Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Request to amend WP:EEML and WP:ARBRB

Initiated by Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} at 15:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

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

Case affected

Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted
2. Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [1]

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted and Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted
• Amend restrictions to allow interaction between Russavia and Miacek

Statement by Russavia

Both restrictions prevent two-way unnecessarily interacting between myself and Miacek, however, for the betterment of the project, it is necessary that the two of us be able to interact and collaborate onwiki.

Some interactions between Miacek and myself include the following: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and it can go on. I also commented at his request to have his topic ban lifted, because as Miacek mentions in that very request, relations between the two of us are normal. We have also been in occasional email contact, the last time just the other day, when I emailed him for fixing an issue on the Donavia article after he saw my note on my talk page.

All interactions between the two of us have been cordial, collaborative and consentual, therefore, it makes no sense to have bureaucratic restrictions in place which prevents two editors from interacting for the betterment of the project.

I am asking the Committee to amend the two restrictions to specifically allow interaction between myself and Miacek. And I foresee no reason why the Committee would not agree to this amendment request, as it serves as an example of what editorial interactions in EE topics should be like.

Statement by other editor

{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).

---

Request for an amnesty of banned and blocked users in the Middle East editing area

Initiated by Ravpapa (talk) at 04:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Cases affected

• Gilabrand
• Nishidani
• Possibly others

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Statement by Ravpapa

This rather unusual case is a proposal for a general amnesty of Wikipedia users who have been blocked or topic banned from articles dealing with the Israel-Arab dispute. The proposal is the result of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Taking stock and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Amnesty for topic banned and blocked users. It is our belief that an amnesty could alleviate tensions in the project, improve the editing environment and improve the quality of the articles.

In those discussions, editors looked at some of the measures implemented to improve the quality of editing on the project. On the one hand, we felt that centralized discussions had helped to resolve numerous editing conflicts over general issues (such as the way to treat settlements in articles) and that the 1RR restriction had added to the stability of articles and succeeded in moving disputes from the article to the talk page.

On the other hand, we felt that vigorous enforcement by Arbcom has done little to reduce the level of conflict on disputed articles. We feel that an amnesty of banned or blocked users would not increase conflict, and, on the contrary, would improve the overall atmosphere and restore a number of productive editors to the project.

We suggest that the conditions for amnesty should be:

• the candidates have made substantive contributions to articles (and not just talk page contributions).
• They are not single purpose editors, but have contributed in a number of topic areas.

In our discussion, two editors came immediately to mind: User:Gilabrand and User:Nishidani. I am certain that there are other editors that also meet these criteria.

This amnesty proposal is supported by editors from both sides of the conflict. It should be clear that granting amnesty does not suggest that administrators condone the acts for which the editors were blocked, but only that they believe that these editors' commitment to improving the Wikipedia will override any recidivist tendencies they may have.

In addition to myself, User:Nableezy and User:CarolMooreDC support this proposal.

Statement by Nableezy

Unsubstantiated accusations about ignoring topic bans or "problematic behavior" aside, the topic area needs knowledgeable editors. Both Gila and Nishidani have a lot to offer, more than most. Gila's only real problem here has been ignoring a topic ban/block. If she were to commit to not doing so in the future I see no reason why she should stay blocked. As for Nishidani, there are very few editors here that have the patience or skills to do such in-depth research using the best sources. The topic area has not improved as a result of the WB/JS case, and I honestly cannot tell why after 2 parties of that case were discovered to be socks ArbCom has not simply vacated the case. As it stands right now, the only editors that are not editing in the topic area as a result of the case are Nishidani, G-Dett, MeteroMaker and Pedrito. Jay had his ban rescinded following an appeal, which is great, but NoCal/Canadian Monkey have never left us (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NoCal100). So the net result of that case is that one of the more prolific sockpupeteers on WP was able to instigate edit-wars with several users, using several user names, and succeed in the aim of having them topic-banned. Should the editors not have reverted as much? Sure. But you cannot look at what happened without keeping the fact of Isarig's multiple personalities wreaking havoc across the topic area coloring your view.

