and multiple articles on generic concepts from the fields of science and literature, which are variously connected to Poland (galaxy for example contains the planet Earth which contains Poland, or space opera, which is a genre that Polish writers write in and some are probably mentioned on that page, too). I have also added assessment templates to scores of articles, and while I tried avoiding those obviously connected with Eastern Europe, I might have missed the fact that some of them mention something EE-related in the main body (which I usually don't read). I have also use AutoEd on the main body of many articles; again, it is likely that some of them may mention something EE-related (hmmm, come to think to it, I was working on the world-systems article, and IIRC somewhere in it is an example that mentions Poland in one sentence... I could go on :>

More seriously, I strongly believe I have upheld the topic ban quite well, and I think Skäpperöd's evidence proves it - in fact, thanks for bringing it up, I couldn't make a better argument myself :)

As I said above, I strongly believe that the EE area is not going to improve without editors following WP:FORGIVE. I am afraid, however, that if some editors will keep bad faith attacks on others, aiming to forum shop blocks or bans on anything that can be stretched and called "evidence", the battleground atmosphere will persist, and the Committee may need to step in again :( Perhaps some kind of restriction on bringing spurious evidence and requests is in order? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kotniski

Again, I support Piotrus's request. There are no and never have been any serious complaints about Piotrus's actions as an editor of articles; and so, considering what a productive editor he is capable of being, any continued restrictions on this editing serve only to harm the encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghirla

The absence of Piotrus from the Eastern Europian minefield made it a much safer and pleasant place than it used to be, prompting even Ghirla to resume editing activity, albeit on a limited scale. What a hell of an atmosphere it used to be when Piotrus and Co conspired behind the curtain how to oust from the project the editors like Ghirla, with more than 165,000 edits under his belt. It sends shivers down his spine even now. Poor Irpen, where he is now. Let's pardon the participants of the infamous mailing list, and you will have more drama, witch-hunts and persecution, leaving the Russia-related topics what they had been for quite some time: barren of authors. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments below remind me that I was declared a "hate/propaganda monger" (June 23) on what they call the "Russian front" or "taking the fight to the enemy" (June 21). I don't think I've ever commented on the case; only a prospect of full impunity for everyone involved in the long-term pattern of personal attacks and wikistalking prompts me to comment here. Those guys have succeeded in ousting every reasonably productive contributor from Russia-related topics. Just think about it. P.S. Mr Vecrumba is an EEML member and seems to be actively violating his topic ban. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

As I did three months ago, I once again support Piotrus' proposed amendment. I agree with other editors who have mentioned how prolific a contributor Piotrus is. I believe he has learned from the EEML debacle and will work toward the improvement of the project.

Currently, Piotrus is allowed to comment on Poland-related matters at WT:POLAND. Every week, he reviews new articles and posts notes about them (e.g., which ones should be nominated for DYK, whether articles should be nominated for speedy deletion, etc.). Then I evaluate Piotrus' suggestions and act upon them as I see fit, a task in which we are sometimes assisted by other editors. I think it would be easier for all concerned if Piotrus were able to perform this Wiki-gnoming directly, rather than by proxy.

In summary, I think Piotrus is an asset to the project and his inability to edit articles in the area of his expertise is a detriment to all of us. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for SirFozzie

Could you elaborate on your comment a little, please? It isn't clear how your comments with respect to Skäpperöd's proposed amendment relate to the this proposed amendment. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

In light of the long period that has passed since Coren said he would draft a motion, I feel the need to ask whether Carcharoth's comment ("I would suggest all those under sanctions of finite length just wait out the bans") reflect the Committee's latest thinking, or is it just Carcharoth's view? If the latter, could somebody indicate when the Committee might make some progress on this proposed amendment? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Offliner

I cannot speak for what others or even Arbcom will want to see but this would be what I'd personally hope for. If any of this has happened before, it will have escaped my attention and some diffs will do to rectify me.

