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
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

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

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 Br'er Rabbit

As said on ANI, this was a case of Mally being baited by Fram.

• "I wanted to draw your attention to it and wait for your reaction. It turns out to be quite telling."^here

This is conduct incompatible with being an administrator. It erodes the desired respect of the admin corp we would, in theory, desire the general editor population to have. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Equazcion

I just wanted to comment on this diff, that User:Br'er Rabbit brought above. I've had to fix a lot of edit conflict messes from other editors, as they generally result in text getting inserted into the header of a page. I've never seen anything end up erroneously within another person's comment. I accept Malleus' eventual explanation that this was indeed a technical error, but I don't think there was reason to assume anything either way when Fram contacted Malleus. My first thought on seeing an edit like Malleus' would have indeed been to see how the editor would explain it when confronted. Fram presented the matter without any accusatory demeanor, but simply asked that the edit be corrected. There was no baiting. Malleus nevertheless chose not to explain anything until the matter was brought to ANI, and instead responded with stonewalling and insults until then. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:37, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

fwiw, it was prolly just an inadvertent paste. but then a sea of shit was churned up about it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To add, I'd like to reply to all the present and inevitable comments that start with "I'm not excusing his behavior, but...": Yes, you are excusing it, in all the ways that matter.

Fram had what I think was a poor choice of words in his second comment, when he said the insertion looked intentional. His first notice to Malleus showed that he wasn't passing judgment, but Malleus' reply pushed Fram in the wrong direction. Indeed, nobody's perfect, but the majority of imperfect interactions don't generally escalate the way they do with Malleus, because his interactions in these cases are far more than imperfect.

The reaction from many is to repeatedly claim that this is just some drama that should be dropped. "I'm not excusing him, he reacted badly, but... [this won't get anywhere] [it's just drama] [everyone's making a big deal about this] [time to move on] [etc]" -- This is indeed excusing him. You're blaming everyone else for calling attention to his repeated pattern of poor behavior, no matter how many times he displays it.

What's worse than the mere words that Malleus produces is the fact that he takes advantage of everyone else's restraint. Most of us don't want discussions to descend into insults, because we've learned that it rarely gets anything accomplished -- not to mention, we consider ourselves bound by the Wikipedia rules that Malleus nevertheless eschews. This gives Malleus extra impunity as he exploits the situation. It's kind of like a superpower -- he can do something everyone else can't or won't do. Malleus will either stop a discussion dead or bring out attacks from others, and both outcomes tend to help him -- he either gets the last word or successfully brings out the other guy's immaturity, making him look bad. Once Malleus starts making comments that have no substance other than calling people "twats", "aresholes", etc, those are the only two options.

There was a Family Guy episode where some high school students were standing around trying to think of something to do. One suggested, "Hey, want to go push the janitor, knowing he can't legally push us back?" Enter Malleus, our very own high school student, who gets to push us around whilst exploiting the fact that we can't push back -- and if we do, all the better for him.

So before we yet again say "I don't excuse him, but [insert comment that excuses him]," let's think. A little more than usual this time. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:54, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

"Most of us don't want discussions to descend into insults, because we've learned that it rarely gets anything accomplished -- not to mention, we consider ourselves bound by the Wikipedia rules that Malleus nevertheless eschews." - it's a shame isn't it, that you can't follow your own sagely advice. Parrot of Doom 21:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@Parrot of Doom: I'll make you a deal: If consensus is that that comment of mine you linked to is indeed on the level of Malleus' behavior, I'll gun for an indefinite block for both Malleus and myself. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:12, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1

Malleus either actually needs to understand civility, or he needs further restrictions. As someone who regularly uses bad language (when appropriate) I find it increasingly difficult to understand why Malleus' behaviour hasn't started to improve to a level where we don't have to have an ANI thread about him every five minutes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets also be clear that the diffs recently presented on ANI ([10] [11]) aren't exactly borderline incivility. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@RexxS, even if we assume that Fram could have improved his handling of the situation (which I think is fair) that doesn't excuse the totally over the top rudeness towards User:IRWolfie- - and that rudeness was at a much more serious level that the minor inappropriateness of Fram's comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@RexxS's reply, I agree with you, and I agree with you that we do an extremely poor job of solving disputes productively.