This is not a "general amnesty", there are two users listed for consideration. Ravpapa, with good intentions no doubt, may have made this a bit more complicated by suggesting conditions that would apply to others. Id prefer to talk about just those two users as those are ones that a. show an interest in improving the articles, and b. know what they are talking about.

If you wish to increase the quality of the articles in the topic area there is no reason to not lift these users sanctions.

Statement by JoshuaZ

As proposed this seems like a bad idea. Each editor is a unique case. Some have been better than others about keeping in line with the sanctions than others. Some have been more productive in other areas than others. And there may be other considerations. I would rather have each editor considered individually with each editor in question making a case for the removal of their sanctions. Since there are now only five editors who are relevant this should not be that much more work. But a blanket pardon in this context seems like a recipe for disaster and is also unfair to the editors who have toed the lines and worked hard to rehabilitate themselves. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved Rocksanddirt

Amnesty no. individual topic ban reviews yes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Amendment 2

The topic ban on Nishidani is rescinded. The indefinite block of Gilabrand is lifted, subject to her agreeing to use one account and not editing as an IP.

Statement by Nableezy (2)

I doubt a general amnesty will go through, but I think ArbCom should consider these two specific cases. Gilabrand has, for many years now, made important contributions to a wide range of articles, both within the topic area and outside of it. Her refusal to abide by her topic ban was frustrating, and the disingenuous nature of her response to being caught pretty much red-handed socking did her no favors, but her block does nothing but punish Wikipedia. Nishidani is, in my opinion of course, one of the most thoughtful and well read editors that was willing to spend any time at all in this time suck we call the ARBPIA topic area. Both of those editors have much to offer, and Wikipedia loses by restricting their accounts. We need editors like these. The bans have not done anything to make the topic area better in any way. Instead, the same fights with lower quality arguments are being played out over and over. This is repeated from above, but if you wish to increase the quality of the articles in the topic area there is no reason to not lift these sanctions. By keeping them in place you damage Wikipedia. By that I mean the articles, not some imaginary harmony among users, you know, what is supposed to count here.

Statement by other editor (2)

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

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement from Cptnono

Nishidani has ignored his topic ban multiple times. The topic area is cooling down a bit. The last thing we need is another editor who repeatedly asserts a battlefield mentality. He has not shown any remorse for his actions and letting him off the hook simply because the ban was some time ago is silly. If anything he has only served a couple months if you count the most recent breech. Will only serve to add fuel to the fire. When the editor actually fesses up to what he did wrong then it should be entertained until then we are simply cycling in another problematic editor to fill the shoes of another banned one.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement from Michael C. Price

I find it alarming that Nishidani is specifically named ready for the amnesty. I second all the points that Cptnono makes, and add that Nishidani's problematic behaviour (which almost defies description, it is so egregious) extends to many other areas of the project. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Since evidence has been asked for, here's a sample:

• [[2]] “I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”
• [[3] – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."
• [[4]] "There's edit-warring and edit-whoring, and you practice both."

Has he really reformed?-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael, if you were replying to my comment, what I actually asked for substantiation for was the assertion that Nishidani breached his sanction on multiple occasions. The block logs indicate that that can be nothing but a personal opinion and, as a personal opinion, of no worth or significance.     ←   ZScarpia   23:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for it. And it wasn't my opinion. It was the administrators'. But it was way more than a couple months now that I look at it again so that was my bad (I guess time flies). Unfortunately, in those 10 months there were problems in other topic areas (I don;t know the details) and now he has retired. So why are we having this conversation if he doesn't wish to volunteer here? Very little activity on the account since this.Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See the edit-summary of why here. My retirement has nothing to do with my wishes, but a perception that editors with a real commitment to the encyclopedia are being systematically picked off, and that further work outside the area of my permaban (which I have quietly followed for 2 years), were this state of affairs to persist, was inappropriate.

