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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: User:The Wurdalak and User:Manhattan Samurai|Request for clarification: User:The Wurdalak and User:Manhattan Samurai]]	none	none	13 July 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy|Request for clarification: Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy]]	none	none	13 July 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Ryulong (2)|Request for clarification: Ryulong (2)]]	none	none	9 July 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren]]	none	none	7 July 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience]]	none	none	5 July 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles]]	none	none	26 June 2009

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Request for clarification: User:The Wurdalak and User:Manhattan Samurai

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

• The Wurdalak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Urbanus et instructus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Jayron32

• The issue here is whether or not The Wurdalak and Manhattan Samurai are the same person or not. There appears to be strong behavioral evidence to link the two, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai/Archive, where a May 2nd comment by Nishkid64 indicated that the case was being handled by the Audit Subcommittee. A further note by RogerDavies at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Wurdalak indicates that ArbCom is involved in this case. The third account listed above was one that I thought was a clear Manhattan Samurai sock, but was instead linked to The Wurdalak. I am thoroughly confused by this, and need clarification on the AUSC's/ArbCom's position on the nature of these two accounts. Are they believed to be the same person or not? If they are not, what do I need to look for to know the difference between them. If they are, can we get the Sock categories and SPI reports merged? Thanks for the clarification on this! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy

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

• Ice_Cold_Beer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Wdford (talk · contribs)
• Big-dynamo (talk · contribs)
• Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs)
• AncientObserver (talk · contribs)

Statement by Panehesy

I have been banned from editing for a period of six months by User:Ice_Cold_Beer for 1. POV pushing. 2. Personal Attacks 3. Contributions without citations. This is the latest in a pattern of POV administration in the article Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy. I request that, of course, my ban be lifted, as I was not given proper administrative warning, nor was I properly communicated in the manner. I also did not engage in POV pushing. I frequently reminded the contributors to not engage in turning the article into a referendum on another related issue Afrocentricism, which was becoming a habit. At one point, an editor put in comments about how Afrocentricism tried to change the European heritage (which has nothing to do with the article).

I have notified one other user User:AncientObserver who is directly affected by the ban itself. As I am relatively new to this process, I am under a disadvantage as I am going linearly through the administrative hierarchy, and trying to navigate through these processes to get a remedy that allows the article to be complete. This article, as I understand it is almost like a sandbox in itself to prevent editing in the Ancient Egyptian article. For example, all the images shown in the Ancient Egyptian article exclude those which display Ancient Egyptians with negroid characteristics. Please advise. --Panehesy (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ice Cold Beer

I would like to note that this is not the proper forum for such a complaint and the complainant has not formatted this request properly. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification by William M. Connolley

P has been banned from the article and talk only [1]. P is moving far too fast - he hasn't even noticed that he has turned the article into a redlink. It should be Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I fixed up the link to ICB though. The article itself is an edit warring disaster and a mess of socks, probably best erased William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Dbachmann

It is perfectly unclear why I am listed as "involved" here, since I have not taken any administrative actions in this area for a very long time. Not that this matters, since this is a painfully obvious case of a user banned for excellent reasons who just won't stop wikilawyering about it. Nothing to see here. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

I have also been banned with five other people including Panehesy Log of blocks and bans from contributing to this article for six months by User:Ice Cold Beer. I am very much surprised by this decision since I have received no warnings and also since User:Dbachmann who in the first place brought disruptive edits to the article is not banned. I suspect an abuse of power by adm Ice Cold Beer and ask that the ban be lifted.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by AncientObserver

I too am one of the banned editors. I was also not given a warning before being banned, only a message by Ice Cold Beer saying I was banned for "POV-pushing fringe theories". This came as a surprise to me because as far as I knew I was contributing constructively to the article and the talk page where ongoing discussion took place on the direction the article would take once it was unprotected. When I asked this Admin for clarification and evidence for why he banned me he explained what it meant but refused to provide evidence in the form of diffs, claiming that all of my edits to the talk page in general fit under the category of his justification for unilaterally banning myself and the others. I came to his talk page and asked him directly for evidence that I was pushing fringe theories on the article. He provided a diff of one of my edits for example but did not clarify what was wrong with it. The edit was relevant to the discussion and provided reliable sources on the topic. Incidentally William M. Connolley who was looking over the article unlocked it immediately after our banning leading me to suspect that he had no intentions whatsoever of honoring the consensus of the talk page to return the article to a more recent version. If this isn't the appropriate location to air our complaints and if the format isn't correct I will look into how to do it properly but we might as well inform someone of the situation. I think this definitely qualifies as abuse of power on Ice Cold Beer's part. I request that we be unbanned, Ice Cold Beer blocked from making decisions on this article and that the article remain unprotected so that we can restore it to a more recent version and let civil discussion on the talk page about content resume. I also believe that Dbachmann should be banned from the article because his disruptive edits are the source of this entire conflict. There hadn't been edit warring on the page for months before he showed up to cause trouble and he has been warned about his behavior before.

---

Request for clarification: Ryulong (2)

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

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

Statement by Mythdon

I have additional questions regarding my mentorship ruling.

In regards to term A, it says:

Mythdon is urged to find a mentor within a month of the closure of this case, and is free to get a mentor of his/her choice. Mythdon is directed to inform the Committee once the mentor is selected. In case no mentor is found within 1 month, Mythdon will be assigned a mentor by ArbCom;

In the recently closed Mattisse case, there is ruling of mentorship there as well stating that Matissee shall be assigned mentors by the committee within 15 days of that decision. But, also, unlike mine, there is a ruling here that directs Mattisse not to edit Wikipedia if the "plan" is not accomplished within the 15 day period without Committee permission. Because of that, I have this question; Since my month long time limit to find a mentor is up (it's been up since approximately June 24), am I prohibited from editing Wikipedia at all until the appointment or am I just prohibited from making edits that require the mentor approval?

In regards to term B, it says:

Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior. Inability to work constructively with a mentor may be a sign that a user has continued difficulty in collaborative editing and that stronger sanctions are required; successful editing during the mentorship may demonstrate that the opposite is true;

I am having a hard time understanding the beginning sentence of that term "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I do not know what is being meant by "consult". Does it mean "consult your mentor when you're unsure of whether an edit is legitimate?" - My suspicion is "yes".

Since I'm not 100% sure as of this moment, I need further clarification on this case ruling. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana

In response to: "Why have you not acquired a mentor? Have you had difficulty finding someone to agree? Were you unsure of where to look or how to approach the matter?" - To answer these first three questions, I'll respond to those all in the same answer; I intentionally have not found a mentor yet. The first reason is because I don't feel like doing so, and the other is because I'm not interested in having a mentor.

