Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
order req chronologically, and fmt fix
Line 2: Line 2:
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification]]}} =
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification]]}} =
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}}

== Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list]] (2) ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) '''at''' 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|The Four Deuces}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Piotrus}}
*{{userlinks|Digwuren}}
*{{userlinks|Martintg}}
*{{userlinks|Tymek}}
*{{userlinks|Martintg}}
*{{userlinks|Jacurek}}
*{{userlinks|Radeksz}}
*{{userlinks|Dc76}}
*{{userlinks|Vecrumba}}
*{{userlinks|Biruitorul}}
*{{userlinks|Miacek}}





*{{userlinks|Martintg}}

<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== Statement by The Four Deuces ===
<!-- Describe the nature of your request, and any explanation or evidence why it is needed.
You can delete this comment when you have added your statement -->
Are [[Mass killings under Communist regimes]], [[Communist terrorism]], [[Putinism]], [[Eastern Bloc emigration and defection]] and similar articles included in the topic ban for articles about Eastern Europe? Mass Killings under Communist regimes was originally called [[Communist genocide]] and part of the findings of the arbitration was that Martintg had canvassed other members of the list concerning the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide. The article includes mass killings by the Soviet Union including in Ukraine. Martintg says that this article is excluded.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&action=historysubmit&diff=335053519&oldid=335036207] However I made a request to Martintg and received no response.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMartintg&action=historysubmit&diff=335073261&oldid=333468541] [[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===

----



== Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley]] ==
== Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley]] ==
Line 32: Line 73:


Please look, as well, at the tendentious behavior of other editors around this, most particularly [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]], and [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci's]] pursuit of an old vendetta, not related to the case in question. I have no significant complaint about MastCell but included him because he may wish to comment. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Please look, as well, at the tendentious behavior of other editors around this, most particularly [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]], and [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci's]] pursuit of an old vendetta, not related to the case in question. I have no significant complaint about MastCell but included him because he may wish to comment. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by LessHeard vanU ===
In that Abd is disallowed by [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Abd editing restriction (existing disputes)]] from commenting in areas where he is not an originating source of the dispute, without consultation with a mentor, I consider ArbCom may be inclined to consider either extending Abd's parole to instances where either WMC (or Mathsci) unilaterally invoke Abd or the original dispute in unrelated matters, or require WMC (and Mathsci) to refrain from invoking either Abd or the dispute in unrelated matters. It seems to me that the latter would be preferable, in that it might mean less requests for clarification. (Per Abd I am including Mathsci as a party to the original decision, and not commenting on their actions subsequently).

I should note that my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=335105050&oldid=335101712 response to WMC's comments at AN] alluded to [[WP:NPA]] and that WMC's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=335138096&oldid=335134362 later response to me] appeared to disregard that they had not earlier commented upon the content User:GoRight's proposal or that I had neither - that I commented to caution WMC for poor faith commentary. It may be outside of the ArbComs remit, but I am concerned that WMC's behaviour is becoming erratic and suggest they may benefit from being required to withdraw further from interactions with Abd. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 01:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
=== Statement by Mathsci===
*{{Userlinks|Abd}}
*{{Userlinks|GoRight}}

Abd has as usual misrepresented various users. His account of the recent disruptive actions of GoRight and himself does not bear much relation to actual events. Here is my understanding of what happened (New Year's Eve commitments in California do not permit any further detail at this stage, diffs can be provided later if necessary - I've written this in haste without a word count):

