Initiated by GregJackP  Boomer! at 20:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Climate change arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 17

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Not applicable

Information about amendment request

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#GregJackP topic-banned

• Details of desired modification: Topic-ban lifted

Statement by GregJackP

I'd like to request the removal of my topic-ban given to me at WP:ARBCC, and to request the restrictions I was placed under on my unblock be lifted (CC & new age religious movements). In the time since I have been back, I have been a productive editor, taking a WP:SCOTUS article to FA status and generally editing in the SCOTUS/Law/Native American areas. I have worked in Articles for Creation, attempting to help new and IP editors get their ideas to article status and into the mainspace. I also do patrol work as far as Prods, BLPProds, CSD & AfD noms. I have received the WP:FOUR award and an Article Rescue barnstar since returning from my block.

I have no intent to go back into either area, but I sometimes catch myself looking at an article at AfD/AfC that could (widely construed) be in either of the areas of the ban. I would rather not have to worry about inadvertently or mistakenly crossing the line.

I know that in the CC area, that the findings were correct and the topic ban was needed. I have learned from that experience and I no longer take a battlefield approach to the issues. I've found that most issues can be worked out with talk and restraint, or, if need be, by simply walking away. Thanks. GregJackP  Boomer! 20:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@NW. I don't have a problem with the block, per se. It demonstrated the battleground mentality that I had at the time and was appropriate. I believed at the time, and still believe, that you only blocked or took action against one side of the issue, at least during that time period. I also realize that some of that could be lingering bitterness about your role in what happened to me in the incident with you and ScienceApologist. That is one of the reasons that I have tried to avoid you since my return. It is also why I do not intend to return to the Climate Change area. GregJackP  Boomer! 15:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

@AGK. Thank you, I certainly appreciate it. Would that also include the restriction on New Age Religious Movements? A part of the condition of my unblock was to stay away from it also. I do not intend to edit there, but would like to be free of that restriction for the same reason as CC. GregJackP  Boomer! 22:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

@NW. Thank you. I do want to reassure you (and anyone else) that I do not intend to do anything in CC. What caused this appeal were two articles I looked at. One was an article that was pretty much crap - unsourced, no hits on anything, etc. that had been CSD'd but declined. I was about to AfD it when I noticed that it tangentially might be connected with global warming. I backed off of it. The other was an AfC I was looking at that was a BLP where the individual was a member of the LDS church. I did nothing there either. I just don't want to get blocked again if for some reason I miss the connection in my normal work. The most likely conflict would be in Native America SCOTUS area, since both the CC/religious areas could touch it there. GregJackP  Boomer! 01:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@ST. I certainly understand your concern, however be assured that I am not going to go further with this, and made sure that I was well within 3RR. If you'll note, I started an RfC on the talkpage for the issues, and intend to abide by the consensus. I would be pleased if you would watch how this plays out, rather than assuming that I intend to edit-war on this issue. I would prefer to walk away before that occurs. GregJackP  Boomer! 14:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, if you would prefer to put this on hold to see how it plays out, I would be happy with that. GregJackP  Boomer! 15:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@SBHB. I have to disagree with you on the sources. The first source listed, (Bennett, "Defamation of Religions: The End of Pluralism?") was cited to support two statements. First, the arrest and imprisonment of Gillian Gibbons in Sudan, and second, that only the intervention of the British government prevented harsher punishment. The text of the article stated: "only to find herself behind bars for defaming the Prophet Muhammad" (which supports the first statement), and "It was only after the British government intervened that Gibbons was freed and deported from Sudan" (which supports the second statement). These lines are at p.81, para. 1 of the cited source. In addition, the cited article repeatedly discusses the us of the UN Defamation of Religions resolution to support censorship. I don't have the time to address this or to answer the second source immediately (RL commitment), but will be happy to do so later today. GregJackP  Boomer! 14:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about this since I posted earlier. This is not the time or place to delve into a content issue, unless requested by the committee members. I disagree with your interpretation of the sources, and have shown how one of the sources directly supported the material it was cited to support. If you still disagree, I would invite you to join the RfC, the AfD, or another appropriate forum for discussing the sources. GregJackP  Boomer! 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo098. I am open to suggestions on how to handle the matter. After going through the BRD and getting into the discussion phase with the RFC, I was working at compromising on the language. It's not exactly what I would prefer, but it was moving forward. I would also request that you look at the editor that repeatedly removes material while the discussion is going on, and that has thus far not offered any suggestions other than to delete the entire article. If they continue to remove material, it will continue to the point that there is a) no material to discuss, and b) a deleted article. I don't think that is the way to go about this, and I've repeated asked them to stop and discuss it - they won't. I was under the impression that requesting page protection was within policy, and was better than edit warring. GregJackP  Boomer! 03:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo98. I responded to that allegation at the location it was made, here. GregJackP  Boomer! 20:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I would be interested to hear GregJackP's opinion on the situation where I article-banned him for disruptive editing (described best here) with the benefit of two years' hindsight. NW ( Talk) 05:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I have liked your SCOTUS-related work and hope you continue with it. As it's looking likely that the ban will be lifted (which I do not oppose), my unsolicited advice would be for you to just stick with a few articles or AFDs here and there, not dive back in to the topic area (which seems to be your intent). But take that with as much salt as you wish. Best of luck, NW ( Talk) 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Ultimately the internal squabbles over conduct that absorb so much time in Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures matter little to our readers. What matters most to them is how accurately we convey information. In this regard the most serious concern over GregJackP's involvement in the ARBCC mess was persistent misrepresentation of source material. Some very recent diffs are concerning on this point. [1] [2] [3] [4] (I have checked the sources and one of them definitely does not support the charge of "censorship" while the other is more borderline.) As far as I can tell there is no problem at all with his work on court-related articles which by all accounts has been quite good. The problems arise when he ventures into topics related to certain political perspectives, such as climate change or Islam. It would be helpful if GregJackP were to make a strong and enforceable commitment to hold himself to high standards with regard to sourcing, even (or especially) on topics where he has strong personal opinions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098

I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris. GregJackP's behavior at Talk:Censorship_in_Islamic_societies#Removing_more_irrelevant_material shows some battleground mentality and an attempt to win a dispute by admin/procedural means. Although he did not revert much by himself, he jumped into yet another team effort (at edit warring), which is too often seen on Wikipedia on contentious issues. Almost all the arguments on the talk page are procedural (who reverted first and who has dibs to the "B" in BRD and so forth), so it's little more than edit warring by words. Additionally, GregJackP's inability to understand slightly technical sources coupled with his willingness to express an opinion anyway can be seen in action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worley noise. But we need to retain editors, I hear. Tijfo098 ( talk) 03:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In reply: protection, yes. Asking an admin to protect your favorite version, no. Tijfo098 ( talk) 04:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And you are #2 in recent reverts on that article [5] [6] [7] (top place goes to Roscelese, no doubt). By the way, it's fun to see another one of those articles. It keeps the place lively and fun. And how much progress has been made. Tijfo098 ( talk) 04:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A related incident was reported to ANI [8]. Tijfo098 ( talk) 06:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And it looks like GregJackP has been misrepresenting sources again: [9]. Tijfo098 ( talk) 15:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements, but my initial reaction is favorable: this appeal contains both a recounting of the editor's successes in other areas and a plausible explanation of why they topic ban is hindering full participation. Jclemens ( talk) 18:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements. Likely to lift ban considering conduct since Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting more statements, but inclined to grant the appeal; AE can always put the topic ban back if needed under the discretionary sanctions. Courcelles 02:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• I too am minded to grant this appeal. If there are no objections from the community in the next 48 hours or so, I will propose a motion to vacate remedy 17), "GregJackP topic-banned", of the Climate Change decision. AGK [•] 20:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Climate change (GregJackP)

1) The restriction imposed on GregJackP ( talk · contribs) in the Climate change case and the supplementary restriction relating to New Religious movements imposed by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee on 17 March 2012 as a condition of unblocking are hereby lifted.

• Enacted - Guerillero | My Talk 21:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

For this motion there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Support

1. This doesn't seem controversial and in any case discretionary sanctions remain in force,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
2. AGK [•] 09:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
4. I can support this based upon GregJackP's statement that he is making this request so he doesn't worry about having to police the outer limits of the areas from which he was topic-banned, as opposed to wading back into the maelstrom(s), coupled with his good work in other areas since the Climate change decision. GregJackP, like all editors, must also continue to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens ( talk) 04:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
6. Kirill  ^[talk] 04:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
7. PhilKnight ( talk) 10:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
8. Risker ( talk) 21:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
9. Incredibly weakly. I don't really see lifting both of these at once, and would prefer we had just lifted one, and come back to the other in a few months. Courcelles 20:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• On noting the comments above and reviewing the case I was inclined toward supporting this motion - though when I went to check recent contributions I noted just today the start of an edit war - [10]. I would rather wait to hear more statements. We have perhaps gone to motion rather quickly here based on few supporting statements (none?). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is a good idea. And, while the community haven't come forward to support this request, they haven't come forward to oppose either, so that is also good. I'd like to just wait another 24 hours to see if any other comments are made, and in the meantime I'll have a quick glance at contributions history. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Holding off for a while before voting. Also somewhat more inclined to lift the CC ban than the NRM one at the moment. Courcelles 16:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Initiated by Ankh. Morpork at 21:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

• AnkhMorpork ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Timotheus Canens ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by AnkhMorpork

After a spate of edit-warring at Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) in which material was repeatedly added and removed on WP:OR grounds, Timotheus Canens unilaterally imposed these restrictions to address this.

• The restrictions - They include: No editor may add or readd any alleged instance of a conspiracy theory, unless such addition or readdition has been proposed on this talk page at least 48 hours in advance, and either no objection was made to adding or readding the content or an uninvolved administrator determines that there is a consensus to add or readd the content."

• Problem 1 - The restrictions have been applied to all editors adding any content. This will have the effect of precluding good-faith article expansion. Instead, the restrictions could have been targeted at adding material previously contested which would achieve the same result but would not have such wide-felt repercussions on acceptable contributions, now onerously circumscribed.
• Problem 2 - The restrictions have been unequally applied and this will affect the balance of the article. Although stymieing any expansion of the article, no restraints have been placed on editors that wish to remove long-standing material from the article. Any editor can now remove all the material from the article, citing spurious policy grounds (so no vandalism defense), and nobody will be able to reinsert it.
• Problem 3 - Imposing article restrictions is the purview of Arbcom. T Canens stated that he was imposing these "under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions".

These discretionary sanctions explicitly state: "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area." T Canens has extended the ambit of user sanctions to include article restrictions. That the sanctions apply to user misconduct is readily apparent when reading Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions.

He referred to this request for clarification as a precedent. In that instance, no 1rr applied to the Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles and Arbcom clarified that 1rr could be applied. In this case, all I-P related articles were already under 1rr restrictions, and the slanted, stringent restrictions imposed are wholly unprecedented.

Moreover, these restrictions were unilaterally imposed by T Canens without any previous admin discussion or consensus regarding them.

• Conclusion - I request that these restrictions are tightened to remedy imbalances and allow for article expansion, and that T Canen's authority to make such restrictions is examined. Ankh. Morpork 21:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@AGK - There is one more thing to consider. T Canens imposed these restrictions in response to this AN3 report detailing a 1rr violation. Can you comment whether you consider these restrictions an equitable remedy.

More importantly, would you consider either extending these restrictions to cover existing content or minimizing them to allow the addition of previously undisputed content?

