Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Civility enforcement	none	(orig. case)	4 July 2012
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: WP:ARBMAC — expand / clarify existing Balkans sanctions to cover Cyprus|Clarification request: WP:ARBMAC — expand / clarify existing Balkans sanctions to cover Cyprus]]	none	none	3 July 2012
Amendment request: Eastern European mailing list	none	(orig. case)	27 June 2012
Clarification request: Date delinking	none	none	23 June 2012
Clarification request: Annotation of case pages for sanctioned users who have changed username	none	none	23 June 2012

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

Amendment request: Civility enforcement

Initiated by Nobody Ent at 12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 4

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Nobody Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

[1]

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Malleus_Fatuorum_and_discussions_related_to_adminship
• Request addition of While contributing to any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship, Malleus Fatorum will limit his comments to the current candidate under discussion.

Statement by Nobody Ent

Since being topic banned from the Rfa talk page MF has periodically used the comments sections to aggressively engage other commenters; the most current example has resulted in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Malleus_Fatuorum; A civil request to correct an edit of another editors signature [2] escalated unnecessarily [3]. Additional examples of comments not related to the candidate [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Statement by Sphilbrick

The discussion of the WP:FRINGE guideline was germane to a question asked of the candidate. While ascertaining whether the questioner (as opposed to the candidate) fully understood the policy is a slight veer off-topic, it is far less off-topic than discussions in almost every other RfA. Plus it was interesting. A kerfuffle arose which had nothing to do with whether MF was discussing the candidate or someone else. If the Committee wants to rule that no one can ever engage in off-topic discussions, I have a tide I'd like them to order rolled back. If the committee entertains the notion that a specific editor should have the unique prohibition of staying narrowly on-topic, I think we need a far better argument than noting that a technical glitch turned into some harsh words elsewhere.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Worm That Turned

I was one of the editors who offered evidence for this sanction in the first place. Since it has been enacted, I have found that it is not fit for purpose. Specifically, it can be used to silence Malleus Fatuorum by moving discussions on a vote to the talk page - so long discussions sometimes remain on the RfA. The focus should be at WT:RfA specifically, which is where (in my opinion) the disruption occurred, not the subpages. I should also note that no uninvolved administrator has yet topic banned Malleus from a specific RfA (to the best of my knowledge). I would propose shortening the remedy to

Malleus Fatuorum is indefinitely topic banned from Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship.

I do not see the rest of the remedy as useful. Worm^TT(talk) 15:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements. My initial impression is that Malleus Fatuorum's conduct is problematic enough to justify the continuation of his current restriction, however, I'm disinclined to limit his involvement in the Request for Adminship process, in what after all is a discussion, as opposed to a vote. If his conduct substantially deteriorated, then I think we have to look at banning him from the entire process, but I'm not convinced we're at that juncture just yet. PhilKnight (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: WP:ARBMAC — expand / clarify existing Balkans sanctions to cover Cyprus

Initiated by — Richwales at 06:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

• Richwales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Notification left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cyprus
• Notification left at Talk:Northern Cyprus
• Notification left at Talk:Balkans
• User:Taivo

Statement by Richwales

This decision currently authorizes discretionary sanctions for "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted". I am requesting a clarification, stating that Cyprus is included in the scope of this remedy. Although Cyprus is not geographically close to the Balkans, it is intimately tied (historically and culturally) to both Greece and Turkey. Thus, I propose that Cyprus-related articles naturally fall under this topic area.

Cyprus-related articles have been subjected to continual edit-warring for years from tendentious editors on both sides — including, in particular, the disruptive activities of the banned user Justice Forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his long list of socks — and I believe further options should be made available to help administrators keep these articles better under control.

I am particularly concerned that the dominance of sockpuppet investigation as the primary tool for keeping this topic area under control not only limits enforcement activities to a relatively small group of users who are experienced and confident sock hunters, but it also creates a risk (level currently unknown and possibly unknowable) that opinionated (but innocent) editors who might decide to get involved in the Cyprus topic area could be mistaken for socks and chased away from the project.