In response to: "...what areas do you feel you need the most guidance in?" - I don't feel like I need any guidance in any area. I feel that I've worked functional enough in the areas I've worked in before the remedy was put in place. I don't think I need any guidance from a mentor.

In response to: "What sort of advice would be most helpful for you?" - I don't think I need any advice. I think that I know how, what, where, and when to do something without advice from a mentor. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused from the underlying case (albeit not for reasons relating to Mythdon), so I'll leave it to someone else to answer Mythdon's questions. But if I may make a suggestion, would a non-recused arbitrator volunteer to communicate directly with Mythdon to address these issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• In lieu of a motion or indication to the contrary, I would expect you to be free to edit for the time being. However, I would recommend staying as far away from controversy as possible and walking away if you find yourself in a conflict. That said, I have a couple of questions. Why have you not acquired a mentor? Have you had difficulty finding someone to agree? Were you unsure of where to look or how to approach the matter? On another aspect, what areas do you feel you need the most guidance in? What sort of advice would be most helpful for you? Answering these questions will help us move forward from this point and arrange a mentoring relationship for you. --Vassyana (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

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

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notification)
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notification)
• Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)

Statement by Sandstein

This request arises from Radeksz's currently unresolved appeal, at WP:AE#Appeal against discretionary sanctions by Radeksz, against discretionary sanctions imposed against him by Thatcher. Inter alia, Radeksz argues that the sanctions are inadmissible because he did not receive a prior warning about possible sanctions. The reviewing administrators (including arbitrator Kirill) disagree about the application of the pertinent clause of the relevant remedy:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

— Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions

I ask the Committee to clarify the following:

1. Must this warning be given by an uninvolved editor or administrator? (This issue came up recently in another AE case.) (Question struck, sorry, the remedy says clearly that it must be an uninvolved administrator.  Sandstein  15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
2. Must this warning be given anew tailored specifically to every incident of disruption for which sanctions are considered, or is one generic warning (to make the editor aware of the decision) sufficient in cases where the counseling provided for by the remedy is not deemed to be necessary?
3. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning still necessary if the editor at issue is already known to be aware of the decision for other reasons, e.g. through participation in an arbitration enforcement request discussion concerning the same case?
4. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning posted at the top of a discussion page (such as an article talk page) or in the course of a discussion sufficient, or must the warning be provided individually on user talk pages?

Thanks,  Sandstein  13:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to Piotrus: This request is not intended to address the merits of Radeksz's conduct or sanctions. I am only requesting the clarification of the issues raised above, which are relevant beyond the specific case. That specific case is currently still pending at AE and will be decided there, unless the Committee decides to hear the appeal itself.  Sandstein  16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment: Although Thatcher has – in unfortunately understandable frustration – now lifted the sanctions that caused the discussion that led to this request, I believe that a clarification of the points listed above remains desirable for future cases.  Sandstein  11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to GRBerry: Thanks, that's pretty much what I would have thought, too. Sorry, only upon reading your answer did I notice that the remedy is actually pretty clear about who has to issue the warning.  Sandstein  15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

For my views on Radek, see my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Appeal_against_discretionary_sanctions_by_Radeksz. Thatcher 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• You know, if you really want to micro-manage this thing, then all the warnings logged between July 28, 2008 and June 23, 2009 are invalid. The original case remedy #11 General restriction only dealt with "edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", and the warning template (which I wrote) quoted the decision. On July 28 2008 the General Restriction was replaced with Remedy #12, Discretionary sanctions which are quite broad, and yet no one updated the warning template. So for the past year, editors have been warned about incivility when they were in fact subject to sanction for a much broader range of problems. Thatcher 14:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to Kirill's characterization of my imposition of the 1RR restriction as expedient, and his characterization of the notification requirement as doing the paperwork seriously deprecates the Committee's finding of persistent and long term misconduct in this topic area. There is clear and convincing evidence that these editors have been engaged in edit warring for a long time. Did Kirill review User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview before he decided that I was being "expedient"? I thoroughly checked the editors for prior involvement in complaints or Enforcement requests that would demonstrate prior knowledge of the case and its remedies. Or, as an experiment, type the name of any editor I sanctioned in the Admin noticeboard search box. Here, I'll make it easy for you.

The idea that these editors were not aware that this was a disputed topic under prior Arbcom sanction is ludicrous, and the idea that each editor needs to be personally warned that his own conduct is of concern plays directly to the argument of (nearly) every editor involved that all the editing problems are someone else's fault. I hope I may be forgiven for saying that these editors are some of the biggest crybabies I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. You'd think I was holding their sainted grandmothers hostage in my basement, rather than impose a simple requirement that they not revert each other, and discuss their reverts. I have seen very little acknowledgment of personal responsibility for any part of this dispute, it's all someone else's fault, and now I see Biophys arguing against the very concept of a 1RR restriction (good luck with that).

No one has yet explained how Wikipedia will be a better encyclopedia with the restrictions lifted. However, 13,000 words spent in arguing against an editing restriction imposed as a result of a revert war over the addition of a 2-word category is clearly detrimental. In the interests of paperwork and eschewing expediency, I have vacated my prior findings. Be well, do good works, and keep in touch. Thatcher 11:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Skapperod

According to the Strict construction of Remedy 12 it requires "a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator", but it does not require a specific wording and does not specify the place the warning must occur. Therefore, a warning given on an article talk page or one of the admins' noticeboards would be, according to the paperwork, just as good. I wrote the template {{Digwuren enforcement}} to make it easier to give warnings, but other forms of warnings would be acceptable. There is no formal requirement to log the warning in remedy 12, but it is the only practical way to handle enforcement. Without an easy-to-search list, admins will find it practically impossible to know whether an editor has been previously warned by some other admin. In future Enforcement requests, if you know that an editor has been warned but that warning is not logged, you can provide a diff to the warning in your complaint. Thatcher 12:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Skap, the bottom line is that there was no record of any warning, formal or informal, user talk or noticeboard, and no links to warnings by uninvolved admins were provided in the complaint. Therefore, the paperwork was not completed properly. Now it is. Thatcher 14:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Igny

Igny's assumptions about me are amusing. In point of fact, I vacated the 1RR restriction because first Kirill, and now Stephen Bain, have taken the view that a formal notification on the user's talk page is required, even if the user is demonstrably aware of the Arbitration case and the remedies involved. From looking at User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview and the noticeboard and Enforcement archives, it is clear that this "mob" as you say, has been active for a long time, and it is puzzle that no prior admin ever put them on formal notice. But there it is. Thatcher 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Followup to Carcharoth

Although I feel we have reached the point of diminishing returns, I think I should point out that GRBerry and Bainer, whom who both agree with, have diametrically opposed views on Sandstein's question #3. Thatcher 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Offliner

Please also clarify the following:

1. What exactly is the purpose of such a warning?
2. What exactly should the form of such a warning be? Please be very clear about which form is sufficient and which is not.
3. If sanctions have been placed without such a proper warning, should the sanctions be lifted?

