---

I ask clarification in the application of the enforcement clause ( link).

The decision says that "[t]hose edit-warring against an administrator following this ruling so as to restore private content without consent of its creator may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator, up to a week in the event of repeated violations". However, as pointed out in this edit by Thebainer ( talk), arbitration decisions generally only apply to the case they're made in (exceptions including a number of decisions in the BDJ case, etc.).

So, I ask, does this enforcement apply to the parties/involved users in this case, or all Wikipedians? Naturally, if it is the latter, it should be expected that the user be given a final warning if it can be reasonably assumed that the user wasn't aware of the decision. Daniel 23:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The enforcement applies only to the particulars of this case. Paul August ☎ 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I think your statement is ambiguous. Does "particulars" mean "particular facts" or "particular parties"? GRBerry 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The general principle is that the principles, findings, remedies and enforcements of a given case apply only to that case. It is not intended that a case decision make new policy or be precedent setting. Thus the enforcement in this case is to be construed conservatively and narrowly, to apply only to the particular parties of this case, and only to the particular private content of this case. It is not intended to apply to other parties or other private content. Paul August ☎ 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still unclear. Applies only to the parties in this case, and the private information cited in this case? Mercury 00:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 17:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I would like to request clarification on one matter here, namely the restriction that "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." I know I'm not the only administrator to use a secondary account for security purposes while on a public or shared machine. Generally, such secondary accounts are clearly marked as to who they are controlled by, and cannot be used, for example, for circumvention or "bad hand" purposes, as they are clearly linked to their owner. Does the committee intend this ruling to apply even to such accounts? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This use came up during the Committee's discussion about our understanding of the sockpuppet policy. As long as the accounts are labeled in a way that makes the connection obvious there should not be a problem. Going the extra step of signing these posts with both account names will help if the account names are not obviously the same person. FloNight ( talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a related thread (from the proposed decision talk page here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Sometimes, ArbCom will close a case with a remedy, where an editor is warned/reminded not to do something but is not punished. What if the editor ignores the warning/reminder? Is there a process to tell ArbCom that the editor ignored the warning/reminder and should be punished? -- Kaypoh ( talk) 08:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bringing a new case, typically. Non-binding remedies are just that: non-binding. Kirill 12:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I request clarification of this Remedy. El C applied two blocks [1], [2], and over 24 hours later Thatcher131 places a notice of restriction [3]. Is the action of these two admins against the spirit of this particular remedy in that the notice of restriction should be applied first as a warning to that editor that any further violation may invoke an enforcement block, the intent being that the editor is given fair opportunity and chance to cease that particular behaviour? My concern is that the action of an over zealous admin may have driven a very productive editor away [4]. Martintg ( talk) 11:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor note: What did you expect when this botched ArbCom ended? I mean, here we are, with El_C, admin and Che Guevara (Communist) wannabe considered "uninvolved" when the whole issue here is not "Eastern Europe", but the heritage of Communism and Soviet Russian occupation. Not to mention that you have the same definition of the "conflict area" in the recent Anonimu ArbCom. Just take a look who is defending the Communist and Soviet POV-pusher User:Anonimu. It's the "uninvolved" Communist User:El_C and the Russian User:Irpen. Miraculous, isn't it. :) Dpotop ( talk) 12:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case the block was issued because of this one single comment on a user's talk page [5], yet there is seemingly no action when grossly more disruptive behaviour is brought to light here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Dr._Dan_inflaming_Eastern_European_topics Martintg ( talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Action has finally been taken. Martintg ( talk) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The intent of the notice (not "warning") clause was to ensure that parties subject to sanctions would be informed of the existence of the general restriction prior to it being applied to them. Editors obviously aware of the restriction—notably, the parties to the case—are not meant to receive additional notifications. Kirill 13:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, so you are basically saying that the meaning of this remedy is that all and every single editor of EE topics, is already subject to this general restriction? So why is it worded "may be made subject to an editing restriction" if this is the case. So as editors of EE topics, we either all are subject to this editing restriction, or we all may be subject to the editing restriction given the appropriate notice, which is it? Most confusing. Should not every single editor of EE articles be now notified on their talk page that they are all subject to this general editing restriction? This need to be clarified. Martintg ( talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The remedy says that if someone is uncivil, makes personal attacks, or assumed bad faith, then an administrator may make them the subject of an editing restriction (ie, a block). How is that confusing? Obviously not everyone is currently affected by such a restriction, as not everyone is blocked. Kirill already answered your question regarding notification: those that are unaware should be notified, those that are already aware need not be. -- Deskana (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. So who should start with this notification process, I suspect that there are a lot of regular EE editors who may not be aware of this General Restriction. I suppose this notification should be similar to this User_talk:Sander_Säde#Notice_of_editing_restrictions, which warns "future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking". Martintg ( talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Deskana, I am still confused by this template {{subst:Digwuren enforcement}}, which you and Kirill must admit is structured as a warning notice, which must be logged in the appropriate place to take effect, according to the text below:

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

I am not wiki-lawyering here, I just think it is necessary to clarify this mechanism for the benefit of not only us editors at the coal face, but also the admins who have to administer this. Let's have some clarity here to ensure the smooth running of Wikipedia, that is all I ask. Martintg ( talk) 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, Deskana, not wanting to labour the issue, but there is a distinction between an editing restriction and a block, is there not? You both seem to be implying that that they are the same thing, the block is the editing restriction. But this is at odds with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement_by_block: "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked", an explicit distinction which Kirill himself drafted. I mean, there are all sorts of general editing restrictions in force, 3RR being one for example. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this suppose to operate thus:

1. Misbehaviour -> Editing restriction placed via notice on user talk page and logged
2. Further misbehaviour -> block applied and logged.

I know admins are encouraged to ignore the rules, but we do need clarification here before some over zealous admins begin driving good people off the project for the slightest infraction, as in the case of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Estonia coordinator User:Sander Säde. Martintg ( talk) 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you're correct. Keep in mind, though, that the main intent of the notification requirement is not to serve as a warning, per se; but, rather, to make sure that editors unaware of the existence of this remedy would not find themselves blocked without finding out about it beforehand. When the editor in question, having been a party to the actual case, is already well aware of the need to conduct themselves civilly, we're not going to crack down on admins for forgetting some of the paperwork. To be quite honest, anyone involved in the case has no excuse for being uncivil at this point; I think that we made it very clear that the poor behavior seen in this area is not acceptable. Kirill 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not looking to have an admin flogged for forgotten paperwork, just clarification and guidance for the benefit of editors and admins alike, because this does apply to the entire Eastern Europe, broadly defined. It must be noted that User:Sander Säde did subsequently apologise in his block review request.

How ever it appears that in his exuberance User:El_C used this remedy (which is aimed at incivility) for blocking User:Alexia Death for basically revert warring [6]. The revert warring was over this comment [7], and to interpret this as incivility is an asumption of bad faith. In fact this comment is a salute to Ghirla for the tough battles of the past with well wishes for the future. Using this remedy for edit warring is an inappropriate, so therefore I request that User:Alexia Death's logging of her enforcement block and associated notification log be removed from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement_2. Martintg ( talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Could you, Kirill, please comment on the fact that logging this block as enforcement block happened at least in my case 2 hours after the fact. Is this appropriate? See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel_Case. If logging blocks is allowed with this much delay it opens up venues for block laundry. I propose that blocks that are made as enforcement blocks must be logged immediately.-- Alexia Death the Grey ( talk) 06:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This was apparently a case of forgotten "paperwork". Kirill has confirmed that for those who were not a party to the original case 1. Misbehaviour -> Editing restriction placed via notice on user talk page and logged, 2. Further misbehaviour -> block applied and logged. For those who were a party: both applied at the same time. Martintg ( talk) 06:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to have been a fair amount of confusion regarding what exactly the remedy was. For future use, I've created Wikipedia:General sanctions to keep track of these wide-area remedies. I'd appreciate it if people could leave links to it where appropriate. Kirill 06:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about the notice. I was part of the case and I acknowledge it to be unnecessary. I talking about logging the block itself and requesting comment on delay in logging it as an enforcement block, witch I personally doubt it was.-- Alexia Death the Grey ( talk) 09:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions sounds like a good idea. I have taken the liberty to add the second Armenia-Azerbaijan case (with some rewording, for consistency) to it. I submit it to your and other members of the Committee's approval. El_C 09:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, but keeping the actual wording is probably the better approach, to reduce potential confusion. Kirill 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirill. Please see my refractored comment here. El_C 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, one more clarification needed on applicability. This remedy is only applicable to EE topics right? I mean if it happens in areas outside EE, for example, an editor gets into a discussion with an admin on another admin's talk page and they start revert warring over the editor's comment "So these are "Durova-style" rules! LOL. I cant take Wikipedia seriously any more. This is ridiculous!", [8], [9], [10], [11], and rightly or wrongly that admin ends up blocking this editor as a result [12] (I've searched and searched but cannot find this alleged inflammatory comment "you guys could do with little sunshine in your lives"), is it appropriate that this block be logged under this particular remedy? Martintg ( talk) 11:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The remedy, as written, is applicable to any editor working on EE topics, but places no limitations on where the actual incivility would need to occur. Given that a large part of the past problem was EE editors sniping at each other on user talk pages, noticeboards, etc. (often on topics unrelated to EE, but merely continuing personal fights that had started on EE matters months or years before), I think it's appropriate that editors subject to this remedy need to watch their behavior generally, not only on article talk pages or when directly engaged in article disputes.

(The comment is made here, incidentally.) Kirill 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that the initial statement by Alexia on Ghirla's talk page (do we assume good or bad faith here?) was the trigger, it quickly descended into a personal conflict between Alexia and User:El_C spanning across several user's talk pages. I don't believe that Alexia or User:El_C have had any personal fights in the past related to EE. By no means was User:El_C blocking action uncontroversial as another admin overturned the un-noticed block (forgotten paperwork) as evidenced here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case. User:El_C clearly states that the main reason for the block was for this subsequent dispute, not the original triggering event: [13]. Of course the irony here is that User:El_C himself was as much a contributor due to his own combative and inflamatory approach.

In what way inflammatory you may ask? People like us Kirill, who were brought up in comfortable USA or Australia where images of Che may be considered mere t-shirt art, need to be sensitive to the fact that many people suffered under communist rule in Eastern Europe. For example I read that in the Baltic states, almost everyone had some family member who was deported or otherwise repressed. It touched everyone. So when an admin with a " vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. This was the substance of this dispute that lead to Alexia's block. Would you trust the judgement of an admin with images of Adolf Hitler on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding the Holocaust? This is same admin who saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors", and exhibited continued assumption of bad faith against the unblocking admin in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved resolution of EE disputes, particular given the extra powers afforded by this remedy.

Anyway, thanks again for your clarifications. Rather than continuing on here, I'll be putting together a case to address this issue of involved admins and will putting it before the Committee in due course for consideration. Cheers. Martintg ( talk) 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