Affected articles would include Northern Cyprus, Nicosia, North Nicosia, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Makarios III, and presumably every other article in Category:Cyprus and its subcategories.

I'm not imagining that extending discretionary sanctions to this topic area will magically make all the problems go away. However, with a subject as contentious (IMO) as Kosovo, Northern Ireland, or Barack Obama's presidential eligibility, it seems to me that adding this additional level of supervision over the Cyprus topic area can't hurt and may very possibly help. — Richwales 06:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If (per Jclemens' suggestion) we were to have a wide-ranging "disputed territories" sanctions category, one additional region to which expanded sanctions could reasonably apply would be Georgia, due to ongoing editing disputes over the disputed territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If the blanket sanctions idea doesn't fly, I may consider requesting something for Georgia after we're done here. — Richwales 14:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

While it is undeniable that Cyprus is an area for contentious claims, it is also undeniable that it is not Balkan, and extending definitions to the breaking point could mean we should add a host of such areas to that same title <g>. If ArbCom decided to, it could, by motion, add Cyprus to almost any decision, I suppose, but I question the wisdom of doing so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

The scope of Wikipedia rules, including Arbcom decisions, should be dictated not by the scope of this or that geographical concept out there, but by the necessities of Wikipedia-internal situations. Given the connectedness of conflict areas and the similarity of situations, I see no problem with treating Cyprus in the same context as Greece and Turkey, of whose overall historical conflict lines the Cyprus conflict is a mere appendix. This is no different than treating Slovak or Hungarian issues under WP:ARBEE. Geographically, both countries are not in Eastern Europe either, but in Central Europe by most definitions. But what counts for us are not these geographical delimitations, but the nature of the conflicts in question. WP:ARBEE is essentially for post-Soviet-era and post-WWII ethnic conflicts; WP:ARBMAC is essentially for post-Ottoman ethnic conflicts. As such, Cyprus falls naturally under the latter, if we want it to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo

There are two reasons that I see why Cyprus should be included in the Balkans and the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions: 1) The conflicting parties in Cyprus are Greece and Turkey, which are both also involved in Balkan disputes, and 2) many of the same editors who were active in the Macedonian decision, especially from the Greek perspective, are also involved in issues surrounding Cyprus. Dealing with the same group of editors in a similar conflict area argues for inclusion in the WP:ARBMAC discretionary world. (But I hasten to note that the Greek-oriented editors actively involved at Northern Cyprus, for example, are not the source of the typical problems at that page.) --Taivo (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Hi Rich, I would have thought that Cyprus is already covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• I don't believe that Cyprus is part of either "the Balkans" or "Eastern Europe" as those terms are currently understood, and I don't think that we can redefine Cyprus's geographical location by fiat. That being said, I'd welcome input into what is the best way to proceed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Given that we've got discretionary sanctions in place for almost every other contested geographical area in the world, maybe what we need is a blanket, worldwide list of such places? I agree with NYB that it's not really covered by either of the cited geographical categories... but the problems are probably such that similar conduct expectations and remedies should apply. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• I have no problems placing Turkey and Cyprus under the ARBMAC sanctions; Greece is already included as being on the Balkan Peninsula, and the conflicts in the area are similar if only as they present themselves through similar bad behaviour on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courcelles (talk • contribs)
• In the interests of utility, I'd be happy to include Cyprus under the same conditions rather than wait for a new case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Eastern European mailing list

Initiated by Nug (talk) at 21:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Eastern European mailing list Remedy 4.3.11A: Editors restricted (as modified by motion)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly User:Martintg)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Notified[10]

Information about amendment request

The remedy of the Eastern European mailing list case is amended to lift the interaction ban between User:Russavia and User:Nug.