Please make this as clear as possible. For example, prior to his sanctions, Radeksz was clearly aware of the Digwuren case as demonstrated by Thatcher. He was also warned for other things, such as edit warring. Does this constitute such a proper warning or not? Offliner (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Loosmark

IMO the remedy is crystal clear and so is what Kirill wrote. Radeksz was clearly never given a warning on his talk page at any point as the remedy requares therefore i don't understand why is Sandstein trying to create confusion. If we accept this bizzare logic that some editor "might have been aware of the warning" then we will end up arguing each and every time whether this was really so. I believe the ArbCom formulated the remedy that way exactly to prevent any ambiguities. Loosmark (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys

There are several general questions that should be clarified by Arbcom to help administrators at AE:

1. Can the sanctions be issued without the warning or without giving a possibility to improve?. According to Digwuren case, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ... if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia...". That means a warning logged in the case, exactly as Thatcher said [2]. That is why Thatcher rushed to issue such warnings to everyone (but forget Radek), and then immediately issued editing restrictions. The warning is not a "formality" because a user may be unaware that his specific actions (such as rare reverts in Nashi) are subject to the sanctions. After looking at the text of Arbcom decision, I honestly believed that I am only a subject to an official EE warning (but not to immediate sanctions) if my behavior was problematic, and everyone probably thought the same. Once receiving the proper warning, one could stop editing in this area or change his editing habits. However, the sanctions and the official warnings were issued at the same time, without giving users a possibility to improve, which goes against the letter and the spirit of discretionary sanctions. This matter was first brought to AE by Brandmaster: [3].
2. Russia does not belong to Eastern Europe; this is mostly Asia. Would any purely Russian/Soviet subjects (like article Nashi) fall under these sanctions? For example, List_of_Soviet_agents_in_the_United_States?Biophys (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Can sanctions for edit warring be issued to users who follow 1RR rule?. We need some safeguards here. The 1RR restriction was issued for article "Nashi", although some of the editors (including me and Radek) actually followed 1RR restriction while editing this article. Seriously, I am now afraid to make any edits, because any serious correction can be viewed as a revert. I am also afraid to make any two non-sequential corrections in the same article during a week, because this can be viewed as a 1RR violation.
4. Can an argument about "tag-teams" be ever used to issue the sanctions? Thatcher used an argument about the "tag-teaming". But this is a controversial concept, and it has been de facto rejected by ArbCom during last EE case, although many users tried to bring it there. Indeed, it is very common that several users revert someone else who fight against consensus. Does it mean tag-teaming?

No one suggests to reconsider all AE cases. However, some clarity maybe helpful for the future. Biophys (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

IMHO the crucial issue here is that Radek was restricted for doing 3 reverts (with edits summaries) in two weeks - in other words for being guilty of respecting all of our policies!

Not warning him first is just adding insult to the injury here... but it is an important issue as well. It is my understanding that warnings serve the preventative function, aiming at reforming a user; restrictions are punitive, aiming at stopping disruptive users who have not heeded warnings. Any user who is not clearly a vandal, per AGF, should be given a warning first, and only if he refuses to change, should than be restricted. Such a warning should also be given on his/her talkpage, since we cannot assume that editors will read the entire talk pages (or even AE or such threads) for all tiny warnings/exceptions/caveats/etc.

Radek, an experienced and constructive user, has followed all of our policies. Advice to use talk pages more often would be enough, particularly as he has shown much willingness to improve his (already within our standards) editing behavior. Yet he was suddenly and without a warning slapped down with 1RR restriction (which he followed on the article in question anyway...), for having the misfortune of editing an article outside his usual interests. This sends a really unhelpful message to all other neutral editors who could help improve the EE articles... "Come, edit those articles and get restricted without a warning for following normal policies anyway" :(

Bottom line is, if the ArbCom endorses sanction on Radek, it will mean that from now on anybody who does (or has ever done) more than one revert on any article in EE subjects, at any time, can be subject to a major 1RR editing restriction (if we restrict a user for 3 reverts in 2 weeks, why not 2 reverts in 3 weeks - or 5 weeks - and so goes the slippery slope...).

(PS. I do support all other recent restrictions by Thatcher, this one seems an unfortunate collateral damage casualty - so I'd strongly oppose initiating any kind of wider review which could undue most of the recent 1RR restrictions, which did indeed bring peace to affected articles - most of whom Radek never even edited...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Radeksz

While I understand that in filing this request for clarification Sandstein's purpose is to clarify a particular aspect of policy and procedure, I do want it noted, per Piotrus, that the fact that proper procedure was not followed is only one of my arguments. There are also others.

However, sticking to the narrow purpose of this request I think it's pretty clear from the text and the past interpretation of the case that the purpose of the warning is not to make an editor aware of the existence of the Digwuren case, but rather, in the language of the case so that the editor has a chance to take "specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" - in other words to make the editor aware that their editing behavior may be problematic. I think this is precisely in there for border line case such as mine - where, since I was following 1RR/Week I really had no idea that I was breaking any kind of rules (as I've said before, this is the first time I've seen anyone get slapped with an accusation of "edit warring" and sanctions in the case of 1 revert per week). I'm also not arguing that a formal warning must be made in each instance - just that there needs to be AT LEAST ONE formal warning.

