Initiated by Martin Hogbin ( talk) at 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Case affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 3

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• All users
• Martin Hogbin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Request removal of discretionary sanctions.

Statement by Martin Hogbin

Civil discussion on ways to improve the article now takes place on the talk page and general discussion about the subject that is relevant to improving the article continues on the arguments page. There has been no incivility, edit warring, or other bad behaviour connected with the article. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ningauble

Although the situation has improved since a time when the discussion page saw frequent, explicit personal attacks, our 17th most talked about article continues to be the locus of unproductive and unconstructive contention.

A handful of frequent participants have effectively reached an agreement to disagree more or less civilly about their divergent views; but virtually any attempt to actually improve clarity, neutrality, and due weight in the article, especially by anyone outside this group, is overwhelmed and thwarted by tendentious objections and voluminous digressions, as the regulars seize opportunities to re-grind their favorite axes. This environment of antagonistic browbeating is so severe that Guy Macon, a member of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, has repeatedly (most recently in the thread started here) called for the regulars to just go away and let somebody else work on improving the article.

Aside: My own view that editor contention has resulted in undue emphasis on contention within the article itself, and that the article interprets sources in ways that misrepresent what sources say, is supported by closing statements in last year'sRfC; but I would be nuts to try to improve it in this environment. (I have tried occasionally, so it is fair to say I sometimes do go nuts.) Distortions in the current article, such as the inadequately sourced and apparently incorrect narrative under A second controversy, and the (mis-)interpretation of the context sources refer to under Criticism of the simple solutions, appear to me to result from a kind of Groupthink consensus among a handful of disputants to defend the one thing they agree about – that the article should express their disagreements.

I recommend against removal of discretionary sanctions. If anything, I think there has been inadequate moderation of the discussion page, from which all but the most pugnacious or masochistic contributors are regularly driven away. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 14:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the "Statement by Guy Macon" below:  Although I cited Guy's earlier recommendations along these lines as testimony about a dysfunctional editing environment, I should clarify that his prescription is not something I can endorse.

  Personally, as someone who has always striven to respect the need for consensus, and who has repeatedly stepped away for weeks, months, and even years at a time when consensus seemed unattainable, I do not like the idea of being presumptively banned for having occasionally tried to improve the article or break a stalemate. What is proposed here goes far beyond the existing discretionary sanctions, and I wonder if there is any precedent for this sort of "inverse semi-protection" that allows only newcomers.

  In saying that I think there has been inadequate moderation, I mean that the existing discretionary sanctions have not been used as effectively as they might to intervene in unconstructive discussion. Of course, it is not easy to do so without reviewing prodigious quantities of past discussion to ascertain whether, e.g, dead horses are being beaten. It is far easier to indiscriminately send everyone away but, as Richard Gill has suggested, [1] it may be counterproductive. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 18:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Richard Gill

Why the article will never stabilize: MHP appears to be a simple problem which you can solve with common sense. Most people's initial common sense solution is however wrong. So new editors will keep coming to the page wanting to rewrite the article according to their common sense understanding (right or wrong). But wikipedia articles have to be based on published sources, not on individual editors' common sense!

Next probem: there is a huge literature on MHP because it interests ordinary folk (people who like solving fun brainteasers), and it interests educationalists, and cognitive scientists, and mathematicans, and statisticians, and decision theorists. The mathematicians and statisticians and decision theorists have developed tools and language to solve problems like this in a systematic way ... precisely because ordinary human cognition tends to go wrong as soon as probabilistic reasoning. People have been debating what probability means for 300 years and there is still no consensus. There are a number of different schools who nowadays live mostly in peaceful coexistence.

Conclusion: the talk page of the article will always be a debating ground. The article will always be a big article, because it's a big topic. Yet right now, in my opinion, the article is reasonably balanced, comprehensive, and it's a fantastic resource. So there is no problem needing a fix.

Ningauble's small print comments -- inadequately sourced and apparently incorrect narrative under A second controversy, and the (mis-)interpretation of the context sources refer to under Criticism of the simple solutions -- should be raised on the talk page of the article. The inadequate sourcing is easy to fix. As to his claims of incorrect narrative and misinterpretation of context - I'm not aware of errors.

I agree that the "regulars" ought to move on now and give newcomers a chance.

Finally: I recommend lifting of discretionary sanctions. It would make the talk page of the article a more welcoming place to newcomers. Richard Gill ( talk) 16:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kmhkmh

I mostly agree with Richard Gill's statement regarding the nature of the problem and the state of the article. However I don't quite agree with his final conclusion regarding lifting the discretionary sanctions. The article will always be subject to "opinionated" edits and always be high maintenance (unless it gets locked down completely in a somewhat reasonable state). Though it might helpful if old editors stay away (many actually did) to remove personal confrontation and frustrations, I seriously doubt it will improve the situation in the long run, because due to the nature of the problem chances are the new editors will sooner or later pick up exactly where the old ones left off. We will get the same or similar conflicts just with new players. The discretionary sanction may help to keep those conflicts under control. Moreover since the state of the article it somewhat reasonable, there is no need for an urgent improvement but the danger of a rapid deterioration.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 10:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

In my considered opinion, we should rethink this issue and consider new solutions.

This is the longest-running content dispute on Wikipedia, and is featured at WP:HALLOFLAME.

I have been making periodic efforts to resolve this content dispute for the last two years. Some of my efforts have been:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Evidence#Evidence presented by Guy Macon (outside observer, uninvolved with editing the page in question)
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments/Archive 8#A Fresh Start
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 23#A Fresh Start
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 24#Consensus
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 24#We Won an Award!
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 25#How far have we come?
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 25#Longstanding Content Dispute Resolution Plan Version II
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 29#The Final Solution
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 29#Ten Years And A Million Words
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 33#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 35#The longest-running content dispute on Wikipedia
...and those are just the places where I created a new section.

After well over a million words, we have not reached a consensus on article content. To this day Talk:Monty Hall problem is full of spirited debates about what the content of the Monty Hall problem page should be. Another million words are unlikely to change that.

This has reduced the quality of the page, as evidenced by the fact that it is a former featured article. A comparison of the present page with the with the ( featured 2005 version) is instructive.

Every avenue of dispute resolution has been tried, some repeatedly. Unlike many articles with unresolved content disputes, this does not appear to be the result of any behavioral problems. Instead, it is an unfortunate interaction between editors, each of whom is doing the right thing when viewed in isolation.

In my opinion, it is time to ignore all rules and start considering new ways to solve this, the longest-running content dispute on Wikipedia.

I propose applying a 6-month topic ban -- no editing of the MHP page or MHP talk page -- on every editor who was working on the page two years ago, one year ago, and is still working on the page today (this of course includes me). I predict that within a few months the remaining editors (and perhaps those who have gone away discouraged) will create an article that is far superior to the one we have now, and they will do it without any major conflicts. Giving the boot to a handful of editors who, collectively, have completely failed to figure out what should be in the article will have a positive effect. Of course it should be made clear that this does not imply any wrongdoing on anyone's part, but rather is an attempt to solve the problem with a reboot.

Two years is enough. It is time to step aside and let someone else try. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Related:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#The "there is no content dispute" hypothesis

Talk:Monty Hall problem#view from the outside

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Discretionary sanctions

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this, and on reflection I would not favor an arbcom-imposed topic ban (which I think is unlikely to happen as result of a clarification request anyway). What I would like to see instead is whether any arbcom members agree with my theory that there are ongoing and unresolved disagreements about what the content should be, and whether they think that those who have been discussing the content of the page for years should consider voluntarily stepping back for some period of time and letting someone else try. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I think that someone brought this up the other day on the mailing list the idea of doing a general cleanup of the sanctions ArbCom has handed out over the past several years. Monty Hall problem was on that list, if I recall correctly. We have a lot on our plate now, so I think it might take a few weeks or months before we get to this, but I personally would support such an action. NW ( Talk) 23:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Given the amount of tense discussion still occurring on the talkpage (which apparently amounts to well over a million words), I feel that loosening restrictions at this stage might be premature. I don't see that the sanctions are hindering progress, and may well be assisting contributors to discuss matters on the talkpage. Decline for now, though quite willing to look again as part of the general clean up that NW mentions above. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely convinced that we should be removing this topic area from discretionary sanctions. In principle, I don't think sanctions should be hanging over the heads of constructive contributors; but in practice, I do not think a topic area can completely reform itself in a year or two, even if the roster of active contributors completely changes or the existing set of regulars reform their conduct. I would decline this amendment request, without prejudice to reconsidering in six or twelve months. It's a little too soon for my comfort. AGK [•] 23:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed with Guy Macon (and Risker/Carcharoth) that parties who have become embedded in this dispute need to voluntarily withdraw. I recommend all this article's long-term disputants read and reflect on the first parts of this committee's " sober eyes" and " fresh eyes" principles:

  Wikipedia contributors are expected to pursue dispute resolution if local discussion alone does not yield consensus on a matter of content. This is particularly so when a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion. Insulating a content dispute from the views of uninvolved contributors for long periods can lead to the disputants' positions become entrenched.

  Part of "dispute resolution" is yielding an article to the wider community; there is no shame in stepping back and letting somebody else take over a problematic article. I would also counsel those disputants that if their conduct is brought back to us in future, we are likely to take remedial action like topic-banning. AGK [•] 10:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• As we can address this as part of the general sanctions cleanup, I think it's best to decline this for now, unless there's some special reason why we should address this immediately. T. Canens ( talk) 02:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Question: Are there any specific editing practices or article improvements that the discretionary sanctions are interfering with? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Having read over the talk page (or at least bits and pieces of the ones linked above, I find myself moving toward Guy Macon's view. Perhaps we should consider having those who have more than 5 edits to the article talk page in the last six months (or an alternate metric) just step away from the article for one year. I don't know if it will ultimately change things for the article, but good faith editors who move away from a longterm controversy start finding out whether it's the editing or the arguments that draw them to Wikipedia. (I'm expecting most if not all of the editors involved here will find it's the editing.) Risker ( talk) 23:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Risker makes a good point here. I would prefer that the editors who have found themselves enmeshed over a long period in trying to resolve aspects of this content dispute, step away voluntarily rather than have that sort of solution imposed by ArbCom. A voluntary agreement among the current editors of that page, if you like. And then look at this again in a year or so and see if there are editors unable to do something like this voluntarily. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Initiated by — Keithbob • Talk • at 15:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Keithbob

Regarding this talk page tag which appears at Transcendental Meditation talk: {{discretionary sanctions|topic=tm}}

• At present it only appears on the talk page of the one, main article (above). Wouldn't it be appropriate to have it on all the articles in the topic area?

If yes, can I add the tag or does it need to be done by a clerk?

Comment by Keithbob

COMMENT: The Findings of Fact, Locus of dispute section from the case says: 'This dispute broadly concerns the articles within the Transcendental Meditation movement category and its sub-categories. In particular, the focus has been on the following articles: Deepak Chopra, John Hagelin, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools, TM-Sidhi program and Transcendental Meditation. It would seem to me that the tag should at least be placed on the articles mentioned in this FoF, yes? Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

QUESTION: do the discretionary sanctions apply to all articles in the topic area, broadly defined? Or just those articles that have the DS tag?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand Silk Tork's concern that there is the possibility that an involved editor could add the tags to articles outside the topic area, thereby creating some confusion. However as Risker, NW, Rich wales and Callanec have said below, the tag is just a talk page notice. It doesn't confer sanctions upon an article clearly outside the topic just by virtue of its presence. Specific to the TM case, an editor placing the tag on any article that is clearly within the topic area as defined by the ArbCom case (see my comment above) and any article in the TM template and TM category as Risker has pointed out, also seems safe and appropriate to me. To be very specific, my intention is to, over time, place the tag on any of the articles in the TM template that do not currently have the tag. [Note: 4-5 talk pages have been recently tagged by User:Callennecc as a result of this thread] Does anyone find my intention to tag the remaining articles objectionable? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've added the tag to John Hagelin, Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health and TM-Sidhi program all of which were mentioned in the TM ArbCom finding of fact quoted above. I also added the DS tag to Maharishi Effect which is a split of the TM-Sidhi program page and which contains contentious content. I am satisfied, at present, that all of the main pages have a DS tag. However, per consensus in this discussion, any editor may add the DS tag to additional pages within the topic area, either now or in the future, should they feel it would be helpful as a communication aid in providing additional information to editors who may be unaware of the discretionary sanctions imposed at the TM movement Arbcom in October 2011. Thank you everyone for your contributions to the discussion. It has been very helpful. Best Wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Looie496

I have no opinion on the question, but I would like to note that Keithbob originally asked this at the Teahouse and was advised by two experienced editors to ask here instead. Looie496 ( talk) 15:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Richwales

An article is covered by discretionary sanctions by virtue of the Arbitration Committee's having said so, regardless of whether any notice appears on the article's talk page or not.

A discretionary sanctions tag may appropriately appear on the talk page of any article in a covered topic area — though there is no real need to add a tag to the talk page of an article where no problems have arisen yet.

Although the {{ uw-sanctions}} template is primarily intended as a warning to be placed on user talk pages, I don't see any problem with using this template — in the present case, {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=tm}} — on an article's talk page in order to supply more detail about exactly what "discretionary sanctions" means.

As far as I'm aware, placing a discretionary sanctions tag on an article's talk page is not considered sufficient warning per WP:AC/DS — an individual editor must still be individually warned on his/her own user talk page before having sanctions imposed on him/her. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Callanecc

Drawing on the last question from Keithbob and SilkTork's comment. It has always seemed to me that the tag was merely an optional (in that it didn't have to be there for DS to apply) reminder to editors. I would have thought the tag was fairly low impact - (hopefully) an admin isn't going to take action under DS based solely on the presence of the tag. So what's the worst that can happen from allowing any editor to add the tag (apart from removing a fairly trivial task from an already busy admin group)? However I can also see an argument for only allowing uninvolved admins to add the tag - because they have to decide if the article is within the area of the dispute and is then subject to DS.