Statement by Nug

EdJohnston had previously requested that the mutual topic bans between Russavia and I be lifted[11] Unfortunately after some editors objected due to their apocalyptic fear of our possible collaboration might turn the world up side down, it was declined. Given that Russavia has since been site banned for a year and indef topic banned and the chance of now interacting reduced to zero, can this restriction be now lifted? I'd like to edit articles like 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic, but I cannot remove those tags placed by Russavia almost a year ago without breaching my interaction ban. --Nug (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Clerks, I fail to see how Paul Seibert's comments have any relevance what so ever to a request to amend a redundant interaction ban, and I ask that they be removed. If Paul has issues he can air them in a more appropriate forum (along with linked evidence) where they can be discussed in full without derailing this specific amendment request. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Courcelles, Russavia is indefinitely topic banned from EE, see this, in addition to the one year site ban[12]. --Nug (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the problematic behaviour occured solely in the EE topic area, an indefinite topic ban in EE is virtually an indefinite site ban in any case. --Nug (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Link to discussion on Courcelles' talk page[13]. --Nug (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Yeah, me too. It's sort of pointless now. VolunteerMarek 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ed Johnson - I'm pretty sure that there are no remaining sanctions from the EEML case and there haven't been for awhile (btw, as an update, EE topic area is actually doing pretty well). And even the sanctions themselves were pretty mild to begin with. Some people keep dredging the case up in the standard battleground tactic of poisoning the well but honestly, that stuff's old news, there's nothing left, nobody, including AE admins, is paying much attention. The interaction bans are the last remnants of the case (well, actually, more from the R-B case) and even those, obviously, are no longer much relevant.VolunteerMarek 01:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul - Paul, when I wrote ""keep dredging the case up in the standard battleground tactic"" I actually did NOT have you in mind. Rather just some more peripheral users. Keep in mind that lots of folks from what can be described as the "anti-EEML" side managed to get themselves banned/blocked/topic banned just fine without any help from anyone on the list in the months following the case, thank you very much. I was thinking more of these guys who sometimes keep coming back as IP addresses or fresh starts or sock puppets, who pretend to be new to Wikipedia but somehow have this magical knowledge of the EEML case which they try to use win arguments and battles in which they got blocked for in the first place.

Anyway, more general point is that aside from this interaction ban there are no outstanding sanctions from the EEML case. This is a good opportunity to put it all to rest.VolunteerMarek 04:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

@Ed Johnson & Volunteer Marek. First of all, I always supported the idea to lift all remaining individual sanctions against ex-EEML members. However, this my post is mainly a responce to the Volunteer Marek's post where he mentioned some people who "keep dredging the case up in the standard battleground tactic". In connection to that, I would like to remind VM that I was among the users who had conflicts with the EEML cabal, and, I recall, someone (probably user:Viriditas) strongly advised me to read the EEML archive and present the evidences against them when the case was open, because the cabal had been contemplating some actions against me. I refused to do that, however.
I believe, the fact that I had been silent when the EEML case was open, and that I decided to return to this issue now is per se an indication that something happened during last year that forced me to express my concern now. The major EEML violation, their coordinated edits is the fact that is extremely hard to establish. As far as I understand, the community became aware of the existence of the EEML cabal purely by accident, and there is absolutely no guaranty that no similar cabals currently exist. By writing that, I do not imply that the EEML member continue to coordinate, however, it would be equally incorrect to claim that their one year long topic bans may guarantee that no coordination can exist between them. In connection to that, I believe the behaviour of EEML members must be absolutely transparent to dispel any suspicions. Concretely, I am not sure ex-EEML members have a moral right to simultaleously participate in votes or RfCs when no fresh arguments are brought by each of them (i.e., the posts such as "Support a user X", without detailed explanation of one's own position should not be allowed for them). Similarly, joining the chain of reverts where other EEML members already participate should not be allowed also. We all remember that these users massively coordinate their edits in past, we all (including the admins) have absolutely no tools to make sure such coordination does not occur currently, so we have a right at least to express our concern in a situation when such coordination cannot be ruled out. The fact that they cannot be considered as uninvolved parties when they join the action of their peers should also be clear for everyone.
In contrast, we currently have a directly opposite tendency: any mention of the EEML is treated as a "battleground tactics", many EEML members changed their usernames to protect their privacy and, simultaneously, to disassociate themselves from their past violations, and many of them continue to concurrently edit the same articles. In my opinion, the EEML pendulum is moving in the opposite direction, and now it has already passed its lowest point...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, with much respect, the conduct you describe as suspicious due to the potential for off-wiki collaboration, is suspicious without reference to off-wiki collaboration. If discussion closers are poorly closing discussions on the basis of !votes, rather than on the basis of quality and influence of independent arguments, then this is a problem with closers. If a number of editors happen to have the same reversion style, which appears to an editor to be against policy or consensus considerations, then that is already a matter for content dispute resolution. The conduct you're describing is unacceptable regardless of demonstrated past off-wiki collaboration, or the potential for off-wiki collaboration. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@ VolunteerMarek. Thank you, Marek. In actuality, I also didn't mean all EEML members in this my post. Behaviour of majority of them is almost impeccable, and they do their best to dispel any doubts about any possibility of coordinated edits. The problem is, however, that some mechanism is, nevertheless, needed to eliminate any possibility of resurrection of this story (with the same or different participants, no matter). In connection to that, I proposed some modifications to the EW policy. To my great satisfaction, one of the EEML members, whom I sincerely respect, Piotrus, supported this proposal (which, in my opinion, would eliminate any possibility of tag teaming). However, some other EEML members opposed to that, and my proposal went into oblivion. Maybe, it makes sense to return to this issue?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@MVBW. In my opinion, the idea of amnesty should come from some third party, not from the EEML members themselves. Frankly speaking, I do not support a blanket amnesty. Whereas some ex-EEML members fully learned due lessons from this story, some other members still demonstrate partisan behaviour.