* Abd added a statement to the present RfAr of Tedder.
* I advised him on his talk page that, since he had not been involved in editing global warming articles in 2009, this probably contravened the editing restrictions placed on him by ArbCom in September following his 3 month ban. I later explained that ArbCom had not recommended a mentor (2 separate proposals were not carried) and that the mention of "mentor" in the editing restrictions was an oversight.
* I contacted MastCell by email.
* I contacted NYB by email.
* Abd and GoRight, in what apparently was a pre-decided arrangement, claimed that ArbCom had only imposed the editing restriction that Abd had to find a mentor who could waive any ArbCom editing restriction at his discretion. Apparently GoRight was to be the interim mentor of Abd's choice.
* MastCell, without having read my email, but having seen my post to Abd and his reply on Abd's talk page, raised the problem of Abd's RfAr statement at [[WP:AE]].
* MastCell also posted at the Clerks Noticeboard and I posted at Ryan's talk page.
* Ryan removed Abd's RfAr statement.
* Rlevse and Coren explained that Abd could not be involved in a possible future ArbCom case on Climate Change.
* MastCell clarified the editing restriction to Abd.
* GoRight posted a motion on the RfAr requesting Abd to be included as a party claiming that he was actively involved in WP articles on climate change becuase of his involvement in GoRight's own RfC in 2008.
* I posted a query about this on the clerk's noticeboard.
* Ryan explained that Abd could not participate in the RfAr or a future ArbCom case, regardless of GoRight's proposed motion.
* A few hours later, Abd requested on Tedder's talk page to be included by him as a party.
* Abd and GoRight started writing posts, presenting Abd as a victim, with extraordinary statements about a vendetta (his new phoney word that presumably replaces cabal).
* Abd opened this request.

All discussions have taken place on Abd's talk page, Tedder's talk page, the clerk's notice board and [[WP:AE]].

{{quote box|Please could ArbCom clarify the editing restriction on Abd? Since the two separate votes on mentorship did not pass, was the mention of a mentor in the editing restriction an oversight in the redrafting of the final decision?}}
Abd could have asked for clarification in a straightforward and discreet way, by email to any arbitrator. When I initially suggested this on his talk page, his reply was, '''"I'm not going to bother an arbitrator with this, their time is precious."''' Instead he has entered into a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] spirit, wikilawyering in an unreasonable way about his editing restrictions, even when two arbitrators, one clerk and one senior administrator have given the same unnuanced interpretation of these restrictions. I do not understand his use of the word "vendetta", just as I did not understand his use of the word "cabal". That GoRight is unsuitable as a mentor is not really something which seems open to debate, despite all of Abd's arguments to the contrary.

Abd has broken the terms of his editing restrictions twice (on RfAr and again by posting on [[WP:AN]]). His actions have been disruptive. He has attempted to deflect attention from himself by engaging in a smear campaign against his critics. In my case he is attacking an editor in good standing who has no involvement at all in any climate change matters on WP.

'''Desired outcome of clarification''' Please could the terms of Abd's editing restrictions be clarified by ArbCom so that any future repetition of this disruption and intensified wikilawyering over multiple wikipedia pages can be avoided.

NYB indicated to me in an email response that he hoped that MastCell's [[WP:AE]] request would clarify matters without ArbCom involvement. Before Abd's surprise public request here, I assumed that things had been clarified to everybody's satisfaction. I apologize that further time has to be spent on what should have been an entirely straightforward matter. Thanks in advance and Happy New Year to all! [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
:LHVU has given a slightly muddle-headed statement. I am not in dispute with Abd, any more than MastCell is. Both of us have been involved in pointing out Abd's contravention of his editing restrictions. Abd has just come off a three month ArbCom ban and so far has shown no sign of returning to normal editing patterns, quite the contrary. As far as I am aware, I am a good faith editor in good standing. LHVU should not repeat Abd's innuendos without checking facts for himself. Abd's account and interpretation are not accurate. His misleading use of the word "vendetta" could not be supported by one diff. Just like the nonsense he wrote about a "cabal". [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 02:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris ===
I had planned to request clarification and then saw the present request.

There are some loose ends from the Abd-WMC case that need to be tied up. In particular, Remedies 3.2 and 3.6 refer to a mentor but the decision gives no details on how the mentor is to be chosen. It would be helpful if the Committee could provide such details; for example, whether the choice of mentor is solely at Abd’s discretion or if the Committee views itself as having a role in the choice and terms of the mentorship. Abd is of course free to choose whomever he likes as an informal mentor but the question here is the choice of a formal mentor in light of the Remedies. Abd recently has chosen a mentor and the mentor has stated that he is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoRight&diff=prev&oldid=335157585 "as official as any mentor is required to be"]. This mentor has assumed the capacity to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=prev&oldid=335012002 authorize Abd's actions as required in Remedy 3.2]. Clarification of the Committee's intent with regard to mentorship in this case would help forestall drama.