In light of the above I would also like a clarification on how exactly is the 1RR/Week restriction to be properly interpreted. If following 1RR/Week can get you restricted for edit warring, can reverting vandalisms get counted as a revert and lead to a ban? Of course I know there are clear cut cases, but what about something like this: [4]. I saw it yesterday, thought about reverting it since it looks like vandalism to me ... then thought better of it "just in case". There was no curse words in there, it was sort of on topic, no usual flags of typical vandalism - what if I reverted it and then some administrator decided that that was a violation of a 1RR restriction? And that's part of the trouble here - these kinds of harsh punishments for minor infractions, filed without proper procedures (even IF these procedures require some time to follow) create an atmosphere of paranoia (not to mention disillusionment and frustration) and hurt the regular work that editors do on these pages.radek (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for GRBerry

an involved editor on the other side of a dispute - can you clarify what you mean by "other side of dispute"? Does this mean a dispute on a particular article? Does it mean a current dispute or one in recent past? How narrowly is this defined? The wording in the case leaves this open to interpretation and there's been some controversy stemming from that ambiguity as a result.radek (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Skäpperöd

Formal notice and Digwuren list

The remedy does not require an administrator to place a formal notice on the editor's talk page, as was the case with superceded remedy 11. It only reads "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator" Yet, the formal notice reads that it is not effective unless logged at the Digwuren list. The list is titled: "List of editors placed under editing restriction", and the instruction for administrators below the title reads: "List here editors who have been placed on editing restriction by notice on their talk page, per remedy 11..."

It is not the active remedy (12) which requires a logged formal notice at the editors talk page, but remedy 11 which is superceded. Remedy 12 requires a warning that is only specified as linking the remedy by an uninvolved administrator, and optional counseling.

• Why does the Digwuren list read "per remedy 11" and is still maintained?
• Why does it list people not subject to an editing restriction, but who only received an adapted formal notice stemming from superceded remedy 11? I have no problem with being formally notified and listed somewhere as such, but I do have a problem with being listed as an editor under editing restrictions when in fact I am not subject to any.
• Why does the formal notice template generate a header "Notice of editing restrictions" if no editing restrictions are issued, and requires logging at the Digwuren list to be effective?

Skäpperöd (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Thatcher's reply to Skäpperöd

Exactly. I am not arguing against the formal notice itself and against a logging, how else would admins be able to keep up with who they warned, just that notice and list are maintained under the label "editing restrictions". I fully share your interpretation that a formal warning is not needed, and that there is no need for any additional warning if awareness of the remedy is evident. I had made that clear on your talk already, and my argumentation above was rather to point out that the whole "formal notice" concept in its current form is a remnant of a meanwhile non-existing remedy and must not be mistaken as a formal requirement. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Sandstein posed four questions (in italics here), here is my understanding of the proper answers to them from the period when I was active at Arbitration Enforcement. These answers apply to all cases where discretionary sanctions are in force, not merely to this specific case.

1. Must this warning be given by an uninvolved editor or administrator? (This issue came up recently in another AE case.)

It is best if it is given by an uninvolved administrator. Administrators who are working enforcement for the case are uninvolved. It is worst if it is given by an involved editor on the other side of a dispute. However, the fundamental purpose of the warning is met no matter who gives it.

2. Must this warning be given anew tailored specifically to every incident of disruption for which sanctions are considered, or is one generic warning (to make the editor aware of the decision) sufficient in cases where the counseling provided for by the remedy is not deemed to be necessary?

Absolutely not. The discretionary sanctions exist because editors in the topic area have such a problematic history that they are skating on thin ice. They don't get guaranteed N^th chances, the first warning tells them that they cannot expect as much leniency as they would get elsewhere. If an admin working enforcement believes that counsel will work better than a sanction, the admin will use counsel.

It has also long been understood that anyone that was a party to the case is already warned by the case closing message simply from having been a party and no further warnings are required for case parties. This precedent establishes that individual incident warnings are not required.

3. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning still necessary if the editor at issue is already known to be aware of the decision for other reasons, e.g. through participation in an arbitration enforcement request discussion concerning the same case?

No. (Especially not for someone saying that another editor should be sanctioned under the case.) Such an editor has demonstrated awareness of the special rules and need to demonstrate the best possible behavior, a formal warning would not be of benefit to them. A logged warning may be of benefit at a later date so that it is obvious that they are aware, but that benefit comes from the logging and accrues to an admin enforcing the case, not to the editor warned because they gained no new knowledge from the warning.

4. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning posted at the top of a discussion page (such as an article talk page) or in the course of a discussion sufficient, or must the warning be provided individually on user talk pages?

I don't like the idea of a notice at the top of a talk page; the one situation I was involved in where that was tried didn't work very well, but that was also trying a non-standard approach in an extreme battleground area, and I'm not certain which, if any, non-standard feature caused it to work poorly - it might have been the particular editors instead, as I know it the approach and talk page message worked fine in a different topic area.

In general the question is whether an editor is aware of the special conditions and need to be on the best possible behavior. This can be presumed to be the case if the warning was posted to their talk page. This really can't be presumed for a warning on a talk page or in the midst of a discussion; we all engage in tl;dr at times. Talk pages, especially on disputed topics, can have screens of templates at the top that we just scroll by without reading. And a comment in the middle of a discussion may not be noticed, especially if the discussion is fast moving, as is common for disputed topics. So user talk page warnings are far more likely to be seen by the editor and thus generate the required notice - but this remains irrelevant for an editor that is demonstrably aware of the data that a warning would provide. GRBerry 14:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Igny

Despite the fact that I was affected by this restriction, I am actually saddened that Thatcher gave in to the pressure and vacated the restrictions from this particular bunch of editors (yes, including radek and even me). With all due respect to Thatcher, I think he lacks teaching experience to deal with a bunch of editors upset by the punishment. From my teaching experience, I always expect students who are upset by the grades they receive and who claim unfair punishment and who demand, often without a compelling reason, a better grade or something. In fact, if I teach a big course, I expect to be flooded by those demands.

It is an absolute rule for a teacher not to give in to such demands (unless there are really really really exceptional circumstances), any exception from such a rule may have severe consequences and undermine the authority of the teacher. Next time, expect even bigger outcries from the punished editors who will cite plenty of different reasons and precedents, including the precedent of this case.

Thatcher mentioned the tens of thousands of words spent on this simple case, but that was to be expected when you deal with what essentially is a mob. Despite what individual editors may claim or feel, the tag teaming does indeed take place in Wikipedia on many controversial topics. It is hard to judge individual contribution to the tag teaming, or determine guilt of any particular participant without doubt. That is why I was actually glad with Thatcher's decision to punish all the involved editors and thought that finally someone decided to do something about the problem. That is extremely unfortunate that under the pressure of the mob the decision was overturned. (Igny (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Like the purpose of warnings under general policy, the purpose of warnings here, in relation to the discretionary sanctions, is twofold. Obviously the primary purpose is to ensure that editors are aware of the existence of the discretionary sanctions before they can be made subject to them. This is particularly important in this case because the discretionary sanctions were not part of the original decision. The secondary purpose is so that editors know that their behaviour is being scrutinised and that they personally may be subject to sanctions, to allow them an opportunity to modify their behaviour. That the remedy comprehends this purpose too is apparent from the mention of counselling editors in addition to warning them, and from the list of factors in the third paragraph.