  • a real admission of all transgressions (not just a single one like "EEML case was about inappropriate canvassing", which is even in the passive voice)
  • a real apology
  • a real promise that nothing similar to the transgressions will recur
  • perhaps proposing measures that will discourage relapse. Offliner (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 4 Offences known from the official findings of facts
  1. Canvassing
  2. Piotrus was aware that usage of the list was inappropriate, and made efforts to keep its nature and existence secret from Wikipedia editors.
  3. Piotrus has used his administrative tools in disputes he and other members of the list were involved in in order to affect disputes and in furtherance of their point of view.
  4. Piotrus has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring and encouraging and advising list members to circumvent Wikipedia policies.
The 1 Offence Piotrus has acknowledged and promised to avoid
  1. Violations of Canvassing
    • Canvassing is most easy to game for Piotrus. In this recent on-wiki message (everyone knows that Piotrus usually prefers off-wiki contacts), Piotrus refers someone to his amendment, reminds that he supported him last time and implies support for an adminship application. He just obfuscates the meaning by using a pretext that he was interested in why that person had forgiven him unlike the others. Piotrus didn't write a message to those who had opposed his amendment last time, although it would make much more sense to ask them for forgiveness and ask why they had opposed him.

Statement by nihil novi

Not having been a participant in the East European Mailing List, I may not have a full understanding of some of its activities, which I gather were involved in sanctions now under review. I personally do not recall ever having been contacted in an inappropriate way by Piotr Konieczny. I have seen him as a most competent, dedicated and productive contributor to Wikipedia on a broad range of topics, including the history of Poland and Europe. His contributions to the overarching project have been of inestimable value, both in the production of content and in the coordination of an appreciable portion of the efforts of other productive authors. Wikipedia can, I think, ill afford to exclude such a capable individual from full participation in the community's efforts to build a comprehensive, honest, reliable online encyclopedia. Nihil novi (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jacurek

Piotrus's contribution to the Wikipedia especially Project Poland [87] is outstanding. His dedication and knowledge are way above the average contributor. Keeping him banned from the topic area of Eastern Europe any longer only hurts the project itself. Ridiculous and bad faith comments from well known opponents of Piotrus such as this one for example[88] of user Skäpperöd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sad examples of aggressive block shopping that should be punished.--Jacurek (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jniech

I consider myself a Polish editor (but British with a Polish father) hence I declare any bias.

First I find it difficult to really understand the view “that Piotrus and Co conspired behind the curtain how to oust from the project”. It easy enough to set-up a Wikipedia account and use a different IP address. If editing is easier then it is because those involved have accepted their punishment.

Further I understand that based on the decision, that Piotrus was found guilty.

I support this proposal that Piotrus be allowed to edit articles related to Eastern Europe. Having said that if it is rejected I would hope he would be allowed to write new articles and allowed to interact on talk pages (e.g. add quality, importance and take part in debates). Jniech (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lysy

I support the request, for the same reason as before. As for my bias, yes, I am Polish and I admit that I am interested in the quality of Poland-related articles as well as unrelated articles. While Polish, I remained unaware of the illegal mailing list existence, so the conspiracy might have not been that wide and powerful, after all. This said I'm still surprised that mailing lists are considered illegal on wikipedia. Anyway, in my opinion the topic ban is irrelevant to the offence, serves no useful purpose and in fact is only destructive for wikipedia. --Lysytalk 17:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Artem Karimov

As an outsider, I would like to voice my opinion as well. It appears to me that Piotrus' behaviour has got no better since the EEML case. Such an obfuscated payoff pointed out by Offliner made me completely convinced that lifting the block is NOTNOW. If Piotrus' behavioural pattern does not change in the future, then, quite possibly, NOTEVER. Retracting my previous statement. There is always enough rope anyway. And Piotrus sounds sincere so probably we could give him a chance to redeem himself. Therefore support. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 16:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ezhiki

As long as Piotrus can stay out of trouble and edit peacefully, I see very little point in Wikipedia loosing a valuable contributor in a severely undermanned area. I support the remedy, although I would also support re-instating the topic ban immediately should Piotrus find himself in an (accepted) Eastern Europe-related ArbComm case ever again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 7, 2010; 15:18 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys

You issued editing restrictions for a lot of editors in several recent cases. Some of these editors will not behave well and perhaps invite more serious measures, as evident from the recent discussions at AE and elsewhere. Others will follow your order to edit peacefully and productively in allowed areas and behave well in every respect, just like Piotrus. Whatever his problems in the past, Piotrus shows a very positive example (please compare with others). It makes a lot of sense to support editors like him. Otherwise, there is no hope. You should not only use big stick. Biophys (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Septentrionalis

I have not been contacted by Piotrus; I am not a professional Pole - on the other hand, I do not have ideological commitments to any of the other nationalities contending for Minsk and Silesia. My experience with Piotrus has been that he was always comparatively reasonable, and more willing to yield for compromise than several editors who were not sanctioned or have been sanctioned for fixed terms.