Comment by NewsAndEventsGuy

A lowly editor, I find the reasoning of SilkTork ( talk · contribs) highly persuasive and note that this reasoning works against my own desires. I am an example of what SilkTork was talking about, where I want to expand an ARB ruling to articles further than other editors good faith interpretation of the ruling. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Dreadstar

I don't see it matters who adds the tags, so I'll be happy to add them; just provide me a list via email or on my talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 18:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• In my view, the tag can be added (preferably by an uninvolved user) to any articles in the topic-area that have encountered issues with edit-warring, POV, etc. There is no need to add it to articles that have not had any problems. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, what NYB said. While it is preferable for an uninvolved user to add the tag, it can be any editor who adds it. NW ( Talk) 02:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Discretionary sanctions apply to any article in the topic area, tagged or not. The tag merely serves as a reminder to those editing those particular articles that more stringent standards apply to such articles. Any editor informed about discretionary sanctions via the procedure laid out at WP:AC/DS may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for edits that the administrator believes violate Wikipedia's standards in the topic area. NW ( Talk) 18:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think such tagging is within ArbCom procedures, but I may be wrong. I think such tags are helpful, though the question of who should place them is worth discussing. Currently "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict...", and it may be prudent for the placing of such tags to also be restricted to "uninvolved administrator"s. It may be worth formalising the matter of using these tags by putting some appropriate wording on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions page, for which we would probably need a motion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• They can be tagged. I don't see why this should be restricted to administrators at all, and would suggest that even "involved" editors would not be in any kind of conflict in adding the tag, provided the article is within Category:Transcendental Meditation; it's just a notice at the top of a talk page, and there is no inherent threat to it. Risker ( talk) 03:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The reasoning for why an uninvolved admin should do it, is because the tagging appears to put the tagged article under ArbCom restrictions. We've had formal queries from time to time regarding which articles are under ArbCom sanctions, as some topics may be tricky to precisely pin down. Some users may wish to extend ArbCom sanctions to neighbouring articles of their own accord. Other users may wish to remove tags and thus apparent ArbCom protection from other articles. If the tags in themselves are to mean something (and I think they should) then some guidance on their use and some control on their placement seems appropriate, in the same way that guidance and control is given for advising individuals that sanctions are in place. A warning on an article has a wider impact than a warning to an individual. It may be seen as disproportionate that a warning to one can only be done by an uninvolved admin, but a warning to everyone can be done by anyone. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The tags themselves mean nothing; they are a standardized additional reminder that sanctions may apply in a topic area and that editors ought to be careful when editing. The presence of a tag on an article does not by itself mean that an editor can be sanctioned without individualized warning. If any such tagging is contested, then I see a reason to track down an uninvolved administrator. But otherwise, I think it's simpler and more beneficial to allow any other editor to do it. Additionally, since discretionary sanctions applies more to the content of the edits than the specific pages (that's the intent anyway, though it is quite poorly worded for sure), the tags by themselves don't mean anything. Edit warring on United States over whether Roe v. Wade ought to be mentioned is covered by the Abortion discretionary sanctions, but that doesn't mean Talk:United States needs the {{ discretionary sanctions}} tag. NW ( Talk) 17:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this tag today, while working on the tree shaping article: {{ ArbCom discretionary sanctions}}. It may be worthwhile combining this and any other templates which inform readers that an article is under sanctions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Per all of my colleagues, I hold that the tag can be added to any article that falls within the scope of the sanctions, but also that the tag should usually only be added in the event that there is a significant volume of contention, disagreement, or misconduct on the article or article talkpage. The tags are merely a courtesy reminder to contributors that they may be sanctioned if they misconduct themselves on the article; they are not "warnings" in the sense used by the standard discretionary sanctions, and have no substantive effect other than to assist with communication to disputants. I would be inclined to recommend restraint to Keithbob or to any editor who considers adding these tags en masse; the tags should only be added where they will be helpful. AGK [•] 09:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Initiated by Gatoclass ( talk) at 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

• Gatoclass ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Sandstein ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• Notification: [2]

Statement by Gatoclass

Firstly, my apologies to the Committee for adding to your current workload. However, hopefully these issues can be resolved quickly and with a minimum of fuss.

This request relates to a number of procedural issues that have recently arisen at WP:AE, which I think are probably best handled by the Committee. There are four in total—the first two raised at AE by Sandstein and the latter two raised here now by myself:

1/ Sandstein recently declined to act in a request regarding breach of 1RR at AE as he sees the 1RR restriction on certain pages subject to discretionary sanctions as having been a "community ... decision" rather than made by an administrator acting by authority of, and with stated reference to, those discretionary sanctions. The issue of whether or not 1RR can legitimately be adjudicated at AE therefore needs clarification. I don't think Sandstein himself objects to 1RR being adjudicated at AE; he apparently just wants a clear statement of the principle, so I am referring the matter here. The discussion regarding this issue can be found in the "Results" section of the recently closed Soosim request.

2/ Sandstein again declined to act on a recent request on the basis that the respondent had yet to receive an official warning, in spite of the fact that the respondent was a named party to the original Arbitration case. [3] As I have always taken the view that warnings are not required when a user is already clearly aware that discretionary sanctions apply in a topic area—a principle that I believe has been upheld in at least one previous Arbcom clarification request (when it was decided that participants in a previous AE request with regard to a particular topic area under discretionary sanctions don't need a formal warning)—so again this should not be a difficult matter to resolve, but I think it needs resolution so that we can avoid similar debates in future.

3/ In a recent appeal against the length of an AE sanction by a sanctioned user, Sandstein commented on the appeal in the "Result" section in spite of having participated in the adjudication of the request which led to the original sanction. [4] Though I don't think there is any formal prohibition against doing this, IIRC the convention at AE has always been that adjudicators of the original case confine their comments to the "Statements" section of an appeal. Regardless of precedent, however, I believe that it is a sound principle for admins to follow to allow appeals of cases they have adjudicated to be handled by different administrators, just as appeals in legal proceedings are handled by a different court made up of different judges. Therefore I am requesting that Arbcom formally endorse this principle, as I think users have a right to have their appeals reviewed by administrators independent of the original decision.

4/ In the same request referred to in 2/ above, Sandstein decided to issue a warning to the respondent before the request was concluded. [5] [6] Since the outcome of a request is something to be decided by consensus of uninvolved administrators—whether it be no action, a reminder, an advisement, a warning, a topic ban etc.—I felt that issuance of this warning was out of process as it effectively pre-empts the consensus decision of the adjudicating administrators. I believe it is out of process even if the particular discussion looked to be heading to at least a warning for the respondent in any case. I am therefore requesting that Arbcom formally recognize the principle that remedies not be implemented in AE requests until discussion by uninvolved admins has concluded and a consensus view reached.

Thank you for your consideration. Gatoclass ( talk) 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein for your quick and comprehensive response. I will not respond to all the points you raise as I am trying to keep this submission brief, except to concede that you are probably correct to say that there is no formal requirement for consensus amongst uninvolved admins involved in adjudicating an AE request, and that I was mistaken to suggest otherwise. However, I don't think the current wording of the standard discretionary sanctions was intended to suggest that consensus amongst adjudicating admins can be ignored or pre-empted by administrative fiat, and I think it would be unwise for obvious reasons to endorse such a principle. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I am in agreement with the general thrust of your comments. With regard to issue 1/, it is of no consequence to me whether or not 1RR is enforceable under AN3 as well as at AE, so long as there is no confusion that 1RR can be enforced at AE as a legitimate AE remedy. With regard to your comment about "elapsed time" since the original case, I can accept the argument that a new warning may be the most appropriate response after a long period since the last warning, just as long as a new warning isn't considered a necessary precondition for imposition of a sanction. With regard to your comment on 4/, I would agree that an editor still actively engaged in disruptive editing might justifiably be sanctioned at any point by any admin without the necessity of establishing consensus, and that such a sanction may even at times obviate the need for further action at the AE request. However, such action should only be permissible IMO when the editor concerned is continuing his disruptive editing even as the request proceeds; I can't conceive of any other reason why pre-emption of consensus might be considered appropriate. Perhaps I should also clarify that I have no issue with the notion of an admin imposing an AE sanction on his own outside of an AE request; just as long as remedies imposed as a result of AE requests themselves are imposed by consensus and not unilaterally. Gatoclass ( talk) 15:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale

I have always held that 'if remedy affecting a user is changed - and the remedy is updated/superseded or otherwise changed - then the user would be, by virtue of being affected by the previous remedy, affected by the new remedy. This is especially the case when the user is a party to the original case with the now-superseded remedy. As the user was informed of the update to the remedy, he should - at the very minimum - be considered "notified and warned" due to previous involvement.

I believe that we used to notify (and warn, if appropriate) people immediately in certain cases (though I cannot name one right off the top of my head) when the remedy would be DS/Article Probation/etc. Maybe this needs to be the default action. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

Thanks, Gatoclass, for bringing these issues here for clarification. I apologize for being the originator of so many AE-related procedural questions lately; I suspect, that being a lawyer, I do have the tendency to see procedural problems where more practically minded people don't – and vice versa. I anticipate that we'll not be able to fully answer all questions here, but hopefully the issues raised here can be addressed in the general review of DS/AE procedure that I understand is forthcoming, and the answers codified on the appropriate pages.

1) Yes, my problem is not with 1RR as such, but rather what I think is the unclear legal (for lack of another word) status of Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction. My understanding is that a restriction can be enforced through AE only if it was made with the authority of the Arbitration Committee, that is (a) by a majority decision of the full Committee, or (b) by an individual administrator as provided for by WP:AC/DS. The problem is that Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction is not labeled as either. Although at one time it was apparently the subject of a Committee motion amending it, it is described on the case page as having been made "per community discussion and decision" – and community sanctions are not subject to AE. If the Committee could clarify what exactly the status of that restriction is, I'd appreciate it.
There's also another problem related to the legal status of that restriction. As written, the 1R restriction applies to all topic-area articles without requiring that users be first notified of it. I'm not sure that the authors of the restriction meant it to apply such that a new editor, who has no idea that there has been an arbitration case, or what arbitration and 1RR even mean, should be blocked without warning for making two reverts in a row to, say, the section Tel Aviv#Fashion, just because the article it is in "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". As written, therefore, I suspect that the restriction is overbroad. Now, if it is a Committee decision, editors are bound by it nonetheless, although I assume that individual administrators (who have no duty to act on AE requests) can still decline to be the ones to enforce it. But if it is a discretionary sanction, then it is unenforceable if the user has not previously received the kind of warning described in WP:AC/DS#Warnings (e.g. in an edit notice) – and probably a specific warning about 1RR, too, rather than a general warning about the decision, because if the restriction is a discretionary sanction rather than a Committee decision, then it is not part of the decision proper.

2) As currently written, WP:AC/DS#Warnings provides that "prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions". This wording does not make an exception for editors who were party to the original case or who are otherwise assumed to be aware of the case. Therefore, in a conservative interpretation of the wording so as not to accidentally overstep AE authority, I am of the view that a warning is still required even for such editors. Whether that makes any sense is another question, and one that is for the Committee to answer. I suspect that it has to do what the purpose of these "warnings" is supposed to be, a question that has come up a lot recently: If they are meant to serve only as notifications about the possibility of discretionary sanctions, then a separate notification to users who already know about the decision is superfluous. If however they are meant to warn the user to desist from a specific action, then there is still a point in requiring them to be issued to users who are aware of the decision. I understand that AGK is preparing a motion about precisely this question, which will hopefully resolve this.

3) That's indeed a thorny issue, and I would very much appreciate clarification (and, if needed, correction) from the Committee about this. I discussed it with another editor and suggested to AGK that it be also addressed in his upcoming motion. As I explain below, I think that Gatoclass misunderstands the AE process when he suggests that an administrator who comments on the merits of an enforcement request "participates in the adjudication of the request". Rather, the only person who adjudicates the request is the individual administrator who imposes a sanction, if any, in response to the request. Nonetheless, the question of whether an administrator who voiced an opinion about an enforcement request is involved (in the sense of WP:INVOLVED) in any future appeal is a valid one, made more difficult by the fact that there are currently very few, if any, rules about how an appeal at WP:AE is to be conducted.

In principle, I agree that it would be preferable, to prevent the appearance of bias, if an appeal were heard only by people who have not previously expressed an opinion about the matter. However, I think that there are also valid arguments for not considering an administrator in the situation I described to be involved:

• First, WP:INVOLVED excludes actions made in an administrative capacity (which I believe commenting on the merits of an AE request is) from triggering involvement, so technically an administrator who comments as uninvolved in a discussion about an AE request can be seen as remaining uninvolved in any followup discussion, including an appeal. (If not, would they also be considered involved in any future discussion about the same user, or even the same topic area? That would exhaust the admin pool pretty quickly).
• Second, there are few administrators who participate in AE, perhaps understandably given the amount of stress one can be exposed to in that role. This means that if commenting on a request excludes participation in a future appeals discussion, one of two things will happen:

• Either fewer administrators (or possibly none at all) comment on AE requests, so as not to exclude themselves from a future appeal. That is undesirable, as it will tend to reduce the quality of the decisions made. It will cause additional stress to whoever does make a decision, because when challenged about it they can't point to the support of colleagues. And it may also lead to an unwelcome division of labor among AE admins, where one group focuses on responding to requests and the other on second-guessing those decisions on appeal.
• Or, and this is the second possibility, it may result in there being too few uninvolved administrators to form a useful consensus about the outcome of any appeal, because most have already voiced an opinion about the initial request. In extremis, one remaining uninvolved administrator could by themselves overrule, on appeal, the unanimous opinion of five others who commented about the request being appealed.