• Case study for problem 2 - Since the restrictions were imposed on the Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) article, Dlv999 has proceeded to remove an entire section that had been in the article for a long time. He did do without any discussion the talk page. The section removed had previously been discussed by various editors in this and this thread. Dlv999 had previously contributed to the very section that he has now unilaterally removed. This exemplifies how the current restrictions are being gamed and the need for discussion has been obviated for anyone seeking to remove content. Ankh. Morpork 21:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Can I suggest that since the Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) article is clearly in violation of at least the spirit of WP:ARBPIA rulings in that it is nothing more than a collection of anecdotes cobbled together to 'make Arabs look stupid', WP:IAR is invoked, the article is summarily deleted and salted, and the warring parties get back to arguing about something a little less infantile than this petty little propaganda piece... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fluffernutter

I'm not involved in I/P or AE in general, but I saw this go by earlier today and attempted to clarify this matter a bit to Ankh on T. Canens's talk. My explanation doesn't seem to have done the job. To my linked explanation, I'll just add that the description provided for Arbcom's standard discretionary sanctions appears to be deliberately broad, encompassing things like revert restrictions, topic bans, mandated external review (which is very similar to what T.C. has imposed wrt Ankh's "Problem 1"), as well as "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". We're not intended to be bound strictly by exactly what words are used in the DS decription, because the DS description provides the, er, discretionary area of "any other measures." This means that opposing these sanctions on the basis of "restrictions can only be on people, not articles" is missing the point. Admin judgment is deferred to, within reasonable limits, in placing these measures, and there's nothing in what T. Canens has done here that looks particularly unacceptable (though I will admit to having had to read the restrictions twice to parse exactly who was being restricted from what). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 22:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Honestly, I think the restriction is a bit too restrictive under the circumstances. The problem was with material being added that did not make any claim of the accusations being conspiracy theories. I think the requirement for discussion of any addition is restricting all editors and all content work for something that is a little more focused. At issue is specifically whether the additions involved conspiracy theories as no reliable sources provided used that description in any sense. Should reliable sources clearly cover a relevant incident as a conspiracy theory then I fail to see why discussion would be necessary on whether to include it in the article. If the material undeniably fits then requiring discussion is little more than bureaucratic regulation for its own sake.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 23:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• @ Activism1234 The term "myth" does not inherently imply a conspiracy theory. In the instance you mention, it was basically a fisherman's tale about reckless and negligent Israeli conduct on the seas.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 00:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion as I feel Tim's concerns point to this being about the overall content of the article and incredibly restrictive sanctions are not the best way to resolve that problem.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 21:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Activism1234

IP 24.177.121.137 commented below that he/she disagrees, which is fine. But the IP is also encouraging people to ignore all rules and simply ignore the restrictions T. Canens has imposed, because they feel it fits ignore all rules. I don't think this is acceptable behavior, and find this problematic. -- Activism 1234 01:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• @ Andy the Grump The article was previously nominated for deletion, and passed with flying colors, along with many admins agreeing it should be kept. It is false to assume that the point is to "make Arabs look stupid." I don't think either of us are mind-readers, and it wouldn't be right to characterize some of the neutral admins and editors on that AfD as voting for an article to "make Arabs look stupid." The article already survived an AfD - consensus has been established that it should be kept, and the article shouldn't simply be deleted. -- Activism 1234 21:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• @ The Devil's Advocate One of the sources described it as a myth. Is the exact wording "conspiracy theory" needed in the reference? -- Activism 1234 23:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that reply. I'm not sure whether I agree, but I'd say that's more of a content-dispute and not relevant here. I appreciate the response. -- Activism 1234 01:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TC

Fluffernutter's comment on my talk page captured my thoughts quite well - in fact, probably better than I could say. I just want to add a few points:

• The ease to remove existing material is by design; given the longstanding partisan battles on this article I have very little confidence in the quality of any content in that page. If someone misuses this ability, an editor-based restriction may well be appropriate.
• I actually noticed this issue via an ANI thread. In particular, JN466's comment is what really got my attention, and I set out to create a set of restrictions that, in my view, would address the problem. After I finished imposing and logging the restrictions, I looked at the AN3 thread and determined that, given the lack of an edit notice and the nature of the edits at issue, as well as the restrictions I just imposed, it was not advisable to take further action on the AN3 thread.
• As to article-based restrictions, they have been employed in a number of WP:ARBAA2 and WP:ARBEE cases. T. Canens ( talk) 17:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user

I think the restriction imposed is too broad and unfair. I also don't think that the discretionary sanctions provision of WP:ARBPIA authorize it. The language at WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions authorizes imposition of sanctions by uninvolved admins against users after an initial warning. There was no warning, the restrictions don't apply to "users" but to everyone, and the administrator imposing sanctions wasn't sufficiently uninvolved. 24.177.121.137 ( talk) 01:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

A quick look at the article's editing history is all that's needed to see what's going on here. Basically, two editors have been trying to use that article as a coatrack to hang out as many looney, animal-related incidents as possible. I think T. Canens could just as easily have topic-banned the two editors primarily responsible instead of giving them playground rules. At least, he is giving the topic some adult supervision, which was obviously necessary. Cla68 ( talk) 01:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098

This article has been a hotbed of propagandist efforts and poor sourcing. See the 2011 DYK for example: dyk that "... that Saudi Arabian officials detained a vulture (example pictured) and accused it of spying for Israel?" Editing restrictions on this article appear warranted. Also, one has to wonder if the Noleander RFAR may be of some relevance to certain editors involved in that article and similar ones. It's interesting that Apes and pigs in Islam also passed AfD with "flying colors" but was boldly moved out of article space by one admin and then deleted. (As an side, I'm thinking of a DYKing "... Ronald Reagan was an important champion of Idiot America". Easily referenced from the press: [11].) Tijfo098 ( talk) 07:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dlv999

Just a quick response to Ankhmorpork's accusations against me. I am not trying to game the system. The article came under my radar because of the current AFD Discussion. Many arguments for deletion are that a lot of the content is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACKING, some of the arguments to keep the article accept that some of the material does not meet Wikipedia standards, but maintain that this is not grounds for deleting the entire article.

My aim was simply to remove the material that does not meet Wikipedia standards, I think it will be easier then for the community to decide whether the remaining material that is well sourced warrants an article or not. The basic rationale for deleting the content is here [12] if anyone is interested. I will be happy to explain and discuss further should anyone query the edit on the article's talk page.

Of course Ankhmorpork is responsible for adding a significant amount of the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH material to the article, so it is understandable that he may not appreciate the kind of restrictions on adding such material that has been suggested. Dlv999 ( talk) 23:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from The Blade of the Northern Lights

I'm one of the other regular AE admins, and the only reason there's an appeal of Timotheus Canens' actions here is because he beat me to it. The last thing we need in this area is people using these articles to soapbox about whatever conspiracy theory strikes their fancy, and this is as good a way to handle it as any. I don't really care whether or not this solution is in The Book^TM, it's already proven its worth in putting a stop to what was going on there before it, and I see no reason to remove it if it's working. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• All editors are reminded to edit only in their own sections. -- Guerillero | My Talk 21:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Well, the labeled "problem 3" is not a problem at all. Admins have always and authority to issue special rules in discretionary sanctions to make articles work, a long-standing precedent has been imposing 1RR under their authority. The restrictions imposed here look reasonable to me, and we aren't going to direct an article deletion. Courcelles 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• The restrictions T. Canens applied are complex but sound. In response to the complainant's three arguments: 1) suggested edits simply now require additional scrutiny; they are not discouraged nor prevented. 2) If the new restrictions are inadequate, I suggest you ask an enforcing administrator to extend them. I agree that existing content is not restricted, but I can't say whether that was an obvious omission or by design. 3) Plainly, these restrictions are authorised by standard discretionary sanctions (they regulate user conduct, not article content), and T. Canens acted sensibly and within the limits of the remedy. If there is nothing else to consider, I would dismiss this complaint. AGK [•] 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting more statements. I'm sure there are plenty of other observers who can comment on how things have been applied in this case, vs. other discretionary sanction areas. Jclemens ( talk) 01:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have no issues with T. Canens' actions here, which are well within the range of discretionary sanctions. The objective is to stop the disruption, and this seems to have a reasonable chance of doing so. Risker ( talk) 01:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Per all of the above; I see no particular issue with the remedies as issued. If there is concern that these restrictions could be wikilawyered into introducing bias into the article, that should be raised at AE, with evidence to support the concerns if possible. I see no need for the Committee to intervene at this time. Hersfold non-admin^{( t/ a/ c)} 18:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • @AnkhMorpork: Even so, AE is that way. Administrators are empowered to handle this on their own, so there's little need for us to do anything in this regard. In the meantime, since you appear to believe that section should not have been deleted, I'd suggest starting that 48-hour discussion to get it re-added. There does not appear to be a consensus amongst the committee that the sanctions as they stand merit revocation, and since an administrator applied them in the first place there's no reason to believe they couldn't be extended by an administrator in the manner you're requesting. Hersfold non-admin^{( t/ a/ c)} 20:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• I essentially agree with my colleagues; although the restrictions are slightly complex, they are well within the acceptable bounds of discretionary sanctions. Obviously these restrictions are innovative, and it may well be prudent to evaluate their effectiveness in due course, however I suggest this request Request for Clarification can be closed without action. PhilKnight ( talk) 11:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• While I essentially agree with my colleagues that T. Canens was acting in good faith and is to applauded for looking for solutions beyond locking down an article or blocking users, I also share AnkhMorpork's concern that general editing restrictions are being applied to all users without there being a discussion first. The reason I share this concern is that I have noted a tendency for editors to apply commented out/hidden restrictions in articles (such as <!--DON'T CHANGE THIS WITHOUT DISCUSSION -->), or to impose restrictions in editnotices, and now we are moving toward making such informal restrictions acceptable at ArbCom level which would encourage their use at a lower level. While I am not against imposing such general editing restrictions where needed, I do feel that it would be worth looking into formalising the process so that an open discussion is included so that there is both clear consensus on using such restrictions, and a time limit on their use. As the Foundation is concerned to encourage more readers to get involved in editing Wikipedia, it would be appropriate to first consider a solution which is less restrictive of the general reader. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Initiated by Andries Andries. (I had filed this request earlier in July but it was removed with my consent because I could not find time to provide diffs. Reformatted on 24 August with two sentences in italics added.) Andries ( talk) 19:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Initiated by Andries ( talk) at 17:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Conflict_of_interest
2. Principle 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#NPOV_and_sources
3. Finding 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Sathya_Sai_Baba_is_weakly_sourced
4. Finding 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Editing_by_Andries
5. Finding 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_runs_an_attack_web_site
6. Remedy 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned
7. Remedy 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Open_remedy

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• not necessary

Information about amendment request

• Remedy 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned
• Regain write rights for Sathya Sai Baba movement

Statement user:Andries

I request to re-edit Sathya Sai Baba movement. I lost the rights to edit the article in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. I lost to a great extent interest in the subject and have little time. But I still have a lot of good sources on the subject on the shelf. I bought them because they were recommended in arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba nr 1. I think it is a waste for Wikipedia and of other people's time and money when they are on my book shelf and only very few people have access to the contents. The article was never controversial, unlike Sathya Sai Baba. But after I stopped editing the Sathya Sai Central Trust, an organization that is part of the movement, has received much criticism. I was the only substantial contributor. I promise that I will revert max. once per week. I will not get involved in lengthy discussions or extensive, repeated dispute resolution, because I do not have time. One of the reasons why I request to re-edit is that nobody seriously tried to improve the article after I was forced to stop editing. I also compiled excerpts from sources and nobody every used them. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources.

To summarize, the reason why I was topic banned for the set of Sathya Sai Baba related article were.

1. perceived inappropriate linking in the article Robert Priddy. The dispute was about linking to one of the home pages of the subject.

2. alleged conflict of interest. I personally think that there was never a conflict of interest in the strict sense of the word, but I admit that I was, as a critical former member of the movement, emotionally involved. This has waned in the course of years. The fraction of my edits related to Sathya Sai Baba has become much smaller as my edit history shows. I did not receive an e-mail or phone call for years via the exbaba website. I was never involved in updating or maintaining this website.

3. very frequent use of the conflict resolution procedures without coming any closer to agreements.

The arbcom considered my edits to the article Sathya Sai Baba as responsible. The arbcom did not scrutinize my edits at Sathya Sai Baba movement, because, as stated, the article was never controversial.