To answer Sandstein's three remaining questions:

1. The minimum that is required is that the editor is provided with a link to the discretionary sanctions section within the final decision, as the remedy states. Once an editor has been warned of the existence of the discretionary sanctions, they do not need to be warned again (though editors who were only ever warned of the existence of the original general restriction would have to be warned of the discretionary sanctions).
2. The terms of the remedy say fairly plainly that a warning is required. I would agree that if someone has been commenting in arbitration enforcement threads concerning the discretionary sanctions they can be taken to be aware of them, but the second purpose remains.
3. A talk page banner is not sufficient, no. A message on the user's talk page is the best method.

--bainer (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - agree with GRBerry and bainer here. Having said that, I do have a great deal of sympathy for admins who work in the area of arbitration enforcement. There were movements afoot to reform this area, including a request for comments held earlier this year (WP:AERFC). If proposals made there would improve things, no-one should be shy of attempting to implement any needed reform, and asking for guidance if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank-you , Thatcher, for pointing out that point about Sandstein's question 3. My view is that it depends on the case and editor in question, but user talk page messages are nearly always best to avoid any potential confusion or defence. It might seem like paperwork, but leaving a user talk page message ultimately reduces paperwork (and discussions like these) later. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

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

• Not really applicable: see below. Post made at WT:NPOV.

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

This case is quoted within WP:NPOV, which makes this slightly awkward wording unfortunate:

18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I'd suggest that this be changed to something such as:

18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a significant following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Obviously, clear pseudoscience exists where one or two supporters could be considered (broadly) part of the scientific community. For instance, Michael Behe is a university professor in biology, and a supporter of intelligent design, which huge numbers of sources confirm to be pseudoscience. His colleagues have even put up a webpage on the university server ([5]) stating that intelligent design "should not be considered scientific". A little clarification here would prevent wikilawyering. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seddon

It is ARBCOM's responsibility to ensure that thier statements cannot be misinterpreted so in this aspect, ARBCOM does have a duty to correct a proposed principle in thier case. It is the professional thing to do. Especially as the community relies on the commitee to assist in such difficult areas of the project. I do however caution the community on using arbitration principles as case law.

Vassyana is however correct that the wording of policies like WP:NPOV, remains in the hands of the community and therefore the duty lies with the community to ensure that policy does not allow such wikilawyering. Changes in the policy should be taken then.

In short, both ARBCOM and the community have duties here that they must fulfill.

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment - I've always been uneasy about the practice of quoting ArbCom principles in policies, especially very old principles. Either quote the arbitration case accurately, or don't quote it at all. If the wording from the arbitration case is insufficient, then remove it and use a wording agreed upon by consensus on the policy talk page. But please don't ask ArbCom to participate (from RFAR) in the editing of policy, especially not one as key as neutral point of view. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The community has long ago taken ownership of that language by integrating it into policy. Any modifications thereof should be handled through the community in the form of normal policy discussion and editing. --Vassyana (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• There are several paragraphs of the Pseudoscience decision that venture more closely to content or policy rulings than would normally be found in one of our decisions. The case was decided in 2006, and not a single arbitrator who participated in the case is still serving on the committee, so it would be more than a little artificial for us to purport to "clarify" the principle in question. Therefore, on the substance of the matter, I agree with Vassyana and Carcharoth. But I also suggest that the former arbitrator who wrote the decision should be contacted, if he hasn't been already, and asked for his view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

Note: per terms of arbitration remedy, I request that a clerk notify the parties involved

Statement by Wikidemon

Is it is permissible under Obama articles remedy 11.1 (and by extension 11) for editors restricted from interacting with each other to (a) unilaterally criticize each other, or (b) participate in meta-matters related to the others' edits?

My understanding is no. I supported the remedies in question on the hope and assumption they would put an end to accusations of bad faith made against me for months on end concerning my work on Obama-related articles, an issue close to the core of the case. I follow that by not mentioning them by name or deed, and by avoiding if I can any page or procedure where they are active. I make a reluctant exception here, because I have been accused of bad faith, trolling, and stalking[6][7][8][9] four times in the last day. This troubles me, and I wish it would stop. I am therefore asking a clarification on whether these accusations are prohibited, or whether I should just try to ignore them. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Note - I am not seeking any enforcement or action at this time. The rules are not currently explicit. So just a clarification. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

As someone who might well end up enforcing the ArbCom remedies in this case, I would also like a clarification on this point. Right now Wikidemon and Scjessey are restricted from interacting with ChildofMidnight, and the latter is restricted from interacting with the former two. In my view, this formulation should extend to commenting about one another, at least in a negative manner, even though that was not at all explicitly part of the decision. For example, saying "and other terrible editors like _________" on ANI or elsewhere would be considered unacceptable in this view. Simply saying, "I'm restricted from interacting with _________ so I can't comment on that user's comment" would of course be perfectly fine. It's disparaging comments that are the problem, as those do little more than rehash an old dispute (and in the case of Scjessey and ChildofMidnight, they would arguably be problematic in terms of their topic bans).

As such this (already linked by Wikidemon) categorizing Wikidemon as a "troll and stalker" would clearly be unacceptable. Actually it's unacceptable period in my view, but arguably more so given the remedies from the Obama case.

A quick clarification on this from the Arbs would be useful. I'll post notes on Scjessey and ChildofMidnight's talk pages about this if they have not already been informed, since I think those are the only other parties that would be directly affected by whatever the Arbs decide here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick followup to point out that while I don't think ChildofMidnight's recent statements are at all acceptable, I also don't at all think he should be sanctioned for them. I'm just interested in determining how we deal with similar incidents going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To Casliber or any other Arb, thanks for looking into these issues and posting notes like this on the talk pages of several editors. But those were a bit vague and I'm still unclear as to how to proceed in terms of enforcing the ArbCom decision. If Wikidemon posts a negative, "inflammatory" comment about ChildofMidnight (or vice-versa), should/could the offending editor be blocked per remedies 11 and 11.1 of the Obama case? I think that's what you are saying but I want to be clear, and I want to make sure that the affected editors are clear on this as well. Also you left a note for BaseballBugs who was not formally sanctioned and that somewhat confuses the issue. I think the original question relates solely to ChildofMidnight, Wikidemon, and Scjessey in the context of the ArbCom case and is expressed succinctly by Thatcher below. I just want to make sure we come away from this completely clear on the answer to that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely reject the entire substance of ChildofMidnight's comment about my work as an admin. I have done some probation enforcement work on Obama articles in the past, including warning C of M about certain behaviors (for which he was sanctioned by ArbCom, not incidentally). I am not, and never have been, in any dispute with him about content, and warning him in the past does not constitute a dispute. The idea that I have "been very aggressive about stating [my] politics and coming after editors who disagree with [me]" is something C of M obviously believes, but is not remotely borne out by the facts, and I am not beholden to his subjective and erroneous impressions. I of course "think we should abide by NPOV and include multiple perspectives" on the Obama articles and elsewhere and have argued for that repeatedly, as C of M should know if he's read any of my numerous comments on various talk pages.