Work here is voluntary. One reads extensively, and takes time to transfer one's acquired knowledge to topics for the benefit of a global readership. This means that if, while working on any article you come across information that makes the side you are identified as favouring look bad, this, for example, you don't hesitate an instant to include it, but put it in, because it is relevant and strongly attested in RS. You do not calculate the advantages of withholding it, or smile as you quietly ignore the unpalatable fact. It means that if you see news describing some desperate injustice visited on a people for whose historical condition you have some sympathy, you don't just rush to plunk it in to make the other side look bad. You examine the whole history and background, and, if you find out far more information concerning the glories of its Jewish past in RS than you find about the woes of its native peoples, as I did at Susya, you write up that research comprehensively, and add it, even if in doing so you, as an editor, know that the article will risk looking like a cultural justification for the side opposed to the local people whose plight worries you.

That incident played a key role in my permaban, one admin told me. I had written the history of the synagogue, and silence prevailed. I then added a few sad notes on the history of eviction and expropriation, and all sorts of objections flew my way, esp. from a notorious sock-team. Admins do not evaluate the overall picture; they have no hands-on intuitions about socking games yet to be uncovered; they examine the only behavioural evidence that counts, whether an editor is complying or not with that terse, rule-focused urbanity all are asked to acculturate themselves to ideally. The system is the way wiki works, and has its logic and advantages, though its underside is that it tutors the malicious to be twee as they pettifog, and run around with a smiley syntax, while wreaking havoc on RS by endlessly polite equivocation.

In a stray remark, I failed the test, and I cannot complain that I was asked to pay the penalty for that lapse. They were perfectly right technically. I would be insincere were I to hide the feeling that contextually, to deny a builder permission to finish the roof, after he has erected singlehandedly a substantial piece of form-work and bricked it in, on the grounds that he kicked some dust off the scaffolding that got into the eyes of a few bystanders who strongly objected to the makeshift loo in the backyard, was to ignore the big picture. It is certainly true that, given the intensive boredom editing difficult articles (I like difficult stuff) demands of editors, that one occasionally lapses into smart cracks to relieve one's exasperation. Of several hundred pages of extensive explanations I have had to write over 5 years to justify edits that seem obvious before fellow-editors who cannot see it, several lines are flagrantly flippant or acerbically venomous. If the patience of Job or sainthood is required under the Nacht and Nebel of obfuscation, I'm not your man for all wiki seasons. But I can trudge through the bleakest of wintry landscapes, and plant a fruitful crop once the sun shines.

To return to the point of my retirement. It struck me that, under present circumstances, I was being asked, as a donor with a comfortable income of knowledge, to contribute my tithe exclusively to wealthy causes (untroubled articles) while abstaining from donations of intellectual capital to the poor (i.e., articles in an area that is widely thought of by authoritative admins even as a 'time-suck', a 'crapfest', i.e., wikipedia's I/P ghetto where Dante's: lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate evinces the abiding truth). Superlatively good editors there, rigorous, precise, if they are on the wrong side can get subjected to a minuteness of surveillance and pettifogging complaint of an order few would put up with. I think this true of recent circumstances regarding one of the proposers. I retired because I think the 'behavioural' criteria used to evaluate people here is unfocused, or rather, it all boils down, 'faute de mieux, to scrutinizing p's and q's, and evaluating endless whingeing over technical cavils, while the essential behavioural evidence about an editor, his or her track record of dedication to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, article building and above all, respect for whatever quality sources say irrespective of what POV they appear to support, is ignored.