The article Sathya Sai Baba movement suffers from neglect. Look for example, at the following sentence without good reputable source that was inserted there on 11 May 2011] and remains there until now.

"When he died at the age of 84, it was revealed that he meant 96 lunar years, in keeping with the Hindu calendar."

The article Sathya Sai Baba will always remain problematic due to the lack of reputable sources for a good biography. This lack of reputable sources is explicitly described in reputable sources e.g. by anthropologist Lawrence Babb.

List of all diffs to talk page of Sathya Sai Baba, maximum one year back from 17 Aug. 2012

• 19 Aug. 2012
• 19 Aug. 2012
• 19 Aug. 2012
• 8 Oct. 2011
• 6 Oct. 2011
• 25 Sep. 2011
• 25 Sep. 2011
• 25 Sep. 2011
• 24 Sep. 2011
• 24 Sep. 2011
• 21 Sep 2011
• 21 Sep. 2011
• 21 Sep. 2011
• 20 Sep. 2011
• 29 Aug. 2011
• 28 Aug. 2011
• 28 Aug. 2011

List of all diffs to talk page of Sathya Sai Baba movement, maximum one year back from 17 Aug.2012

• 28 May 2011
• 28 May 2011

List of books or article copies that I have on the shelf and intend to use as sources. See here for a discussion of some of these sources Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

• Babb, Lawrence A. "Sathya Sai Baba's Saintly Play", in Hawley, John Stratton, ed. Saints and Virtues Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
• Babb, Lawrence, A., Redemptive Encounters, (University of California Press, 1986)
• Bowen, David The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its origins and development, religious beliefs and practices. Leeds: University Press.
• Kent, Alexandra Divinity and Diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia, Copenhagen Nias Press, first published in 2005, ISBN 87-91114-40-3
• Knott, Kim Dr. South Asian Religions in Britain in the Handbook of Living Religions edited by John R. Hinnels (1997), second edition, ISBN 0-14-051480-5
• Kelly, John D. Dr. Bhakti and Postcolonial Politics: Hindu Missions to Fiji in Nation and Migration in The Politics of Space in the South Asian Diaspora
• Poggendorf-Kakar, Katharina German language Der Gottmensch aus Puttaparthi. Eine Analyse der Sathya-Sai-Baba-Bewegung und ihrer westlichen Anhänger. de:Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 1999. ISBN 3-8300-0060-X

Thanks for your time. Andries ( talk) 14:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Addition. I have to agree with what Tijfo098 wrote here, I find it very unfortunate that users, like user:Radiantenergy are banned with the stated reasons that they are meatpuppets and sockpuppets. The evidence is at best doubtful and in my opinion very unconvincing and very insufficient. The user has good reason to see this decision as unfair. Banning users for disruption instead of sockpuppetry would be better. Andries ( talk) 21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

Support. I had thought of proposing this myself a while back. Enough time has passed. Andries has access to good sources, and I trust him not to abuse the editing privilege. J N 466 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Tjfo098's concerns. Discretionary sanctions in the topic area seem like a good idea to me. -- J N 466 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098

Given the inability of Wikipedia to actually contain the edits of self-declared returning editors such as [13], it's probably better to allow everyone to edit it. (Also the number of registered SPAs with obvious prior knowledge of wiki syntax editing there is not surprising; those are easy to find too.) The article should put under discretionary sanctions instead, so that any new flaring of edit warring can be easily dealt with, instead of vainly hoping that every nick banned in the ancient ArbCom case is going to do what Andries did, i.e. asking permission before returning to editing. Tijfo098 ( talk) 17:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Exchanges such as this one and this one indicate to me that discretionary sanctions are quite necessary in this topic area. Also, the remedy against Andries (mainly for COI and linking to Priddy's site as I read it) is rather hollow when two other more prominent critics (and former devotees) of SSB, one of whom was Priddy himself, continued to edit the SSB articles directly; see those two thread links. Tijfo098 ( talk) 08:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let me make a couple of things clearer:

• Having come back to editing after a fairly long hiatus, I can't shake the impression that a lot of Wikipedia has become abandonware now. Perhaps new editors focus on writing their own new articles, because existing ones remain outdated for years. The SSB-related ones surely look that way, ignoring at least two volumes of academic research published in the last four years: ISBN 978-9004165434 and ISBN 978-0231149334, the latter one having received many positive reviews.
• As for the proliferation of discretionary sanction areas, ask yourselves: what is easier for admins (besides not allowing anyone to edit the article)? Having to prove based on behavior alone that some new account is a reincarnation of a banned editor (as in the case of Wikisunn / Radiantenergy) or acting on disruptive editing by itself? (I can give you some easy peasy examples from Radiantenergy's editing if you insist, e.g. the wildly incorrect claims he kept repeating about a BBC documentary.)

Best of luck, Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork. Alternatively, you could semi-protect the main articles and thus force the combatants to use accounts again. Tijfo098 ( talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

@Silktork: The list of topics that under discretionary sanctions is getting too large, in my opinion. Instead, I would recommend that if you are not comfortable letting the appellant back unconditionally, perhaps you could lift the topic ban and add a editor probation that expires in 1 year if not invoked? NW ( Talk) 19:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

With regards to motion one, may I suggest the following rewrite or some variant thereof: "Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. Andries ( talk · contribs) may be banned from the topic or subportions of it by any uninvolved administrator. This sanction is to expire after three months unless invoked before then, in which case it shall become indefinite." NW ( Talk) 06:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

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

Clerk notes

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

• Enacting the third motion. NW ( Talk) 20:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Decline appeal. In my view, the case for overturning the sanctions is not compelling enough to justify the risk. AGK [•] 11:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Will somebody move to vacate R1.1 of Sathya Sai Baba 2? AGK [•] 13:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Would be willing to consider this. No blocks since 2006, user talk page looks fine, reduced but continued editing history, no apparent issues with his few comments to the relevant talk pages (a restriction that was lifted back in 2008). This case is 5 years old; I think we can probably find a way to give it a try. Risker ( talk) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I could go for lifting this topic ban, and giving consideration to either invoking remedy 5 to impose standard discretionary sanctions on the topic (Which would almost surely be the case already if this were a 2009, and not a 2006, case.) or granting AE authority to reimpose the topic ban on this single editor if problems arise. Courcelles 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think it's worth considering lifting the user topic ban, and putting discretionary sanctions on the topic itself. This would allow work to be done by someone interested in the topic and apparently with access to sources, while protecting the article against potential instability which may arise from his involvement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Based on the discussion, some moderation or removal of the existing topic ban seems to have a tentative consensus here--what is lacking is any agreement on the specific nature of such a modification. Lifting the topic ban is simplest, discretionary sanctions are easy procedurally but NW's point on their expansion is well taken. I will likely support whichever modification a colleague is willing to put forward as a motion. Jclemens ( talk) 21:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'd be willing to support a modification here. Perhaps we should consider suspending the topic-ban for three months, with the option of then lifting it completely if there are no serious problems during that time. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• I see by looking at the original item that he was allowed talkpage access in 2008, which appears to have passed smoothly. Very well then. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Motions: Sathya Sai Baba 2 (Andries)

For these motions there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Motion vacating Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2#Andries banned

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. In its place Andries ( talk · contribs) is placed on probation for three months with a view to lifting restrictions entirely past that date.

Support

1. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Jclemens ( talk) 22:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Although I note that we do not have a standard "probation" provision to describe how this might actually be enforced in practice. Kirill  ^[talk] 01:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
4. Support, but I will propose an edited version to make the intent clearer, below. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Note that Wikipedia:Probation actually is well-defined, but we haven't used it in a remedy for some time and obviously, very few people remember that. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I support the idea, but I can't support anything this nebulous, as there is no solid indication what this "probation" is. Courcelles 02:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Like Courcelles, it's not clear to me precisely what 'probation' means. AGK [•] 21:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• @Kirill, I guess just flagged at AE and dealt with there. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• @Courcelles, I figure any violation will be flagged and dealt with at AE? I am open for a reword/retweak before other arbs vote. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Courcelles - we should define what we mean by 'probation' in this context. Also, not especially keen on 3 months from now, which places the decision to remove the probation in the run up to the holiday season. PhilKnight ( talk) 11:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Motion to vacate topic ban and impose discretionary sanctions

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. Standard discretionary sanctions are hereby authorised for the Sathya Sai Baba movement topic area, broadly construed.

Support

1. More I think about it, this is the only way I can support moving forward here. We have no usable definition for probation, and the topic area is not exactly orderly. (I note that if this were a more recent case, this would almost surely be the status quo already) Courcelles 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
2. I can live with this too, but are we simply going to end up putting discretionary sanctions on everything, eventually? Jclemens ( talk) 04:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Fair enough. Kirill  ^[talk] 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
4. all editors have to abide by rules. Any editor finding problems with another editors' editing can raise this at one of several venues. I can live with this option. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
6. Second choice, support the alternative limited to Andries, and given that we really don't know anything about the current state of the editing environment in this area beyond what we can casually glean from skimming the pages, since the case is several years old at this point. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. How far are we going to stretch the standard discretionary sanctions system to take this gamble on a topic-banned editor? Either leave the appellant banned, or unban him entirely, but don't pass a motion that insures our decision by extending a system of last resort to an article that has been off our radar for years. AGK [•] 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Per AGK. PhilKnight ( talk) 10:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Also per AGK. Risker ( talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Motion to suspend topic-ban

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

Support

1. I think this is what the first motion above was driving at, but eliminates any confusion over procedure and terminology. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Would prefer 4 months as this places the decision in the run up to the holiday season. PhilKnight ( talk) 10:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

   I have no objection to this. It would mean that the final decision would be made by next year's arbitrators rather than this year's, to the extent there is turnover, but I don't think that's a big deal one way or the other. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

3. I'm quite keen that we don't so regularly authorise discretionary sanctions that it is as though we are throwing bureaucratic confetti, so this is my only choice. (I'm fine with returning to this issue in three, rather than four, months. Our busyness over the holiday season seems greater in imagination than in reality.) AGK [•] 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
4. Support as written; while I'm okay with 4 months if there's a copy edit, I think we can handle it in 3 months if Andries shows he is doing fine. Risker ( talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
5. Kirill  ^[talk] 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
6. Willing to support this alternative, too. Jclemens ( talk) 04:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
7. Yes exactly. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
8. OK. Willing to give this a go. Only one article has recently experienced edit warring - Sathya Sai Baba movement - and that was by IP accounts, so I have semi-protected it for three months. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
9. Far from optimal, so only if nothing else passes. Courcelles 18:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• I'm still considering the requests for discretionary sanctions to be applied to the topic area, while weighing that against the reluctance to expand discretionary sanctions. The article has recent history of instability, and we are adding to the potential of there being increased instability with the removal of restrictions on Andries. There is the same weight of responsibility on admins if we leave matters as they are, or if we grant any of the motions: an infringement on a series of articles can be reported and sanctions applied whatever we decide. Motion Two, however, is the only one that changes the situation from attention on one editor to attention paid where the disruption is most likely to happen: as what we are seeing is that the user has no recent problems outside the topic area, and that the topic area itself is unstable, it appears to me that it may be the topic area that requires attention rather than the user. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo098. Yes, I have been considering semi-protection, and that may well be enough. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Initiated by Homunculus ( duihua) at 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Homunculus

I was subject to a terminal topic ban on content related to Falun Gong, broadly construed, per ARBFLG2. I'd like to ask a couple questions concerning the scope of the topic ban, and ask for advice on how to handle a couple situations that have arisen over the last couple months.