Working as an admin in a controversial area is not necessarily a lot of fun (I've warned editors on the "other side" from C of M and taken heat from them too), but I'm not going to be forced away from helping to maintain the Obama articles and enforcing the recent ArbCom case simply because C of M does not like the fact that I've warned him in the past (note that I've never even blocked him, and have engaged in seemingly endless conversations with him on my talk page about policy matters - see here for one example - even after he came there hurling accusations at me). If he thinks I'm that bad of an admin, my recall process is here (though C of M might have to get someone else to start the RfC on me given how my process works), and he knows where the board to complain about admin behavior is. I've been watching the Obama articles for awhile (originally beginning before C of M ever edited here) and think I've been fairly helpful. I don't think there's anything that precludes me from enforcing remedies in this case on any party, though I'm sure there are other folks willing to do that as well. I won't reply to further comments from C of M, though I will note he has mentioned my user name ten or so times in the last couple of days in various place, always in a highly negative fashion, while at no point supplying so much as one diff to back up his assertions. His comment about me below is just the most recent example of that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

I assumed that the "interaction restriction" meant that I should do everything possible (within reason) to avoid interaction and conflict with ChildofMidnight (CoM). For example, I have avoided editing any article or talk page where I have encountered CoM within its recent edit history (last 50 edits). I have also avoided contact/interaction with editors who seem to inhabit CoM's "sphere of influence" - partly on the assumption that there could be a sort of conflict-by-proxy problem. I plan to avoid any "meta matters" in which CoM is participating, whether or not my username is mentioned. This may seem excessively cautious, but I wish to prove to the community that I am doing my best to "turn the page" on past problems and contribute to the project productively. Wikipedia is more than large enough to accommodate us both. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

This issue comes about because numerous editors have come after me on my talk page and on various other boards. This behavior is similar to that I experienced in the past and tried to bring to the attention of Arbcom as a pattern of abuse targeting editors who hold minority viewpoints and dare to try to have them fairly represented in article content in accordance with our neutral point of view WP:NPOV policy. I hope this committee will be helpful in putting a stop to this kind of abuse and harassment as it's extraordinarily damaging to Wikipedia's editing environment and integrity.

---

Wikidemon's harassment of me including 13 posts on my talkpage in one four hour period is well documented and was entered into evidence in the Arbcom proceeding. Wikidemon's abuse of the ANI process to harass and intimidate editors is also well documented. He's taken me to ANI 5 times, each time inappropriately over a content dispute. Wikidemon has stated that he uses ANI to settle content disputes. Wikidemon refactors other user's statements on article talk pages, user talk pages, and ANI discussion. He has a whole section on his talk page related to me where he's refactored my comments into their own section. He is a disruptive editor, the only editor to refuse mediation on the Rashid Khalidi article where I was trying to help with a 3rd Opinion, and he frequently targets editors whose point of view he doesn't share for abuse and he attempts to get them blocked and banned. This harassment and smearing shouldn't be allowed to go on here.

Since Arbcom's misguided ruling, others have followed his example and been emboldened (as I predicted) by Arbcom's shameful and embarassing misjudgment (including Wizardman's misrepresentations of my polite requests to Wikidemon to focus on article content and to discuss issues over content on article content pages, which Wizardman called "templating"). There was also Wizardman's distortion of my good faith copy-edit on an article talk page as some kind of malicious refactoring. Apparently some diffs were needed to ban me, and I guess that was the best he could come up with.

Given this grotesque miscarriage carried out by this committee and signed onto by the individuals that comprise it, I have little faith in any of your judgment or fairness. Your actions have simply encouraged the abuse and harassment carried out by these individuals. They continue to go after editors with whom they disagree. Another editor who has created numerous articles on political subjects has been harassed and taken to ANI again and again by these characters. They target and harass anyone who has the audacity to try and add content that doesn't toe the line on accolades for Obama and whose politics they disagree with. They've thrown out the idea of collaborating in favor of undermining our core NPOV policy and preventing multiple perspectives from being included in articles. These outrageous behaviors should come as no surprise to this committee since its ruling has tolerated and encouraged these actions. I participated in the Arbcom, after a request from Wizardman to do so, because I had hoped that at least a stop to the worst incivility could be implemented. I had no idea that this committee would endorse the abusive behaviors carried out by these individuals and that this committee would encourage them by going after the editors already targeted and at the receiving end of these disgusting behaviors.

Baseball Bugs has posted on my talk page 7 or so times since your ruling along with other posts by Phgustaff, none of them related to article building. I removed several and asked Baseball Bugs to stop, but he continued to harass me. He's been asked to stop before by admin GTBacchus, but why would he stop? This committee has given its tacit endorsement to that kind of behavior on talk pages and to using ANI reports to go after editors, and so it has continued. If the first one doesn't work maybe the 3rd or the 5th or the 7th will. Shame on this committee and Wizardman in particular for failing to grasp the problem, for failing to address the harassment and abuse of editors through frivolous ANI reports and other methods, and for endorsing this type of censorship and bullying by punishing those affected by it. This abuse shouldn't be acceptable here. That this committee has stood by and not only allowed it to go on, but punished those at the receiving end of it, is disgusting. I'm here to write articles and build an encyclopedia collegially. Not to be harassed by POV pushers like Wikidemon, Tarc, Allstarecho, Bigtimepeace, and others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

<The comment below was a reply in a threaded discussion that was moved here by a clerk. I've collapsed it because it's only tangentially, at best, related to this proceeding>