I hope that the Committee's clarification will help define recusal rules that take these various concerns into account.

4) I think that Gatoclass is subject to a misconception when he says that "the outcome of a request is something to be decided by consensus of uninvolved administrators". No rule that I know of provides for this. Rather, all enforcement provisions that I know of, including WP:AC/DS, provide that "an uninvolved administrator" – singular – may act in enforcement, that is, without necessarily having to take into account anybody else's opinion. It is only as a matter of practice that administrators working at AE have become used to exchanging opinions about the merits of enforcement requests and possible courses of action before one of them acts on the enforcement request. That's obviously a good thing particularly in complicated cases, but it does not mean that discussion, much less a consensus, is required. In that sense, one administrator deciding to take action (in this case, issuing a warning, because I am of the view that it was required and not previously given, see point 2 above) does not preempt any other administrator from taking any other action that they deem possible and appropriate (such as a block), which I made a point of noting. However, a clarification about this aspect of AE procedure could also be helpful.  Sandstein  07:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Update to 4): Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions clarifies that "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". This means, e contrario, that in all other (i.e. most) cases administrators are not expected (let alone required) by the Committee to discuss (and much less to seek consensus for) sanctions with others.  Sandstein  09:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

I don't believe that a DS warning was originally meant as a sanction. That is, a person misbehaves, is warned, misbehaves again then recieves a sanction. I think the word 'warning' was always meant as closer to the definition of 'notification'. That is a person who has not necessarily misbehaved is warned that there are rules which they may not be aware of.

This follows with the logic that it is unfair to sanction someone who reasonably was not aware of the special rules. They must be warned (notified) of the rules before a sanction can fairly be applied. So any knowledge of the special rules counts as a person being "warned".

Treating it as a sanction unfairly provides a procedural Get out of Jail Free card for people aware of the rules, yet not warned (sanctioned) because a warning is mandatory.

Really, Arbcom could solve this AND the Who Can Issue Warnings? issue by clearly separating warning (sanction) and warning (notification). Any editor can warn (notify), an uninvolved admin is required for a warning (sanction). Now use different words for the two meanings. 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 15:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, and this would also address the appeals issue. A warning (notification) can't be appealed but a warning (sanction) can. 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 15:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ErikHaugen

Regarding (1), T. Canens makes a great point about the community sanctions helping define what "expected standards of behavior" means, but also in this case notice that EdJohnston argued that "Since Arbcom touched the 1RR in 2012, I think they own it now". It seems a little squishy, but I'm sympathetic to this argument as well.

Regarding (2), I wish warnings were just notices and never implied guilt; it would be nice to move away from this conception that this is a "2 strikes" kind of thing where the first warning is "you did something bad, stop it or else we'll block/ban/whatever you." I don't like these because they're kind of a big deal to receive, yet I think people issuing them don't necessarily realize how odious it is to get them. Once we clarify this, we can also clarify that sanctions don't require prior special warnings as long as it is clear that the editor knew about the DS in question—for example, if the user was a party to the case and got the notice of the results on the user talk page.

Regarding (3), it does seem strange to appear to be on a panel deciding the appeal of an administrative action that you took! I do some RMs—I would never consider closing a move review of an move request closure I made, for example. This may not be as clear-cut, but still.

Regarding (4), I think if the warning is a notice and not a statement of guilt, then it is fine. Anyone should be able to slap it on anyone's talk page, anytime. This warning, which AFAICT is the one we're talking about here, appears to be a notice, not a statement of guilt, so I think what Sandstein did is ok. Here is an example of a warning that is a statement of guilt, not simply a notice: "...If you continue to misconduct yourself..." etc. This difference in language is huge. Both let the noob who wants to edit something like Tel Aviv#Fashion know what's up, one also serves as a rap sheet. I'm probably trying to get at the same thing here that 204. is trying to get at. HaugenErik ( talk) 20:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Given that all these issues concern Sandstein's conduct and he was previously the subject of an arbitration request regarding his conduct at AE, which led to an "advisement" about his actions there, I think there should be serious consideration given to examining this editor's actions. He has become incredibly domineering over the process. The stuff he is doing at the Marek case is extremely unnecessary and confrontational, but he seems to think being an admin means he can just do whatever he likes there. I am honestly thinking about initiating some process against him because his current monopolization of the process is a problem when he conducts himself in such a fashion. Should Arbs here think it is enough concern, perhaps they could consider evicting him from the AE process without stripping Sandstein of his administrator status. I am certainly tempted to file an arbitration request against him because of what he is doing, but since this request is practically all about him I feel it can be settled here.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

AGK, I have to say your response on point 3 is rather unsettling. You should not in any way encourage the idea that an admin can help reject any clemency regarding administrative actions they explicitly supported so long as they didn't act on that support personally. Should three admins support a restriction, only one is going to be the admin of record because that is simply how it works as you said, but that does not mean those other two admins should feel like there is not a very serious conflict of interest for them to then reject any appeals of the restriction as "uninvolved" administrators. Many times an AE decision is defended by the acting administrator because other admins supported it so their support is usually integral to any resulting enforcement action.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

The Devil's Advocate has intervened above to make a series of points which appear to be an all-out attack on Sandstein. They are unrelated to the procedural rules for WP:AE being discussed here.

As such his statement should be disregarded.

It was written in the heat of the moment shortly after reverting some of Sandstein's administrative edits during an WP:AE request [7] in which I am also participating. After being warned, he launched into an outspoken personal attack on Sandstein, [8] [9] calling him an "officious little jerk" and "petty tyrant".

The purpose of this clarification request is not to examine Sandstein's record as an administrator at WP:AE, but to give general procedural guidance for enforcing sanctions or administering warnings.

Given his animosity towards Sandstein, it was inappropriate for The Devil's Advocate to have exploited this opportunity to take potshots at Sandstein without justification. Mathsci ( talk) 08:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil

I can't begin to describe how wrong it is to consider that a warning put in place in an arbitration warns or notifies a specific editor on an article. Such a view assumes that all editors have the same perspective on actions or discussions which is clearly not the case. Certainly reverts for most admins are easy to see, but not so other less concrete violations. Why is there a rush to block or ban with out a specific warning. If Wikipedia is not punitive, editors should be allowed and even encouraged to remedy objectionable behaviour. Further, using a general warning to apply to a specific situation will and has led to gross and unfair mistakes based on at best a misunderstanding of what has gone on. A simple warning would have alerted an editor that discussion they thought was appropriate was being seen in another light, and at worst, the ban was a deliberate attempt to remove an editor. With all respect to the lawyers here, this, at least in my mind, is an issue that can be simplified and reduced to an issue of being humane and fair, and little else.( olive ( talk) 22:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC))

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• We are currently working on something that will, among other things, address questions 2 & 3. For 1, I think the best way to parse this under our current DS framework is that the 1RR is a community consensus that partially defines the "expected standards of behavior [and] normal editorial process" in this topic area, such that a violation is ground for application of discretionary sanctions in the form of a block. The provision for "block without warning" can be read to mean only that a block does not require a 1RR warning on the user's talk page, and so interpreted, does not conflict with the overall warning requirement for discretionary sanctions, which can be satisfied by a warning in the editnotice. As to 4, AE actions do not require a consensus of admins; on the other hand, in most cases it may well be preferable, out of courtesy, to refrain from taking action while an admin discussion is ongoing. T. Canens ( talk) 08:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• As a fellow lawyer (not just wikilawyer), I can understand the each of the procedural issues that Sandstein has raised. Trust me, I could write several paragraphs of detailed analysis in response to each of Gatoclass's questions. But as important, I can equally understand the perspective of all the non-lawyers out there, who are simply trying to edit articles that are the subject of DS in peace. They must feel that the AE process has degenerated into a quasi-incomprehensible bureaucratic quagmire, one which even its administrators and the arbitrators do not fully understand. The purpose of arbitration enforcement is to enforce the remedies enacted in arbitration committee decisions, as well as discretionary sanctions that follow from those remedies, in a way that is fair both to the editors against whom enforcement is sought, as well as to other editors and ultimately the readers of the disputed articles. With this in mind, I would say in response to question 1 that it makes little difference to me whether 1RR restrictions (a blunt instrument to put it mildly) are enforced at AE or at AN3. Isn't the better question which venue will lead to more equitable and efficient enforcement?, rather than which is correct according to some rule book? As for the issue of warnings, I suggest that if there is legitimate doubt whether an editor is on notice of possible sanctions, then a warning rather than a more severe sanction should be given. Where an editor who was named in the decision immediately reoffends soon after DS is imposed, I doubt the need for another warning; but if substantial time has elapsed since the decision, giving a final warning may be preferable. The 204 IP's comment that there is a distinction to be made between "warning" as notice and "warning" as sanction has merit. In response to Gatoclass's point (4), while ultimate decisions at AE are often best made by consensus rather than unilaterally, but I would think that a single administrator can still issue a warning during the discussion in an attempt to avoid further disruptive editing while the discussion is pending; compare in-chambers opinion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• Apologies for commenting so late on this. My views, which I will keep short to provide clarity, are: (1) The matter of 1RR may need to be discussed and handled separately, including a detailed review of the discussions that led to 1RR being included in discretionary sanctions. (2) Participation in an arbitration case should count as a notification (and I agree that the language of warning/notification needs clarifying and I think this will be addressed in the pending clarifications being worked on), though common sense should be applied if the case was a long time ago. (3) Admins working at AE should exercise caution when commenting on appeals and let others comment first if they commented in an earlier round of discussion. (4) Issuing warnings during an AE discussion does seem unwarranted. Let the discussion conclude first. TDA, thanks for reminding us of the advice provided to Sandstein in a previous case (Mathsci is correct to point out the intemperate language you used, but let's leave that there and refocus this request for clarification on the issues being discussed here). Sandstein, please re-read that earlier advice and ask if you need any clarification on that. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC) To clarify what I said here about Sandstein and TDA which was a general comment not directly related to this clarification request, please see here. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• I appreciate how thoughtfully Gatoclass has framed this request, and I would reassure him that, even in times where we are an exceptionally busy committee, editors should not hesitate to approach us to ask for clarification on any aspect of our rulings. Even clarification requests concerning administration and procedure (or "bureaucracy", if one wishes to be unkind) have a direct effect on editors who are writing the encyclopedia, and we are therefore happy to receive them at any time. Your four-point structure has greatly simplified this request, so I will respond using the same chronology of points:

  (1) The 1RR restriction was plainly enacted as a discretionary sanction, and is therefore under the auspices of arbitration enforcement. Complaints that the 1RR restriction has been breached can be referred to the enforcement noticeboard.

  (2) I hope this committee can resolve that ambiguity in the omnibus discretionary sanctions motion I am preparing (and which we agreed on the mailing list will be due early next month), but according to long-standing community convention editors who are named in an arbitration case can be considered duly "notified" and "warned" (in the sense used for discretionary sanctions) if discretionary sanctions are later enacted in that same case.

  (3) A hypothetical would help me answer this point more succinctly. If administrators A and B opine in an enforcement request that editor Z should be topic banned for a month, and administrator C reviews the enforcement request, agrees with A and B, and enacts the topic ban, then administrator C is the "acting administrator". When editor Z appeals the month-long topic ban, administrator C would be ineligible to contribute to the "consensus of uninvolved administrators" required to overturn an enforcement action. Administrator C could opine on the appeal as an involved party, but he should do so outwith the uninvolved administrators' discussion section. However, administrators A and B did not enact the topic ban (only a single administrator, the "acting administrator", can be responsible for an enforcement action). Merely agreeing that something is a good idea does not confer involvedness. I therefore disagree with my colleagues above, and would contend that A and B are eligible to contribute to Z's appeal as "uninvolved administrators". However, I would agree that, for practical purposes, A and B should try to defer the decision concerning Z's appeal to administrators who are fresh to the topic ban, and should try not to dominate the appeal discussion unless there are no other administrators available to comment in a timely way. (Again, point (3) is something we hope to disambiguate in the forthcoming motion.)

  (4) Sandstein seems to have been merely correcting a procedural deficiency with a particular enforcement request, so I would not agree he overrode the developing consensus of his fellow administrators. AGK [•] 21:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Initiated by Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} at 14:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Case affected

GoodDay arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Steven Zhang ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• GoodDay ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Danbarnesdavies ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snowded ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• GoodDay
• DBD
• Snowded

Information about amendment request

• GoodDay arbitration case - Remedy 2: "GoodDay Warned"
• I would like the Arbitration Committee to analyse the current situation with regards to the conduct of GoodDay, and decide what action, if any, should be taken to bring his conduct in line with the standards of the Wikipedia community.

Statement by Steven Zhang

Hi all. In May 2012 I brought before the committee a case regarding my mentee, GoodDay, which in the decision included a remedy that warned GoodDay about his conduct and the potential consequences that could face him if the behaviour continued. I am here because I would like the Arbitration Committee to consider in light of his behaviour as of recent (as part of a pattern over an extended period of time) whether additional measures are necessary.

Concurrent to the indefinite topic ban from making changes to diacritics, GoodDay has been under a topic ban from editing articles related to the UK and Ireland, broadly construed, and as part of the ANI thread where this was imposed, I was delegated the ability to lift and reimpose this as required. The initial months of his editing after the case closed were good. He focused on gnoming edits and other maintenance tasks (which occasionally caused a small issue but nothing serious) and generally kept to himself, and after a while he requested his topic ban be lifted. Given his reasonably good behaviour, and with Snowded ( talk · contribs) taking GoodDay on to help him in this area with some guidelines having been put in place, I agreed. For a while, as far as I saw (Snowded was taking care of GoodDay for the most part) things were going OK. It was only when I was notified on my talk page about an issue that had blown up did I look into things closer, and realised that the issues that were present before the topic ban was instated still existed. Reading over his contributions, one discussion (similar to many on my and GoodDay's talk page) at Snowded's talk page point to the problem - when something goes wrong, GoodDay tends to point the finger at others without acknowledging his culpability in the matter. As a result of this I decided to reinstate his topic ban.