1. I'm working on taking a the article Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei through a GA review after its lead author went MIA. The reviewer proposed a structural reorganization and consolidation of some sections on the article. One of these sections has a couple sentences that could very broadly be construed as related to Falun Gong. Specifically, it notes coverage that the event received in the Epoch Times newspaper, which was established by practitioners of Falun Gong. I have no intention of touching that content, but just to err on the side of caution, I wanted to ask whether it would be alright for me to pare down some of the other content contained in that section (it's a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM right now). Alternately, could I ask another editor to take a look at it?
2. I recently revisited an article I wrote related to Falun Gong, and noticed I had made a small but non-trivial error concerning the title of a Chinese government official. What should I do in cases like this? Can I contact another editor, alert them to the error, and let them decide how and whether to correct it?
3. On a similar note, I created an article on the Shifang protest a couple months ago. After I started work on the article, I found news coverage that noted an interesting (if very tenuous) link between this event and Falun Gong. It's probably notable enough to be mentioned in one sentence. Could I send another editor a link to the relevant news coverage, and leave it to them to decide whether the information is worth including on the page?

My understanding of the policy on WP:PROXYING is that the above two examples would be permissible, as long as the editors making changes are using independent judgement. Is that right? Assuming it is, I'm also wondering if there are any recommendations on who I should contact in cases like this to mitigate against any appearance of impropriety. Would it be preferable to ask editors who have minimal involvement in the FLG topic area, or neutral admins, as opposed to editors I've worked with on FLG before? And should those correspondences take place on-wiki or by email? Thanks. Homunculus ( duihua) 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold, that all makes good sense. Thanks. Homunculus ( duihua) 07:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Homunculus originally posted the first question to my talk page; I replied here but to reiterate, in general (note that underlined bits have since been added):
  • An edit re-ordering text without removing or deleting anything would probably fall under "uncontroversial corrections to [...] style" and thus acceptable to edit without following the restrictions outlined by WP:MER unless:
    • An editor has previously expressed opposition to the change or a similar one, or
    • The re-ordering may impact how the presented information is perceived by the reader (for example, mentioning a negative review before a positive one when it was previously the other way around)
  • Whenever any editor subject to restrictions is unsure if an edit falls within said restrictions, the editor should err on the side of caution and assume it does unless explicitly told otherwise by community consensus or the restricting authority (being the admin who levied the sanction or, as in this case, the Committee)

Although in hindsight I'd forgotten about the topic ban, so yes, you shouldn't be editing anything in the subject area yourself until the topic ban expires, regardless of triviality. I've added the underlined bit to clarify. To answer your specific questions, though...

1. I would consider anything noting coverage in the Epoch Times to fall under your topic ban. As long as you avoid that particular section, however, I would think it's fine for you to do whatever; it doesn't appear as though the vast majority of the article would fall under that umbrella. In this particular case, since the reviewer has left specific comments to be followed, asking another editor to handle that particular change would be fine and perhaps preferable just to avoid even the slightest hint of impropriety. Here, you haven't requested the changes directly, so I don't believe that WP:PROXYING would really be an issue.
2. Technically your topic ban forbids all discussion across all namespaces, but if there is indeed a simple error I see little value in allowing incorrect information to remain simply on a matter of bureaucracy. I would say yes, that would be fine in this limited circumstance, provided that your request is worded in such a way that it allows the editor to make their own judgment as to whether the edit is appropriate (per WP:PROXYING, they must take responsibility for the change), and that if they opt to discuss it with others you would not be able to participate in the discussion, and not continue to ask people if they determine the change should not be made.
3. This one I can't see any justification for; there's no incorrect information presently in the article, and presumably another editor could find the same news coverage and mention it themselves without your intervention.

To answer your closing questions, the best place to leave these requests would probably be on a relevant (non-Falun Gong-related) Wikiproject's talk page. This way anyone can pick it up, and it provides a starting point for discussion if needed. Wherever it is, definitely on-wiki; keep things in the open, where they can be easily seen by all editors, so if there are any issues, they can be easily addressed. Hersfold non-admin^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the cautious approach outlined by Hersfold. That said, Mandated External Review is a new process, and some fine tuning may be appropriate. Looking at the WP:MER page, there is already an exception for 'minor, uncontroversial corrections to spelling, grammar, and/or style' and it's possible this clause could be expanded slightly to allow fixing one own's edits, for example. PhilKnight ( talk) 20:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Hersfold's and PhilKnight's positions. Risker ( talk) 06:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Recuse. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• I also agree with the comments above. And since Homunculus has indicated he also agrees, this request can probably be closed soon. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Just noting that I'm in broad agreement with the above, but have nothing specific to add. Jclemens ( talk) 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Initiated by Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) at 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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

• Lothar von Richthofen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ryulong ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [14]
• Masanori Asami ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [15]
• Notification on original AN/I thread: [16]

Statement by Lothar von Richthofen

I am an uninvolved third party in this dispute; the issue came to my attention in this AN/I thread (further background may be found there). At the locus of the dispute is the status of Ryukyu Islands of Japan with regard to the Senkaku dispute. Under the WP:DISCSANC remedies for the Senkaku case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for the articles pertaining to the Senkaku Islands dispute, broadly construed, per remedy 7. Articles relating to other disputed islands in the region may also be subject to discretionary sanctions, but only for a fixed time period after a convoluted vetting process per remedy 8. The question is: can the Ryukyus reasonably be considered to fall under automatic DISCSANC per remedy 7, or are they sufficiently removed to be considered to fall under remedy 8?

From the Japanese standpoint, the Senkakus are part of the Ryukyus, but the Ryukyus are not part of the Senkakus (kind of like squares and rectangles). This would suggest that remedy 7 holds true here. From the standard Chinese standpoint, the two are distinct geographical entities. This would suggest remedy 8 might be the case. However, there is a camp within the Chinese faction which extends the Diaoyu claim to other parts of Okinawa Prefecture, including the Ryukyus [17]. This would suggest remedy 7.

So would Chinese-Japanese disruption on Ryukyu Islands-related pages—but not necessarily Senkaku pages strictu senso—qualify as still falling within the scope of the Senkaku Islands dispute? I'm inclined to believe that they do, but there is sufficient greyness here to give me pause.

More generally, I believe that the scope and mechanism of remedy 8 merit clarification. What does "if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names" mean? Does "editing community" refer only to the "local" editors, or to the "community" at large? If the latter, is an RfC or similar process necessary to determine lack of consensus? Is this applicable only to disputes where two significant factions create gridlock on naming, or may tendentious lone-wolf disruptors also create cause for sanctions? What about cases not strictly related to naming, but to other aspects of national pride/control? How formal is this "one month period" following the warning supposed to be?

I believe that the remedies of this case are not worded well enough to know where and how they are applicable, and this merits clarification. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Given that the Ryukyus are peripheral at least to the general tension between Japan and the two governments claiming sovereignty over China and how MA's POV falls within the scope of this conflict, I felt that this case needed some clarification. Broadly contstrued, I think the DISCSANC may be applicable, I just am not sure how "broadly construed" it is. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 05:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

@MA: I'm not an arbitrator, bud. And I can't change the title to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ryukyu Arc because there is no such case. I'm of the mind, however, that the Ryukyu Arc falls within the scope of the Senkaku case. I'm just asking the arbitrators to clarify their decision. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 17:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: But given the nature of MA's behaviour here, I'm not sure your Troubles analogy works that well. This would be more akin to radical Nationalist pushing the POV that the Isle of Man and the Hebrides are part of Ireland, not just unrelated disruption on Isles pages (even that's not a great analogy). As noted above, there is a fringe camp on the Chinese side of the Senkaku dispute which extends the "Diaoyu" claim to the entire Ryukyu chain ( source). Based on this, I think that the Ryukyus could fall at the periphery of the Senkaku dispute and so fall under WP:SENKAKU #7. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 17:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of the case is that it deals with the Senkaku Islands dispute, not the islands themselves per se. While all Ryukyus are not Senkakus, the Ryukyus at large do fall towards the periphery of the dispute [18] [19]. Again, I don't think that article-level sanctions are in order for this now-indeffed troublemaker. I was more curious whether MA's disruption in the area would fall under remedy 7; my questions regarding remedy 8 are more of a general "how on earth is this supposed to be actually implemented?" nature. Not that it's terribly important at this juncture, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 08:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

@NYB: Which remedy are you referring to? Clearly it falls within the whole "disputed Asian islands" category (remedy 8), but does it fall within the Senkaku dispute (remedy 7)? Given the close relatedness of the islands and the fact that the Chinese claim to the Senkakus is sometimes extended to all of the Ryukyus (as in this particular incident), I personally think it does. I'd also like some clarification as to the convoluted mechanism of remedy 8, as explained in my initial statement. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 23:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I also don't think that D/S are necessary for the article (I'm also uninvolved in the underlying content dispute there). The main reason why I brought this here was that I was about to take MA to AE, where things generally get resolved more decisively than on the main dramaboard, but I couldn't figure out A) if/how the remedies were applicable and B) how remedy 8 was supposed to work. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 01:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

@Shrigley: Flying personal accusations of "nationalism" and speculations on user ethnicity are irrelevant distractions here from the central issue of POV editing. The Ryukyus are indeed included in some Chinese claims. Perhaps not the "official" ones, but see e.g. here: "A well-connected government research institute, the Council for National Security Policy Studies, led by a retired general of the government's paramilitary force, said Japan should also give up the Ryukyu island chain." So it is not entirely correct to contend that the Ryukyus fall outside the scope of the WP:SENKAKU remedies. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 07:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As MA has now been blocked, the discussion here is moot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 08:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Closure is warranted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 15:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong

Masanori Asami ( talk · contribs) was simply disrupting the article Ryukyu Islands from some as of yet unclear (but as far as I can tell Taiwanese nationalist) point of view and I requested intervention, particularly because of content forking and now repeated claims that I am not qualified to edit Wikipedia or that I have some sort of alterior motive. Asami is not here to edit constructively, and I saw ANI as the venue to have him removed posthaste. I honestly don't think that the Senkaku ARB case really carries here but seeing as Asami claims that the Senkakus are the Diaoyus and belong to Taiwan there might be some merit here.

Oh, and all of this was nice, too.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 05:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A third posting of his claims that I am not qualified to edit Wikipedia, because I have some alterior motive.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 05:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. And Lothar, I guess you are right that it is worth looking into, particularly because Asami believes that the Senkaku Islands are not part of the Ryukyu Islands and should be called the Diaoyu Islands. However, I'm not sure of the reasoning behind his disruption to remove any and all mentions of the northern island chains from the page as well as constantly insisting that the Japanese definition of the islands be used rather than the ones both the US, UK, PRC, and ROC use that are pretty much independent but all identical.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Masanori Asami's comments below further illustrate that he is not competent enough to edit the English Wikipedia. He persists in attacking myself and Lothar, believes that the "Senkaku" moniker should be changed just for this dispute, and continues to bring up the content dispute despite this not being the proper venue.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 15:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

@Shrigley: I realize that my original nationalistic labeling was incorrect. I've mentioned this in the ANI thread that this germinated from (also I'm far from being Japanese).— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 05:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Masanori Asami

This statement has been deleted [20]. AGK [•] 21:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by EauOo

The Ryukyu arc is a subduction zone. It is well-decribed and defined by tectonic and seismic studies of the Phillipines plate subducting eastward under the Eurasian plate and by associated geophysical studies of gravity anomalies, the adjacent trenches, and the subduction zone to the east. I can't imagine what there is to arbitrate, the Boso Triple Junction? There are some interesting complications and questions, but it seems unlikely that a redefinition will occur in cyberspace outside of some new scientific knowledge. Eau(W)oo ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Drat I had popcorn, beer and three structural geologists lined up to enjoy this. Eau(W)oo ( talk) 15:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Shrigley

Historically, the only disruption around the Ryukyu Islands group of articles has been from Japanese editors who want to change the definition of "Ryukyu" away from the common English definition to a more restrictive Japanese government definition, in order to redefine more people and territory as mainland Japanese, rather than as Ryukyuan (which Japanese equate to "Okinawan").

This dispute is a continuation of the same old, same old, and has nothing to do with Chinese nationalist claims. In fact, the ANI discussion has progressed to a point where the user (Masanori Asami) who Ryulong accused of being a Chinese nationalist, has accused Ryulong himself of being a Chinese nationalist. I'm glad that all of us thoughtful people on Wikipedia can agree that Chinese nationalism is the problem, rather than non-neutral editing in general.