It is clear, above, that Piotrus recognizes the problem, and that he asserts his intertion to avoid it, under pain of permanent topic ban. Let us lift it, or at least declare a term (and at this point, many terms would already have expired); those who think otherwise should be prepared to jusitfy a permanent ban. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a comment: I see I have erred; Piotrus is under a ban of twelve months, to begin after his three month block. (Why so much vehemence over so short a time remaining?) This seems unusual, although understandable; ArbCom rarely attempts to regulate more than a year in advance - either things are indefinite or one year renewable, as with PHG above. I support the current motion, although I hope it will be interpreted assuming good faith and enforced by warning before blocks; a hostile admin could construe any diplomatic or military action of Poland-Lithuania as "ethnic conflict". If it passes and succeeds in keeping Piotrus out of inflammatory areas, that will be more evidence of Piotrus' moderation. If it fails, may I suggest making the year topic ban concurrent with the block, thus ending next month? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by Skäpperöd

Looking at Piotrus' talk page, one finds a recent note of Jusdafax, in which he confirmed making this EE edit on "request" by Piotrus (otherwise not knowing about the issue, see edit summary). What makes this even more worrying is that the "request" was apparently made off-wiki. Piotrus also violated his topic ban last month when he came to this article after his associate Molobo had edited there. I further remember Piotrus' interest an article I wrote, Second Northern War, which also is within the scope of his topic ban. The article was up for GAC review when Piotrus and encouraged another user to make critical comments during the review [89] and tagged its talk page.

In the request below I provided evidence that Radeksz is back at his old targets after the return from his topic ban, he even got blocked for his post-topic ban disruption, and we are just talking about this summer. Molobo's post-block behaviour is also in part mentioned in that request. Jacurek evaded his topic ban by sockpuppetry. The group's associate Loosmark was recently EE topic banned. Biophys was subject to another Arbcom case after the EEML. The remedies of the EEML arbcom should have quieted the EE are for about a year, but they have not succeeded in doing so.

Until Piotrus2, Arbcom had decided in dubio pro Piotro, then gained access to the EEML archive, and responded with moderate remedies. This approach has failed. It is unlikely that Arbcom will every now and then be provided with a random archive of Piotrus' group's off-wiki collaboration, nor will Radeksz copy his inbox to mainspace again as he did while proxying for Molobo. That doesn't mean that it has stopped.

I suggest that Piotrus' group is subject to a permanent topic ban from EE articles concerning shared histories, naming disputes, or shared/disputed nationality issues.

Statement by DonaldDuck

For Piotrus, topic ban was deserved remedy. And this remedy worked. After Piotrus was topic banned, Eastern European topic area became much safer place. Editors can work without fear of being targeted by Piotrus and his group. EEML remedy should not be amended now. DonaldDuck (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heim talketh

Apparently I'm now going to join the scorned "Piotrus is evil" crowd. So be it.

I'm quite concerned that Piotrus still seems to show no sign of remorse or even much concern about what he did. Indeed, his comment seems to almost be telling us that we need to absolve him. Forgiveness is not something to be demanded, it is to be humbly requested, and I'm not seeing this. Of course, this shouldn't be about personal disputes (and I don't believe I ever have disputed with Piotrus, myself), but the approach he's taking leaves me really skeptical that he's really learnt anything. He holds up his spotless record since his return from his siteban. Well, yeah, that's because he's been mandatorily away from the area where the problems happened. I can't see that this record proves much. (True, this can be said in the case of any topic ban.) I acknowledge that he's been a hard working contributor at Wikipedia for a long time, but the abuse he perpetrated with EEML can't be mitigated solely by that, and the committee has to weigh if he's really likely to be a net positive here. OK, still some concerns, but I did miss that there was an apology. Striking this much.