However these are not isolated incidents, I've taken this as an example (that and the 2 sections below it) of the sort of conduct that is common. To me, this appears to be a recurring pattern of behaviour that mentorship and topic bans has been unable to resolve. It seems that when he is restricted from one set of articles, it just moves onto another area. Along with other Wikipedians, I have tried to advise him on the best course of action to take to keep himself out of strife, and suggested (even offered) to work with him on articles of interest to keep him out of trouble, but he has not heeded any of our advice. For this reason I ask the Arbitration Committee to consider the best way to resolve this. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@Salvio, with respect, I brought this to ArbCom last year after the community (meaning me, along with other editors and administrators) tried to resolve the problem (being GoodDay's conduct) and ArbCom decided that a warning, combined with a topic ban would be sufficient, but the warning includes a proviso that ArbCom can implement further remedies as required if the conduct is not corrected. I am here for that reason, because after the ArbCom case closed, myself and others have attempted to help GoodDay reform his behaviour and we have been unsuccessful. I believe I have demonstrated, as required when requesting an amendment to an existing how the case, why the existing remedies are not sufficient to remediate his behaviour, and I have also demonstrated what the community has done to try and fix the problem itself. We have not been successful. It is therefore the responsibility of the Arbitration Committee to resolve this, so that is why I have brought it here, and I ask you to look into this and act accordingly. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@GoodDay, the reason I brought it here (ArbCom) and not the community (ANI) is because ANI can be quite rough from time to time, and comments made by those leaving their thoughts on a matter can often be very blunt. As a result of this, I decided it to bring it here, because while the end result may be similar, comments like "good riddance" are unlikely to come from the Arbitration Committee. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

I'm simply too tired to argue. I'll accept whatever Arbcom decides. GoodDay ( talk) 15:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to continue on with my gnoming & nothing more. GoodDay ( talk) 02:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I promise to stay away from politically charged (or any disputed) areas & to steer clear of talkpages. I'll avoid participating in politically charged topics at my own user-talkpage. I will refrain from labelling any editors. GoodDay ( talk) 02:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Res to WTT: I shouldn't have gotten involved in any disputes, where I apparently caused more problems then I hoped to solve. I lost my temper with a few editors & should've followed Steven's advice of 'keeping my gab shut'. Also, I shouldn't have let my frustrations lead me into spats with those editors. I was wrong to allow my annoyances with the diacritics restriction, In ictu oculi & Daicaregos to push me towards Soviet related articles, aswell. Furthermore - I don't commit vandalism, never used sock-puppets or meat-puppets, rarely get into edit-wars & rarely drag editors to ANI. If arbitrators are certain that I can't change my ways? then it's impossible for me to convince them otherwise. GoodDay ( talk) 14:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As I've been a member of the Wiki-community for 8 yrs. I ask that Steven's request, be taken to the Wiki-community. GoodDay ( talk) 12:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

To the arbitrators- I will mend my ways. A threat of a 1-year ban or site ban, will have that effect on a fellow. GoodDay ( talk) 14:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Would a 1-month self-imposed ban, proove I'm capable of self-restraint? Would that stave off the 1-year exile? GoodDay ( talk) 01:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

To the Arbitrators & the inputing editors - I acknowlege my 'thick headedness'. I do have a problem in that I loose my temper when someone disputes what I see as being correct. I have been agressive, paranoid & narrow-minded, with my I'm right, you're all wrong attitude & my You're all out to get me attitude. I haven't shown enough respect for WP:V aswell. I welcome any assistance from anyone, at this point. I'm stubborn enough to reform myself, but it would be easier to do, with friends guiding me along. GoodDay ( talk) 05:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Begging for Arbcom's leniency - Seeing as my last 'block' was 1-month, I request that my approaching ban be reduced to 6-months. GoodDay ( talk) 12:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DBD

Despite having agreed to 'mentor' GoodDay, I have had very little involvement since the topic ban was instituted. mea culpa. This has been mostly due to my being rather busier, but also due to the sheer tedious predictability of GoodDay's recurring patterns of misbehaviours distracting and detracting from his good contributions. I have not had the inclination to investigate GoodDay's ongoing behaviour in my scarce available time because doing so is extremely vexing. GoodDay portrays himself ever the victim, never the aggressor and manifold attempts by kind, experience, patient fellow-editors towards his correction have been frustratingly futile. I do not believe that anyone is beyond redemption, but GoodDay is, was and continues to be at best obtuse and at worst maddeningly obstinate and childish. D B D 15:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Snowded

I did my level best on the B&I articles but GoodDay seems to lack any ability to exercise judgement or learn. He seems to want to blame others and see himself as a lone warrior battling for truth. On his talk page he allowed himself to led on by an obvious sock to break the recently reimposed restriction. Checking out his other edits the behaviour has simply moved to other topic areas. I think he needs a holiday and a clear instruction that readmittance to the community is predicated on his showing evidence he has understood what he has done wrong ---- Snowded ^TALK 15:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

An example on this talk page - responding favourably to this nonsense ---- Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I haven't been involved with GoodDay to any significant extent and haven't investigated his behaviour. I feel though that clarification of the remedy is required to determine who may impose the sanctions it warns about.

The remedy reads:

GoodDay is strongly warned that, in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee.

This can be read two ways, in both cases assuming that GoodDay has violated conduct policies (and I am explicitly not expressing an opinion on whether this is true):

1. Without further warning from the Committee, sanctions may be imposed
2. Without further warning, the Committee may impose sanctions.

In the first interpretation it is not specified who may impose such sanctions, but I suggest that "an uninvolved administrator following a consensus at WP:AN/I or WP:AE" would be suitable. In the second interpretation a simple motion by the committee would seem to all that is required to impose any appropriate sanctions.

Even if GoodDay is not deserving of sanction at this point, clarification would be useful going forward. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen

The law of diminishing returns has apparently set in. It's distressing to see the efforts of the experienced and heroic users who have tried to assist and educate GoodDay being wasted, when they could be doing so many more useful things for Wikipedia, and having a much better time. Since all three seem to have found him unteachable, I think he's done here. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC).

Statement by Nug

I request that his sanction is amended to include a topic ban for Eastern European topics.

GoodDay was strongly warned by the committee not to violate Wikipedia's conduct policies, especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact [10] and [11]

since that time GoodDay has continued to engage in battleground and uncollegial conduct and continues to cast aspersions about groups of opposing contributors

• Accusing editors of "revisionist POV pushing" [12]
• Making disparaging statements other editors, with edit comment "What it's like discussiong Baltic states." [13]
• Adding names of editors to his "Hall of Honour" with disparaging edit comment Ya gotta admire their determination. Revionist historians have a place in our hearts, too.
• Accusing editors of nationalist PoV pusher when reverting [14]
• Calling them "SPAs" [15]
• Gives a back handed comment [16] attempting to reach out, yet others make this observation [17]

And he has failed to conduct himself with due professionalism:

Considerable discussion was conducted during an RFC [18], in which he strongly opposed any compromise to his long held position [19], [20], [21], [22]. At some point he observed that "the last one to actively oppose using Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia as the birth-countries " [23] begins to make disruptively WP:POINTy edits in other articles contrary to his own position and despite the RFC still being open and unresolved: [24], [25] [26], [27], [28], [29] [30], [31] [32], [33] [34], [35] and so one for many other BLPs

GoodDay then massively expands his WP:POINTy efforts to other Eastern European hockey related articles [36] (edit comment "per silent consensus at Baltics Rfc") [37] [38] [39] [40] ... and so on for a total of 28 templates, then cites the lack of participation by members of WP:HOCKEY in the RFC in response [41] a subsequent complaint over these pointy edits in a thread started by him titled Baltic no-shows

Then he was warned to stop [42], reminding him that his behaviour is similar to that got him topic banned from diacritics and British Isle topic [43]. GoodDay tells Resolute to not to post in his talk page [44] and deletes Resolute's warning, calling it "harassment" [45]

Warned again [46] and again [47], responds by justifying his edit warring as "protecting the project" from "Baltic nationalists" [48]

Now he continues to make disruptive behaviour across multiple Eastern European articles

• Estonia [49], [50], [51]
• History of Latvia [52], [53], [54]

while apparently trolling here and elsewhere, which was subsequently removed [55] and given yet another warning of the consequences of such behaviour [56]

Resolute stated in an earlier Arbitration amendment request where GoodDay unsuccessfully sought to have his sanction lifted:

"IMO, diacritics aren't the root of GoodDay's problem, they merely focus it. They are a symptom of an obsessive-compulsive need for things to match his personal world view. I think GoodDay is sincere in his request and at this point wants to lift the ban merely to "fix" some articles to bring them in line with the hockey project's compromise. But I also believe that the ultimate result of lifting the ban would be to give him the rope to hang himself with. I've had good and bad interactions with GoodDay, and the bad ones are fueled by what I perceive as his being a drama junkie. His obsession with diacritics is likely only going to lead to a site ban if he is allowed to edit within the topic area again, if only because he enjoys being in the middle of controversy." [57]

DJSasso also stated in that amendment request:

"I would note that his British Isles Topic Ban was just reinstated yesterday as well which shows the problems that were brought up in his Arb case have not gone away. He has just shifted them to other subjects again. I would actually suggest that Arbcom take over the other topic ban as well with a motion." [58]

The same obsessive-compulsive behaviour is now occurring in Eastern European topics. Being topic banned from British Isles and Diacritics, it now appears that GoodDay has now shifted his focus to Eastern European topics and now again is the centre of more controversy. -- Nug ( talk) 21:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

I wasn't going to comment, but Nug dragged me into the discussion, so: Given his own battleground mentality in this topic area, Nug is likely commenting because he believes it will help him win his war. His argument may be valid, but I find it rather hypocritical and therefore distasteful.

As I said in the comment Nug references however, GoodDay thrives on being around conflict. And the EE problem is a parallel of the BI problem. We are really down to two options at this point. Remove GoodDay from all conflict areas, or remove him from Wikipedia entirely. A long time ago now, I recall an editor (don't remember who) who was given an edit restriction of no more than one comment on a talk page discussion, except for noticeboard discussions about that editor specifically and on their own talk page. Such a restriction would allow GoodDay to remain on Wikipedia and do gnomish edits (though only if he makes a conscious effort to avoid potential conflict areas), while shortcircuiting his ability to participate in drama. However, as much as I hate to admit it, Bishonen's comment about diminishing returns is apt. Even this suggestion may not be sufficient to eliminate the problems, nor may anything but a site ban be desirable at this point. Reso lute 22:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Estlandia (Miacek)

Support amending the sanction to include a topic ban for Eastern European topics. I've been marginally involved in the conflict, but less so than Nug. However, diffs provided by Nug clearly show that GoodDay is disruptively searching new and new articles to pursue his grudge against a number of Baltic users, whom he contrary to policies labels as revisionists or nationalists. When confronted due to his edit warring that is supported by NO basis whatsoever, ZERO sources, he fails to provide anything that would substantiate his position, apart from general WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments [59]. A topic ban is doubtlessly in order here. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DJSasso

The issue with GoodDay is that he always does things that he knows are likely to cause trouble and then when he gets caught he tries to play the innocent victim who didn't realize what he was doing was wrong. For example he did this a number of times with the original Arb decision and trying to say he didn't understand that "anywhere on the wiki" included his talk pages and was blocked a couple times for it. He now states "To the arbitrators- I will mend my ways. A threat of a 1-year ban or site ban, will have that effect on a fellow. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)" However, in the Arbitration Case it was brought up that he could be site banned. And there were 4 arbs who at that time who voted in favour of it. He already has had the threat of a 1-year ban and it didn't change him. - DJSasso ( talk) 15:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ghmyrtle

Reluctantly adding my voice here, as (contrary to what GD probably thinks) I do not want to see him banned, I want to see him change. But, I know that won't happen. The fact is that GD is devoted to Wikipedia - for hour after hour after hour every day - but after seven years still does not understand how editors should behave. I don't think I could put it any better than this essay: "If a user has behavior problems that disrupt the collective work of creating a useful, encyclopedic reference, then the editor's participation in Wikipedia may be restricted or banned. These problems may be caused by personal immaturity, an inability to properly apply Wikipedia's policies, poor social skills, or other reasons.... In some cases, those actions [to improve behaviour] will ultimately be ineffective, and action must be taken to stop the disruption of the encyclopedia. This requires that Wikipedia editors accept our limitations at changing behavior or policing it, admit that we are not equipped to engage in extended efforts to change or improve someone's behavior, and follow the usual procedures to request a block or ban. Ultimately, it is not the responsibility of the community to develop or enforce a plan that enables the editor to be successful." I agree with all of that. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: One point, perhaps, to be borne in mind. GD is very protective of his personal anonymity, as is his right, but it makes it more difficult to assess appropriate courses of action. It's not entirely clear why GD spends so much time on this site - he makes very few if any contributions to article content - but it does appear that one reason may be a desire for contact with others through WP, as a social forum. Obviously that's not why WP exists, but equally obviously it functions that way for some editors, for whom it is a central and essential part of their whole lives. Perhaps, if GD has genuine concerns over his own wellbeing if he no longer were to have that involvement, he could be encouraged to contact someone on Arbcom off-Wiki, to discuss it? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jeanne boleyn

Eight years of giving one's free time and energy to a project has to count for something. I propose one final chance at reform before imposing the year long ban. After this lengthy service at Wikipedia GoodDay deserves that. -- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 17:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Bill Reid