Ryulong insists on defining Ryukyu as "everything between Kyushu and Taiwan", which is basically correct from the English-language point of view. However, Ryulong improperly tried to tie this content dispute to the recent arbitration case by asking MA's personal opinion about whether Diaoyu belongs (politically) to Ryukyu or to Taiwan. This talk page chatter is irrelevant; neither editor is editing the article around which the arbitration case was based.

So clearly remedy 7 doesn't apply. Remedy 8 would not even apply if the wording were to be taken strictly, because the issue of how to define the Ryukyus is not a "territorial dispute", which refers to sovereignty disputes between states. No government on either side of the Taiwan strait bases their sovereignty claim to Diaoyu on a redefinition of the Ryukyu Arc. So this is not "Chinese-Japanese disruption", and I see no prospect of it around "Ryukyu" in the future; this is routine Japanese-Japanese disruption, which is fairly easily suppressed - as it was before, with users like Nanshu - without recourse to AE. Shrigley ( talk) 05:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Tijfo098

Shrigley is right. The issue that Masanori Asami was arguing about is the the official Japanese name of the Ryukyu islands, which is the lesser known name of Nansei[-shoto] [21] [22]; see [23] for some background—basically the US top negotiations extended the name Ryukyu to apply to islands not known as such, despite the advice from their own experts. This has nothing to do with territorial disputes with other countries as far as I can tell (although it may well involve internal Japanese politics and their dislike of a Chinese-sounding name as explained in the last source I linked; see Ryukyu independence movement for another possible reason). Masanori Asami indicated at one point that he was associated with the Japan Geoscience Union [24] (see pdfs linked there). His competence in wikistuff is clearly lacking; another potential expert that got a boot to his face for welcome. Anyway, this dispute has been going on for a long time ( 6 years or more), and I've not seen anyone try to invoke the Senkaku ArbCom case before as applying to it. And I'm not surprise that to a newcomer to Wikipedia it seemed utterly strange to invoke that issue. He was blocked for loudly protesting the case name basically. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• As there is confusion regarding the matter, a clarification seems appropriate. It appears that the Senkaku Islands are part of the Sakishima Islands which in turn are part of the Ryukyu Islands, so while related there is a degree of separation akin to Ireland and the British Isles. Someone editing an article on the Isle of Man should not be subject to remedies related to The Troubles unless the material they were editing actually related to The Troubles. The sanctions in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands applied a remedy specifically to the article currently named Senkaku Islands and then a separate remedy to all other islands in the area. It would appear to me that Ryukyu Islands are not another name for the topic which is currently named Senkaku Islands, and so remedy 8 would apply. I'm not sure how to reword the remedy to make it clearer that remedy 7 only applies to "The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands". The wording seems fairly precise, and is worded such as the name of the article was being changed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

@Lothar von Richthofen. My intention was to make the link that the Senkaku Islands are part of the Ryukyu Islands in the same way that Ireland is part of the {{British Isles]] (which includes the Isle of Man). There is a specific remedy for the the Senkaku Islands (remedy 7) and a broader remedy for nearby islands (remedy 8). The wording is fairly clear on that, though worded as such because the name of the article was changing. Remedy 7 applies to the Senkaku Islands under whatever name they are called. It would take a significant leap to make the Senkaku Islands include the Ryukyu Islands, on a scale equivalent to Ireland including the British Isles. In this instance remedy 8 applies; the questions remaining are - does the remedy wording need amending to make it clearer (I'm not sure it can be clearer), and do we need to have a motion so that remedy 7 now explicitly covers the Ryukyu Islands. As NYB says below, that might be a bit strong just for one disruptive user. Is there evidence of other disruption on Ryukyu Islands articles that might warrant a move from remedy 8 to remedy 7? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

@Lothar von Richthofen. If a user feels that there is a naming dispute occurring on an article dealing with an island in East Asia, they would need to inform an admin who would then make a decision as to what to do. The user could contact an admin directly or via an admin noticeboard, including, as this comes under ArbCom, the AE noticeboard.

If the person who prompted this query has been blocked, and you feel your questions have been addressed, is this matter now closed and the clerks can archive this? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• A clerk can close this as resolved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the intent of the remedies in the Senkaku Islands case is broad enough to allow an administrator to impose discretionary sanctions concerning Ryukyu Islands and Ryukyu Arc, even though there is no current sovereignty dispute (that I'm aware of) concerning the Ryukyus. If anyone strongly disagrees, then an an arbitrator motion here to clarify the situation might be warranted. However, before anyone imposes discretionary sanctions, I would ask whether there are serious, chronic problems with these articles (as was the case with the Senkaku Islands and before that with the currently-in-the-news Liancourt Rocks). If the problem basically arises from a single disruptive editor, then invoking the whole rigmarole of discretionary sanctions may be unnecessary and more traditional ANI type remedies might suffice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • In response to the follow-up question, it clearly falls within 8 and it very borderline falls within 7. If it's ambiguous and we really need discretionary sanctions on this article, I'll make a motion. But I'm still not convinced this problem doesn't involve more than one disruptive editor (and/or a content dispute, I add so I'm not prejudging), in which case it should resolvable more straightforwardly. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with SilkTork: Given that the editor who provoked the ANI thread that led to this thread is now blocked indefinitely (and if he is ever unblocked it would likely be with restrictions no this topic-area), and that there don't seem to be any other disputes regarding the Ryukyus at this time, this appears to be moot at this time. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Initiated by Gimmetoo ( talk) at 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Summarily re-opened by the Arbitration Committee per this. AGK [•] 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

• Gimmetoo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ohconfucius ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [25]

Statement by Gimmetoo

As a result of motions in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking, Ohconfucius editing of date-related material is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee, though it is unclear what provisions could be used for enforcement.

This clarification concerns two issues.

First, I and others have attempted to get User:Ohconfucius to follow WP:DATERET and stop removing YYYY-MM-DD format dates. This has been ongoing for more than a year, involving ANI [26] [27] [28] and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: [29], where the accessdates were 100% consistent in YYYY-MM-DD format, and the references used a style directly listed by WP:MOSDATE#In references as acceptable. A pattern of similar edits amounts to an attempted Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

Second, User:Ohconfucius also uses a script that sometimes removes a number of accessdates. Ohconfucius was notified of this on 8 June 2012, and made similar edits after (See User talk:Ohconfucius#More editing problems. I noticed that this same behaviour is still ongoing. [30] [31] [32]

Could the commitee clarify the arbcom enforcement of these behaviours?

Statement by Ohconfucius

• Let me fix the problems on the articles and at the source, and I will reply later. -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Given the trouble that ISO access dates have been causing, I am prepared to start a new regime of editing in relation to dates – one that is more conservative so as to avoid complaints. I would undertake not to touch them from now on, either manually or by script, until a new consensus is reached on them. As part of the problem was due to uncorrected script bugs, I also pledge to exercise greater diligence to scrutinise test and modify the MOSNUM scripts, and to rectify any reported errors as soon as possible.

  I believe it's not worth arguing this one out, and hope that the community resolves the matters in its own time. --  Ohconfucius  ^{ping / poke} 01:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Because of family matters, I decided to resign on 12 July; shocked and demoralised by the FLG2 case, I had decided that the Ohconfucius account was too tainted if ever I made a comeback. So yes, it was a conscious decision to use another account I had created. I made 67 edits using the account since my reurn, quite a few of which were substantive content edits; I did indeed also make some date-related edits, and I regret the impression created that I was trying to avoid detection. I would reiterate the object for me was to avoid using the Ohconfucius account if at all possible.

  The Smalleditor account was and always has been a declared alternative account. And upon returning, I started using it exclusively. But I decided that I would not want the complexities of the scripts' migration affecting many files and many users. For personal reasons, my level of activity is and shall remain very much less than the volume of contribution I made in the past. My current activity, as Ohconfucius, is to improve the functionality of the scripts under my control; the mainspace edits, whilst affecting dates, actually span the entire MOS. Edits have been limited in number – I save but a small fraction of those I actually test on, as a record of the scripts' progress. I took the unblock to mean that my the undertaking in my email to Arbcom has been acceptable. As noted in my email(s) to arbcom, I now no longer change accessdates – the dates script has been modified to that effect. I have not made any substantive edits in mainspace since. I am open to suggestions from Arbcom as to how I might re-establish trust in my good behaviour going forwards. --  Ohconfucius  ^{ping / poke} 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Clarification: "I now no longer change accessdates" was intended to be prefaced by the context of 'access dates in ISO format'. --  Ohconfucius  ^{ping / poke} 04:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

The principle behind DATERET (we have an acronym for that now?) was primarily focussed on dates with written months. The use of "ISO" dates has been discussed extensively, and it appears a number of otherwise sane and well-informed Wikipedians had never run across the format before, and were confused, mystified and dismayed by it. For myself this reduced my support for such dates for access date fields from firm to dubious. Nonetheless proper usability statistics should be gathered before coming to a firm conclusion on this, and in general it should be noted that OhConfucious' efforts in this sphere are reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented. Rich  Farmbrough, 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Ohconfucius seems to have retired. I suppose this request should be suspended or dropped. I strongly disagree with Rich's statement that OhConfucious's efforts are "reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented", but WP:DEADHORSE seems to apply here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by JimWae

I bring to attention again that the script OhC has constructed (& that is used by numerous others) has a function to change any and ALL dates to MDY or DMY, but has no function to change any dates at all (specifically neither accessdates nor archivedates) to YMD. As more people use this tool, inevitably there can only be further violations of WP:DATERET for accessdates and archivedates as people use the tool without first fully examining WP guidelines that allow YMD for those dates. I submit that either 1> changing accessdates & archivedates to YMD be added to the script, OR 2> changes to any accessdates and archivedates be entirely removed from the script, OR 3> the script be retired. -- JimWae ( talk) 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by BlueMoonset

Given that Ohconfucius stated on 20 September that accessdate edits had stopped, I was surprised to see that his tool had been used to make edit changes that included accessdate modifications to Vitamin D (Glee) early on 27 September [33]. This turns out to be one of hundreds of edits over the past few days, the summary of each being " style fixes (text)". Selecting the subsequent Walter Cronkite and Wadsworth High School edits, both included accessdate edits. Looking back, accessdate edits appear to have started on 24 September with Undershaw: [34].

My experience is that there have been testing problems with Ohconfucius in the past few months: as noted in User talk:Ohconfucius/archive23#More editing problems, despite being informed that valid accessdate fields were being removed, edits continued without fixing, and more dates disappeared. At least one of the edits noted there and in Gimmetoo's initial statement above, [35], has never been fixed.

