Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Dispute resolution
Tips for dispute resolution
Use etiquette Assume good faith Be civil Be open to compromise Ask for editor assistance Discuss on talk pages
Content disputes
Get a third opinion (⇒) Request comments (⇒) Dispute resolution noticeboard Request informal mediation Formal mediation (request · guide · policy)
Conduct disputes
Comments on user conduct Wikiquette assistance (⇒) Administrator assistance Arbitration (request · policy · enforcement)

Wikipedia arbitration
About arbitration Arbitration policy Arbitration requests Current proceedings Guide to arbitration Noticeboard
Committee
About the Committee Rules & procedures Motions History / Elections
Subcommittees
Audit (AUSC) Ban Appeals (BASC)
Clerks
About the Clerks Clerks' noticeboard
Sanctions
Discretionary sanctions Active sanctions
Records
Archive of proceedings
Related changes

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

Please make your request in the appropriate section: Request a new arbitration case Request clarification or amendment of an existing case This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case Arbitrator motions Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment: Scientology (Lyncs)

Initiated by Lyncs (talk) at 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Case affected 

Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

see User talk:Lyncs/archive1

Suspension of site ban: User:Justanother / User:Justallofthem

Your indefinite site ban is suspended subject to your unconditional acceptance of and compliance with the following restrictions:

Single account limitation

You may edit from one account only - currently Lyncs (talk · contribs) - with no exceptions for whatever reason. You may rename that account provided (i) you immediately notify the committee of the rename; (ii) the redirects from the prior account name remain in place; and (iii) you display a link to the previous account name on your user page.

Interaction ban Cirt

i) You may neither communicate with nor comment upon or make reference to either directly or indirectly to User:Cirt or their contributions on any page in the English Wikipedia. You may not edit Cirt's talk or user pages though you may, within reason, comment within other pages providing your comments do not relate directly or indirectly to Cirt or their edits. The sole exception to the interaction ban is that you may respond civilly on matters explicitly pertaining to you raised by Cirt or any other editor in any dispute resolution or enforcement context.

ii) Should you violate the letter or spirit of the restrictions above, you may be blocked without prior warning via the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard: on the first occasion for up to one week; on the second occasion for up to one month; and on the third occasion for up to three months. Appeal of any blocks is to the Arbitration Committee.

Topic banned from Scientology

You are indefinitely topic-banned from Scientology on the standard terms outlined here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Roger talk 13:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Lyncs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Would someone viewing this please be so kind as to inform Cirt; I am not able to under the terms of the reinstatement. Thanks --Lyncs (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Cirt notified. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment 1

• Remove all account restrictions based on over one year of good behavior.

Statement by Lyncs

I was conditionally reinstated well over one year ago with the comment at the time that I could ask to have the restrictions lifted following some period of good behavior. I believe that statement was in an email from an arbitrator and can try to find it if needed.

It is now well over one year and I think that I have evidenced my good behavior and good intentions. I do not edit all that much but might edit more in the future. I would prefer to 1) have access to a subject, Scientology, that I am extremely conversant with and 2) not have any live mines that I might inadvertently step onto vis-a-vis interaction bans or the like.

It is not my intention to interact with Cirt and it is currently not my intention to edit Scientology articles but I do not think there is any need to bar me from either at this point. If I do edit in Scientology (which could happen) or interact with Cirt (which is unlikely), I would still be bound by the rules and norms of Wikipedia with the added factor that I will be subject to certain scrutiny so I think it is not inappropiate to grant this request. Thank you.

1. Response to Newyorkbrad: Lifting the one account restriction is the least of my concerns and if that is a deciding factor or a factor of concern then I have no problem continuing editing solely from this account. --Lyncs (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Response to AGK: I could make argument on the merits of the original sanctions and possible injustices but I am not interesting in rehashing that nor, I imagine, is the committee. The fact that I have been back for well over one year and have not had any problems is indicative of the fact that I am not into causing problems. That is an important point. Troublemakers cause trouble. They do not stop because they are now excluded from one area or another. They make trouble where they are. That is not what I am about.

On second thought, I will say one thing of a general nature related to my sanctions. When I started editing here, I edited the Scientology articles as that was something I had been involved with for many years. If you are familiar with that territory prior to the arbitration, the Scientology articles were a battleground of anti-Scientology zealots warring with Scientology zealots with the antis well in control of the situation. But it was noisy nonetheless. I arrived as a non-zealot Scientologist just trying to add some balance and the benefit of my knowledge. While there were and are plenty of non-zealot folks that do not think highly of Scientology, few seemed to accept that there could be a Scientologist that was a not a zealot. To most, especially the antis, all Scientologists were programmed, brainwashed, and agents of the evil OSA. But that is how zealots see things. I made many thousands of edits. My edits were never much of an issue. What was the issue was that I screamed pretty loudly when getting stuck with pins. I think that the project is wiser now on the subject of Scientology. I hope it is wiser on the subject of wiki-bullying in general.

I could discretely canvass my wiki-friends and ask them to speak for me but I am not going to do that. They are, of course, welcome to speak on my behalf if they care to; I am just not going around asking anyone to do so.

I think the fact that no-one feels strongly enough about my request to come over here and object says something also. I think the fact that it is so quiet here speaks for my request, not against it.

In other words, I present the case that my request is almost a non-issue and I am simply looking for the sanctions to be lifted as "time served" with a warning to watch my step in the future or as appropriate. --Lyncs (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Response to Roger Davies: All due respect, but I am not sure what more persuasive argument I can make regarding the two and third issues.

I think the fact that three years have elapsed since the end of the Scientology case and I have had next to zero interaction with Cirt and exhibited zero inclination to harass him in any manner should, IMO, be all the argument I need make. What more can I say? I have already stated that "it is not my intention to interact with Cirt". It is not my intention to interact with Cirt and certainly not my intention to cause him grief. I just do not feel that, based on my evidenced lack of intention to harass him, I need have concern about violating a sanction were our paths to cross in some innocuous fashion. Let me put it a bit more strongly; it is my intention to avoid crossing paths with Cirt where possible and to keep things civil if circumstance puts us on the same page.

Regarding the one account restriction, as I state above, that one I can live with but, again based on good behavior, I also would be fine with having it lifted and simply being reinstated in full. --Lyncs (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I took a quick look at Lyncs' 100 most recent article space edits. The edits seem to be fine, but they go back quite far (Aug 2011) and aren't incredibly substantial so there isn't a lot of history to examine. NW (Talk) 03:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

I've been informed by Arbitration Clerk AlexandrDmitri that I may respond to this request, diff.

I have to strongly oppose this request by Lyncs (talk · contribs), for several reasons.

1. Lyncs (talk · contribs) was blocked in January 2011 for "block evasion", and unblocked in February 2011.
2. May 2011 = Lyncs chose to remove ban and sock templates from userpages of his (still blocked) sockpuppets, Justallofthem, Justanother, Justahulk, and Alfadog. He also removed himself from the list of banned users.
3. This is contrary to the terms of his site ban. His other accounts were not unblocked. The siteban was never lifted from the Justallofthem account listed at List of banned users. In fact, the original message posted to Lyncs stated, "You may edit from one account only - currently Lyncs (talk · contribs) - with no exceptions for whatever reason." Therefore, removing the sock tags from all these user pages and the notice that the Justallofthem account is (still) sitebanned was and is inappropriate behavior, and indicative of a lack of change in behavior from that which got him sitebanned.
4. In communication with another party from the ArbCom case that got him sitebanned, diff, Lyncs admits he is "not doing much editing."
5. Since the unblock on the Lyncs account, he has made less than 200 total edits to Wikipedia.
6. It doesn't appear that the user has successfully made any quality improvements to any articles (FA, GA, etc.) since being unblocked, that would be a demonstration of willingness to work collaboratively outside the prior topic.
7. Lyncs states in his request statement that it's not his intention to interact with me, or to edit on the topic banned topic. Therefore, I'm not seeing a need here or positive good done by lifting these restrictions.
8. Further, the edits (above) by the Lyncs account post-unblock show an attachment to the prior blocked sockpuppet accounts. This indicates the restriction to one account is still necessary in this case.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

I count as a friend of Lyncs' (Justanother), which should be kept in mind when reading the following. But I guess not many people remember this stuff, so after some hesitation I decided to weigh in all the same.

Lyncs doesn't edit much, no. It's chilling to be under restrictions that express so much distrust in one's good will. His continued interest in Wikipedia is evidenced by his remaining a gnomish editor throughout this long period. To me it seems reasonable to believe him when he states that he doesn't harbour any intentions to interact with Cirt or — at present — to edit Scientology articles. I'd be really, really surprised if he even wanted to have anything to do with Cirt. This is not the place to criticise Cirt, but since the 2011 ArbCom desysopped him, the long-time campaign of his protector (who has left Wikipedia, so there's no reason to name her here) to discredit Justanother as an evil machiavellian harasser of the paragon Cirt has perhaps lost some credibility. This ANI thread from 2008, an attempt to get Justanother community banned, is a particularly egregious example. I'm happy to note that the community ban process has been cleaned up some since then. (My criticism of how it worked on this occasion is here, right at the end, in case you can't face reading the whole. It's a very colourful thread, though, especially the.. uh.. different culture evinced in the input from the two Wikinews editors.)

If Lyncs should return to Scientology on a large scale, and/or in a questionable manner, it would surely be easy to reinstate the restrictions. I suggest all the restrictions be removed (unless everybody including Lyncs is happy with the restriction to one account), perhaps with phrasing that provides for quick and simple reinstatement of them, if required. Bishonen | talk 15:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

With respect to Bishonen above, the topical and interpersonal disputes are in a separate league to the issue of inappropriate use of multiple accounts - the Community has always (to this day) expressed strong views on this issue, given how serious a breach of trust it is. A relevant question, I think, is what caused or tempted the user to the inappropriate use of multiple accounts - did it start off during a dispute in the topic (or with Cirt), did it start off as a matter of generality, or was it well-intentioned conduct that was inadvertantly disruptive (which has now been clarified and remedied)? Unless it is the latter, or this is a case where a single account restriction was completely unwarranted, I would not be comfortable with lending support to the removal of a single account restriction (even with a discretionary sanctions regime). If it did start off during a dispute in a topic or with an user, and that user has subsequently demonstrated there are no issues with his editing in that topic or with that user, then I would agree about the chilling effect - but we are not even at that point yet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Question to Lyncs: Does your request include termination of the one-account restriction? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements from the community that what Lyncs believes is appropriately acceptable behavior is indeed so perceived by the community. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• The argument to end the unban restrictions is not compelling, and given the absence of discretionary sanctions for this topic I am therefore reluctant to allow Lyncs' (Justallofthem) appeal. However, I too will await statements by the community (if any are to come) before adjudging. AGK [•] 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Standard discretionary sanctions apply to this topic. I am therefore minded to vacate the existing sanctions, even with the appellant's limited edits this year. A motion to this effect could be proposed if my colleagues are of the same mind. AGK [•] 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have to admit the lack of contributions to base the solving of past issues concerns me greatly. If I had to vote now, it would be to decline, but waiting for more comments first. SirFozzie (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline for now: ask again when you've made substantially more edits perhaps?  Roger Davies ^talk 15:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just reviewing this to see if we can move it forward. What Lyncs seems to be asking for is
  1. Lifting of the Scientology topic ban;
  2. Lifting of the interaction ban with Cirt (and I'd like to hear from Cirt on that one);
  3. Lifting of the one account restriction.
  The Scientology discretionary sanctions won't address all of this so I suggest that unless we hear more Lyncs persuasively addressing the two and third issues, within say, seven days, we decline.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• While I would prefer to see more editing in a range of topics, I believe that the ARBSCI discretionary sanctions would apply in this case, and would likely be sufficient. Risker (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Sort of willing to let the topic ban go at this time, but not then other two restrictions. Courcelles 18:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Clarification: Speed of light (Brews ohare)

Case link: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Initiated by JohnBlackburne^words_deeds at 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

• JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) notification

Statement by JohnBlackburne

It seems the sanctions under this case have expired with his block, but Brews ohare has returned to the articke talk page of one of the articles that was the subject of that case, Wavelength (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), because of his attempts insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths and physics. He has in the last few weeks tried to get rewritten but identical material added, then soon after that was rejected started an RfC on the same material. The RfC even more clearly rejected his additions, but he has today proposed a version of it yet again, as if the previous RfC, discussion in early April and of course arbitration case on his previous disruption of this talk page never happened (so objections can be dismissed because the previous discussions and arguments don't exist, and every other editor is expected to explain the problems with his insertions yet again).

My question is: is this behaviour covered by the arbitration case ? Or has that now fully expired and this should be taken to another venue (and if so which)?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews ohare: the RfC was the place to discuss content. This is neither the time or the place. I made my comments on the content during the RfC, there is no point doing so again. You closed the RfC, after only a week, so it seemed you were happy that the discussion had run its course and consensus had been reached. It's your continuing to argue again and again after that that's the problem. It was the RfC that drew me in, as a site-wide notice on a topic I'm interested in. As always if you find fault with my contributions please provide diffs not vague accusations. The link to find them is in my signature.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews ohare You do know that posting off-wiki information about editors that they have not volunteered themselves is considered harassment, don't you? If I cared to keep my identity private I would not use my real name here but it is still strictly forbidden.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: the problem is suggesting something to Brews ohare doesn't work. Asking politely doesn't work. Asking pointedly with links to relevant policies doesn't work. It's not that he doesn't understand such suggestions and requests: he just refuses to accept them, and has instead written essays saying how it should be done and how editors like him should be properly respected. Even arbitration didn't work. The only thing that stopped him disrupting talk pages and wasting many editors time by creating multiple RfCs ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], all this year) and forum shopping was a block.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@AGK: I would like to clarify that this is not a content issue, though it would suit Brews ohare if it were. My presentation above is perhaps not clear on this, so here's the detail again, chronologically:

[7] Brews ohare first proposes an addition. Two editors object, discussions ensue

[8] Not accepting that the consensus is against him Brews ohare starts an RFC referencing the previous discussion. More editors join in, including myself. The text is rewritten multiple times ([9]), breaking other editors replies. The consensus turns even more clearly against the additions, however phrased.

[10] Brews ohare closes the RFC, presumably happy with the result or at least resigned to not convincing other editors

[11] He continues to argue with other editors over the article

[12] Dicklyon asks him to stop

[13] his reply blames Dicklyon

[14] he continues to argue about the RFC content

[15] and again asks for "reconsideration" of the RFC content

[16] I, [17] Srleffler and [18] Dicklyon ask him to stop

[19] [20] he dismisses these objections as "cheer-leading" and "missing the point".

The text went through multiple revisions but is the same material throughout: even Brews last attempt says it is for "reconsideration", and the text can be compared with the last version in the RFC. I've not tried connecting this to the 2009 discussions that Dicklyon mentioned as I was not involved with them. It's also hard to find them: Brews ohare made over half the edits on this talk page, more than twice that of the next most frequent contributor, often rewriting his own contributions.

This reminds me of my observations here: this is not about physics, or natural sciences, or mathematics. It's about every other page Brews ohare takes an interest in becoming a battle ground, of edit warring if its an article, of tendentious editing on a talk or project page – dominating the discussion so other editors are swamped, ignoring consensus and process, repeatedly refusing to AGF, ignoring requests to stop and warnings – before trying to lawyer himself out of the inevitable visit to arbitration. Only a few months after that block ended and exactly the same is happening.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: That was the subject of the RFC, which is now closed as noted above and archived since, so it's too late to participate. Though even if you had it seems very unlikely given the overwhelming consensus against including it that it would have made any difference.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon

The problem is not so much "incorrect material", but tangential, poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information, and a few bits wrong, too, combined with refusal to hear or understand objections. When I was defending the Wavelength article against his bloat and nonsense in the summer of 2009, I thought he was probably an overreaching grad student; turns out he's a prof emeritus and fellow of the IEEE, so no dummy. But in the years since, he demonstrated repeatedly an inability to collaborate, or to even understand the objections of other editors to what he is trying to do. This blew up more at Speed of light because there were plenty of other serious editors there. I'm very happy that JohnBlackburne and a few others have been recently helping out at Wavelength, because I don't have the time or energy to take on that defense again. I have no idea how to convince Dr. Brews to take on a workable style, but this is a drag. The arbitration was supposed to help put him back on a tolerable track; I hope the arbs will look at how to help here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the technical argument is Brew's claim that "the Fourier series is the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that". That's nonsense. The Fourier series is one tool used to analyze periodic functions, primarily in the context of linear systems for which a decomposition into sinusoids allows easy solutions and characterizations of behaviors. This is not the case in the situation where he is introducing the Fourier series into the wavelength article; none of the (relatively few) sources that mention the connection show any way that it is useful. It is a red herring, a dead-end tangent. Decomposition of waves into sinusoids is indeed important, but least so in the context of periodic-in-space waves; the wavelength article is hardly the place to get into this. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb

Not this crap again... that's all I have to say. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Brews_ohare

The gist of Blackburne's complaint is that I have attempted to insert "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths". The text so-described is presented on Talk:Wavelength as a proposed addition as follows:

The wavelength, say λ, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself. Sinusoidal waves with wavelengths related to λ can superimpose to create this spatially periodic waveform. Such a superposition of sinusoids is mathematically described as a Fourier series, and is simply a summation of the sinusoidally varying component waves:

.. "Fourier's theorem states that a function f(x) of spatial period λ, can be synthesized as a sum of harmonic functions whose wavelengths are integral submultiples of λ (i.e. λ, λ/2, λ/3, etc.)."

References

If the direct quote from the cited source fails to convince, here are three others:

• Ariel Lipson, Stephen G. Lipson, Henry Lipson (2010). Optical physics. Cambridge University Press. p. 94. ISBN 0521493455. http://books.google.com/books?id=aow3o0dhyjYC&pg=PA94. "Fourier's theroem states that any periodic function f(x) can be expressed as the sum of a series of sinusoidal functions which have wavelengths that are integral fractions of the wavelength λ of f(x)" 
• Andrew Putnis (1992). An Introduction to Mineral Sciences. Cambridge University Press. p. 65. ISBN 0521429471. http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Mineral-Sciences-Andrew-Putnis/dp/0521429471#reader_0521429471. "Fourier analysis is a mathematical method of expressing any periodic function with wavelength λ as a sum of sinusoidal functions whose wavelengths are integral fractions of λ (i.e. λ, λ/2, λ/3, etc.)" 
• Alexander McPherson (2009). "Figure 4.1". Introduction to Macromolecular Crystallography (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 78. ISBN 0470185902. http://books.google.com/books?id=o7sXm2GSr9IC&pg=PA78&dq=%22As+Fourier+demonstrated,+complex,+but+periodic%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Aw-1T8PdOcqsiAK0jomzAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22As%20Fourier%20demonstrated%2C%20complex%2C%20but%20periodic%22&f=false.  This source is cited in the article already, and this figure shows periodic waveforms in space. This source refers to Fourier series in the same context proposed for the suggested insertion in the green box.

I believe this sets aside Blackburne's claim that I attempt to "insert incorrect material based on a flawed understanding of maths", and also Dicklyon's claims that this text represents "poorly explained, poorly supported, and idiosyncratic information" or of inserting "bloat and nonsense". It also refutes mistaken arguments by Dicklyon that "wavelength" is not applicable to functions periodic in space ("And your statement that ‘The wavelength, say λ, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself ’ is contrary to typical usage of the term ‘wavelength’ " Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2012).

At this point, it is established that content is not the issue here, and smearing this proposal as an example of bloat, flawed understanding, and idiosyncrasy is wide of the mark, and reflects poorly upon the grasp of the text by its critics. As Dicklyon is a self-professed "research engineer in Silicon Valley" and Blackburne a declared mathematician, one may wonder how these basic misconceptions have arisen. On any other WP article a minor sourced quotation making a connection between one topic (wavelength) and others (Fourier series) on WP would attract no attention whatsoever. I am forced to speculate that the primary source of the extreme response here is that Dicklyon and Blackburne have a prior history with me, and it is their lingering objections to my contributing to WP that drives them to bizarre claims contrary to sources, not this particular content. Brews ohare (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If further support for the content presented is required, I can supply an unending list of texts describing Fourier series and its application to periodic functions, and a case can be made that Fourier series is the mathematical study of periodic functions, and nothing less than that.

What remains is the general claim that my Talk-page discussion insists too much on adding this aside to the reader, over "objections" of other authors. I'd suggest that these objections have been largely based upon misconceptions about the content of the proposed text and its purpose. My attempts to explain that this is an aside pointing out the applicability of the mathematical machinery of periodicity to the topic of spatially periodic waveforms has been addressed by Dicklyon using the argument that Fourier series is not useful for this purpose, which seems to me to be patently absurd. The entire history of functional analysis begins with Fourier series applied to periodic functions, and it is the subject of innumerable textbooks.