Yes, GoodDay spends a very long day, each and every day, here on Wikipedia and it isn't healthy. Bluntly, his contributions indicate that he has rather modest literacy skills but his knowledge base in some areas is impressive. Herein lies the problem. Some have attributed cleverness in pot-stirring or deftness in his repeat actions after a period of lying low on a topic. I don't think this is correct. I would say that GD has a genuine lack of clarity of thought as to the consequences of his actions. He does, I think, really believe that on some areas he is on a crusade to right the wrongs (in his mind) of WP. He has been a nuisance, that is undeniable but I'm sure he actually has the project at heart and I would suggest that a lengthy ban is inappropriate for GD. I felt from the start that the mentoring system wasn't going to work for GoodDay. What he needs is to be shown how to put his knowledge base, eg in North American politics, North American sport to good use by writing/improving such articles. There are many who would show him the basics of article writing, how to do the research and help him writing the articles. Starting with stubs and then developing and collaborating to boost them into well developed articles. Jeanne boleyn has previously offered to do such help. GoodDay should commit to doing this and NOTHING else. He should impose on himself a reduction of his time on this site. He should restrict himself to the talk pages of those articles he has properly edited. He should put wiki-gnoming behind him as this causes problems. This I feel could turn him around into an asset if he applies himself. If he doesn't or lets it slide, well.... Bill Reid | ( talk) 12:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Sjones23

I am not involved in any of this, but GoodDay spends a long day at Wikipedia and I have to agree that he has engaged in further violations of our policies, specifically the ones regarding the conduct. Even if the regular established editors tried to help him (I am one of these editors, having been with the project for over 6 years and contributed extensively to Wikipedia), these violations are utterly disgraceful to the community as a whole. Thus, I think a ban on this user should work until he changes his misbehavior. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 16:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Mojoworker

It seems like GoodDay is contrite and pleading for leniency. I've often wondered in cases like this, instead of an x–month long banishment, why not put the offending editor to work on the 'chain–gang' as a way to repay the debt to the community caused by their disruption – by imposing an editing restriction that only allows them to work on WP:BACKLOG items? Does this kind of decision ever occur or is it too hard to enforce? Seems like a win–win situation. Mojoworker ( talk) 00:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• @Thryduulf: I believe that what the Committee meant, when they approved the remedy in question, was that, in the event of misconduct, ArbCom could impose sanctions without the need for further warnings. That said, in my opinion, this does not imply that the community may no longer impose sanctions, if they so choose. Which is why I wonder whether our intervention is really needed here: while I'm willing to examine GoodDay's conduct to determine whether it has been disruptive and then act accordingly – which would probably take a while –, I think that the community would be entirely capable of handling this issue... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • @Steven: after examining Nug's submission, I think GoodDay's conduct does indeed warrant a long block. I merely suggested letting the community handle this because I thought ArbCom would take much longer to reach a decision. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• This is within our jurisdiction, and it is apparent that GoodDay's behavioral issues are not limited to the two topic areas from which he had been topic banned. Proposing motion. T. Canens ( talk) 21:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Decline I think Salvio has a good point. The community can deal with this. It's fairly straightforward, and I don't like the Committee taking away the will and ability of the community to resolve straightforward matters. This should be a AN discussion, not an ArbCom one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Supporting motion. Let's just get this done and over. Looking back at the case - I think there were aspects of the wording that could have been clearer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• While I haven't investigated whether we need to take further action against GoodDay, I would reject out of hand the argument of Salvio and SilkTork. GoodDay's conduct has been brought into the committee's purview, as a result of last year's case. I am therefore opposed on the face of it to any attempt to return this matter to the community. They have wasted enough time on this; it's now our job. AGK [•] 22:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• GoodDay, this is clearly now within Arbcom purview, the community has not been able to solve the situation. I'm willing to hold off making my decision on the motion below because I'd like to hear your thoughts, but I'm not going to agree that this should be deferred to the community. Worm^TT( talk) 13:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  GoodDay, I agree with your statement, but that doesn't give me any confidence that you should be editing. You were editing under a clear warning from an arbitration case about you, knowing full well that a ban was on the cards. You ignored advice from mentors and now acknowledge that you should have handled situations differently, why on earth would we think that you weren't going to end up here again? Worm^TT( talk) 14:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Motion regarding GoodDay

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

In remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, GoodDay ( talk · contribs) was warned that "in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee". It is apparent from the submissions in this amendment request that GoodDay has engaged in further violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies. Accordingly, GoodDay is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which led to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

Enacted - Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Support:

1. T. Canens ( talk) 21:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Let's just get this done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

   @GoodDay, though I want to believe that you will mend your ways, a 1-year ban was already proposed in the past (though that proposal was not successful) and yet you failed to change. As far as I'm concerned, this is a case of too little, too late and, so, I am confirming my support. I am sorry to have to ban someone who has been here for eight years and has contributed a lot of good content, but that is, in my opinion, the only way to stop the disruption you've also been causing, as we've seen that a limited topic ban only moves it to another area. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

4. Courcelles 04:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
5. I wrote the decision for our original case concerning GoodDay. At the time, I considered a siteban to be unnecessary unless GoodDay disruptively edited topics other than the ones from which we eventually banned him in 2012. Now that disruption to other topics has taken place, and given the significant community time that has been afforded to this matter, I do not think we can impose any feasible remedy other than a siteban. If GoodDay appeals his ban after one year, he should bear in mind that he would have to convince the committee that he has grown capable of contributing to a collaborative encyclopedia project; as it stands, I regret to say he is not. AGK [•] 13:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

   GoodDay, I've read your follow-up statements and given it my deepest consideration. However, sorry as I am to ban you, in my mind the best thing for the project would be to separate it from you. The community and its editors have simply spent too much time on this matter, and it will be for the best that you part ways now. I consider this motion to be a reflection on the effect of your edits and your style of contributions, not on your intentions (which I'm quite sure are entirely pure—I don't think you ever meant to cause disruption). Confirming my vote, AGK [•] 23:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
7. I've given this a lot of thought, especially given GoodDay's comments. However, when it comes down to it, I don't see anything that really makes me believe that he will actually change. 1 year does seem like a long time and if there was a shorter period, I would support that. However, as it is, I do not oppose 1 year. Worm^TT( talk) 15:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

I think Salvio has a good point. The community can deal with this. It's fairly straightforward, and I don't like the Committee taking away the will and ability of the community to resolve straightforward matters. This should be a AN discussion, not an ArbCom one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I am ambivalent about this. I see strong arguments in favor of banning and less strong ones in favor of limiting this. I'll park myself here and move to support if my opinion strongly changes. NW ( Talk) 11:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

   On reflection, I keep myself here. I agree with Newyorkbrad. NW ( Talk) 18:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

2. With some sadness—this is not a Good Day—I conclude that it necessary for GoodDay to be banned from editing for a significant period of time, during which he should continue introspecting on how he can best change his approach to editing. Bishonen's comments above explain well why this ban is necessary. However, I am not sure that we need set a period of a full year before we would even consider a request by GoodDay to return to editing. I would prefer to set the period at six months. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment:

• I would prefer to wait a couple of days before considering and voting on this motion. In response to being notified of this clarification request, GoodDay's reaction was that he is "tired" and will accept whatever the Committee decides. I think that in fairness to this long-time, if problematic, editor, we should give him another couple of days in case he has anything else to say for himself before we vote on excluding him from the project for a year or more. I counsel GoodDay that if he takes advantage of this suggestion, he focus on how he would change his editing methods—if he can—to address the many concerns that have been raised. If in all candor he does not anticipate that anything will change, then I will thank him for has candor and vote accordingly. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am happy for this motion not to be implemented until 18/19 April, and on those days I for one will review GoodDay's statement again to see if he has said anything significant. However, I do not think we really have any other recourse here than a siteban. With several topic bans, an arbitration case, and a mentoring arrangement having been imposed to no avail, we've tried absolutely everything else. AGK [•] 13:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to hold off putting my opinion until the weekend. GoodDay has answered my questions on my talk page so I'm going to dig a little deeper to see how likely I believe his statement to be. Worm^TT( talk) 14:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Initiated by Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) at 19:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• Ebrahimi-amir ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Xodabande14 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sandstein ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[60]

Statement by Ebrahimi-amir

The complaint was in two editions:

• The first edition of 7 April 2013. You can read discussions about it in here and here.

• The second edition of one year ago (29 April 2012). You can read discussions about it in here.

I've also participated in the discussion earlier in this article [61] [62] [63] and other articles.

"Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view", it's one of the " Five pillars". I'm involved in discussions and respect to consensus. If it was a mistake I will try to fix. I think my participation in article is helpful than ban it. Article should be written based on reliable sources and neutrality. I think my contribution can help it. Obviously I'll be away from the editing war and respect the consensus.-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein- I was told that my edits on Wikipedia's policies and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision have been constructive, not destructive. So the ban is unfair and I appeal the sanction. Please attention to talk and consensus on the article talk page ( here and here) and also ask for help (To improve the mapping used in the article).-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 20:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Xodabande14

I concur with Sandstein. The user reverted to a map that he had created in wiki commons (amongst other baseless nationalist maps) and had erased all Armenians in Karabagh and much incorrect information, and none of his sources supported such a map. Also any possible changes in previous behavior is seen after I filed the AE request and even then, the user was defending tendentious editing . So even if the user has had some good suggestions or edits, it does not rule out his bad edits and nationalist POV pushing. Also outside of this English Wikipedia, he was pushing viewpoint of the Medes being Turks in Turkish Wikipedia using fringe nationalist sources. I believe the user seriously needs to read WP:fringe, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:synthesis. Please note this ridiculous map [64]. The fact of the matter is that Ethnologue has no such map! Also furthermore, the latest version of Ethnologue (which is what the user should be using) has 15 million Azeris (and 45.5 million Persians) [65] and the previous version of ethnologue (2008/2009) had 11 million Azeris. He ignores the two latest and updated versions of ethnologue. What is important is that ethnologue has no map. So he has no source for drawing such a map (justifies it by out-dated source that lacks any map) and attributes false information to them and then puts it in different Wikipedias. These are just a few example where the user pushes nationalist POV in different Wikipedias. However, English Wikipedia now has some good laws and eventually, nationalist users either have to play by WP:RS or get sanctioned and eventually banned for good. So I support the decision (note also the statement of Dbachmann who has the most experience dealing with nationalist POV in Wikipedia) for the user to remain topic banned for 6 months. This will ensure nationalistic POV pushing which AA2 was created for is reduced and minimized.-- Xodabande14 ( talk) 11:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The only amendment I suggest (not for this case) but int he future is that English Wikipedia like Russian Wikipedia gets a group of expert admins to make binding decisions. Else dealing with countries and ideologies who obsess about racial pride and ethnicity, and users who push nationalist POV, might overwhelm the admins in the future. -- Xodabande14 ( talk) 15:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I issued an Armenia-Azerbaijan topic ban to Ebrahimi-amir at WP:AE recently because of tendentious editing as discussed there. To the extent this is meant to be an appeal of or request for clarification about that sanction, I can't offer a substantive reply, because I do not quite understand what Ebrahimi-amir wants to say with their above statement. But it seems that they do not understand the reasons for the sanction, as discussed in the AE thread, so I can't recommend a modification or a lifting of the topic ban.  Sandstein  19:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• There is a history of concern over Ebrahimi-amir's maps, and also of his tendency to edit war. He has been warned, and blocked, and warned, etc. He knows his maps are controversial and disputed. And he has been specifically warned to discuss making edits that are known to be controversial and disputed. He has also agreed not to edit war. Despite this, he reinstated one of his controversial maps after it had been removed from an article. He did not discuss this first. He only entered into discussion when the matter became a slow moving edit war, with him as part of it. Because Ebrahimi-amir was edit warring; because he was making a controversial edit that is clearly disputed without first discussing it and getting consensus; and because he was not abiding by his own unblocking agreement not to edit war, I feel a topic ban is appropriate. It is not the place of the Committee to discuss if Ebrahimi-amir's maps are appropriate, but while they are disputed, I feel it would be unwise to use them in sensitive articles without first having a discussion and getting consensus. Forcing them in by edit warring, and talking about it afterwards is not doing the right thing. Decline. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. I'm not convinced that the sanction is incorrect, let alone so problematic that requires intervention by this Committee. T. Canens ( talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per TC. NW ( Talk) 19:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• When reviewing a discretionary sanction, ArbCom should not substitute their collective judgement to that of the admin who imposed the sanction being appealed, but only make sure there were neither abuse of discretion nor procedural errors; in this case, there are none. Actually, in my opinion, a topic ban was very much needed. So, decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Decline the sanction appears to me to be very much warranted. Courcelles 19:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• The sanction was warranted, because Ebrahimi-amir's edits to this topic have clearly been disruptive (and very much not, as he argues, "constructive"). The sanction was proportionate and its imposition was procedurally sound. I therefore see no merit to this appeal, and would counsel Ebrahimi-amir to consider what lessons he can learn from this situation and what other topic areas he can contribute to now that he is topic banned from Armenia–Azerbaijan. Decline. AGK [•] 11:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a reasonable and proportionate discretionary sanction and that therefore the Committee should not take any action. (Procedurally, we could have referred this appeal to the AE administrators rather than process it ourselves, but at this point it is best for us to go ahead and decide it here rather than waste time by having the discussion start over again in another forum to reach an inevitable result.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Initiated by IRWolfie- ( talk) at 23:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• IRWolfie- ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Littleolive oil ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [66]

Statement by your IRWolfie-

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Investigating_conflicts_of_interest: "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, editors must comply fully with the outing policy. Editors repeatedly seeking private information (either via on-wiki questioning or via off-wiki investigations) contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment. Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline."

I have recently begun editing John Hagelin, after noticing specific issues with the article with regards to fringe claims. The article had become a good article fairly recently. One of the editors, TimidGuy has an established COI as they are a member of (Redacted) (as you are aware). Another editor, Littleolive oil (or olive), has cited the above "Investigating conflicts of interest" as a reason for her not to declare whether she works with Hagelin or not [67]. if true, that would make at least 2 of the editors on this page both working in the same institute and on the same article for the good article review without disclosure during the review.