These uninhibited attacks by this user, who feels it necessary to link to my user page five times in a single five-sentence paragraph, are nothing more than cheap theatrics. Of course, I am far from being a supporter of the Social imperialist Eastern European caricature-communist regimes, and of course I saw a problem with the the behaviour of Anonimu (still, he was ruthlessly attacked, too; just the Bonparate front, tens of socks). I already responded to many of these other distortions elsewhere at length. El_C 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I cite: "far from being a supporter of the Social imperialist Eastern European caricature-communist regimes". Hm, the photo of Lenin on your page seems to say something else. In case you don't know, it was him who presided the imperialistic occupation of Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaidjan by the USSR. But imperialism was not his worst deed: He and his buddies created the Cheka and the widespread famine, and the politicide, a.s.o. Dpotop ( talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion, don't pretend to be an honest broker on these subjects. Dpotop ( talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you don't know. I have long ago ceased to respond to the crude, intentionally-insulting demagoguery of Dpotop. El_C 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My formulation was based on an assumption of good faith from your part. Otherwise, I can't see how you could state on one side that you don't support imperialist communists, and on the other side support Lenin. Dpotop ( talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that such accusations of "demagoguery", "combativeness", a.s.o. would have ended in a block for any other Wikipedia users. It's sad to see that some editors (you, for instance) can do whatever they want with impunity. Dpotop ( talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Above, he calls me he a wannabe, a few days ago he calls me a hypocrite. It's all standard practice for Dpotop. El_C 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion to Dpotop. Why dosen't he make a few edits that are not related to targeting myself or reverting Eastern European articles. It'd go along way toward establishing calm on these two unrelated fronts. El_C 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The original question has been asked and answered. In the case of Alexia Death, the formal notice I placed on her talk page was not required as she was a listed party to the case and was informed of the decision at the time it closed. Editors who were not parties to the case should be notified about the editing restrictions before any enforcement action is taken pursuant to those remedies. Are there any points that need additional clarification? Thatcher131 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that doesn't involve targeting me, I'm sure. El_C 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a moment, I just looked at the Case again, and civility restrictions 1 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Alexia_Death_restricted and 10 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Sander_S.C3.A4de_restricted were never adopted, so I don't think El_C was correct in blocking them with enforcement blocks. At most he should have placed the notice of general restriction first. Surely if ArbCom wanted the parties to be blocked without further notice as you suggest Thatcher131, they would have passed those remedies. Martintg ( talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of ArbCom action does not condone bad behavior nor prevent admins from dealing with bad behavior through the normal means. Since these folks were party to this case, they were well aware of the general restrictions, so there was no need for further notification. The fact that they have been given additional notification subsequently is a courtesy intended to help them comply. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Note JamesF's vote in opposition, "oppose in favor of the general restriction." As the general restriction applies to all parties upon notice, and the closing clerk notified both Alexia [14] and Sander [15], then the notification requirement has been met. I applied the warning template as a formality and because Sander was listed as a party in the case opening, but he clearly was considered a party when the case closed, as noted on the proposed decision page and as demonstrated by Cbrown's notification. Thatcher131 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And FloNight in support of the general restriction said "I prefer this to keep newer users from gaining the upper hand by bashing our established editors over the head with our decision at the time these established users are trying to adjust their conduct to match our remedies." Didn't the thing that FloNight wanted to avoid just happen in this case, Alexia and Sander were bashed over the head without a chance to adjust by being notified first according to remedy 11? Martintg ( talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the notices you linked were provided at the conclusion of the case and only mentioned Remedies 2, 5 and 10. There was no mention of Remedy 11 in that notice. I am particularly concerned about the other Involved Parties, User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber, who were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day, returning some time in the future and being clobbered over the head without a chance to adjust. Martintg ( talk) 22:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The general restriction is indeed linked in that notice. Thatcher131 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct, I mis-read the notice. However what of FloNight's concern and the issue of the three involved parties I mentioned being potentially bashed over the head without being given a chance to adjust? It's pretty tough on them, isn't it? No finding of fact against them, yet they have this threat of instant block hanging over their heads. Martintg ( talk) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As I read Flo's comment to mean that she does not want new unnamed editors to have the upper hand on older editors named in specific remedies, hence the general remedy. (Although you are welcome to ask her specifically.) Regarding inactive editors, I can only say that I would hope that they read their talk pages (and indeed, they have an obligation to follow up on an Arbitration case naming them that was pending when they last edited), but even so I personally would issue another warning before issuing blocks. And in any case, the initial blocks are meant to be brief, and only escalate on repeated violations. If you wish to specifically exempt these editors you will need Arbcom to vote a motion modifying the decision. Thatcher131 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you would personally issue them with a warning, but other admins may not. As for your stated obligation that they should follow up any ArbCom case pending since their last edit, the fact is they have been off line long long before this case was ever requested, let alone pending. I have no idea why they were even listed as involved parties, apart from their ethnictiy. It would be bit of a nasty surprise if they ever return to find this notice on their talk page related to a case that they never participated in let alone a finding of fact made against them. And yet they have been singled out for no other reason that they happen to live in Estonia and subjected to harser regime than you or me, we get a second chance because we get a notice only after the first infraction, and they get none. Don't you find this disquieting?

So I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact a motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties was made during the case and seconded by the clerk User:Cbrown1023 at the time, but may have been overlooked in the general noise of the Workshop page. Martintg ( talk) 00:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Privatemusings [16] was prohibited from editing for 90 days Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision due to an arbitration decision. Does the 90 days start from the time of the decision (December 2) or from the time his block for misbehavior started (November 18th)? Uncle uncle uncle ( talk) 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The general rule is that remedies take effect at the time the decision is finalized and announced. I have suggested once or twice that the time might better run from an earlier effective date based on the equities of a specific case, but the idea has never been endorsed by any of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If by some odd twist of fate you should find yourself enjoying the fine fruits of membership of that august body, you might push again for such a position. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

A user has suggested that editing on presidential candidate Mitt Romney would violate this edit restriction because Romney's an anti-abortion flip-flopper. User specifically opposes Ferrylodge's participation in a debate about including reference to Romney's polygamist ancestors (because, it's argued, polygamy relates to reproduction). [17] Is Ferrylodge in fact restricted from these topics? Is he close to the line? Cool Hand Luke 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not banned from articles about abortion. The ArbCom decision stated: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." First of all, no admin has remotely suggested that I have edited the Mitt Romney article inappropriately. That article has never been reverted by me once, and no admin (involved or uninvolved) has suggested otherwise, much less banned me from the article. Also, of course, the Mitt Romney article is not related to pregnancy or abortion. One could argue that every article is in some sense a result of pregnancy, but such arguments would be absurd. If I were editing an article on polygamy, could an uninvolved admin ban me from that article for editing inappropriately? I think not, but let's plunge off that bridge when we come to it. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The restriction is meant to be imposed on a case-by-case basis by an admin. Ferrylodge is not under any general ban. Kirill 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is my two cents on FL's progress since the ArbCom ruling. During the ArbCom case, it was discussed and proposed that FL, in addition to being banned from abortion/pregnancy articles, also be banned from political articles. The committee in the long run did not add this to their remedies, and based on FL's edits since coming back to WP, I'm not sure that was the right decision. On December 1st, after a bit of incivility ("but Turtlescrubber thinks that false info in Wikipedia artoices is fine?" [18]), FL (and another editor) were warned by The Evil Spartan, being told to "cease-fire" [19]. Because of the content dispute, the article has since been protected, however FL has harassed contacted the admin who protected the article multiple times here, even after a RfC and two separate edit requests failed to accomplish FL's edits. While not clear cut abuse, I believe this added together is disruptive. And to give FL credit, there are other editors on the other side fighting for their POVs (you can't have a content dispute with just one side. there are always two sides). But I am extremely disappointed that after the close of the ArbCom case, FL has not taken the opportunity to prove to the community that he can be productive and increase the encyclopedic value of non-controversial articles, but instead has picked up arguing over petty matters at days length on highly contentious articles. I would suggest to FL to please stop editing presidential candidates articles for the time being, and do some neutral contribution to gain the trust of the community. Getting into such a large (yet in the long run insignificant) content dispute so soon after the ArbCom case just doesn't look good.- Andrew c  ^[talk] 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, you are hardly a disinterested party here. For example, you accused me during the ArbCom proceedings of "aching for a fight," among many other things. [20] I politely decline your suggestion that I stop editing certain types of articles. Any objective person would see clearly that my edits to presidential candidate articles are very helpful, such as these edits today to the John McCain article. And there was no ArbCom vote about restricting me from political articles, contrary to what Andrew c suggests. Regarding the Mitt Romney article, there is certainly a dispute there, and I have supported at least one admin in that dispute. That article was certainly not protected due to any revert by me. I have never reverted the Mitt Romney article, not once. I thought that the ArbCom proceedings were over. Alas. Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Re-opening the arbcom remedy is another question that I'm not asking. I just want to know whether there's anyway he's barred from editing Mitt Romney. It says that the subject should be interpreted broadly. I would say he's clearly forbidden from editing on a candidate's abortion stance, but editing on the candidate generally seems too weak a tangent to me. I want to know whether ArbCom could have possibly meant to forbid anything like this. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the remedy very carefully. He is not barred even from broad abortion and pregnancy topics, unless an uninvolved admin declares him to be in specific instances, in specific articles. Since no admin, involved or uninvolved, has done so at all, he cannot be argued to be banned from any article or topic at this moment. The mental gymnastics required to interpret the remedy, even in the broadest sense, to apply to presidential candidate articles in general would require facial expressions that I would actually pay to see. - Crockspot ( talk) 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If FerryLodge were to edit the abortion-related parts of the Romney article in a disruptive fashion, an uninvolved admin could indeed ban him from the article, but he is under no blanket ban. You can ask any uninvolved admin to review FerryLodge's edits or post a request at Arbitration enforcement and if the admin decides a ban is needed, FL will be notified and the ban logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thatcher131 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Ferrylodge has returned to editing abortion-related articles and is pursuing the same very narrow ends which he's pursued for a year. On Roe v. Wade, he reintroduced commentary on a poll, [21] which he has singled out in this manner since January 2007. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] At Talk:Abortion, he continues to advocate the addition of an illustration of a fetus, [27] although adding such an image to the article himself in September lead to an edit war. [28] [29] The point is that the ArbCom decision applied specifically to articles related to pregnancy and abortion, and, even in its wake, Ferrylodge has not moved on from pursuing the same narrow, highly specific goals that he pursued earlier on articles like Abortion. I believe this warrants appraisal. -Severa ( !!!) 18:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One quick note on this topic... how is Ferrylodge discussing things on the article talk pages "inappropriate editing" as outlined in the Arbitration Committee remedy? Isn't discussing things on the talk page in a civil manner exactly what we are all supposed to do on heated topics? I haven't followed Ferrylodge much since the case closed, but I am yet to see how he has been inappropriately editing. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 18:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See this diff. He reinserted commentary on the Harris poll that he added to several other articles a year ago (see the diffs above). Instead of letting old matters drop, and moving on, he's still focused on making the same sorts of edits to abortion-related articles as ever. -Severa ( !!!) 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Report violations of Arbitration sanctions at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to that page. -Severa ( !!!) 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)FYI, I am not going to respond to Severa here. For discussion of the Harris poll issue, people can see the talk page discussion here. Also see here (Andrew c requesting earlier today that I be banned due to talk page comments). Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

More clarification requested

The remedy states, "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."

Does the "interpreted broadly" clause (or the remedy in general) include talk pages in areas related to abortion, or simply the articles themselves? Mahalo. -- Ali'i 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The remedy would include any page related to abortion, including article talk pages, user talk pages (if an abortion-related discussion is carried on there), templates, policies, wikiprojects, AfDs, you name it. This has been established in past clarifications of other cases. The point of the remedy is to stop Ferrylodge from being disruptive, wherever it occurs. I personally would allow more freedom on talk pages, but there still will be an actionable level of disruption. Thatcher131 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatch. -- Ali'i 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Like Kirill said earlier, case-by-case scenario. Although the zap would be swift... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

---

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Rosencomet and Starwood related articles. Rosencomet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to promote his interests in the encyclopaedia, and to aggressively resist attempts to remove or tone down said promotion. Do we need a new case, or can we look at a topic ban? Guy ( Help!) 10:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Premature. Thatcher131 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Advised to try a user conduct RFC and approach the committee in January if necessary. Thatcher131 04:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, although the fact that he was previously brought before ArbCom and sanctioned for precisely the same behaviour and has refused to address the issue thus far does not augur well for success. Guy ( Help!) 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The prior case resulted in a non-binding, non-enforceable caution. Do what you will. Thatcher131 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I recused on the case because I reverted some of Rosencomet's edits so I'll recuse again. Not sure that a conduct RFC is needed since the last RRArb gave Rosencomet feedback similar to a RFC. If one is done, I don't think the Community needs to wait for a long period of time before a case is started if the behavior continues. FloNight ( talk) 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

The remedy states that To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. The terms of probation, if imposed on any editor, are set forth in the enforcement ruling below. During the case itself, a discussion arose on the Proposed Decision page, that no arbitrator took part in, but consensus of the discussion was that the definition of "uninvolved" was for not being involved in "edit-warring or disruptive editing", since there was no finding in the ArbCom case that ANY administrator had been non-neutral.

Previously, myself and Tyrenius (who were both parties to the ArbCom) have used this remedy to try to keep folks calm, with no peep of protest. Now, three weeks after User:Aatomic1 was placed on a one-month probation by administrator User:Alison, User:Aatomic1 has attempted to remove himself from the terms of probation, because Alison was one of the parties who provided evidence and discussion for the case. This came after Aatomic1 attempted to incite an admin who WAS in an edit war with User:Domer48 to place "That troll" (ie Domer) on its terms. Could the ArbCom please clarify this remedy, as to whom may place it, and if my definition is correct? SirFozzie ( talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The probation should remain in place. For purposes of this case, Alison was not an involved admin and she remains uninvolved as far as I can tell. Meaning that she has not been involved in edits disputes with the user or about these articles. We need admin to become "involved" as Alison did. Meaning that they learn about conflicts, bring them to ArbCom for rulings, and apply sanctions as needed when cases close. I think that is what Alison did and so the probation should remain. FloNight ( talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On this basis, then, I will withdraw from the voluntary recusal I placed myself under, after a probation violation warning was issued to one party and a raft of protesters argued that as a named party I was an "involved" admin. Rockpocke t 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Involved" for the purposes of enforcement could mean that if you edit war with another user on articles A and B, you should not impose a sanction on article C, even if you haven't edited that article. However, learning about a dispute and trying to help settle it, and taking action when needed, is not really involvement. Thatcher131 01:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my understanding too, however our-soon-to-be-newest Arb appeared to have a different opinion. [30] Note that "heavily involved in the earlier disputes" equates to being one of the admins who attempted to deal with earlier disputes. Rockpocke t 01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's always a judgment call, and a balancing: We don't want editors to believe they are being treated unfairly, but neither do we want to multiply the opportunities for forum shopping. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, is to be assumed that all "uninvolved admin" rulings (e.g. Digwuren) should be interpreted in this way? Will ^{( talk)} 01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As a clerk I always find that "uninvolved" in this case means that you have a neutral opinion on the subject. (Like, I would not touch anything related to Chinese politics with a 10' pole.) You cannot pass judgment on anyone without learning why, and if we become "involved", we'd never get anything done. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Will, if you apply a remedy and the target thinks you are too involved, he can appeal to WP:AE, WP:ANI, or email the Arbcom. Remedies applied by one admin can be lifted by another for good cause like any other admin action, although as with reversing any other action, discussion and consultation beforehand is a good thing. If you do end up dropping the hammer on someone you shouldn't, someone will let you know one way or the other. Thatcher131 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And I don't mean to give the impression that any admin should reserve an absolute right to be the one to take action (sometimes its better to step back to avoid even the appearance of a COI). My concern is simply that this does leave open an avenue in which editors who are under ArbCom remedies could take out of the equation the very admins that are most familiar with their MO in an effort to further a disruptive agenda. It is a balance, but as we saw from the reversing of Ty's block, the community has in place mechanisms that provides it without asking those with previous experience to recuse themselves on principle. This is especially important in complex and long running cases, where entirely "uninvolved" admins would not have a clue what was going on.