My interchange with Dicklyon on Talk:Wavelength extends over several topics, and not just this particular point. Sometimes such discussion gets somewhere, and sometimes it doesn't. That is what Talk pages are for. Brews ohare (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As an example of a fruitful outcome, a discussion on Talk:Wavelength led to my authoring of the article Envelope (waves) when it appeared that this topic could not be addressed within Wavelength itself. Other discussions led to the inclusion of the topic of local wavelength and a figure, the inclusion of the section on crystals and the notion of aliasing with another figure, and to the sections on interference and diffraction with two more figures (all figures created by myself). In fact, seven of the figures in Wavelength were contributed by myself and accompanied by additional text and sources arrived at through discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read the comment by Count Iblis. I believe he has a point in a way. I recognize that most of my interactions with Dicklyon prove difficult, and the proposed text was clearly one of those. I modified my proposal several times to make it a more and more minor addition, hoping to get some recognition that Fourier series in some form should be mentioned in Wavelength. Some formulation of this point could be acceptable to all if the point were developed jointly in a constructive manner. But the practical approach is for me to keep in mind the limitations upon what is possible with Dicklyon and Blackburne, and recognize that Blackburne will adopt every opportunity to drag AN/I or some Administrator into what would otherwise settle itself. Brews ohare (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: Thanks for the added remarks. Dealing with Dicklyon at length has succeeded sometimes, but Blackburne's intolerance makes this more unlikely than in the past. My efforts to widen opinion using RfC hasn't worked. Your recommendation of Wikiproject physics as an alternative mechanism to get other editors involved, and to limit my own participation, is worth trying in the future. Brews ohare (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: You raise the very practical question "how can you actually get something done here while facing opposition?", and suggest an approach bases upon aggressive revision of the article Main page that, if properly crafted, will force Talk page objections into a productive framework. It is unfortunate that so often Talk pages must be viewed in this light as struggling against opposition, instead of joining collaboration. In particular, if some of the editors interested in a page perhaps do not share even the same concept of what a WP article should be, or view exchange of ideas as survival of the fittest, or see WP as a venue to establish who counts, that is the result. Brews ohare (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: I believe you are right that where I have made new articles or added large sections I have been more successful. For example, Envelope (waves) developed when arguments by Dicklyon and others prevented exploration of periodic envelopes on Wavelength. By creation of a new article, these editors were faced with a wide open argument about deletion, which they did not attempt. Likewise, with Blackburne on Idée fixe, as you mentioned. In that case he tried for deletion and lost in the wider community. Also, Length measurement avoided the controversy portions of this topic caused on metre. Any approach that widens the number of editors that might become involved in a dispute proves beneficial. Brews ohare (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

@Count Iblis' proposal. Count, can you explain your proposal more? Here is my confusion. You propose a list of only 3 articles where I can edit. It isn't clear to me what the list is about. Immediately after introducing a maximum of 3 articles, you go on to say that there are many articles where I can contribute without problems. So I suppose the list refers to 3 articles where problems have shown up, and that seems opposite to what you have said. I'd take it that a complaint to the mentor about Brews ohare's Talk-page participation by an upset editor leads the mentor to review that Talk page and decide whether it goes on the list or not. It is the mentor's job to look at the discussion and decide for himself if it is too extended, based not upon content, but upon how much back and forth has occurred. Once listed, I have to abandon that page, but I am unclear how a page becomes removed from the list unless it is has to be removed because another one is added, and the limit is 3 pages. If I have got this right, or otherwise, can you extend your presentation to make these points more transparent? If I've got it right, I'd say this proposal is workable for me. If instead I am allowed to work on only 3 articles altogether, I don't find that acceptable. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to My very best wishes, I gather that you pose a query to me that can be narrowly expressed something like this: "Assuming that Brews_ohare is completely correct in stating that a sourced quotation has pertinence to the article Wavelength, and assuming further that opposition to its inclusion is not well founded, would you, Brews_ohare, nonetheless agree to desist from pursuing this particular attempt to include this material in Wavelength?" I'd answer that the posited assumptions reflect how I think about this matter, but, as stated above in my response to Count Iblis, I also see that there is little point in pursuing the issue on Talk:Wavelength under the prevailing circumstances. So, yes, I'll move on. Your question, however, is posed more broadly, not restricted to this episode on Talk:Wavelength. In a broader context, regarding discussion in general, I'll have to consider carefully to what extent Dicklyon is open to discussion should he appear on another Talk page. I'd point out the paragraph above detailing positive outcomes for Wavelength in interaction with Dick. These were the result of useful but difficult discussions with Dick. Now a further difficulty to weigh in future is that any extended discussion with Dick will draw in Blackburne, who will use any detailed discussion as an opportunity to invite Administrator attention, even using a pretext such as this supposed query about "clarification" of an expired sanction. I will doubtless be more careful in the future. Brews ohare (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Thanks for the remarks. Yes, there is no general answer to these kinds of problem. The answer appears in this case to depend upon my exercising more care in dealing with these two, regardless of the topic or the merits. Brews ohare (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I interpret your added remark as a suggestion that I be topic banned to reduce clamor on Talk:Wavelength. If your suggestion is a page-ban, it is hardly necessary, as it is clear to me that the present discussion is over. If your suggestion is more general, I would strongly object that such a serious action goes far beyond anything suggested by Talk:Wavelength. Brews ohare (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I'd add to these remarks that many past prolonged discussions on Talk:Wavelength have proved productive, as evidenced by the discussions attached in Wavelength to the seven figures I have contributed there. Not all prolonged, and even heated, discussions are useless, although they may not generate a glow of satisfaction. Of course, the atmosphere on Talk pages is not always ideal (to say the least), and results often stem from debate as much as from collaboration. However, if the discussions on Talk:Wavelength had been inhibited by the threat of sanctions, the article Wavelength would not be as good. Brews ohare (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Srleffler, the proposed text in the green box is not merely rehash. The proposal narrowed in scope and purpose over time to become what it now is, a simple cross-reference between Wavelength and Fourier series, a much more limited reference than that found in the four sources cited above. However, your objections never addressed this change, as explicitly pointed out to you. Brews ohare (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Blackburne's objections to my "outing" him: I was unaware that referring to a link to your photo would prove upsetting, as it is immediately available from the link posted on your WP User page. My apologies. I also was unaware of any policy in this regard. I have removed the link. Brews ohare (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@Blackburne: I'm gratified to see you read my two essays 1, 2 though surprised at the tone of your reaction and your invented titles for them. You now are using this "clarification" as a foot in the door to squeeze in a smear campaign. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Jclemens: Although it may appear from Blackburne's perspective that simple head-butting took place on Talk:Wavelength, in fact the discussion did evolve. It ended with the text in the green box that makes the connection between Wavelength and Fourier series. As pointed out by direct quotes from published sources, objections that this text contains improper content are wrong. The objections actually are only a matter of taste: the value of a digression. Nonetheless, at this point I recognize that even this limited proposal has been rejected.

You have advised "all parties to work together toward improving the articles in question". One might wish that interactions between myself and Dicklyon, with occasional participation by Srleffler, were less confrontational. Nonetheless, improvements to Wavelength have resulted from our past interactions, leading to eight figures contributed by myself and their related content. One such discussion led to the new article Envelope (waves). So, although our relationship is imperfect, shall we say, it can have positive results, and it does not require Arbitration. Brews ohare (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Kirill: There is nothing complicated about this case at all, if you look at it closely. The proposed text in the green box is nothing more than a straightforward quote from a reliable source, backed up by further sources for the purpose of this case. Bringing it forward here as a "clarification" of a dead sanction is only pretext, as you have noticed. This action simply is harassment by Blackburne, who was involved only peripherally in the discussion of this proposal. The real discussion was between Dicklyon and myself, and we frequently disagree about how a topic should be presented or even whether it should be presented. These differences are often just a matter of taste, as in the present case where the actual content is beyond reproach, and the only issue is evaluation of pertinence to the topic. Our joint history shows that we can sort these matters out without the intervention of Administrators. See, for example, this, this and this as an example of one of our extended discussions that ended equably with positive results for WP. This whole matter should be thrown out in its entirety. Brews ohare (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary remarks

If I weren't the subject here, it would amuse me to see how a lengthy dispute between two editors (Dicklyon and Brews ohare) over including a reference to another WP article could be blown up to such proportions. The original object here of a so-called "clarification" of the Case:Speed of light, an expired sanction, has been completely put aside. By accepting the possibility of a topic ban, the matter is now, in effect, a case or a review with no name and no discovery, settled by a show of hands without open fact-finding.

Were it the case that the issue of noncontroversial or valuable edits were a factor in Arbs' thinking, the matter would be settled in my favor already. Since my return, among other articles Wikipedia now has Envelope (waves) and Length measurement and p-n diode and field effect (semiconductor) that were written by myself without controversy. Wavelength contains multiple figures by myself with associated discussions fashioned amid controversy with Dicklyon, when Blackburne was not about. When Dicklyon is not involved, my editing history is full of non-controversial additions to articles, the most recent being a history section for Dirac delta function.

A real question is why a gadfly like Blackburne is given credence when he sticks his nose into something he has no interest in, and doesn't take time to understand. Apparently, he is appreciated for other reasons.

Blackburne has made numerous appeals to arbitration since my return to WP from a ban of a year that was instigated in response to a request by Blackburne at that time. He has pursued me across Wikipedia, even to articles like Idée fixe (psychology) and several essays of mine, like Wikipedia:Formal organization that have no relation to the topics of physics or math. Prior history shows this will continue with increased intensity should the topic ban be imposed, allowing claimed violation simply by raising content issues that formally lie outside Arbs' jurisdiction as spelled out in WP documentation. A topic ban takes any claim that the ban has been violated to AN/I, where content is moot, or allows any Administrator to institute reprisal by themselves, without discussion with anyone else.

Some Arbs have pointed out this matter is not a "clarification" at all, and if any action is to be taken at all, it involves some complex history that needs sorting out by a review or a full case. I hope that sense prevails. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I see an about-face by Arbs who now contradict their initial reactions, for no stated reasons. Disagreement between a very few editors on a Talk page? Despite Elen of the Roads' observations that Case:Speed of light was over and a new case was necessary, AGK's comments that the matter was too specialized for a motion, Krill's and PhilKnight's agreement with that, Jclemens' exhortation that all parties work together, and SilkTork's seeing no problem with Talk page discussion? What happened, one might ask? Why were all of Roger Davies' motions against Brews ohare, and none for other alternatives? What has the pretext for this action of a "clarification" of a dead Case:Speed of light got to do with all this? The dead Case:Speed of light has decided things, after all, it seems.

There isn't any sign my remarks were considered, nor those of the community at large.

It's too bad. Brews ohare (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Elen of the Roads: "Everyone else is quoting textbooks, Brews ... has his own interpretations. There's your problem." Elen, that is nonsense: it is my text in the green box that cites sources. There is no interpretation by Brews, and the claims by the critics is not sourced at all, and in fact contradicts four cited sources. Brews ohare (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides, this is not a content dispute, but a dispute over whether I am allowed to protest on a Talk page over spurious allegations contrary to sources. Apparently that rebuttal has limits, and my behavior in many other cases shows that I am aware of this fact, and have desisted. Were a full review opened, these matters could be properly explored, and my behavior properly assessed. Brews ohare (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens: "This [a topic ban] seems a more appropriate way forward when only one previously-sanctioned user's conduct is being questioned." Two questions: Why is a topic ban preferable to the proposed motion limiting Talk-page interaction, which has obvious advantages for easy Administrator enforcement and eliminates murky decisions about content? And, why is it that only the actions of one editor, Brews ohare, is under consideration when it is clear that Blackburne has pursued Brews ohare all over WP, and Dicklyon has been the major partner in long discussion wherever he has shown up? Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Way forward

So far the motions under consideration by arbitrators are limited in nature. The goal of all of them is to limit what is seen as my disruption of Talk pages.

A much simpler way to do this than the proposals, and one that does not eliminate my ability to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way, is a motion imposing a limit on how many times I can attempt to rephrase a proposed addition to the main page without censure of some kind.

A motion of this form has two advantages: it eliminates my causing long Talk-page discussions while allowing me to contribute non-controversial material such as Envelope (waves), history of the Dirac delta function, and figures, and at the same time it is easy to administer. Instead of judging whether or not a contribution of mine on (say) 'Pythagoras' is biographical, mathematical or physics-related (an undertaking difficult for Admins with no technical background) an Admin has only to be able to count how many times I have attempted to explain a proposal of mine.

It seems probable to me that by working under such stricture I would develop habits of discussion acceptable to the community, and eliminate pretexts for arbitration.

There is no need for Admins to keep an eye on matters: if no editor complains about Brews ohare, there is nothing to worry about. If an editor does complain, that will trigger Administrator attention, and a count of Brews ohare replies will result. The criterion of three replies is so easy to implement that it seems likely to be a rare occurrence that Brews ohare will overstep. Brews ohare (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A different motion has been advanced by Count Iblis and My very best wishes. That proposal involves appointment of an intermediary who would decide when and whether a suggestion of mine was ready for prime time, and serve to interface between myself and other editors. Some version of this proposal could work, but I feel that it is a burden upon the mentor that might make it hard to find a volunteer.

In any event, the present motions do not address my Talk-page discussions in the best way, and some more creative measure, like the two suggested here, would be better for the future of WP. Brews ohare (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To limit Talk-page discussions

Brews ohare is advised to limit his Talk-page discussion of topics to an initial proposal and three or fewer responses to rejection. Follow-up proposals or new threads initiated by Brews ohare concerning the same topic do not re-initiate the count. Introduction of a new thread by another editor does reset the count. Brews ohare may reintroduce a topic on a Talk page after a lapse of time set as six months, which resets the count upon Brews ohare's ability to respond. These strictures upon Brews ohare will be reviewed in one year to see how things are going.

The penalty for violation of these requirements will be a page-ban for one year from the page and its Talk-page where the violation occurred.

Statement by uninvolved My very best wishes

I am not quite sure why the overall atmosphere in Physics is significantly more hostile than in Biology and Chemistry. It could be that articles in this area are better developed and therefore more difficult to improve, or it could be that some editors want everything to be described exactly as in their favorite textbook (although there are alternative interpretations) and in their favorite version of article, so they should be reminded of WP:NPOV and WP:own. What I mean is not the editing by Brews, but the overall opposition to making changes in this area (including changes proposed by Brews). Actually, editors in the area of Physics and Math (including Brews) made an outstanding work. Now the real challenge is to make some of these articles more understandable and even interesting for students and general public. This can be done by using introductory textbooks and good books on popular science that prove scientific concepts by explaining them. Unfortunately, such RS are frequently and unfairly dismissed merely on the grounds that they are not "academic" (even if written by experts with PhD degrees), and not only in the area of Physics.

In this particular situation, I do not think that returning to old subjects was a problem because consensus can change, but Brews must carefully avoid to be engaged in WP:DE. I do not see any proof of WP:DE by Brews at the moment - agree with Silk Tork. My very best wishes (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews. Please consider the following situation. There is certain perfectly sourced information that you think must be included, but there is also a couple of other people who do not want it to be included, and they are wrong. Would you agree to drop the issue and edit something else? Please read WP:TE before response. (Just to clarify, I am not telling here that "opponents" of Brews are wrong). My very best wishes (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews. Thank you. I think there is no general answer to this, and it well could be that the "other guys" are engaged in WP:DE, paid advocacy, or a personal crusade against an editor, even if they form majority (once again, I am talking generally here, not about people in this particular incident). This is a situation when WP:Consensus sometimes comes in a contradiction with WP:NPOV and improving the content. But unfortunately, there is no other choice, but to follow WP:Consensus if we do not want to be sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews. No, I do not have an opinion that people who continue civil discussions even when they are in minority should be topic-banned. But I am not sure about our policies in such cases and therefore asked to clarify. In a couple of cases I looked at (Pythagorean_theorem and Wavelength), I think that your suggested changes do not significantly improve these pages (although there is nothing wrong with your materials to be included), so you could spend your time more efficiently by switching to other articles in the area of Physics, as you did during the initial period of your editing here. However, in another case, you were absolutely right [21], and there is now a constructive discussion on this article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• This looks to me as prolonged disputes on numerous talk pages, such as here some time ago and now here. The arguments by Brews are not unreasonable, and he provides some valid sources. At the same time, I can agree that such discussions are frequently fruitless, distract people from making productive contributions, and therefore can lead to sanctions. But we have much longer and even less productive discussions in many other subject areas, for example here. Should we just look who contributed most in such discussions and topic-ban the leader? Please clarify. My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• @ I think this is an excellent point by AGK ("I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea"). Indeed, an administrator frequently can not judge if a user contributes positively to the project or makes a disservice to reader (as Helen said [22]), unless he knows the subject. Actually, the biggest mistakes can be made in cases when an admin thinks that he knows something (because he follows "common sense" or read about it in newspaper - usually in the areas of history and politics), but he actually does not. Unfortunately, not knowing the subject is an official policy: all admins are prohibited from ruling in the areas where they edit and therefore read a lot about. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  @JohnBlackburne. I did not read the entire discussion (too long, did not read, sorry), but the question that Brews asks in the beginning [23] is this: "Comment is sought as to whether a reference to Fourier series is appropriate under the heading general periodic waveforms". Yes, it is. Certainly there is nothing wrong here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Brews would be much better off by immediately dropping any issue that meets opposition, and I am sure he realizes this by now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps my problem is that I did not see the previous disputes with Brews. Sorry, I am not interested. It is enough that I looked at his content contributions and found them good. But to ban a user for conducting civil discussion on a talk page of one article is over the top. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork. I respectfully disagree. Yes, the list of previous sanctions for Brews looks convincing to me. The only relevant question now is this: did he made any serious policy violation this time. I think he actually did not. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• @AGK. Yes, I agree. There are no problems with article Wavelength or with content changes suggested by Brews. Neither I see any serious problems with discussion by Brews. In fact, the only action needed on the part of other editors was to firmly say "no" one time (if they are so strongly opposed to the change by Brews, and I am not opposed to his changes), and peacefully leave the page. There was no edit warring about this. And if other editors continued discussion, it means that discussion was meaningful, exactly as Brews tells. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Count Iblis

Brews is making the mistake of trying to get his way by posting more RFCs. Thing is that being right on the issue doesn't give you the right to edit your way. The first time, I did see the RFC Brews posted, and I wanted to comment, but I abandoned that due to lack of time. I did not agree with Brews' proposal, but I had an idea about an alternative text that would mention Fourier transforms.

What struck me also was the lack of such contructive efforts, because obviously, Fourier transforms does in principle have a place in an article about wavelengths, regardless of how flawed Brews' proposal was. So, there is also something wrong about the general editing climate if the issue isn't properly debated. If editor X raises an issue and he has a point, then one should discuss the point that does exist and steer the discussion toward that, and not focus on opposing by ignoring the real points that exist and only focussing on where the editor goes wrong. Because then that editor will eventually correct himself and you end up dancing around the central point for a long time, causing everyone to get irritated.

So, I would suggest Brews to limit the time he spends online here editing and arguing on the talk page. Try to get it (almost) right the first time you propose something, or when you edit something in an article. To the others, I would say that they should be more positive about any proposals. This doesn't mean that you have to accept something that is bad, just that you would in that case end up rejecting in a way that would more likely conclude the debate. E.g. on the Tachyon page I see too much opposition for proposed edits while in the end you had to accept the proposal. Surely, that could have been agreed to weeks earlier by acknowledging that the proposer did have a legitimate point here? Count Iblis (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Brews, by limiting the time spend here, what I meant was the time you spend here in some uphill effort to get something into the article. I would recommend that as soon as you experience any difficulties like in this case, you drop a line at Wikiproject physics instead of letting the issue fester for many weeks. But then, after briefly explaining your point, you should let others take a look while you reduce your input significantly. There is, of course, nothing wrong with spending a lot of time editing and arguing constructively on Wikipedia.

Don't think that everyone at Wikiproject physics is going to oppose you, because of the past history. I remember that Headbomb asked for input there because he was having difficulties editing the Planck law article last year. He got support on some points, but on some other points he did not get support. So, this isn't some rubber stamp procedure where the people who you got difficulties with in the past, always get their way.

I think this is better than posting RFCs, because this is more likely to lead to new editors actually getting involved in the article. What matters in the end is if some text is going to be seen to be appropriate for the article by the larger community and eventually by the readers of Wikipedia, not by any particular editor. Count Iblis (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne, you have been de-facto patrolling Brews edits the last few years. You do this with the best of intentions (and that not necessarily actively, you may simply see Brews' edits on your wachlist), but in practice this leads to problems of the same type we've seen in quite a few other ArbCom cases. Your Wiki-philosophy is too much at odds with Brews'. Where there are two completely opposite but legitimate points of views regarding edits, you two end up preferring the different options, see e.g. this editing history and this AFD discussion of that article. If you then also find yourself having to cite Wiki-policies to Brews on other occasions when its more serious and you intent to go to a noticeboard if he doesn't listen, he may not take you serous, even though the issue may now not ambiguous, i.e. Brews is wrong and you are right.