She further says that it is not my business whether she works at (Redacted): "I'm sorry, but where I work or don't is no one 's business. I suggest you review the TG arbitration for further information on the implications of pursuing editors based on making COI connections" . I think it is self evident that editors with a COI should be open about their conflicted interests when they edit topics in which they have a clear conflict of interest. To me this seems contradictory to the openness generally expected in declaring conflicts of interests. The uncertainty surrounding possible Arbcom sanctions creates a chilling effect on looking at any possible conflict of interest. I am looking for clarification on what Littleolive oil can be expected to answer, and what I can ask. I am not asserting that having a COI is necessarily problematic, I am specifically trying to ascertain what I can ask to find out about a COI, and what is a reasonable response, and what I can do without being accused of harassment. Is asking someone if they work in the same place as an article subject a request for private information? If I went to COIN now would that have been harassment?

Also, due to the lack of specific denial, I think it is also reasonable to assume the conflict of interest exists. Can I make this assumption? can a consensus of editors make this assumption? IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Olive. I'm not sure what point you are making about my speed. I made a 413 word statement after deciding to post after your initial reply. How long do you think I require? IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Dreadstar, Fringe promotion is a POV issue, that is exactly what I highlighted. Look to articles for POV issues, not user talk pages. There is no need for the aggression. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Silktork, your argument is an argument against ever dealing with civil POV pushing, and against having openness around COI issues. If someone consistently pushes a POV with their edits, or they have an undisclosed COI when they make the POV edits but they argue in a civil way when people fix it, then that is ok by you? If not, in what way does your position contrast with this? By extension, I presume you support paid advocates editing articles since we should focus on the contributions only? Can you highlight why not if you disagree?

John Hagelin is a director at the Maharishi University of Management. TimidGuy works at the Maharishi University of Management, and has disclosed his conflict of interest elsewhere. That's fine with me as long as there is transparency (he didn't disclose his COI at the article which is disappointing). Having a COI does not mean editing is necessarily problematic, and I'm not asserting it is. Olive also edited the topic, but has disclosed no COI in any location. Neither disclosed a conflict of interest at the Hagelin article or during the good article review. The article had serious POV issues, I suggest you review the version that passed GA yourself: [68]. There is a real concrete issue with fringe promotion with that version, and a deliberate confusion of mainstream science and fringe work, see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1. Olive says she worked to the best of her ability to make it neutral, but it is evidently far from that. Assuming good faith, that indicates that the COI is getting in the way, or the editor is unable to edit neutrally. That perhaps multiple people from MUM are the ones who made the article like this, don't you think that is problematic and that clarity and honesty is needed?

I'm not trying to beat Olive in the head with this, but if there is a POV issue, a COI and they are here for the long haul but they are civil, don't you consider that problematic? They can simply out wait any other editor. At this stage, it feels like if I even put up COI tags on the article, for those who have an already disclosed COI, I will be accused of harassment. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to highlight that the three posters (olive, Dreadstar, and Keithbob) have focused on attacking me personally, rather than commenting on the specifics of the request for clarification. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

@NW, very well. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice how ever TM practioner who has commented here has tried to associate Will Beback with anyone who finds issue with their edits, and some have used the implicit threat of sanctions to beat people over the head [69] [70] [71]. I still ask any arb who hasn't done so to view the article that Keithbob, TimidGuy and Littleolive oil thought was neutral for GA, and are currently defending at: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1, Timidguy doesn't seem to know what was possibly wrong with the previous version and wants more examples. The random mention of discretionary sanctions by Olive, is also interesting in that discussion.

I think their COI is making them unable to see the bias. I understand you will take no action for simply having a COI as NW highlighted, but surely you can at least acknowledge the COI itself exists? Skin shows conclusive evidence for the connection to the BLP (i.e the CU report). That's on-wiki evidence, it's not off-wiki. It's not outing either, its not reporting on private information which isn't available on-wiki. IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil

I'm surprised this long, articulate post was posted so quickly, with in minutes of IR Wolfie telling me he was going to. Amazing really. I've heard these arguments before including the, "Also, due to the lack of specific denial, I think it is also reasonable to assume the conflict of interest exists." a very typical Will Beback statement directed at me multiple times. I asked for a GA review in good faith; many editors worked on the John Hagelin article and had input on it. I, to the best of my ability worked on the points/ concerns the reviewer made and had including a weeks long overhaul of all the refs. I have been open to making changes to the article to make sure it complies with Wikipedia GA standards. ( olive ( talk) 23:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC))

• Per Skinwalker's post: The edits Skinwalker has posted is content dispute material which if cited on a NB or in discussion would also have context which Skinwalker has not included here. Further, these are serious allegations about editor conduct and again are based on edits taken out of context of the articles, their discussion pages, and the sources, in short are based on a lack of information. Citing a group of editors like this is not in my mind a simple AE clarification problem but points to the same kinds allegations, oddly, in much the same language, that brought us to arbitrations in the past. ( olive ( talk) 18:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC))

• Skinwalker's assertions about the TM research article are so inaccurate that I have a hard time understanding how he could have actually looked at the TM research article and come up with the assertions he made. The article doesn't rely on primary sources, as he alleges, but relies almost exclusively on research reviews, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses -- all of them compliant with MEDRS. And contrary to his assertion regarding low-impact journals, sources in the article indicate medical research on TM has been published in top journals, including journals put out by the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association.

• Nuclear Warfare: You are deliberately encouraging two editors here to set up a situation in which editors can be sanctioned. I find that suggestion to be concerning coming from a neutral arb especially given Skinwalker's post here which even from a superficial glance contains numerous errors indicating that the allegations of POV Skinwalker is posting are misplaced. I'm afraid this feels like some editors are being set up, and by an arbitrator. This is wrong. ( olive ( talk) 23:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC))

Statement by Dreadstar

This looks to be a possible violation of WP:OUTING by User:IRWolfie-, and an attempt to intimidate Littleolive Oil by forcing her to out herself or be guilty by faulty reasoning such as "Also, due to the lack of specific denial, I think it is also reasonable to assume the conflict of interest exists". I do not see anything here or on Littleolive Oil's talk page about POV editing, which is the real key to showing violations of WP:COI. And this is the same tactic and wording used over and over again by User:Will Beback, which lends some credence to the idea that he does a lot of manipulation off-wiki and may be involved in this incident. I think it is a natural suspicion. This looks to me to be purely WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT by IRWolfe, plain and simple. Dreadstar ☥ 02:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• IRWolfe- and outing, There's been very light comment on this and some denials, so here is the detail I'm commenting on above: User:IRWolfie- asked Olive this question (Redacted)

This "guessing" of Olive's workplace is a clear violation of WP:OUTING where it says: "“Posting another editor's personal information is harassment,....Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.”" (bolding is mine)

Whether correct or not, User:IRWolfie- posted where he thinks she works (Redacted) Wow, talk about tactics of intimidation! Then add to that the various actions IRWolfie- has initiated against Olive - including this very Clarification, and the numerous articles he has followed her to, that she edits; this is turning into a massive case of harassment. Dreadstar ☥ 20:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding redacted PI per WP:OUTING: "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing." Dreadstar ☥ 20:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what I've revdeleted, the key is that when an editor redacts PI, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia - no matter what the method of removal. It's a matter of safety. Additionally, Any "COI issue" would actually be regarding the edits, not the editor's purported affiliations - if the complainants are not sticking to discussion about actual edits and NPOV, then they just want to ’win’ with guilt by association. Win by NPOV, that's what I say. And leave real people their safety and security. Dreadstar ☥ 05:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding AGK's request of me below, I've replied here: User_talk:AGK#Sure

And I'm going to repeat this here, because I think it's damned well important:

• And speaking of courtesy, then I ask that you and the other ArbCom members give the courtesy of addressing the Outing issues that have been raised in this case. Yes, I (and others) can certainly make some statements on Wikipedia that are insulting, but those can be left on the computer screen. Outing has resulted in real life consequences for people, threatening and harassing phone calls and emails, threatening calls to their jobs, their families, to local businesses where the person lives...some of these people don't edit Wikipedia any more because of those...real. Life. Threats. If anyone here has posted personal information and then redacted it, then it behooves us to not repeat it on Wikipedia. Doesn't it? Dreadstar ☥ 22:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Keithbob

I'm glad IRWolfie has opened this thread. There are some issues lurking in the shadows in regards to IRWolfie's editing and I think it's time they saw the light of day. I'll flesh out my thoughts in a post later on today. Thanks for your patience. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the information below speaks for itself. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Timid Guy Ban Appeal Final Decision Feb 2012:

• Burden of proof and personal attacks--When editors request or place sanctions in whatever forum on Wikipedia, the onus is on the editors requesting or placing those sanctions to provide the evidence to prove their claims. Failing to do so may constitute a personal attack. The longstanding "No Personal Attacks" policy states that "serious accusations require serious evidence".
• Conflicts of Interest-- Editing with a conflict of interest ("COI") is discouraged but not prohibited. This is because conflicts of interest can lead to violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance.
• Investigating conflicts of interest-- When investigating possible cases of COI editing, editors must comply fully with the outing policy. Editors repeatedly seeking private information (either via on-wiki questioning or via off-wiki investigations) contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment. Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline.
• Responding to accusations of conflicts of interest-- Editors accused of having a conflict of interest are not required to disclose private information by way of defence.
• Focus on the edits not the editor--Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.
• Harassment-- It is prohibited by policy to disrupt other editors' enjoyment of Wikipedia by making threats, making repeated unwanted contacts, making repeat personal attacks, engaging in intimidation, or posting personal information. (From: "This Page in a Nutshell", Wikipedia:Harassment)
• Battleground conduct-- Wikipedia is not a battleground. Prolonged and repetitive use of community processes to perpetuate ideological and/or content disputes is extremely disruptive and creates a toxic environment.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

TM movement Arbitration Case May 2010:

• Neutrality and conflicts of interest-- Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies. These does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship, but urges editors to be mindful of editing pitfalls that may result from such a relationship. For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies.

TM movement Arbitration Requests for Clarification Aug 2011

• The principle you reference says that "an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies" - so it really depends on the edits themselves. If you think an editor who may have a conflict of interests is not observing relevant site policy/guidelines with their editing, then you should engage the discretionary sanctions provided for in the remedies by seeking enforcement at WP:AE. –xenotalk 20:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• What Xeno said. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• I also agree with Xeno, although I would add that the first step might be to discuss your concern directly with the editor in question himself or herself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with Xeno and Newyorkbrad. Keep in mind the converse is also true; those who have a personal belief system that is in direct conflict with the philosophies of Transcendental Meditation (or for that matter, any other belief system) must also bear in mind their own potential conflict of interest and edit neutrally or not at all. Risker (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• I too concur with Xeno and Newyorkbrad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• There has never been an outright prohibition against conflicts of interest on Wikipedia (for many reasons, not the least of which is the inability to properly define "conflict of interest" in the first place). What COI entails, however, is a higher risk that one's editing unwittingly strays into being tendentious or otherwise problematic. This is why editors in a plausible conflict are counseled to propose edits to talk pages to raise consensus: it's insurance. Ultimately, however, it's the quality of the edits that count. If the pope edited the articles on Christianity while remaining rigorously neutral, then few people would find cause to argue. — Coren (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with those who have spoken before me SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to Skinwalker:

• Skinwalker’s post is an ill-informed piece of propaganda eerily reminiscent of Will BeBack’s (WBB) four year campaign to vilify all editors on the TM topic who did not agree with him. Skinwalker's position appears to be that only WBB knows the right way to write/edit a New Religious Movement article and that any changes to the articles since WBB has been topic banned, must be wrong. This is interesting since Skinwalker has never edited any of the TM articles yet he/she feels they have the expertise and skill to objectively summarize a year’s worth of good faith edits and improvements covering the 14,700 words and 540 citations contained in the three articles he/she references in their post.
• Is Skinwalker also familiar with the 17,560 words of talk page discussion by 14 different editors on the Transcendental Meditation research article since WBB left? Or the 8,740 words of talk page discussion by 8 editors on the Transcendental Meditation technique article since WBB left? Or the 25,577 words of discussion by 13 editors on the Transcendental Meditation article since WBB left? I don’t think so. Because if they were, then they would know that the “POV tag removed” from the Transcendental Meditation technique article was performed by uninvolved USER:Arjayay who said at the time: it was a long and active article, which made following the changes rather difficult; especially when, halfway through re-reading it, it was changed again - but as the changes were heading in the right direction, I was happy to let them run their course. As stated on the talk page, I was impressed by you and your fellow editors' ability to view the article from a NPoV.”
• I could go into the specifics of other fallacies in Skinwalker’s post put this is neither the time nor the place for it. If Skinwalker wishes to file an RfA and the case is accepted. I’d be happy to go through his/her statement point by point and gives diffs to reveal each falsehood. In the meantime his/her reckless repetition of three year old allegations of sockpuppeting and COI, which have been repeatedly examined, in detail, by ArbCom year after year (as outlined in my prior post) only serve to demonstrate the depth of Skinwalker's WillBebackian-like, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, point of view.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

@IRWolfie: In my (albeit limited) experience editing Wikipedia, most COI concerns are overblown, and in the relatively few instances where a COI editor does serious harm to the encyclopedia, little to nothing is ever done about it. So, my question to you is this: Can't you improve the article by focusing on content instead of the contributor?

