This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Stifle ( talk) at 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I request clarification of {{ Troubles restriction}} (see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case) to confirm that 1RR applies per a 24-hour period rather than per calendar day, as has been alleged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bdell555. Stifle ( talk) 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a community extension of the remedy (ArbCom's remedy was 1RR per week). The community routinely uses the word "day" or "24 hours" as if they are synonymous (that's certainly how I've designed the community restrictions that I've proposed); the intention is not that it is "per calendar" day otherwise it would specifically state that. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Anybody playing that kind of semantic nonsense is clearly gaming the system. The restriction exists to prevent edit-warring, arguing over the exact nuance of how much one is or is not allowed to edit war is missing the point by a very large margin. I trust that any uninvolved admin would have no difficulty at all in interpreting this community-applied restriction, or indeed the spirit of the Arbitration case: stop edit warring is the message, people who want to continue edit warring are not getting the message and might perhaps need a gentle tap with the cluebat. Guy ( Help!) 12:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Tryptofish ( talk) at 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
SlimVirgin notified: [1]
I have two (2) specific questions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks, which states:
I also note that this caution was pointed out again at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#SlimVirgin.
I am specifically concerned about personal attacks directed at me and at other editors at pages about animal rights, broadly defined. The most recent occurrence of these was this: [2] at Talk:PETA, but there have been many, many other such instances. My bottom line reason for asking these questions is that I would like such personal attacks to stop. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Steve says he won't look at the specific "personal attack" for various reasons. I did, it's not a personal attack, it's an expression of exasperation at the requester apparently Wikistalking SlimVirgin and reverting edits regardless of the fact that the reverts reintroduce formatting and other issues. The request is an attempt to use ArbCom to gain an advantage in a content dispute. It is likely that the community should be invited to debate a non-interaction sanction between these users, and further investigate SlimVirgin's implied accusation of Wikistalking. Guy ( Help!) 12:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by RA ( talk) at 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
This request for clarification relates to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. The case itself related to the titles of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles. However it touched on the use of the words Ireland and Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia. In concluding the case, ArbCom passed two motions. The first of these related to the titles of the Ireland articles. The second related to the use of the words Ireland and Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia. Notice of the motions can be see here.
A thread has been opened at Talk:British Isles relating to the use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland in the lead to that article. During the course of the tread it was said that this matter was covered by an ArbCom motion and editors were told to follow that motion. The relevance of the ArbCom motion is disputed.
Can we clarify:
Finally, though not brought up by any editor during the course of the tread: with respect to WP:CCC, does ArbCom have comment with regards to how WP:CCC would relate to the consensus at the Ireland-related MOS and use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland across the encyclopaedia?
--RA ( talk) 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
With respect to the last point, I made this request for clarification after Snoweded questioned the applicability of the relevant motion (not for the first time): "This has nothing to do with the Arbcom resolution which is far narrower in its meaning that your attempted use. As long as people make that error I will correct it. I can see no consensus that I am failing to respect." ( diff)
Also I am not interested in artificially maintaining "consensus" through any kind of gaming, hence my question about how WP:CCC relates to this motion. --RA ( talk) 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
According to what @RA is stating above, what is to stop any editor who wants to use "Republic of Ireland" to simply cry "I'm confused", and invoke the WP:IMOS? Or as in this case, to refuse to craft lede paragraphs in such a way as to very simply avoid confusion? And quiet frankly, I don't see where the IMOS is *not* being followed. The IMOS currently states:
The first clause uses an example that most editors (me included) wouldn't object to. But it certainly doesn't cover the current case. The second clause clearly sets out that where the state forms a major component of the topic (which in the current case, it does), we should stick with using the formal title. This example is far closer to the usage within the lede of British Isles. We've discussed this and a consensus appears to have emerged on the article Talk page, and RA bringing this here looks a little sour grapish. -- HighKing ( talk) 11:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The dispute over on British Isles at the moment about if Republic of Ireland can be used highlights that the resolution to the Ireland naming dispute has yet to be resolved fully. In the same paragraph the island of Ireland is mentioned, it is there for helpful to the readers for Republic of Ireland to be used in that introduction when talking about the state.
Republic of Ireland can be used when there is a need to avoid ambiguity, this is one of those clear cases where it is justified and a clarification about this subject would be helpful to prevent such a dispute causing problems in the future. We all accept the country is called Ireland, the trouble is just saying Ireland clearly causes confusion sometimes because there also happens to be an island called Ireland. BritishWatcher ( talk) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk at 03:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It has been more than six months since Piotrus was blocked and topic-banned. Since his return, he has been productive in other areas of Wikipedia. He has carefully observed the terms of his topic ban and avoided areas related to Eastern Europe.
Piotrus and I have a history. We got off on the wrong foot and found ourselves on opposite sides of edit wars that shouldn't have taken place. Since that time, he and I have mended fences. We've come to respect one another and I consider him one of my "Wikifriends". I was proud to have his support at my RfA.
Before his topic ban, Piotrus was very productive in articles having to do with Poland. He is responsible for 15 featured articles and 15 good articles (including 3 A-class articles) on Poland-related subjects.
In addition to his article-writing, Piotrus was the main force behind WP:POLAND. For a list of the tasks he performed, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 3#Future of WikiProject Poland - assistants needed. He carried out these duties without asking for any special recognition; his only "reward" was the satisfaction of improving the encyclopedia.
Pursuant to the motion enacted May 5, Piotrus was allowed to "raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban" at WT:POLAND. I have found his assistance at that page to be invaluable. (Please see WT:POLAND#Piotrus' to do list #1 for examples of what's been involved.) I and a few others have tried to keep up with Piotrus' suggestions, but this represents but a fraction of what should be done for the WikiProject; it is also a very inefficient way of getting things done.
As one example of his noncontroversial editing this year, Piotrus has used his class at the University of Pittsburgh to improve the encyclopedia and try to bring several articles to GA status. (Please see Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Summer 2010 for details.) He has also become involved to a greater extent with WP:SOCIOLOGY. Since coming back to Wikipedia, he has had two (non-EE) articles promoted to GA and written 15 DYKs.
I believe Piotrus has learned from his mistakes in the EEML case and should be allowed once again to edit in the subject area of Eastern Europe.
Constructive edits to sociology topics, where Piotrus has some expertise, must not be used as a basis for granting Piotrus access to EE topics again, where he used the same expertise in a malicious way for years:
There are few editors with a similar record of disruption, which has already caused a huge level of stress and waste of time (add up the kB of the above linked cases for a start). What makes Piotrus' case quite extraordinary is his long-term successful deception, including impertinences such as:
The "prolific Piotrus" and the "malicious Piotrus" are one and the same person, and the latter had long enough been free to deceive the project, including Arbcom, hiding behind the first. Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have asked Malik to post this request on my behalf, as a representative of WikiProject Poland and an editor familiar with my editing history (both past and present). I believe that Wikipedia is a project build on trust and cooperation among the users, and thus I am heartened that he has agreed to do this; his (and WP:POLAND's) support means a lot to me.
I have learned over the years that no matter how good one's intentions, it is all too easy to fall down a slippery slope. Having seen what happens when one descends this route, I plan on ensuring that errors of the past will not repeat themselves in the future.
It has been about a year since any complaint about my editing was raised (in the arbitration case I am asking to be amended). I have contributed, uncontroversially, to EE-related subjects for years before (including in the 4-month period that the case was ongoing). I have, over the years, till late December, contributed over ~20 FAs, ~20 GAs and ~300 DYKs, roughly ~90% of them in the Eastern European subjects). Even after the case ended, I was able to help out with addressing the BLP issues and then GAing Lech Wałęsa article. Throughout that time, I contributed uncontroversially to Polish Wikipedia, Polish and English Wikisource, and the Commons projects. I have written several GAs and over a dozen DYKs in the past few months on English Wikipedia as well.
I would like to return to my former levels of activity, in my areas of expertise (Eastern Europe), just like after a six months break I was able to resume clean up work for WP:POLAND. I have a nearly finished Poland-history-related Featured Article rusting in my sandbox on Polish Wikipedia. I would like to resume my work on creating the economic history of Poland article. I would like to resume GA work on Juliusz Słowacki. A sample list of further article content subjects I plan to work on is visible on my userpage (usually I go through most of my to-do boxes in few months; obviously they have been mostly frozen since last December). There are also many wikiproject gnomish tasks I cannot help out with (and which are not being carried out) ( more "to do" not being done). I often spot vandalism on my 3k+ watchlist, but instead of reverting it I have to report it to AIV or arbitrators I see online, which often means it takes hours between I see vandalism and it is reverted. And being able to answer simple requests from help, including those from sitting Arbitrators, instead of directing them to WT:POLAND, would be nice, too.
On a final note, I'd like to echo Radeksz calls for all editors in Eastern Europe to assume good faith and work collaboratively. This is what this project is about. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Response to Skäpperöd (first and only, I don't intend to engage in discussion on those pages, per the rules here): I am impressed you managed to post your statement so swiftly, even before I managed to post mine. I will just repeat what others have said in response to your comments in other recent amendments: 1) do you have any diffs from this year to bring, instead of rehashing old history? 2) Can you explain how this amendment would damage (instead of helping) the project - i.e. focus on the future, not the past (again...)? And 3) please stop misrepresenting what happened: a) the 2006 (2006, seriously?) RfC had no evidence, but unfounded allegations, not supported by majority of editors b) the 2008 ArbCom finding you cite did not mention any side or editor, you insert "Piotrus' group" without any basis, badly misrepresenting that finding c) I was within my right to vote in that AfD, the vote was not coordinated d) the mailing group, as stated before (including, I am sure, in the evidence archive) was created in December 2008; please stop alleging to the contrary. Lastly: I respect the work you have done in relation to German-Polish history and related subjects, and I'd hope you could see beyond our differences, assume good faith and try to work together with me and others to create a better project, in the spirit of good-faithed cooperation. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I always perceived a global all-encompassing topic ban on Central and Eatern European topics as too harsh. One can edit or create articles about e.g. Poland or Belarus without any controversy. The current ban prohibits Piotrus to create e.g. even a tiny stub about, say, some Russian economist or Polish river. I think the current ban should be ammended and liberalized. I believe Piotrus will not misuse it and will be of great help to WikiProject Poland, where he was most active in the past. I am sure he learned from his past mistakes and would responsibly use his ability to edit the Central and East European articles again. - Darwinek ( talk) 12:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If Piotrus served his so far de-facto probation well then it seems to prove that the sanctions did their job, are no longer needed, and in fact are harmful to the project content-wise. However, if the amendment is accepted and the ban is raised, I would suggest asking Piotrus for a parole, to help him remember that he should treat any Eastern-European issues in the same constructive manner as any other articles. Other than that, I'm totally for lifting the sanctions, as they seem to serve no purpose now. As for the Skäpperöd's comments, none of them seems relevant to the recent half a year period that is discussed here as the base for the amendment request. -- Lysy talk 08:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Essentially Piotrus' argument is: I might realise some of the things that happened in the past are unfortunate, but listen guys, I've been banned from this area for a few months and in those few months I haven't done anything bad in the area. So, obviously the ban is pointless and if you make me serve the ban I was originally given, you are being crueler than you need to be and depriving the 'Pedia of great content.