With regards to our poor handling of disputes in general there does seem to be a tendency in cases (if Arbcom want some examples I'll email them, I'd like to avoid adding to the drama by naming names) like this for the supporters of the individual in question to try and pretend that there is no issue at all that is worthy discussion.

That makes it extremely difficult for anyone to agree any sanctions for popular users beyond an indefinite block, as even though they probably only make up 20% of the community, given (obviously) everyone else isn't in lockstep about appropriate sanctions it is difficult to propose anything serious and gain a consensus.

Some additional nuance and subtlety from those people would be extremely helpful - it is the sort of thing we expect already with regards to WP:NPOV too and that approach is much more likely to actually avoid the indefinite block that as fans of Malleus' work they clearly want to avoid.

In this case some level of private mentoring from someone Malleus respects to tell him to drop it, and/or a one month block to see if Malleus really does value contributing to the project and/or a ban from RFA might well work to allow Malleus to continue to be highly productive in other areas while ignoring those parts of the project where he has the most problems.

Lets not pretend that unless there is a substantial change in behaviour that unfortunately Malleus will eventually get an indefinite ban from the project. It might not be this month, or even this year, but it will happen as it has to others in the past. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

This was all precipitated by Malleus's argument with IRWolfie, specifically this response which not only suggested that IRWolfie should re-read the Earth article, but also managed to insert "In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth" in the middle of IRWolfie's sig in the previous comment. Now nobody is going to convince anybody that that is anything other than a glitch. In fact, reading on, Malleus clearly didn't even realise it had happened. It just isn't the sort of thing Malleus does. At that point I have no idea why on earth common sense didn't prevail and somebody simply didn't remove the sentence from the middle of IRWolfie's sig.

Even if we allow that Malleus needed to know it had happened, surely the way to approach it would be to ask him on his talk page why – or if he knew that – he had inserted a sentence in the middle of IRWolfie's sig? Once somebody goes to his page and takes this approach, with an assumption of the editing being "intentional", we know that common sense has been ditched again, and this is a trawling expedition expecting Malleus to respond sharply. Congratulations, he did. Why does anybody waste their time on moah dramah like this? Sometimes I despair for this project. --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@Eraserhead1

Yes, Malleus was rude. I wasn't trying to excuse anything. But I was saddened by seeing the escalation from retort to confrontation to ANI to RfAr Amendment.

[on reflection] Why does the community act like a huge Petri dish and grow disputes like cultures, when we could all damp down the growth like penicillin instead? Step away; forget about the slight; buy somebody a beer - Stella Artois for Malleus. We could really do so much better. --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as an outside view: It's because everyone takes their work here as a personal goal or achievement. Having that questioned tends to bring out the territorial animal in all of us. Combined with the semi-anonymous nature of editing, people tend to let that out more often than they would offline. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 06:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-

Here is the sequence of events for the current incident: I am an FTN regular and so I wished to determine how familiar with fringe guidelines the candidate was (I like to consider I am relatively familiar with them as I look at them and the related WP:NPOV often). The candidate answered the question, (whilst noting that he was not very familiar with them) and I was not entirely satisfied with the answer and I provided my reasoning whilst voting neutral. A simple two comment discussion between me and malleus about whether his answer was right or wrong resulted in this comment out of the blue: [12]. When I pointed out the example I gave was is in WP:UNDUE I got this hostile reply: [13]. This reply also changed my signature, presumably by accident and I fixed my signature here [14], and then went to his talk page to leave a comment on being WP:UNCIVIL, I noticed a thread related to my sig and commented there instead noting I had fixed it User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Editing_someone_else.27s_comment. After noting his incivility, I had this directed at me: "Just remind me, why should I give a fuck about what you think about anything?" directed at me so I posted to ANI (the notification of which resulted in [15]). As I noted at ANI, changing my sig by accident isn't the issue here, it's the insults etc [16].