I only noticed that this was being discussed two days ago. I haven't commented till now because I thought anything I might say will only be jumped on as infringing my permaban. Perhaps it does. Still, since I have been described as consistently evincing behaviour so egregiously outrageous as to defy description, I really can't let that pass. l'd like to express here my appreciation of the expression of confidence in my bona fides by the two proposers, with whom, for the record, I have not discussed the present suggestion. I won't certainly be around for the summer, since work offline engages me. I don't think I should venture to say more than what I have said above. I am constitutionally incapable of trying to claw back a right I have lost by pleading at the bar. I leave it to others to review or reject the proposal. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

Cptnono and Michael C. Price have stated that Nishidani has ignored his topic ban multiple times. Given Nishidani's block log and the ARBPIA log of blocks and bans, I doubt that they can substantiate their claim. Given the ARBPIA log of blocks and bans and Cptnono's own block log, perhaps Cptnono in particular should be being a little less condemnatory.     ←   ZScarpia   16:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Thryduulf

I don't work in this area, and don't recall interacting with any of the named users, but the thought of a general amnesty scares me. The ending of topic bans and other restrictions should be considered on an individual basis taking into account the reasons it was imposed, when it was imposed, what they have been doing since the imposition, etc.

I equally don't think that a meta request like this is the right way to go about examining the merits of removing restrictions on specific editors in several different cases. It is of necessity either going to be an unwieldy list of sections containing comments for and against ending restrictions on several users; or it's going to be a complete mess with little structure making it very difficult to determine which comments are about which people. Chances are there will be few commenters who hold the same opinion about everyone discussed, and it would not surprise me if one or more arbitrators felt the need to recuse with regards to one or more of the people being discussed, but I would be quite surprised if any felt the need to recuse for all cases under discussion.

In short, I just can't see this working. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"General amnesty" is, I agree, not the right term. The idea is that only editors who meet the two criteria above - (1) have made substantive contributions and not just argued, and (2) have edited in a variety of topic areas - would be eligible for the amnesty. The criteria must be clear and objective, otherwise, as you say, we may find an Australian prison ship on our shores.

As I mentioned above, fears that the return of these editors could heat up the topic area are not shared by the editors who participated in the discussion. Our feeling is, on the contrary, bans and blocks have not contributed to improving the editing environment. This step, an act of trust and good faith, could, on the contrary, make things better rather than worse.

Also, this is not an irreversible act. If these guys act up again, they're out. So the risk is negligible. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG

I like the spirit of this proposal but I think the two conditions are not enough. Additional conditions are needed, in particular admission/remorse concerning past transgressions for which they were sanctioned. If an editor thinks he/she has done nothing wrong, then it is obvious they will do so again (they have done nothing wrong!). Basically if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have a regular appeal, not amnesty.

Statement by CarolMooredc

I have been generally suspicious of some of these bans, though reading the above does make the reasoning more clear. I basically agree with BorisG. The one time I got blocked after getting angry at harassment and attacking another editor, I felt very righteous and it took some real prodding to make me see for myself that the specific attack I made was just a variation on the ones that others have used against me. So when I understood that, I did feel remorse and learned better not to make that mistake again. So if a person keeps making the same mistake, they haven't "gotten it" yet. Maybe they just have to keep communicating with a sympathetic editor who can explain it again and again til they get it and then can have block/ban lifted. Also, if they keep slipping, they can always be reblocked as a "time out" for a week or two until they realize they went too far. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ynhockey

I am strongly against the proposal in its current form. The I–P area has the same problems today as it ever had, but each time one of the problematic editors is banned, the area becomes much nicer to edit, and gives good editors more time to concentrate on contributing content, instead of arguing. I think we should be lenient with editors who actually contribute to the encyclopedia, even if they make serious mistakes, but most of the editors permanently banned in I–P were banned after not one but a large number of serious mistakes. Most of them (except one editor whose ban was already lifted) have not shown that they can contribute constructively to the encyclopedia post-ban. Making small contributions here and there as some have is just not enough to justify bringing back more major problems to I–P. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another statement by Ravpapa

Okay, you have convinced me. I agree with Nableezy: let's limit this to Gilabrand and Nishidani. Do I need to open two new motions for this, or can we continue to discuss them together here? Because, in my mind, they are related - both outstanding editors, on opposite sides of the dispute, and their return is supported by editors from both sides. It would only do the project good. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen

I would support the lifting of the restriction on Nishidani. His three edits that have been picked out above are all over a year old. Nishidani has made thousands of edits in the interim. So, if he has a continuing pattern of problematic behaviour, it should be possible to find more recent issues. Also the three edits were brought to Arbcom's attention during the SAQ case in which Arbcom chose to act against the fringe theorists with whom Nishidani was in disagreement and not against Nishidani.