I guess Brews also needs to see examples of how you can actually get something done here while facing opposition, instead of only being told not to do something here whenever there is opposition. The example given by My very best wishes is a good thing to explore. So, the lede of the Fourier transform article now says that: "The Fourier transform is a mathematical operation with many applications in physics and engineering that expresses a mathematical function of time as a function of frequency, known as its frequency spectrum; Fourier's theorem guarantees that this can always be done."

I have to say that I find this definition mentioning time completely unacceptable too. The question is then how to go about changing this definition, without having to fight some uphill battle on the talk page. If I imagine how things are likely to go wrong with Brews insisting on the relevant issue on the talk page, it's actually because Brews will be "too nice" at the start. He will make the most minimalist of proposals you can imagine. He thinks by doing that he can avoid stepping on people's toes. But then, because he went out of his way with such a proposal, he will argue fanatically for it, ending up annoying people after a while.

My style of editing is completely different, I would completely rewrite the introduction of the article to make room for a more general definition. That creates far more room to deal with legitimate opposition than some minimalist proposal affecting only one or two sentences. I would not engage in arguments with people who oppose me but have no good arguments, who have WP:OWN issues. I gave them less room to exploit other issues to argue about. So, my starting position is much stronger than that of Brews. But this does require more work, as you have to rewrite a lot more of the article. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brews, for the articles you have been involved in it looks like that way. Now, I'm not saying that you have always been right in disputes, just that you have ended up being opposed with what you wanted to do quite often. Then, you can look at what you have been successul at doing here. I think that the larger editing efforts by you have been more productive, like the large sections of some classical mechanics articles (e.g. about curvelinear motion). I have the impression that whenever you engage in editing well developed articles here on more minor points, that this leads to problems.

So, perhaps you should think about creating new articles, or edit complete new sections in articles. That will automatically move you toward articles that are not well developed yet, and then you are less likely to encounter editors with strong WP:OWN feelings, plus you have all the benefits I wrote about above. My editing here is more focussed on these sorts of articles, see e.g. my recent edits to Gaussian quadrature.

If someone were to object to these edits, and start a discussion about that, then the ball would be more in his court than mine, because the formula and the proof should be in either this article or somewhere else. So, simply reverting and deleting the edits because, say, it is too textbook like, or because no sources are given, isn't really an option. These are issues that can be fixed by including sources or rewriting to make it less textbook like. But such discussions are less likely to happen in the first place.

Note that when you created the Idee Fixe article, it was put on PROD and then on AFD, so the opposer of that article had to argue with the larger community, not you, and he lost his argument. While you also argued a lot on the AFD page, you could have left only a brief comment there and then completely ignore the opposer. Count Iblis (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban will lead to more problems not less. I've explained that and suggested an alternative on Roger Davies' talk page. Basically this is a ban on editing any article or talk page unless given permission to do so by a mentor. Count Iblis (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Motion

Brews restricted to work on an approved list of articles

The previous time there was topic ban, the same problems manifested themselves in some of the math articles Brews was working on, leading to a site ban for a year. So the problem is not topic related. While the present topic ban mentions "physics related", the problem really hasn't got one iota to do with physics. The nature of the problem is that when opposed, Brews will tend to try to talk his way out of that opposition. That he makes a proposal that is wrong in some case (i.e. his own interpretation that is not fully supported by a source) isn't actually the fundamental cause, because we can all make such mistakes. If you are right but the proposal is not welcome, you still have to accept that.

Then, because Brews has been able to work productively in many articles without friction, I would aks the Arbs to consider this proposal:

Brews is restricted to work on a list of articles, the list is determined by a mentor and is limited to a maximum of 3 articles. A link to the list is posted on the Speed of Light ArbCom page. Should Brews edit any other article than the listed ones, Brews will be blocked as part of the regular ArbCom enforcement procedure, and that block will be logged at the relevant ArbCom page.

There are plenty of articles where Brews can work without there being much friction on the talk page. But suppose that the mentor would need to intervene, how would that work? Note here that the perceived disruption caused by Brews is typically a slow moving one, where a discussion goes on and on and on and on. This means that a mentor who monitors how Brews is doing has ample time to intervene. The mentor can also be contacted by editors who feel that Brews is starting to engage in an argument that will likely lead to nowhere, allowing the mentor to cut that short and remove the article from the list.

What the mentor won't do is try to see if Brews has a point. So, suppose that I'm the mentor and Blackburne contacts me to notify that he has reverted an edit by Brews and Brews has explained his edit on the talk page, then I would remove that article from the list. Clearly, Brews has then made his point, and if he really has a point, any other editor can continue from there. Whether I agree with Brews' point or not is then neither here nor there. My task is to steer Brews toward articles where such discussions to defend edits are not necessary in the first place (of course, engaging with constructive criticism would not be a problem).

So, this isn't a burden on the mentor. Admins can easily check if Brews is sticking to editing the 3 listed articles. Brews also prefers to work within these constraints instead of the physics related topic ban. Count Iblis (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Brews, you would only be allowed to work on 3 articles. This looks very restrictive, but note that the list is flexible. You have to consider this as an alternative to the complete physics topic ban and presumably also a very difficult editing experience in math articles, where your editing can be construed to be physics related or otherwise problems can occur and you then find yourself at AE frequently and perhaps eventually site banned for a year or longer. Also, for any restriction to have a chance to be accepted it must be practical to enforce. That's not difficult to do for a list of just a few articles.

Then about you feeling restricted a lot, in practice, that may not be a big deal because you can only ever edit at one place at a time, and looking at your conributions, you can see that you tend to stick to editing a few articles a lot. If you want to edit somewhere that is not in the list, you just propose that to the mentor, and you can get approval for that. But then another article will be removed, you then choose which one. If we limit the rate of changes to the list to one mutation per week, this will not be a burden to Admins who patrol AE.

Count Iblis (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Srleffler

The fundamental problem here is Brews' persistent, tendentious style. In June 2009 Brews introduced some weak material relating to nonsinusoidal waves and Fourier series decompositions of them. After much discussion, some of his ideas got reworked and put into the article and others did not. He just can't let go of the concepts that didn't make it in, though. No matter what arguments are raised or how many other editors object, he just keeps bringing forward the same ideas over and over and over again, with slight variations of form. Every now and then he files an RfC, and when his proposal is rejected he immediately resurrects it in yet another slight variation and starts all over again. It is tiresome, and a waste of time that could be put to better use editing other articles.--Srleffler (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Count Iblis' proposal should be considered. I agree with him that this issue is not really about physics; it is about Brews' editing style and method of interacting with other editors. A topic ban seems likely to be less effective and less appropriate than something that might help Brews to adjust how he approaches editing on Wikipedia. Also, Brews is extremely knowledgeable about physics and mathematics, and it would be a shame to lose his ability to make constructive edits in this area. --Srleffler (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To "My Very Best Wishes": you write "the only action needed on the part of other editors was to firmly say "no" one time ... and peacefully leave the page." That is not how Wikipedia works. We (the other editors) don't own the article; editing is by consensus. Simply telling another editor firmly "no" is not acceptable. Everyone who is making a good faith effort to contribute is entitled to an explanation when others disagree with their edits, and if the original editor is not convinced then a discussion is necessary to either change one side's mind or arrive at a consensus. The problem is just that Brews keeps coming back with the same issue again and again and again, neither convincing anybody nor being convinced, and not letting the matter drop. He compromises, but I'm often left feeling that the compromise versions are just the Camel's nose for a further attempt to introduce the rest of the material (some of the interactions in 2009 worked out this way, if I recall correctly). --Srleffler (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496

I am a bystander with no involvement other than being appalled at how much disruption one editor can cause. I would like to note that Remedy 2 of the case was Brews ohare is warned to adhere to content policies and the expected standards of behavior and decorum, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.. If that remedy has any specific meaning at all, it ought to mean that Brews ohare is subject to sanctions via some sort of expedited process. Looie496 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification by Dr.K.

AGK made a supplementary statement on 21 May 2012 at 10:42 (UTC) as follows:

Additional comment: This amendment has become absurdly specialised. We are not content experts, and (to my knowledge) no current arbitrator is qualified as a Physicist or similar. I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea. I therefore default to decline this amendment request. AGK [•] 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet almost a week after AGK issued his supplementary statement, arb after arb quote AGK in wanting to open a new case or review the existing one. But in his additional statement AGK essentially nullified his original statement and declined the amendment request. Why quote AGK then in conjunction with reopening or reviewing a case? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies: Thank you Roger. I was suspecting that much. Hopefully this incongruence may end now. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements, particularly from Brews Ohare. At first (brief) sight, any sanctions have expired; no discretionary sanctions were authorised; and the original case was sufficiently long ago (autumn 2009) to be left to lie. If there is misconduct, and if it very closely mirrors the 2009 case, and obviously I'm not expressing an opinion on either of those points, it might be possible to persuade arbitrators to re-open the 2009 case as it is within ArbCom discretion to re-open any prior case at any time.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I too am happy to see this as either a case or a review, and (unless someone else beats me to it) will put proposals with the options.

  @Dr K: I suspect people are picking up on the first, rather than the second, of AGK's comments.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have concerns that Brews is returning to WP:DE, but if that is the case, we can probably resolve this with a motion re-restricting him from the topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Having reviewed this dispute, like SirFozzie I am concerned. However, I am minded to open a review of the original case, and would be uncomfortable with remedying this dispute by motion. We need a proper case (if an abridged one) with suitable mechanisms for evidence submission—not a Pop-Up Hearing on this page. AGK [•] 15:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment: This amendment has become absurdly specialised. We are not content experts, and (to my knowledge) no current arbitrator is qualified as a Physicist or similar. I for one am unwilling to rule on something about which I have not the foggiest idea. I therefore default to decline this amendment request. AGK [•] 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Too soon for another case or motion, and would encourage other dispute resolution first. If via dispute resolution there is clear consensus of Tendentious editing, and Brews Ohare is warned and clearly ignores the warning, then it could be returned to us and we might be able to deal with this by a motion rather than a full case. I would suggest to Brews Ohare that it is OK to raise an issue once, but if consensus is against him, then he needs to wait 12 months before raising the same issue again. I think all of us will admit to having areas where we feel our views are the right ones, but consensus is against us. It can be frustrating, but it would be very damaging to the project if we all repeatedly raised the issue, so we move on, in the greater interests of the project as a whole. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is sufficient evidence of recent tendentious editing to open a case, then - given Brews Ohare's history - there may be sufficient evidence to deal with this by motion. It is not a complex case as far as I can see, and relates to whether or not a single user - Brews Ohare - has engaged in problematic editing. At this point I don't see raising questions on article talkpages in itself as problematic; though, in one case, the Wavelength article, Brews Ohare has been problematic by persisting in pushing a point. Without further specific evidence of problematic editing, however, I doubt I would support a ban, but I can see myself supporting a warning which would give admins at AE the power to block Brews Ohare if he repeats the tendentious editing evidenced at the Wavelength article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at the Speed of light case I note that Brews Ohare has a warning which appears to be still in place. Though, given his history, it appears that the warning wasn't sufficient then, and even a site ban hasn't moderated his behaviour. In the circumstances, a ban of some sort appears to be appropriate, and as the Wavelength incident appears to be an isolated incident I'm thinking that a topic ban would be more appropriate than a site ban. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm of a mind that if previously sanctioned editors cannot return to a topic and garner consensus for specific content modifications, and, upon failing to do so, cannot even take "no" for an answer, there is a small likelihood that their future interactions in the area will be constructive. I would encourage all parties to work together toward improving the articles in question, appropriately representing minority views represented in RS'es per NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• The response to the clarification request is clear as far as I can see - the sanctions have expired, discretionary sanctions were not put in place. If Brews is returning to the behaviour that occasioned the first sanction, then he is in the position of a man up once again before the beak, charged with the same offense he was sent down for last time. I can see no merit to reopening the original case - he did his time for it. He's (continuing the metaphor) charged with breaking into a different house this time, and needs to be "found guilty in accordance with the law." At that point, his previous offence will undoubtedly be taken into account in sentencing. I apologise for the extended legal metaphor, but I hope it makes it clear. John Blackburne/other parties will have (in my opinion) to either open another RFAR or potentially make a case at AN for a topic/siteban, if they believe it is possible to evidence the problematic behaviour without requiring a knowledge of post-doctoral physics. The community generally has little sympathy with a previously sanctioned editor who returns to their problematic behaviour, so Brews might be well advised to take the counsel of Kenny Rogers and "learn when to walk away, and learn when to run."Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Per AGK, I think that the best way to proceed would be to hold a new hearing, either as a full new case (which I prefer) or as some form of review of the original case; the dispute here appears to be sufficiently complex that simply resolving it by motion will likely be impractical. Kirill ^[talk] 15:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with Kirill and AGK. Risker (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• On further consideration, I would much prefer trying to address this by motion if we can. I can't see any value in forcing everyone to go through even an entire review, let alone a new case. Risker (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am not happy with this situation in which an editor who was banned for disruptive behavior in a topic continues, by all evidence, to continue to edit disruptively (albeit perhaps a bit less disruptively) on that topic. I do not believe that other users should be required to go through the entire dispute-resolution process, from beginning to end, all over again, to deal with such a situation: that strikes me as a sure-fire recipe for driving editors away. Hence I would support either a motion or a review here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Similar to Risker, Kirill, and AGK, I'd prefer either a review or full case. PhilKnight (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• After going through the R&I one, I think the difference between a review and a new case is almost purely one of terminology, so, fine with either. Courcelles 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Motions: Speed of light (Brews ohare)

I've extracted the main three options from the arbitrator discussion above and put together motions for each of them,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To open a full case

The Committee authorises the immediate opening of a full case ("Speed of light 2"), to examine all aspects of the the conduct of JohnBlackburne (filing party) and Brew ohare (party) in relation to the Wavelength article and the Speed of light topic since the expiry of earlier sanctions on 21 November 2011.

Support:

1. Third choice. It seems to me that, as we do not make content decisions, the dispute that needs to be resolved is whether Brews ohare is repeating the earlier inappropriate behaviour that lead to his sanctions or whether he is responding reasonably to the unreasonable conduct of others. Given the comprehensive nature of the statements, we probably do not need a full case to resolve this.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Second choice. AGK [•] 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Courcelles 16:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Equal second choice, but I would prefer not to mention the names of any individuals in the motion. It is frankly obvious that the initial focus of the case will be Brews ohare, although the editing of other parties will be examined as the evidence may warrant. I see no reason in particular to mention Johhn Blackburne in the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The information we need to make a decision on this is already in front of us. A full case would have no purpose other then to use up time better spent elsewhere.SirFozzie (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
2. The information is available for a decision to be made. Despite a warning, a restriction, and a topic ban, Brews ohare received several blocks until he was site banned for a year. The consideration is if this behaviour is a repeat of the tendentious editing that led to the previous sanctions. Regardless of if Brews ohare is correct in his thinking, that he continues to push his point even though consensus is against him is clearly disruptive. Given his history the decision appears to be topic or site ban, and I'm inclined to see if an indef topic ban will work. We have that as a motion, so a full case is not required. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
3. He's repeating the behaviour of the last case. It doesn't need another case to establish this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Motion: To conduct a Review

The Committee will conduct a Review, ("Speed of Light/Review"), focusing on the conduct of Brews ohare in relation to the Wavelength article and the Speed of Light topic since the expiry of earlier sanctions on 21 November 2011. The Review will follow on an expedited timetable, to be set at a later date by consensus of the Committee.

Support:

1. Second choice. Again, given the comprehensive nature of the statements, we probably do not even need a review to resolve this issue.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Very weak second choice, again, I feel that the information we need to handle this is already in the history with the previous cases, its various amendments and clarifications, and this request.
3. First choice. AGK [•] 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. First choice. Courcelles 16:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Equal second choice for now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The information is available for a decision to be made. Despite a warning, a restriction, and a topic ban, Brews ohare received several blocks until he was site banned for a year. The consideration is if this behaviour is a repeat of the tendentious editing that led to the previous sanctions. Regardless of if Brews ohare is correct in his thinking, that he continues to push his point even though consensus is against him is clearly disruptive. Given his history the decision appears to be topic or site ban, and I'm inclined to see if an indef topic ban will work. We have that as a motion, so a review is not required. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
2. I believe the problem is self evident and not requiring of a review. Everyone else is quoting textbooks, Brews ... has his own interpretations. There's your problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Motion: Topic ban for Brews ohare

1. From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively and effectively with others within the topic and is thus repeating the behaviour which resulted in his now expired sanctions. The earlier episodes were very disruptive and were a great drain on the community's patience and resources.

2. It follows that preventative action is appropriate. Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. After a minimum period of at least one year has elapsed, Brews ohare may ask the Arbitration Committee to reconsider the topic ban, giving his reasons why the Committee should do so.

3. Should Brews ohare violate this topic ban he may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the clock for any lifting of the topic ban restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Appeals of blocks may only be made by email to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. First choice. Arguably the core issue has now been examined in statements, and Brews ohare has taken the opportunity to respond robustly and amply to what has been said. We are probably therefore in a position to deal with this on the basis on the statements already posted alone.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
2. First choice, very nearly only choice. SirFozzie (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Despite a warning, a restriction, and a topic ban, Brews ohare received several blocks until he was site banned for a year. This behaviour is a repeat of the tendentious editing that led to the previous sanctions. Regardless of if Brews ohare is correct in his thinking, that he continues to push his point even though consensus is against him is clearly disruptive. Given his history a ban of some form is appropriate, and I'm inclined to see if an indef topic ban will work, given that such a ban will be able to be enforced by AE admins. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Pretty much only choice. The community is not very sympathetic to editors who return from sanctions to repeat problematic behaviour - we should respect the desire of those editors who just want to get on with life. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Only choice. I do not see value in putting everyone else through hoops to come to this obvious conclusion. Risker (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Third choice. I share some of AGK's concerns here, mainly that the wording of probabilities is poor, and that Brews is likely not the only problem in this topic right now, but the conclusion of the topic ban itself is, IMO solid. Courcelles 16:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Currently my first choice, but I will consider this a tentative vote; I'm be open to persuasion (by AGK or anyone else) for another day or two that there is more to the situation than currently appears. I also agree with the suggestions for copyediting of the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
9. This seems a more appropriate way forward when only one previously-sanctioned user's conduct is being questioned. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. "From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively": By our own admission, we are meandering blindly. Guided by conjecture and statements by parties to this dispute, we are proposing a topic-ban without a proper review of Brews' edits or the articles in question. Such a specialised dispute needs a proper examination, not a quick motion to eliminate the noisiest editor, and we ought to find out what is the real problem with this article. My own suspicion is that there is more to do here than topic ban Brews ohare, and I implore my colleagues to reconsider. AGK [•] 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• @Brews, in reply to my above comment, you may be questioning the conduct of two other editors, but I didn't--and still don't on a quick re-read-through--see anyone else doing so here. So you can mentally change my commentary to read "... questioned by the community." if that improves things. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Motions

Motions on procedural motions

Motion #1

In order to ensure that the wider community is given adequate notice of and opportunity to comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

All significant changes to the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page, and shall be advertised on the Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the Village Pump when first proposed. The motions shall remain open for a period of no less than one week, and shall otherwise be subject to the standard voting procedures enacted by the Committee for other motions.

Votes

Support

1. Proposed, based on recent concerns that we're not providing sufficient opportunity to comment on proposed changes before they're enacted. Kirill ^[talk] 21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
2. I request you change "all changes" to "all significant changes", to exclude unimportant fixes and changes from the transparency requirement this motion creates. AGK [•] 12:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Changed as requested. Kirill ^[talk] 12:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Having slept on this, I cannot support this in its present form. It is a sweeping measure, with very broad unintended consequences. As drafted, this requires a formal motion, advertised in three locations, and up for a week, to make a non-controversial copy edit to a procedural template, to make a non-controversial redirect to a better location, or to modify the precise sequence or number of procedural steps clerks take in opening cases etc etc. This runs directly counter to WP:BURO.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Is the change to "significant changes" requested by AGK sufficient to allay your concern regarding the sweeping nature of the motion? Kirill ^[talk] 12:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   No, because the unqualified expression "processes" is also overbroad. Pre-announcing everything in three locations is also OTT. To put this into perspective, the evidence length proposals were up for seven weeks and reported in Signpost on 9, 16, 23 and 30 April, and in Open Tasks for the duration. Which does not seem to me to be hiding anything away.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Interesting; I wasn't considering the preliminary recitations to be material. Generally speaking, do you think that they should be interpreted that way? Kirill ^[talk] 12:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   It's probably responsible to assume that people will interpret this in the light most favourable to whatever their position happens to be as that's normally how people operate. Best therefore to pin it down.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2. I understand the impetus for this motion but I do not believe it is necessary. The Committee has pledged before, and should reaffirm, that it will seek community input on significant changes that will affect the relationship between the Committee and its constituents, including all aspects of the editor community. This does not, however, mean that every change in process, or even every "significant" change in process, requires a week's worth of advertising in three different places. I am particularly concerned that giving undue weight to relatively minor changes that may occur to our processes over time may have the effect of diminishing the attention given to more significant issues, both ones involving this Committee and others. Or put more simply, I favor motion #2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Per those above me, favor motion #2. SirFozzie (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose for the same reason as opposing motion #2 Risker (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Not convinced on motion 2, but it is clearly superior to this one. Courcelles 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose, per Roger above and Risker below Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose as overly bureaucratic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

General discussion

Oppose Per not bureaucracy. We're getting in a tizzy because clarifications and amendments get merged? Whether a Hey ArbCom, you didn't quite get it right, please fix this process is called amendment / clarifications / have a Salmonidae is just so not important. Nobody Ent 00:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

While I happen to agree that the particular change that spurred this discussion was a fairly trivial one, I think the request that we be more consistent in soliciting community input is a reasonable one in and of itself, regardless of which specific change we neglected it for.