On a personal note, I felt particularly aggrieved by this suggestion, because I was the one who volunteered to provide the evidence about a particular editor in this case, and as a result I was the one targeted (by an entire lobby) as the person with the vendetta. I could easily have stood back and let someone else provide the evidence, but didn't consider it an issue at the time. As it stood, I was not planning to provide any more evidence to future cases, lest the same accusations be leveled against me. I'd feel much more confidence in contributing to the arbitration process if I felt that my evidence as an admin who tried to enforce our policies was not codified as being an involved in the problem. Rockpocke t 03:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Would a neutral observer think, by your actions or the way you presented evidence, that you had taken sides? Or are you presenting yourself as a neutral party trying to resolve ongoing conflicts? If so, you probably should not take enforcement action. If not, then there should not be a problem. Complaints from the people you have sanctioned is routine. Try the Armenia-Azerbaijani dispute. I respond to a large majority of the reports and I'm pretty sure neither side has much liked my responses. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware no neutral observer has ever suggested any of the admins involved have taken sides, though plenty have said that its best of avoid it looking that way. Well, when the lobbies (on both sides) are doing their damnedest to make it look that way, then we have a problem. So what happens is one editor complains loudly when an admin takes action, within (literally) minutes the other members of the lobby pile on with the same complaint. The neutral observer sees a number of editors in agreement and suggests you should probably not make the enforcement action if only to avoid the perception of bias. QED, the lobby has got exactly what they want. So the "involved" admins probably do inflame the situation, but thats because its in the interests of those people who are under remedy to cause the inflammation. I see this as a real and ongoing problem. The obvious answer is to have other admins take over, but quite frankly, requests for outside eyes in this sort of lengthy, simmering and bitter dispute come to nothing, no-one wants to touch it - and you can hardly blame them. Rockpocke t 05:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't intended to be obtuse or confusing. If you are part of the problem, you should not be the one to impose the remedy. I think this is clear from the current Matthew Hoffman case where Adam is under review for blocking editors whose edits he opposed for content reasons, even though he did not edit the exact article in dispute but did edit other articles in the broad topic. However, if you step into a situation to try and resolve it peacefully, and maintain your objectivity, and find that one party or both needs to be sanctioned, you probably can do it. Editors should not feel that they are being taken advantage of by their opponents who happen to have a sysop bit, but at the same time, disruptive editors should not be able to game the system and forum shop by claiming that every admin who tries to resolve a situation in a neutral way is now too tainted by involvement to make a fair judgement call on sanctions. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need administrator to become knowledgeable about the situation in order to make clueful decisions. There should be no problem with monitoring a situation over time to make sure is properly resolved. Keeping articles on a watchlist and stepping in to calm down edit wars is a good use of admin time. FloNight ( talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

---

While merging the list at Wikipedia:Article probation into Wikipedia:General sanctions, I noticed that this 2006 case needs a review. The article probation remedy stated:

Articles which are the locus of dispute, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.

The one year review was due in July 2007, but apparently has not been done yet. After looking at the edit histories of these articles, I recommend that article probation be lifted for some, but not all of the articles. In particular, I noticed recent editing disputes at 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression, and several of the articles still have neutrality disputed tags. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I expect that we will conduct a review of all the currently active general sanctions in January, once the new arbitrators are on board. Kirill 15:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

---

How does the arbitration committee recommend users not working collaboratively and constructively? The very complaint of the rfar was a lack of users working collaboratively and constructively. Users instead employed brute forcing their interpretations on guidelines (or alleged guidelines since the validity of the actual guideline is in dispute).

I am somewhat skeptical on how much this rfar resolved the dispute put before the arbitration committee.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Some of the restrictions imposed on me by the Arbitration Committee in stages between November 2005 and July 2006 expired in November 2007; however, according to former arbitrator User:Raul654, I am still subject to two of the restrictions—remedy "X" from the original November 2005 ruling, and remedy 4 from the July 2006 amended ruling—and they will remain in effect indefinitely, until lifted by the ArbCom. (I don't know if the rest of the ArbCom agrees that they are still in effect, but the only arbitrator who has spoken about it says they are in effect, and therefore I must assume they are until or unless the other arbitrators say otherwise.) I am not concerned about falling afoul of these rulings, and have no intention to ever do the things they prohibit, but by remaining in place these remedies act as a "scarlet letter" impeding my participation on Wikipedia, enabling people to ignore, dismiss or insult me because I am "not a user in good standing", and rendering it almost hopeless for me to attempt to regain my adminship through RfA, which was taken from me by the ArbCom in 2006 for an issue unrelated to the case in question. I think these remedies accomplish nothing except to marginalize me and should be lifted. Everyking ( talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The committee has seen a fairly large number of aggrieved parties to previous arbitration hearings present appeals immediately after the changeover in membership, so please accept our apologies for not responding immediately. The term "in good standing" is an imprecise one capable of being taken strictly or loosely. Could you help us by pointing to recent examples where you feel you have been suffering through the presumed continuation of these remedies? Sam Blacketer ( talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 announced on behalf of the committee on November 14 that one of the remedies against Everyking (parole on music articles) was being suspended for 3 months, but would automatically go back into effect 90 days later unless otherwise decided by the committee. This means that we will need to review Everyking's recent editing in early February so we can make this decision by February 12. For the sake of efficiency, I suggest that we review this request for relief from the remaining sanctions at the same time.

For those of us who were not active at the time of the prior decisions, the history of these cases (including even locating "Remedy 4" and "Remedy X") is a little bit difficult to follow. Either now or when this request is renewed in February, could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a more complete set of links and a quick summary of the history? Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Brad's suggestion of hearing everything together in February is all right by me, although of course I would prefer if it was heard now—these sanctions have been in place for an extraordinarily long time. My editing on pop music articles has varied very little over quite a long span of time and I don't see how it could be expected to be any different in February, so I see no reason that issue could not be conclusively decided at the present time as well.

The key issue concerning the effect my arbitration sanctions have on me is that very many people simply will not vote for someone with ongoing sanctions in an RfA. Some of those opposing said that they would be willing to vote for me when the sanctions expired, which was understood to be in Nov. 2007, but as it turned out the ruling was interpreted (at least by Raul) to mean that certain aspects of it remained in place even after that point. I don't have many other clear examples, although I think there is a widespread subtle effect; because I have stayed out of disputes for so long there have been few occasions for people to blatantly batter me with reminders of my low status. In October, after some articles were deleted purely because the person who wrote them was believed to be a banned user (I believe that content should be judged on its merits and not based on its author), I requested that User:Lar provide me with copies of the articles so that I could determine if they were suitable and potentially vouch for them, or at least put them through WP:DRV, and he told me that he would not because I was not a "user in good standing". I never obtained the copies and as far as I know the articles are still deleted. Everyking ( talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your last point, the circumstances surrounding the particular banned user are exceptional, as I believe you are aware. As someone who generally supports giving second chances to users, I strongly advise that you would probably be better served by not using your interchange with Lar as an example of something that the remedies have prevented you from doing. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, if we're going to get into a discussion of strategy here: I thought about not mentioning that because some people have particular feelings about the issue, but it was the best example I could think of in recent memory, and he asked for specific examples. Everyking ( talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I request that the Committee consider the following motions. It is not clear where request for motions in a prior cases ought be placed, so could the clerks move this to the right spot if this is not it. Thanks. Martintg ( talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: I have moved these requests to the "requests for clarifications" section as probably the best place for them. I agree with Marting that it is not clear from the instructions where a request for relief from a prior decision should be posted. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Committee will be discussing these motions soon-ish. They have move toward the top of our To-do-list. FloNight ( talk) 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspension of bans for both User:Digwuren and User:Petri Krohn

It is now obvious, after an initial bit of confusion and subsequent clarification, that the remedy 11 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction will be most effective in combating incivility, which was the core issue of this case. No one was calling for year long bans for either party in the original case, in fact most involved and uninvolved were explicitly against any ban, as Alex Bakharev succinctly argued here and seconded by many others including Geogre and Biophys in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Remedies_are_too_harsh. Note too that Digwuren did make a reflective and conciliatory statement aplogising to those he had wronged and forgiving those who had wronged him Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Digwuren. Compare this to the recently banned Anonimu, where there was a clear concensus for a ban and he was defiant and un-remorseful to the end.

While a year is a long time, and shortening it may be useful, I'd like to see those users expressing remorse, telling us what they have learned and promising not to continue behavior that led to their ban before any shortening or suspension of a ban is considered.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in banning these editors, especially Petri, who unlike Digwuren, even sincerely apologized long before the case and was still punished for his actions taken prior to the apology, unlike Digwuren who continued to create "occupation" badwagons, revert war and bait contributors even while his arbitration was ongoing. Still, as far as Digwuren is concerned, I neither proposed nor supported a year-long ban. I have a very thick skin towards incivility and this aspect of his conduct did not bother me much. But if he is unblocked, he must be on the short leash regarding the number of reverts and coatracking.

Overall, I think that case needs a new hearing in light of how editors see it now in the retrospect and by the hopefully wisened up ArbCom as well. Also, there were several new developments, chiefly, editors using the "editing restrictions" to blockshop and vigorously "investigate" each other. This whole matter needs a fresh look, perhaps by a renewed Arbcom after the election which is almost over.

I would object to selective reversals of the original decision. The case was handled badly in a hands-off-by-ArbCom-type way during the entire precedings. Selective return of Digwuren and doing nothing else would just make matters worse. Rehashing that decision overall may be a good thing and hearing all parties in an orderly way by the arbitrators who actually listned and engage would be a good thing though. -- Irpen 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the involved parties had findings of fact regarding revert warring. The differentiating aspect for Digwuren and Petri Krohn was using Wikipedia as a battleground. Note that the root cause of this battle was the Bronze soldier controversy, which has now largely resolved itself, the threat for further battling has significantly diminished. Also given that bans are in principle intended to stop further damage to Wikipedia, rather for retribution and punishment for its own sake, and they have already served some months of this ban, I see no reason to continue this ban, particularly since there seems a concensus against a ban in the first place, the parties have shown remorse as I have linked above and the Bronze soldier issues have dissipated. I am not asking for selective reversals, just a suspension. Martintg ( talk) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I would support suspension of the ban of Digwuren and Petri. It would make sense to match it with some sort of the revert parole and/or topic bans Alex Bakharev ( talk) 02:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to re-confirm my opinion since it has been mentioned above. Yes, I support the suspension of the ban of Digwuren and Petri since they are highly productive editors. The ban could be replaced by a restriction on the number of reverts per week if necessary. Biophys ( talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Strike User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber from the Involved parties list

These people were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day. No or little evidence was presented against them and no finding of fact either. In fact they had absolutely no involvement in the issues of this case and were only mentioned because they were included in an earlier checkuser case. Note however it is a finding of fact that Petri Krohn used Wikipedia as a battleground, and the checkuser case against these and other Estonian users was a part of that warfare. We don't want to perpetuate this wrong against these three editors.

Therefore I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact I made a similar motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties during the case and it was seconded by the clerk Cbrown1023 at the time. I know it is a minor issue, but it is an important gesture that ArbCom ought to do to further heal the hurts and encourage them to return, particularly User:3 Löwi who has been an editor of good standing since 2005.

Expand definition of "uninvolved admin" in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

The principle of involved admins not being permitted to issue blocks is founded on the issue of conflict of interest and that trust should be maintained in the impartiality of the blocking admin. Generally "involved" means personal involvement in the immediate issue or article. However, given that the span of this general restriction covers all of Eastern Europe, and the principle that trust should be maintained in the blocking admin's impartiality, and that political issues (the role of the Soviet Union and communism) is the basis for much of the conflict on Eastern Europe; the definition of "involved" should be expanded for this remedy to include admins with overt and obvious political view points or past significant involvment in content disputes within Eastern Europe

The recent episode concerning blocks issued by El_C illustrates this problem. An admin with a " vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. Note that this is same admin saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors". This fact of questionable impartiality and lack of trust only served to inflame the situation resulting a commited and significant editor and wikiproject coordinator Sander Säde to leave the project.

While one must endeavour to assume good faith, never the less, there would be an issue of trust in the judgement of an admin if, to illustrate with an example, they had a vanity page consisting of images of Osama bin Ladin and Hezbollah on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding Israeli related topic. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved enforcing this remedy.