It is not news that Piotrus did a lot of writing for Polish and eastern European history articles. We knew that when we imposed the ban. The problem we had with Piotrus (or his side-kick Radek for that matter) is not this, nor that we discovered that all the allegations of co-ordinated bullying, edit-warring, wikilawyering and so on which had been leveled at him for years and ignored turned out to be true, but rather that that wasn't even the half of it.
You discovered that email archive, and you acted ... you sent out a message. You can of course be sure that they learned not to be so stupid as to have a email list that size and to record it so zealously. But you actually think they'll stop this kind of thing? Why would they? It was great for them ... and worked well, only trouble was that it leaked. So now that he has been caught and topic-banned, it is to be believed that he therefore saw the moral error of his ways? ;) Yeah, of course. He must have.
But sure, he might have ... he just might have. It is no matter, you guys don't know either way. And as appealing to your conscience as it might be to "give the benefit of the doubt", you have a responsibility to treat the possibility of gross misconduct as seriously as history suggests you should.
Moreover, you have already passed judgment on these offenses, offenses of the highest gravity. Is upholding previous ArbCom sanctions made in the aftermath of a long investigation against a background of rare community outrage really something that needs to trouble us as much as is being suggested? If the previous rulings were just a political show to quell the outrage which existed at the time, then sure you would revisit it after a few months. If you take it seriously otherwise, then overturning or significantly lightening the bans is very brave message to send to future perpetrators of such activity or to those contemplating such activity.
Finally, Piotrus has expertise in sociology and economics, and it is good that he can focus his attention there. It is good that he can focus his efforts there rather than in areas where he has a strong bias and a history of using wiki-gansterism and co-ordinated edit-warring in pursuit of ideological goals, where he has previously conspired to and succeeded by such methods in undermining and circumventing natural wikipedia safeguards like WP:NPOV, WP:BRD, WP:EW and so on. It is however very important for Piotrus to learn ... and for others to learn ... that once you do certain things, Wikipedia will come down on you and you won't get out of it just by waiting a few months and convincing a friend in good standing to make a case for you. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
My experience as a past ArbCom member is that Piotrus is rather good at the wheedling tone (which he can employ on behalf of allies, however egregious their shortcomings). As editors, we have met on the site infrequently, but when we did it was shortly after the close of the second Eastern Europe case. My impression was that Piotrus had learned nothing: plain advocacy of a Polish-centred POV, warnings against conspiratorial Lithuanians, and so on. I think the ArbCom should apply here a thought from the old book of remedies, namely that sanctions which create a good editor out of a troublesome one are advantageous to the site. I would oppose varying them until there was evidence of a more profound change of heart. This seems a routine appeal based on the passage of time. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
As usual, I fully support relaxation of Piotrus' restrictions, which seem to serve no purpose except to deprive Wikipedia of the useful contributions of a very productive editor. Whatever he is supposed to have done wrong, I think it's pretty clear he isn't going to do it again now that all eyes are on him.-- Kotniski ( talk) 09:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
My statement seems superfluous by now, but after looking over recent history of Piotrus contributions, and knowing quite well the positive influence Piotrus had on all the usual hotheads in EE disputes, I fully support lifting the sanctions. ( Igny ( talk) 23:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC))
i contributed to the amendment-request in april by raising the point of his university cooperation projects. therefore, i have the feeling that i have the duty to report the review results of his spring-project (may-june):
as long as i can see now, it worked without guideline problems or conflicts and the participants improved social- and political science related articles like periphery countries and great divergence. his project reached the well-established standards in the content- as well as the perspective of civilized behavior, best regards -- Jan eissfeldt ( talk) 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I fully support lifting these sanctions — his works measured by new articles, high quality articles (FAs/GAs), working around community and overall contribution are really worthy for WP. He will be able to improve many of EE- and Poland-related articles. Piotrus' works will be examined very deeply and all negative aspects will be considered quickly. Visor ( talk) 07:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I could probably sum it up this way: Listen to Deacon. These sanctions need to be strong and maybe even harsh because the case in question was not some isolated case; it was the latest in a string of EE-related cases that involved Piotrus (and loads of others) and it was, quite bluntly, hammer time. Lifting them now is not in the best interests of our EE-related articles or our editors who are editing these articles after actually leaving their POVs at the door. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I would not object to Piotrus creating content on Poland and I feel that his inability to do so is a great loss to Wikipedia. However, this was carefully weighted in the original Arbcom case, with Piotrus only narrowly escaping permaban.
What I see as disturbing is that Piotrus is all too eager in engaging in the your-nation-genocided-my-nation battles of Eastern Europe. I believe this edit from 1 June 2010 is a violation of his topic ban. The article, Cultural genocide is at the very heart of the Eastern European disputes. The edit, while it may seem innocent, in fact pushes a POV wording that the United Nations could not agree on in 60 years of debating the issue. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 14:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by NW ( Talk) at 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Δbot and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Relaxing or rescinding of community-imposed restrictions on User:Betacommand / Δ has allowed Δ to run a bot for the purposes of clerking WP:SPI. I ask that the Arbitration Committee loosen the restrictions on Δ to allow him to do just that. NW ( Talk) 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this amendment. This user has repeatedly abused the communities trust in the past, including the abuse of sockpuppets, abusive use of bots and automated edits, and abuse directed at other editors. That is why these restrictions were applied. To lift them so that he can run bots on sockpuppet investigation pages is just ridiculous. His resistance at against having his new name and previous name linked shows that he wants to avoid scrutiny of his actions by the community at large, and has put the smallest possible link on his page after being forced. This amendment should not be allowed. Verbal chat 16:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
As the person who requested closure of the thread on WP:AN, let me specify that the community consensus appears to be in favor of allowing a SPI clerking bot only. Other bots could be considered in the future. N419 BH 17:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I am uneasy with this. the User in question has shown strong disregard for boundries imposed by the community through whatever means (approved bot tasks, civility to other users, etc.). -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
With respect to User:Cool Hand Luke's concern [4] that this would "open the door to any and all scripts BAG might approve": yes - from the committee's standpoint it would [though any subsequent tasks would need to be conducted with Δbot]; but as only a very specific exception to the community-imposed restrictions has been created, BAG will need to seek community support in a similar manner prior to approving any subsequent filings. I believe the reason that Kirill has drafted this amendment widely was so that in case the community does endorse additional tasks, a new amendment would not be required. – xeno talk 16:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
1) The Arbitration Committee provisions for the unbanning of Betacommand are amended as follows: Betacommand ( talk · contribs), now editing as Δ ( talk · contribs), is authorized to operate a single secondary account, Δbot ( talk · contribs), to carry out certain automated tasks as authorized by the Bot Approvals Group.
There being 11 arbitrators, not counting two who are inactive and one who is recused, the majority required is 6. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
For this motion, there are 13 active Arbitrators (minus 1 who are recused), so 7 votes are a majority.
1.1) The Arbitration Committee provisions for the unbanning of Betacommand are amended as follows: Betacommand ( talk · contribs), now editing as Δ ( talk · contribs), is authorized to operate a single secondary account, Δbot ( talk · contribs), only to perform automated tasks directly related to the clerking of sockpuppet investigations only as specified and authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. Any other use of the bot, broadly interpreted, must be specifically authorized in advance by BAG and endorsed by ArbCom.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK at 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
At alternate case, but proposed as impacted:
Stated as a single amendment because request is for Remedy 11A) to be reworded to address outstanding and inter-related concerns. One inclusive proposal is provided.
Regarding the reciprocal interaction bans, EEML <-> Russavia, all editors so sanctioned may nevertheless comment positively on other editors in the third person. Any individual EEML editor and Russavia may appeal jointly to lift their interpersonal interactivity ban should they both desire to do so, committing to uphold Wikipedia's standards of conduct. The bans on unnecessary commentary and interaction otherwise remain in effect.
Per feedback below on clarity and comments I have received here and elsewhere. I believe this would build a bridge toward a more collegial environment.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Over a week has passed and this contribution by Russavia has not garnered a response. I commend Russavia for their positive comments regarding Miacek; nevertheless, statements such as (my emphasis):
are both combative and an inappropriate re-litigation of EEML. I interpret Russavia's comments and the lack of any reprimand as proof that the current interaction ban structure is not working.
Accordingly, I am proposing changes to interaction bans currently in effect in order to facilitate uniform enforcement while also promoting positive community conduct.
I trust this proposed amendment is viewed as moving us forward. If so, the updated wording needs to be applied to amend Russavia's interaction ban as well.
Lastly, I have not reported the offending portion of Russavia's violation of their interaction ban because I hoped we were done with EEML.
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Per direction of Rlevse, I am closing this amendment request as "no action taken". NW ( Talk) 03:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by – xeno talk at 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I have recently marked "resolved" a thread at the bureaucrats' noticeboard ( perm). However, lingering questions remain.
Betacommand was denied a rename-via-usurp to Δ by bureaucrats in 2007. In 2008, he was community banned indefinitely. In July 2009, he was provisionally unbanned by the Arbitration Committee, with terms. Terms 1 (edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection) and 3 (agree (i) to a civility restriction and (ii) to not engage in any form of wikilawyering, broadly interpreted) do not appear to have an expiration date (when compared to terms 2 and 4, which did).
Betacommand again sought the usurpation of the Δ username on or about 25 June 2010 (via IRC), which was performed by User:Deskana on 25 June [14], who later commented with respect to the off-wiki handling of the request [15]. His comments indicate that Betacommand did not remind Deskana of the previously denied request.
Betacommand begin editing as Δ ( talk · contribs) on 11 July (when terms 2 and 4 of the provisional unban had lapsed). He made a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard to move his userrights from User:Betacommand to the new account at 21:49, 11 July 2010, suggesting he was "no longer under any restrictions" [16]. While none of the rights required bureaucratic intervention, I believe he made the request to have some form of bureaucratic approval of the de facto "rename". Discussion ensued, and several users (including bureaucrats) expressed concerns.