If the committee decides to lift, even in part, this topic ban, which I really think is probably not in Wikipedia's best interest, I strongly urge an oversight mechanism to be in place so that any relapse into previous behaviour will result in the reinstatement of the sanctions. Eastern Europe articles are already the biggest, most festering national/ethnic-related stinkhole on Wikipedia, despite the joys of Israel/Palestine and Ireland/the British Isles. I ask the arbitration committee to do whatever it can to be sure it festers and stinks less. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerical note: Piotrus has raised concerns about statement that suggests I may have missed things. I intend to look later and make amendments as necessary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken some of my comments that I believe were inaccurate. I acknowledge that Piotrus has, contrary to my original understanding, apologized, which I reckon is a start, at least. I continue to reiterate that, given the severity of previous lapses, if the committee chooses to lighten this restriction, there should be proper oversight to stop this situation if there's any relapse. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically for Newyorkbrad

Concerning your suggestion, I'm going to have to be one of those people who raises questions about line-drawing. In this volatile area, ethnic disputes pop up in unexpected areas. For example, Nicolaus Copernicus would seem like it ought to be just another science article, but no, it's also a been a point of ethnic disputes over the scientist's nationality. I have no real ideas about how the lines would be drawn, and I honestly question whether this idea is feasible. Completely understand the want to do this, but is it realistic? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on terminology

I think Coren's comment is the second time recently that I've seen an arbitrator using the expression "toe the line" in a way that seems to be contrary to its normal meaning. My experience of its use is roughly in line with the wikipedia article where it quotes directly from sources: 

"To adhere to rules or doctrines conscientiously; conform" (American Heritage)
"To conform to a rule or standard" (Oxford)

The way it's used here though in "trying to toe the line and argue about where it lies" seems to mean... something else. The best I can make of the intended meaning is along the lines of "trying to push the boundaries". I think it's an emerging case of a locally redefined word or phrase that hinders communication with anyone from the rest of the world and would best be dropped before a local meaning sticks. Wikipedia really has too much of that already. 87.254.73.141 (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • See below for my response and thoughts in this area. SirFozzie (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further: I reiterate what I think down below, that the fact that people in this area cannot or will not get along with each other bodes very ill for the consequences.. as for the narrowing, I agree with Brad, and will at least be willing to narrow the topic ban, with the caveat that it's going to be very quickly reapplied if there are future issues. SirFozzie (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current topic-ban provides that Piotrus is currently "topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed." I do not think that in view of the entire situation and history, a consensus to lift the topic-ban in its entirety is likely to emerge. However, consistent with what I have suggested on other occasions, I am considering a motion to narrow the topic ban to apply only to "articles concerning nationalist or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe" and related pages, as opposed to all articles about Eastern Europe. This would allow Piotrus to edit many articles in his areas of interest without, hopefully, stoking disputes about the most contentious ones. I understand that there may be concerns about line-drawing, but I think they are solvable. Comments on this possibility would be appreciated; please submit them by Saturday so that, for once, we can potentially have a timetable for resolving this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused. Shell babelfish 09:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree in principle with a narrowing of the topic ban, but that would be accompanied with a stern warning that trying to toe the line and argue about where it lies is the swiftest way to have it return. I'll propose an amendment in a few day unless one of my colleagues does so first in order to give more time for other arbs to chime in (we have had, regrettably but predictably, our attention mostly taken by an ongoing case rather than this page). — Coren (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like Fozzie and some other arbs, why is it the East Europe editors seem completely incapable of getting along with one another. I'm beginning to think we should open another case and use wiki-tactical nuke level measures. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - over the past near-two years I have been an arbitrator, this has remained an incessant battleground area. I fully expect that unless the same names that keep appearing time and time again get the message, there will be further measures taken either by this committee or the new one in 2011. There is such a thing as wearing out the patience of ArbCom as well as the community. I would suggest all those under sanctions of finite length just wait out the bans, and those with indefinite restrictions limit themselves to getting the restrictions changed to ones of a finite length. Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse  Roger talk 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

Remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list "Piotrus topic banned") is replaced with the following:
Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics until March 22, 2011 (the date on which the topic ban imposed in the original decision was to expire).
As there are 11 active arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, the majority to pass is 5
Support
  1. With my apologies by the externally imposed delay in proposing this motion. — Coren (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Added the time limitation; I believe this motion is intended as a narrowing, not an extension, of the existing topic ban. If I have misinterpreted the intent, any arbitrator can revert and we should discuss. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that was the intent. — Coren (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Based on the votes above the motion is carried. Let's wait 24 hours for any additional votes to come in, at which point the Clerk should archive and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=396519864"