The first responsibility of someone running a tool should be to fix any known damage immediately, the second priority should be to look for more bad edits and fix them, and a distant third should be to debug the tool and resume testing. I don't see this in the actions of Ohconfucius. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Any update on this? NW ( Talk) 21:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• I've asked the clerks to archive this request. AGK [•] 12:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The way I'm reading the most recent motion, "this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee" is simply a reminder that the Committee retains the authority to further amend his restrictions (or current lack thereof) should we feel it is necessary to do so; or in extreme cases open a full case or review. As (by the same motion) Ohconfucius is not currently subject to any Arbitration remedies/restrictions with respect to date delinking, any concerns with regards to that behavior should likely be handled through normal community procedures, and not via Arbitration Enforcement. However, if you feel that matters are becoming problematic enough that the community is unable to adequately enforce matters, an amendment request could be posted to attempt to (further) amend his restrictions. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Hersfold. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ohconfucious has not edited Wikipedia since July 3, and there is a notice on his talkpage that he is on a break. As the concern here is the functionality of his date script, and I see from his talkpage that there have been concerns with his script for some time, perhaps people who use the script could be advised that there is a script by Lightmouse - User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js - which appears to do the same thing, but doesn't appear to have reported problems. When he returns Ohconfucious could decide the value of repairing his script compared with advising users to use the alternative script. If Ohconfucious elects to repair the script, and there are further concerns he would be advised at that point to shut the script down and direct people to the alternative script; deciding to persist with a problematic script when there is a functioning alternative may be seen as unnecessarily disruptive. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• I also tentatively agree with Hersfold, but it would be useful to have a statement from Ohconfucius explaining what he is doing and why. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ohconfucious, please provide a substantive response to this request at this time. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure there's anything that needs arbitrator intervention here. If he's failing to follow WP:DATERET, as was pretty clearly shown in the example above, then an uninvolved administrator should block him for disruptive editing. Clear enough? Jclemens ( talk) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow me to repeat Newyorkbrad's observation: Despite continuing to edit Wikipedia, Ohconfucius has not responded substantively to the breaches of guidelines and return to previously sanctioned behavior alleged in this complaint. I will place a talk page entry noting the expectation that his next edit to Wikipedia will address this complaint here. Jclemens ( talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not finding the answer particularly plausible, OhConfucius. You don't explain why you undertook to continue editing date-related material, and frankly, your return to editing under an alternate account, to conduct date-related edits when I'd clearly told you twice that you needed to answer this charge of misconduct before doing so, is more concerning than any script error. Throughout this entire return, you claimed to be retired, only amending that in the last day or two. You spun a compelling tale in email when this issue was first raised, explaining why you would be less active, and you then reiterated your desire to leave the community entirely after the Falun Gong 2 finding against you. Yet, a few weeks later you're back, editing dates surreptitiously. Why should the community believe you when you say you won't cause any more problems, given your rather poor track record of congruence between your recent actions and recent statements? Jclemens ( talk) 05:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. AGK [•] 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• While I agree that no sanctions are active, a return to the same behaviour that led to sanctions in the past is a serious and concerning pattern. I would also like to hear from Ohconfucius on this; however, I would not rule out the reinstatement of sanctions if there has been recidivism. Risker ( talk) 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'd also like to hear a response to the issues here from Ohconfusius. Could one of the clerks please remind him?   Roger Davies ^talk 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments made after the request was re-opened

• Summarily re-opened per this statement by the committee. AGK [•] 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Risker's comments, firstly no sanctions are currently active, and secondly, a return to the same conduct which led to the imposition of sanctions could result in the sanctions being reinstated. PhilKnight ( talk) 20:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• While we agreed this matter must be re-visited, I must confess I've lost track of what, if anything, we need to decide here. If nobody can point to a pending problem with OC's edits (or any current arbitration decision) that requires this committee's attention, I think this request should be archived. Jclemens, if you are reading, might you point me to a summary of relevant, pending issues? AGK [•] 22:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no summary of "issues", to the extent that I have no particular background in the date delinking issue in general. What I did do was block Ohconfucius' accounts when he surreptitiously edited date-related matters in defiance of instructions to contact the committee before doing so if he un-retired. That has been the extent of my involvement; to the extent that his deception has made me wary of his promises, I remain skeptical of his reassurances, especially given his history of past sanction, but that is not related to the issue that prompted this to be opened in the first place. Jclemens ( talk) 06:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• The point of this appears to have got lost. I am for this being archived. If there is an issue for us to clarify, a fresh request could be made. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• If none of my colleagues weigh in soon, this thread should be archived by a clerk. The situation has clearly dissolved, leaving us nothing to decide for the time being. As SilkTork says, if our attention is needed in future we can be found here. AGK [•] 19:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree this can be archived now. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Initiated by Tijfo098 ( talk) at 19:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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

• Tijfo098 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Dream Focus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [36]
• Marokwitz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [37]
• AndyTheGrump ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [38]
• AnkhMorpork ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [39]
• Dlv999 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [40]
• No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [41]
• Jethro B ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), already participating
• Bali ultimate ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [42]
• Brewcrewer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), already participating
• KillerChihuahua ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [43]
• Timotheus Canens ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [44]
• Elen of the Roads ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), presumably watching this; she just blocked Bali ultimate.

Statement by Tijfo098

I simply submit to you that the creative restrictions imposed are not working as expected, but are simply gamed to arbitrarily remove content from that page, cf. WP:AE#Dlv999. I request that the imbalance be addressed by a similar restriction on removing content without consensus. This has been done before, for example at Mass killings under Communist regimes. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@KC & TC. If they are working as intended and you saw no gaming from the deletionists, then why is Dream Focus not blocked for this and his open defiance [45] of ArbCom sanctions? TC, you have made promises to met "longish blocks" to editors under your creative restrictions [46], which clearly indicate that you approve of Dvl999's actions. Please explain why you think his deletion was appropriate. Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: I see that TC has tweaked the wording on the restrictions in the meantime. Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I was also considering reporting to AE the insertion of some original research in the article [47] [48] [49] and direct accusation against two editors of being on a mission "to spread hate" [50], but given that the two admins always ruling over this appear to share that viewpoint, I won't bother with AE anymore. And if T. Canens wants that article deleted on such grounds, he should do it himself. It's not unheard of [51]. Oh, and Elen of the Roads should be immediately ejected from ArbCom. She's definitely up to no good; see [52] [53]. Tijfo098 ( talk) 16:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jethro B: My last sentence was a pun on Wikipedia's own conspiracy theory involving User:!!. There's no chance anyone on ArbCom would take that as anything but a joke. I hope. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope this meets AGK's approval. Oh, and enjoy the new article: Persecution by Muslims. Muslims == KKK?? [54] [55]; Muslims == Nazis? [56] Tijfo098 ( talk) 14:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by AnkhMorpork

This echoes my previous concerns regarding these novel restrictions and their susceptibilty to abuse - which took all of two days to manifest itself. I support the need to reevaluate the efficacy of these restricitons and to consider extending them to equally cover existing content in this article. Currently, they simultaneously preclude good-faith additions and improvements, yet allow unilateral content removal by individual editors that totally eschew any attempt at collaborative discussion seeing as the need for it has now been obviated. While the restrictions were well-intentioned, they are proving wholly inadequate. Ankh. Morpork 19:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Brewcrewer

I concur with the proposal -- to add to the restriction to anyone removing sourced material or at least to exclude from the restrictions any sourced content that was already in the article before the restrictions took place (grandfather in). The current rules leave the article open to gaming. Anyone can remove material with some vague edit summary and then demand another consensus for its inclusion, which will have to be approved by an uninvolved administrator that will have to be tracked down somehow. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement AndyTheGrump

I agree that the restrictions imposed by are not working - but not for the reasons given above. They have simply been ignored, whether wilfully, or by accident, and material has been added without consensus to an article which has widely been seen (at for example the recent AfD discussions [57]) as burdened with WP:OR, poor sourcing, and significant POV-driven editing. Frankly, at this point I can see no hope for any consensus-based solutions short of topic-banning the more overt POV-pushers, and fully protecting the article. Loosening restrictions to encourage more edit-warring makes no sense whatsoever. This is a contentious subject, for which much source material seems intended to cast people in a negative light, and as such it seems entirely reasonable that the burden of proof should be on those wishing to add material to our article - as is normal Wikipedia policy. The restrictions are in fact little more than WP:BRD extended and formalised in such a way as to prevent further questionable editing of a contentious article. What is necessary is that they be enforced, and that the article be made to conform to WP:NPOV standards - and if it cannot (which seems entirely possible, given the subject matter), regardless of (rather equivocal) AfD decisions, Wikipedia may have to do without it entirely. That is probably outside the remit of this discussion, however... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by KillerChihuahua

I am completely uninvolved. The only way I have even touched this is to comment in the Uninvolved admins section on an AE request regarding this. That said, in the very short time that case has been open it has become clear that loosening restrictions is not in the best interest of this article. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 20:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jethro B

One of the main issues with the restrictions is that it allows editors to get away with violating 1RR as long as they're removing "original research." By this, editors are gaming it, so that if RS wrote about how aliens invaded Palestinian farms and destroyed the crops as requested by Israel, it'd be removed as "Source doesn't say it's conspiracy, so how is the connection made that it's a conspiracy?" Or if the reference writes that a "myth circulated" about it, it'd get removed as "source doesn't write it's a conspiracy, only a myth" (this actually happened). In other cases, you have editors who will remove sections and violate 1RR in doing so, knowing that despite the 1RR violation, it will allow for the content to be simply removed without discusion, and any attempts to reinsert it will require a discussion, which that editor will just object and thus not allow for consensus.

There have been cases where sections have been removed that even uninvolved editors disagree with removing. There wasn't any discussion to remove it. But once removed, no matter what the reason, it's very tough to get it back in - because a lengthy discussion with consensus is needed, and that consensus will just be broken by one editor who opposes putting it in. So what we're getting here are bogus excuses to remove content that even uninvolved editors disagree with, all in "compliance" with the restrictions.

I think they should definitely be changed. I really don't see how this article can be that much more special and contentious than some other I-P articles here. The normal rules in ARBPIA should suffice here, and they've been working up until two weeks ago, when the restrictions were made in response to a report filed because an editor violated 1RR. -- Jethro B 20:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv99 - with respect to Tijfo, as far as I'm aware he wasn't involved in the previous Arbcom clarification/amendment thread here, and opened up this one recently as a result of the AE thread. In addition, although not commenting on admin bias at ArbCom, the admin who blocked Bali was not an admin this AE thread or the ArbCom clarification thread here, so I don't think that'd count as rejecting proof of bias, if bias does exist here. -- Jethro B 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv99 - thanks, didn't notice that, although in both cases it's been opened by 2 different editors in response to two different stimuli, both of which I feel are legitimate. However, you should be aware that this thread isn't meant to sanction you, which is the AE thread, but rather as an offshoot of the AE thread to discuss the restrictions as a whole. -- Jethro B 16:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@AKG - Really? Let's forget the glaring issues with Bali's version... He tried to insert it into the article once. He got reverted. Rather than discuss it and try to get it inserted, what does he do? He waits a few days, maybe the editors will go away, and then inserts it again. He doesn't explain in his edit summary "Reinserting content that was reverted a few days ago," giving people like me the impression this is completely new. If your edits are reverted, how can you just come in a few days later and expect to put it back in without a discussion? Then we have some glaring issues with it. Firstly, the attempt to minimize the conspiracy as very brief and quick, along with WP:OR (exactly what the restrictions are meant to eliminate), weasel wording, and a POV editorial bias. In short, if Bali felt his edit was the best version, he should've participated in the WP:BRD process. Not "bold, revert, revert a few days later" process. -- Jethro B 00:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo - I don't see the connection between some article called Persecution of Muslims and this article. I've never edited that article or its AfD, and others involved in this dispute haven't either. There aren't restrictions on that article like there are here. In short, it's not relevant here, unless it's a cunning attempt to get some editors here to vote on its AfD, but I know you to be a better editor than that so I'm really perplexed at the reason for mentioning it. -- Jethro B 21:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TC

As far as I can see, the restrictions appear to be working as intended. Neither our resident puppy nor I have seen any actionable gaming. Some people may not like how they are designed to operate; that does not mean that they are broken. As to the "Mass killings restriction", it was the consensus among AE admins, when it was last discussed in this lengthy AE thread, that it is not a particularly useful restriction in many cases.

In imposing the restrictions, I have already considered and rejected the possibility of "grandfathering in" existing material. Given the lengthy partisan wrangling over this article, I had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material. I opted for the present approach of permitting easy removal of existing material, which will still preserve uncontroversial instances, rather than a significantly more aggressive approach seen in this BLPSE action.

I also don't see why this couldn't have been handled at the currently open AE thread. This is striking me more and more like running to the other parent when AE admins don't see any gaming, especially since the last arbcom thread on these very restrictions was closed less than a week ago. I respectfully request that the committee close this one speedily. AE simply can't properly operate if the restrictions applied are brought to the committee, and the admin who imposed them forced to defend them, every few days. T. Canens ( talk) 04:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A note that I've seen what AnkhMorpork posted below, and will not be dignifying it with a response unless the committee requests. T. Canens ( talk) 17:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to T Canens

The primary purpose of discretionary editing restrictions on an article is to to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment in contentious areas prone to misconduct. When this has been created, Wikipedia assumes that editorial discussions and the ensuing consensus will adequately govern the nature of an article; this is a fundamental policy - that all editors can contribute equally to the make-up of an article, that there exists a clear separation of powers between the executive (admins) and the legislature (editors). Admins should facilitate discussion and not attempt to foist their views on others.