To my knowledge I have not interacted with this editor before this incident: [17]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

@Rexxs: "Why does the community act like a huge Petri dish and grow disputes like cultures" - Because when faced with entrenched viewpoints, the community is left paralyzed, and disputes go unresolved as a result. There is no other path left but escalation. And that, alas, is the problem we have with Malleus. I won't say whether today is that day, but Arbcom is ultimately going to have to make a choice between two significantly opposed camps. The first is that Malleus' editing contributions are enough to justify overlooking his behavioural problems. The second is that his behavioural problems represent a net negative to the project that outweighs his positive editing. We can quantify Malleus' productivity as an editor, but the damage he does through his behaviour is very subjective. That is why the community can't resolve the problem he represents, and that is why it will fall to Arbcom. I would suggest that the fact that more than one editor in the ANI thread has brought up the argument that "blocking is ineffective, so why bother?" is a good indication that the damage his attitude does has surpassed the good his editing does. No editor is irreplaceable, and it is well past time for Malleus' immunity to be ended. He needs to be told to either adjust his behaviour to match expectations, or he needs to be told to leave. Resolute 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy

I've seen MF being highly uncivil for years. I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints. I might not be the most unbiased person here (certainly not the most biased either), but MF has a very serious problem of not respecting other editors, not respecting policy he disagrees with, and acting like a bully to try to get his way. His recent personal attacks on any editor who tried to talk to him about errors he made are unacceptable, but also just his standard operating procedure here. It has to stop.

Someone asked what can be done about it because nothing so far has worked. The answer is simple, and the one Wikipedia has successfully used for years: increasingly lengthy blocks as the behavior continues. Some people have argued that doesn't help anything, but I would offer myself up as an example of it having worked. I tried looking for a list of my blocks by length and date but couldn't figure it out, be the short version is this: When admins could start doubling the length of my blocks, I pitched a fit, I complained about it being unfair, but, you know, after a while I had to choose whether I wanted to start acting more in line with what the community wanted so I could continue to edit here or whether I was willing to stick to my guns and get forced out. And while I'm probably always going to be a bit terse with people who aren't following policy, I'm making the effort, which is something MF cannot say. More importantly, I've not been blocked again for I don't even know how long, and any complaints have been the standard boomerang back on the person complaining situations.

Furthermore, this is what I was expected to follow, and what other editors who found themselves in similar situations had to follow, so I really do not think it's fair that MF has been allowed to not be held to the same standards.

If someone knows how to look up my block stats and wants to post them below my comments in this section as proof, and add any relevant observations, please feel free. Enforcement works, as long as it is done so consistently and fairly. DreamGuy (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

"I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints". As you're the only person I've ever seen raising that concern, would you mind providing some solid evidence of this? If you're unable to do so (keeping in mind that the policies you cite apply only to articlespace), I would ask that you retract it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

Like so many processes here, the act of "seeking justice" is more disruptive than the act itself by a full factor or more. Being someone who has been on the receiving end of Malleus's disapproval at least twice (including my own RFA) I do seem to notice a double standard here. Malleus can be blunt, and frankly foul mouthed, so can other editors who would normally be warned instead of threatened to be blocked. We can talk of histories, but at some level each instance has to stand on its own. The problem is that his reputation preceeds him and is highly overstated. When he decides to vent and be rude enough to warrant a warning, everything seems to explode into a fury of activity focused on getting him blocked. This puts Malleus on the defensive, which doesn't bring out the best of him either, and the whole event spirals further down hill and pretty soon the "discussion" is more disruptive than anything he had done to begin with. It makes it impossible for any admin to take action or for him to get a fair review, and it ends up in a dogpile at ANI or here. It is the circumstance and not solely him that brings us to that point.