At some point, Betacommand made an off-wiki request to bureaucrat X! ( talk · contribs) to transfer the userrights, which was done at 04:19, 12 July 2010 [17]. X! later commented after concerns were raised [18]. His comments indicate that Betacommand did not inform X! of the ongoing noticeboard thread.
As I see it, the questions before the committee are:
@Jack, Yes - had this request come via the usual means, the committee would've likely been at least pinged. As it is, the process is running backwards. The suggestion from another user below that this was brought to 'badger' is unfounded and unnecessary. The concerns being raised at BN were largely out of the bureaucrat's jurisdiction, this is why the matter was brought here. Personally, I think the rename should be allowed (though it would've been wiser to make the request through on-wiki channels), but feel the ambiguities need to be resolved as well. – xeno talk 02:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
@Kirill, Thank you for the swift response - this resolves the questions. It should be noted that Δ has a pending request for bot approval, so #1 will (at some point) need to be amended to allow editing using approved bots. – xeno talk 03:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Kirill says below that the provisions of Betacommand 2 are still in effect: but would this statement apply to the Community-imposed restrictions section at the bottom? I'd guess that those were probably "washed out" by the community ban and subsequent ArbCom suspension of the same, but a BAG member has requested clarification and noted that this and provision #1 as noted above at 03:40 is the only thing they can see holding up approval of the bot task (a fairly low-key task clerking an administrative page) [19]. – xeno talk 16:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC) clarified at 16:28, 21 July 2010
In response to Newyorkbrad's question: Yes, I think everything requiring clarification or amendment has been addressed. Thanks, – xeno talk 21:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Even if it was a restriction without a one year time limit, he hasn't violated it. He's still continued to edit under one username. There is no policy preventing a person from abandoning one account in favor of another. His last edit as Betacommand was 20:56, 11 July 2010. His first edit as Δ was 21:44, 11 July 2010. There is no crossover, no editing as two accounts. With respect to the denial of the change three years earlier, consensus can change. Even if all the restrictions were in place even now, the restrictions do not prohibit him from starting a new account and abandoning his old. This filing is badgering of this editor. This editor is trying to make a clean start, and is even trying to stay away from prior trouble areas post the expiration of his editing restrictions. Assume some good faith and give him a chance. Nothing nefarious is happening here. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Compare with my case; I am specifically restricted to editing with this specific user name; Betacommand would seem to be simply restricted to not using multiple accounts, i.e. the bot account. There's a connection via the old name's deletion and renaming logs, so there seems to be no real issue here, other than a clarification that it's ok. Am I missing something? FWIW, I think seeking this clarification is a good thing, and that it would probably have been the best route to have taken earlier this month. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Kirill, there is some ambiguity regarding whether "the provisions of the Betacommand 2 case are technically in effect" includes the community-imposed restrictions or only the ArbCom remedies. Anomie ⚔ 16:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Re xeno: It's not the only thing, there is also the need for Δ to have the unban provision #1 amended to allow for a bot account. Anomie ⚔ 16:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Re Kirill: Thank you. Anomie ⚔ 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Re Δ: That is the second of the 4 terms ArbCom presented you with. But even though that term has expired, term #1 ("You edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection") still prohibits your using more than one account. So yes, now that term #2 is expired you may operate bots or run automated scripts of whatever nature, but since term #1 is still in force you must do that under only one username which unfortunately means you still can't run a bot because you cannot run it under the bot account. And there are also the separate community-imposed restrictions, which require you review and approve each and every individual edit the bot would make (which really makes it script-assisted editing rather than a bot). Anomie ⚔ 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
For one year, you are (i) topic-banned from any non-free-content-related work and related talk pages; (ii) subject to a 0RR restriction on any free-content-image-related work and related talk pages; (iii) prohibited from operating bots or running automated scripts of whatever nature; (iv) prohibited from inducing or attempting to induce others to operate bots or run automated scripts; and (v) subject to an editing throttle of a maximum of four edits every ten minutes (excludes reversion of blatant vandalism). After six months, you may apply to ArbCom for a review of the terms of this condition.
Given the phrasing of ArbCom's statement, I read it as that after one year I am (i) able to comment/edit non-free related material. (iii) Allowed to run bots, and use automated/simi auto tools. (iv) allowed to give more input in BRFA/bot related issues (v) No longer have an edit throttle. ΔT The only constant 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The Committee's restrictions run concurrently to those imposed by the community, but they are distinct (separate). The exception to this rule is where the Committee explicitly lifts or supersedes a community restriction, or in a practical sense, where the community does not recognise (aka refuses to enforce) a Committee restriction; such situations only should arise in exceptional circumstances. In this case, there was no exception to the rule, so the community restrictions remain in force (until they are explicitly lifted or superseded by the community or the Committee). And for this purpose, in the absence of appropriate notice to either or both AN/ANI, as well as notifications to the users who commented in the original sanction discussion, a discussion at BAG would not constitute a community consensus. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Xeno's questions in order:
Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Sandstein at 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I request clarification about whether the sanction Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted has expired.
The motion of 20:37, 29 March 2010 recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions reads in relevant part:
It is not clear whether sanction 3, entitled "Brews ohare restricted" is part of the "supplementary restrictions" that the motion refers to, because it is not listed in the "(namely ...)" part of the motion and, in the list of sanctions on the case page, it is not followed by the comment "Modified by motions below" as is sanction 4.2, entitled "Brews ohare topic banned".
The question is relevant because I have just been enforcing sanction 3, following an enforcement request at WP:AE#Brews ohare. It has subsequently been argued on my talk page that sanction 3 has expired. Should that turn out to be the case, my enforcement action was in error, but in this case I ask the Committee to consider reinstating the sanction by motion because, as the enforcement request shows, it appears to continue to be necessary.
I would also appreciate it if the Committee would consider establishing a process to ensure that arbitration case pages always unambiguously reflect any change in status of the decisions without much need for interpretation. Sandstein 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The motion was this. It refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.
This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.
This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked.
I would raise the following points:
Comment upon this proceeding: The basic question here as to whether “sanctions cannot run past the expiry date of the restriction” is a general technical point, and its accidental origination in my particular case really has little bearing upon the broad issues at stake. I believe the morphing of this clarification proceeding to become in effect a hearing on my appeal is (i) a distortion of what the clarification should be about, and (ii) an invalid hearing of my appeal in a restricted context where all the issues pertinent to a decision cannot be raised. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
To clarify I did not claim that the previous warnings were about ArbCom. I simply wrote " He has been warned before" with diffs, so editors could make up their own minds about the relevance of them.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
keeping this short...typing one handed is a bitch. 8-) I am not advocating for brews specifically, I'm more concerned with arb enforcement w/o specific authorization. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Flagging this prior clarification for attention as it is of some relevance to sanctions, expiration dates, reset sanctions, and additional sanctions. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Brews has gone back to purposefully disrupting the speed of light article by repeatedly advancing fringe theory and original research. Why must you torture our editors by subjecting them to this repeated punishment. Brews doesn't get it, and will never get it, no matter how much you wish he would. Please, would you finally deal with this problem: ban Brews from making any edits related to the speed of light or definition of the length of the meter. This ban needs to be permanent. Jehochman Talk 11:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand Carcharoth's position, or Sandstein's proposal. Brews had a topic ban and, in best Bourbon manner, forgot nothing and learned nothing. So why give him another topic ban, whether that's the original one until October, or a narrower one indefinitely? The expired topic ban was his last chance to learn and he didn't take it. So why wait until he doesn't learn from another last chance? An indefinite block is the only solution here since Brews isn't interested in changing his behaviour. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The RFAR resulted in a strict topic ban and an advocacy ban. The former was whittled down by arbcom I presume out of their belief that they had unfairly classified Brews due to the actions of David Tombe. The lapsing of that topic ban resulted in Brews immediately reviving his past behavior on Talk:Speed of Light, which produced a discretionary topic ban from Sandstein. That ban in place the same behaviors were started up in other (closely related) physics articles. When an admin moved in to stop Brews, those editors formerly restricted from advocating on his behalf did so strenuously and simultaneously (though I don't think they were acting in concert). With respect to arbcom, it wastes the time of the admin corps when old cases are re-litigated needlessly. Whatever the motivation of arbcom to relax Brews' topic ban, the proper thing to do is to re-instate it (and not leave it reinstated as an AE action) and expand it to related articles. Protonk ( talk) 14:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman intervened to stop Brews on an alleged OR issue as discussed here on AN/I. Jehochman being an experienced Admin can, I'm sure, filter out the sniping on the AN/I thread, take my own comments with a pinch of salt as I started the thread, and then focus his attention on the comments by experienced uninvolved editors who make relevant comments on this issue like e.g. Awickert and Holmansf.
As I explain here, involved Admins are actually better qualified than univolved Admins to judge cases like this. I know that this sounds crazy, but take the time to read my arguments. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on him if, despite being warned, he repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Actions taken under this provision are subject to the relevant rules and procedures for standard discretionary sanctions.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Scott Mac at 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments removed.
Given this, I am happy to withdraw this application. That Everyking has realised the unwisdom of pursuing this in any forum, renders it moot. There's no need to rub salt in. He's done the right thing.-- Scott Mac 07:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
For me, the restriction is effectively indefinite, because for obvious reasons it would be deeply unwise for me to ever get into any kind of tangle with Phil Sandifer again. I regard the expiry of the restriction as merely a symbolic victory that restores me to the status of an editor in good standing. And I don't believe the ArbCom would claim to have jurisdiction over off-wiki remarks. Everyking ( talk) 15:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Phil: it might not have occurred to him that, having been under a restriction for the previous five years, I haven't really had the opportunity to "get over it". He was never put under any comparable restriction, so it might be hard for him to relate to the feeling of being aggrieved for five years and then finally being released and having a moment of off-wiki gloating over it. I don't really know what to say to the rest of Phil's statement. Perhaps it would put his mind at ease if I reassured him, once again, that I really do not want anything whatsoever to do with him? Everyking ( talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Brad: I have said for years that there is no purpose in any interaction between Phil and I, because for reasons of history and personality it is quite unlikely that anything productive could ever come of it. In that sense, the restriction was always perfectly reasonable. My objection was centered on the one-sided nature of the restriction, which I felt acted as a unjustified smear on my work and reputation on this website, as it implied that I was at fault and Phil needed protection. Some people see that five years has passed and wonder why it would still be an issue, but to me, it was an issue every single day up until 15 August 2010, because I had that smear attached to my account for the entire time. Phil's memory has dimmed more than mine because he's had little reason to think about this stuff over the last five years, but the restriction gave me plenty of reason to continue thinking about it.