Beyond that, my intent is not only to provide more transparency to the process, but also to create a defined place for decisions on procedure to be made in the first place; at the moment, the Committee can hold such discussions in a variety of places, making it rather difficult to follow them at times. Kirill ^[talk] 01:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, you are right, but it is a slippery slope - where is the limit. I fully endorse this change - it does not necessarily change the basics, but it does somewhat improve the transparency (something I have been asking for a long time). IF something is proposed by the ArbCom that the community would then massively oppose against, then at least that is seen - even the members of the ArbCom are only human. I presume that the motion about merging the Amendments and Clarifications pages would have passed without opposition, only some questions, concerns or suggestions which may have made the actual transition even smoother. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree whole heartedly that this particular change was minor, and had I not been editing the page simultaneously to the merge would probably never have been brought up. But anything to improve transparency and accountability is good. Rich Farmbrough, 02:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Motion #2

To provide an opportunity for community comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures prior to enactment, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page, and shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed. Such motions shall remain open for at least one week prior to enactment; otherwise, the Committee's standard voting procedures apply.

Votes

Support

1. Alternative to the motion on procedural transparency above, and addressing my objections to that motion.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   The major and lingering remaining concern that I have about this is the seven-day provision, which has been highlighted by recent events. A lot of stuff whistles through in less than a day or two; and may often be time-sensitive because we want to apply it to an upcoming case. Delaying the opening of a case by say five or six days for process sake is likely to antagonise a lot of people,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Works for me. Kirill ^[talk] 12:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. This is acceptable as long as "significant or substantive" is interpreted in a reasonable way, which I guess is something that will play out over time. Re the comment that the ArbCom noticeboard is watched less than some other pages, I think passage of this motion would be fair notice that people interested in monitoring for potential changes in our procedure should watchlist that page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Second choice to Motion #1. AGK [•] 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   • Change to oppose. AGK [•] 13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

5. SirFozzie (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
6. While I see Risker's point, I think that any rule can be wikilawyered to death but I think there's ample room for sound judgement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am quite certain that there will be plenty of people who will insist that any change whatsoever is "significant or substantive", even if it is making a grammar correction. ("But you changed the meaning by fixing the words!!!") Things we have motions for, I'm fine for discussing publicly onwiki and posting on the noticeboard. However, this requires lengthy deliberations even for going forward with a trial of something a little different. I don't think we need 7 days to discuss the majority of even substantive changes. Risker (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Per Risker. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Per Risker. I'm in favour of opportunities for community input, but not if the only input is wikilawyering. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose as overly bureaucratic and arbitrary. Some discussions take longer, some take shorter. If folks are open and engaging, I think this is unnecessary and overly formalises interactions with the community at large. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. On reflection, I am not sure that it is sensible or necessary to impose on ourselves a one-week minimum period of exposure for motions, even considering our absolute discretion over whether to ignore or adapt procedures in a given case. AGK [•] 13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
6. The point should be, "hold our procedural discussions here" not "wait a week to pass anything". A mandatory holding period of this long is too bureaucratic. Courcelles 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

• Of the three pages in the initial proposal Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard has far less watchers than the other two. AC/N has 593 to AN's 3482 and VPP's 2513. In a project with less than 10,000 highly active users, you are dealing in huge percentage differences. I'm not sure if your intent is to actually increase transparency or just to make a feint and point to it next time people complain, but with this motion you're doing a much better job of the second than you are the first. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm actually mindful of the complaints we've had in the past about focusing on procedure when we've posted this stuff publically. How much transparency does whether Amendments and Clarifications are on one page or two need?  Roger Davies ^talk 14:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If the objective is to inform the community, you're going to have to break from Arbspace. The people who are complaining are most likely not watching the AN/C. The people watching AN/C are already involved enough that they'd be in the loop anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Sven is absolutely right. There are still people like me who will remain in blissful ignorance most of the time, being too busy running bots and editing protected templates, but with those pages you will at least get about 3-5% of the active editors, and probably a good chunk of those who can make useful contributions. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
      
• I don't care about the procedural details, but the idea of Arbcom requiring itself to give notice of substantial changes is a great one in my mind. I likely won't pay attention, because arbitration is really something I've ignored most of the time, but it will definitely help those who care more about it. Typos and other things definitely don't need to get prior notice; we're not a bureaucracy where everything requires votes first. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• I also agree this is a good step in the right direction and also agree that the notice should be somewhere, like a village pump, that folks are actually likely to see it. Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion #3

To provide an opportunity for community comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures prior to enactment, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made.

Votes

Support

1. Okay, the core idea here is a good one, but it doesn't take anywhere near a week to get the community's input. Sorry to propose another motion at this late date, but I just can't get behind a week's waiting period above. A day gives the community plenty of time to object, without stretching into days of silence. Courcelles 14:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Fair enough. Kirill ^[talk] 14:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Better. AGK [•] 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. I can live with this. Risker (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
6. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

General discussion

How about "Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures, as assessed by the committee itself, shall ..." Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Or simpler: "Modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures that the Committee determines are significant or substantive shall be made etc etc",  Roger Davies ^talk 02:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A word of warning here. A day is not really enough time both for significant changes to be advertised and for public discussion to conclude (many people, including some arbs, may miss a few days here and there, so the unit of a week works best for most discussions). Trivial changes, I agree, shouldn't need bureaucracy, but the "days of silence" referred to above usually only occur when trivial changes are proposed. When something that objections are raised to is proposed, is a day enough time to assess opposition to it and whether the proposal needs to be withdrawn or reworked? The above will only work if any discussion that arises is allowed to continue for more than a day after a change is proposed. What something like this will need is arbitrators to exercise judgement on whether to close a proposal after a day of no input, or whether to allow discussion to continue for as long as needed, followed by the proposal being reworked. Or thanking people for their input but going ahead anyway (which may be needed at times, but will always irk some). Best to make a named someone (an arbitrator, not a clerk) responsible for any discussion that ensues and what to do afterwards, preferably the arbitrator who drafted or proposed the change in the first place.

What is also not clear is whether this advertising period of a day takes place before a public vote by arbitrators or is just a required period of notice following an internal (possibly informal) vote that passed the proposal. If you are advertising a public arb vote on a proposed change, this works less well if people turn up and find the arbs have all voted publicly already within minutes or hours of the proposal going up (something that is intensely annoying - why ask for input and then vote before any input arrives?). Also, beware of arbitrators proposing alternative wording that substantially changes the nature of the proposal, and that wording passing without the required 24-hour notice period, or any updates being made to the notice.

I would suggest a day of something being proposed with no voting by taking place (that is something clerks can enforce as arbitrators, being very busy and all that, tend to forget things like this), and then voting starts with input from any public discussion that may or may not have started. But really, the judgement starts at the point of deciding whether something is a trivial change, or a 'significant or substantive' change. Good luck with that. Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion on decision elements

To provide greater clarity regarding the purpose of each element of an arbitration decision, the following statement is adopted:

Elements of arbitration decisions

For standard hearings, decisions are posted in the form of "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement".

Principles highlight key provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice which are relevant to the dispute under consideration; and, where appropriate, include the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute.

Findings of fact summarize the key elements of the parties' conduct in the dispute under consideration. Difference links may be incorporated but are purely illustrative in nature unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Remedies specify the actions ordered by the Committee to resolve the dispute under considerations. Remedies may include both enforceable provisions (such as edit restrictions or bans) and non-enforceable provisions (such as cautions, reminders, or admonitions), and may apply to individual parties, to groups of parties collectively, or to all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct or working in a specific area.

Enforcement contains instructions to the administrators responsible for arbitration enforcement, describing the procedure to be followed in the event that an editor subject to a remedy violates the terms of that remedy. Enforcement provisions may be omitted in decisions that contain no independently enforceable remedies.

Additionally, the existing procedure for voting on proposed decisions is modified to replace the first sentence ("For standard hearings, proposed decisions will be posted in the form of 'Principles', 'Findings of Fact', 'Remedies' and 'Enforcement', with a separate vote for each provision.") with the following:

Proposed decisions will be posted with a separate vote for each provision.

• Will be enacted at 5:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) if there are no further changes to voting or the text of the motion. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please hold until 17:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) to allow final changes,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Will be enacted at 2:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC). If any arbitrators are still working on final changes (as mentioned above), please strike this comment. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Votes

Support

1. Proposed. It's been suggested that the existing procedure for voting on proposed decisions is rather vague as to what constitutes each part of the decision; this attempts to remedy that. Kirill ^[talk] 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Copyedited. Revert if you disagree.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   That looks fine to me. Kirill ^[talk] 13:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

3. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
5. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
6. The motion is generally acceptable to me although I am not certain it is necessary. I do have one reservation: a diff link in a finding can be other than "strictly illustrative" without this being being "expressly designated". If a decision reads "Foo has been uncivil [diff1] [diff2]" then those links are illustrative; but if the decision reads "on May 29, 2012, Foo was uncivil in a comment to Bar [diff]" then it is not "illustrative" but specific. A more straightforward way to reflect when diffs are "purely illustrative" would be to precede lists of illustrative diffs by "e.g." or the like, rather than allay confusion by pointing to a policy page. Also a proposed copyedit (about which arbitrators have had friendly disagreements before): I believe the word "admonition" is much more common than "admonishment". Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   In practice, though, almost all diffs cited in findings are indeed illustrative; specific diffs are the exception rather than the rule, because specific findings are far rarer than general "pattern of conduct" ones. Given that, I think it would make sense to have the illustrative interpretation be the default, and the specific interpretation to require some conscious action on our part. Kirill ^[talk] 22:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   I concur with Kirill here. Can we find language that succinctly reflects this?

   No problems here about the proposed "admonition" change. (Later: which I've made.)  Roger Davies ^talk 02:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

   @ Brad: As illustrative diffs are far more common than probative diffs, and as they are frequently preceded with "(Examples: [diff], [diff])" or similar, I don't have too much trouble with illustrative being the default. In the example, you give - "on May 29, 2012, Foo was uncivil in a comment to Bar [diff]" it only needs the diff to be piped "Foo was uncivil in [diff|this comment to Bar]" or even "Foo was uncivil in this comment to Bar[diff]" to make it explicitly specific.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

7. AGK [•] 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Courcelles 17:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
12. I think I'm OK with this - it seems a lot of words for a relatively small - but highly focused - change. In an email I received recently, someone used the phrase 'whack his winkle' instead of 'admonish'. Suggest employing this as a measure of moving away from quasi judicial speak. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Not really convinced this is needed, but don't object in principle to it. However, I do not think it is really ready for "prime time" until we sort out the issues raised by NYB with respect to diffs, which is a substantive issue in my mind. Risker (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

• This starts off by talking about proposed decisions, and then appears to relate to final decisions without making the distinction clear. That an individual member of the Committee has proposed an interpretation of policy doesn't follow that it is a Committee interpretation until there is a consensus in the Committee for the proposed interpretation. If the intention of this motion is to refer to proposed decisions only, then I cannot support; if the intention is to talk about both proposed and final decisions, then that needs to be made clearer before I can support. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  The intent was, indeed, to describe the final end product rather than delving into the drafting process; I've copyedited the text to clarify that. Does the change address your concern? Kirill ^[talk] 17:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  I was thinking earlier that this would probably work better in the present tense i.e. "decisions are posted in the form of 'Principles', 'Findings of Fact'" (instead of "decisions will be posted" etc) as that is the usual way of expressing general principles. If no one objects, this can still be done.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  I have now put this into the present tense, Revert if you hate it.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I see any substantive difference, but I have no objection to it either way. Kirill ^[talk] 12:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion on standardized enforcement

To provide for standardized enforcement of editing restrictions imposed by the Committee, and to reduce the amount of boilerplate text in decisions, the following procedure is adopted, and shall apply to all cases closed after its adoption:

Standard enforcement provision

The following standard enforcement provision shall be incorporated into all cases which include an enforceable remedy but which do not include case-specific enforcement provisions passed by the Committee:

"Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page."

Votes

Support

1. Proposed. We've discussed having a standard enforcement provision in just about every case over the past few months, since we inevitably just repeat the boilerplate; this wording appears to be the form that we typically use. Kirill ^[talk] 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Go for it,  Roger Davies ^talk 13:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Since this is update-our-procedures-to-reflect-reality week, this is pretty high on my list. We've had closes delayed for no better reason than a topic ban was added late, and then an enforcement had to be added on later and voted on appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Yes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
6. SirFozzie (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
7. AGK [•] 16:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Like NYB, though, this should be placed on the final case page if it applies, so everyone is clear. Courcelles 14:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Given the response to my comment I will support, though I'd still welcome some discussion of the initial maximum block length. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   How about replacing "initially for up to one month, and then with blocks ..." with "initially for between one day and one month, depending on the circumstances, and then with blocks ..."? This makes it abundantly clear that admins are expected to exercise judgment on the duration, rather than dishing out a standard one month block.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

10. Support provided that it is actually placed on all decisions AND we have a method for declaring that this standard provision does not apply in a specific case. I don't think it is to the project's benefit for us to be inflexible. Risker (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    As the motion says, "Unless explicitly stated otherwise in a particular decision". In order to revise something for a specific case, all that would need be done is pass an enforcement provision disagreeing with this one, which would control that case. It wouldn't hurt to add a line like "This enforcement provision shall be placed on the final case page of all cases where the Committee has not passed a different enforcement provision in that case" though to make this expectation clear instead of being forgotten about in these votes. Courcelles 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    Perhaps add something alomg those lines as a copy-edit? In the unlikely event it's reverted we can always discuss further.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    Done. Revert or copy-edit further as needed. Courcelles 18:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    Made simpler. Courcelles 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    And even simpler. Kirill ^[talk] 22:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    And double-plus simpler. Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies ^talk 03:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
12. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
13. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• I can support this in general, but would still like to see this enforcement paragraph included in decisions, to make sure the parties to cases (who may not be aficionadoes of the arbitration process who are familiar with all the relevant policies) are aware of how enforcement works. Also, I think we should discuss whether one month as the maximum block for a first violation of a restriction fits well for every case. Traditionally, it said "one week" here although we have gone with "one month" in several decisions more recently. This may not be a crucial point given that one month is the maximum block, but we might want to emphasize that fact in some fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, It can be added to the page template so that the information is there but doesn't require a separate vote every time.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  Given that a month is the maximum and that admins remain free to decide a less severe block better fits the situation, I can support them having the flexibility to go up to a significant length when it is actually necessary. Admins aren't in the habit of blocking for the absolute longest stretch they can when there's no call for it. Courcelles 17:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

Take out the long words. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Standard enforcement provision

The following provision applies to all cases which include an enforceable remedy, unless they say otherwise.

"If a user subject to a restriction violates it, they may be blocked, for up to a month to start with, and then with blocks increasing in length to a maximum of a year. Appeals against blocks may be made to the administrator who blocked the user, and afterwards to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks will be recorded on the main case page."

Something like this. Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

I would suggest using a standard one week initial block and go from their. In many cases one month could be considered excessive for the first offense especially considering the vague way that some of the recent arb decisions have been worded. One could easily find themselves blocked for a month because of the way someone interpretted the decision, right or wrong. Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Any response? This seems like clearer simpler wording. It is of course a standard that committees and people writing rules tend to use more complex wording, as a form of code switching, to be charitable. However it is also demonstrated that clearer language improves understanding and leads to less conflict. Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

Motions to block or ban Rich Farmbrough

Motion RF1 (indefinite - one year appeal)

For this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators but 1 is recused, so 7 votes is a majority.

Proposed:

The Arbitration Committee has established (through the checkuser tool) that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has, in recent days, used Wikipedia:WikiFunctions and other forms of automation. Use of such tools is in gross violation of the prohibition on his use of any form of scripting or automation to edit Wikipedia. Therefore, Rich Farmbrough is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. He may appeal this ban after one year.

Votes RF1

Support

1. Proposed. This was pretty much what the arbitrators who voted to ban Rich in the first place had feared, and I confess myself seriously disappointed that their predictions on the case pages proved correct. AGK [•] 23:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Regretfully. We've made the desire that you continue to contribute to the project without using any automation at all as clear as reasonable, and then some. You've repaid us for our leniency by wikilawyering everything in sight. None of this was necessary, and I personally counseled you to take a Wikibreak and reflect before coming back. I wish you had chosen that path, rather than this one. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. 2nd choice after RF3. The evidence strongly suggests that Rich has been using AWB in one browser and then copying and pasting the edits in another browser, and for two edits he made a mistake and used the wrong browser. As Rich has been caught and now admits using AWB, a ban is the only option. A short block would be inappropriate as it is clear that he cannot be trusted to a) stay away from automation and b) be honest. Even when caught he tried to wriggle out of it until the evidence couldn't be denied. A short block would be like playing battleships, allowing Rich another shot at hitting the target of concealing his automation. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. The question is this. Is this a one-time, two edit mistake, or is this trying to modify the tools in such a way as to be undetectable via standard means. What is not in dispute is that Rich made at least two edits using a version that skirts usual controls of its use. The CU evidence, does not, I believe, bear out Rich's story that this was a two-edit mistake. I don't buy it, and the only way left to stop him evading his sanction is, sadly, this. I don't like it, but that's what's left. Courcelles 02:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Courcelles. Kirill ^[talk] 02:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Second choice. Firstly, the apparent deception is an aggravating factor and that justifies extending the ban beyond one month. On the other hand, whether a minimum period of twelve months is too long is an entirely different question. I'm supporting this for now mainly because I'd like assurances from Rich Farmbrough before any ban is lifted and this remedy provides for that. If there's a glimmer of consensus for reducing the waiting period before reconsideration say to three or six months, I'll propose an alternative along those lines,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Excessive. The case already provides for an initial block of one month. I think that is more reasonable. In particular, refusing to even consider an appeal for a full year is completely out of proportion to the violation. Risker (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Ok, here's my (lengthy) thoughts after going over this whole situation in my head time and time again. It's obvious from our review that Rich had no willingness to comply with the injunction. He went so far as to prepare his edits using automation, and then copy them into Wikipedia manually. This does breach the letter of the restriction, and it mangles the spirit of it all to heck and back. For that, I think he needs to take some time away from Wikipedia, get rid of automation, come back as a regular editor, and work his way back into the Community's trust. I think a fixed block/ban of several months would be the best way to solve that. Quite frankly, I don't blame my fellow arbs for thinking the ban above is a fair and just response. The path to getting rid of restrictions you don't believe in isn't to go ahead and violate them secretly, it's to show that the reason for them no lnger applies. However, the fact that when caught he immediately A)Owned up to it, B) Apologized (not to us.. but to his supporters) for it, and C) indicated that he would accept any ban placed here tips the scales for me into opposing this ban and proposing a shorter, fixed term ban. SirFozzie (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. This situation is problematic and may be deteriorating, and I understand the reasons in favor of the motion; nonetheless, largely per Risker and SirFozzie, I would impose a less severe sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Per the comments above, prefer a shorter, fixed term ban. PhilKnight (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. I can see the rationale, but my preference is a shorter term at this point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

• The explanation given on the ArbCom mailing list is that Rich Farmbrough has used AWB after altering it not to leave an edit summary, but that it has left a trace signature which CheckUser has picked up. Given his clear frustration at the case result in which he was banned from using automation, and which he has been protesting about in various places, and that it was proposed in that case that he be banned because he was likely to do something like this, it seems highly likely that this is what has happened. However, I am prepared to wait 24 hours to allow Rich Farmbrough to explain himself. If he is unable to satisfactorily explain the situation then I agree that a ban is more appropriate than a block because a ban was proposed in the case and narrowly avoided by some of us wishing to allow Rich Farmbrough a chance to prove himself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Waiting, as per SilkTork. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, Rich, thank you for being honest and forthright, not only to us, but to the supporters who have backed you in these past weeks. That's going to play a role in any vote I make. I think I'm still going to vote for a ban, but I think I might put a fixed-length time ban on the table instead of the indefinite with an appeal after a year that has been proposed. I need to spend some time thinking about it. SirFozzie (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Concur. I do not believe we are in a position to do anything except issue a site-ban of significant duration, but I do hope there may be a successful appeal at some point. AGK [•] 11:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion RF2 (six month ban)

For this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators but 1 is recused, so 7 votes is a majority.