I don't know the context of the issues with Gila. My presence on Wikipedia dropped in the latter part of last year and has only picked up somewhat recently and I think I must have missed the drama around this. I know she was on the "other side" of the I/P business from me but she had not stuck in my mind as someone particularly problematic. I notice she has been indef blocked only recently for socking. If the problematic behaviour has been through the socks, I don't see what Wikipedia gains through the blocking of the main account. She is fairly prolific and if she has not recently been problematic with the main account then this seems to be a use of blocking as punishment rather than as a means of protecting Wikipedia. Maybe someone who has looked at things more recently could explain the logic of the block.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• First thought is that a general amnesty is not workable, that there's "too many and too much" to consider. SirFozzie (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with SirFozzie - I'd prefer to consider each case on its merits. Suggest putting in separate requests for the editors and include links to collaborative editing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• The two "sides" aren't the only victims of the acrimony in this area; the ability of casual editors to visit these topics has been damaged by the polarization here, and I'd need to see a widespread groundswell of support from uninvolved administrators who've had to deal with these conflicts to even consider such a motion. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm with Jclemens on this one - while it has been stressful for those involved, it's also had a significant impact on this topic as a whole. I would prefer to consider each case on it's own merits. Shell ^babelfish 01:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Concur pretty much with Jclemens. Risker (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Macedonia 2

Initiated by Fut.Perf. ☼ at 15:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Macedonia 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 25.3 (admin topic restriction)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• Remedy 25.3 ("Future Perfect at Sunrise will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Greece and Macedonia, or in relation to editors involved in that topical area.")
• Requested amendment: for the above topic restriction to be vacated

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I am still under this admin restriction imposed two years ago. A few minutes ago, I deliberately broke it in an act of IAR for the first time: I protected the talk page of a highly esteemed Greek fellow editor against the personal attacks of a block-evading Greek vandal anon, and blocked the IP. That brought it back to my mind that it really makes no sense for me to remain barred from these kinds of actions. I wish to be again able to use admin tools in Greek or Macedonian cases at least in routine matters: e.g. routine vandal fighting, routine blocks of returning obvious socks, image deletion issues, and non-contentious housekeeping. Reasons:

• Not being able to do these things is frustrating, leads to waste of time (my own time and that of other admins), and serves no purpose.
• There was never a strong reason for this restriction to begin with. I never had a pattern of problematic "involved" admin actions. The evidence in the ARBMAC2 case contains one single case of an objectionable block made in anger [5], which was entirely untypical of my previous three years of admin work in the area. Other evidence of (perceived or real) problematic behaviour was either unrelated to this topic area, or unrelated to my role as an admin, and therefore never made for a good reason for this specific form of sanction.
• The conflicts that sparked the 2009 case were successfully solved (not least through my own initiative, I dare say), and have settled down. My relation of trust and cooperation with other editors of all nationalities have long been back to normal, as witnessed by multiple cases of Greek, Albanian, Macedonian and Bulgarian editors contacting me for assistance on my talk page.
• The assumption that just because I took a strong stance in one political dispute with some Greek editors I will automatically be "involved" in every other dispute involving the same countries, let alone in every non-contentious situation involving them, was never correct. The Balkans are a big place; there are plenty of different, unrelated editing issues around. I am still as reliably impartial on most of them as I always was, and most crucially: I know where I am and where I am not.