I'm perfectly happy to make a pledge that I will not discuss Phil Sandifer here on Wikipedia (I've already pledged that many times, and stuck to it, but I will make the pledge again, for the record), and I will also pledge to refrain from discussing him on other websites. I would like it very much if he would make the same pledge with regard to myself. I would also like it if some of Phil's comments are redacted when this request is archived, for obvious reasons. Everyking ( talk) 02:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Amusingly, had this case not been filed I'd have had no idea Everyking was back at it.
In any case, the history here is relevant. Everyking's treatment of me was, I believe, one of the Arbcom's first cases of wikistalking. His stalking of me was particularly pernicious, and its spilling over onto WR is, to my mind, relevant, as he was part of the echo chamber there that helped escalate someone into getting me harassed by the police. I don't feel like digging back through the quotes there, but he had a quote along the lines of me being a sick and depraved individual. Someone else speculated that it would be easy to force me out of my PhD program. And the thread eventually turned into someone calling the police in my town in a deliberate attempt to get me harassed by them.
That was four years ago. I've had no contact with Everyking since then, and apparently his obsession with me is undimmed. Which, again, I wouldn't have known were it not for this - because the correct thing to do with a dangerous stalker is avoid them. Well, after seeking a restraining order, which, to be fair, I'll do if anything involving him crosses into the real world again. The one-sidedness of this needs to be stressed - other than the fact that it involved Ashley Simpson, I have no memory of what I did to offend Everyking, and I'm fairly sure whatever it was happened five or more years ago. Prior to today, I have not thought about Everyking in ages. He mostly comes up, in my mind, when for some reason I am thinking about Ashley Simpson's "Yeah Yeah," the only song of hers I remember, and I remember Everyking, that loon on Wikipedia.
Everyking's memories of long-ago perceived slights seems to outdo my own.
In any case, the purpose of the communication restriction on Everyking was always simple - Everyking's presence makes Wikipedia no longer a safe space for me. One should not have to choose between personal safety and editing Wikipedia. It is clear from his behavior that engagement with Everyking endangers my personal safety. To be honest, I am afraid of him. Because being afraid of someone who still stalks your Twitter and insults your teeth (WTF?) after five years of minimal contact with you is a sensible thing to do.
Not that I'm a terribly active editor at this point. But the job of the arbcom does include protecting editors and maintaining a safe space. Everyking is apparently a threat to that. Certainly seeing his recent behavior makes me disinclined to edit at all on Wikipedia knowing that doing so is inviting contact with a stalker. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious that EK and Phil don't like each other very much judging from the indirect jabs they both launched at each other in their statements above. So, if the Committee decides to vote on some kind of sanction here, please make it apply to both editors this time, not just one of them. I think that would be better in both the short and long term. Cla68 ( talk) 01:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a tempest in a teapot. No, in a teacup. No, in a teaspoon. Don't arbitrators have better things to do than write exceedingly long analyses of this minor matter? Focus, people. I'm not without sympathy for Phil Sandifer's situation, but given a choice between personal safety and editing the wiki, the choice is obvious. No, it's not "edit the wiki anyway". ++ Lar: t/ c 02:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Re. Carcharoth: I think this is a situation where a quick, relatively discreet decision, either way, is more helpful to all involved than a potentially drawn out discussion on public noticeboards. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 06:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the Admins and Arbitrators who are active on Wikipedia Review discuss this matter there. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Collapsing earlier comments
|
---|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Brews ohare ( talk) at 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Repeal or amendment of this action by administrator Sandstein is the object of this appeal. The question of imposing a ban extending past the expiration date of the remedy used for authorization has been decided in the negative in this request for clarification. It also has been determined that the matter of repeal of the ban altogether is separate from the issue of its extending beyond this expiration date. See this diff.
This appeal was filed before at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, but was not ruled upon because it was taken to be outside that venue's responsibility. Comments by others can be found there.
I am presently subject to a modification of Case: Speed of light here. This modification refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.
This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.
This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked in this action, which extends the remedies of Case:Speed of light without ArbCom consideration.
I would raise the following points:
Brews ohare ( talk) 18:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment upon first motion below: The motion proposed is worded in the same fashion as the remedy that led to this appeal, and is subject to the same ambiguities. It suffers from the following: (i) no clarity about the nature of the warning; is the indication of execution of this remedy to be explicitly mentioned in the warning? (ii) no clarity about what constitutes a violation: it is up to the "discretion" of an "uninvolved" administrator. Some guidelines should be provided, an example, does it apply to civil and reasoned insistence upon a Talk page of some clarity and consistency with established sources? This is the type of "disturbance" of WP that I have engaged in so far.
Observation on second motion: As noted long ago by DickLyon in the old Case:Speed of light, the issue is not one of topic, and is one of my behavior. Hence, the present motion is wrongly conceived. I have presented a simple and effective remedy, namely, impose a limitation upon the extent of my Talk page activity. The problem is not willful disruption, as claimed; that statement is insulting and blind to my contributions. It also is not WP:SOUP, although I understand that mischaracterization, as argument over a formulation sometimes can appear to be hairsplitting, particularly to an uninvolved observer. Rather, the problem has been outlined above: exhaustion of the patience of other editors on Talk pages, and an effective remedy also has been proposed.
About both motions: A lock-step repetition of remedy that is poorly phrased and irrelevant to the problem, and prone to litigation and abuse because of its ambiguities, does not reflect well upon ArbCom's ability to understand the matter before it. (What exactly is “physics-related”? Math? Engineering? Astronomy? Geology? Circuit analysis? Chemistry?... DickLyon suggested my insertion of a figure on the definition of a property of an ellipse was ‘physics related’.) The present motions abandon ArbCom's responsibility to some future unknown "uninvolved administrator", who individually is apparently more skillful and wise than ArbCom, and able to decide an issue that ArbCom cannot fathom. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This appeal of a sanction by Sandstein regarding the Talk page of Speed of light has morphed into a hearing on my behavior in general, but without observing that such an expansion of the purpose of the appeal constitutes a widening far beyond that envisioned. I believe that expansion to be unwarranted, and if it is to be done, a new case is required wherein my overall behavior can be assessed properly within the enlarged boundaries. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
In addition, the assumption is made here that the problem is one of topic, as though the difficulties related to subject matter, and to the pursuit by myself of erroneous views in the face of reasoned and authoritative opposition. ArbCom is incapable of making such an assessment: technical matters of subject are beyond their interest and capacity. In fact, nothing said here addresses this framing of the subject: it has been leaped into without careful examination. What ArbCom can do is assess behavior, that is: Is discussion proceeding? Or, is it degenerating into incivility or straying to personal attack? That has not happened. What has happened is that I have pursued discussion to the extent of trying the patience of some editors, who in exasperation have appealed for administrative action. They have options other than ArbCom action. That is the matter that needs to be addressed here. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I have volunteered to curtail my Talk page discussion upon request by editors involved in a thread. If ArbCom doubts my sincerity, they can make this a formal requirement upon me. That action directly addresses the problem. A page ban does not. General probation that can be acted upon by a single so-called "uninvolved administrator" is a draconian action that abandons ArbCom responsibility and leads to nonsensical administrative actions because the rules of engagement are hopelessly vague and are open to crazy ideas, as my personal history under similar remedies attests. Any dyspeptic editor can find a hair-triggered admin to exercise a block that then cannot be overturned by any other administrator regardless of circumstances. See the Trusilver debacle for an instance. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It's unclear how the page ban motion addresses the appeal brought. Sandstein's action that brought this matter here has not been addressed. Instead, a broad and imaginary issue has been posited to exist without being properly examined, and treated using what is commonly called cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Besides ignoring the original purpose of this appeal, also ignored is (i) the lack of evidence for disturbance of ‘decorum or standards of behavior’ , that is, there was no crime, (ii) the lack of notice that ArbCom action would be sought, that is, conditions required for activating the appealed action were not satisfied, nevermind conditions for implementing a general hearing of this kind, and (iii) there is no stated basis for the motions considered in terms of WP guidelines, that is the proposed remedies are not related to the five pillars or guidelines. There is every appearance that this hearing was hijacked to alleviate preexisting prejudices, and all rules and the good of WP were set aside to accomplish that aim. That impression should be corrected, for the good of WP and of the reputations of its administrators. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Unless asked to do so now by an arbitrator, I intend to comment on this request after the related request for clarification is resolved. Sandstein 17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Steve Smith, I am not sure as to whether this request does supersede my request for clarification as long as the question asked there has not been answered by a majority of arbitrators and a motion is being voted on. But here's what I can say now:
(this is just my comment here but copied here to reply to the same points by Brews)
The diffs were provided to show that a number of editors - most of the participants of the talk page - had objected to Brews' editing over the space of a only a few days. That some reference the previous arbitration case is unsurprising as it concerned the same page and is hardly "old wounds" as it is still in force. I'm not sure why you expect them to show a "warning of impending ArbCom action".
On civility I again point to
[21] and
[22], your characterising other editors' contributions as "stupid" and "lazy" respectively. Or only yesterday more recently, perhaps more typically, three good faith attempts by different editors to address your concerns were dismissed like so:
[23]. Whether any of this is bad tempered or impatient I'm sure editors can judge for themselves.
Comment about the proposed motion. My concern is that given the way Brews' edits are scrutinized, issues like this have to addressed. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This reply to Brews and Jehochman on my talk page is perhaps useful to the Arbitrators. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Community dynamics constrains how far Wikipedia can evolve the smart thing to do is to leave Wikipedia, just like our early ancestors left the Chimp community. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have anything to add to the comments made under motion 2 (as of the time of writing this) except my endorsement. Thanks also for the courtesy notification of the merging of this. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 11:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
My comment on the clarification request also applies. Motion 2 seems to simply settle the matter (for the most part). Protonk ( talk) 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow! That's all I can really say. I'm surprised and actually disheartened that instead of trying to look at everything that happened it appears Arb is symbolically washing their hands and letting the mob rule. It's a tad ironic you would ban advocacy for brews but no one looks into the headhunting that has really happened here, but hey if history is any judge why should we have suspected different? Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 03:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on him if, despite being warned, he repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Actions taken under this provision are subject to the relevant rules and procedures for standard discretionary sanctions.
2) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.