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't really know what Connely's abusive block has to do with this proceeding. An editor accused me of stalking them after a single copy-edit to their article I came across on new page patrol. This has been well documented. They templated and made nasty comments to me on my talk page and I told them their behavior "made them look like a jerk". They made an ANI report where numerous editors pointed out their abusive behavior, false accusations, and article ownership issues. (Of course the POV pushers used it as an opportunity to make statement against me and call for me to be blocked). Despite the consensus in the discussion, an inebriated (self-admitted) Connely stepped in and blocked me without any discussion or consensus indicating that was appropriate, and he refused to fix his mistake despite numerous requests from other editors (going to sleep shortly after his drunken block which he wasn't even able to implement appropriately without help). While Connely's behavior is also abusive and disgusting, it doesn't have much to do with the campaign of harassment carried out by Wikidemon, Allstarecho, BIgtimepeace, Baseball Bugs, and others against any editor they perceive as being convservative politically. It's just another example of the admin abuse that will most certainly be used against me in the future, just as the block over my 4 edits over 48 hours, with discussion on the article talk page inbetween, formulated the core of Arbcom's "evidence" against me in the latest Arbcom proceeding. If there's no solid evidence against someone they just make it up and find an incompetent admin to unilaterally block, and then use the block as proof that I'm a "problem editor", ignoring my actual edit history and the facts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• The idea that Bigtimepeace thinks he's an appropriate person to enforce these arbcom remedies is SHOCKING. He is absolutely not neutral and certainly not uninvolved. He's been very aggressive about stating his politics and coming after editors who disagree with him in thinking we should abide by NPOV and include multiple perspectives in our political coverage. I absolutely 100% reject the idea that he should even consider using his tools in relation to this matter, and he should absolutely refrain from using his tools in regards to Obama related subjects where he's made his personal point of view and his desire to enforce it very clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• • -I was going to post this note on Bigtimepeace's talk page. But I didn't feel comfortable doing that, so I am posting it here instead.-

Hi BTP. I hope you don't mind my commenting here. I read your response to my arbnote. You made a very impressive defense of yourself, going on offense and making various accusations and insinuations against me. I rarely go diff digging, an activity I liken to dumpster diving, so I'm not going to be much help in providing you diffs of our many disputes, but your talk page history should suffice. I'm prohibited/ censored/ blocked/ banned from working on those articles anyway, but I want to make it clear that our disputes over those articles are absolutely content related and that your argument that I'm making stuff up is simply wrong. The idea that we haven't been involved in confrontations and disputes over content and article editing issues is simply not true.

I am absolutely earnest in noting that you need to put down your admin tools and stop behaving aggressively towards editors who you are in conflict with over content issues. I realize you may think you're being fair, neutral and impartial, but as you've indicated previously and is clear from your editing and behavior, you have a personal political view that's very much to one side of the political spectrum. I encourage you to recognize this and to exercise the appropriate restraint and judgment that is warranted. At many RfAs I've seen they ask whether there is a subject the nom is passionate about. It seems that you are unable to recognize your own biases and perspectives and how they are influencing your work here. I've always felt you are welcome, of course, to contribute on those articles, but I again encourage you to exercise self-restraint and to recognize that you are not neutral or impartial with respect to these subjects.

I'm here to build an encyclopedia and to collaborate with those of differing and like views to include appropriate content. I'm not here to wikilawyer with people and to play games. I'm focused on content building and article improvements. I enjoy the range of viewpoints and working out compromises to include them fairly. I apologize if there's anything in this comment that you find offensive or that you think is an attack of any sort. While I have some serious concerns over some of your actions, you generally seem to be well meaning, so I wanted to try to broach the subject with you directly. Believe it or not I think you're a fine fellow and I'd be happy to collaborate with you on any subject. That being said, there is serious issue with your approach and tool use in relation to subjects where your fairness and integrity is clouded by your political beliefs. Please remove this comment if you find it objectionable in any way. Again, I apologize if I've said anything that you think is improper or inappropriate, that is not my intention. Cheers. Take care. Enjoy your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Unitanode

I'll keep this brief. Having looked at the issue, I can understand how CoM's editing patterns cause some issues at Obama articles. However, his detractors are not without fault. I particularly note the block that William M. Connelly Connolley levied for "incivility." Not only was this block non-preventative, it was also -- apparently -- levied while WMC was inebriated. I would highly recommend that as this clarification is offered, it also be made clear that poking CoM isn't recommended either. There are certain editors whose presence at his talkpage apparently annoys CoM greatly. How difficult would it be to effect something of a "topic ban" on commenting about CoM that would effect some of these editors? Uninvolved eyes are needed badly on this situation, and there are some whose eyes are most certainly not uninvolved at this point. Unitanode 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for misspelling your name. I was attempting to do so from memory, and I made a mistake. I'm not sure what that has to do with my basic point, though, nor why you found it an egregious enough error to post about within my statement. Unitanode 22:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley

If spelling "Connolley" is too difficult for you I recommend sticking to "WMC", which most people can cope with William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I didn't make a statement, just a minor comment. This was quietly "statementified" later [10] by someone else. I think it would be better if people make a clearly visible mark when they do such things William M. Connolley (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

The issue before the committee is very simple. ChildofMidnight is enjoined from interacting with Wikidemon. Is he allowed to badmouth Wikidemon to third parties? I think the answer is pretty obvious. Thatcher 02:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

What we got here is... failure to communicate...er, no, that's not it...what we have here is a party to ArbCom (Child ofMidnight) who continues to act out the part of the aggrieved victim of an almighty cabal of evil doom out to get him. This has been going on since the first signs that the committee decision was not going to turn out as he expected to. From the pithy "Travesty in motion..." at the top of his talk page to the insults of other party members as "POV pushers" at every opportunity...article talk pages, user talk pages, AN/I, AfD. It isn't just potshots at Wikidemon (not belittling that, though), it is been a week-long, nose-thumbing tirade at anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with CoM that he is the wounded party in all this. I haven't really even been interacting with him at all through any of this; like others, I'm just siting here watching a downward spiral.

Re Caspian Blue, please do not misrepresent the case findings, which was that BB and myself were "reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations", which was for getting overly snarky with others in contentious talk page discussions. It had nothing to do with ChildofMidnight directly. Obviously we've taken opposing POVs in the subject area, but our interaction never rose to a level of acrimony as with the other two, and there wasn't even an evidence section or a FoF for it. This hasn't stopped CoM from name-dropping me at every opportunity to strike against the perceived cabal, but that's his problem.

BTW, only posting with a slight hangover this morning, all is good!