What I would prefer is for the restriction to be simply vacated, to let me work under the standard rules of admin "non-involvement". I am quite happy to confirm that I will interpret these standard rules in an extra strict way for myself. Before the ARBMAC2 case, I tended to follow what I think was then normal practice among other admins in these areas too; for instance, I might have taken admin actions with respect to editors in dispute X, when I had also engaged in content editing involving debates with the same editors on some other issue Y previously. I am not aware this was ever problematic, rather the opposite: apart from the one exceptional block mentioned above, no admin action of mine in this area was ever cited as problematic for reasons of "involvedness" or partiality. However, I believe that, for better or worse, community standards in matters of "involvedness" have generally become more stringent over time since I first became an admin, and I am quite happy to be even more conservative about such things than I was. There's no need for me to do edit-warring blocks of established editors, ARBMAC enforcement decisions or anything of that sort on Greek/Macedonian issues.

Alternatively, I request at least an amendment to the restriction that will allow routine and non-controversial admin actions.

In response to Ncmvocalist below

There is a difference between "the Greek-Macedonian naming dispute" and "Greek and Macedonian topics". I was heavily involved in a bitter dispute about this one, narrowly circumscribed, political issue. That dispute is now solved, and most of the opponents in that dispute have since been banned or have left. Of course, I never would have taken administrative action in anything touching on them, so yes, those diffs are unrelated to my role as an admin. There are of course still some other issues in which I have been involved, off and on, and some editors that I have had significant disputes with. But this doesn't mean I'm unable to be neutral in each and every matter simply because it touches on either of these two countries. Just because I once had an issue with User:Avg about a country naming dispute, doesn't mean I couldn't assist User:Cplakidas in dealing with disruption about etymologies of Greek folk dance names [6], or couldn't help User:Dimboukas moving a page over a redirect, or couldn't delete a copyvio image of a Greek island, or couldn't interfere in an edit-war about Greek-Turkish relations, or couldn't block a returning vandal who sneakily falisifies climate statistics on Skopje [7]. It is also not true that there was "sufficient Community concern about [me] being involved" in this whole wide area. In fact, right until the very days of that Arbcom case I was frequently congratulated on how well I was doing my admin work in it, and editors from all nationalities of the area routinely turned to me for help and assistance. Except for one participant in the Arbcom case, who used such suspicions as a weapon against me, nobody in the whole wide area had previously ever made a case that my admin actions in the wider field were biased, and none of the dozens of admin actions logged right under the eyes of the committee at WP:ARBMAC were ever challenged, let alone overturned, on "involvement" grounds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

More to Ncmv.: If general involvement rules are as strict as you say – and I am not in need of lectures from you about what they are – then any extra restriction on me of this sort is redundant. Simply let me work under the normal rules, and if they amount to a far-reaching involvement status in some of the area, so be it. – About the history of the decision back in 2009: you are mistaken. I had indeed been willing to go for various forms of "routine-actions-only" limitations; the fact that they weren't chosen was largely a matter of behind-the-scenes tactical voting issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Respsonse to Coren

A "narrowing" to the Macedonia naming issue would be redundant/meaningless: it follows automatically from standard uninvolvement policy. It goes without saying that I don't use the tools there. I never did. This doesn't need an extra restriction. (Of course, if you decide to lift the restriction, you could add something worded as a clarifying note, along the lines of "It is understood that FPaS will act under strict observation of standard uninvolvement policy, and will in particular continue to abstain from admin actions in area XYZ". Just don't present it as if it was an extra limitation specially imposed on me, because it just isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by 125.162.150.88 (talk)

• RESTRICTIONS SHOULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY. Those that *are* should be ignored 125.162.150.88 (talk) Jack-Fuckin'-Merridew 06:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by jd2718

Absolutely support. FPaS helped guide the problems in this area to resolution; it is a better place to edit due in large part to his efforts. He was always tough with tendentious editors and nationalist edit-warriors, no matter which non-neutral POV they carried. There was some coarseness, and some confrontation, and those things led to the remedy. But from the first it was overkill. Today, two years later? There is no reason. Keeping FPaS out of the area no longer serves a purpose (if it ever did). Lifting the restriction would be welcome and would be a positive for WP. Jd2718 (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, in case it slips by Future Perfect at Sunrise is well-informed and highly knowledgeable about the languages, culture, history, and politics of the region. This will be, too, a great asset to the project. Jd2718 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to NYB. I am going to argue that the restrictions placed on Future Perfect at Sunrise in ArbMac2 were politically necessary, but may not have made good sense then, and absolutely do not now. There were a number of major findings of fact that led to the sanction against FPaS, and several background or minor ones, as well as several more proposals that did not pass.