As for the GA status of that article, that sounds like you should bring this up at WP:FRINGE/N. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Skinwalker

The elephant in the room - which we apparently are not permitted to acknowledge upon threat of a siteban - is that a small number of Transcendental Meditation students and employees, nearly all of whom edit from overlapping IPs in a highly specific geographic location, have systematically collaborated to extol TM and to remove well-sourced criticism of the movement and its devotees. They have interpreted the outcomes of the two TM cases as Arbcom Stamps of Approval® to continue this behavior. But don't take my word for it. Let's look at the content differences they have implemented in TM articles since approximately December 14, 2011 - the day the Timidguy ban appeal case was accepted:

• Transcendental Meditation December 11, 2011 - March 29, 2013:
  • The lead now has a strong emphasis on the number of practitioners of TM, noting the Maharishi's "scientific presentation". Well-sourced criticism of TM health claims from the Cochrane Collaboration and TM science claims from Carl Sagan are removed.
  • The history section, like the lead, has new verbiage that yet again emphasizes the size of the TM organization. This information is sourced to books written by TM adherents.
  • The technique section has lost information about the cost of TM courses. A note that a US district court disallowed the teaching of TM in schools on religious grounds is gone. This is particularly relevant as TM has over the past three decades forcefully denied that they are not a religious organization but instead are a secular self-help group.
  • In the further reading section, a long list of medical articles demonstrating no health effects of TM practice has been removed.
  • A lot of content was ostensibly forked out to Transcendental Meditation technique and a few other subpages. Moving on to those...

• Transcendental Meditation technique November 24, 2011 - March 22, 2013:
  • POV tag removed.
  • The lead notes that over 340 medical studies on TM have been published (the source for this is not WP:MEDRS compliant) - ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the studies have found null results for TM health claims and that the studies that have found positive results have almost exclusively been published by TM affiliated researchers in low-impact journals. The lead further minimizes the religious nature of TM, juxtaposing a two critical references with multiple denials from TM.
  • The Selection section now states that the Maharishi's selection of a student's mantra is "foolproof".
  • In the Course Description section, material from a textbook on how to use TM to fight crime has been introduced.
  • A section on TM-Sidhi has been added. This section uses numerous low-quality studies to support the claim that TM-Sidhi has various beneficial effects on society at large, including the reduction of crime, illness, terrorism, and the improvement of international relations and crop yields. This section also contains the statement on pseudoscience removed from the lead of the main article, buried at the bottom and shorn of the Cochrane Collaboration material.
  • In the TM Teachers section, reliably sourced information on the steep costs of TM courses has been deleted.

• Transcendental Meditation research December 8, 2011 - April 3, 2013:
  • POV tags were removed and then added recently. An advertisement tag was also added last month.
  • The summary in the lead about the lack of efficacy of TM health claims has been rewritten to downplay the preponderance of evidence from reliable medical sources.
  • I'm going to stop detailing the problems with this article to avoid TLDR. The general trend has been to juxtapose primary, poorly executed studies against MEDRS-compliant sources together to give an overall impression of TM efficacy.

I could make similar analyses with articles like Maharishi Effect, which presents paranormal claims of the TM organization as virtual fact and buries criticism at the end. Or, consider John Hagelin, a laudatory BLP which was recently promoted to good article status with absolutely no review of the fringe and original research problems in the article.

One particular behavoiral problem stems from the a principle from the first TM arbitration - "Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess." A tactic observed across most TM articles has been to overload the article with poor-quality sources, and then to threaten enforcement with this principle on an editor who removes these sources. [79] [80]

I've focused here on the content, not the contributor to show serious and systemic problems with our TM articles. I fully expect to be told that these are not behavioral problems, content noticeboards are thataway, etc, etc. Despite various claims otherwise, these are behavioral problems stemming directly from a group of professionally connected editors being permitted to push a non-neutral POV for years. The results from TM arbitrations have created a chilling effect on editors who disagree with the party line on TM articles. These editors end up threatened, admonished, or sitebanned. Skinwalker ( talk) 17:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Responses to various:

• I chose to analyze the articles beginning in late 2011 because they have been almost exclusively edited by TM advocates since then. The talkpages of the affected articles consist of these editors vehemently agreeing with each other. Other editors have been scared away by the constant threat of sanctions.
• I note that the reactions of TM advocates have been attempts to associate me with banned editor Will Beback and blanket denials of POV - ignoring the specifics of my analysis of their changes to TM articles.
• I further note the threats of sanctions made by Littleolive oil, Keithbob, and others. This is typical behavior - when an editor makes a content change they disagree with, they revert and insinuate that the offender may be sanctioned. This is textbook disruption, and it needs to stop. I'm going to post an edited version of my analyses at AE after the various clarifications die down and see where that goes. Skinwalker ( talk) 14:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Fladrif

It would appear that IRWolfie is only the latest editor to inadvertently wander into the walled garden of the TM articles. I sympathize, as I had the same misfortune about 4 years ago. The direct conflict of interest of TimidGuy and LittleOlive Oil with respect to this subject matter was definitively established at COIN years ago. The coordinated editing of the TM-related articles by a handful of editors pushing the identical POV was well documented at the TMArbCom. ArbCom, for reasons that I disagree with but which I understand, took a different approach than it did in the Scientology cases, and declined to impose wide-spread topic bans. The more generalized sanctions did, nonetheless, lead a number of subsequent blocks and bans through AE for continued POV pushing and violation of the TMArbCom decision. The TimidGuy appeal case, which led to WillBeback's ban, again did not lead to any further sanctions against POV-pushing editors, though a number of ArbCom members expressed their thoughts that such sanctions were in order. And, the more recent refusal of ArbCom to consider WillBeback's unblock request, without having the integrity or transparency to explain to either him or the community the basis for that refusal can hardly encourage anyone who questions what is going on in these articles

What I have witnessed in the aftermath of that case in particular, is that a small group of editors, working in concert, have been working diligently ever since the WBB ban to rewrite very substantially a large number of TM-related articles, with essentially no outside involvement. Why no outside involvement? Given the green light that ArbCom has given to these editors, and the message it has given to other editors, which I characterized at the time: "Complain about it once, you will be ignored; complain about it twice, you will be warned; complain about it three times, you will be banned" I'm certain that other editors who might otherwise think about entering the discussion or disputing the edits are frankly scared away from the topic area. The only time I've stepped in to the discussions in those articles is when someone has done something so obviously outrageous and improper that it is not even a close question. Other than that, I've stayed away, discretion being the better part of valor. The fact that the same cast of characters, including their guardian angel Dreadstar, show up like a Greek chorus to threaten sanctions against any new editors who question them, underlines that they view this as a winning strategy.

I agree with the analysis above that these TM-related articles are being rewritten in a systematic fashion to change the tone of the articles, make them more promotional, to minimize any controversies, to present it as accepted science, and remove or obscure any criticism or material which does not fit the preferred narrative of the TM organization. I don't know whether to laugh or cry over the claim being made at the Hagelin GA reassessment discussion that the article is the result of some collaborative effort among many editors (including myself). It would take hundreds of pages of diffs and comparison of sources and analysis of text which no-one is going to read to document all the changes. Just read the "before" and "after" versions, and come to your own conclusion. Now, I am sure that this will be closely followed with a long list of diffs in which the editors claim "You can't claim I'm POV-pushing, because in edit "x", I removed something that was positive about TM, and in edit "y" I added something that was negative, and in edit "z", when somebody questioned some change, we came to agreement. They've been very smart about doing precisely that to create a track record of plausible deniability. I could also point, on the opposite side, to tendentious tag-teaming on the talk pages that IRWolfie, DocJames and others have become embroiled in, showing extensive removal of reliable sources, addition of sources that don't meet RS or MEDRS, and the gross mischaracterization of sources in service of the narrative. Frankly, I have neither the time nor inclination to pursue this, and it is clear that ArbCom for reasons known only to themselves, have no interest in doing anything about it. If ArbCom doesnt' care, why should anyone else? Go ahead and let the TM Organization and any other organization/company/movement/political party/religion just rewrite the articles about themselves, their beliefs, and their products any way they want and ban anybody who questions it. Fladrif ( talk) 15:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

@Dreadstar. Give it a rest already. You know full well that Olive voluntarily disclosed her COI, that it was extensively discussed at COIN in multiple threads, that she was directed to comply with COI policy, she defiantly ignores those decisions and directives. You then personally blanked her userpages containing the disclosure of her COI. Enough with the tired, blustering threats. Fladrif ( talk) 20:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

@Dreadstar #2. You do not have WP:Oversight rights [81], thus your redaction of Olive's voluntary COI disclosure is not covered by the cited policy, and reference to her voluntariy self-disclosure is not WP:OUTING notwithstanding your redaction. Moreover, her COI and the self-disclosure is extensively documented at multiple COIN threads, none of which have been redacted or oversighted. So again, give it a rest. Fladrif ( talk) 21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Now we have editors unilaterally deleting, reverting, hatting on this thread and apparently elsewhere, etc, the fact that TimidGuy and Olive have both, repeatedly, revealed who their employer was. Are we going to next disappear the COIN findings as to their conflict of interest? And the ArbCom findings that TimidGuy had a revealed conflict of interest? This is getting absurd. The policy is quite clear, having voluntarily revealed their COI, it is no violation of Outing to refer to it. None of the editors who are busily trying to unring this bell have Oversight rights on Wikipedia. Fladrif ( talk) 00:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that Dreadstar is trying to rewrite the Harassment policy yet again to his own liking above. Once an editor has revealed his employer, voluntarily, simply deleting it does not unring the bell. Has Oversight removed the multiple, voluntary, disclosures of his employer across multiple userpages, article talkpages, noticeboards, AE, ArbCom, and probably half a dozen I've forgotten? Otherwise, this effort to whitewash the facts is directly contrary to policy. Fladrif ( talk) 00:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DavidLeighEllis

If a group of editors is POV pushing on TM, and there is clear, unambiguous evidence to back this up, then that is a user conduct problem that can be resolved administratively or by arbitration, if nothing else will work. What is totally unacceptable is to claim that because an editor is, or is alleged to be, a member of a religious group, their editing on the topic is ipso facto biased. You wouldn't try to ban Jews from articles on Judaism, or Christians from articles on Christianity, would you? Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is primarily hortatory, cautioning editors about a factor that might lead them into the temptation of biased editing. The guideline also allows blatant COI problems, such as editing as a paid advocate for an organization, to be dealt with harshly. Again, it should not be assumed that any member of a religious group is ipso facto a paid advocate, and the allegation should not be made speculatively. If Littleolive oil/Keithbob/etc are biasing TM articles, their editing itself is sufficient evidence against them, without straying into argumentum ad hominem. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cardamon

As a general comment, simply asking an editor whether they have a conflict of interest (COI) on a topic is not outing.

@AGk: There seems to be a conceptual problem with the idea that individuals cannot legitimately conclude that a COI exists, while groups can.

On Wikipedia, groups reach conclusions mostly by consensus (although sometimes by voting), so a group can reach a conclusion only as a result of individuals reaching the same conclusion.

So, preventing individuals from concluding that a COI exists would also prevent groups from concluding that a COI exists. Cardamon ( talk) 23:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Noting the above argument by Cardamon:

An individual certainly might suspect a COI - but under Wikipedia policies that individual should not make accusations based on their own surmise or on their own research concerning the person. More importantly, no individual has the right to act on their own surmise to the detriment of the other editor. If an editor makes an accusation on any talk page based on their own "research" (beyond using an editor's name if the editor is not using a 'nom de Wiki') then that is contrary to policy as "outing."

An individual might mention a surmise, and others might concur, but is is again not up to any such group to act on a surmise to the detriment of any other editor.

What Wikipedia has is a noticeboard specifically for making any determinations of COI affecting edits on an article WP:COI/N

It is on that noticeboard that the questions are asked with the goal of determing if a COI exists, and whether the COI affected the editing of the article improperly. Note that simply having a potential COI does not mean that one can not properly edit on a topic, and thus the post above has very little to do with the proper arguments thereon. Collect ( talk) 12:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• When looking at content, if users concentrate on contributions rather than contributors they won't go far wrong. If there is a problem with content, deal with the content. A contributor comes into focus when their conduct becomes a cause for concern. So if a user is dealing with problematic content, and a contributor is being obstructive or disruptive, that would be the time to look at their behaviour - but it would be their on-Wiki behaviour one would look at, not assumptions about their private life. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Skinwalker: I am very sympathetic to your position. I'm not sure if a majority, or even a sizable minority, of the Committee is at this time. In the meantime, perhaps there might be some knowledgeable individual administrators at WP:MED who might be interested in reviewing articles, talk page, and archives for sanctionable behavior if you put together a well-argued post that shows evidence of civil POV pushing.

  @IRWolfe: There is an unresolved (and perhaps unresolvable) tension between our principles of allowing pseudonymous editing and discouraging articlespace edits by those who have a conflict of interest, as I believe a past Arbitrator once put it. There is no good solution to this, so I would give you the same general advice as I gave Skinwalker. NW ( Talk) 20:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• In my view, one editor individually cannot legitimately conclude that a conflict of interest exists, but a group of uninvolved editors can. AGK [•] 19:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Dreadstar, your statement seems mostly speculative in nature, and it would be appropriate for you to rescind or substantiate it. AGK [•] 22:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I may add more later, but for now I would say that editors who edit topics in which they have a clear professional or personal involvement should disclose that. My rule of thumb is that if you were publishing something under your real name, and your prior involvement in that topic on a professional or personal level would lead people to question the objectivity or motivation for what you were writing on Wikipedia, then you need to disclose that you have a COI (conflict of interest). Failing that, if you are unwilling to disclose or discuss potential COIs, you should chose to edit something else (a new interest, unrelated to previous and current professional or personal interests). This also applies to those who may arrive at an article with the intention of promoting or denigrating a topic, though that is technically POV pushing.

  More generally, what Wikipedia needs is generalists willing to work on a wide range of articles, and willing to look at an article that they have little prior knowledge of, and assess potential sources objectively and dispassionately. Such editors would work with others (including specialists, advocates, critics, and others who have willingly disclosed their connections to the topic area) to achieve a well-written article that serves our readers. Put the article through some recognised review process, and then move on to do the same on other articles.