Moreover, in my opinion, the right of amnesty should be earned. By earned I mean, for example, the following. You guys should come together and propose some changes to policy that would make any tag teaming, as well as other manifestations of edit warring impossible. For example, you may propose a following change to the policy: every user who joins a chain of reverts started by others is responsible for edit warring even if his personal 3RR limit has not been exceeded (a kind of "collective 3RR", we can discuss technical details elsewhere). Two years ago, I proposed this change to the policy, I was supported by one of the EELM member, Piotrus, - but two other EEML members opposed to such a change! What is the most logical explanation for that? The most obvious (although not necessarily the most correct) explanation is that you guys (of course, just some of you) still have not fully abandoned your battleground mentality. Again, if you guys will propose, and persuade, our community to make this, or similar modification of the policy that will help to prevent future edit wars - I will fully support a wholesale amnesty, and, probably, even deletion of the EEML case from the archives. However, for now - no.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

@Frankly speaking, I agree with this Vecrumba's argument. It would be more reasonable not to focus on the interaction ban between Nug and Russavia, but to fix a ridiculous situation when the interaction ban between the user A and B becomes a tool that allows one of them to seize a control over some article by making edits scattered through the whole article. Fixing of this issue will be tantamount to lifting of the Nug/Russavia interaction ban. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I have to say that this proposal makes sense to me. Russavia probably can't remove any tags himself under his own restrictions, and it makes no sense to have possibly now irrelevant tags remain in place because the person who placed them can't do so himself. I might request Nug start a discussion on the talk page before removing tags or maybe making substantial changes to an article not necessarily directly related to recent developments, under the circumstances, but I can't see how it makes any sense to allow people who have been banned from the site and a given topic to in effect continue to have a degree of control over them, through such things as dubiously placed or now irrelevant tags. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

There would be a benefit to making EEML obsolete, and the Committee could pass a motion to lift all remaining bans and restrictions from the original WP:EEML case. The understanding would be that any bans that turn out still to be necessary can be reimposed via discretionary sanctions under the existing authority of WP:ARBEE. The only nuance might be that some of Russavia's restrictions come from WP:ARBRB which is thought of as including all of the former Soviet Union. So the Committee might clarify that WP:ARBEE will allow discretionary sanctions relating to any countries of the former Soviet Union. In actuality, the only provision of EEML that hasn't expired is Remedy 11A, the one that prevents the EEML editors sanctioned by name from interacting with Russavia.