=== Statement by Durova ===
Mentorship is not a panacea. It has its place within Wikipedia and stands its best chance of success when it happens informally. For nearly five years Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee let mentorships occur informally. For slightly over one year ArbCom has taken a more active role in mentorship, using attractive buzzwords such as "structured" and "empowered" that have caused resounding failures. I know of no instance where mentorship has succeeded as a formal arbitration remedy: formal ArbCom interference tends to turn the mentor into a political football and shifts the focus from long range improvement to the equivalent of a traffic cop.

To the new arbitrators: I used to mentor five people. One of them reformed after a long string of edit warring blocks to become a sysop on this site and four other WMF sites. He has become an OTRS volunteer and he serves on the Arbitration Committee of another wiki. Another became a featured content contributor and hasn't been blocked since 2008. There have been other successes. Yet my objections to the 2009 Committee's direction were so strong that I ceased accepting new mentorships and resigned from existing ones.

The most objectionable practice of the 2009 ArbCom was ''phantom mentorship'': writing mentorship into arbitration remedies where no actual volunteer agreed to fill the role. Abd was one of the people caught in that bind. This request for clarification offers a golden opportunity to correct that problem by rewriting the remedy to return mentorship where it functions best: in the background. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|390]]''</sup> 03:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by MastCell ===
Abd is testing the boundaries of his editing restriction, as he has with every previous editing restriction under which he's been placed. It's what he does. I can't for the life of me understand how this particular restriction is in any way ambiguous, but here we are.

It would be nice if WMC and others would never mention Abd again. It would be even nicer if Abd would just ''stay out of disputes where he isn't the originating party'', which is after all what the sanction insists he do. No amount of tortured logic can make Abd into an "originating party" in the current Arbitration request, because he isn't one. This seems like a case where clear boundaries have been set, and are being tested. Ball's in your court.

I find it hard to characterize GoRight's sudden self-appointment as Abd's "mentor" in any but extremely cynical terms, but then I think it was a pretty cynical undertaking in the first place, and sort of makes a mockery of the idea of mentorship. If the language about mentorship from the previous decision could be tidied up, and GoRight's "mentorship" addressed, that would probably help. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 03:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


=== Statement by other user ===
=== Statement by other user ===
Line 113: Line 95:
=== Statement by Biruitorul ===
=== Statement by Biruitorul ===
Do the topic bans handed out [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Remedies|here]] cover obvious vandalism? To give one example: three days ago, [[Special:Contributions/188.24.55.228|this guy]], with four edits, vandalized four articles (vaunted [[WP:BLP|BLPs]] no less). Vandalism has lain uncorrected in three of those. I, with 63,031 edits, over 99.8% of which have been constructive and positive contributions to the project (indeed, one of those articles was ''written'' by me), can do nothing about it. And I'm also the only one who seems to care. Doesn't the Committee find this state of affairs a bit odd? - [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Do the topic bans handed out [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Remedies|here]] cover obvious vandalism? To give one example: three days ago, [[Special:Contributions/188.24.55.228|this guy]], with four edits, vandalized four articles (vaunted [[WP:BLP|BLPs]] no less). Vandalism has lain uncorrected in three of those. I, with 63,031 edits, over 99.8% of which have been constructive and positive contributions to the project (indeed, one of those articles was ''written'' by me), can do nothing about it. And I'm also the only one who seems to care. Doesn't the Committee find this state of affairs a bit odd? - [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===

----

== Request for clarification: {Eastern European mailing list} ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) '''at''' 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|The Four Deuces}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Piotrus}}
*{{userlinks|Digwuren}}
*{{userlinks|Tymek}}
*{{userlinks|Martintg}}
*{{userlinks|Jacurek}}
*{{userlinks|Radeksz}}
*{{userlinks|Dc76}}
*{{userlinks|Vecrumba}}
*{{userlinks|Biruitorul}}
*{{userlinks|Miacek}}