Good point, but it all boils down to the issue of anonymity. El C at least declares some of his POV on his user page. I, for example, declare quite a few more things. Would you prefer to trust a user who declares nothing? How can we be sure if such declarations are truthful, and not ironic or simply deceptive? Looking back at the Essjay controversy I still think all admins should be required to reveal their identity, education, and POVs... but I am well aware this will not fly. I think "uninvolved admin" should be one that is accepted by the parties; but of course that creates a possibility for the parties to evade judgment by refusing to accept any admin as uninvolved. Perhaps to avoid that but deal with the problem you outlined, we should have a procedure parties can lodge complains about admin's involvement, where this could be reviewed by other admins and if involvement is determined (something like CoI), the admin's action is reverted and warning issued? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that I am one of the most sought-after admins by both the Armenian and Azerbaijani factions. They never cared what is on my user page, they just care that I'm fair, and indeed I have such a record dating back years. Conversely, I've had pro-Palestinian groups or extreme-right Europeans refuse to have me as an uninvolved admin because I am fluent in Hebrew, requests which I always denied. El_C 15:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In this particluar case, I fear the problem isn't actual conflict of interest so much as perceived lack of impartiality. While people knowing El_C may very well feel quite comfortable that he does not let his political leanings influence his judgment, the fact that they are very visible nonetheless will give the impression that he might be siding with one side of a debate, or "overcompensate" for the other. This does not mean that other editors with less visible politics would do a better job, but giving such ammo for complaints is probably a relatively bad idea. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's important to assume good faith. You are not calling to ban people who exhibit the flag of Israel on their userpage from admin actions on Israeli-Palestinian issue, so why this? Both Azerbaijan and Armenia were former Soviet republics, why are editors there acting differently than editors here? The reason, I think, has more to do with a perceived ^[31] personal dispute than political (see for example the attempt by the user above to delete Bishzilla ^(thread)). Anyway, I would gladly delete my user page, but such ruling need to be applied consistently, anticommunism should not be getting a priority because of easy targets. El_C 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to specifically make the point that I didn't feel your impartiality was at issue, and I'm sorry if you understood this differently. My point is that perception is the key here and that leaving the enforcement to another admin would not be so much more trouble. And, personally, yes I would expect someone who displayed an Israeli flag on their userpage to also avoid admin action in Israeli-Palestinian issue — not because I think them unable to act fairly and impartially, but because the appearance of impropriety is a probable source of heat. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a trap, but I'll answer. Appearances do count (for example, I never edited the Communism article even once), but this is far from it. What about someone displaying the American flag in relation to articles about 911 or modern Iraq? Some would have me cease enforcing Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute which I have been doing for years, even though both factions seek this, due to abstract appearance of political correctness. It's a red herring (pun intended), anyway; Wikipedia is not a free-for-all. ^[32] El_C 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the proposal by Piotrus to have a review procedure for such cases. The reviewrs have to decide if the blocking admin is indeed an impartial side. If there are any doubts about that, the block should be lifted immediately. Biophys ( talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

---

A previous request by Thatcher131 was declined declined in April however the the pattern of disruption has continued, has been experienced by non-affiliated editors, and evidence of the disruption being due to the same editor using a succession of different accounts has been built up. Yes, the article has improved substantially due the input of editors with no association with the article subject, however the disruption is something the article, and other editors, could well do without. Relevant sockpuppet reports are [33] [34] [35].

The pattern of disruption usually involves editing with contempt for consensus, edit waring, taunting other editors based on their affiliation, incivility and ranting against the article subject. Strong enforcement of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NOR and WP:CONS would effectively screen out the disruption.

I have tried using normal dispute resolution methods but this is getting tiring for me, other editors who have dropped by to help and also the admins that have to deal with the constant requests for help. Regards Bksimonb ( talk) 13:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that there has been little to no "disruption" at all and this is just another preemptive strike by an individual that admits to be part of the organization in question, a new religious movements' called the BKWSU, own Internet PR Team; and is acting in accordance with the organization's PR aims. An individual that has invested a huge amount of time, effort and admins' energy in attempt to control the topic for his affiliated organization.

To state this for the sake of new admins coming to this issue is hardly "taunting". It is a statement of fact. I hope that eventually the Wikipedia admins will appreciate this for what it is. Simon has become incredibly skilled in his manipulation of Wikipedia admins and constructing accusations.

Let's look at the timing of this and the collusion of yet another BKWSU contributor, User:76.79.146.8. Bksimonb requests an early unprotection, User:76.79.146.8 reverts and accuses vandalism, attacks etc. Both complain to admins etc. Bksimonb puts RfA.

Putting aside the loaded and hysterical language, the seemingly endless accusations and complaints, if we look at the differences between the BKWSU's chosen version, the main differences are really;

• the removal of weblink to an informed independent website that makes public and openly discusses the BKWSU's core teachings, the only independent website about the organization and one that the BKWSU's USA trust spent considerable amount of money attempting to recent silence via legal action and failed to do so.
• the attempt to play down the centrality of channelling and mediumship to its practises. The channelling and mediumship of a spirit guide its followers are told is God and a centrality which illfits with its public face and political ambitions.
• the instant removal and erasure of considerable time and effort made making neutral and beneficial formatting ... etc the 65 edits, here; [36].

Personally, I just want to get on and contribute to the Wikipedia. I am sick of being the target of these people. I know the subjects I edit on. I add form, content and provide citations. It gives me no pleasure to be continually subjected to wasting admin's time and constantly tripping over the stumbling blocks these people are persistently using in an attempt to exclude me.

I am happy to discuss this in detail and supply all the diffs that illustrate just exactly what Simon and the BKWSU are up to if required. but, frankly, the Wikipedia admins cannot see this for what it is by looking at nature and amount of complaints this individual has made, then I am afraid that I would wasting my time.

References;

• Suspected sock puppet [37]
• BKWSU IT violation [38]
• WP:3RR pattern [39]
• Long term use of affiliation to discredit [40]

• Bksimonb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 76.79.146.8 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

-- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As a remedy I am asking for strong enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. If this causes a problem then it is clear where that problem lies. I am not asking for unilateral enforcement. I am happy for the same rules to apply to me and other editors. It is clear from the above post that there is a strong bias against the BKWSU and a rather obvious attempt to discredit me and other editors based on our affiliation and non-agreement with the the above editor's own views. In the above post alone I am being accused, as if it were some indisputable fact, of "collusion", "PR", "preemptive strike", "manipulation" and censorship. In fact, I am most grateful for the above post as it clearly illustrates the problem. Regards Bksimonb ( talk) 05:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the need for enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. In particular WP:COI where it states;

" Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, edits made by public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image."

BK Simon B is a member, if not leader, of the BKWSU Internet PR team. In fact, I think the correct title is "core Internet PR team". The Internet PR team of the organization in question. If Simon choses to deny this, here, then I am happy to provide evidence to support this assertion. He is and has been supported by other BK followers (BK is the title followers given themselves) and they also work together to suppress other internet source, e.g. they (Simon and other BK Wikipedia editors) recently acted in a failed attempt to close down an independent website via a domain name dispute. This is the same domain that BK Simon and the other BK contributors keep removing from the article; http://www.brahmakumaris.info.

I do not think it is fair that the Wikipedia's admins have their time used up protecting the PR interests of a new religious movement but that it is only in this context can we understand what is going on here.

The BKWSU has invests a considerable amount of money on its public face and generally keeps hidden from newcomers the more extreme elements of its beliefs, e.g.

• the practise of mediumship or channelling of a spirit they claim is God himself via their mediums at the Indian headquarters
• the belief is a 5,000 year Cycle of time that repeats identically
• numerous failed predictions of the End of the World in which 6 Billion are meant to die so that 900,000 of their faithful followers will inherit a Golden Age heaven on earth (all, of course, backed up by independent, academic sources).
• their historical revision and superiority as God's chosen religion

The last year or more has been one long war of attrition in which the BK followers, with varying degrees of finesse and investment in gaming the Wikipedia system, have attempt to distort the topic to hide these core, identifying elements to bring the topic inline with the 'vanilla' version presented on their websites. This gaming continues with a barrage of complaints, accusations, unfounded vituperative depending each time on some new admin or contributor not knowing the history and not knowing the organization.

I think it is wrong that the Wikipedia allows this waste of volunteers resources. I think this individual has made a disproportionate amount of complaints underling his and his organization's single intent ... which is to break the spirit of any informed, independent contributor and push their PR agenda. Even the Scientology article includes independent websites and external links. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 08:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just an outside view from a regular user, but the article is on probation and adding unnecessarily positive or negative stuff without reference to core policy seems to be against the terms of this. The remedy reads, "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee", which both sides appear to have done in the section above. Also in Principles: "Users with a deep personal involvement with a subject who edit in a disruptive, aggressive biased manner may be banned from editing the affected article or articles, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." User:Bksimonb has a self-declared conflict of interest, and per WP:COI as cited in the arbitration, needs to consider whether the edits are promoting his organisation, or promoting the interests of Wikipedia. I can't tell exactly what has been added by the user, but I made a reverse diff of Lucy's revert which gives some clue as to what matters are under dispute. The article was reverted to the pre-Lucy version and immediately full-protected by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry on 26 December 2007. I am unsure at this stage whether User:Lucyintheskywithdada also has a conflict of interest in the opposite direction - user commenced editing on 21 December 2007 and, strangely, their main edits have not been focused on this article. However, their reference to the BKWSU Internet Team in their very first edit to the page suggests they may be a historic participant in the dispute. Orderinchaos 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have a go at trying to get this one on track - it does seem to have rather gone off the rails. If Wikipedia policies were strictly enforced here it would be necessary to ban everybody involved, which while resulting in peace and a complete end to edit warring on the article, would certainly not be a desirable outcome. Strict enforcement of the rules before has led to a situation where it appears the article overly favours one side, is far from encyclopaedic and needs a lot of sourcing. I'm acting purely as a content editor and negotiator with no past history and no particular views on the subject, and am quite happy to defer to arbitrators on any matter. Orderinchaos 09:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orderinchaos. Although I obviously find some of your initial assessment challenging the important thing for me is that you are prepared to work with us, and I really appreciate that. As far as COI issues are concerned I have tried my best to act within limits and leave the most drastic edits to outside editors who have dropped by. I appreciate that it probably doesn't look that way without a detailed analysis of the article history and talk archives. I don't expect you to do that so I'll just take it all on the nose for now knowing that everything will transpire in it's own time if you stick around. Regards Bksimonb ( talk) 12:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with you Orderinchaos, the article is, or at least has been prior to the BKs revision, very highly sourced. It lists all the major and many minor BK sources. One of the problem it has suffered is the BKs team persistently removing not just references and citations but also perfectly good copy and formatting edits. This is not bitching, the history demonstrates it and it worth studying. The purpose has surely been the same as all the admin complaints; a bad will disincentive for any informed non-BKWSU contributors.

I am sorry but although I have been cautioned to let this go, I must ask for action to be taken on the obvious WP:COI by the Internet PR team. Fine, a Christian editing a page on Christianity, that is acceptable. But the representative of the "Core Internet PR Team" of the organization warring on the organizations own topic, I am afraid that really is too much given all the illwill.

Whilst doing my laundry, I made a spreadsheet of this individual; Bksimonb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Of 1266 edits only a handful were not related to the BKWSU. Going by the summaries alone (approximately ... my attention to detail has some limits)

• 103 were Administrator requests related to the BKWSU (including 26 "Reports" and 50 re "enforcement")
• 76 were "Suspicions", e.g. "Suspected" complaints related to the BKWSU,
• 76 Revision of non-BKWSU contributors
• 88 related to Sockpuppets accusations related to the BKWSU
• 69 Related directed to Adminstrators noticeboard related to the BKWSU protection
• 13 checkusers complaints related to the BKWSU
• 13 POVs related to the BKWSU
• 3 were page delete requests related to the BKWSU

This equals approximately 428 non-constructive edits, or a third of the total. These are then mirrored by the other BKs such Appledell ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I suggest this is disproportionate to the value to the Wikipedia, the time and efforts of other volunteers. I think I can find 4 time he actually added a reference, the rest are just passing judgement on or removing other's work.

In his original arbcom statement [41] he writes, "we ( BKWSU Internet PR Team have no problem with critical websites". But then in reality, he and other members of the BKWSU team both persistently remove all independent websites links from the article under a variety of guises and work together on a failed legal attack to silence the leading one. As I state before, even the Scientologists are mature enough to allow criticism and critical links on their topic.

Surely it would be naive of us not to consider that "creating a problem" is in order to achieve an end result within which even uninformed inaccuracies are better than referenced precision. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 13:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Certainly there are some pro-BK or BK-affiliated editors working here. There are also some people committed to "exposing the truth" about BK. Interestingly, brand new editor Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk · contribs) is making exactly the same arguments as a number of previous editors, including the editor who used 195.82.106.244 and was banned for making personal attacks. The "truth" about BK often comes from alleged internal BK documents that are in the possession of former members, and which do not meet the reliable source guidelines, although I understand there has been improvement in this area. Ultimately, the article probation that passed had unique wording that makes it unenforceable except by the Arbitration committee. What is needed therefore is a review by the Committee to determine whether the current disputes are within the normal scope of the dispute resolution process (thus directing the parties to RFC, mediation etc.) or whether the disruption is sufficient to adopt a more muscular remedy. Thatcher 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a factual correction here.