To tidy up some other loose ends, I concur that Sandstein was uninvolved for enforcement purposes. I do not agree with Roger that enforcement actions may extend beyond the life of the remedy authorizing them, and would have supported reducing the length of the speed of light topic ban on that basis (while specifically recognizing that Sandstein's decision to make the term indefinite was authorized by the general view expressed by arbitrators at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Statement by Ncmvocalist). As this motion would subsume Sandstein's sanction, however, there is no need to do so. I trust that my support of this motion says all that needs to be said on my view of the substance of Sandstein's enforcement action. Steve Smith ( talk) 02:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Stifle ( talk) at 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I request clarification of {{ Troubles restriction}} (see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case) to confirm that 1RR applies per a 24-hour period rather than per calendar day, as has been alleged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bdell555. Stifle ( talk) 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a community extension of the remedy (ArbCom's remedy was 1RR per week). The community routinely uses the word "day" or "24 hours" as if they are synonymous (that's certainly how I've designed the community restrictions that I've proposed); the intention is not that it is "per calendar" day otherwise it would specifically state that. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Anybody playing that kind of semantic nonsense is clearly gaming the system. The restriction exists to prevent edit-warring, arguing over the exact nuance of how much one is or is not allowed to edit war is missing the point by a very large margin. I trust that any uninvolved admin would have no difficulty at all in interpreting this community-applied restriction, or indeed the spirit of the Arbitration case: stop edit warring is the message, people who want to continue edit warring are not getting the message and might perhaps need a gentle tap with the cluebat. Guy ( Help!) 12:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Tryptofish ( talk) at 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
SlimVirgin notified: [1]
I have two (2) specific questions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks, which states:
I also note that this caution was pointed out again at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#SlimVirgin.
I am specifically concerned about personal attacks directed at me and at other editors at pages about animal rights, broadly defined. The most recent occurrence of these was this: [2] at Talk:PETA, but there have been many, many other such instances. My bottom line reason for asking these questions is that I would like such personal attacks to stop. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Steve says he won't look at the specific "personal attack" for various reasons. I did, it's not a personal attack, it's an expression of exasperation at the requester apparently Wikistalking SlimVirgin and reverting edits regardless of the fact that the reverts reintroduce formatting and other issues. The request is an attempt to use ArbCom to gain an advantage in a content dispute. It is likely that the community should be invited to debate a non-interaction sanction between these users, and further investigate SlimVirgin's implied accusation of Wikistalking. Guy ( Help!) 12:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by RA ( talk) at 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
This request for clarification relates to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. The case itself related to the titles of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles. However it touched on the use of the words Ireland and Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia. In concluding the case, ArbCom passed two motions. The first of these related to the titles of the Ireland articles. The second related to the use of the words Ireland and Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia. Notice of the motions can be see here.
A thread has been opened at Talk:British Isles relating to the use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland in the lead to that article. During the course of the tread it was said that this matter was covered by an ArbCom motion and editors were told to follow that motion. The relevance of the ArbCom motion is disputed.
Can we clarify:
Finally, though not brought up by any editor during the course of the tread: with respect to WP:CCC, does ArbCom have comment with regards to how WP:CCC would relate to the consensus at the Ireland-related MOS and use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland across the encyclopaedia?
--RA ( talk) 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
With respect to the last point, I made this request for clarification after Snoweded questioned the applicability of the relevant motion (not for the first time): "This has nothing to do with the Arbcom resolution which is far narrower in its meaning that your attempted use. As long as people make that error I will correct it. I can see no consensus that I am failing to respect." ( diff)
Also I am not interested in artificially maintaining "consensus" through any kind of gaming, hence my question about how WP:CCC relates to this motion. --RA ( talk) 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
According to what @RA is stating above, what is to stop any editor who wants to use "Republic of Ireland" to simply cry "I'm confused", and invoke the WP:IMOS? Or as in this case, to refuse to craft lede paragraphs in such a way as to very simply avoid confusion? And quiet frankly, I don't see where the IMOS is *not* being followed. The IMOS currently states:
The first clause uses an example that most editors (me included) wouldn't object to. But it certainly doesn't cover the current case. The second clause clearly sets out that where the state forms a major component of the topic (which in the current case, it does), we should stick with using the formal title. This example is far closer to the usage within the lede of British Isles. We've discussed this and a consensus appears to have emerged on the article Talk page, and RA bringing this here looks a little sour grapish. -- HighKing ( talk) 11:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The dispute over on British Isles at the moment about if Republic of Ireland can be used highlights that the resolution to the Ireland naming dispute has yet to be resolved fully. In the same paragraph the island of Ireland is mentioned, it is there for helpful to the readers for Republic of Ireland to be used in that introduction when talking about the state.
Republic of Ireland can be used when there is a need to avoid ambiguity, this is one of those clear cases where it is justified and a clarification about this subject would be helpful to prevent such a dispute causing problems in the future. We all accept the country is called Ireland, the trouble is just saying Ireland clearly causes confusion sometimes because there also happens to be an island called Ireland. BritishWatcher ( talk) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk at 03:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It has been more than six months since Piotrus was blocked and topic-banned. Since his return, he has been productive in other areas of Wikipedia. He has carefully observed the terms of his topic ban and avoided areas related to Eastern Europe.
Piotrus and I have a history. We got off on the wrong foot and found ourselves on opposite sides of edit wars that shouldn't have taken place. Since that time, he and I have mended fences. We've come to respect one another and I consider him one of my "Wikifriends". I was proud to have his support at my RfA.
Before his topic ban, Piotrus was very productive in articles having to do with Poland. He is responsible for 15 featured articles and 15 good articles (including 3 A-class articles) on Poland-related subjects.
In addition to his article-writing, Piotrus was the main force behind WP:POLAND. For a list of the tasks he performed, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 3#Future of WikiProject Poland - assistants needed. He carried out these duties without asking for any special recognition; his only "reward" was the satisfaction of improving the encyclopedia.
Pursuant to the motion enacted May 5, Piotrus was allowed to "raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban" at WT:POLAND. I have found his assistance at that page to be invaluable. (Please see WT:POLAND#Piotrus' to do list #1 for examples of what's been involved.) I and a few others have tried to keep up with Piotrus' suggestions, but this represents but a fraction of what should be done for the WikiProject; it is also a very inefficient way of getting things done.
As one example of his noncontroversial editing this year, Piotrus has used his class at the University of Pittsburgh to improve the encyclopedia and try to bring several articles to GA status. (Please see Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Summer 2010 for details.) He has also become involved to a greater extent with WP:SOCIOLOGY. Since coming back to Wikipedia, he has had two (non-EE) articles promoted to GA and written 15 DYKs.
I believe Piotrus has learned from his mistakes in the EEML case and should be allowed once again to edit in the subject area of Eastern Europe.
Constructive edits to sociology topics, where Piotrus has some expertise, must not be used as a basis for granting Piotrus access to EE topics again, where he used the same expertise in a malicious way for years:
There are few editors with a similar record of disruption, which has already caused a huge level of stress and waste of time (add up the kB of the above linked cases for a start). What makes Piotrus' case quite extraordinary is his long-term successful deception, including impertinences such as:
The "prolific Piotrus" and the "malicious Piotrus" are one and the same person, and the latter had long enough been free to deceive the project, including Arbcom, hiding behind the first. Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have asked Malik to post this request on my behalf, as a representative of WikiProject Poland and an editor familiar with my editing history (both past and present). I believe that Wikipedia is a project build on trust and cooperation among the users, and thus I am heartened that he has agreed to do this; his (and WP:POLAND's) support means a lot to me.
I have learned over the years that no matter how good one's intentions, it is all too easy to fall down a slippery slope. Having seen what happens when one descends this route, I plan on ensuring that errors of the past will not repeat themselves in the future.
It has been about a year since any complaint about my editing was raised (in the arbitration case I am asking to be amended). I have contributed, uncontroversially, to EE-related subjects for years before (including in the 4-month period that the case was ongoing). I have, over the years, till late December, contributed over ~20 FAs, ~20 GAs and ~300 DYKs, roughly ~90% of them in the Eastern European subjects). Even after the case ended, I was able to help out with addressing the BLP issues and then GAing Lech Wałęsa article. Throughout that time, I contributed uncontroversially to Polish Wikipedia, Polish and English Wikisource, and the Commons projects. I have written several GAs and over a dozen DYKs in the past few months on English Wikipedia as well.
I would like to return to my former levels of activity, in my areas of expertise (Eastern Europe), just like after a six months break I was able to resume clean up work for WP:POLAND. I have a nearly finished Poland-history-related Featured Article rusting in my sandbox on Polish Wikipedia. I would like to resume my work on creating the economic history of Poland article. I would like to resume GA work on Juliusz Słowacki. A sample list of further article content subjects I plan to work on is visible on my userpage (usually I go through most of my to-do boxes in few months; obviously they have been mostly frozen since last December). There are also many wikiproject gnomish tasks I cannot help out with (and which are not being carried out) ( more "to do" not being done). I often spot vandalism on my 3k+ watchlist, but instead of reverting it I have to report it to AIV or arbitrators I see online, which often means it takes hours between I see vandalism and it is reverted. And being able to answer simple requests from help, including those from sitting Arbitrators, instead of directing them to WT:POLAND, would be nice, too.
On a final note, I'd like to echo Radeksz calls for all editors in Eastern Europe to assume good faith and work collaboratively. This is what this project is about. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Response to Skäpperöd (first and only, I don't intend to engage in discussion on those pages, per the rules here): I am impressed you managed to post your statement so swiftly, even before I managed to post mine. I will just repeat what others have said in response to your comments in other recent amendments: 1) do you have any diffs from this year to bring, instead of rehashing old history? 2) Can you explain how this amendment would damage (instead of helping) the project - i.e. focus on the future, not the past (again...)? And 3) please stop misrepresenting what happened: a) the 2006 (2006, seriously?) RfC had no evidence, but unfounded allegations, not supported by majority of editors b) the 2008 ArbCom finding you cite did not mention any side or editor, you insert "Piotrus' group" without any basis, badly misrepresenting that finding c) I was within my right to vote in that AfD, the vote was not coordinated d) the mailing group, as stated before (including, I am sure, in the evidence archive) was created in December 2008; please stop alleging to the contrary. Lastly: I respect the work you have done in relation to German-Polish history and related subjects, and I'd hope you could see beyond our differences, assume good faith and try to work together with me and others to create a better project, in the spirit of good-faithed cooperation. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I always perceived a global all-encompassing topic ban on Central and Eatern European topics as too harsh. One can edit or create articles about e.g. Poland or Belarus without any controversy. The current ban prohibits Piotrus to create e.g. even a tiny stub about, say, some Russian economist or Polish river. I think the current ban should be ammended and liberalized. I believe Piotrus will not misuse it and will be of great help to WikiProject Poland, where he was most active in the past. I am sure he learned from his past mistakes and would responsibly use his ability to edit the Central and East European articles again. - Darwinek ( talk) 12:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If Piotrus served his so far de-facto probation well then it seems to prove that the sanctions did their job, are no longer needed, and in fact are harmful to the project content-wise. However, if the amendment is accepted and the ban is raised, I would suggest asking Piotrus for a parole, to help him remember that he should treat any Eastern-European issues in the same constructive manner as any other articles. Other than that, I'm totally for lifting the sanctions, as they seem to serve no purpose now. As for the Skäpperöd's comments, none of them seems relevant to the recent half a year period that is discussed here as the base for the amendment request. -- Lysy talk 08:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Essentially Piotrus' argument is: I might realise some of the things that happened in the past are unfortunate, but listen guys, I've been banned from this area for a few months and in those few months I haven't done anything bad in the area. So, obviously the ban is pointless and if you make me serve the ban I was originally given, you are being crueler than you need to be and depriving the 'Pedia of great content.