*{{userlinks|Martintg}}

<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== Statement by The Four Deuces ===
<!-- Describe the nature of your request, and any explanation or evidence why it is needed.
You can delete this comment when you have added your statement -->
Are [[Mass killings under Communist regimes]], [[Communist terrorism]], [[Putinism]], [[Eastern Bloc emigration and defection]] and similar articles included in the topic ban for articles about Eastern Europe? Mass Killings under Communist regimes was originally called [[Communist genocide]] and part of the findings of the arbitration was that Martintg had canvassed other members of the list concerning the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide. The article includes mass killings by the Soviet Union including in Ukraine. Martintg says that this article is excluded.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&action=historysubmit&diff=335053519&oldid=335036207] However I made a request to Martintg and received no response.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMartintg&action=historysubmit&diff=335073261&oldid=333468541] [[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Martintg ===
Offliner already asked, see [[User_talk:Coren#EE_topic_bans]], and The Four Deuces is aware of this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martintg&diff=335073941&oldid=335073261 query]. [[Mass killings under communist regimes]] has significantly changed since [[Communist genocide]] and now is an international topic of general scope that also includes subsections on China, North Korea and Cambodia, as well as a general discussion on communist ideology as a factor. I've attempted to adhere to the spirit and letter of the EE topic ban and have kept well away from any EE sub-topic within this article. On a practical level I would like to expand the section on Ethiopia (having found an interesting book that does a comparative study of the mass killings of both the Cambodian and Ethiopian regimes), in addition to North Korea and other non-EE sub topics, so I've also asked Coren for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coren&diff=335166166&oldid=335125253 clarification] and he replied that it is okay to edit non-EE subtopics within [[Mass killings under communist regimes]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coren&diff=335210280&oldid=335207624 here], as long as I am careful, as I intend to be. --[[User:Martintg|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 03:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) ===
This is an important clarification. One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics. (but I do await seeing the theorisation in the Ethiopian-Cambodian study you mentioned) Another is that article content has barely changed since canvassed AFDs despite title change. A third is that article process which impacts on EE subtopics is stewed, and any involvement with process will be involvement in EE process (for example the theory only versus subtopics argument). Similarly participating in an AFD would be impacting on the EE components. Moreover I find it a curious argument that subportions of an article could be separated out. So please make a clear determination.


=== Statement by other user ===
=== Statement by other user ===

Revision as of 03:58, 1 January 2010

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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (2)|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (2)]] none none 1 January 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley]] none none 1 January 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list]] none none 31 December 2009

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (2)

Initiated by The Four Deuces (talk) at 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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




Statement by The Four Deuces

Are Mass killings under Communist regimes, Communist terrorism, Putinism, Eastern Bloc emigration and defection and similar articles included in the topic ban for articles about Eastern Europe? Mass Killings under Communist regimes was originally called Communist genocide and part of the findings of the arbitration was that Martintg had canvassed other members of the list concerning the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide. The article includes mass killings by the Soviet Union including in Ukraine. Martintg says that this article is excluded.[1] However I made a request to Martintg and received no response.[2] The Four Deuces (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion


Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Initiated by Abd (talk) at 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Abd

This restriction, prohibited me from "participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s)." This remedy was taken from a proposal by Thatcher, and was based on a claim that I frequently intervened in disputes, but without any finding or examples showing that these interventions had been nonconstructive. I did not notice this proposal during the case, it appeared at the end, and I'd stopped reading the Workshop page by that time. I never responded to it. The principle would seem to chill neutral intervention, when that's exactly what is missing, too often, and I'd been successful with such interventions, the community eventually confirming my positions in many cases, and a number of sitting arbitrators know this to be true. In any case, without examples of disruptive interventions, I don't know what behavior, specifically, is being prevented.

The immediate occasion is this statement on the case page. I was definitely involved with the situation under the Climate Change request. My view is that this led William M. Connolley to take an opportunity to ban me, which explains his otherwise puzzling behavior as being based on a grudge. I presented evidence, expanded at [3], on WMC's wheel-warring at Global warming as part of the subject case. When I'd worked on Global warming, I encountered the very problems that led to the current request, and can provide diffs if needed.