The "internal BK documents" that have been referred to as such by the BK editors, or debate with regards to this topic, are the channeled messages believed to be God speaking through their mediums called the Murlis. It was discovered that some at least had been published with an ISBN number after all but, in principle, it is accepted that the main body are disallowed. Other early sources of literature, including Indian ones are all taken from publicly sources are equally held by the BKWSU. So there can be no controversy over these.

There is some inconsistency towards the use of BKWSU produced materials, e.g. the BK editors refusing certain publications but then using other publication or their websites to support their own claims, e.g. that charity projects are theirs, where the documentation appears to support they are not BK ventures. The debate has really be about "who" gets to use and chose them, i.e. whether they are a BK or not; what is a "contentious" citation or not and the guiding principle being whether or not it matches their current publicity or not.

We are dealing with a very specific and narrow topic here with relatively little literature. Any contributor coming forward is going to rely on the same sources and references. I would suggest that there would be no contention at all if Bksimonb and the other BKs were not pursuing their policy of total reversion over even utterly neutral edits (typos, formatting etc) ... and shooting the messenger by way of killing the message.

I think what the topic needs is a chance to develop without persistent and personalised BKWSU censorship before motives are assigned. To that end, I am asking the committee to extend some trust and allow us to do so.

I also think the article needs to be split into a number of others to allow each aspect to be covered in detail, again something the BKs keep disallowing. Part of the problem is a simple dispute caused by the artificial constraint imposed by insisting it all fits onto one page.

I am not a new editor. I joined as Lwachowski ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) but forgot my password, I rejoined and immediate drew admin attention to this as AWachowski [42] attempting to recover my original account. My diffs are here if they are to be criticised [43]. Please do.

Despite making clear the change of name, these were reported by Bksimonb and disallowed with any chance of comment because they were either too similar (of course, they were meant to be!) or the name of a real person (Wachowski is a fair common name in Poland) forcing me to register another name Creationcreator ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Creationcreator was then contrived to be a sockpuppet account by Bksimonb and reported again on two separate occasions using the L/AWachowski change of name despite his knowing clearly that I had lost a password and made efforts to have it official changed. No checkuser was made other alleged accounts. None of these have ever been used consecutively.

I am happy to use one account IF I can be left alone without an obvious policy of exclusion by the BKWSU PR guy Simonb ... and if it can be recognised what is going on. Please note again the collusion; [44] [45].

I am being open here in trust and good faith, with all the attendant risks. I make no effort to hide this. This not sockpuppetry. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 10:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could the parties and/or administrators with the relevant background please clarify whether this is a request for enforcement of the existing remedies from the prior arbitrator, or whether the committee is being asked to clarify the remedies or enact new ones? If the latter, please clarify exactly what is being proposed or requested. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The existing article probation states only that the parties may ask for a review; it does not have the usual enforcement provisions such as allowing admins to issue topic bans for disruptive editing. Bksimonb appears to be asking that the article be placed on standard article probation so that admins could hand out topic bans and so forth. I have not reviewed the content or recent contribs/talk page to see whether Bksimonb is correct in his assessment that certain editors are disruptive (as opposed to merely disagreeing with him). Thatcher 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate input from administrators active on Arbitration Enforcement (including Thatcher) regarding whether a Review case is warranted and/or whether a motion to add the standard enforcement provisions to the decision should be adopted. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for asking this but I would appreciate if the arbcom would look at enacting new remedy with regards to the "core BKWSU Internet PR team" and WP:COI. I also have posted recently on the talk page noting the involvement of Sockpuppets of Ekajati; IPSOS/ Ekajati/ GlassFET. I have been cautioned about persisting in the use of the above term but it is the organization's official term for the group, under the BKWSU USA leadership, which Bksimonb represents. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I request that User:Lucyintheskywithdada and all relevant incarnations he admits to above be blocked for persistent violation of WP:NPA and WP:OWN.

I am an outside editor trying to work in good faith on the article and each time I ask a question for clarification, suggest that he create a sandbox, or otherwise engage in in consensus building, he reverts to personal attacks or WP:Own. I've gone to a great deal of effort to research the articles and most recently acquired a copy of the book that Lucy suggested getting (Walliss's book) yet he continues his relentless attacks.

For example of violation of WP:NPA, scroll to the end of this entry [46].

This, this, and this are clear examples of WP:OWN.

From WP:OWN: "An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it."

Lucy's repeated diversionary tactics (including filing checkusers, reports here, etc.) and disruptive talk page edits demonstrate his unwillingness to discuss substance and build consensus in good faith. He is violating arbcomm's ruling that current and former associates refrain from personal attacks and aggressive edits. Please block. Cleanemupnowboys ( talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of allegations, accusations etc flying around, and that's actually the main problem at present - I think the content issues have all but faded into the background while each of them accuse each other of various violations of policy and/or being sockpuppets. If the parties can set that aside and work together, there would not be a need for a review. If they are unable to, it's probably the only option. I don't think an encyclopaedic article is impossible from the people and sources available. Orderinchaos 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to NYB's request - the review request seems to have been made as part of a campaign by one side of the dispute against the other side of the dispute, a continuance of a pattern which extends back some months. Said other side has come in and made allegations/launched processes in response. Past enforcement of the ArbCom, whose decision was a broadly sensible one, by admins viewing individual / out-of-context requests (without criticising any of them, as it took me days to determine where things were at) has sadly been narrow in focus and has been gamed somewhat by involved editors, particularly those on the BK side. The response of course has been the other party turning to increasing degrees of shrillness, which we're seeing above in the bolding of paragraphs and bizarre allegations. The unfortunate reality is that this article is a mess, one needs to be something of a subject expert to wade through it and improve it (I've actually read a lot of source documents in recent days), and the few here who have that expertise are small in number and have a history of conflict with each other. Orderinchaos 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate a more thorough investigation. I can't really go along with some of the above assessment. Firstly the "shrillness", bolding of paragraphs, presumptions of bad faith, soapboxing and bizarre allegations are something I encountered right from the very first time I posted [47]. What you call "gaming" is just what happens when help is requested and there is no response. One naturally tries escalating the issue. I've always tried to be as reasonable as possible but when in the absence of any feedback at all when I've signaled an issue, I can't really be expected to know how to proceed or what, if anything, I was doing wrong at the time. Regards Bksimonb ( talk) 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I have no complaint regarding arbcom and arbcom enforcement. The problem is in finding any useful feedback or response with lower forms of dispute resolution. For example, should any editor have to spend a year and a half being constantly harassed regarding their affiliation [48] ? Regards Bksimonb ( talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I should note I'm not in ArbCom, am not a clerk, etc, so my "investigation" carries the weight only of my own opinion, as much as that may be regarded or ridiculed in some quarters - I'm an admin, I've been a user for almost two years, and I'm trying to use my experience to end a dispute in a good-faith manner, however impossible a task that seems. I come from outside the dispute and until 30 December had no exposure to any of the disputants. My concern is simply that most of the action reports which have led to actions being taken have been initiated by yourself. Then you point to those actions as evidence that the community is acting on your concerns, and use your own reports as justifications for other reports. When you are in a position of an identified conflict of interest regarding the article, and all your reports are about people who disagree with you, while people who agree with you appear to have gotten off, you can understand the problem for Wikipedia and the community in trusting the soundness of these reports and actions. In addition it appears that these actions on your part may have assisted in escalating the dispute which has continued for well over a year now and shows few if any signs of ending soon. Orderinchaos 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to end the dispute. However I must protest that I have never reported someone simply because they disagreed with me. I report editors who blatantly ignore consensus, constantly make crazy accusations against other contributers and the article subject, use the talk page as a soapbox for propaganda, use anonymous IPs (probably proxies) and other accounts abusively and taunt editors on their talk pages and in edit comments. Is this really a normal part of the editing process we should be expected to live with? I would have thought that editors who behave in such a way have effectively forfeited any right to be a part of any editing process. It's kind of disheartening. It's like my house constantly gets burgled and when I complain to the police they say I am part of the problem because I complain so much. Nice. Regards Bksimonb ( talk) 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Did BKSimon ever put in a complaint against BKWSU editors who did the same, e.g. Riveros [49]? Why so few citations in comparison to blocks, bans, and reversions? I am sorry but we have to see all this talk of "consensus" for what it is; media control.

The organization has considerable personal and material resources and yet throughout the history of the topic has done, basically nothing to add value (by which I mean citations and references) whilst engaging in cover up. Please allow us the chance to develop the topic without the organization's own censorship.

This is why, following the involvement of IPSOS I would like a checkuser to be allowed on Cleanemupnowboys.

I suspect they are Reneeholle ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as the edits patterns match and our experience is similar to that on the Talk:Alice Bailey and related admin complaints.

Personally, I would just like some peace of mind that it is not IPSOS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) or Riveros11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) back again under another guise. I am not asking for a punitive results, just a commitment to openness and straightforwardness. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Per the discussion regarding a new case for Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, I'd like to make a proposed remedy extension for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. We're at the point now where it's clear the the previous remedies do not go far enough and administrators should be given greater authority to deal with the disruption in articles relating to this case. It's important that the committee make it clear that any form of disruption (not just limited to incivility with edit warring) will no longer be permitted on these articles. My proposal is as follows;

To address the disruptive editing that has taken place on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing (including, but not limited to incivility or pushing a point of view) on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to either cases, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#List of users placed under probation. Users placed under probation are limited to one revert, per page, per week and any revert (except for obvious vandalism) should be accompanied by an explanation on the article talk page. They are also required to be civilised in all discussions and in edit or log summaries. Any uninvolved administrator may place an article ban on a user that breaks the terms of their probation, or block the user for a period of up to one week. After five such blocks or bans, the maximum length of a block is increased to one year. All bans and block are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Ryan Postlethwaite 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be a welcome improvement to address the fact that these editors have learnt to edit war civilly, however it does not address the core of the problem: they edit war as a united front, so attempts to reform individuals result in anon edits, socks, renames and other clued up approaches to keep the admins hands tied in frustrating ways. John Vandenberg ( talk) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate all these concerns, but I'm not really sure what remedies could cover this - many of these issues are out of the scope of the ArbCom, and probably even the scope of the community. CheckUser of users couldn't be done at random, but obviously if there's clear sockpuppetry that could be dealt with via the usual channels. I've struck through, one revert, per page, per week - obviously we need to limit the disruption here, and one revert per week stops the users moving around every article uinder the scope of the decision and reverting it once. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The "no speeding" sign of one revert per week is a good idea. The wording of the rest of it is also acceptable provided it is clearly understood that this remedy is applicable to any anon or freshly minted user that steps into an existing debate or rekindles an old one. In order to avoid throw away accounts being used to do reverts, it would be advisable for the uninvolved admin to also revert when this occurs. Due to past experience, it would also be helpful if it was made clear that WP:BOLD and WP:IAR does not apply to Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. John Vandenberg ( talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it would be best to stick as closely as possible to the original wording, just without the incivility clause:

“

Any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner may be placed on revert limitation, civility supervision, and supervised editing by any uninvolved administrator, such restrictions to take effect after a notice has been placed on the editor's talk page and logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Log of blocks and bans.

”

Civility supervision, revert limitation, and supervised editing have been described previously in the case and at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. This allows maximum flexibility. So far we have made little use of the supervised editing restriction (allowing an admin to ban an editor from an article or topic for a period of time or indefinitely) but I think we need to start moving away from mechanical 1RR limits that encourage vexatious litigation ("his rationale was insufficient") and toward broader more permanent sanctions. Thatcher 06:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I presented lengthy evidence documenting possible sock puppetry during this case, [50]. Since a check user request has just established Asgardian has edited using an ip address in a manner violation of the arbitration ruling, does this mean new sanctions need to be considered, or should we stick to the prohibitions listed in the case outcome? Hiding T 21:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC) <edited to add link to checkuser request and clarify a point, Hiding T 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)>

Any uninvolved administrator can take action against an editor who sockpuppets to avoid an ArbCom restriction. Reports of infractions should be posted to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Some of the restrictions imposed on me by the Arbitration Committee in stages between November 2005 and July 2006 expired in November 2007; however, according to former arbitrator User:Raul654, I am still subject to two of the restrictions—remedy "X" from the original November 2005 ruling, and remedy 4 from the July 2006 amended ruling—and they will remain in effect indefinitely, until lifted by the ArbCom. (I don't know if the rest of the ArbCom agrees that they are still in effect, but the only arbitrator who has spoken about it says they are in effect, and therefore I must assume they are until or unless the other arbitrators say otherwise.) I am not concerned about falling afoul of these rulings, and have no intention to ever do the things they prohibit, but by remaining in place these remedies act as a "scarlet letter" impeding my participation on Wikipedia, enabling people to ignore, dismiss or insult me because I am "not a user in good standing", and rendering it almost hopeless for me to attempt to regain my adminship through RfA, which was taken from me by the ArbCom in 2006 for an issue unrelated to the case in question. I think these remedies accomplish nothing except to marginalize me and should be lifted. Everyking ( talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The committee has seen a fairly large number of aggrieved parties to previous arbitration hearings present appeals immediately after the changeover in membership, so please accept our apologies for not responding immediately. The term "in good standing" is an imprecise one capable of being taken strictly or loosely. Could you help us by pointing to recent examples where you feel you have been suffering through the presumed continuation of these remedies? Sam Blacketer ( talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 announced on behalf of the committee on November 14 that one of the remedies against Everyking (parole on music articles) was being suspended for 3 months, but would automatically go back into effect 90 days later unless otherwise decided by the committee. This means that we will need to review Everyking's recent editing in early February so we can make this decision by February 12. For the sake of efficiency, I suggest that we review this request for relief from the remaining sanctions at the same time.