It is not news that Piotrus did a lot of writing for Polish and eastern European history articles. We knew that when we imposed the ban. The problem we had with Piotrus (or his side-kick Radek for that matter) is not this, nor that we discovered that all the allegations of co-ordinated bullying, edit-warring, wikilawyering and so on which had been leveled at him for years and ignored turned out to be true, but rather that that wasn't even the half of it.
You discovered that email archive, and you acted ... you sent out a message. You can of course be sure that they learned not to be so stupid as to have a email list that size and to record it so zealously. But you actually think they'll stop this kind of thing? Why would they? It was great for them ... and worked well, only trouble was that it leaked. So now that he has been caught and topic-banned, it is to be believed that he therefore saw the moral error of his ways? ;) Yeah, of course. He must have.
But sure, he might have ... he just might have. It is no matter, you guys don't know either way. And as appealing to your conscience as it might be to "give the benefit of the doubt", you have a responsibility to treat the possibility of gross misconduct as seriously as history suggests you should.
Moreover, you have already passed judgment on these offenses, offenses of the highest gravity. Is upholding previous ArbCom sanctions made in the aftermath of a long investigation against a background of rare community outrage really something that needs to trouble us as much as is being suggested? If the previous rulings were just a political show to quell the outrage which existed at the time, then sure you would revisit it after a few months. If you take it seriously otherwise, then overturning or significantly lightening the bans is very brave message to send to future perpetrators of such activity or to those contemplating such activity.
Finally, Piotrus has expertise in sociology and economics, and it is good that he can focus his attention there. It is good that he can focus his efforts there rather than in areas where he has a strong bias and a history of using wiki-gansterism and co-ordinated edit-warring in pursuit of ideological goals, where he has previously conspired to and succeeded by such methods in undermining and circumventing natural wikipedia safeguards like WP:NPOV, WP:BRD, WP:EW and so on. It is however very important for Piotrus to learn ... and for others to learn ... that once you do certain things, Wikipedia will come down on you and you won't get out of it just by waiting a few months and convincing a friend in good standing to make a case for you. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
My experience as a past ArbCom member is that Piotrus is rather good at the wheedling tone (which he can employ on behalf of allies, however egregious their shortcomings). As editors, we have met on the site infrequently, but when we did it was shortly after the close of the second Eastern Europe case. My impression was that Piotrus had learned nothing: plain advocacy of a Polish-centred POV, warnings against conspiratorial Lithuanians, and so on. I think the ArbCom should apply here a thought from the old book of remedies, namely that sanctions which create a good editor out of a troublesome one are advantageous to the site. I would oppose varying them until there was evidence of a more profound change of heart. This seems a routine appeal based on the passage of time. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
As usual, I fully support relaxation of Piotrus' restrictions, which seem to serve no purpose except to deprive Wikipedia of the useful contributions of a very productive editor. Whatever he is supposed to have done wrong, I think it's pretty clear he isn't going to do it again now that all eyes are on him.-- Kotniski ( talk) 09:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
My statement seems superfluous by now, but after looking over recent history of Piotrus contributions, and knowing quite well the positive influence Piotrus had on all the usual hotheads in EE disputes, I fully support lifting the sanctions. ( Igny ( talk) 23:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC))
i contributed to the amendment-request in april by raising the point of his university cooperation projects. therefore, i have the feeling that i have the duty to report the review results of his spring-project (may-june):
as long as i can see now, it worked without guideline problems or conflicts and the participants improved social- and political science related articles like periphery countries and great divergence. his project reached the well-established standards in the content- as well as the perspective of civilized behavior, best regards -- Jan eissfeldt ( talk) 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I fully support lifting these sanctions — his works measured by new articles, high quality articles (FAs/GAs), working around community and overall contribution are really worthy for WP. He will be able to improve many of EE- and Poland-related articles. Piotrus' works will be examined very deeply and all negative aspects will be considered quickly. Visor ( talk) 07:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I could probably sum it up this way: Listen to Deacon. These sanctions need to be strong and maybe even harsh because the case in question was not some isolated case; it was the latest in a string of EE-related cases that involved Piotrus (and loads of others) and it was, quite bluntly, hammer time. Lifting them now is not in the best interests of our EE-related articles or our editors who are editing these articles after actually leaving their POVs at the door. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I would not object to Piotrus creating content on Poland and I feel that his inability to do so is a great loss to Wikipedia. However, this was carefully weighted in the original Arbcom case, with Piotrus only narrowly escaping permaban.
What I see as disturbing is that Piotrus is all too eager in engaging in the your-nation-genocided-my-nation battles of Eastern Europe. I believe this edit from 1 June 2010 is a violation of his topic ban. The article, Cultural genocide is at the very heart of the Eastern European disputes. The edit, while it may seem innocent, in fact pushes a POV wording that the United Nations could not agree on in 60 years of debating the issue. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 14:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by NW ( Talk) at 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Δbot and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Relaxing or rescinding of community-imposed restrictions on User:Betacommand / Δ has allowed Δ to run a bot for the purposes of clerking WP:SPI. I ask that the Arbitration Committee loosen the restrictions on Δ to allow him to do just that. NW ( Talk) 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this amendment. This user has repeatedly abused the communities trust in the past, including the abuse of sockpuppets, abusive use of bots and automated edits, and abuse directed at other editors. That is why these restrictions were applied. To lift them so that he can run bots on sockpuppet investigation pages is just ridiculous. His resistance at against having his new name and previous name linked shows that he wants to avoid scrutiny of his actions by the community at large, and has put the smallest possible link on his page after being forced. This amendment should not be allowed. Verbal chat 16:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
As the person who requested closure of the thread on WP:AN, let me specify that the community consensus appears to be in favor of allowing a SPI clerking bot only. Other bots could be considered in the future. N419 BH 17:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I am uneasy with this. the User in question has shown strong disregard for boundries imposed by the community through whatever means (approved bot tasks, civility to other users, etc.). -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
With respect to User:Cool Hand Luke's concern [4] that this would "open the door to any and all scripts BAG might approve": yes - from the committee's standpoint it would [though any subsequent tasks would need to be conducted with Δbot]; but as only a very specific exception to the community-imposed restrictions has been created, BAG will need to seek community support in a similar manner prior to approving any subsequent filings. I believe the reason that Kirill has drafted this amendment widely was so that in case the community does endorse additional tasks, a new amendment would not be required. – xeno talk 16:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
1) The Arbitration Committee provisions for the unbanning of Betacommand are amended as follows: Betacommand ( talk · contribs), now editing as Δ ( talk · contribs), is authorized to operate a single secondary account, Δbot ( talk · contribs), to carry out certain automated tasks as authorized by the Bot Approvals Group.
There being 11 arbitrators, not counting two who are inactive and one who is recused, the majority required is 6. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
For this motion, there are 13 active Arbitrators (minus 1 who are recused), so 7 votes are a majority.
1.1) The Arbitration Committee provisions for the unbanning of Betacommand are amended as follows: Betacommand ( talk · contribs), now editing as Δ ( talk · contribs), is authorized to operate a single secondary account, Δbot ( talk · contribs), only to perform automated tasks directly related to the clerking of sockpuppet investigations only as specified and authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. Any other use of the bot, broadly interpreted, must be specifically authorized in advance by BAG and endorsed by ArbCom.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK at 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
At alternate case, but proposed as impacted:
Stated as a single amendment because request is for Remedy 11A) to be reworded to address outstanding and inter-related concerns. One inclusive proposal is provided.
Regarding the reciprocal interaction bans, EEML <-> Russavia, all editors so sanctioned may nevertheless comment positively on other editors in the third person. Any individual EEML editor and Russavia may appeal jointly to lift their interpersonal interactivity ban should they both desire to do so, committing to uphold Wikipedia's standards of conduct. The bans on unnecessary commentary and interaction otherwise remain in effect.
Per feedback below on clarity and comments I have received here and elsewhere. I believe this would build a bridge toward a more collegial environment.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Over a week has passed and this contribution by Russavia has not garnered a response. I commend Russavia for their positive comments regarding Miacek; nevertheless, statements such as (my emphasis):
are both combative and an inappropriate re-litigation of EEML. I interpret Russavia's comments and the lack of any reprimand as proof that the current interaction ban structure is not working.
Accordingly, I am proposing changes to interaction bans currently in effect in order to facilitate uniform enforcement while also promoting positive community conduct.
I trust this proposed amendment is viewed as moving us forward. If so, the updated wording needs to be applied to amend Russavia's interaction ban as well.
Lastly, I have not reported the offending portion of Russavia's violation of their interaction ban because I hoped we were done with EEML.
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Per direction of Rlevse, I am closing this amendment request as "no action taken". NW ( Talk) 03:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by – xeno talk at 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I have recently marked "resolved" a thread at the bureaucrats' noticeboard ( perm). However, lingering questions remain.
Betacommand was denied a rename-via-usurp to Δ by bureaucrats in 2007. In 2008, he was community banned indefinitely. In July 2009, he was provisionally unbanned by the Arbitration Committee, with terms. Terms 1 (edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection) and 3 (agree (i) to a civility restriction and (ii) to not engage in any form of wikilawyering, broadly interpreted) do not appear to have an expiration date (when compared to terms 2 and 4, which did).
Betacommand again sought the usurpation of the Δ username on or about 25 June 2010 (via IRC), which was performed by User:Deskana on 25 June [14], who later commented with respect to the off-wiki handling of the request [15]. His comments indicate that Betacommand did not remind Deskana of the previously denied request.
Betacommand begin editing as Δ ( talk · contribs) on 11 July (when terms 2 and 4 of the provisional unban had lapsed). He made a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard to move his userrights from User:Betacommand to the new account at 21:49, 11 July 2010, suggesting he was "no longer under any restrictions" [16]. While none of the rights required bureaucratic intervention, I believe he made the request to have some form of bureaucratic approval of the de facto "rename". Discussion ensued, and several users (including bureaucrats) expressed concerns.