Re, again, I am not "mocking" CoM or anyone else. Your frequent falsehoods are getting to be about as troublesome as his raging personal attacks are. There are no cabals, other than in your own overactive imagination.

Sigh. Perhaps ChildofMidnight has sufficiently calmed down for the moment, but as long as others like Caspian are going to be allowed to egg him on, fan the "everyone's out to get you" flames, and misrepresent what others are doing here, I doubt we've seen the end of this. Don't think there's anything left to say at this point.

Statement by Caspian blue

More clarification on the "CoM vs Wikidemon and CoM vs SJ remedies" is certainly necessary for the next time. The current remedy is vague in text. I do not fully understand CoM's drama making (yes, he did) in the recent incident, but it is obvious that Tarc, Baseball Bug and other editors in past disputes should "disengaged" from contacting with CoM for their unsolved feuds in the Obama case. They are in part responsible for "throwing gasoline to the flame". I do think that CoM should've taken a break to regain his cool, but Tarc and Baseball bug were admonished/warned for their incivility by the committee, so I think the amendment on that warning should be also intensified. Once Baseball Bug ceases to contact with CoM, then his buddies would find other thing to care.Caspian blue 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, yes, you're warned for "your incivility by the ArbCom", period. True, you're one of flocks coming, mocking CoM and enjoying the whole dramas in these days and of the Obama cabal together with CoM. (does not matter what your political view is in the cabal in my view - US politic drama is not my interest). You're no position to say like the above.

To Bigtimepeace, I consider you a fine admin, but you may be the second last person to "enforce the ArbCom remedy" to CoM because even if you were never in "content disputes" with him, you were in "disputes with him" for whatever reason. If CoM violates the ArbCom sanction, clerks, arbitrators or other assigned admins would carry the enforcement to CoM.--Caspian blue 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, Tarc's another "falsehood" and inappropriate accusations. ArbCom certainly did not catch your behavior in depth. See your own statement filled with inappropriateness. You said you only made one appearance with regard to CoM's ANI report. (falsehood indeed given these appearances to recent 3 ANI reports) [11][12][13][14][15]--Caspian blue 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, Tarc even visited my talk page continuing another "bogus" accusations and attacking me with this "falsefood" again.[16]--Caspian blue 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is really tiresome. As long as Tarc is continuing his usual way of speaking[17], ArbCom which officially warned him for his "incivility" could reconsider about Tarc, as well as clarifying the original remedy on Wikidemon/Sj/CoM. Tarc browbeaten me that Unfortunately for you, no one else is buying it. Tarc, trust me, you're wrong on that given that originally there was no remedy on Wikidemon vs CoM. So if you want to convince the ArbCom enough to consider a new remedy on you as fanning the situation, I do not mind. However for your own sake, please "disengage" from CoM and your improper behavior. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BaseballBugs

(Reply to Bigtimepeace moved by clerk) Regardless of any apparent vagueness of the original ArbCom statement to me, in response to Casliber's request I have pledged to disengage from and about CoM. The original issue I have with CoM, which goes back to March 8/9, is clearly not fixable, so it's best to just leave it be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind me. I am impervious to personal attacks. But how long is the community going to let him get away with this kind of soapboxing [18] that's a gross insult to the integrity of everyone else on wikipedia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PhGustaf

I agree that disengagement is a good idea. CoM has developed a bunker attitude in the last few days; best to let him or her cower in it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate my suggestion that everybody go home and forget about it. Remember the Peter O'Toole line: "We have won a rock in the middle of a wasteland on the shore of a poison sea." There's no better result possible here. PhGustaf (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

While I have the feeling that CofM is very much agitated with recent events, in regards to ArbCom restrictions and sanctions that he feels that is unfair, lashing out at other respected and/or established editors and administrators at ANI is leaving a black mark on what may have been an otherwise credible case. I think the issue before the committee is simple, per what Thatcher noted. CofM should not be interacting with Wikidemon, period. The same should apply back for Wikidemon towards CofM to cover the bases, and any breach of this or continued disruption that does not abide by the bounds of dispute resolution should be intersected with an approperiate sanction. seicer | talk | contribs 04:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Allstarecho

I'm only posting a statement because, once again, CoM has felt the need to name me in his delusional escapades on the Wiki. I'll just simply repost here what I posted at User talk:Casliber#A question for you to Casliber:

• Somewhat related.. regarding this reply to you by CoM, I will challenge you to find any harassment by me towards CoM. I've about had it with him plastering the same accusation with my name everywhere he touches on WP. I've also had it with his usual pattern of attack/run/blame everyone else for "picking on me". I can not believe that this is being allowed to continue.
• I'm certainly not disagreeing with your assessment of William. There are issues that need to be addressed. But his issues doesn't excuse CoM's issues - not to mention, it isn't William running around slandering me everytime I turn around - it's CoM.

Now granted, about a month, maybe almost 2 now, ago CoM and I had issues regarding his well-known-now attempts at whitewashing/POV editing of certain articles. Since then? I've pretty much avoided him. Hell, I didn't even participate in the whole Arbcom case even though I certainly had more than enough diffs to shut him down completely - something I had prepared previously for an Rfcu I was planning on opening about him but never did. Let me say this clearly: Continued attacks against me - and others - needs to cease immediately, whether by block or ban and I'm almost to the point of demanding the latter. Now I'm sure I'll be followed here by him bringing up my own Wiki-sins - as he made sure to do yesterday - but I'll just say those aren't the issue here. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 13:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comments while I can see how and why CoM will be feeling frustrated at the moment, repeatedly firing up old disputes isn't helpful at all. I'll have to look a bit more before thinking about actions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Update: I have been out and about and musing on this. I think we can safely describe the situation as continuing to be highly volatile with several editors (whether justifiably or unjustifiably) feeling very aggrieved, unhappy or angry. Thus any further (even mildly) negative ad hominem comments or niggly/baiting/whatever that occur could be at best described as disruptive and a significant block would be in order. I will now notify the antagonists. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Update 2: Okay, I have posted a calm note to CoM, Wikidemon and Baseball Bugs. Let's see if we can just wind down the tension a bit without the need for sanctions just yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Other people are handling the grit, so I'll make it simple (responding to the question as phrased by Thatcher and Wikidemon): No. It is not acceptable. --Vassyana (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Casliber's comments, and concur with Vassyana. Risker (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. Complaining about people who you had disputes with a couple months ago just hurts your case, justified or not. Those accusations are part of why I put this remedy in; to avoid them. Wizardman 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

---