That being said, you have twice explained that your restrictions were predicated on your personal views regarding the subject. The imposition of the restrictions should not determined by whether you "had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material." Yet, you unilaterally imposed unique restriction designed to promote your particular point of view in a content dispute without deigning to seek admin consensus for this measure. In the words of Silktork: "I also share AnkhMorpork's concern that general editing restrictions are being applied to all users without there being a discussion first." Why are you of the view that your view is of pre-eminent importance that you, by yourself, can seek to forcefully alter the shape of this article through use of administrative privilege? I remind you of discretionary sanction guidance: you are expected to balance the provision of "responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground". I submit that the you have restricted good-faith improvement entirely and compounded this by allowing for pernicious abuse of the restrictions, to the extent that exasperated editors that have never previously participated in these discussions or topics are imploring for an alteration or arbitration enforcement.

As to your comment that this was recently discussed, I would assume that you are cognisant with what PhilKnight said: "Obviously these restrictions are innovative, and it may well be prudent to evaluate their effectiveness in due course". Well the answer to that is obviously they're pathetically useless and when you have editors returning from 6 month sabbaticals, two days after your restrictions, to remove vast sections with nary a talk page comment, I am surprised that you see this in any other way. Or then again, based on your above predilections, perhaps not. Ankh. Morpork 13:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, do you feel that the previous discussion at Arbcom in which I questioned the efficacy of your novel restrictions and their susceptibility to gaming, coupled with your personal declaration that " I had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material", might affect your objectivity in assessing at AE whether content removal games your restrictions that you previously vouched for? Ankh. Morpork 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dlv999

Seems like WP:FORUMSHOPING to me. The issue was already raised at the previous request for clarification last week. [58] The editor was told that any evidence of gaming should be presented to AE. [59] An AE case was filed [60] - the two uninvolved admins who have commented so far have not seen evidence of gaming or actionable behavior in the diffs provided. And now we are back here with the same issue being raised again. Are we just going to keep going round in circles with this until the editors get their own way? Dlv999 ( talk) 07:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo098 Regarding the most recent diffs you have presented: The editor in question has already been given a week block so I don't really think this is a credible case of Admin bias as you are suggesting. Dlv999 ( talk) 15:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jethro B, Tijfo098 was in fact a party to the previous Arbcom clarification/amendment discussion last week [61]. With the greatest respect, if you do not know what the facts are I'm not sure why you feel the need to make such a comment. Dlv999 ( talk) 16:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NMMNG

@AGK Are you serious? Bali's edit was 80% editorial and consisted mainly of his interpretation of the sources. Moreover, he did not seek consensus for it on the talk page per the additional sanctions being discussed here, but chose to edit war his preferred version into the article. He could have just removed any problematic text which would then have needed to gain consensus to be put back in the article.

Nobody needs to "bait" Bali for him to lash out, he does that regularly and frequently. In fact, if you look at some of the edit summaries he used, he "lashed out" against living people who have wikipedia articles as well. I wonder what they did to bait him. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 01:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Cla68

This would be a good opportunity for ArbCom/WP's administration to show that WP:NPOV in an enforceable policy. Look at the article's edit history, look at the article's talk page, note which editors are tring to use it to disparage Arab/Palestinian culture and/or politics, make a decision, then act on that decision. Now's a good time. Cla68 ( talk) 12:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by 108.60.151.4 - Agree with NMMNG

I do not care if Bali Ultimate's edits improved the article or worsen it, but AGK's comments demonstrate his extreme immaturity. An arbitrator must conduct arbitrations in an impartial manner. An arbitrator should avoid any conduct that might give the appearance of partiality towards any party. AGK writes: "Somebody needs to bring to AE the editors who reverted Bali ultimate's edits about the Shark attacks section." and then "(As an arbitrator, I'm unable to be involved in the enforcement process, or I would hand out AE blocks myself.)"? What kind of arbitrator AGK is?

Bali Ultimate, you say you are a named professional except you behave as a named idiot. Named professionals come to Wikipedia to write articles and not to be ""meanie" on talk pages." Now you are blocked, and when the block expires you'd come back with your tail between your legs or else. It is the only thing you've achieved so far. — 108.60.151.4 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:18, 6 October 2012‎ (UTC).

I.P., you have stated only that you object to my comment, but not why. You must therefore forgive me if I pay little heed to your statement, but I do ask for your clarification. You state unilaterally that my comments demonstrated "extreme immaturity" and suggested they had "the appearance of partiality". On your former statement, I am sure you are aware (as a regular contributor) that baseless, ad hominem remarks like that are unacceptable on Wikipedia. I am particularly at a loss to see how those remarks demonstrated immaturity. On your latter statement, I think you misunderstand the role of an arbitrator: we do not exist to "judge" cases, nor to "protect and serve" and uphold the rigid public image that goes with such missions, but to solve editorial disputes. If to do so I must succinctly state I think an editor needs to be referred to AE for sanctioning, then I will do precisely that. The role of arbitrator is made up largely of an ability and willingness to speak about the proverbial elephant in the room; you subscribe to a woefully flawed vision if you conflate that ability with "partiality". AGK [•] 19:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012 regarding AGK comment

I concurr with Bali Ultimate answer on this talk page : "AGK, you have just illustrated the dysfunction of the website's approach, and why it fails so badly in these areas. Someone like me, a named [person], will be easily blocked for being a "meanie" on talk pages. People who skew content in service of a cause (frequently one, as in this case, that seeks to advance its agenda by dehumanizing a whole culture) are left to merrily go about their business on the articles (the stuff the general public sees) so long as they are "civil." Please also note that this is going on in a great many more articles, most of them of far more importance and general interest, than the one I tried to make a point of fixing. Dan Murphy ( talk) 02:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)"

I fully agree with this analysis and it is proved by what is written just here above : "I do not care if Bali Ultimate's edits improved the article or worsen it (...)."

The 1st pillar of wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedy. 2nd and 3rd pillars remind the quality standards should be high. The 4th pillar that requires politeness and civility is very important but it is used in this area of articles to canevass their development. One way or the other, external observers (Arbcom members, uninvolved sysops) should analyse the context of the conflicts based on this problematic. Pluto2012 ( talk) 07:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Wnt

I request that all of T. Canens' September 2012 edicts be suspended from this page. In contradiction to the Talk Page notice, I see nothing here or here calling for prior restraint on edits. Eventually I tracked down the history to [62] in which the policy is unilaterally decreed, and editors either vehemently disagree with it or go off on tangents. This directly contradicts Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions which says "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;" more to the point, it is not a sanction against "any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." To the contrary, it includes a sanction against even a completely naive and good faith editor who, coming to the article page, and not seeing any special edit notice, adds a story that seems relevant in his consideration. The talk page notice explicitly says that "Editors who violate the above restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

I should also point out that the scope of this article is very arbitrary. Of all the animal conspiracy theories in the world, we've singled out those about Israel for a special article based on one or two articles connecting them. More plausible allegations have been made, for example, about the U.S. airdropping thrips on Cuba. A reorganization, e.g. by species, is very much appropriate, which to me suggests that either these special restrictions should be eliminated, or eventually they will spread to infect articles even less related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, let alone to the original editors in the arbitration case.

The mere fact that some editors have had an interpersonal squabble based on their opinions in the Israel-Palestinian conflict does not mean that new editors a random article about allegations about Israelis in Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be subjected to unreasonable sanctions!

I should add that I am curious how many other articles have been subjected to such unusual sanctions as this one. I should point out that there is a risk that, if a lot of Israel-related topics are treated to sanctions that affect even new good-faith editors, Wikipedia itself may become the object of a Zionist conspiracy theory. Wnt ( talk) 16:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Elen of the Roads

I'm only involved in that I blocked Bali Ultimate for a week for hate-speech, having previously warned him for using similar language in a different area. Several parties including another arbitrator have suggested that 'the other side' are successfully gaming the restrictions, cannot be brought to AE etc. Is this the case? If so, this ought to be addressed. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I've asked the clerks to archive this request. AGK [•] 12:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have already opined on Bali ultimate's talk page about the recent edit war in the "Shark attacks" section of this article:

  Somebody needs to bring to AE the editors who reverted Bali ultimate's edits about the Shark attacks section. While I do not condone BU's comments on the article talk page, his edits neutralised some glaring problems with the POV in the Shark attacks section. The POV of that section was totally skewed, whereas Bali's re-write restored some balance and reason—and made it clear how laughable the "sharks" theory really is. This is a classic case of POV-pushers baiting somebody like BU into verbally lashing out.

  To me, the problem is that edits to this article are being policed only for decorum, and that obvious POV-pushing is being disregarded. I therefore advise the enforcement team to examine complaints about this article in more detail, and to look at the substance of incidents and edits. Rarely is only one side to blame, and sometimes editors lose their head for reasons which are actually valid. AGK [•] 22:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with PhilKnight and SilkTork, though I echo my call that more rigorous enforcement of POV-pushing as well as merely un-collegial conduct needs to be made in this topic area. AGK [•] 19:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is a request regarding Timotheus Canens posting these restrictions on the Israel-related animal conspiracy theories article, which was recently discussed and archived on 26 Sept as being acceptable. I am not comfortable with general editing restrictions being applied to articles without there being some form of discussion and consensus sought first; but as these restrictions have been discussed, and there is a consensus for them, then a reasonable amount of time must be given to see how they work, and for any problems to be worked through via discussion on the article talkpage or on AE. It's perhaps too soon to be bringing this back to ArbCom. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Given that TC has recently modified these sanctions, I think we should allow some time before determining their effectiveness. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• I see no reason to modify the tweaked sanctions, but they have got to be enforced. This article is a train-wreck, and if people are not following them, block them. If that doesn't solve it, full protect it and force folks to use the talk page. Courcelles 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Let's give the tweaked sanctions a chance for a bit. However, I do echo AGK's concerns about the blatant civil POV-pushing on this article, and its appearance to be a coatrack. Administrators at AE may want to take that into consideration as well. Risker ( talk) 19:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Initiated by Saboche Talk page at 05:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Saboche (initiator)
• Soranto
• Maraka
• DHN ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Talk page of Saboche

Information about amendment request

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

Vietnam War Summary

Vietnam Mural picture

Vietnam Sides picture

Vietnam War (Vietnamese version)

Vietnam War Talk Page (Vietnamese version)

Talk page of Saboche

Administrators' noticeboard

Sock Puppetry

Blocking Policy

Dispute Resolution

• Details of desired modification

I desire arbitrator removes blocking Saboche and Soranto account.

Statement by Saboche

I’m an active member of Wikipedia. I contribute many contents in many topics. You can see my history. I used Maraka account from August 2, 2012 to August 26,2012. I used public computer so security level is very low. Someone hacked my account so I had to create Soranto account at August 27, 2012. I used Soranto account from August 27, 2012 to October 7, 2012. Soranto account was hacked again like Maraka account so I created Saboche account at October 10, 2012. I never use 2 accounts at the same time. I only use another account when I lost control my current account.

At September 1, 2012 IP 118.71.4.68 suggests replacing Vietnam Mural picture by another picture. At September 18, 2012, I used Soranto account to replace Vietnam Mural picture by Vietnam Sides picture created by me on Vietnam War Summary because I thought Vietnam Mural picture only presents America side but there are 4 sides in Vietnam war. Some other members didn’t agree with me so we made a discussion on this topic at Vietnam War Talk Page(Vietnamese version). The discussion started at September 13, 2012 then closed at October 2, 2012. Other members didn’t present the suitable reason to replace Vietnam Sides picture by the old Vietnam Mural picture so we still used Vietnam Sides picture.