It is no secret that Malleus feels slighted by the system here, and there may be some merit to his claims as we are constantly reviewing and changing at Wikipedia, and there is always room for improvement, and for whatever reason, a crowd always follows. To be blunt, Malleus can be a pain in the ass at times, but he is worthwhile editor who may use crude language on talk pages but has done nothing but good in articles. It is difficult to get an objective action when he does something trout-worthy because there are so many eyes on his every move. We should be exceedingly careful when taking action to insure it isn't punitive. We should lead by example by being as neutal, civil and understanding as we are asking him and every other community member to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Franamax

Heh, just refreshed this preliminary to putting my thoughts together. Hi Risker! :) May take a while, but on the way... Franamax (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I feel the one comment made to Wolfe was a typical case of someone getting a bit too frustrated when engaging in a discussion. The rest appears to just be people poking at Malleus with a stick to see how he will react, which is never a good idea. While the initial parties to the dispute may have done this out of ignorance, several who came in later clearly knew with whom they were dealing and, as such, should have known better than to provoke him with comments about his maturity. As it regards the suggested amendment, I see no cause for expanding the restriction. It already clearly provides for banning Malleus from an RFA where he is found to be engaging in the discussion in a disruptive manner and that remedy could have been appropriately acted on in this case. Unless Ent can provide a substantive reason for why the current remedy is insufficient I see no cause for implementing this suggestion. The appropriate place for raising further issues concerning this dispute would seem to be AE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ravenswing

Quite aside from the hypocrisy of Wikipedia's double standard in immunizing experienced editors from behavior that'd get anon IPs indef blocked a hundred times over, what is the point of WP:CIVIL if it is not enforced? I am not only sick and tired of MF and his ilk running roughshod over civility, I'm sick and tired of the hypocrisy of their supporters, who seem to have chosen sides more along the lines of "I like the guy so anyone asking him to follow Wikipedia rules is a HATER" than for any other consideration. That the very same people often are quite ready to jump on others for incivility, real or imagined, at places like ANI is doubly ironic. Either enforce WP:CIVIL or demote it to an essay, but don't for an instance fancy that it's a net gain to keep a hothead like MF on board, because we lose productive editors who either want no part of such antics, or want no part of a encyclopedia that falsely claims to have civility rules.

That being said, I'm militantly disinterested in the notion that he was "baited" and thus "had" to respond in kind. Quite aside that our rules forbid any such retaliation, quite aside that you'd think someone with such a long block log would have the basic foresight to make a particular effort to keep his nose clean, do some of you truly think that Wikipedia is a children's playground, in which it's de rigeur to respond to playground taunts in kind? Me, I'd rather believe that we are adults, who can be expected to behave in an adult fashion.

Finally, as far as PhilKnight's comments below are concerned, oh please. RfA is a "discussion," not a "vote?" Since when? Would Phil care to share with us the number of nominees who hit 75% and failed to be promoted, as well as the number of nominees who fell below 70% and gained the mop anyway? (If he doesn't, I'll be happy to do so.) This is entirely a headcount, and about as rigid as any Wikipedia has. Ravenswing 04:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum

I'm not sure how these AE thingies work, but presumably I'm meant to reply here rather on each individual statement? I only have a few things to say anyway:

• I have a problem with editors like Nobody Ent, who store up innocuous diffs like this one to boost what at first sight looks like a long list of crimes. The real crime is that kind of dishonest misrepresentation.

• I note DreamGuy's claim: "I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints." That is simply an outright and blatant lie, and the fact it is allowed to go unchallenged really does demonstrate the corruption at the heart of this civility enforcement charade. But even if it were true, what would that have to do with this request for an extension to my sanction, as opposed to yet another "let's kick Malleus while he's down" episode?

• Jclemens claims that I have "a reluctance or incapacity to deal politely with users with whom he disagrees", yet anyone paying attention would see that I respond to people in exactly the same way they respond to me. If you want me to be civil to you, then don't try patronising me or taking the piss. If you do, then I'll give it right back to you, and no amount of ArbCom muscle will ever change that.