At some point, Betacommand made an off-wiki request to bureaucrat X! ( talk · contribs) to transfer the userrights, which was done at 04:19, 12 July 2010 [17]. X! later commented after concerns were raised [18]. His comments indicate that Betacommand did not inform X! of the ongoing noticeboard thread.
As I see it, the questions before the committee are:
@Jack, Yes - had this request come via the usual means, the committee would've likely been at least pinged. As it is, the process is running backwards. The suggestion from another user below that this was brought to 'badger' is unfounded and unnecessary. The concerns being raised at BN were largely out of the bureaucrat's jurisdiction, this is why the matter was brought here. Personally, I think the rename should be allowed (though it would've been wiser to make the request through on-wiki channels), but feel the ambiguities need to be resolved as well. – xeno talk 02:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
@Kirill, Thank you for the swift response - this resolves the questions. It should be noted that Δ has a pending request for bot approval, so #1 will (at some point) need to be amended to allow editing using approved bots. – xeno talk 03:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Kirill says below that the provisions of Betacommand 2 are still in effect: but would this statement apply to the Community-imposed restrictions section at the bottom? I'd guess that those were probably "washed out" by the community ban and subsequent ArbCom suspension of the same, but a BAG member has requested clarification and noted that this and provision #1 as noted above at 03:40 is the only thing they can see holding up approval of the bot task (a fairly low-key task clerking an administrative page) [19]. – xeno talk 16:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC) clarified at 16:28, 21 July 2010
In response to Newyorkbrad's question: Yes, I think everything requiring clarification or amendment has been addressed. Thanks, – xeno talk 21:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Even if it was a restriction without a one year time limit, he hasn't violated it. He's still continued to edit under one username. There is no policy preventing a person from abandoning one account in favor of another. His last edit as Betacommand was 20:56, 11 July 2010. His first edit as Δ was 21:44, 11 July 2010. There is no crossover, no editing as two accounts. With respect to the denial of the change three years earlier, consensus can change. Even if all the restrictions were in place even now, the restrictions do not prohibit him from starting a new account and abandoning his old. This filing is badgering of this editor. This editor is trying to make a clean start, and is even trying to stay away from prior trouble areas post the expiration of his editing restrictions. Assume some good faith and give him a chance. Nothing nefarious is happening here. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Compare with my case; I am specifically restricted to editing with this specific user name; Betacommand would seem to be simply restricted to not using multiple accounts, i.e. the bot account. There's a connection via the old name's deletion and renaming logs, so there seems to be no real issue here, other than a clarification that it's ok. Am I missing something? FWIW, I think seeking this clarification is a good thing, and that it would probably have been the best route to have taken earlier this month. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Kirill, there is some ambiguity regarding whether "the provisions of the Betacommand 2 case are technically in effect" includes the community-imposed restrictions or only the ArbCom remedies. Anomie ⚔ 16:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Re xeno: It's not the only thing, there is also the need for Δ to have the unban provision #1 amended to allow for a bot account. Anomie ⚔ 16:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Re Kirill: Thank you. Anomie ⚔ 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Re Δ: That is the second of the 4 terms ArbCom presented you with. But even though that term has expired, term #1 ("You edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection") still prohibits your using more than one account. So yes, now that term #2 is expired you may operate bots or run automated scripts of whatever nature, but since term #1 is still in force you must do that under only one username which unfortunately means you still can't run a bot because you cannot run it under the bot account. And there are also the separate community-imposed restrictions, which require you review and approve each and every individual edit the bot would make (which really makes it script-assisted editing rather than a bot). Anomie ⚔ 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
For one year, you are (i) topic-banned from any non-free-content-related work and related talk pages; (ii) subject to a 0RR restriction on any free-content-image-related work and related talk pages; (iii) prohibited from operating bots or running automated scripts of whatever nature; (iv) prohibited from inducing or attempting to induce others to operate bots or run automated scripts; and (v) subject to an editing throttle of a maximum of four edits every ten minutes (excludes reversion of blatant vandalism). After six months, you may apply to ArbCom for a review of the terms of this condition.
Given the phrasing of ArbCom's statement, I read it as that after one year I am (i) able to comment/edit non-free related material. (iii) Allowed to run bots, and use automated/simi auto tools. (iv) allowed to give more input in BRFA/bot related issues (v) No longer have an edit throttle. ΔT The only constant 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The Committee's restrictions run concurrently to those imposed by the community, but they are distinct (separate). The exception to this rule is where the Committee explicitly lifts or supersedes a community restriction, or in a practical sense, where the community does not recognise (aka refuses to enforce) a Committee restriction; such situations only should arise in exceptional circumstances. In this case, there was no exception to the rule, so the community restrictions remain in force (until they are explicitly lifted or superseded by the community or the Committee). And for this purpose, in the absence of appropriate notice to either or both AN/ANI, as well as notifications to the users who commented in the original sanction discussion, a discussion at BAG would not constitute a community consensus. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Xeno's questions in order:
Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Sandstein at 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I request clarification about whether the sanction Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted has expired.
The motion of 20:37, 29 March 2010 recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions reads in relevant part:
It is not clear whether sanction 3, entitled "Brews ohare restricted" is part of the "supplementary restrictions" that the motion refers to, because it is not listed in the "(namely ...)" part of the motion and, in the list of sanctions on the case page, it is not followed by the comment "Modified by motions below" as is sanction 4.2, entitled "Brews ohare topic banned".
The question is relevant because I have just been enforcing sanction 3, following an enforcement request at WP:AE#Brews ohare. It has subsequently been argued on my talk page that sanction 3 has expired. Should that turn out to be the case, my enforcement action was in error, but in this case I ask the Committee to consider reinstating the sanction by motion because, as the enforcement request shows, it appears to continue to be necessary.
I would also appreciate it if the Committee would consider establishing a process to ensure that arbitration case pages always unambiguously reflect any change in status of the decisions without much need for interpretation. Sandstein 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The motion was this. It refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.
This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.
This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked.
I would raise the following points:
Comment upon this proceeding: The basic question here as to whether “sanctions cannot run past the expiry date of the restriction” is a general technical point, and its accidental origination in my particular case really has little bearing upon the broad issues at stake. I believe the morphing of this clarification proceeding to become in effect a hearing on my appeal is (i) a distortion of what the clarification should be about, and (ii) an invalid hearing of my appeal in a restricted context where all the issues pertinent to a decision cannot be raised. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
To clarify I did not claim that the previous warnings were about ArbCom. I simply wrote " He has been warned before" with diffs, so editors could make up their own minds about the relevance of them.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
keeping this short...typing one handed is a bitch. 8-) I am not advocating for brews specifically, I'm more concerned with arb enforcement w/o specific authorization. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Flagging this prior clarification for attention as it is of some relevance to sanctions, expiration dates, reset sanctions, and additional sanctions. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Brews has gone back to purposefully disrupting the speed of light article by repeatedly advancing fringe theory and original research. Why must you torture our editors by subjecting them to this repeated punishment. Brews doesn't get it, and will never get it, no matter how much you wish he would. Please, would you finally deal with this problem: ban Brews from making any edits related to the speed of light or definition of the length of the meter. This ban needs to be permanent. Jehochman Talk 11:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand Carcharoth's position, or Sandstein's proposal. Brews had a topic ban and, in best Bourbon manner, forgot nothing and learned nothing. So why give him another topic ban, whether that's the original one until October, or a narrower one indefinitely? The expired topic ban was his last chance to learn and he didn't take it. So why wait until he doesn't learn from another last chance? An indefinite block is the only solution here since Brews isn't interested in changing his behaviour. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The RFAR resulted in a strict topic ban and an advocacy ban. The former was whittled down by arbcom I presume out of their belief that they had unfairly classified Brews due to the actions of David Tombe. The lapsing of that topic ban resulted in Brews immediately reviving his past behavior on Talk:Speed of Light, which produced a discretionary topic ban from Sandstein. That ban in place the same behaviors were started up in other (closely related) physics articles. When an admin moved in to stop Brews, those editors formerly restricted from advocating on his behalf did so strenuously and simultaneously (though I don't think they were acting in concert). With respect to arbcom, it wastes the time of the admin corps when old cases are re-litigated needlessly. Whatever the motivation of arbcom to relax Brews' topic ban, the proper thing to do is to re-instate it (and not leave it reinstated as an AE action) and expand it to related articles. Protonk ( talk) 14:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman intervened to stop Brews on an alleged OR issue as discussed here on AN/I. Jehochman being an experienced Admin can, I'm sure, filter out the sniping on the AN/I thread, take my own comments with a pinch of salt as I started the thread, and then focus his attention on the comments by experienced uninvolved editors who make relevant comments on this issue like e.g. Awickert and Holmansf.
As I explain here, involved Admins are actually better qualified than univolved Admins to judge cases like this. I know that this sounds crazy, but take the time to read my arguments. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on him if, despite being warned, he repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Actions taken under this provision are subject to the relevant rules and procedures for standard discretionary sanctions.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Scott Mac at 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments removed.
Given this, I am happy to withdraw this application. That Everyking has realised the unwisdom of pursuing this in any forum, renders it moot. There's no need to rub salt in. He's done the right thing.-- Scott Mac 07:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
For me, the restriction is effectively indefinite, because for obvious reasons it would be deeply unwise for me to ever get into any kind of tangle with Phil Sandifer again. I regard the expiry of the restriction as merely a symbolic victory that restores me to the status of an editor in good standing. And I don't believe the ArbCom would claim to have jurisdiction over off-wiki remarks. Everyking ( talk) 15:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Phil: it might not have occurred to him that, having been under a restriction for the previous five years, I haven't really had the opportunity to "get over it". He was never put under any comparable restriction, so it might be hard for him to relate to the feeling of being aggrieved for five years and then finally being released and having a moment of off-wiki gloating over it. I don't really know what to say to the rest of Phil's statement. Perhaps it would put his mind at ease if I reassured him, once again, that I really do not want anything whatsoever to do with him? Everyking ( talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Brad: I have said for years that there is no purpose in any interaction between Phil and I, because for reasons of history and personality it is quite unlikely that anything productive could ever come of it. In that sense, the restriction was always perfectly reasonable. My objection was centered on the one-sided nature of the restriction, which I felt acted as a unjustified smear on my work and reputation on this website, as it implied that I was at fault and Phil needed protection. Some people see that five years has passed and wonder why it would still be an issue, but to me, it was an issue every single day up until 15 August 2010, because I had that smear attached to my account for the entire time. Phil's memory has dimmed more than mine because he's had little reason to think about this stuff over the last five years, but the restriction gave me plenty of reason to continue thinking about it.