Therefore I considered myself already involved in the substance, hence mentor approval was not needed, even though I was not a formally named party yet. I was surprised, then, to see this objection from Mathsci appear on my Talk. As I have knowledge in depth of the underlying situation, I believed it my obligation to testify, in any case, so I declined to comply. Apparently seeing the discussion, MastCell then filed an Arbitration enforcement request, and a request to a clerk to remove my comment. Mathsci commented extensively,[4][5][6], adding confusion (incorrect about the history, apparently assuming I'd misrepresented it), and continuing after the post had been removed and it was moot.

Then WMC made a gratuitous accusation on AN. When I briefly replied to it, he threatened me with being blocked for the reply, and he removed the reply himself, which is old WMC behavior, matching that during the case.

Mathsci did consent to the closure of the Arbitration Enforcement request, after both MastCell and I agreed on that, but the request was re-opened by WMC, based on the AN incident. This is cute: troll for comment by attacking an editor, then assert the reply as a ban violation. I've noticed WMC's behavior go downhill since his desysopping.

The sanction is being used in an attempt to prevent me from participation where I am already involved, either historically or through a current accusation, and it is being used as a cover to harass me. If the my original statement had been disruptive, in itself, it could have been removed by a clerk with no fuss, likewise any editor believing it to be a ban violation could have removed it without all this mess. I thought I'd send the statement directly to ArbComm by email, a minimally disruptive approach; however, the removal of my comment from AN by WMC and his reopening the AE case made me realize that more was required.

I intend a request to lift the ban, but not yet, and sound policy is to honor ArbComm decisions, even where I may disagree strongly. The mentorship proposal, which seems to have been assumed in the ban, did not pass. Editors may voluntarily take on mentorship, and without a mentorship requirement, and specifically that ArbComm approve a mentor, I would seem to be free to choose any editor willing to accept me. GoRight is, in fact, an experienced editor, one who has survived serious attempts to ban him, and he did offer to mentor me. I did not ask him in advance to approve the comment because I did not consider it violated the restriction; however, post-facto, seeing the edit and the flap, he approved it. But the substance here is not mentor/no mentor, rather what should be behind all our decisions is not compliance with technicalities, but the purpose of all of it, the project. If my statement was disruptive, in itself, aside from the ban, I should have been warned or blocked for that, but, instead, the only objection was purely technical. Wikilawyering, in a word, to avoid the presentation of evidence.

ArbComm may decide to approve a mentor, resolving the ambiguity here. I know that arbitrators are aware of a highly experienced and presumably acceptable editor who agreed to mentor me during the case. Perhaps they will allow this mentorship. GoRight was only offering his support ad-interim. I have not asked permission to file this request, since I'm clearly an "originating party" here.

I appreciate clarification, as well, of the intention behind the restriction, with guidance as to how to honor it where I believe I am, in substance, a party to a dispute, even if not formally named. I put a great deal of effort into the Global warming situation, and AN reports don't formally name disputants. If I am working with editor A on an article, and editor B appears and attacks editor A, and B goes to AN/I, and I have knowledge of the situation, am I prohibited from commenting because editor B did not mention me? Or suppose he does mention me, as WMC mentioned me on AN?

Please look, as well, at the tendentious behavior of other editors around this, most particularly William M. Connolley, and Mathsci's pursuit of an old vendetta, not related to the case in question. I have no significant complaint about MastCell but included him because he may wish to comment. --Abd (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion


Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

Initiated by Biruitorul Talk at 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by Biruitorul

Do the topic bans handed out here cover obvious vandalism? To give one example: three days ago, this guy, with four edits, vandalized four articles (vaunted BLPs no less). Vandalism has lain uncorrected in three of those. I, with 63,031 edits, over 99.8% of which have been constructive and positive contributions to the project (indeed, one of those articles was written by me), can do nothing about it. And I'm also the only one who seems to care. Doesn't the Committee find this state of affairs a bit odd? - Biruitorul Talk 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=335232144"