Statement by Vecrumba

To the point at hand, I support lifting of the ban. In particular, any evaluation of editor behavior needs to be from here forward, not, as as has been implied, saddle particular editors with a permanent stench. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the IBAN mechanism, I have commented elsewhere on its completely inappropriate enforcement which invites conflict. I thank Paul Siebert for his stated agreement with my position. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I move not only that the ban be lifted but that the IBAN policy be strictly interpreted. If two editors are "banned" from interacting with each other, that should not be construed as a ban on their constructively interacting on content, addressing content and not each other. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

I think this is good time for general amnesty for all editors sanctioned in EEML and ARBRB cases (Russavia was issued his restriction in latter case), maybe something like here. This would not affect any sanctions which were issued later. In fact, the only person who needs amnesty in ARBRB case is Russavia. All other sanctions are amended, expired or obsolete because editors are indeffed or vanished. My very best wishes (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements, but I'm inclined to seriously consider this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless anything new and concerning is raised in the comments, I'll propose a motion on this in a couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that there is little value in maintaining interaction bans that have been mooted by one of the parties being banned. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Well, the banned party is not banned indefinitely, so that is a mitigating concern... when that party returns to Wikipedia, will the interaction ban save strife? Courcelles 20:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • @Nug, topic bans don't really change the usefulness of interaction bans to my mind, I'm only concerned about Russavia's site ban here. Courcelles 02:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Date delinking

Initiated by Gimmetoo (talk) at 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• Gimmetoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [14]

Statement by Gimmetoo

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

This clarification concerns two issues.

First, I and others have attempted to get User:Ohconfucius to follow WP:DATERET and stop removing YYYY-MM-DD format dates. This has been ongoing for more than a year, involving ANI [15] [16] [17] and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: [18], where the accessdates were 100% consistent in YYYY-MM-DD format, and the references used a style directly listed by WP:MOSDATE#In references as acceptable. A pattern of similar edits amounts to an attempted Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

Second, User:Ohconfucius also uses a script that sometimes removes a number of accessdates. Ohconfucius was notified of this on 8 June 2012, and made similar edits after (See User talk:Ohconfucius#More editing problems. I noticed that this same behaviour is still ongoing. [19] [20] [21]

Could the commitee clarify the arbcom enforcement of these behaviours?

Statement by Ohconfucius

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The way I'm reading the most recent motion, "this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee" is simply a reminder that the Committee retains the authority to further amend his restrictions (or current lack thereof) should we feel it is necessary to do so; or in extreme cases open a full case or review. As (by the same motion) Ohconfucius is not currently subject to any Arbitration remedies/restrictions with respect to date delinking, any concerns with regards to that behavior should likely be handled through normal community procedures, and not via Arbitration Enforcement. However, if you feel that matters are becoming problematic enough that the community is unable to adequately enforce matters, an amendment request could be posted to attempt to (further) amend his restrictions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Hersfold. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• I also tentatively agree with Hersfold, but it would be useful to have a statement from Ohconfucius explaining what he is doing and why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ohconfucious, please provide a substantive response to this request at this time. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure there's anything that needs arbitrator intervention here. If he's failing to follow WP:DATERET, as was pretty clearly shown in the example above, then an uninvolved administrator should block him for disruptive editing. Clear enough? Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. AGK [•] 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• While I agree that no sanctions are active, a return to the same behaviour that led to sanctions in the past is a serious and concerning pattern. I would also like to hear from Ohconfucius on this; however, I would not rule out the reinstatement of sanctions if there has been recidivism. Risker (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: Annotation of case pages for sanctioned users who have changed username

Initiated by Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} at 18:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Paul Siebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This request would also indirectly affect anyone who has been involved in an arbitration case with ongoing sanctions and has publicly changed usernames.

The two editors involved in the immediate discussion have been notified: [22].

Statement by your name

Clarification is requested on the following two questions:

• May the log pages at a closed arbitration case be annotated to note that a user has changed his or her username by those who become aware of the change, or must such an annotation be performed by an Arbitrator or Clerk?
• If only Arbitrators and/or Clerks can make such an annotation to a case, what is the proper procedure for requesting such an annotation, and are objections considered?