For those of us who were not active at the time of the prior decisions, the history of these cases (including even locating "Remedy 4" and "Remedy X") is a little bit difficult to follow. Either now or when this request is renewed in February, could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a more complete set of links and a quick summary of the history? Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Brad's suggestion of hearing everything together in February is all right by me, although of course I would prefer if it was heard now—these sanctions have been in place for an extraordinarily long time. My editing on pop music articles has varied very little over quite a long span of time and I don't see how it could be expected to be any different in February, so I see no reason that issue could not be conclusively decided at the present time as well.

The key issue concerning the effect my arbitration sanctions have on me is that very many people simply will not vote for someone with ongoing sanctions in an RfA. Some of those opposing said that they would be willing to vote for me when the sanctions expired, which was understood to be in Nov. 2007, but as it turned out the ruling was interpreted (at least by Raul) to mean that certain aspects of it remained in place even after that point. I don't have many other clear examples, although I think there is a widespread subtle effect; because I have stayed out of disputes for so long there have been few occasions for people to blatantly batter me with reminders of my low status. In October, after some articles were deleted purely because the person who wrote them was believed to be a banned user (I believe that content should be judged on its merits and not based on its author), I requested that User:Lar provide me with copies of the articles so that I could determine if they were suitable and potentially vouch for them, or at least put them through WP:DRV, and he told me that he would not because I was not a "user in good standing". I never obtained the copies and as far as I know the articles are still deleted. Everyking ( talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your last point, the circumstances surrounding the particular banned user are exceptional, as I believe you are aware. As someone who generally supports giving second chances to users, I strongly advise that you would probably be better served by not using your interchange with Lar as an example of something that the remedies have prevented you from doing. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, if we're going to get into a discussion of strategy here: I thought about not mentioning that because some people have particular feelings about the issue, but it was the best example I could think of in recent memory, and he asked for specific examples. Everyking ( talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My appeal request was removed by somebody "per arbitrator request" (nobody notified me; I had to dig through the history to figure out what happened) although no arbitrators ever voted on it and the two who commented on it did so in such a way as to not indicate any clear viewpoint. The arbitrators should either accept my request or reject it, not silently sweep it under the rug. I am thus restoring it and ask that the arbitrators actually address it in some form or another. I am a Wikipedian, I have been working continuously on this project under their restrictions, and I think I deserve something more than this silent, unexplained form of rejection. Everyking ( talk) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I had suggested that this be archived for now because I thought you had accepted (albeit reluctantly) that we could deal with all asoects of the restrictions continuing or not next month. Sorry about any confusion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 12:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I also thought that "Brad's suggestion of hearing everything together in February is all right by Everyking, although of course he would prefer if it was heard now". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I said that was fine, but only if that's what we're really going to do. Are the arbitrators actually willing to hear the appeal at the beginning of next month? I'd be happy to withdraw this one if that was explicitly stated, but you must understand my skepticism—the ArbCom has rejected my appeals probably half a dozen times now. Everyking ( talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Advised Everyking to refile in Feb. Did this on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I am requesting an extension of sanctions against DreamGuy, to add restrictions on abusive sockpuppetry and edit-warring, along with the civility restrictions from the October 2007 ArbCom case.

DreamGuy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been systematically using anon sockpuppets in an abusive manner, to avoid scrutiny and sanctions. This is a violation of WP:SOCK: It is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

It is therefore my request that the sanctions should be extended to cover:

• Abusive sockpuppetry, meaning that the editing restriction should be extended to state that DreamGuy is to make all of his edits under the DreamGuy account.

• Edit-warring. During various incidents since the October 2007 ruling, there have been multiple examples of DreamGuy edit-warring (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy), but a block was not issued, because the ArbCom sanctions did not specifically include edit-warring. I would therefore like to see the sanctions extended to cover this, such as to put him on a limit of one revert per article per day.

For further details, please see: User:Elonka/DreamGuy report

-- El on ka 01:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the level of IP usage by DreamGuy, I would suggest that remedies are extended, limiting DreamGuy to using only his one account and no editing through IP's - his edits often go undetected for a while and make blocks punitive. Likewise I see edit warring from the account and a motion to include edit warring looks to be a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support this, just so long as the restrictions specifically state that he is not to edit from IPs as well. Wizardman 02:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Did something happen recently? It's difficult to tell from the above. If not, why fix what isn't broken? El_C 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how he violated his restrictions, specifically. Eloka's report suffers from inaccuracies. And isn't there a priori bad blood? El_C 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, yet another Checkuser was filed by yet another user, which alerted me to the fact that DreamGuy is using yet another anon to avoid sanctions, despite multiple admins telling him in the past that he has to stop doing this. DreamGuy keeps repeating, "There's no rule that says you have to login." And yet, WP:SOCK says exactly that, that you do have to login if other editors have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. DreamGuy didn't just "forget" to login once or twice, he's been avoiding his DreamGuy account, and has been systematically using an anon for weeks. See my report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report for details. -- El on ka 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That dosen't answer the question about bad blood, so I'll pose for the third time. As for the login-in requirement — so long as there's no troubles from those ips, I don't think that sockpuppet clause can be invoked, as much as some may take an interest in his contributions, he has a right to edit without login-in. I asked you about these troubles and you said: "bad faith and uncivil comments. Just look at his contribs." I don't really have time to review these in their totality, so again, please provide diffs. Thx. El_C 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He's using IP's to evade transparency in his editing. He's under arbitration restrictions, and by using IP's, he stops the possibility of having his contribs looked at. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand El C's point. Is he saying that an editor engaged in a revert war can use up his 3RR allowance in his registered identity and then be granted an extra 3 reverts unregistered (and then go back to the registered identity ad infinitum thus having a six for the price of three revert allowance). Is that legal or not? I am a complete duffer when it comes to wikilawyering and would like some clarification on that point! If the same person is using a registered and unregistered identity in tandem is that classed as one user or as two users on the 3RR rule? Colin4C ( talk) 16:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a red herring. Of course nobody can violate 3RR by signing out and using an IP address. That's not at issue here. I am not using a registered account and an IP address in tandem and am not violating any policy. There are no 3RR violations, attempts to pretend to be another party to confuse people, or anything else. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is simply ridiculous. Elonka has been making false accusations of sockpuppeting for years as part of her longstanding grudge against me, which came to a head recently when she was up for admin (in which Ryan Postlethewaite was her biggest supporter, accusing me of lying about harassing emails Elonka sent, etc.). In fact, her history of falsely accusing me of sockpuppets to try to get her way was in discussion as part of her admin application, and, whattya know, now that she's an admin right away she's continuing on with it. Her accusations here are nothing more than a major violation of WP:AGF -- In effect, she wants me punished or restricted in some way because she assumes, without any evidence, that I am up to no good. The bottom line here is that there are no rules here that I or people in general here HAVE to edit signed on if they have an account, and considering that it's all too easy to end up not signed in anymore after you change browsers or the cookie expires or whatever, is a good thing. None of my edits on IP address has violated any sanctions or indeed any policy on Wikipedia whatsoever... This is just a desperate attempt by Elonka to find any excuse she can come up with to harass me some more. Please note also how Elonka assisted Jack1957 in filing the false sockpuppet report this time around. She really needs to demonstrate some of that good faith and letting go of personal conflicts she promised, and if she is unwilling to do that she needs to be told to stop making false accusations and trying to invent trouble.. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I had nothing to do with Jack1956 filing his Checkuser, he did that completely on his own. The first I heard of it, or your latest anon, was when I saw that the Checkuser page had been updated. I did advise Jack1956, after he filed that report, that he should probably inform the affected editors. [51] I have also informed him about this extension request, since his name is on my report. But that's the extent of it. So no, I'm not "behind" this latest checkuser, I'm just reporting what I'm seeing, and recommending that the sanctions be extended to prevent further evasion. -- El on ka 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can I just confirm that no one has 'put me up' to filing a sockpuppet report concerning Dreamguy. I did it entirely myself after noticing what I recognised as Dreamguy's editing style coming out of another anon. account. As this anonymous editing had been going on for days while Dreamguy's regular account was dormant raised suspicions in my mind, valid or otherwise. I do not accept that some one 'forgets' to log in for days on end. I can accept that it happens from time to time, but not consistently in this manner. Jack1956 ( talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Dreamguy consistently "forgets" to log in and continues causing problems in the editwarring/civility departments until someone notices the IP is him. He's been asked not to do it multiple times and doesn't seem to want to do so voluntarily. Since he is already under ArbCom restrictions, it seems incredibly reasonable to ask him not to avoid scrutiny in this manner. Lets get past this "you can't sanction me because Elonka and I don't get along" nonsense once and for all. Shell ^babelfish 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would point out as well, that the last time this occurred (immediately prior to his last ArbCom enforcement [ complaint), he had been editing anonymously - and then supported them as DreamGuy (posting within 15 minutes as first the anon and then as DreamGuy, supporting the anon user's edits). He of course denied ever using the IP account, despite having been asked specifically by Dicklyon about it. The fact that he evaded answering the pointed inquiries as to his usage of the account clearly indicate that he is well aware of the sticky issues regarding editing anonymously. And since this isn't the first or even third time this specific problem has occurred, it might seem like the proper time to perhaps deliver a stronger message that this is not going to be tolerated by users in Wikipedia, and is certainly not going to be tolerated by users currently under behavioral restriction. editing anonymously allows DG to act as he will (and again, its indicated that this anon activity has yet again been uncivil), specifically thumbing his nose at the ArbCom restrictions. I don't care how good an editor he is - if we allow his behavior to continue, what do we say to other editors who contribute less and act as poorly when they point to the non-enforcement of behavioral restrictions? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(as per a request for clarification as to the socking and other events, I have provided diffs and links for the things I've pointed out. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

These efforts in support of Elonka's attempt to extend DG's sanctions appear spurious and needlessly longwinded. It is also, blatantly, a punitive one, unless the ip/s can be demonstrated to have been abusive, recently. Her subpage looks dated, poorly organized, and convoluted. El_C 06:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree here, if you edit anonymously in the same way that caused you to be sanctioned by Arbcom in the first place, that's a clear case of evasion/circumvention of the penalties. Unless the policy is in dispute (or the facts are in error) it's pretty clear: "Evading sanctions will cause the timer to restart, and may lengthen the duration of the sanctions." (italics mine) policy link. R. Baley ( talk) 09:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Now all we need is proof that DG "edit[ed] anonymously in the same way that caused [him] to be sanctioned." Any recent diff will do. El_C 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Without prejudice, "recent" is an additional qualifier not found in policy. All that would need to be shown is that the violation was made during the same time period as the sanction. The point of socking is usually to avoid detection, that one does it successfully for a while does not earn exemption (or a cookie). R. Baley ( talk) 10:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (add: lest anyone think I'm here to keep arguing this will most likely be my last post on this topic - R. Baley ( talk))

If there hasn't been any violation in months, then we can, and should, assume good faith about conduct having been refomred. El_C 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, while I think that it has been pointed out that the behavior under the anon wasn't very civil, it seems clear that El_C thinks we should AGF with DreamGuy yet again. I think that anything else that pops up ont he radar about DG should be directed immediately to El_C or Dmcdevit, so they can act on the matter quickly enough that. As a matter of timely action repeatedly seems to be the deciding factor in this matter, let's all stay on our toes and be sure to report anything that occurs right away. Satisfactory? -

What about your behaviuor? I keep asking for evidence, you keep responding with rumor, and round & round we go. El_C 10:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If DG lost his patient due to this sort of tendentious conduct, I can't blame him. El_C 10:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• He has within the last few days twice reverted my sourced and referenced edits on Walter Dew, once as Dreamguy and once as the anon. user, putting in unsourced and unreferenced material instead. Jack1956 ( talk) 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's not proof of a violation, or anything. He is allowed to revert "twice within a few days." It looks like he argued that you were presenting the "sourced and referenced" additions as original synthesis. ^[52] It's a content dispute. El_C 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

At Walter Dew Dreamguy has appeared in three different identities (two unregistered numbers and his registered Dreamguy name) between 3rd and the 9th of Jan. of this year. As I know nothing about wikilawyering I am not saying that this is right or wrong, but, for what its worth, it's a fact. He has used each of the identities to revert one other editor's (not me) contributions. This might confuse some editors who might assume that they are dealing with a majority three editors against one editorial conflict, wheras it is just one against one. Colin4C ( talk) 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One could always ask the two ips if they are him: assuming good faith and focusing on the contributors not the contributor/s. People are permitted to edit when from ips, and some people edit from different places. El_C 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will ask him. I assume thay are the same as Dreamguy from past experience as an editor on the wikipedia: they both use the same confrontational language and both revert stuff without talking about it on the talk page. But that is not really my point. My point is that neophyte editors might assume that there is a concensus against their edit if they see three seemingly different editors reverting their stuff. Therefore swapping between registered and unregistered gives one an advantage in an edit war if the other editor doesn't know that the three are one and the same person. The neophyte editor might think: 'The concensus is against me: I will withdraw my obnoxious edit!' That seems to me unfair: but once again I must state that I'm not a wikilawyer and if it is permissable to use three different identities in the space of 6 days engaged in the same revert war then I'm fine with that! Colin4C ( talk) 11:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that that incident counts as a revert war,; and wikilawyer is a very negative term here. El_C 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about one particular case. I would just like to know in a hypothetical case on the wikipedia whether it would be acceptible in an edit war to switch between a variety of different unregistered addresses and your registered address and not indicate to the other editors that the same person is behind the the different identities. Is that acceptible or not? Also if a registered editor is asked whether the user was using an unregistered address on the same article would he be obliged to answer or not? Or is it wrong to ask in the first place? Where does the burden of proof lie? There is also the Catch 22 of either not assuming goodfaith or being duped by the same multiple identity trick for the twentieth time. In my first encounters with Dreamguy on the Jack the Ripper page I assumed that the unregistered identities and Dreamguy's were separate editors, but he uses the same tactic in many different articles and is once again using it now at this very moment at the Walter Dew article. Can unregistered identities be required to declare themselves or not? Where does the burden of proof lie? Colin4C ( talk) 16:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy has remedies dealing with "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", as well as enforcements. He has gamed them, the spirit of the arb ruling is to prevent such behavior. I have therefore blocked for 96 hours because although not strictly within said restrictions, his conduct is clearly gaming them. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The Digwuren general restriction states that Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator and then goes on to describe the terms of the restriction. Some questions have been raised, however, as to whether an administrator should apply this restriction to a first-time offender who has not yet been made aware of the existence of this special clause relating to EE pages, or whether it would be more appropriate to warn the alleged offender first.