Proposed:

The Arbitration Committee has established (through the checkuser tool) that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has, in recent days, used Wikipedia:WikiFunctions and other forms of automation, taking steps to conceal the automation used in preparing his edits. Use of such tools is in gross violation of the prohibition on his use of any form of scripting or automation to edit Wikipedia. Therefore, Rich Farmbrough is banned for six months from the English Wikipedia. When this ban expires, Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) must show at least a further six months of trouble free editing before any appeal to remove or loosen the restriction on automation will be heard.

Votes RF2

Support

1. Rich went to a lot of trouble to try to conceal his use of automation. I don't think we can let that slide without at least some action here. However, the fact that when he was caught, he admitted to it, and apologized to his defenders for disappointing them is the reason I did not support the indefinite ban above. I think it would be best for Rich if he took this time off and came back, and showed that he can edit successfully without any use of automation. SirFozzie (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. During the recent ArbCom case, I supported a 3 month ban, so given the recent automated editing in defiance of the ban, 6 months seems about right. PhilKnight (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The evidence is of a willful and highly deliberate effort to circumvent the sanctions. And Rich only fessed up, not when asked, but when shown proof beyond any ability to deny. This won't be fixed by sending him away for 180 days, the problems here are fairly fundamental. Letting him ask to come back in six months would be one thing, but not an automatic return. Courcelles 03:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Opposing for the opposite reason as Courcelles; I think that six months is too severe for this first violation of the sanctions. Granted, it is not as if Rich Farmbrough had a trouble-free record up until that point (or we wouldn't have had a case in the first place), but even so. The decision calls for a block of up to one month for a first offense. I think that would be more than sufficient and even that would arguably be excessive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Opposing because such bans, being preventative, shouldn't come with a sunset. As I've indicated in #Votes RF1, I'd consider a shorter ban than a year (perhaps even a much shorter ban than one year) providing there's an opportunity to review the position based on input from Rich Farmbrough about modified behaviour prior to lifting it.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. I would be in favour of hearing an appeal after six months, but I have been convinced by previous arguments that fixed term bans are more in the nature of punitive than preventive, and would rather have assurances in six months time that any banned person has recognised they were causing a problem and what steps they would take to prevent further problems. Giving that Rich was informed that his editing is a problem and was restricted in October 2010, which is more than six months ago, I don't see the mere passage of time as being a convincing argument that he will amend his ways, especially as he has long shown that he is in denial that his behaviour is a problem, and doesn't go along with consensus, which is the basic model of how Wikipedia operates. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
5. AGK [•] 11:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
6. per comment I made above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Per Courcelles. Kirill ^[talk] 14:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Per SilkTork Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

Motion RF3 (indefinite - six month appeal)

For this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators but 1 is recused, so 7 votes is a majority.

Proposed:

The Arbitration Committee has established (through the checkuser tool) that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has, in recent days, used Wikipedia:WikiFunctions and other forms of automation. Use of such tools is in gross violation of the prohibition on his use of any form of scripting or automation to edit Wikipedia. Therefore, Rich Farmbrough is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. He may appeal this ban after six months.

Votes RF3

Support

1. First choice. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. First choice. I'm okay with this too.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Very reluctantly. I'm afraid of all that changes between proposal 1 and this one is when the first appeal will be declined, I would much prefer a fixed length ban. But I hope six months down the road, the ill will and frustration we all feel at being in this situation will have faded and we can grant an appeal at that time. SirFozzie (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Third choice. On reflection, I agree with Jclemens and Casliber's comments. PhilKnight (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
5. If and only if motion 1 does not pass, otherwise this is an oppose. Courcelles 13:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] 14:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
7. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
8. If and only if motion 1 does not pass, otherwise this is an oppose, per Courcelles. Six months is December, with the same committee. I think Rich's violation of our good faith has been so extensive that I would be hard pressed to imagine a world in which he would be let back in in six months. I personally have no particular qualms with this being more severe than past appeal timetables--not because Rich is any better or worse than anyone else, but because we've never accepted an appeal from a case-banned user in six months during my tenure on the committee, so the fact that we'll "hear" such an appeal is just a polite fiction. Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A secondary motive of the first motion is to send Rich away for long enough that he changes his perspective. Half a year doesn't really do that. AGK [•] 11:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Per my comments on motion. I understand completely why my colleagues deplore Rich Farmbrough's recent behavior, and everyone can be assured that I am not impressed with it either. Nonetheless, I am not prepared to conclude that this editor must be separated from the project for such a period of time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

   Help us here, Brad ;) What do you conclude is an appropriate period of time?  Roger Davies ^talk 12:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

   A few days would be ample. A month would clearly be enough. I think from his comments today that it is possible that Rich Farmbrough is getting the message, and I want to see how that plays out before we send away for months an editor with close to one million edits on this project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

3. This won't work as we'll be arguing about whether to lift it in six months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Concur with Casliber. Risker (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

• Proposing this as a midway point between the existing two motions, and also as it fits better with my own feelings. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion RF4 (three month ban)

For this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators but 1 is recused, so 7 votes is a majority.

Proposed:

The Arbitration Committee has established (through the checkuser tool) that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has, in recent days, used Wikipedia:WikiFunctions and other forms of automation, taking steps to conceal the automation used in preparing his edits. Use of such tools is in gross violation of the prohibition on his use of any form of scripting or automation to edit Wikipedia. Therefore, Rich Farmbrough is banned for three months from the English Wikipedia. When this ban expires, Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) must show at least a further six months of trouble free editing before any appeal to remove or loosen the restriction on automation will be heard.

Votes RF4

Support

1. Proposing this for two reasons - (i) fixed is fixed, so we don't waste time arguing the point once it's wound up, and (ii) it's a transgression of the decision we made. The reason for the shorter length is because I am still getting my head around the fact we have an editor with a million edits and until very recently was an admin can end up perma-banned so quickly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Equal second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. First and only choice. I don't think, for a user who has been on Wikipedia for hours of just about every day for years on end, that this is a "useless" ban; I think this will have a more effective impact than an even longer one, because there is the hope of returning. Risker (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Now second choice. Risker (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. For the same reasons as motion2,except this one is pretty much useless as a ban term goes, even if you think fixed bans are useful. Courcelles 13:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[talk] 14:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Useless. AGK [•] 14:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Still excessive, in my view, per my comments on the motions above. However, this vote can be counted as very reluctant support if it makes the difference between this motion passing and one of the earlier ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
5. I'm not comfortable making an assumption about someone's mindset in three or six months times - I'd rather get the feedback at the time and make an assessment then. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
6. The time for this is past. We should have banned him for a month right off the bat, to give him time to get his mindset straight. If there's anything I regret about this case, it's not enacting a short-duration ban right off the bat, to get through to Rich that no, we were not going to reconsider things, and his status with respect to the project was changed for the foreseeable future. I'm afraid that by allowing Rich (and certain other editors in good standing who empowered his challenges) free rein to attack the process, Rich developed an "I'm going to get ArbCom!" mindset, which probably helped him justify his WP:MEATBOT behavior. Unfortunate, indeed, but now is not the time for such gentle measures. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion RF5 (30 day block)

The Arbitration Committee has established (through the checkuser tool) that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has, in recent days, used Wikipedia:WikiFunctions and other forms of automation, has taken steps to conceal the automation used in preparing his edits, and thus is in flagrant violation of his editing restrictions.

Ordinarily, because of the aggravating factors, a ban of significant length would be contemplated. While noting that this editor's prior contributions are not grounds for exoneration, the Committee nevertheless is prepared to accept on this one occasion his past work in mitigation. Rich Farmbrough is therefore blocked for thirty days from the English Wikipedia.

After the block expires, Rich Farmbrough is encouraged to work constructively within the limits of his restriction and advised that once he can demonstrate at least six months of trouble free editing he may request reconsideration of the restriction on automation.

Votes RF5

Support

1. I am prepared to accept that Rich Farmbrough did not act typically on this occasion and will therefore give him the benefit of doubt. I also see this very much as a wake up call.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
2. First choice. In answer to your question, Kirill: I believe that if Rich is going to have a change of heart, it won't take longer than 30 days for it to happen. Now, he might never have a change of heart, but it is no less likely to happen in 30 days than in 365. Risker (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Equal second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
4. In my view, more reasonable and proportionate than other choices. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Jclemens (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Does anyone really believe that Rich will have a fundamental change of heart in the next 30 days? Kirill ^[talk] 12:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
3. I think that RIch needs more time away from Wikipedia than this provides. SirFozzie (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
4. The length of the ban is not the issue here, it is that we don't know either now or at the end of the period if Rich will be ready to adjust his behaviour. This motion has no mechanism in place for making an assessment of his attitude. That is important because it is Rich's attitude that is the issue. It is not that he has had a heated response in a certain topic area, or with certain individuals which might warrant a short block, it is that his approach to editing sometimes needs adjusting through negotiation and compromise, and he has shown himself unwilling to do that. He has been given a chance to show he can work within reasonable parameters (the same parameters that the majority of Wikipedians use - not unreasonable or restrictive sanctions), and he has demonstrated that he is unwilling or unable to do that, even with the threat of a 30 day block hanging over him. Until he changes his attitude, and is prepared to stop contentious editing on request, discuss the concerns in a reasonable and polite manner, and then make appropriate adjustments to his editing in line with consensus, regardless of whether he thinks it is right or wrong, then he will continue to be a problem. It may be worth going back to the principles and findings in the case to remind ourselves why we are considering this ban. Plus, we have not convened the Committee to decide on an action that a single AE admin can action today - [24]. The reason we are here discussing it is, I have assumed, because we feel that the situation is serious enough for us to go further than the enforcement remedy. Having said all that, I would not object to an indef ban with a shorter review period of three months if it is the length of the ban that is causing this impasse. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Not nearly sufficient for the intentional effort to hide evasion of sanctions. Courcelles 18:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
6. The effort spent to conceal his evasion of sanctions (and no semantics, he flat out knew they were an evasion of sanctions, he was just surprised to have screwed up in such a basic manner. Rich and Wikipedia need to seperate for a time, and then rebuild the bridges he burnt down because he was going to do it his way, come hell or high water. SirFozzie (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

General discussion

Whoa! Do you think I'm a complete idiot? I just posted on my talk page that I was aware that Arbs could see my user agent string.

I am awaiting the response from AGK to which edits are claimed to have this user-agent string, and have asked Rjwilmsi to email me to establish if there is any possibility that the code could post on it's own.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

The privacy policy precludes disclosure of the information in question, but I have responded to your e-mail. AGK [•] 00:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that I may have inadvertently made two edits correcting spellings using AWB, although I am still not clear how this happened, I do of course accept that it is a breech of the decision, and accept a ban. Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I'm willing to listen here. I can accept that you're having a really difficult time making the transition back to editing without tools. I'd really prefer not to impose a longterm ban. But you're going to have to help us here. I suggest you start by reviewing your monobook.js and stripping out anything that could possibly lead you into temptation; just remove those scripts, they'll still be in the page history in the future. (I don't think any of us even considered touching your monobook.js, which I think most editors view as being a very personal page; it would kind of be the online equivalent of rooting around in your underwear drawer.) Second, start looking for categories where you can make a difference without using scripts or AWB or any other form of automated editing. Join the Guild of Copyeditors, or look for references for BLP stubs, or just keep clicking "random article" and trying to improve each article that comes up. This is going to be hard, I know. And perhaps it is necessary for you to take a break for a bit to help you change your editing habits; right now, there is a very good chance that such a break might be of the "enforced" kind. But if you want to continue to participate in the project, this is how it's going to have to be. I'd rather have you helping to improve the project, if you can find a way to do that without extra tools, but ultimately it's up to you to figure out how you can do that. Risker (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That's extremely positive. I don't have to look for things to improve on Wikipedia - and this is something that NewYorkBrad was interested in, they find me. Either by requests or because I see something wrong. In the latter case not being able to fix it would be an irritant, just as it is in printed matter or on most web sites - but no more after a day or so - and remember I just had a month with no article edits, though annoyingly I did not get much of a break. Similarly doing stuff manually is annoying. But in the short term it's not my loss if one article gets fixed instead of a hundred. And I don't have to deal with people who think I added tags that the Pixie dated, not that I minded. I'm not sure what you mean by "a really difficult time making the transition back to editing without tools" if you mean it in the same way you might say to the engineer fixing your car "I guess you are finding it really hard to do up all those nuts by hand" then yes, having deliberate obstacles thrown in one's path is difficult. Antifacilitation is by no means an unusual trope, but it is always an annoying one (and generally harmful). If on the other hand you are implying that I have a compulsion to use automation, not so. Back when I was sorta half allowed to use automation, compared with now when I'm sorta half not allowed, I was aware that I was doing far more manually than I should, partly because I hadn't invented the tools, partly because of the rules, and partly because it's so much easier just to do a few more edits, than actually crack the process and fix it. And by process I mean both the extrinsic and intrinsic aspects. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Rich, you're not "sorta half not allowed". You're not allowed, period. Similarly, your editing restrictions are still in effect, and you have been violating those as well. There's only so much that people can do to argue against a lengthy ban when you seem to go out of your way to encourage one. I had been letting your edits slide without comment to give you a chance to calm down, but the use of AWB seems to have brought the issue to a head. Can you give any assurance that you will follow the arbcom sanctions and your edit restrictions when you are allowed to edit again? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The committee cannot decide what constitutes automation. That was my point. They said I think that rollback is allowed. Other attempts at clarification have failed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I don't think anyone (including you) thought that AWB (including your personal modification of it) is anything other than automated editing. AWB is in no way comparable to rollback. Risker (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is quite remarkable that Rich Farmbrough saved any edits with AWB (because he is not listed on the check page). Nevertheless, the ban on automation has been effective, so far, in reducing the scope of the problematic editing, and Rich has taken up editing content on turtles, which is a positive development. Any "nontrivial" use of automation would be visible in Rich's contribs, but I have not seen any evidence of that. Given that there was use of AWB somehow, it appears from the editing history to have been unintentional. I would like to argue for a significant block (e.g. two weeks or one month) in lieu of a one-year ban, with the proviso that additional violations would lead to more severe sanctions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Responding to SilkTork's comment of 02:05, 1 June 2012, I agree that is a real risk, but I think that the edit history will reveal if "hidden" automation is used to actually do anything. It's been apparent from the edit history (without any checkuser info) that Rich was still using some sort of code to remove whitespace etc., and was still occasionally violating his edit restriction, but the scope was so small that I didn't see a benefit in raising the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The job of ArbCom is to to act as a final binding decision-maker.

all models are wrong, but some are useful

— George Box

While arbcom is "not a court" they are much more like a court than a legislature or executive. In the Rich Farmborough decision, rathering than rendering a final decision, in expounding this "relax on a per-case basis afterwards" ArbCom appears to have set itself up as some sort of probation officer / nanny -- not a "judicial" function.

The admissions [25] [26] a change was needed because ArbCom didn't finish the job in the first place are troubling. Traditionally ArbCom has taken the time needed to craft complete decisions (even if some editors complain when they run past decision date estimates).

Unfortunately, now, having painted itself into a metaphorical corner, ArbCom is faced with the ridiculous decision point of banning a long term prolific editor for correcting spelling mistakes??? At least two of you (JClemens, AGK) concurred on 19 May that "In the context of the case, automation is clearly intended to be that allowing an editor to modify multiple articles or other pages in rapid succession." can't find diff right now cause of page move.

But there's good news -- it's not real paint...

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,

— Ralph Waldo Emerson

Did Wikipedia elect little minds to ArbCom? I think not.

Do the right thing. Suspend the decision, go back and hash out a workable defined of automation so Rich & the admin corps & the community knows what is allowed and what is not without ridiculous restrictions against spellcheck. Nobody Ent 02:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone realizes that going out of your way to edit the source code of AWB so that you can run it violates a restriction against all forms of automation. The name of the program is autowikibrowser, after all. The main question to me is whether a one-year block is proportional. I can see the arguments on both sides, but I think a shorter time off might be reasonable. In any case the issue here is not the arbcom decision, however flawed it might be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think before Arbcom decides to ban Rich they need to perform some due diligence and find out A) How did AWB post edits for Rich when he has been removed from the AWB checkuser page and B)Clearly define in non vague terms what his automation ban covers. Its still entirely too wishy washy to be enforceable. Aside from that, his ban is working and holding these 2 unconfirmed edits against him is just petty and not in the best interests of the pedia. This is of course what the Arbcom has been trying to do since the case was opened and it was only a matter of time before something was brought up. I am not surprised that this happened but I am a little curious why the checkuser tool was used to check on Rich's edits unless there was some reason to do so other than just sheer curiousity. Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Kumioko. But, it's already 5-0. ArbCom just needed an excuse. Now they have a paper airplane of one. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Carl: Allow me to explain my own thinking. In discovering these directly-automated edits, we realised that Rich has a copy of AWB on his computer that is tweaked to skip the security check. In reviewing his recent edits (many of which, for example, only remove white-space or single spaces from templates, or change the template's case), it also seems as though he is using automated assistance for those. My own suspicion is that he is loading and previewing the edit in "Rich's AWB", then copying the edit over and making it in his browser; the handful of exceptions where he directly edited from AWB were misclicks. In any case, why do you suppose that he would be any less inclined to automate his edits after a week or a few months than a longer period of time? Where does this end? How much time to we devote to working with this editor to allow him to continue editing, if he'll just side-step us at every juncture and do it his own way anyway?

Hammersoft: You know that we gave Rich a last chance (by choosing an automation ban over a site ban) in the arbitration case. You know that I was the first arbitrator to oppose the site-ban. Now you imply that this is all some form of "cover-up" for a secret plot to site-ban him all along. This is utter nonsense, and you know it. AGK [•] 11:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that argument, and I share the concern. I had seen the recent edits already, and it was apparent that he either had code to perform various changes or was going out of his way to make it look like he did. Those who had dealt with Rich before already knew that he had a modified version of AWB on his main account,[27] although I don't know if that ever came up during the arbcom case. I agree that some sanction is justified, but I think that a year is too long given that there have also been some signs of improvement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"many of which, for example, only remove white-space or single spaces from templates, or change the template's case" I asked you by mail for an example. When you gave an example you gave you said "apart from fixing the typo". I accept the possibility that I may have made such an edit but I find it unlikely. Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

It doesn't matter; you are entirely prohibited from making various cosmetic changes, whether they are made in conjunction with other changes or not. Arguing about whether other changes were made is just a distraction from the issue. Can you give some assurance that you will follow your edit restrictions when your ban expires? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Since I'm recused as an Arb, I'm going to post down here. Rich is in the position of someone topic banned from Israel-Palestine under WP:ARBPIA who had been editing Six-Day War. It doesn't matter what his edits are, he's banned from using AWB and he used it. The thing isn't sentient (I hope) - it didn't turn itself on. But I do think any kind of a ban is excessive. There was a remedy of increasing blocks - block his ass for a month (or however long the first one was). And tell him to strip all the stuff out of his monobook.js...just in case it decides to start editing as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, Rich is in the position of being banned from Foo, and nobody has defined what Foo is. Some members of ArbCom think rollback is automation and some don't, for example. Is using AWB to find something automation? If it is, why isn't using Google search? Is using AWB to generate an edit that it then copied from one window to another automation? Some arbs think it requires more than that, that it requires changing multiple articles at speed (another undetermined metric). Rich was set up to fail by this decision. I'm not going to claim he's perfect. I'm not going to claim he's the antithesis of perfect. Why? Because I CAN'T using the arbitrary and vague metrics ArbCom came up with. If he comes back from this ban, what's he supposed to do? Say "I won't use automation"? What's the definition? A crime isn't a crime if you don't define what it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You guys are just looking for a martyr arent't you. And you call yourselves his friends. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• No Elen, I do not call him my friend, nor call myself his friend. I have no friends here, and have no desire to have any. That would require me to be subservient to social capital. I am not. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Elen, Hammersoft is quite right to take that approach, if he believes it is the right. While we diverge over several points relating to the current situation, we both believe in expressing ourselves without fear or favour. In my case I will do it despite social capital, despite position, despite authority, despite power. This has been ascribed to me being "angry" or "frustrated" or "not internalizing my guilt" or similar motives. It is not, I have seen anomalies, I report them in good faith, and it is interesting and somewhat heartening to see who takes them in good faith, at least apparently. There is more work to do, but it will probably take a couple of years to create and implement the needed reforms, and while I think it important it I am sure there are many in the community who will tackle the task. Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