This objection [23] led me to make this request, as it seems this is not as uncontroversial a housekeeping measure as it would seem, and I could not find any existing policy or discussion on the matter. A clarification would hence be much appreciated.

For the record, the thread at arbitration enforcement suggested such annotations to the case page, and had I evaluated consensus for such at the close, I would have found that they did have consensus among the uninvolved admins commenting. I did not make such a determination as to my knowledge it was not required. I think the clarification would still be useful in a broader sense, however. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Hersfold: I sure didn't see any trouble with it either, but MVBW seemed to pretty strenuously object, and thought it was only clerks/Arbs. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I'd missed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

I do not see why not. My renaming was already annotated [24]. The only question is this: should you only annotate users who were sanctioned, or all users indicated as parties. For example, speaking about WP:EEML, should renaming of User:Offliner be annotated? My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to sincerely thank all arbitrators for taking good care of the project and people in trouble. Speaking about the comment by JClemens, I do not think that any of these accounts (including my current account) was ever pseudonymous/anonymous after the EEML case (except Offliner) because all participants of the case were outed and the links between old and new names were logged, redirected or appear in other ways in arbitration cases. With regard to the accountability issue, yes, I agree that if a previously sanctioned editor was found in violation of something, as decided at an appropriate noticeboard, then his previous sanctions can be taken into consideration. However, if he was not found in violation of anything, then bringing his previous sanctions as an argument against him in every unrelated discussion, especially by administrators [25] [26], does not really help. My very best wishes (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking about technical issues, the account B. was moved to HN. through official channels. Later, after a request by User:Greyhood, I made myself a redirect from HN account to my current account for the sake of transparency. As Paul noted, the initial B. account can now be "usurped" by any user who is interested in the same area of science as me. Why not? This is good username. Therefore I suggest to leave account B. as it is right now. In addition, I previously provided a reverse link to HN account from my MVBW account, exactly as suggested by Paul [27]. So, I hope no one would accuse me of evading scrutiny. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

In my opinion, information about past conflicts (or alliances) between the users editing contentious and scrutinized topics should be easily available to everyone, and the linkage should be traceable not only between an old and a new names, but in the opposite direction also. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The idea to link new and old names on the relevant case pages was initially proposed by VM. His new idea seems also quite reasonable. However, that should be done in such a way that old account page will redirect to new ones similarly to what has been done to the user:Radeksz page. In contrast, a situation with the user:Biophys page is hardly acceptable, because this account has been totally deleted, and a new account user:Hodja Nasreddin was created instead. The Biophys page should be converted into a redirect to user:My very best wishes, similar to what Volunteer Marek did. In addition, since user:Biophys was deleted, a possibility exists that some new user may request to use this name.

@ Newyorkbrad. I agree that off-wiki harassment is a legitimate reason for rename. However, in my opinion, the users with problematic edit history should provide serious evidences of harassment to get a permission for name change.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Biophys. I conclude from your last post that the real reason for you user name change was outing, which was a result of the leakage of the EEML archive. Contrary to Jclemens, I believe you do have a right to take some protective measures. However, you are missing one point: whereas you have a right to defend your privacy, the good faith users working in the EE area also have a right to know whom they are dealing with. Therefore, we have two mutually exclusive tasks, which cannot be solved simultaneously. In my opinion, if you want to conceal your identity, WP:CLEANSTART option is still available for you. However, that should be a real clean start: the old accounts must be labelled as "retired" (and not deleted), and you must leave the previous area of contentions. Under your new account, you may edit biophysics, molecular biology and all other areas, but not EE related areas. However, if you do not plan to do so, the linkage between your old and new account (and vise versa) must remain totally transparent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea to allow someone to create a Biophys account. Not only that would lead to further hiding of the connection between old user Biophys and present My Very Best Wishes, that may complicate a life of the new good faith owner of the Biophys account. Indeed, as far as i know, the archives of the EEML and other story are available on Internet (outside of Wikipedia), so the new account may be confused by someone with old Biophys, which may create problems for the absolutely innocent person. In connection to that, I believe the Biophys account should be restored and converted into a redirect to MVBW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I could, in some extreme cases, such as perhaps controversial OUTing of an editor in a previous identity, see some basis for not indicating changed names there. But, honestly, only in such cases, and I imagine that there are probably already procedures in place to deal with such circumstances. If that is the case, this seems a good way to ensure that people do not try to change their names to avoid dealing with the realities of their own previous objectionable activity. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