  Anything else is horrendously inefficient and prone to protracted arguments between pseudonymous people who (in some cases rightly) question each other's motives and why they disagree on the right approach to sourcing and writing such articles. It should be not about what the editors need (protection from each other?), but what the articles need, and they need editors from a range of backgrounds willing to work together on the articles and improve them efficiently. And that should always include someone with little prior knowledge of the topic, able to provide objectivity, and to whom those editing the article will listen. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Initiated by Prioryman ( talk) at 07:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Prioryman

I'd be grateful if the Committee could clarify a couple of points regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology.

• Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors instructed, the scope of the ongoing discretionary sanctions is defined as "any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page". Could the Committee please clarify if that applies to all Scientology-related content in all namespaces (i.e. article space, templates, talk pages etc), including subsections of articles that are not wholly about Scientology?

• The project banner for WikiProject Scientology, Template:WikiProject Scientology, includes a notification, apparently added by uninvolved admins following the case, of the editing requirements linked above. As far as I can tell this was not done on behalf of the Committee but seems to have been done as a way of informing editors of the sanctions. The project banner isn't mentioned in the case. Could the Committee please clarify if the application of the sanctions is conditional on the project banner being posted on the talk page of an article that includes content related to Scientology - i.e. if there's no project banner the sanctions don't apply - or whether they apply independently of the project banner being present?

@Salvio: Thanks for the advice, but I'm simply trying to clarify the situation with the scope of the sanctions and the project banner. Thanks for doing so. Prioryman ( talk) 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Based on previous statements and clarifications by the ArbCom (not related to Scientology) I would suggest that the discretionary sanctions apply to all Scientology content on Wikipedia, including templates and sections of larger articles.

Regarding the template, the key aspect of discretionary sanctions is that editors must be aware of them before they can be sanctioned under them. A notice on the talk page is a convenient way to alert people that the sanctions exist and that that article is within the scope of them. It is not the only way though, for example if you edit warred about adding significant Scientology-related content to Riverside County, California you could not successfully argue that you were not aware of the existence of DS for the topic area even if there wasn't a template on the article talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

I have already (grudgingly) conceded the point that that single passage in the article is under Arbcom's Scientology-related purview. We are discussing ways to move forward on the talk page now, regarding how to make it clear to present and future editors that that is the case, and that the list in its entirety is not under discretionary sanctions. JClemens' comment yesterday regarding granularity and mixed-element articles was insightful. Tarc ( talk) 12:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• In my opinion, EdJohnston's comment is reasonable and that is how I would interpret the restriction as well. An article about Scientology, even when not tagged with the appropriate wikiproject banner, is under sanctions. When only a section of an article deals with the topic in question, then the AE admins have to look at the content of the diffs: a user can be sanctioned if his edits are about Scientology and are deemed disruptive. Furthermore, I also think that discretionary sanctions apply to all namespaces: it would be unreasonable not to sanction an editor who is causing serious disruption during a discussion about any topic under sanctions merely because his conduct occurs in project space.

  That said, I also agree with IRWolfie- that, in the case which prompted your question, the use of discretionary sanctions would have been inappropriate: they are a tool to protect Wikipedia, not a club to beat your opponents over the head with.

  Finally, speaking as an editor and not as an Arbitrator, after an AfD, a DRV, an AE thread and a clarification request, will you please remove List of Wikipedia controversies from your watchlist and forget about it for at least a month? If there are serious problems, someone else will certainly notice; no need for you to stay there to hold the fort. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree in general with Salvia guiliano's advice. And like him, I will venture to add a comment in my individual capacity and not as an arbitrator. Mine is that it is undesirable for a mainspace article to become a forum for jousting between wikipolitical factions. List of Wikipedia controversies is not a battleground. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I too agree with the Arbitration advice given. Is there anything more that needs to be done here? NW ( Talk) 15:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Salvio. T. Canens ( talk) 20:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Also agreeing with Salvio. Risker ( talk) 01:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the page which is the subject of this proceeding: Talk:Jerusalem/2013_RfC_discussion.

Initiated by Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) at 02:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• sm8900 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Mr. Stradivarius ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [82]
• Pgallert ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [83]
• RegentsPark ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [84]
• Keilana ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [85]
• Ravpapa ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [86]
• Evanh2008 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [87]
• Dailycare ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [88]
• Nishidani ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [89]
• FormerIP ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [90]
• The Devil's Advocate ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [91]
• Tariqabjotu ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [92]
• Sean.hoyland ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [93]
• ClaudeReigns ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [94]
• Zero0000 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [95]
• Nableezy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [96]
• Mor2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [97]
• Sepsis II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [98]
• Hertz1888 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [99]
• BritishWatcher ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [100]
• Dlv999 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [101]
• ZScarpia ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [102]
• Ezzex ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [103]

Notes by Sm8900 in regards to intent of process

Suggestion on process

I am reposting a note which I posted elsewhere, with a suggestion on how perhaps we could improve this processs. this suggestion was sort of my reason for posting this whole thing in the first place. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Hi there, all. this is just a suggestion. In the future, I think that any time that Arbcomm launches a process to discuss an RFC, then Arbcom or the moderator of the process should provide a set of the possible wordings or options which may be offered in the future RFC.

Then participants in the process for designing that RFC should be given the chance to say whether they are for or against each of those options, and why.

if we permit all discussion participants to offer their own options and to argue over that, then the process can become quickly derailed, and we may never get around to the RFC itself which was the reason for convening that process in the first place. just a thought. hope you don't mind. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Note on reason for process

by the way, one reason I made this a request for clarification is that I left notes on the personal talk pages for several arbitrators. However, I did not receive a reply,. So, based on the fact that I did not receive any reply at all, even when i tried to conduct this discussion on an informal basis with individual members of Arbcomm, I felt that it was advisable to post this. I appreciate your help. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 13:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Salvio

I would like to thank Salvio for his note, and would like to reply. Salvio, I will try to be equally frank. In my opinion, I think this process really started out with some good intentions. but I think the results are not what Arbcomm had hoped for, since their goal was to provide a process which would make the design process for an RFC more easier. I know it is not Arbcomm's intent to inflict counter-productive processes on Wikipedia, and they intended to make things more better for our editing community. in my opinion the the resulting process is very much counter to what Arbcomm intended or desired. I don't think the design process for an RFC should take so long that actually launching the RFC itself becomes an afterthought, or is even made to seem relatively unimportant due to the length of this design process. my point is, Arbcomm itself should be notified if a process which it mandated turns out to not have achieved the desired result, and in fact ends up being just as laborious as the conventional process which it was meant to replace.

I do appreciate all the hard work which Arbcomm does, and all the multiple benefits which it provides to the Wikipedia community. I hope it will be possible for Arbcomm to have a full discussion of this item, to discuss both the intent of this process, and the actual course it took, and to also lay out some clear and specific guidelines on how the process should be designed in the future, and what guidelines Arbcomm should define for itself for any similar process which it may mandate in the future. if this came up now, then it could possibly come up again. so I appreciate any progress which we as a community might be able to forge together. I appreciate your help and input. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 13:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note on intent of process

By the way, one more note in regards to what Arbcomm should do. in my opinion, of course Arbcomm should intervene if possible to do so. the whole point of Arbcomm mandating a process, imo, is so that they will intervene when necessary at various intervals, in order to maintain that process and to keep it viable. I really see no reason for Arbcomm to be hands-off if it mandates a process, and then that process does not show some viable progress. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 13:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Original statement by Sm8900

I would like to request a clarification of the RFC process for Jerusalem article, which Arbcomm mandated, in regards to the points raised and queries in the following note on an Arbcomm talk page.

1. note: Arbitration/Requests#Mandated Jerusalem discussion appears to be a bureaucratic morass. ( Permanent link.)
2. I would also like to suggest a solution and remedy for the problems discussed in this note. I have made these suggestions at the following talk page section: ARBPIA#comment_on_rfc_process_and_arbcomm.
3. The page which is referred to is located at: Talk:Jerusalem/2013_RfC_discussion.

thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 14:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Note by sm8900

I would like to thank Arbcomm for replying to this. please note that my motion on this item is not necessarily a point of contention with any other editor who is part of this, but is rather a suggestion on the nature of this process itself. thanks very much. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 02:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note in reply to moderator of process

I would like to reply and say that I do appreciate all the hard work which the moderator has put into helping this process to develop. I don't think it is any fault of the moderator that this has taken so long. I think that the structure of this process was flawed from the beginning. in the future, I feel that Arbcomm should be the one to provide the possible options to be used in a future RFC. then, as part of the design process for the RFC, all participants should simply comment on the possible options which Arbcomm has provided. I feel that this might allow the process to go much more smoothly. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 11:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tariqabjotu

I'm not sure what exactly the "clarification" needed is, but, yes, this process is taking forever. I don't know what the problem is. A desire to get every minutae related to this RfC nailed down? Lack of participation (from those commenting or the mediator)? Excessive arguing over minor points?

That being said, while this process has taken a long time already, I feel the RfC discussion is close to its conclusion. On Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, Looie496 said there are four steps left in the discussion before the RfC commences. However, that's not true; there are only two. One of them has been going on for more than a month now, so hopefully that should be drawing to its final conclusion (provided the moderator doesn't insist on several more questions). The last step is the finalization of implementation, which I imagine is just discussion of how the RfC will be advertised. The last two steps Looie referenced are the launch of the RfC and the analysis and implementation of the results -- i.e. the RfC itself.

I'm not a fan of this current drawn-out process, and I feel a small team of reasonable editors (maybe ArbCom itself?) could have come up with an RfC with a similar format months ago. But now that we've gone down this road, we might as well see it to its end -- although perhaps with a greater understanding from all parties involved that we need to speed this up. Many people, myself included, are becoming fatigued and losing interest in this whole thing. -- tariqabjotu 02:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mr. Stradivarius

For those unfamiliar with the background, I'm the moderator of the RfC discussion. I'm a little surprised to see this clarification request, as I think this could have been sorted out on my talk page without involvement from the committee. Sm8900 did leave a note on my talk page a few days ago, but we didn't discuss the issue of the basic structure of the RfC discussion, which seems to be what this request is about.

Having said that, I do agree with him, with Tariqabjotu, and with Looie496, about the fact that this process has been taking too long. This is mostly the result of my decisions on how to structure the process, and I'm sorry for any unnecessary work or discussion that this has caused. It wasn't my intention to make the discussion last as long as this, and I might have been able to avoid this state of affairs with more foresight.

To add to this, there has been discontent among the participants at the latest stage of the proceedings. I made the mistake of posting what turned out to be very contentious questions for the participants to answer, right before I went travelling for a few days (on April 11). I wanted to post the questions before I left, as otherwise the process would have basically been stalled until I got back. However, this backfired, and resulted in a series of acrimonious exchanges which I wasn't able to moderate effectively due to my limited internet access. I think it is the negativity in this latest round of discussions that has led to the fatigue that Tariqabjotu mentions.

However, as Tariqabjotu also mentions above, this process is actually fairly near to completion, and I don't think there would be any benefit to radically changing its format at this stage. There are certainly lessons to be learned from this experience for the next time ArbCom tries something similar, and I myself have many things to reflect upon. What the actual process needs now, though, is for me to summarise the consensus from the latest discussions and to assemble a draft of the RfC text, not for there to be a change of procedure or of personnel. After the participants see an actual draft of the RfC, with any luck the fatigue should disappear. I have set aside today to do this, so you can expect to see some results later on. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496

In response to Salvio, let me note that this request is here because Carcharoth said it should be -- the issue was originally raised on the ArbCom talk page. In my view, the most important aspect of this is that ArbCom really needs to be conscious of how far off track the process has gone, otherwise similar things are likely to happen again. This is a remedy that did not work properly. Can the concept be modified to make it workable, or should remedies of this sort simply be avoided?

It would also be helpful, for the current case, to have the moderator set a more or less definite target date for when the RfC should go live. Looie496 ( talk) 15:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dailycare

I agree with the editors above in that the process, while long, is quite close to completion and in that regard prospects are bright. Mr. Stradivarius has been doing an admirable job in guiding the discussion toward the eventual goal of starting the RFC. I don't see why we shouldn't just finish the planning according to the agreed plan. Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

hmmm, I do hear your points. I would like to thank Dailycare for his reply here, as a fellow participant. thanks.-- Sm8900 ( talk) 15:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

• Taking care of the notifications now. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've notified the moderator, closers and all users listed as participants. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Thank-you for the request for clarification. Before this goes any further, we need to make sure that all those who need to be aware of this request have been notified and added to the notification section above. Could you or a clerk please do that. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Steve, frankly, I don't understand what you expect us to do here. It appears you're trying to provide us with feedback as to how the process we set up can be improved (and what its major flaws were): don't get me wrong, that's always welcome and, as far as I'm concerned, your suggestions will certainly be taken into account, should we do something like this again, but that's not something that requires a clarification or amendment request. If, on the other hand, you're asking the Committee to intervene, then my personal take is that we should not interfere now that the process is nearing completion... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Can the concept be modified to make it workable [...]? Hopefully, yes: this process was fairly new and there are still kinks to iron out, obviously. That's why feedback from the various participants and from the mediator is much appreciated. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• My views align fairly closely with Salvio's on this one.   Roger Davies ^talk 20:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• In general, I'm disinclined to intervene in processes like this unless it has gone badly off the rails; micromanaging by committee is one sure way to make the process fail. In this particular case, while perhaps some things could have been done differently, I see no cause for us to intervene now, especially at this late juncture. My suggestion is that everyone do their best to get the process to completion, after which we could assess its effectiveness, and decide on what should be improved next time around. T. Canens ( talk) 20:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with T. Canens. I directed Steve here because he appeared to be lost and posting on the wrong pages. Possibly I should have directed him to the moderator, but I think this clarification has been a useful reminder of this process that the committee mandated, a need to be aware of it, and to support it through to its conclusion, and then review it after that. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)