• And one final point that may have escaped some viewers; the context for Nobody Ent's crusade to have me banned from something, anything, is an RfA in which I have supported the candidate. In what way could that be described as being "disruptive"? I'm not aware that the candidate has complained, so why has Nobody Ent mounted his hobby horse?

• I missed the question that Jclemens asked below, "Malleus: even if you don't perceive a problem, acknowledge that others do, and help us craft a workable solution to address those perceived problems that you can live with", but I think I ought to do him the courtesy of answering it. I certainly do acknowledge that some see a problem that I don't, but I think that's because they're looking in the wrong direction, at the wrong things. As far as a "workable solution" goes, I'd suggest an automatic block for any editor starting an ANI topic like the one that resulted in this waste of space. Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• One more thing; why is this request for clarification being allowed to degenerate into yet another "we need to get rid of Malleus" fest, as exemplified by the contributions of Resolute and DreamGuy for instance? What we need to get rid of is vindictive editors like them. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

It would have been nice if anyone had dropped me a note that I was being discussed here, but oh well.

I did not bait Malleus Fatuorum in any way, I saw that Malleus Fatuorum had changed someone else's comment (willfully or not), and wanted to draw their attention to it and see their reaction. If their reaction had been "oops, edit conflict" or "weird, no idea how that happened", then we all could have moved along. Instead, I got a very defensive reply. I considered that very telling, and said as much. No idea what was supposed to be "defensive" about that comment, but Malleus Fatuorum did all he could to make the situation worse. Looking at his other contributions from the same day, this turned out to be the standard modus operandi. The only thing I would handle differently the next time is that I would have blocked him for his severe personal attacks (against others, not against me). And now I'm off to ANI to see what was said in that discussion since the time I stopped editing yesterday... Fram (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(by the way, the automated edit summary for this page starts incorrectly: "/* {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment}} */"

Reply to Carcharoth; while your explanation probably makes sense, your solution doesn't. While it may be that he only highlighted it, there is just as much chance that he intended to include that bit of text in his reply. Removing the error robs him from that possibility (or at leaast makes it a lot harder to be aware that part of his reply ended in the wrong place). Of course, if he would have actually checked the diff I posted instead of going all defensive and needlessly escalating things, much could have been prevented, but he was so sure that he would never do such a thing knowingly that he failed to consider the possibility that he might have made an error, instead of the system (edit conflict handling) screwing things up: "it certainly didn't come from me." But he has plainly said that he never even looked at the diff ("I was accused of altering someone's signature, something I would never do, so I didn't even look at the diff."), and so didn't notice that he indeed altered someone else's signature, that it wasn't an edit conflict, and that his hostile reactions were totally unnecessary and unwarranted (but still moderate compared to many other comments he made that day). Fram (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Isn't it obvious what happened here? Look at the relevant version of the RFA in question and scroll right down to the bottom (that text stuck in the signature makes no sense). Malleus's response that added that text included the line: "I suggest that you re-read the Earth article, which does link to flat Earth theories". It should come as no surprise that the bit of text that ended up in IRWolfie's signature is a direct copy and paste from the Earth article of the sentence that includes this link (the text is present in this version). Surely what happened here (as User:Br'er Rabbit said above somewhere) is that Malleus had copied the text intending to quote it, or had highlighted it in some way while reading the article and noticing that the article linked to flat Earth theories, and some inadvertent keypress ended up pasting the text? I've done that in e-mails where the cursor ended up somewhere strange and I've been typing and not noticed I was putting text in the wrong place. There is also a common keypress that pastes recently copied text, which I've hit accidentally in the past. What is depressing is how things spiralled out of control from there. All that was needed was to remove the inadvertent text inclusion, and not even notify anyone, it was so obvious it was not intentional. Whether arbitrators want to spend time working out why things went downhill after that is up to them. The original filer of the request may (or may not) have a case to be made about the other diffs presented, but that is mostly being ignored, it seems, in favour of the current drama. Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth: "Ctrl V" is the key stroke for paste on Firefox and IE. Malleus began a sentence in that post with capital B. "Shift B" is adjacent to "Ctrl V" on my keyboard. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

All of you, find something better to do. VolunteerMarek 08:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh screw it, I'll tell you what I really think.