Elen no one is looking for a Martyr but what we are looking for is leadership. There is no reason for Arbcom to continue to dodge the question that has been pointed out repeatedly. Arbcom needs to be clear with their determinations or expect pushback from the community when they fail to do so. If Arbcom would make a clear determination of what an automated edit is this would be a big benefit to their credibility but what I and Hammersoft and others have been stating is that even among the members of Arbcom there is no clear idea of what no automation means. There is no standard punishment of violations (thats currently being depated in a motion so thats good). Arbcom has up till recently been free to do as they wish but their decisions have become more and more erratic so additional controls are needed. Thats the bottom line. Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

All this is flannel. Rich was very clearly topic banned from using AutoWikiBrowser to make edits. He used it to make edits. Arbcom would probably find it easier to impose a lesser sanction if you lot weren't creating drama and posting what to me appears to be frank nonsense all the time, and making it look as if Rich is ignoring the sanction because you are all encouraging him to do so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I view it a bit different. If Arbcom had any clarity whatsoever in their decision or their method for arriving at it a lot of this "drama" would have been avoided. Since Arbcom seems incapable or unwilling to give any definitive statement on the results or methods of the trial it leaves a lot of holes in what and how they arrived their. When Arbcom cannot even define what automation is there is or how it should be enforced pushing the blame on us is just nonesense. Arbcom is the one that set Rich up for failure by creating a vague determination that was left wide open to interpretation or misinterpretation. The way it was worded Arbcom clearly never intended for Rich to be able to edit and it was only a matter of time before he did a series of edits that in some way could be construed as automation. I agree it was a poor decision on his part to make it easy but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it would have happened soon either way. If you want us to quite complaining then make better and more clearly defined decisions. Then we will have nothing to complain about! Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And just to add a bit of clarity, I do view the sanctions against Rich as mostly baseless and banning him or any other long time editor from editing is both counterproductive to building an encyclopedia and pointless. I also think that banning him for a year for breaking a nearly baseless sanction based almost primarily on minor edits is also just about as poor of a decision as anyone could make. Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• No Elen, I am not encouraging Rich to ignore the sanctions. In fact, I very pointedly advised him against it. I understand there's a desire to ascribe feelings to people who are upset about this decision. Please do not do so, without evidence. Thank you. As to the use of AWB; you state that Rich was clearly topic banned from using it. Could you please point to where this was made clear, in that AWB was specifically mentioned? Subsequent to the case closing, there were discussions regarding what on-wiki tools should be considered automation or not. There was no consensus on that, so far as I'm aware. But, maybe I missed it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hammer and Kumioko - more flannel. Do you guys not realise that by suggesting that Rich is too...what...stupid?... to realise that editing using AWB counts as automated editing, you're making it more likely that he would just be banned, because really, what would the alternative be for someone who was so incompetent that they didn't think AWB was included in a ban on automated editing. Why don't you buy him a headstone while you're at it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You know Elen for an Arbcom member I am hearing a whole lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or at least{{WP:IDONTCARE]], neither is particularly encouraging. I don't really expect Arbcom to change their minds in this case or even agree with me on this case but if any of what I am saying sinks in and causes mambers to reevaluate how they review and comment on future cases then I feel my time is better spent. As with some of the recent motions for changes which are a positive sign. To answer your question non I don't think Rich is stupid, I do think that Rich, as with many of us are frustrated by Arbcoms complete failure to properly adjudicate the case in a fair and unbiased manner. Kumioko (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom has failed to provide a workable definition of automated, AWB describes it as "semi-automated". Nobody Ent 20:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• You mostly struggled to communicate what was intended the first time; there was some improvements over time, though there were some clearly unanswered questions remaining too. Now, the first thought given to enforcing the existing decision is apparently an indefinite ban motion which locks his ability to appeal until after 1 year. And apparently, even that is headed by the same person who started using CU access in this case. Is it any wonder that you appear, to some people, to invite the sorts of allegations which have been raised here? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• It is irresponsible to pass unenforceable sanctions; if ArbCom was unable to come up with workable definition of restrictions that would allow RF to edit while preventing disruption due to excessive automated edits, it would have been better to simply ban the editor in the first place. In addition to the previously documented variance in arbitrators statements regarding the scope of the ban, the User rights log, with multiple recent changes including an arbitrator reverting the action of a arbcom clerk, clearly shows that the committee itself didn't know what the sanction meant, let alone the rest of the community. Wikipedia editing is a client server interaction; the only thing that ArbCom has control over is the server side, so restrictions should only reference that. A professional coder could easily implement an automated client that would be indistinguisable from a browser. The fact that AWB user agent strings were detected indicates either programming error or intentional limit testing, not that the sanction is valid. The WP:ARBPIA analogy is a false one, as all involved components of the restriction are server side. As I'm seeing seven votes for one or more of the proposals I anticipate this discussion will terminate soon; if an appeal is heard in the future I urge the committee to ensure any restrictions are clearly defined, reasonable, and comphrehensible to itself, the restricted party, and the rest of the community. Nobody Ent 20:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• This totally sucks; Rich is useful and skilled. Do-over. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I second Br'er Rabbit here: Do-over (though I do not trust that ArbCom can do it properly - their solution will be the same, or harsher, but still without properly being able to show the proper evidence for it - e.g. ArbCom bans Rich from using automation on his main account while not being able to show that he is substantially and continuously abusing automation on his main account and while not being able to define what is the automation that he was abusing and not being able to define the boundaries of what is automation). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding comment here from User:Varlaam that was added to the voting section for motion RF1. Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Excessive. Cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Fixed term of four weeks sounds right to me. Varlaam (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of checkuser

Who has been using checkuser to investigate Rich and when were each of these checkusers done? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hammersoft, in answer to your query, AGK was the first person to checkuser Rich, which was in the last 12 hours. After AGK informed the rest of the committee of his findings, other arbs, including me, have confirmed the result. PhilKnight (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• When specifically in the last 12 hours. Timestamp, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In any event the m:CheckUser policy is quite broad in allowing use to 'limit disruption', there would be no violation if RIch was routinely checkusered during the period that he is banned from using automation. There is no requirement that a separate new reason has to be established for each use of the tool, the arbcom sanction in itself justifies it. — Carl (CBM · talk)

Oh for heaven's sake, Hammersoft. Take a look at Rich's recent editing history. Most of them are almost exactly the same type of edits he was doing before he was sanctioned - except for archiving the talk page of an arbitrator with whom he had just had a recent dispute. That was practically begging for arbitrators to look at his contribs, see he was doing the same thing, and verify that he was or was not using an automated tool. It would have been a great kindness on the part of his supporters to help Rich to adjust to editing without scripts and tools rather than to keep fighting a battle that had already been decided. Now he's shot himself in the foot using a hacked version of AWB, but he managed to screw that up too. Risker (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how or why, the end result is how it was always going to be. He did make it easier for Arbcom to make the decision but the way the sanctions were written it was an open ended noose waiting for a neck. I think its a great loss to the pedia and I hope he chooses to participate in one of the sister projects like commons where his edits are wanted. I have had a problem with the decision from day one and this is just another aspect that sours my opinion of Arbcom and the pedia. Kumioko (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I asked for a timestamp. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yesterday evening (UTC). AGK [•] 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I want a date and time stamp, for example: 13:47, 1 June 2012‎, for checkusers done towards Rich from 15 May 2012 through now, along with who performed each. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser logs (and their information) are not public information, Hammersoft, and they're covered by the privacy policy. The subject of the check, Rich, has been provided with information in accord with the privacy policy. I'm going to assume that you have read what is written and can figure out that it occurred between the time that Rich archived Elen of the Roads' talk page, and the time that this motion was made. Risker (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Not only that but Rich has admitted what he did so there isn't really any reason to doubt or question what the checkuser data says. Regardless of my personal feelings about the validity or manner in which the Arbcom decision was carried out this much at least isn't worth arguing. Personally I still have major problems with the Arbcom decision against Rich, how it was written and other aspects of the case so IMO there are still way too many problems and questions pertaining to the Arbcom decision to justify a year long ban. If I was a member of Arbcom I would start with a month and go from there. In general I would not start with a year long ban for a user unless there where significant mitigating circumstances (off wiki harrassment, severe socking, vandalism, threats, things of that nature). Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Per Risker. AGK [•] 14:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The privacy policy does not cover the date and timestamp on the logs and who performed the check. I am not asking for any identifying information. I am not asking for any private information about Rich whatsoever. I am asking for a list of the checkusers performed from 15 May 2012 through present towards Rich, with only a date and timestamp for each check, and who performed the check. I have asked several times now for this information. I would appreciate a straightforward answer this time. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a straightforward answer, Hammersoft: No. Risker (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why? The date/timestamp of when checkuser was used and by whom is not covered by the privacy policy. Under what reason is this request being denied? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft, the first checkuser was AGK, which was done late yesterday evening UTC, I was the second, again late yesterday evening UTC. I don't understand why you need more precise information. Perhaps you could explain. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I shouldn't have to explain, and I'm astonished that so many members of ArbCom a refusing to provide specifics. Are you transparent or not? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I can think of a number of reasons:

  (1) The checkuser log is confidential. (2) Disclosing data from the log is a slippery slope, and one onto which this project has determined we will not take even the tiniest step. We do not quote the log to those who are not identified to the Foundation. (3) You have not given a good reason to be given any excerpt from the log. (4) Checkusers are accountable to your representatives on the AUSC, to the Foundation's ombudsmen, and to one another—not to you. (5) The log does not exist for you to create drama.

  Take your pick of those. I too decline your request. AGK [•] 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• (1) The privacy policy covers personally identifiable information. I have not requested such information. (2) The slippery slope argument does not hold water. I am not asking for private information in any respect. The data I am asking for is no different than the data available in the various public logs here; just who did what and when. (3) I believe there has been a misuse of the tools. While I have not stated as much here, I have stated as much on Rich's talk page. (4) ArbCom is accountable to the community. (5) You are assuming bad faith. The refusal to provide this data creates drama, not the request. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I very much disagree with your intepretation of whether or not the privacy policy includes data from the Checkuser Log. It is explicitly a non-public log. If you want to know whether or not *you* have been checked, I will gladly provide that information directly to you via email. You are not entitled to that information about any other contributor to this project. This has nothing to do with transparency. Risker (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I shall expand briefly to refer you to the Access to nonpublic data policy, which is to be read in concert with the privacy policy. The checkuser log is non-public and information can be released from it under very limited circumstances. Risker (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but Hammersoft does seem to have a point in part of this at least; the apparent reason for using CU here was, by what I have read above, AGK's suspicion that this user was breaching an ArbCom remedy he supported in that case, and this led him to make a choice to use his tools to investigate. I don't think those privacy-related policies are something functionaries should be using as an excuse for, apparently, making an inflammatory remark or assumption of bad faith (that is, "The log does not exist for you to create drama") against an editor who clearly is concerned by the use of such serious tools. On the other hand, Hammersoft, based on Risker's comment, maybe you could just ask Rich to volunteer the information you are requesting, if in your view, there is no apparent loss to him by disclosing the time at which checks were done on his account (presuming that is all that you are seeking and that is all of the information Rich permits to release to you - the time at which checks were done and who did those checks). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The answer is still going to be "No, we are not releasing any checkuser log information about a contributor to this project." If Rich wants to provide Hammersoft with the information he was provided, that is his decision. Hammersoft has not indicated that he is, in fact, concerned about the use of the checkuser tool, and has shown no indication that he believes they were used outside of policy. If he has such concerns, he can request a review by the AUSC or the Ombudsman commission. He doesn't get to have access to information held only in a non-public log. Risker (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I have not asked you to change your answer to him; I have said that he does have a point about the type of inflammatory or bad faith commentary which was used in response to his query, and noted the apparent starting point of his concern. While you have said Hammersoft has not indicated his concern with the use of the tools, if you read his comment above at 15:02, 1 June 2012, it says "I believe there has been a misuse of the tools...I have stated as much on Rich's talk page." Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, Hammersoft and Ncmvocalist; Hammersoft did indeed say that he believed there was inappropriate use of tools. I'll point out that the bad faith commentary goes both ways here; it would not matter *who* did the CU, the result would have been exactly the same, and we would still be debating the motions that are here. There's also little doubt that Rich's editing created legitimate concerns for which use of the checkuser tool was appropriate. They look like AWB edits, and they are AWB edits, and all the defensiveness and off-topic argument in the world isn't going to change that. Nonetheless, if Hammersoft wishes to take this to the Ombudsman, he is very welcome to. (I can understand that he would be less likely to want to take it to the AUSC.) Risker (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I for one did and still do have concenrs that the use of the tool was borderline abuse in this case however given that Rich has admitted what he did I didn't push the issue. I do not agree with Hammersoft that getting the details of the checkuser reviews would benefit this case but I do think that the use of it was questionable. Kumioko (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hammersmith I would suggest that if you wish to push the issue go through the Ombudsman commission. The AUSC is controlled by the Arcom so you are unlikely to get an unbiased response. Kumioko (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In regard to Kumioko's comment above, I served on the Audit Subcommitte last year, and I can advise that the Audit Subcommittee only ever gives out information of the type 'no, there wasn't a misuse of tools' or 'yes, there was, and we've removed checkuser priviliges as a result'. Or in other words, the Audit Subcommittee doesn't release this kind of information. PhilKnight (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Phil. Just to clarify I wasn't trying to indicate that the AUSC would give the checkuser info but that they were unliklely to find an Arbcom member negligent in the use of the checkuser tool since Arbcom has a defacto control over the AUSC and loss of the checkuser privilage would likely result in the member being removed as a member of Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Way to go on the good faith Kumioko. Why don't you go tell the non-arb members of AUSC that they are just patsies. Or put your money where your mouth is and ask the Ombudsman to investigate any incident where an Arb has been accused of misuse and cleared by AUSC. Or just take a step back and look at what you are saying. Telling somebody who has signed up to a position of trust, who has pledged to act with fairness and integrity, that of course they're just going to hide the evidence and back their friends, is a huge insult. You need to either put up some evidence, or stop making these massive allegations. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Elen, the facts of life are that this sort of thing happens all the time in every walk of life. Taking the Kumiko's statement and turning it into an attack on the one member of the AUSC who has no other connection with the functionary structure, or indeed on the other members of the committee jointly or severally is to miss the point. Even if (as we believe and hope) all these people are fine and upstanding pillars of the Wiki, the lack of separation of functions is not a good thing. In general these types of issue come to a head when there is abuse of the system. In this case we have the opportunity to work on improvements while there is still no serious accusation of impropriety. This should be seen as a good thing, not a bad. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Kumioko, I do not want to explain again why I (or any other arbitrator) ran checkuser queries on Rich Farmbrough. I refer you to our previous statements on this subject, and respectfully ask that you not continue repeating this same, tired line. If you have a concern, refer it to the Wikimedia Foundation Ombudsman Commission. AGK [•] 18:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Elen and AGK, You are taking offense where non is directly implied but the bottom line AGK is that your name is all over the subcommittee and all over this case. You have been pushing for a ban from the beginning. It is human nature to support those with whom you have had a positive working relationship with and have grown to trust. Additionally, the fact that Arbcom has a controlling number of votes in AUSC makes it quite obvious to how an Arbcom member would be excused from guilt if an incident were submitted their affecting an Arbcom member. I stated before I haev no desire to pursue the case but was merely giving Hammersoft my advice if he was intent to do so. With that said and as I have stated before. Arbcom has made some questionable decisions lately that give way to a lot of questions. Thats a fact that has been brought up repeatedly by multiple editors and not just my opinion. If you are offended at some or all of my statements then I suggest you devote some time and take this opportunity for growth and developement to address some or all of the concerns about the processes and functions of arbcom that open the door to allegations of impropriety. Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"...fact that Arbcom has a controlling number of votes in AUSC..." I was under the impression there were three arbitrators and three non-arbitrators. ? Lord Roem (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem: That is correct; there are three arbitrator-auditors and three community-auditors. (Risker, an arbitrator, is also a part of the subcommittee, but serves in the role of subcommittee co-ordinator: this forms part of the wider role of co-ordinator of advanced permissions, and the role does not give the co-ordinator a vote in our proceedings.) If anything, the community out-weighs the committee members: during the "cross-over" when Keegan was still seated, there were four voting community members and three arbitrators. AGK [•] 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I was counting Risker as the 4th and extra vote but even still thats 3-3 and an Arbcom member is fairly unlikely to vote another one off so the best that could be hoped for would be a draw. Either way it still proves my point that it would not be the place to take a case involving an Arbcom member. Kumioko (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Two misunderstandings 1) Risker doesn't have a tiebreaking vote, and 2) We really don't vote per se anyways. We handle things in the good old fashioned Wikipedia model of consensus. Polls are taken, objections listened to, positions adjusted, and we come up with something everyone can live with, or we would go back for more info if we couldn't get there on a first pass. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I misunderstood Risker's role in the process but the second part of your statement isn't exactly true. IN order to garner consensus there must be some discussion and some sort of vote such as a support/oppose discussion. My point though is that if an Arbcom member were ever accused of inappropriately using their tools and were ever to come before the AUSC as a defendant it is unlikely that the AUSC would determine anything other than the use was appropriate. Kumioko (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Why Arbcom is discussing five motions

To address SilkTork's The reason we are here discussing it is: Having five motions for an alleged ArbCom restriction violation is simply additional evidence of the inadequacy of the automated sanction (previously raised by myself et. al.). If, using Elen's example, someone violates 1rr on Six-Day War arbcom wouldn't even be involved; a utility admin would simply deal with the situation. Because of your role as the final arbitrator for dispute resolution on Wikipedia it is important that you collectively act in a manner that instills confidence in the process. Ya'll got two decent options.