The question arose in relation to my own case whereby I have been placed under the restriction for making a single comment that one administrator, User:Thatcher, construed as "disparaging editors by their status in a group" and a "bad faith assumption" on my part (both of which charges I repudiate). Two users, User:Geogre and User:Anynobody, have also appeared to question Thatcher's judgement in this case in regards to whether the sanction should have been immediately applied to a first-time (alleged) offender like myself with no prior knowledge of the restriction.

So I think it would be appropriate for the arbcom to clarify this matter, if not in relation to my own case specifically, then at least in regards to the general case. The discussion, BTW, can be read at Thatcher's talk page under the headings Digwuren restriction notice and No. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 07:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to save you guys the awkwardness of having to effectively judge the actions of a fellow administrator, and given that I am a party to this dispute with an obvious COI in bringing this issue up, and in the light of the fact that Thatcher has indicated she is prepared to review my restriction in future, I think I'll drop this for now. If someone else doesn't raise the matter again in the meantime, I might bring it up again in a few weeks or months when the COI issue is no longer there. Gatoclass ( talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

---

There's been an incident following a recently closed Arb case :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Tenebrae

The party received a warning, but for future considerations, would such an incident be subject to temporary banning under Remedy 3?

Disruptive editing 3) Any uninvolved administrator may ban Skyelarke or Tenebrae from editing John Buscema or any related article or page for a reasonable period of time, either before or after three months have expired, if either engages in any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus.

-- Skyelarke ( talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An uninvolved administrator may ban either participant in the case from any article or page related to John Buscema for the reasons stated. The words "or page" were added to the remedy to make it clear that talk pages are included. Talk pages are for discussion, even for expressing disagreement with other editors, so banning someone from a talkpage normally should not be necessary, but if there is disruption from either party it can be done in the discretion of the administrator handling arbitration enforcement. I will add that I am very, very disappointed to see the two of you sniping at each other again so soon after the case was resolved. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanky for reply, Newyorkbrad - Hopefully, it's an isolated impulsive reaction following case closure - things should hopefully cool down once parties have taken the time to review and integrate the arbcom case decision a little better.

Thanks also, for your double-duty efforts (clerk and arbitrator) on the case, and best of luck with your new arbitration appointment.

Cheers,

-- Skyelarke ( talk) 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin actions don't generally start with the most severe remedy, and blocks don't normally start at the longest length. It's normally the other way around; the exceptions are things like vandal only accounts. In this case there was also the issue of what the arb case applied to. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

---

In a previous ruling it was decided that a given editor, User:Ferrylodge, would be subject to an indefinite restriction regarding articles relating to pregnancy and abortion here. There has been recent discussion here regarding whether that restriction would apply to articles in the broader "political" sphere as well, specifically regarding a current presidential candidate. Would the previous restriction apply in this case or not? John Carter ( talk) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally Arbitration decisions mean what they say. Obviously this does not immunize the editor against administrative action that might be taken for disruptive editing of other articles, but such action has to be justified according to the usual standards and means for dealing with disruption. You may wish to ask Arbcom for a modification or extension of the prior case. Thatcher 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm willing to give this one a chance.

Original case located here.

I propose

Repeal

Privatemusings banned for 90 days

3) Privatemusings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)' editing privileges are revoked for a period of 90 days. The revocation affects all accounts.

Impose

Privatemusings placed on mentorship.

3) Privatemusings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)' is placed under involuntary mentorship until 29 Feb 2008. The commitee appoints Mercury ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as mentor in this case.

Thanks for consideration. M-ercury at 00:40, January 14, 2008

I have a general familiarity with the Privatemusings case, and personally would probably have supported a lesser remedy than the committee adopted in the case a couple of months ago. However, I don't believe there is sentiment from the committee as a whole to make any changes to the remedies at this time. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 08:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic#Free_Republic_placed_on_article_probation

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

The article is about a conservative Internet forum founded by Jim Robinson. User:Eschoir is a former member of that forum who was permanently banned in 1998 for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts for purposes of disruption. He has been called "the ubertroll Eschoir," and the person using this descriptive term was clearly not biased against him by any sympathies with Free Republic. Eschoir was so disruptive that Robinson found it necessary to spend $110,000 on a federal lawsuit to obtain a permanent injunction against him. If he ever starts another account at Free Republic, he can be jailed for contempt of court. This is the mother of all WP:COI problems. Eschoir never should have been allowed to edit the Free Republic article.

Nevertheless, Fred Bauder was willing to AGF, as seen on Eschoir's User talk page. From that moment forward, Eschoir steadily transformed the Free Republic article into his own bitter little personal blog. It was an inventory of every petty little feud that occurred between Free Republic members, and every nutball statement that was ever said in a ten-year history of about 2 million posts in their forum. The article gradually moved farther and farther away from compliance with WP:NPOV.

At one point, he added an edit containing the word "penis", describing an alleged event involving two real people: Kristinn Taylor, a prominent participant at Free Republic, and another participant using the alias "Dr. Raoul." Since the article isn't about a topic dealing with sexuality or medicine, this immediately attracted my attention regarding a possible WP:BLP violation. (Since then, Eschoir has admitted that the alleged event never occurred.)

I placed a final warning for vandalism on Eschoir's Talk page and started actively editing the article to bring it into NPOV compliance. Ever since that moment, he has been making false WP:SOCK accusations, [53] see edit summary see edit summary see edit summary [54] [55] [56] see edit summary [57] [58] see edit summary [59] [60] and occupied territory that's best described as a continuous violation of WP:NPOV, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:DBAD. [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] Eschoir expanded a quotation from Robinson into a blockquote, continuing his campaign of cherry-picking quotations that make Free Republic look like a collection of nutballs and criminals. He chopped up a Talk page post into an incomprehensible mess by inserting a contentious and contemptuous response between its lines.

Eschoir then began to engage in a full-fledged edit war to revert edits that were supported by consensus, and clearly intended to restore NPOV. [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] see edit summary

When User:BenBurch offered to do a complete rewrite, or “refactoring” of the article in an effort to end the edit war, at first it seemed like a good idea. Eschoir offered several recommendations, including using a reverse chronology format, but couldn't resist making another jab at FR regarding "volunteer shock troops" and "holy war." (See also here regarding reverse chronology format.)

Rather than wait for BenBurch to do it, Eschoir did the refactoring himself on a "sandbox" page. Now it's obvious why Eschoir wants to go with a reverse chronology. It enables him to stuff all of the following epithets, from recent critics describing Free Republic, into the first 161 words of the article:

• vile
• hateful
• besmirching Christian values
• some pretty sick people posting
• inciting the murder of Hillary Clinton
• racist and homophobic
• poor moderation
• victimized by a wave of purges

Eschoir’s continued efforts to demean anyone on the Talk:Free Republic page who doesn’t share his position: [72] [73] Said efforts have been recognized as demeaning by others: [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] This is a perfect example of why COI editors need to be watched closely. Please take the necessary action.

I previously brought this up for enforcement at WP:ANI Arbitration Enforcement. I was told that your ruling was so vague that it's unenforceable, and that I should bring this issue to WP:RFAR Clarification. The ruling from the previous arbitration must be modified so that no administrator could possibly misunderstand that he has the authority, and the duty, to ban editors from editing the Free Republic article and related pages for being disruptive, failing to assume good faith, or making personal attacks. Specifically, please ban Eschoir from editing the article. It's been 10 years since he was banned from Free Republic for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts. His refactoring of the Free Republic article demonstrates that even after 10 years, he can't resist the temptation to turn a Wikipedia article into a Poison pen letter to Jim Robinson. Samurai Commuter ( talk) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blatantly disruptive editing on any article can be dealt with by any uninvolved administrator, following consultation on WP:ANI where appropriate. Arbitration (or arbitration clarification) is not always necessary, and may not be needed here if administrators conclude that the problem is serious enough. With specific respect to Eschoir, the editing history described above is very troubling, although I would welcome comment here by Eschoir before reaching a further conclusion. (I see that Eschoir was apparently not notified of this request for clarification, and have left him a talkpage note asking him to respond.) It is also noteworthy that a proposed finding of fact during last year's case, though not ultimately adopted, stated that " Eschoir ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site." If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision, then it might indeed be suitable for him to discontinue editing this particular article. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're stuck with this one, Brad. The previous article probation was advisory only, stating that the situation would be reviewed upon motion of an Arbitrator or request from an editor. After a very cursory review there is nothing in Eschoir's recent history that would be disruptive enough for a page ban in the absence of previous DR, and as you know community-enforced page bans are still somewhat novel. Thatcher 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Samurai Commuter is clearly BryanfromPalatine, picking up from where he left before his permaban. I will give you my evidence should it be required. I think it's obvious. If there is a need to respond to his diatribe, I will do so. I will clarify again one serious sounding misconception.

" Eschoir ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site." If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision,

There was no "court decision," no hearings, no witnesses, no trials. Because I testified for the LATimes in the coppyright case, they sued me in state court for a million dollars. The wrong state court. I removed it to Federal Court for strategic reasons. They spent $110,000 pursuing me, then settled the case on my terms. Since they got no damages, they wanted at least an injunction, so I gave them one in the settlement papers. There was no wrongdoing alleged in the settlement and releases. Their lawyer, Bryan's mentor, was later disbarred.

Thannks again for the Heads-up. Eschoir ( talk) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what Newyorkbrad said: "With specific respect to Eschoir, the editing history described above is very troubling, although I would welcome comment here by Eschoir before reaching a further conclusion." Eschoir has offered no comments about his editing history. I suggest that some explanation of his editing history is called for here, in light of the many troublesome diffs I've posted here. But Eschoir remains silent. Samurai Commuter ( talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

outing, harassment

Samurai Commuter placed links here to Freerepublic.com, linking to harassing and outing of Wikipedia editors here. I removed it and mailed oversight. It looks like there are other things like that on that message board. Is it appropriate for users to be linking there? Lawrence Cohen 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the editor "Samurai Commuter" is the banned editor "BryanFromPalatine", based on the comments and actions on this page. See also this evidence in a current RFAR: here. The user has asked me to restore a modified version of his 'evidence' to this section, but I am disinclined to do so as I have mailed Oversight to have it removed for exposing personal information about other editors here. Lawrence Cohen 19:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Lawrence Cohen blanked an entire section of ArbCom evidence, claiming that I posted links to personal information about Eschoir. In the preceding section, Eschoir admitted that he is the real person who was sued by an Internet forum, for creating nearly 100 sockpuppets for purposes of disruption. Eschoir then provided a ridiculous narrative of that litigation, which had ending in a federal injunction against him.

I posted two links to online court documents, proving that Eschoir's narrative was ridiculous. I also posted a lot of diffs from right here at Wikipedia that took time to compile, and proved Eschoir's continued disruptive activity and edit warring. If privacy was really the issue, it would have been sufficient to delete the links to the two court documents and leave a pleasant note on my User Talk page. Instead, Lawrence Cohen blanked the entire section, reported me as a single purpose attack account, and had me blocked indefinitely. He is now refusing to restore the evidence section he deleted, or even discuss the matter. Please see his User Talk page.