As the guardians of The Wikipedia the ArbCom faces a trilemma. There's really only three possible ways out of this recurring nightmare. Ok, it's actually only a good ol' fashioned dilemma, since two of the options are simply mirror images of each other, but I always like describing a situation as a "trilemma" since that makes it sound a bit more sophisticated. So anyway, here's your options:

The mirror image options, call them Options Alpha and Omega involve slapping the people who do this hard enough so that it doesn't happen again, at least for awhile. The only difference is whom the mighty hand of the ArbCom decides to "admonish". If you choose to follow this path turn to page 68... wait no, if you choose to follow this path then in all honesty the best thing you can do is just flip a freakin' coin and then commence with the smackin'.

Option Alphas - get it over with and indef ban Malleus from The Wikipedia. There'll be gnashing of teeth, complaints about how Courcelles is the new Enver Hoxa (I'm being careful here to avoid violating Goodwin's Law), complaints to Jimbo, people ripping their clothes off in public and wailing like banshees about how The Wikipedia is now ruined for all eternity. But if you just put that little "Do not unblock without permission from ArbCom" (often used on many a less famous user) in the block summary then, after three months or so everyone on this site will be like "Malleus who?". The Wikipedia has short memory and given our current retention rate, as well as all them valiant efforts from Sue Gardner at recruiting new editors, at that point we'll probably have 90% new editors anyway.

Option Omega - go the other way, desysop the fuck (as in desysop them very very strongly) out of all the damn admins who keep bringing this nonsense up, as well as slap all the lesser peeps with a three month site ban. Wait, that's actually milktoasty. No, desysop every admin that has commented on this page so far, on whichever side, and three month site ban any of the lesser peeps.

In the first category this would mean desysopping (like fuck) User:Worm That Turned, User:Sphilbrick, User:Resolute, User:Nikkimaria (you don't get off easy just cuz you're replying to others' statements rather than posting one of your own. Revolutionary justice!), User:Dennis Brown, User:Franamax and User:Fram (I would appreciate it if any of the admins that have commented above would politely get in the appropriate de-sysopping que).

Additionally you would need to three month site ban User:Equazcion, User:Eraserhead1, User:HandThatFeeds, User:IRWolfie-, User:DreamGuy, User:The Devil's Advocate, User:Ravenswing, User:Br'er Rabbit as well as of course... well, myself since I'm in the process of being just as guilty as everyone else, and of course User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Nobody Ent.

That kind of knocking of noggins' together should make it clear to everyone that creating this idiotic drama, on whichever side is just not worth. Of course if you think that this is too much of a purge you could just flip that coin (I know you guys have one, only way to explain past ArbCom decisions) again and desysop, say, 3 out of the 7 administrators, and three month ban 5 out of the 11 non-administrators above.

What would happen then? Well, his three month ban aside, Malleus would probably do a little jig and there'd be some talk on some talk pages about how Malleus fought the law and won or something, but the law is unjust anyway. But in, hell, not even three months, with anyone scared to try and get him blocked again, Malleus would either a) get bored and go back to content editing which is why The Wikipedia keeps him around in the first place, b) get bored and fade away from "the project" like many before him or c) keep talking to himself and his closest buddies in some corner of The Wikipedia that everyone else can safely ignore. Wait - in regard to outcome c)... why isn't this already happening?

Ok, those are the two mirror options but sometimes, having observed an ArbCom case or two I have a feeling neither is going to happen. So you can go with the other corner of the trilemma, the Option ü-lambda (yes, I am aware those two letters are not even in the same alphabet but I'm complicated like that), which stands for "Option Uber-Lame" for those of you who dislike diacritics or something.