• Stop the circle the wagons denialism and go back and fix the remedy. (I understand that much of the nature of the criticism -- arbcom conspiracy theories and demands for checkuser data in blatant violation of WMF policy -- has been way off base, but that doesn't make the decision correct in the first place. ) First choice.
• Simply indef the editor and be done with it. Let's face it, no one ends up as a sanctioned party at ArbCom without missing multiple opportunities to figure out how to get along with others. Second choice.
• Anything else -- speculating or expecting the editor to "change their attitude" in the face of a vague bogus sanction; or reopening the fracas in 3 or 6 or 12 months -- won't benefit Wikipedia. If RF decides at some future point he wants to be a team player he can file the appeal using the standard protocol. Nobody Ent 16:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think they should stick with the original motion they voted and agreed on of escalating blocks. Otherwise it reduces credibility in the process if they just go back and retry the case every time because it didn't go the way they wanted the first time. Additionally, The problems go way beyond Rich's case. Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So what positive action are you going to take with regard to the go way beyond problems? Nobody Ent 17:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, what on earth are you talking about? The case went the way this same committee decided it should go (are we forum shopping ourselves?!)—and as for individual arbitrators, many of the supporters of the first ban motion were opposed to the proposal to ban Rich that was made in the original case. You need to stop posting utter nonsense on this page. AGK [•] 21:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying AGK is that the Arbcom could not ban him like several members wanted to do from the beginning so instead they wrote a loose sanction that no one would be able to follow because its so open to interpretation. Then all they need do is sit back and watch and then when the individual does something that can be construed as a violation they get banned. I also was pointing to the fact that in the original proposal to a vote of 8 - 0 I believe the Arbcom agreed to an excalating series of blocks starting at 1 month. Now you and the other members want to revote because they didn't like how that vote went less than a week ago to be harsher. How do you expect us to not criticize decisions like that? Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Some good points raised. The reason we are here voting on these motions is that Rich didn't just use automation, but used a system to conceal he was using automation. That ties in with the proposal in the case that he be banned because it would be difficult to enforce the restriction on using automation. Because he has been caught not just using automation (for which an AE admin could block him), but for doing so in manner designed to avoid detection, we need to return to that proposal. That there are a number of motions is because ArbCom is a committee of individuals - we do not have a hive mind, though I suppose there are core values that we share. We work things out through discussion, negotiation, and consensus. I think that, messy though it appears, that we have this public working through of a variety of motions to find the most suitable one, is a good example of the sort of transparency that I and others want from the ArbCom process. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To be frank I still don't think that banning Rich or his bots benefits Wikipedia. Restricting his edits to a vague definition of automation was even more unhelpful and ensured that we'd end up right back here regardless of how he edited. He just gave Arbcom a reason but it would have happened eventually either way. Now Arbcom can point and say see we told you this was going to happen. Kumioko (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your viewpoint, but it may be helpful to you to know that I didn't want to ban Rich in the case, and did not support that proposal. If Rich had not used automation after being told not to, and specifically if he had not done so in a manner to conceal that he was doing so, then I would not be here now voting to ban him. If there is a conspiracy to ban Rich, then he has played a larger part in the plot than I have. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@Kumioko. You seem to be RF's biggest supporter and probably Arbcom's biggest critic this last 2 months. Can you answer a couple of simple questions please? Do you think RF has at any time used subterfuge to conceal his actions? Is technical brilliance more important to you than WP:HONESTY? Leaky Caldron 19:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I admit I am a supporter and that's because I think Rich and his bots do more good than harm. Anyone who is responsible for 5+million edits between them and their bots are going to make some mistakes but the majority of his edits are positive. That he spent many hours a day every day for several years shouldn't be a noose. To answer the first question Yes, and to answer the second question no. I don't think the 2 are mutually exclusive either. Kumioko (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to correct the Freudian slip in your first sentence. On the wider point, because an editor is exceptionally productive does not entitle them to leave their ethics at the door before entering Wikipedia. Leaky Caldron 19:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The concept 'RF concealed automated edits' is doubly invalid: 1. no workable definition of "automated" has been provided and 2. if the edits were concealed, how he get caught? Nobody Ent 19:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is absolutely ridiculous: A) By ANY definition of automation useing AWB counts as it (Auto mean anything to you) and B) He screwed up and on a couple edits made a couple edits with his hacked AWB script. Otherwise, he was setting up the edits in an AWB window, and C&Ping to a regular browser window to conceal the fact he was using automation. SirFozzie (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah. So, copying and pasting now counts as automation. Good to know. Unfortunately, that wasn't described in the remedies in the case anymore than the use of AWB was, though I directly asked Elen for a pointer to that supposed conclusion. All of ArbCom keeps spinning in circles saying it's automation, it's not automation, it's automation and any definition will do, not it's not, yes it is, and on and on. I concur with Nobody in the initial posting in this subthread. The onus isn't on ArbCom to ban Rich from the project because they screwed up their case against him. The onus is on ArbCom to grant a mea culpa and fix it. Is it so insanely hard to admit you (collectively) blew it? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Your right about one thing SF and that's the comment this is ridiculous. Our reasons for calling it ridiculous are completely opposite but there result is the same. a ridiculous scenario that could have been prevented a number of ways not the least of which would have been for the Arbcom to clearly define automation. There is no doubt what Rich did was against the sanction. What I consider a problem is that the Arbcom worded it in such a way that would have eventually led to Rich breaking it one way or another. Yes he used AWB and thats the reason at this point but if he would have used the same edit summery to correct the same typo someone would have complained it was automation and we would still be here. I also do not think that using AWB to generate a change without saving it and then pasting that change to WP manually counts as automation anymore than using word to find typos does. Or does it? How about if I create a template for Infobox person in word and then as I fill it in for individual articles I cut and paste if from word? How about using google search? Does that count as automation? What about using an addin like linky or the Wikipedia toolbar? Do you see where I am going with this? If the Arbcom would have clearly defined what automation was then I would not have a leg to stand on but because Arbcom decided to use a 5th grader version of a sanction that was loosely defined and vaguely written to ensure that the user (in this case Rich) would not be able to follow it, Arbcom has left the door wide open to comments. Kumioko (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's a fairly ridiculous argument; ArbCom could have simply indef'd RF from the get go if that was the goal. It's also likely to be counterproductive; attacking editors motivations is unlikely to persuade them to change their action. What goal are you trying to achieve by repetitive badgering approach? Nobody Ent 21:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Actually if you look at the original voting several members wanted to ban him from the start and it was only because the idea couldn't garner enough votes that the chose to go with the lesser option. To answer your other statement I really have better things to do. Every moment I spend here arguing about this means that other more meaningful edits aren't getting done. The reason I persist is because I am getting frustrated by Arbcoms constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTCARETHEDECISIONSMADE rebuttals and because frankly they did such a lousy job of writing the sanction in the first place (along with several other cases in the last few months that I regret not commenting on then) that I feel obligated to correct for future cases. I do not have anything against the individuals members and respect several of them that I have interacted with before this and have met and personally like several of the ones I have met. That doesn't mean that they are above reproach as a group nor that they are infallible. Kumioko (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"auto" means lots of things to me; meaning depends on context. I drive my auto to work. I do repetitive tasks (e.g. unloading dishwasher) on auto. Is "semi-automation" the same as "automation"? (In the US, semi-automatic firearms are regulated quite differently than automatic). Wikipedia itself describes WP:AWB as a "a semi-automated MediaWiki editor," so no, it's not obvious to me that it what ya'll mean by automation. In any event, what is means to me is irrelevant -- what does it mean to ArbCom? JClemens/AGK's prior definition (high speed mass edits) was quite different than SilkTork's (which included spell check). Nobody Ent 21:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new request

Caucasian Albania article

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Caucasian Albania article

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

Grandmaster 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevant article

Caucasian Albania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I would like to request an amendment to the remedy that was imposed on this article more than a year ago: [28]. I don't mind the first part of the remedy, which places the article on 1RR, but the second part I believe should be canceled. In my opinion, the sanctions imposed on Caucasian Albania clearly did not work. The situation in Caucasian Albania was in general similar to what was going on in Nagorno-Karabakh, where the new accounts waged an edit war, and which was placed on a different article level sanction: [29] The edit warring on both articles was started by User:Xebulon and his socks User:Vandorenfm and User:Gorzaim, as well as some other sock accounts. At that time Sandstein imposed a sanction that read: All editors with Armenia/Azerbaijan-related sanctions are banned from editing this article and its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies, blocks or other sanctions logged on the case pages WP:ARBAA or WP:ARBAA2, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators. But since all long time editors in AA area were at some point under some sort of sanctions, this pretty much opened the doors for sock and meatpuppetry, since new accounts were not under any prior sanctions. The result is that the article reflects the views of the sockmaster, who was free to make any edits he wished, and established editors could not remove even unreferenced WP:OR claims. At the moment I cannot remove even obvious WP:OR statements introduced by the banned user: [30] Note that the line "Whether Arranian is related to Caucasian Albanian languages cannot be determined" is not supported by any source and contradicts the sources quoted in the article, but I had to roll myself back due to sanctions: [31] This is why the article about Caucasian Albania is in such a poor condition now. I believe what triggered the remedy in question were WP:AE requests by the sock account, who even managed to place an established user on a 1 year topic ban: [32] Note the complaint of the sock: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon). 4 of 5 accounts that he mentioned turned out later to be socks (User:Aram-van, User:Gorzaim, User:Vandorenfm, and User:Xebulon). Another request was filed on me: [33], and also on the sock itself: [34] I understand that admins at the time had no proof of sockpuppetry and assuming good faith believed that the editors filing complaints were genuine newcomers (even though some admins noted that the account filing complaint was suspicious), but considering that those accounts turned out later to be socks, I think the remedy needs to be reviewed. Therefore I think rather than banning everyone who has been under sanctions at some point in time (I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions), it would be better if established editors were treated on an individual basis. Many of the established editors have plenty of useful contributions in various areas, and excluding them from editing this article because of the old mistakes in my opinion is not fair. The immediate result of this remedy is that while most of the established users are excluded from editing, the sock accounts get unfair advantage and can freely make any controversial edits to this quite a contentious article in AA area. I believe at the moment it is enough to keep Caucasian Albania on 1RR per day for everyone who wishes to edit it. Grandmaster 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I should have used {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template. I can resubmit, if needed. Grandmaster 10:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein, thanks for providing your input. There are presently no disputes going on that article, so WP:DR is not useful here. I just see no reason why me or any other established editor should not be able to edit this article, if he was sanctioned at some point in time. I think it is wrong that a user is excluded from editing process just because he was placed on a revert restriction 5 years ago. Grandmaster 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Also note that this request does not concern only me personally, it pretty much concerns most experienced editors in AA area, because I don't think there are any who were not placed under sanctions at some point in time. With this remedy, they are all banned from editing this article, regardless if they actually did anything wrong there or not. If we compare this remedy with the 500 edit limit recently imposed on Nagorno-Karabakh, the latter does not ban the new accounts from actually editing the article, it only places them on 1RR until they gain a certain number of edits. The sanction on Caucasian Albania indef bans everybody who has been sanctioned from editing the article, without giving them any chance to make any contribution to it. This leaves the article to the new accounts, many of whom as it turned out were the socks of the banned users, and started the edit wars that led to this sanction. I don't think this helps to improve the quality of this article. Grandmaster 05:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The list of socks who edit warred on this article at the time the remedy was imposed: Aram-van (talk · contribs), Xebulon (talk · contribs), Gorzaim (talk · contribs), Vandorenfm (talk · contribs), Bars77 (talk · contribs), Rjbronn (talk · contribs) (the list may not be complete). The remedy did not address the sock activity in this article. I believe this was because at the time there was no solid proof of sockery. But in the light of what we know now, I think the amendment is necessary. Grandmaster 05:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Responding to this: [35] I find the accusation of Zimmarod to be a violation of WP:AGF. While reverting my edits, he made no attempt at discussion at talk of the article, to ask me any questions he may have had, but chose to take it here to make some bad faith accusations. The reason why I removed the links to online texts is that one of texts is just a chapter from a book, and that book is already listed in the bibliography, and the second one is an article also listed in bibliography. There's no point in listing the same books and articles twice. As for the online texts, they appear to be posted without any permission of the author, and one of the links is dead anyway. I don't think linking to copyvio is allowed. The result of this rv by Zimmarod: 1) repeated listing in bibliography; 2) restoration of a dead link, and a link to an apparent copyvio material. This may not be worthy of responding, but I see that this user is following my edits, and tries to make a big issue out of nothing. Grandmaster 08:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Unarchived, since the request was not formally closed. Grandmaster 08:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit war over archiving. Edits by the bot could be undone by anyone. The report cannot be archived before it is formally closed. Grandmaster 18:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please formally close this request? It was here for about 1 month now. Grandmaster 09:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of involved parties

Sandstein: [36], Caucasian Albania: [37]

Discussion concerning Caucasian Albania article

Statement by Sandstein

I do not find this request convincing. If there is indeed problematic editing of this article on the part of others, it is not clear how removing my sanction would prevent or counteract that. The appropriate reaction would instead be to initiate normal dispute resolution proceedings, beginning with user talk page discussions and ending with eventual SPI or AE requests against the editors responsible for any disruption. The request does not show that any dispute resolution has been attempted. Also, on the basis of this request, it is not clear that the article is at all affected by detrimental editing. The request refers to a single edit to the article, uncited but allegedly undone at [38], which it considers original research. That may or may not be so, but the addition is at any rate not disruptive on its face such that it warrants administrative attention; if it is detrimental it can be amended by editors who are not subject to my sanction, which are all but a handful of Wikipedians. On these grounds, I decline the appeal insofar as it is addressed to me as the administrator who imposed the sanction.

That said, as I'm not active in arbitration enforcement, I haven't followed this article (or topic area) for a while. Therefore I have no objection to my sanction being changed or amended as any other uninvolved administrator may deem appropriate.  Sandstein  13:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Caucasian Albania article

I had taken a "sabbatical", so to say, for quite some time and am not very familiar with the changes and activities here since then. But although the applicant might not have been sanctioned for 5 years, as he says, on the English WP, less than 2 years ago he was sanctioned on the Russian WP for being a part of a large group of off-wiki-organised editors' group acting in favour of A side including organised for/anti voting for Admins etc. Though, correct me if I am wrong, Grandmaster.

Considering the severity of activities, as I would judge it, it might be useful to take this fact into consideration when reading the editor's words of appeal. Thanks. Aregakn (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Aregakn - this is not about Grandmaster, this is about a neverending and unproductive edit restriction that is being applied to a single article. I wonder why such an outrageous editing restriction has been unchallenged for so long. That Grandmaster has been hung by the same noose he has often helped tie around the necks of others may give a quiet satisifaction, but is not a reason to support the noose and those who like pulling on it. Meowy 16:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Meowy - I see where you are coming from but no, Aregakn's point is of more merit at the moment. However, if Grandmaster's ability to game the system is finally checked, your idea will have a solid more ground. The noose can be relaxed for others but since it was Gransmaster who caused the sanction in the first place, he and Brandmeister should be kept out of it. Zimmarod (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But that can't happen. The restriction is not directed specifically at one editor and is not directed at all at the content of edits. It is just a pointless blanket ban affecting just about anyone with any history of editing in this area from editing this particular article from now until the end of time or Wikipedia (whichever comes first). I imagine Sandstein might like to have a legacy that lasts that long - but that isn't a reason to make this edit restriction that legacy! Meowy 20:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Many things can happen since it is discretionary sanctions area. Limiting the ability of edit-warring users to battleground on specific articles while opening the article to other users is a doable thing. Cheers. Zimmarod (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I second Grandmaster's opinion. Some time ago I realized that the current restriction is quite harsh, generally because it actually freezes good-faith editing in breach of WP:AGF so that the article is constantly waiting for improvement by uninvolved users only. The current sanction also creates an unfair situation, where any autoconfirmed sock or meat can edit the article freely, while many established users can't. Brandmeister^talk 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with both Aregakn and Sandstein. When I took a look at the Caucasian Albania article's talk pages and why there was an article-wide sanction, it turned out that the sanction was placed by Sandstein to prevent Grandmaster and "old" accounts associated with him (his associate Brandmeister) to continue edit war, in which the Grandmaster-Brandmeister duo were bombarding their opponents with racist comments about the origin of sources used in the article. Exactly the same picture today in the Nagorno-Karabakh article, where Grandmaster is currently in a suspended stage of edit war. As hinted by Aregakn, the Grandmaster is a suspicious edit warring account that cultivated a farm of meatpuppets in ruwiki. Brandmaster was his meatpuppet, and it is unsurprising that he was meatpuppetting for Grandmaster everywhere Grandmaster is launching an edit war. Actually the talk pages show that Brandmeister was actually topic banned as a result of his racism for battlegrounding in Caucasian Albania. Nagorno-Karabakh and Caucasian Albania are both prime examples. I see this request as a cynical effort to re-open the can of worms in the Caucasian Albania article and extend the still simmering dispute in Nagorno-Karabakh to other related topics. This appeal is a good opportunity to cast a more somber look at Grandmaster as a meatpuppeteer and edit war abuser and restrict his and his meatpuppeting farm's ability to game the system. Zimmarod (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this: while this discussion continues, Grandmaster is deleting links to online texts by reputable academics [39] where his interpretation of Caucasian Albania is criticized. Is this vandalism? Again, I doubt Grandmaster filed this request in good faith. Zimmarod (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Requests filed in bad faith cannot be considered regardless of their merit and substance. See my talk above. Zimmarod (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I have little time to contribute nowadays. Catoclass, you are right about how permanent should article bans be, I guess. But if we are speaking of the appeal we consider who and why appeals it, right? These are the words of Grandmaster: "...I think rather than banning everyone who has been under sanctions at some point in time (I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions), it would be better if established editors were treated on an individual basis." But he is or at least was one of the masterminds of a group of more than 20 "experienced editors", as one might call, conducting an organised edit-warring, voting in mediations, admin "elections" etc. This is/was an organised propaganda group and this was not 5 years ago, as claimed. I mean, what would justify allowing this kind of activity to be continued, or can the little time of less than 2 years say "no, this most probably won't happen"? If I am wrong, please somebody correct me about this event(s).

Considering this I would not say that all the "experienced editors" should be lifted the sanctions from. This brings me to an offer of a considerate "compromise change" in the sanction. I think there can be drawn a line-of-severity and maybe all that were sanctioned may appeal for an individual approach. Aregakn (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Passage moved from "A compromise might work better" section as it did not discuss the suggested compromise version. Aregakn (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And who is that majority? Those who started the edit war are all banned now as socks of the banned user. Xebulon (talk · contribs) and his army of socks, some of whom might still be around under new monikers. Grandmaster 19:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Aregakn search for a compromise shall be appreciated by the community. I took another look at the article's talk pages, and it is pretty clear that the restriction was placed on the article because of misdeeds by established accounts, not Xebulon and other new accounts who argued their case against Grandmaster. The rule was triggered by editwarring by Grandmaster and especially his ruwiki meat Brandmeister, as a result of which Brandmeister was banned from AA for a year. Now, this request is like someone coming to a policemen asking "sorry, can you open the bank so that I can rob it again please." Furthermore, as we speak Grandmaster is disfiguring articles which do not support his point of view on Caucasian Albania. Under s false pretense he removed a well-functioning link to an article in Victor Schnirelmann just yesterday while arguing that the link is dead. The link was not dead, see for yourself [40]. When his manipulation was detected and counteracted, he went on claiming that the article is supposedly a violation of copyright. Yeah ... When Grandmaster removed the link, he never bothered to argue about copy rights infringements, right? And, there are many other links in that article which also can be - according to Grandmaster's logic - copyright violations. Right? But somehow Grandmaster removed the link where Victor Schnirelmann chastises Grandmaster's fellow Azerbaijani historians for falsifications. In theoretical sense, the request to open up the article may have its logic and justifications but this request should be re-filed by someone who was not engaged in editwarring in that article and is not editwarring now. In such case, a discussion and Aregakn's compromise may have more meaning. This particular request should be denied since requests filed in bad faith - with a thinly veiled intention to re-launch an edit war in this case - cannot be considered. Grandmaster is currently editwarring in a related article on Nagorno-Karabakh and pulling all kinds of bad faith tricks to evade an honest consensus building, and actually repeating old arguments he was editwarring with on talk pages in Caucasian Albania. Zimmarod (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You have already been told that if you believe I did something wrong at the article about Shnirelmann, you should file a separate AE request on me. Do it, and the admins will pass their judgment. I already explained everything above, even though I did not have to. And yes, you restored a dead link: [41], and a copyvio link: [42], in addition to duplicate listings in bibliography. I'm not going to discuss this any further, if you have a case, file a complaint. Grandmaster 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I did not see in your explanation that you request a lift only because of all others were socks but that you and other "experienced editors" in the subject are banned too. Don't know the whole story but if there was a ban for all then probably there should have been a reason not to ban only others. I still stay at my point of view considering also the misleading thread that you were not banned in the subject in any way for 5 years, when you were a mastermind of an organised propaganda group quite recently.

I would say this could even become a remedy for AA2 and be extended in other articles, when thought proper, with a possibility of editors to appeal their ban, as I said here, but not for each article rather than the ban as a whole. Aregakn (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It is all true. I have no history of any blocks or bans in en:wiki for 5 years. Whatever happens in other language wikis or wiki projects is not actionable here, and vice versa, especially considering that we are talking about something that took place in ru:wiki 2 years ago, and I'm not under any restriction or sanction there as well for a long time. I see that you trying to focus this entire request on my persona, but once again, it is not a restriction imposed just on me, I'm just one of the many editors affected by it. Obviously, such blanket restrictions affect almost every established editor in AA area, and it is not correct. I don't mind if the admins look at my behavior and consider placing me on a sanction, if you have an evidence of my misconduct in this project, but it should be a subject to a separate request. Grandmaster 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Btw, Aregakn, you yourself are not allowed to edit Caucasian Albania because of the sanction logged here: [43] Do you think it is fair? Or you can live with it as long as I'm not allowed to edit it as well? As for Zimmarod (talk · contribs), it is one of those accounts which were registered around the same time in November 2011, and tried to reinstate the edits of the banned user Xebulon in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is worth noting that Xebulon was also involved in edit warring in Caucasian Albania, and it was his sock that filed requests which led to this sanction. I think decisions favoring sock activity (inadvertently, of course) should not be upheld. One way around this remedy is creating a sock account that would have no history of any sanctions, and one can see from the history of the article that Xebulon edited this article without any problem after the sanction was imposed, using sock accounts like Gorzaim (talk · contribs) and Bars77 (talk · contribs). Grandmaster 10:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Grand, my ban was, in short, do not say "possible vandalism" for 1 month and yes, all it was for, was for telling "possible vandalism". It was a general ban but somehow put under AA2. I did appeal but as the time was due before the Admins could come to a consensus they declined the appeal only because of that. Me asking that it is the fact of being banned that I appeal did not go through because of the ban having passed. Now we have a case that we can see it has results even if the time passed and it was needed to be considered. But we have what we have.

I did say there is a level of severity and I do not accept you playing on my ban as a card for unbanning yourself, as that it your only goal as I can easily draw from your above sentence.