I'd appreciate a ruling on this at ArbCom's convenience. By admitting that he is the real person in question, by prevaricating about the federal injunction against him, and by continuing his efforts to turn a Wikipedia article into a Poison pen letter, Eschoir has opened the door to this discussion. Samurai Commuter ( talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please send a copy of any information that you believe was wrongfully blanked to the Arbitration Committee mailing list by e-mail. Please also respond to the assertion that you are the same individual as the banned user BrianFromPalatine. If you are, you are still entitled to have your concern with the article considered if you submit it by e-mail, but you should not be posting on-wiki. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No comment on User:Samurai Commuter's concerns, but the accounts 52 edits all seem to be related to this subject. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

When there's a disagreement on content, we're asked to work it out on the article's Talk page. My reward for trying to do that is the suggestion that I'm an SPA. Samurai Commuter ( talk) 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I have some info on this regarding BrionfromPalatine that you may want. It is nothing you can't get yourself, but since I have been involved with this page for a while I can give you an idea of the general situation if you would like. Email me if you would like that. Prodego ^talk 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please forward any relevant information that is not suitable for posting on-wiki to the Arbitration Committee mailing list (see WP:AC for address or e-mail to me for forwarding). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI to anyone keeping score on this particular drama, I have blocked both Eschoir ( talk · contribs) and Samurai Commuter ( talk · contribs) pursuant to mutual 3RR requests at WP:AN3. I went over the diffs closely and there's nothing blatantly disruptive on either side that would be an exemption to 3RR limitations. The whole article is a cesspool, but that's beside the point. As always, if I have missed something, feel free to adjust my actions accordingly. -- B ( talk) 06:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

---

From the start it's important to understand that I am here to contribute, I can't boast WP:FA after WP:FA since the subjects I have the most knowledge about are controversial. As such they are difficult to edit into Featured shape. Nor is my edit count as high as our more prolific contributors, however as proof of my commitment I can point to over 250 free images created, enhanced or found and added to the project. (I'd guesstimate 85-90% are images I created or enhanced for the project, while the rest are simply Public Domain images found on government/military websites. I'll lowball my efforts and keep the number at 100 to make things easier for those not mathmatically inclined. 85% of 100 is 85. Many of them took more than a few hours of work and are used on several projects. (Essentially I'm also contributing to the Japanese, German, Hebrew, Vietnamese, Russian (in fact both of the two on this page are mine, the list goes on and includes five or six other languages. It also includes an image nominated for Featured status. I'm not trying to brag, but since people seem to think I'm only about trolling or gaming the system it's important to show that to be untrue. I wouldn't spend so much time helping out to turn around and troll someone while gaming the system.

The case itself was, I thought, going to be about the issue of people using Church of Scientology IPs and open proxies to edit Scientology related articles with a pretty clear view towards affecting the POV of said articles. I honestly thought that Bishonen bringing up the disagreement between Justanother and I was pretty unrelated to the case and that the arbcom would think the same thing. By the time it was clear that they didn't, I was being accused of harassment, thereby making any effort to show past, and more extensive, bad behavior on his part seem like confirmation of my harassment of him. It's very frustrating to have so many people assume bad faith on my part because a popular admin does.

For example Justanother recently cited an example of what he called bad faith on my part: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#Disclosure of report to WP:3RR regarding Justanother. The issue of my supposed harassment was recently brought up in the arbcom, then as now, nobody would give specifics about what was/was not harassment. Certainly reminding him that 3RR rules apply to everyone wouldn't be considered harassment, since it's true: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive55#User:Justanother reported by User:Anynobody (Result: No action, warned) If you read the thread itself it should be obvious that I simply wanted to warn him that as he had made the same mistake as the editor he was trying to get blocked. (Please note also that I created both the arbcom thread and the 3RR note in good faith, if I was acting in bad faith, why would I turn around and tell the arbcom about it? I also didn't ask for or insist on a block at any time.)

So I'm asking for the arbcom to either let me explain/address whatever evidence they decided warranted an assumption of bad faith on my part, or failing that allow me to present evidence of how any harassment I could have inflicted is minimized by similar behavior which he initiated first and with other editors (who no longer edit anymore). Why am I bringing this up now? Because Justanother has begun using this case to leverage his position on articles like: Neutral reportage where he is currently arguing against including sourced material about a person who's article was recently deleted but is also mentioned in said article, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive12#User:Anyeverybody (AKA User:Anynobody) and Barbara Schwarz by accusing me of editing the wrong part of neutral reportage before other parts are added as the reason why it's inappropriate to talk about the Salt Lake Tribune's use of Neutral reportage to defeat Barbara Schwarz's defamation suit. He's also been posting on my talk page, which begs the question, if I harassed him, why come back for more?

I think the findings re him and I in the case should be dropped, and any future issues be dealt with through dispute resolution which was essentially skipped before. Going to arbcom for editor disputes in the context of an entirely separate issue seems to be pretty rare, except in this case. (Heck, we skipped Wikipedia:Requests for mediation entirely.) Anynobody 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Justanother (JustaHulk)

Leaving the issue of the appropriateness of Anyeverybody's (Anynobody or AN) attacks on me here and sticking strictly to the facts, I do want to respond to a couple of AN's misrepresentations here.

1. Re: "For example Justanother recently cited an example of what he called bad faith on my part:" That is a complete misread of my remark at WP:AE#Friendly reminder requested. The bad faith I was referring to was this:

   "AN constantly claims that he does not understand the ruling but when it is clearly explained to him, he ignores the explanation and grossly violates it by trotting out his collections of old, out-of-context diffs regarding me."

   That is bad faith. The other bit in that remark was clearly an answer to AN's previous question:

   "Could you please provide a diff from the arbcom where I pulled "this crap" and was told why what I did was like/unlike this? (Seriously, I'm not holding a grudge I just can't remember doing anything like what I've identified as harassment. Would you please just show where/when I did the same thing?) Anynobody 06:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)"

2. AN accuses me of "using this case to leverage his position on articles like: Neutral reportage". That is a lie - I never tried to use the harassment restriction on AN to my own advantage and, in fact, went out of my way to not make the restriction a problem for him. I did not accuse him of violating it in this case until he brought it up on WP:AE and, even then I did not accuse him of violating it until he did so in a gross and obvious manner. As regards editing together, there is no reason why I would stop taking an interest in the representation of Barbara Schwarz here and if AN intends to continue adding Schwarz material then he can expect my continued interest and involvement. Again, I went out of my way to NOT make our disagreement in the article have anything to do with the harassment ruling and I repeatedly clarified for him that he is perfectly free to seek WP:DR on any issues related to article content that we may have. Gotta run now but that pretty well sums it up. Thanks. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AN constantly claims that he does not understand the ruling but when it is clearly explained to him, he ignores the explanation and grossly violates it by trotting out his collections of old, out-of-context diffs regarding me If it ever was explained I honestly don't remember or didn't see it. Please assume good faith and show me where it was explained when/how my behavior crossed into the area of harassment. The examples I've cited are not out of context when discussing the difference between harassment and acceptable behavior. If

I honestly think the difference is that people do not assume good faith on my part, based on accusations by a popular admin who no longer seems to be editing here and didn't take the time to actually look at the conversation/context of what she cited as evidence. I never even asked that he be blocked, and have said numerous times that I don't want to see anyone banned. Even now I'm asking just that ordinary dispute resolution be used for future disagreements and am not and never have asked for him to be ruled against. Accusing me of editing under bad faith given these facts has been hard to come to grips with. Anynobody 07:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The only specific finding against you was that you were prohibited from harassing Justanother. Another finding specifically said it implied nothing about your editing. As no-one is allowed to harass another user (see WP:HARASS) the effect is to specifically order you not to do something that you should not have been doing anyway. The article probation for all scientology articles affects you just as much as every other editor. In those circumstances I see no cause to interfere with the remedies in this case. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I should explain that I'm not asking for article probation to be changed. Did you see this finding? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Harassment of User:Justanother by User:Anynobody I have been blocked twice for trying to find out more information about it, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Log of blocks and bans. Anynobody 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed this submission and see no need for any clarification or modification of the remedies at this time. I suggest that you drop this matter and proceed with your editing. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 08:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining what in your review leads you to say that? Or, with all due respect, is this another comment you can't or won't explain? (If you're just backing up you know who then please say so.) Anynobody 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to strengthen the remedies against Anynobody. What we have in place does not seem sufficient to deter the constant low-level baiting and bad faith that he repeatedly demonstrates, such as the post above. Jehochman ^Talk 23:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Little Jehochman correct. Jehochman already much patience and little avail. Anynobody back in very stubborn mode from which arbcom attempted discouragement, see little 'shonen RFAR/COFS evidence. 'Zilla propose special remedy for unusual Anynobody case: Anynobody prohibited from making other users tear their hair out in frustration. Enforcement: on evidence substantial portions pre-existent hair missing, any admin block Anynobody briefly, up to a month for repeat offenses. After five blocks, maximum block increase to one year. bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Folks it's amazing that I have to point this out to such experienced editors but here goes; If it's really bad faith on my part all that is necessary for one of them to simply provide a diff/diffs showing where my questions were clearly answered. I mean no offense to Newyorkbrad but my point was if he had engaged in a discussion rather than ignoring my reply then I'd be unable in good conscience ask it here again. For example if one looks at the old history of the talk page where I was supposedly told the RfC was improper they'll note that the admin's concerns were about attempts by Smee and myself to resolve my dispute with Justanother but said nothing about the dispute between Smee and Justanother I cited above which Smee was hoping to get resolved. (As I have always said, if the issue was just the disagreement between Justanother and I, a third opinion would've been my choice. However given

these examples a separate dispute was occurring between Smee and Justanother

2/10 (?User:Smeelgova reported by User:Justanother (Result:No violation) 2/22 Glen, there were (4) clear reverts. Started by another editor but the message is still the same. 3/5 User:Smeelgova archiving out recent material relevant to BabyDweezil case 3/5 (new thread) (?Violations - User:Smeelgova reported by User:Justanother) 3/5-1 Unhappy with admin's view re: Smee's reversions 3/5-2 turns it into forum for concerns about "egregious EL to highly POV possible copyvio site." 3/5-3 ?User:Smeelgova reported by User:Justanother (Result: no block) - ANY ADMIN - please look this over; User continuing to revert 3/5-4 ...(Result: no block) - please stop enabling him. please 3/5-5 now he is accusing me of harassment! please stop enabling him. please 3/5-6 Smee is seriously abusing the 3RR board now by bringing in unrelated items See #3/5-2 3/5-7 can someone please look at this? thanks 3/5-8 Related to this issue he begins a thread on WP:ANI (Melt down on WP:AN/3RR - Am I really a bad guy??) *See my editor review in the first list* 3/5-9 after another editor explains: Smee's "5th revert" which was restoring your version of the page, was clearly not trying to continue the edit war... he replies by mentioning her possible inadvertant violation of 4RR. 3/16 Disruptive editing by User:Smee 3/23 WP:HARASS by User:Smee reported by User:Justanother (posted here as requested by User:Jersey Devil) 5/13 Tendentious editor disrespects page protection and recreates disputed page 5/30 Pattern of abuse by Smee (formerly Smeelgova) 5/30-1 Smee (formerly Smeelgova) at work; WP:OWN; WP:BITE 6/4 (User:Smee reported by User:Justanother) 6/13 (POV-pushing on DYK) (Quote:Most are the work of one editor, Smee, formerly Smeelgova,) 6/14 Sticking together: DYK admin closes AfD out of process)

and the guidelines for a 3rd opinion state This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors.If any more complex dispute cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, you can follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process. At the time I had hoped that the fact it was approved would save me from having to explain to an experienced admin that she was ignoring another dispute entirely. Anynobody 23:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• You really need to drop this. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All I am asking for is an explanation of why the arbcom found I had harassed anyone in my efforts to pursue dispute resolution. I'm asking because I assume good faith in the processes here. Anynobody 00:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

jpgordon why did you vote for this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Harassment of User:Justanother by User:Anynobody? You could help resolve this by explaining. Anynobody 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anynobody, if you want to prove that you aren't the sort to harass people, the best way of doing so is by not harassing people. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer I honestly don't think I have. Are you talking about asking jpgordon why he voted for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision#Harassment of User:Justanother by User:Anynobody? He really seemed to support it, so it should be easy enough to explain why. Is it really harassing to ask why? There honestly must be some kind of misunderstanding, finding out his pov (why he voted that way) is the first logical step in straightening it out. Please understand I am not trying to prove deliberate wrongdoing on anyone's part, only trying to find out how the line was crossed in the eyes of the arbcom. All that would entail is them saying my behavior here [diff] was harassment because: the reason. It appears as though they share Bishonen's declared assumption of bad faith regarding me, which I think is a mistake. If she doesn't want to discuss it then that's ok, I'm not trying to force her to however in the name of fairness I'd hope the arbcom would. Anynobody 06:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A prior case involving harassment was very clear: Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Harassment I totally understand the findings in this case, it's obviously harassment to add links to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions. I tried to open a WP:RFC/U with other editors, it's hard to see the similarity. Anynobody 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Has the argument "He harassed someone else so I can harass him back" ever worked? Your essential argument is that because user:Smith harassed user:Jones, you should not be punished for harassing user:Smith. You ignore the facts that user:Smith's harassment was months ago, while your harassment continues to this day; and that user:Smith has promised to mend his ways (and appears to have done so) while you seem persistently ignorant of the problem. I am loathe to actually ban someone from the pages of the dispute resolution process but you are heading in that directing mighty quick. Thatcher 14:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)