Option Ü-Lambda involves the outcome that always occurs but being so brutally honest about what it involves so that the appeal of engaging in this drama is significantly decreased. Basically it means saying to everyone: "You know how the saying says that history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as a farce" (I think I got that wrong but whatevers). Well, what happens if it keeps repeating itself again after it's already been repeated as a farce? History, tragedy, farce... what happens after that? The stupid idiocy we're in that's what. "Farce" is far too noble of a word to describe it with.

So just say it. "We are not going to do crap to anybody because taking an actual stance on this insanely stupid controversy would endanger our chances in the next ArbCom election or might otherwise piss off too many people. Hence we will follow the usual way of The Wikipedia and make pronouncements and pontificate but otherwise do nothing. Thank you for playing, see you next time, but please try, just try to realize how pathetic all of this is". If the ArbCom can just take a leading messianic role in admitting it's ineffectualness and patheticness in the circumstances of this case, perhaps others will too, and sincere heartfelt chest beating mea culpas will result. And the sound of a thousand fists beating against a thousand guilty chest will drown out the wolf cries of the githyanki and usher in a new scarlet dawn of a new millen .... ah sorry, getting lost there. Basically, maybe it will be enough to make at least some of the people involved - Malleus and his friends, his enemies, random passerbys and the ArbCom itself, and hey, me too - stop and think "Wow! I'm being a petty idiotic shit here".

VolunteerMarek 09:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

So I'm looking through the diffs provided by the complainant above expecting to see cunt and fuck-bombs left and right, but instead see stuff like "Fix it yourself" and "I'm actually rather staggered that 25% of the currently active admins can even string two sentences together, never mind take an article through FAC", "You are either joking or innumerate", etc...

My first thought was, "what does innumerate mean?", followed by a trip to Webster, and then a second thought of "we're here for this?" This is milquetoast even by drag-Malleus-to-Arb/ANI standards. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

Here we go again--the predictable ArbCom follow-up to an equally predictable ANI thread. Something goes wrong, Malleus Fatuorum says something wrong, next thing you know we're calling for his head. I read things like "[editor X is] sick and tired of MF and his ilk running roughshod over civility" and can only think "whatever". The generalization is unwarranted, and that MF's supporters are hypocrites is really a personal attack which will no doubt be overlooked. (If I, for instance, were such a hypocrite, it could be proven by my blocking non-MF editors for similar infractions--I challenge anyone to find such examples; the same goes, I have no doubt, for admins like John.) Whatever MF has said in this minor issue is within accepted limits, at least in my book, and if actions can speak louder than words I invite anyone to hear what's being said by starting these repetitive ANI threads: if anything's disruptive it's those escalations. As for this particular request: I do not consider this to have been filed in good faith, with the intent of improving the project or as a desperate attempt to try and resolve the situation, as it was phrased on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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)
• The fact that Malleus has such excellent editing skills, as demonstrated by his content contributions over time, and such a reluctance or incapacity to deal politely with users with whom he disagrees, as demonstrated by his discussion contributions over time, is vexing. I do believe we tried the "can't you please just get along with others?" approach last time, and while there's nothing terribly worse than last go-round in the evidence, I don't see how things have particularly improved on Malleus' part, either. I'm open to ideas on how to "fix" the problem, and specifically from you, Malleus: even if you don't perceive a problem, acknowledge that others do, and help us craft a workable solution to address those perceived problems that you can live with. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• I want to hear from Franamax. Could a clerk please ping him? Malleus, I assume, knows about this request. Risker (talk) 00:39, 5 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)

Commenting on Future Perfect at Sunrise's comment: While the current (and probably the main ongoing) point of irritation at Northern Cyprus has indeed been the incessant disruptive socking by Justice Forever, there have been other incidents in the past — such as some low-level edit warring and lengthy talk-page arguments revolving around at least one pro-Greek editor — activity which did a lot of simmering without really coming to a full boil, but which (IMO) could easily have escalated out of control. I didn't bring this up earlier because the worst of it ended several months ago and it didn't result in any outside intervention at the time, but if ArbCom feels this additional material should be cited in order to give a larger view of the overall situation, I can supply diffs. — Richwales 07:36, 5 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)