I'm perfectly happy to make a pledge that I will not discuss Phil Sandifer here on Wikipedia (I've already pledged that many times, and stuck to it, but I will make the pledge again, for the record), and I will also pledge to refrain from discussing him on other websites. I would like it very much if he would make the same pledge with regard to myself. I would also like it if some of Phil's comments are redacted when this request is archived, for obvious reasons. Everyking ( talk) 02:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Amusingly, had this case not been filed I'd have had no idea Everyking was back at it.
In any case, the history here is relevant. Everyking's treatment of me was, I believe, one of the Arbcom's first cases of wikistalking. His stalking of me was particularly pernicious, and its spilling over onto WR is, to my mind, relevant, as he was part of the echo chamber there that helped escalate someone into getting me harassed by the police. I don't feel like digging back through the quotes there, but he had a quote along the lines of me being a sick and depraved individual. Someone else speculated that it would be easy to force me out of my PhD program. And the thread eventually turned into someone calling the police in my town in a deliberate attempt to get me harassed by them.
That was four years ago. I've had no contact with Everyking since then, and apparently his obsession with me is undimmed. Which, again, I wouldn't have known were it not for this - because the correct thing to do with a dangerous stalker is avoid them. Well, after seeking a restraining order, which, to be fair, I'll do if anything involving him crosses into the real world again. The one-sidedness of this needs to be stressed - other than the fact that it involved Ashley Simpson, I have no memory of what I did to offend Everyking, and I'm fairly sure whatever it was happened five or more years ago. Prior to today, I have not thought about Everyking in ages. He mostly comes up, in my mind, when for some reason I am thinking about Ashley Simpson's "Yeah Yeah," the only song of hers I remember, and I remember Everyking, that loon on Wikipedia.
Everyking's memories of long-ago perceived slights seems to outdo my own.
In any case, the purpose of the communication restriction on Everyking was always simple - Everyking's presence makes Wikipedia no longer a safe space for me. One should not have to choose between personal safety and editing Wikipedia. It is clear from his behavior that engagement with Everyking endangers my personal safety. To be honest, I am afraid of him. Because being afraid of someone who still stalks your Twitter and insults your teeth (WTF?) after five years of minimal contact with you is a sensible thing to do.
Not that I'm a terribly active editor at this point. But the job of the arbcom does include protecting editors and maintaining a safe space. Everyking is apparently a threat to that. Certainly seeing his recent behavior makes me disinclined to edit at all on Wikipedia knowing that doing so is inviting contact with a stalker. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious that EK and Phil don't like each other very much judging from the indirect jabs they both launched at each other in their statements above. So, if the Committee decides to vote on some kind of sanction here, please make it apply to both editors this time, not just one of them. I think that would be better in both the short and long term. Cla68 ( talk) 01:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a tempest in a teapot. No, in a teacup. No, in a teaspoon. Don't arbitrators have better things to do than write exceedingly long analyses of this minor matter? Focus, people. I'm not without sympathy for Phil Sandifer's situation, but given a choice between personal safety and editing the wiki, the choice is obvious. No, it's not "edit the wiki anyway". ++ Lar: t/ c 02:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Re. Carcharoth: I think this is a situation where a quick, relatively discreet decision, either way, is more helpful to all involved than a potentially drawn out discussion on public noticeboards. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 06:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the Admins and Arbitrators who are active on Wikipedia Review discuss this matter there. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Collapsing earlier comments
|
---|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Brews ohare ( talk) at 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Repeal or amendment of this action by administrator Sandstein is the object of this appeal. The question of imposing a ban extending past the expiration date of the remedy used for authorization has been decided in the negative in this request for clarification. It also has been determined that the matter of repeal of the ban altogether is separate from the issue of its extending beyond this expiration date. See this diff.
This appeal was filed before at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, but was not ruled upon because it was taken to be outside that venue's responsibility. Comments by others can be found there.
I am presently subject to a modification of Case: Speed of light here. This modification refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.
This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.
This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked in this action, which extends the remedies of Case:Speed of light without ArbCom consideration.
I would raise the following points:
Brews ohare ( talk) 18:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment upon first motion below: The motion proposed is worded in the same fashion as the remedy that led to this appeal, and is subject to the same ambiguities. It suffers from the following: (i) no clarity about the nature of the warning; is the indication of execution of this remedy to be explicitly mentioned in the warning? (ii) no clarity about what constitutes a violation: it is up to the "discretion" of an "uninvolved" administrator. Some guidelines should be provided, an example, does it apply to civil and reasoned insistence upon a Talk page of some clarity and consistency with established sources? This is the type of "disturbance" of WP that I have engaged in so far.
Observation on second motion: As noted long ago by DickLyon in the old Case:Speed of light, the issue is not one of topic, and is one of my behavior. Hence, the present motion is wrongly conceived. I have presented a simple and effective remedy, namely, impose a limitation upon the extent of my Talk page activity. The problem is not willful disruption, as claimed; that statement is insulting and blind to my contributions. It also is not WP:SOUP, although I understand that mischaracterization, as argument over a formulation sometimes can appear to be hairsplitting, particularly to an uninvolved observer. Rather, the problem has been outlined above: exhaustion of the patience of other editors on Talk pages, and an effective remedy also has been proposed.
About both motions: A lock-step repetition of remedy that is poorly phrased and irrelevant to the problem, and prone to litigation and abuse because of its ambiguities, does not reflect well upon ArbCom's ability to understand the matter before it. (What exactly is “physics-related”? Math? Engineering? Astronomy? Geology? Circuit analysis? Chemistry?... DickLyon suggested my insertion of a figure on the definition of a property of an ellipse was ‘physics related’.) The present motions abandon ArbCom's responsibility to some future unknown "uninvolved administrator", who individually is apparently more skillful and wise than ArbCom, and able to decide an issue that ArbCom cannot fathom. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This appeal of a sanction by Sandstein regarding the Talk page of Speed of light has morphed into a hearing on my behavior in general, but without observing that such an expansion of the purpose of the appeal constitutes a widening far beyond that envisioned. I believe that expansion to be unwarranted, and if it is to be done, a new case is required wherein my overall behavior can be assessed properly within the enlarged boundaries. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
In addition, the assumption is made here that the problem is one of topic, as though the difficulties related to subject matter, and to the pursuit by myself of erroneous views in the face of reasoned and authoritative opposition. ArbCom is incapable of making such an assessment: technical matters of subject are beyond their interest and capacity. In fact, nothing said here addresses this framing of the subject: it has been leaped into without careful examination. What ArbCom can do is assess behavior, that is: Is discussion proceeding? Or, is it degenerating into incivility or straying to personal attack? That has not happened. What has happened is that I have pursued discussion to the extent of trying the patience of some editors, who in exasperation have appealed for administrative action. They have options other than ArbCom action. That is the matter that needs to be addressed here. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I have volunteered to curtail my Talk page discussion upon request by editors involved in a thread. If ArbCom doubts my sincerity, they can make this a formal requirement upon me. That action directly addresses the problem. A page ban does not. General probation that can be acted upon by a single so-called "uninvolved administrator" is a draconian action that abandons ArbCom responsibility and leads to nonsensical administrative actions because the rules of engagement are hopelessly vague and are open to crazy ideas, as my personal history under similar remedies attests. Any dyspeptic editor can find a hair-triggered admin to exercise a block that then cannot be overturned by any other administrator regardless of circumstances. See the Trusilver debacle for an instance. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It's unclear how the page ban motion addresses the appeal brought. Sandstein's action that brought this matter here has not been addressed. Instead, a broad and imaginary issue has been posited to exist without being properly examined, and treated using what is commonly called cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Besides ignoring the original purpose of this appeal, also ignored is (i) the lack of evidence for disturbance of ‘decorum or standards of behavior’ , that is, there was no crime, (ii) the lack of notice that ArbCom action would be sought, that is, conditions required for activating the appealed action were not satisfied, nevermind conditions for implementing a general hearing of this kind, and (iii) there is no stated basis for the motions considered in terms of WP guidelines, that is the proposed remedies are not related to the five pillars or guidelines. There is every appearance that this hearing was hijacked to alleviate preexisting prejudices, and all rules and the good of WP were set aside to accomplish that aim. That impression should be corrected, for the good of WP and of the reputations of its administrators. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Unless asked to do so now by an arbitrator, I intend to comment on this request after the related request for clarification is resolved. Sandstein 17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Steve Smith, I am not sure as to whether this request does supersede my request for clarification as long as the question asked there has not been answered by a majority of arbitrators and a motion is being voted on. But here's what I can say now:
(this is just my comment here but copied here to reply to the same points by Brews)
The diffs were provided to show that a number of editors - most of the participants of the talk page - had objected to Brews' editing over the space of a only a few days. That some reference the previous arbitration case is unsurprising as it concerned the same page and is hardly "old wounds" as it is still in force. I'm not sure why you expect them to show a "warning of impending ArbCom action".
On civility I again point to
[21] and
[22], your characterising other editors' contributions as "stupid" and "lazy" respectively. Or only yesterday more recently, perhaps more typically, three good faith attempts by different editors to address your concerns were dismissed like so:
[23]. Whether any of this is bad tempered or impatient I'm sure editors can judge for themselves.
Comment about the proposed motion. My concern is that given the way Brews' edits are scrutinized, issues like this have to addressed. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This reply to Brews and Jehochman on my talk page is perhaps useful to the Arbitrators. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Community dynamics constrains how far Wikipedia can evolve the smart thing to do is to leave Wikipedia, just like our early ancestors left the Chimp community. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have anything to add to the comments made under motion 2 (as of the time of writing this) except my endorsement. Thanks also for the courtesy notification of the merging of this. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 11:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
My comment on the clarification request also applies. Motion 2 seems to simply settle the matter (for the most part). Protonk ( talk) 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow! That's all I can really say. I'm surprised and actually disheartened that instead of trying to look at everything that happened it appears Arb is symbolically washing their hands and letting the mob rule. It's a tad ironic you would ban advocacy for brews but no one looks into the headhunting that has really happened here, but hey if history is any judge why should we have suspected different? Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 03:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on him if, despite being warned, he repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Actions taken under this provision are subject to the relevant rules and procedures for standard discretionary sanctions.
2) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.
To tidy up some other loose ends, I concur that Sandstein was uninvolved for enforcement purposes. I do not agree with Roger that enforcement actions may extend beyond the life of the remedy authorizing them, and would have supported reducing the length of the speed of light topic ban on that basis (while specifically recognizing that Sandstein's decision to make the term indefinite was authorized by the general view expressed by arbitrators at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Statement by Ncmvocalist). As this motion would subsume Sandstein's sanction, however, there is no need to do so. I trust that my support of this motion says all that needs to be said on my view of the substance of Sandstein's enforcement action. Steve Smith ( talk) 02:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)