I've been thinking about asking for something similar for awhile, but for different reasons. The major reason IMO (it certainly applies to myself, I'm guessing it applies to others) why people changed their usernames after the case was not to escape any kind of scrutiny but rather because of ongoing off-wiki harassment (I know that that kind of thing doesn't stop the dedicated harassers, but it might make it a bit harder for them or any new potential ones). This is particularly true for those users, like myself and I believe Nug, whose previous usernames were tied to their real life names.

So why not kill two birds with one stone? That is, why not go through and change all the old user names in the case pages to their current names: i.e. Radeksz-->Volunteer Marek, Miacek-->Estlandia, etc. That way people can always refer back to the case, while at the same time the old-names-tied-to-real-life-names will be gone. Everyone will be happy. Win win. VolunteerMarek 01:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens - What the hey are you talking about? What "extraordinary efforts"? ??? VolunteerMarek 20:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw, if time and effort are a concern then... well, this is a collaborative project, so I can go through myself and change all the old names to all the new names, at least for myself. Just like working on articles.VolunteerMarek 16:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

As long as it applies to all users. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens, if that is your attitude (I believe the proper action for a user who has 1) been sanctioned by the community or the commitee, and 2) has been harassed sufficiently unpleasantly that he or she cannot function on Wikipedia if their prior identity is known is to leave.) then you leave me no choice but to appeal and overturn EEML in its entirety. Your statement sanctions off-Wiki harassment to drive editors away from Wikipedia. I am utterly gobsmacked. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I see no reason why such a routine notification couldn't be made by anyone. Unless I'm missing something? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I suppose the confusion could come from the fact that the vast majority of the page is considered to be restricted to Arbitrators and Clerks - however, for the purposes of clarity, I think a general exception can be made for editors who wish to add a note such as "(since renamed to {{userlinks|Newusername}})" to the list of involved parties at the top of the main case page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • To answer MVBW's question, I would say all parties regardless of whether they were sanctioned or not. Obviously, though, non-sanctioned users are not bound by the requirement stated by AGK below. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• In my view, final decisions ought to be updated to reflect changes in username of users who are (or previously were) subject to sanctions; this would include expired sanctions. In the case of outstanding sanctions, this committee should probably do the updating: we must be notified by any editor who wants to rename their account while under arbitration sanctions. In the case of amended or vacated sanctions, an optimal method of having the decision updated would be to ask a clerk to do so—though I would take a dim view of this becoming a tool for editors to embarrass or humiliate their 'opponents'. Obviously, very old cases are retained largely for the purpose of reference and should probably not be disturbed. AGK [•] 20:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• The log section is not restricted to just Arbs, Clerks and AE admins. All users are able to add appropriate and relevant information there, such as notifications. I think if there is an issue with what someone has posted there, the Clerks would be able to deal with it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• I certainly don't have a problem with AE admins making annotations such as this. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Updating should be performed as appropriate, but I share Volunteer Marek's concern about being sensitive to situations where usernames have been changed because of harassment situations, and there are probably some instances where the time and effort of doing the updating wouldn't be worth it (e.g. in cases from years ago where there have been no further problems). Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Contra Newyorkbrad, I believe the proper action for a user who has 1) been sanctioned by the community or the commitee, and 2) has been harassed sufficiently unpleasantly that he or she cannot function on Wikipedia if their prior identity is known is to leave. There is no right to edit Wikipedia, and we should take no extraordinary efforts to allow protected editing by previously sanctioned users. The community's interest in ensuring that previously-sanctioned editors are subject to appropriate future scrutiny takes precedence over the individual's right to edit pseudonymously in a manner unconnected to previous pseudonymous access. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

---