And you are gaming the system talking of Wiki.RU and twisting the meaning of your own words "I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions." when telling that you meant you but not you on other Wikis. Aregakn (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter what your sanction was. According to this remedy, you are not allowed to edit the article in question if you have ever been placed on any sanction, logged at AA2 page. Therefore the remedy applies as much to you, as it applies to me. And no, I'm not trying to unban just myself, because I was not banned personally, I want to unban all the established editors, including yourself, who were placed on sanctions at some point in time, because I believe it is not fair to ban people from the article for the things they did years ago, without consideration to the severity of their violations. And yes, once again, I was last placed on a sanction in en:wiki 5 years ago, because I was a party to the first arbitration case, and back then almost everyone who was a party to that case was placed on a 1 year revert restriction. But that restriction expired years ago, and I see no reason why I should not be allowed to edit an article, while sock accounts have no problems editing it. I see that you are trying to focus this whole issue on my persona, but I repeat once again, this is a remedy that concerns many people, yourself included, and regardless of whether I'm a good or evil person, I believe it is unfair to have this sort of a permanent restriction, which punishes people for prior severe and minor sanctions alike, regardless of the timing, while nothing is done to prevent abuses by the newly created accounts, many of which turned out to be socks of the banned users, and which were active on the same article all this time. I think it's time to reconsider it. Grandmaster 18:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just take a look at the showcase of bad faith by Grandmaster in the discussion on the Nagorno-Karabakh [[44]]. Grandmaster tries to avoid an honest discussion about the appropriateness of academic sources, as he replies with irrelevant arguments and tries to back up his position with fake evidence. And now compare this with the discussion of on the talk pages of Caucasian Albania. The same arguments that smell of racism, the same attempts to exclude analysis from the very top academics, the same repetitive patterns and gaming as per WP:GAME. Zimmarod (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WP rule say it very clearly that AE requests cannot be filed in bad faith by those who game the system. Zimmarod (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

End of passage Aregakn (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A compromise might work better

Catoclass is right that no sanctions should continue for ever but a possible outcome of fully lifting it should also be considered. As the sanction is on everybody, both, for those conducting a big mess or with single minor dids, I would suggest individual approach and appeals for lifting the sanction as well as a possibility of bringing it back on an editor. Aregakn (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the sanction should be applied to an individual. But this particular sanction was a blanket one, and it was not directed at anyone personally. If you believe that someone should be placed on a personal restriction, you must file a separate report on that person. Grandmaster 16:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Too time and effort-consuming would it be. Due to the reason that it was so mass/outrageous that all were banned then it is easier to appeal for unban of each that thinks they are constructive, rather than the opposite you suggest. This is nothing different but in reverse to save time and efforts.

What you say works assuming that there is a minority of disruptive editors (as it usually is) but not when it is a majority. Aregakn (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Here started a discussion among the editors Grandmaster, Zimmarod, and Aregakn not concerning the offered compromise version, which have been moved into the section "Comments by others about the request concerning Caucasian Albania article". Aregakn (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would even add that this method can also work good as a remedy of the whole AA2 and used on articles where thought appropriate and taken off when appropriate. Aregakn (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Caucasian Albania article

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

• This is in essence an appeal of the original sanction and therefore subject to the rules governing AE appeals. Please notify Sandstein (talk · contribs) of this request, and also leave a note at the article talk page. T. Canens (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  Done. Grandmaster 10:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to this request. Though the original sanction may have had some positive effects at the time of its imposition, I see no reason to extend it indefinitely. More importantly, I think there is an issue of natural justice here; someone who has made a mistake in the past that was at the time considered worthy of only a limited sanction, should surely not be permanently penalized because of that mistake. Also, the sanction penalizes the most minor offenders in the same way as the most severe, which again seems an inappropriate outcome. Additionally, when one considers that even those subject to an indefinite ban are entitled to appeal after six months or a year, it seems incongruous to have a sanction for which there is, effectively, no appeal. And why single out this one article for such special treatment? Finally, while I note that Sandstein suggests that other dispute resolution mechanisms have not been attempted to resolve any outstanding issues with the article, it isn't clear to me how any user disqualified from editing the article or its talk page could initiate such a process. In any case, after more than a year under this sanction, I think it's probably time to try relaxing the existing sanction to the usual 1RR for contentious topics. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Zimmarod, this case is not about Grandmaster or his alleged misconduct, it's about whether a particular sanction on a particular article should be repealed or not. If you think you have a case against Grandmaster, you should start a separate case about that, because it's a separate issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Could another uninvolved admin comment on this case please? Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

In my view sanctions like the one at issue here are best used as a stopgap measure to prevent ongoing or imminent disruption, but are unlikely to be effective when applied indefinitely. I agree that a trial 1RR is a good way forward. T. Canens (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dalai lama ding dong

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

Ankh.Morpork 10:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

1. 21:49, 30 May 2012 Adjusted from 95% to 91%
2. 00:08, 31 May 2012 Altered language prompting prompting this talk page disagreement
3. 17:58, 31 May 2012 Amended to 91% and amended language which was disputed here
4. 01:48, 1 June 2012 Altered language

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

1. Warned on 16 September 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 18 February 2012‎ by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Dalai Lama Ding Dong has been repeatedly warned and banned for a 1rr violation and for violating a topic ban three times. Immediately after this ban ended, DLDL again violated 1rr.

@Tom Harrison

DLDD has tried to minimize the significance of the Camp David negotiations by different means. The source that he introduced in this edit states that Barak finally acquiesced "to the mid-90s range" which was subsequently improved upon and "under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank". Instead this source was solely used to expand the lower limit to 91%, something which only constituted an initial proposal but was later increased: "Barak and the Americans insisted that Arafat accept them as general “bases for negotiations” before launching into more rigorous negotiations. According to those “bases,” Palestine would have sovereignty over 91 percent of the West Bank"

Additionally the selective use of the phrase "bases for negotiation" and the original research insertion of "via the U.S." inaccurately portrays this major trilateral convention in which both parties directly discussed these issues.

@T.Canens

Wiki policy states: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word.

I refer to Sandstein who agreed with Ed Johnson among others: "WP:3RR provides that "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors," (in this case, Shuki) "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." According to that policy definition, every tweak is indeed a revert, as Mkativerata says. I disagree with T.Canens that under that definition even "even adding material that has never been there is a revert", because in that case there is no action by others that is undone."

I note that you and others have disagreed with this though the reasoning offered of constructive "tweaks" is not applicable here as DLDD's edits misrepresented the source asides from introducing a disputed POV text, within a 24 hour period.

This issue constantly rears its head at AE and I am surprised that once again you see fit to ask this question. Various AE's demonstrate how this policy has been approached. What exactly about this revert policy requires clarification and can you specify why you are of the opinion that this does not "reverse the actions of other editors"?

@BHB

These events directly ensued from the Camp David summit and are connected in the source presented and many others. Please see the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article and you will see that these proposals have received no mention at all and have conveniently been omitted.

@The Blade of the Northern Lights

You state: "2 was a separate wording fix". It was not a fix, it was a hotly disputed change and I remind you that a revert "reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Edits 2 and 3 were clear reverts of previous material.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[194]

Discussion concerning Dalai lama ding dong

Statement by Dalai lama ding dong

Entering new text is not a revert. Editor Ankmorpork makes continual changes to articles. I am not aware that there is a limit to the number of times thst you can edit an article, and add new information. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no false use of sources, as suggested below. The 91 per cent comes from another wikipedia article. The RS used was only for the re wording as to whether or not an actual offer was made by Barak, to Arafat, or whether there were merely 'bases for discussion' relayed via the U.S, a claim which is fully supported by the RS.

I have self reverted the 91 to 92 per cent. The important point is that there was concensus, (including from the originator of this AE) for a range, not a single figure.

Reference the claims above. See this source which I added in. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/aug/09/camp-david-the-tragedy-of-errors/?page=4 The figure of 91 per cent is on page 3. Therefore Shrike should revert the claim that I falsified what the source said.

I have been asked where the 91% came from. It come from an update I made at the the 2000 Camp David Summit page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Camp_David_Summit&diff=prev&oldid=495200868 The change I made there was to add in the figures 90–91%, and I based those figures on an existing source, this is the source. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/rossmap2.html

From below. 17:36, 31 May 2012 - DLDD changes 92% to 91%. A revert, and still not supported by a source. The article again misrepresents the sources. If DLDD's edit at 21:49, 30 May 2012 is a revert, and it does seem to be undoing someone's work, then DLDD violated the 1RR remedy. 17:54, 31 May 2012 - DLDD replaces "offered" with "put forward the following as 'bases for negotiation', via the U.S. to". If that's to be a revert, I'd need to see a version reverted to. 17:58, 31 May 201 - DLDD adds a source supporting 91%, though he gives the wrong page number. The page no longer misrepresents the sources

Please note that the change made at 17:54 should have included the source, but I clearly missed it out, and did not realise for 4 minutes. It was added at time 1758, ad is as follows.

Comments by others about the request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

Statement by Shrike

There also apparent source falsification with this edit [195] as changing from 92% to 91% but the source only mention 92% [196]--Shrike (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@dlv I don't see it on P.168 of the source the quote you brought--Shrike (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@dlv2 That not the source that follow 91/92 figure but this one [197] hence the falsification and appearance that Karsh support the 91% while actually he says 92%.

@Sean I let the admin to look into this.In my opinion if there different figures each figure should followed by its own source.Moreover I think its WP:TE too change one figure for another while one of the sources support still support the former figure.--Shrike (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Tom That not the edit I cited .About the reverts as he changed the text of other editors is considered a revert from WP:3RR

Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

Statement by DLV999

@Shrike: From the cited source "According to those “bases,” Palestine would have sovereignty over 91 percent of the West Bank; Israel would annex 9 percent of the West Bank and, in exchange, Palestine would have sovereignty over parts of pre-1967". In fact the the unsourced claim here is the 95% which has nothing to support it from what I can see. But for some reason this does not seem to be an issue for Shrike and the complainant. Dlv999 (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Shrike: It appears on page 3 of the article [198], which is the cited source for the edit you are alleging was falsified. In fact the source says what the edit says. The source goes on to discuss further proposals that were made in December 5 months after Camp David which led to the Taba summit in January the following year. That is where the 94-96% figures come in, but to try to say these numbers were on the table at Camp David is misrepresentation of sources. On this detail Dalai Lama Ding Dong is quite right and the complainant is in the wrong. Dlv999 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Shrike, what are you saying? It was already discussed on talk [199] that sources do not give the exact same figure and that we should give a range based on what reliable sources say. In light of that discussion DLDD adds a source and amends the range to reflect his cited source.[200] and you say this is falsification? In fact the issue here is that the 95% claim added by the complainant is totally unsupported, but I suspect this detail will be ignored in the proceedings. Dlv999 (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Shrike has refused to withdraw the accusation and now adds a new one. Now apparently it is tendentious to change "between 92% and 95%" to "between 91% and 95%" (supplying a source supporting 91%) because there is another sources that "still support the former figure". This, despite the fact that it had already been agreed on talk to give a range representing what different RS have said.[201]). I believe these unfounded accusations and refusal to withdraw them reach the level of tendentious behavior and I think this kind of WP:GAMEing of the ARPBIA administrative environment is a far more serious problem to the topic area than the alleged 1rr violation brought against DLDD. Dlv999 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User AnkhMorpork is misrepresenting sources in his statement. He quotes DLDD's citation for the 91% claim as saying "under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank" but misses out the all important context prior to this statement, "Many of those inclined to blame Arafat alone for the collapse of the negotiations point to his inability to accept the ideas for a settlement put forward by Clinton on December 23, five months after the Camp David talks ended....The President’s proposal showed that the distance traveled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians’ direction. Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank." [202]. To try to use this to say that the offer on the table at Camp David was for 94-96% is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. DLDD quoted the correct figure, for Camp David, which is the topic of the section in question. Dlv999 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by BHB

@Shrike - That's a ridiculous allegation. The source given by DLDD was the correct source (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&diff=495330341&oldid=495329787) and it fully supports his contention. His initial insertion of 91% was made before Karsh had been inserted into the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&diff=495200592&oldid=495199550) so the idea that he is trying to support that figure with the reference someone else added in later is complete nonsense. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@AnkhMorpork - That is a gross misrepresentation of the source. It reads:

"Many of those inclined to blame Arafat alone for the collapse of the negotiations point to his inability to accept the ideas for a settlement put forward by Clinton on December 23, five months after the Camp David talks ended. During these months additional talks had taken place between Israelis and Palestinians, and furious violence had broken out between the two sides. The President’s proposal showed that the distance traveled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians’ direction. Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank and it would as well have land belonging to pre-1967 Israel equivalent to another 1 to 3 percent of West Bank territory."

The 94-96% figure you keep stressing came five months after Camp David and not from Barak at Camp David. There is no reason anyone should take those figures into account when describing the completely different offer made at Camp David. Indeed, the source even stresses how much of a departure from the Camp David position these figures are. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ankh - I don't dispute that there is a place for these later developments in the article but you are misrepresenting them by placing them in a context that suggests that this is what was offered at Camp David and this makes your criticism of another editor for failing to include that information in an inappropriate context doubly problematic. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Tom - That PBS transcript is a terrible source and surely can't be relied on for that figure. 94.5% is not reported by a journalist but is a number pulled out by a talking head over whom PBS has no editorial control. Further the 94.5% figure is not directly said to have been offered by Barak and is nowhere included in the news report section of the source but is, rather, a figure used when the talking head hypothesises about what someone in Israel might say if Barak returned with a deal. If that is the only source for the 95% figure then that figure shouldn't be there at all. The passage reads:

"And [Barak's] going to get massacred when he gets back. People say run this by me again, you're giving up 94.5 percent of the West Bank, you're - the refugees - and go through a whole long list -- and you're not getting closure on Jerusalem. So we really don't have the end of the conflict. And so basically he's going to get massacred at home, but so far he hasn't accepted the proposal in totality, and I don't want to suggest that everything's hunky dory on the Israeli side. But he's going forward."

So it's just a hypothetical list of things and not even a list that the speaker claims has been accepted by Barak. It certainly shouldn't be used to support a sentence claiming that Barak made such an offer. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@T.Canens - Tom's analysis suggested two reverts but you have said that you yourself don't think the first one is a revert. That leaves only one revert, which is an acceptable number. What exactly is the crime for which you are suggesting a 6 month topic ban if he did not breach 1RR?BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Shrike, what you are doing is wrong. It's misrepresentation. You have made a patently false accusation against an editor of "apparent source falsification" at AE, repeated in bold, when the evidence clearly shows that they didn't do anything wrong. Here is Dalai lama ding dong's edit. They put the citation at the end of the sentence rather than mid-sentence just like hundreds, if not thousands, of other editors. The source cited supports the edit. You should withdraw the accusation. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison

This edit[203] cites page 4 of the article. The 91% figure appears on page 3. Conceviably this might have caused some confusion, but Dalai lama ding dong did not falsify the source with this edit. The four diffs don't appear to be reverts; I'd need a longer explanation of how they they violate the remedy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And one of these diffs[204] was rewriting an extremely clumsy and badly-written POV sentence, which should have been reverted when it was added in February. RolandR (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• 21:49, 30 May 2012 - DLDD changes 95% to 91%, saying that's what's in Wikipedia's camp David 2000 article. That looks like a revert under the definition, and it's a bad edit because it now makes it look like the existing source "Online NewsHour: Peace Talks Continue" supports the 91% figure instead of 95%. If an anon had changed a number like this without providing a source, reverting it would not have triggered 1RR. The article now misrepresents the source cited.

• 21:56, 30 May 2012 - GHcool changes 91% to 92%, and gives a source. A revert because it undoes DLDD, but not a bad edit that I can see, though it doesn't restore the 95% figure, which is what the existing PBS source says (rounding 94.5 to 95).

• 23:47, 30 May 201 - AnkhMorpork changes "approximately 92%" to "between 92% and 95%" A revert, and a good edit becuase it restores the 95% figure. The article now correctly reflects the sources cited.

• 00:08, 31 May 201 - DLDD changes wording. If that's to be a revert, I'd need to see a version reverted to.

• 01:29, 31 May 201 - GHcool reverts DLDD. That looks like two reverts in 24 hours, and so a violation of the 1RR remedy.

• 17:36, 31 May 2012 - DLDD changes 92% to 91%. A revert, and still not supported by a source. The article again misrepresents the sources. If DLDD's edit at 21:49, 30 May 2012 is a revert, and it does seem to be undoing someone's work, then DLDD violated the 1RR remedy.

• 17:54, 31 May 2012 - DLDD replaces "offered" with "put forward the following as 'bases for negotiation', via the U.S. to". If that's to be a revert, I'd need to see a version reverted to.

• 17:58, 31 May 201 - DLDD adds a source supporting 91%, though he gives the wrong page number. The page no longer misrepresents the sources.

I don't think DLDD deliberately misrepresented the sources, but he was negligent. Because of his sloppy work, and his reverting to that same uncited figure, the article misrepresented the source(s) it cited for some time. This is more serious than violating 1RR, and I'd sanction him for this alone. His edits at 21:49, 30 May 2012 and 17:36, 31 May 2012 did violate 1RR. I'd sanction him for that also.

I'm more sympathetic for GHcool, who seems to have been trying to correct DLDD's edits. He does appear to have violated 1RR, but he might reasonably argue that his edit of 21:56, 30 May 2012 should not trigger 1RR. It shouldn't be possible for someone to change a number without providing a citation and force others into 1RR when they revert. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jiujitsuguy

I find this diff by Dali very troubling. Having reviewed the source twice, I could find no substantiation in the reference for Dali’s claim of 91%. Regarding percentages, the source states as follows; And he's going to get massacred when he gets back. People say run this by me again, you're giving up 94.5 percent of the West Bank Perhaps another source might say 91% but in this specific diff and with this specific source, the edit doesn’t jibe. I’d like to hear an explanation for this discrepancy. Perhaps I just overlooked something.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, I find this edit by Dali to be equally troubling. He again adds the 91% figure and that is adequately supported by page 3. However, he omits content from page 4 which states Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank The deliberate omission is misleading in the extreme and violates WP:TE--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Blade, can you please respond to Tom Harrison's very detailed analysis, specifically as it relates to source falsification by DLDD.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

This is a very poorly supported complaint. The percentage thing (91 or 92) is an easily solved triviality; different sources give different numbers, big deal, and people who want to write 95 are simply mistaken. The last diff given is in fact a very good edit. The fact that AnkhMorpk thinks "The Palestinians have had their continuing incitement to violence against Jews and Israel harshly criticized by Israeli officials and other political figure" is better than "Israeli officials and other political figures have harshly criticized what they regard as Palestinians inciting violence against Jews and Israel" shows that AnkhMorpk has not yet learned about fundamentals of Wikipedia such as the requirement to attribute opinions to their sources. Zero^talk 16:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a big deal, a very big deal because it involves source falsification and DLDD did it twice as Tom Harrison points out with a very detailed analysis. Also, you gratuitous ad homenims do little to bolster your argument.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to disbelieve that DLDD copied the 91 from the specialist Wikipedia article just like he said. The proper response was to ask for a direct citation. Zero^talk 16:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You look at the source first. Then you make the edit. Not the other way around. I once got sloppy like that and did 6 months hard time.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, as DLDD makes clear above, s/he made the original edit to the other WP article, citing as source the Jewish Virtual Library. So s/he did read the source first, before adding it to two WP articles. RolandR (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it only me that finds it ironic that 91% is supported by the sources currently cited and 95% is not reliably supported by any of them?BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

JJG, you are guilty of a far worse source misrepresentation here at AE than the one you allege against DLDD, and yours was not made in the process of good faith improvements to the project, it was made in the process of building a case to gain sanctions against a fellow editor. In your statement you quote the DLDD's source, saying that he omits material from page four saying "Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank", but what you fail to report is the all important context that this was made 5 months after Camp David so would not be suitable for introduction into the passage that related to the proposals made at the Camp David Summit. Dlv999 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@T. Canens: I don't see any serious breach here. At most some carelessness. Your proposal seems to me excessive. Zero^talk 12:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Question by Beyond My Ken

Since unsourced derogatory statements about living persons are forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia, and since the Dalai Lama is a living person, and "ding dong" is a playground expression meaning "idiot" or "fool", why is "Dalai lama ding dong" a permitted username? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Dalai lama ding dong

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• What are the four edits alleged to be reverts of? T. Canens (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I generally agree with Tom harrison's analysis, with one exception: I don't think DLDD's first edit is a revert. AE has repeatedly held that edits falling within the technical definition may nonetheless not qualify as a revert; in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#SlimVirgin, for example, the first edit at issue removed an entire section, but it was nonetheless held to be not a revert. In this case the 95% number was in the article since at least April 2009 and there does not appear to be any recent edit war on this point before DLDD made his first edit. It is my longstanding view that for an edit to qualify as a revert, the editor in question must have intended it to undo a particular edit, in whole or in part. This can be shown either by directive evidence such as use of undo or rollback or the edit summary mentioning revert, or by circumstantial evidence such as a recent or ongoing edit war on the matter or restoring an old revision of the page that is unlikely to have occurred from normal editing. In this case there is evidence of neither. The xRR rules are intended to constrain actual edit warring, not traps for the unwary or invitations to do hypertechnical parsing of edits in search of reverts to "win the battle".

    I'm not inclined to sanction GHcool, whether or not there is a 1RR violation. For DLDD, maybe a 6 month topic ban? They just recently come off a 3-month one, and should have known better. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm really not seeing it here. In order of diffs; 1 looks like a standard change, 2 was a separate wording fix, 3 was perhaps 1 revert, and 4 was another wording change unrelated to the other diffs. Unless I'm completely misreading something or the wrong diffs are linked, I don't see where 1RR was breached. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken; I think that was discussed on his talkpage at some point, and it seemed that the people who initially expressed concern were all right with it. If you still have a problem with it, the venue to raise it at is RFCN. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)|