Comment to Risker's oppose vote: I'd actually agree that an extension to Cyprus is not an immediate, high-priority necessity. The main source of disruption in this field, as far as I can see, is the perennial socking problem of a single banned user, for which standard admin procedure is of course applicable, and apart from that the disruption levels don't seem to be those of a current virulent hotspot. But just to respond to your point about "expansionist" treatment of the sanctions to areas you never reviewed, and that are not "the same" as the original one: well, that was never a problem for ARBMAC sanctions in general. What you reviewed back in that case was a small set of disputes between Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian editors. From there, the decision went straight to a discretionary sanctions regime that covered all of the Balkans. The Balkans are a big place. This rule has always been applied to dozens and dozens of unrelated disputes that you didn't review originally – from Italian-Croatian stuff via Bosnia, WWII Yugoslav partisans, Kosovo, internal Greek politics, Greek-Turkish disputes, you name it. It's been an "expansionist" ruling from the start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 5 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)

Motion to amend WP:ARBMAC

• For the purposes of enforcement action under this case, the discretionary sanctions shall apply to the Balkans, Turkey, Cyprus, and the generally unrecognized state of Northern Cyprus, all broadly construed.

Support

1. Copyedit as necessary, but essentially broad enough to put anything regarding the Cyprus dispute under this case. Courcelles 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Support, but again, just as we have "standard discretionary sanctions" for topic area, I suspect the time is right to have a list of "politically disputed geographic areas" and place all such features under a consistent set of restrictions. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
3. I'm ok with this, however it would be preferable just to say 'the island of Cyprus', which would include the British bases that are neither part of Cyprus the country or North Cyprus. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I can in no way support an expansionist view here. None of the statements made above indicate that this is the *same* dispute expanding into a new area; instead, the impression is that it is a different dispute, one which Arbcom hasn't adjudicated at any point. I'm not prepared to put the Arbitration Committee imprimatur on sanctions for disputes we've never reviewed. Disruptive editing is just that, socking is just that, and all the discretionary sanctions in the world aren't going to affect either one of them any more than normal blocking will. Risker (talk) 00:51, 5 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[18]

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[19] 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[20]. --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[21]. --Nug (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand the point of Courcelles' concern, which apparently is related to Russavia's behaviour when he returns from his site ban. Courcelles claims that Russavia's disruptive behaviour extended outside of the EE topic area, but I cannot find any evidence of this. As EdJohnston states, discretionary sanctions remains available under the existing authority of WP:ARBEE, this request is merely to enable editing of articles that Russavia is indefinitely banned from editing without breaching my Iban. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 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) [22]

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 [23] [24] [25] and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: [26], 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. [27] [28] [29]

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)
  • Allow me to repeat Newyorkbrad's observation: Despite continuing to edit Wikipedia, Ohconfucius has not responded substantively to the breaches of guidelines and return to previously sanctioned behavior alleged in this complaint. I will place a talk page entry noting the expectation that his next edit to Wikipedia will address this complaint here. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• 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: [30].

Statement by Seraphimblade

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 [31] 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 [32]. 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 [33] [34], 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 [35]. 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)
  • @ Vecrumba, no, it simply refuses to grant 'special rights' to previously sanctioned users just because they claim to have been harassed. My stance is that this committee's past actions that failed to clearly proactively track and identify previously sanctioned (to include failed RfAs and community noticeboard discussions, not just ArbCom sanctions) users to this community have done 1) no particular good to the users in questions, two of whose identities have been found out in recent months despite such efforts, and 2) have eroded the trust in the committee's impartiality an willingness to serve as the community's watchdog in such cases. I do not sanction the off-wiki harassment of anyone, so that booting previously sanctioned users out of Wikipedia entirely is the best option for both the integrity of the encyclopedia and the protection of the real person behind the account. There is no right to edit Wikipedia, so there can be no right to edit Wikipedia harassment-free: freedom from harassment is easily achieved by the editor in question leaving Wikipedia, should they desire to avoid potential harassment. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

---