At October 10, 2012, I created Saboche account to replace Soranto account because Soranto account was hacked. At that time the discussion on picture at Vietnam War Summary had finished at October 2, 2012.

At October 13, 2012 I started a discussion on picture of Vietnam War Summary at Vietnam War talk page because some other members continue want to replace Vietnam Sides picture by Vietnam Mural picture. At this time I used Saboche account because I lost control Soranto account. In the discussion I just said “There are 2 sides, each side has 2 sub sides . The Soranto’s picture is very suitable. It presents 2 sides, each side has 2 sub sides. Why we have to turn back to the old picture ?” I said that because I think Vietnam Sides picture is suitable and the owner of the picture is Soranto account so I have to use “Soranto’s picture” to call the picture.

At October 14, 2012 the member named Vô tư lự requested DHN administrator checked Saboche account because he doubted Saboche is a sock puppetry of Soranto. DHN discovered that Soranto and Saboche are logged in from one computer. DHN concluded that Saboche is the sock puppetry of Soranto. He immediately blocked Soranto and Saboche infinitively. The reason for his action is Saboche was created to make an illusion of support.

At October 15, 2012, I requested DHN to remove blocking Soranto and Saboche and started a discussion about this problem at Saboche's talk page. I presented all evidences to prove that I was not guilty as I’m presenting to you but DHN denied removing blocking Soranto and Saboche. He talked that I used Saboche account to make an illusion of support. He didn’t care the fact that I had lost control Soranto before I created Saboche account. He talked that’s my bussiness so he didn’t want to consider. I claimed that I wiil make an amendment request to Arbitration Committee if we can’t agree with each other. He talked that I have right to do that.

I also cited some policies to prove that Saboche is a alternative account to replace the old compromised account Soranto in case I lost password. DHN should not check user and block alternative account infinitively in case member only uses one account at any time. DHN didn’t care all policies I had cited. He didn’t want to discuss any more. He kept silent while I was asking him many times continue discussing to resolve my case.

Now I have only one choice that is to make an Amendment request to Arbitration Committee. I hope arbitrator will remove blocking Saboche and Soranto account.

Saboche ( talk) 05:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by DHN

Statement by Rschen7754

I see interwiki links; is the issue on the English Wikipedia, or the Vietnamese Wikipedia? -- Rs chen 7754 05:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have engaged with the user, and it is the Vietnamese Wikipedia. [63] -- Rs chen 7754 06:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Lothar von Richthofen

I don't think that the Arbs who have commented thus far have done any of their homework for this case. A quick look at the diffs provided would indicate that the dispute takes place entirely on vi-wiki, so WP:DRN, WP:RFC, or anything else of the sort would be useless. Nothing to be done here—neither at ArbCom nor en-wiki. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 06:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)

• (Non-administrator comment)This is entirely a Vietnamese Wikipedia matter, the editor filing this issue here has been contacted by an admin on their en.WP talk page and told so at 6:16 21 October but continued to post about their vi.WP issue (maybe being blocked for socking?...not sure) in various en.WP venues since, with the last post (at this time) being 7:17. Shearonink ( talk) 07:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• I think SirFozzie has the right idea, Saboche. This may be a good place to start in resolving your issue. All the best, Lord Roem ( talk) 05:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer: User:Saboche filed a case at WP:DRN, possibly based upon the above advice. Alas, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is only for disputes on the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org), not the Vietnamese Wikipedia (vi.wikipedia.org), so I closed the case. [64] Is there a dispute resolution forum on the Vietnamese Wikipedia that we can refer him to? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, I changed the request ordering due to the newest request at top policy. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

Um,. I don't see any existing arbitration case that this should be a clarification or amendment to. Also, have you tried RfC or something similar? SirFozzie ( talk) 05:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed, there are other venues more appropriate for this request. Jclemens ( talk) 05:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Saboche, this committee only has jurisdiction over the English Wikipedia. I'm afraid we're not able to assist with issues on other language Wikipedias. I'd recommend seeking out some form of dispute resolution over on the Vietnamese Wikipedia to handle this issue. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 17:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Hersfold and others are correct. This is the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. We can only deal with disputes that arise on English Wikipedia. We are not elected by the Vietnamese Wikipedia community and we have no power over Vietnamese Wikipedia. And even if we wanted to help with your dispute, we really can't anyway, because we don't speak Vietnamese and so we can't read the Vietnamese Wikipedia pages where the dispute is. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Initiated by Hawkeye7 ( talk) at 10:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Civility enforcement arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 7.3.1

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Self, no confirmation needed

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Hawkeye7_desysopped
• In the light of the recent dramas, it has become impossible to re-apply for the administrator permissions through the RfA process. I therefore request that this remedy be modified to remove this restriction.

Statement by Hawkeye7

ArbCom made it clear that I had to either go through the RfA process or cease editing entirely, as is the long established custom for desysopped editors. Unfortunately, the reopening of the case and the attendant drama has made it impossible to use this mechanism, as it will only become another forum for continued drama surrounding Malleus Fatuorum.

@ Newyorkbrad : Looking over the past year, I completed 6 Featured Articles, 9 A class articles, 22 Good Articles, and 50 DYK articles. I have been active as a MILHIST administrator, assessing articles, closing A class reviews, and writing articles and reviews for the newsletter. Assisted at DYK with reviews and assembly of the prep areas. I have been involved with GLAM work with the Australian War Memorial and the Australian Paralympic Committee. Was involved as an instructor in two Wikimedia Australia workshops. I was an accredited Wikimedia media representative at the Paralympic games in London, where I filed stories and interviews for Wikinews, and worked on keeping the Paralympic articles up to the minute. Engaged in outreach to Oceania in regard to sports and people with disabilities.

I am willing to give an undertaking right now that I will never block a username.

@ Hersfold : I note the clarification that I am not under any kind of ban, and am free to continue editing. This is much appreciated.

@ SilkTork : A number of editors have suggested that I run through another RfA. However, I am unconvinced that, in the light of recent events, it would be desirable. My understanding is that a successful RfA would still require approval by ArbCom.

I would like to thank the editors who have commented below. I find myself in agreement with everything that has been said. I have been very saddened by recent events, and, like many others, need to reconsider my participation in the project.

I would like to withdraw my request at this time, without prejudice to its being resubmitted at a later date. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ironholds

This statement comes off as ludicrous, quite frankly. Arbcom never insisted Hawkeye cease editing. I'm baffled as to where that comes from - but what the motion ultimately boils down to is "please allow me to be resysopped, either at the 'crats noticeboard, or by arbcom". The recent drama is not recent at all, as evidenced by the fact that the case Hawkeye is seeking to amend is an existing one. Yes, there is some new drama - but frankly, if you thought any RfA of a desysopped user was ever going to be drama-free, I've got a bridge to sell you. The drama is long-standing, and Hawkeye should know this, because Hawkeye was one of the people involved in it which is why he was desysopped. That behaviour did not speak well of an administrator, hence the tool removal. Quite honestly, this request doesn't speak well of the user either. Ironholds ( talk) 13:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dank

I was working on a statement because I wasn't happy with what's been said so far, but NYB's comments pretty much cover it. If I had blocked Malleus and had been desysopped for it, I could easily see myself coming back to Arbcom and saying: in the current environment, an RfA would be very imprudent, since it would become, in part, a referendum on Malleus and Arbcom, which wouldn't be fair to me. But NYB's suggestion to wait till after January 1 to explore options seems like the right course of action. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

I put the following cards on the table:

• I previously interacted with Hawkeye7 in relation to the Racepacket/Netball GA debate
• I opined on the Civility Enforcement case observing Hawkeye7's previous sanctioning for poor judgement in commission of Administrator privileges

Being thus, having read the final decision I read this as a "Under a Cloud" scenario and therefore consider it imprudent to ask for ArbCom to restore privileges. The community should have an opportunity to ask questions of the candidate and to come to a consensus regarding the candidate. I do think that the campaign should be very strictly limited to the merits of the candidate and should be moderated closely should it begin to digress into other topics unrelated to the matter at hand. Hasteur ( talk) 18:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

• The requester could always petition the closing B'crat to actually judge, as it is B'crat's job to assess RFA voting patterns. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• ...What in particular makes you think RfA will be doomed? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Firstly, there is no long established custom that desyopped Wikipedians have to cease editing, and Hawkeye is most certainly allowed to continue editing. Secondly, if Hawkeye7 wants to regain adminship, he is required to go through another RfA, and the recent discussion about Malleus Fortnum doesn't in any way affect this restriction. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• You are not banned, you're perfectly free to continue editing, and encouraged to do so. I don't believe that the Malleus situation would have any impact on a future RfA for you. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 17:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed with the above, and given I can't imagine any circumstance I would support this Committee returning adminship to anyone instead of referring it to RFA (unless we really screwed the pooch on a level 1 emergency desysop), my opinion on this request is obvious. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't run, or even pass RFA, or even that I'd oppose an RFA, just that I'd never support giving adminship back here. Courcelles 18:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• My comments:
  • As noted, Hawkeye7 is perfectly entitled to continue editing. In fact, he has been editing during the months since the desysopping passed, so he's obviously aware of this. Obviously he meant to say he thinks he's not able as a practical matter to become an administrator again, not that he's unable to edit.
  • There have been several instances in which this Committee has restored adminship to an administrator we had desysopped, without a new RfA. Contra to Courcelles, I see no reason why we shouldn't do this in appropriate cases.
  • Turning to the merits of the request, I opposed Hawkeye7's desysopping when we voted it in the Civility enforcement case. Though I wasn't especially happy with the reblock he was desysopped for, my sense at the time was that the entire incident (which arose from a civility dispute involving Malleus) would have blown over and been forgotten, except that there had been a similar incident the month before, so we felt compelled to accept a case. I don't want to say Hawkeye7 was a victim of "wrong place, wrong time," since he made the decision to put himself in that place at that time, but there was still an element of bad luck in his being singled out.
  • Although my vote was against desysopping, mine was the only vote against desysopping, so I might very well have been wrong in my analysis. And Hawkeye7 had been admonished by the Committee in a prior case, albeit for a different sort of issue.
  • Hawkeye7's request to be restored to adminship is a bit too cursory for my taste. A well-written request would address what the requester has learned from the case in which he or she was desysopped, what he or she has been doing on-wiki since then, and how he or she would handle the tools if they were restored (which in Hawkeye7's case should definitely include a promise to avoid controversial blocks).
  • Therefore, ordinarily I would ask Hawkeye7 to expand on his statement to include this information. However, right now in the middle of the ongoing Malleus contretemps is very bad timing for a request to reopen an aspect of the prior case involving him. In addition, we have the arbitrator elections coming up, and sometimes there is value to having a request for amendment considered by a Committee that includes some new arbitrators able to take a fresh look at the situation.
  • Accordingly, my vote is to decline this request without prejudice to a new request after January 1st. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • How many times have we restored adminship without a full RFA, and when was the last time it was done (Ignoring cases where the tools were temporarily removed, such as through an emergency desysop or temporary injunction)? Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 21:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Two that I can think of are GlassCobra (2010) and Coffee (2009). I don't see any others in the motion archives, but I haven't searched exhausively. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
        • " The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time." That would seem to allow ArbCom to review and reverse a sanction, such as a desysop - and that would make sense. If on reflection, changing circumstances, new evidence, etc, it appears that a sanction is not appropriate or no longer appropriate, then coming to us first to reverse or amend the sanction would be the right thing to do. However, I would be wary of encouraging desysopped admins to use this route for requesting the return of the tools. The process of going through RfA is a sound one, as the community prefers to have admins in which they have confidence. An RfA confirms that confidence. If an admin can only regain the tools by avoiding RfA, then they patently do not have the community's trust. ArbCom returning the tools when it is clear the desysopping was inappropriate is a different matter, but in this case the request is because Hawkeye7 feels the community would not make a fair judgement. A successful RfA would be much better for everyone than ArbCom restoring the tools; and trusting the community and making the right judgement (which would include the timing of a request for return of the tools) are qualities that some Wikipedians look for and respect in an admin. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)