1 That he was incivil or or insulting or intimidating on multiple occasions. Passed with no opposition, with what appears to be an eggregious, recent example as a separate finding.

2 That FPaS was an involved administrator. I believe that finding was controversial, and wrong. And I believe ArbCom's and the community's subsequent actions show it was wrong.

3 That he openly articulated his intent to editwar with a group of nationalist pov-pushing editors. You wrote at the time: I can understand Fut.Perf.'s exasperation with the situation, but this was not the right way to articulate it.

What of these?

1. FPaS remains brusque at times, but there are not ongoing diffs showing insults or incivility or intimidation.

2. Note particularly the comments at the rejected finding against using tools to enforce NPOV. FPaS, without a nationalist side in the dispute, was working against an entrenched clique. In fact, in the same case, the Committee unanimously adopted: It is potentially harmful to Wikipedia when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world political polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along political lines due to shared national backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared political views that contravene the application of Wikipedia policy or obstruct consensus-building. Mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy. Defending editorial positions that support political preferences typical of a particular national background is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing [8]. Where did you take it from? Afaik, FPaS's workshop contribution. He went further: If in a decision-making process, such as a debate, straw poll or "!voting" procedure, it becomes evident that editorial opinions are heavily and permanently polarised along real-world political frontlines, then it is legitimate to assign systematically less weight to the contributions of editors who are recognisably associated with such political camps, or in extreme cases to discount them entirely. An editor who is tasked with evaluating such a process and calling a consensus on it (for instance an administrator closing a move debate) should then give a rationale for their call including a description of the political division found in the debate and a reason for why certain sides in the debate must be discounted. [9]. The Committee did not immediately adopt this, but the ArbMac2 decision created a centralized discussion for the naming dispute, with users Fritzpoll, J.delanoy and Shell Kinney refereeing. And they asked about proposals with numerical support, but out of policy, and the members of the Arbitration Committee reached a decision, just days after closing the case, that echoed this important FPaS principle. Had these principles been in place in advance, I do not know that the Committee would have found FPaS to be an involved admin.

3. Future Perfect's declaration that, without a change in how WP handled nationalist edit-warring blocs, that he was ready to edit war, would not and could not be made today. Certainly we've seen nothing from him like it. But why would we? His and Chris O.'s actions and words may have been intemperate, may have violated WP guidelines and policies. But they led to a very effective case that changed the reality in the disputed articles in such a way that the tendentious editing that had been rampant was far tougher to maintain. Notice that there are only 6 enforcement actions logged so far.

I don't know that these reasons justified the sanction two years ago. I think there was some political logic to sanctioning Future Perfect that was outside of the discussion. In any event, the incivility probably was not the justification for the restriction on admin actions, and in any case no longer could be. You are already discussing the meaning of "involved" - but it looks like even two years ago it wasn't so clear, with an argument to be made that he wasn't, and that the committee, while making a positive finding, indirectly acknowledged at least the complexity of the issue. And the threat to edit war against the nationalist POV-pushing faction was made in an unusual context that does not exist today and is unlikely to exist again. The reasons for sanctioning FPaS, if they ever existed, are gone.

Brad, I would also ask that you not discount the users who are ready to jump in and 'vouch' for Future Perfect at Sunrise without diffs. He has earned a whole lot of respect specifically as an admin. That should count for something. Jd2718 (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am uninvolved or at best marginally involved. Jd2718 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions/comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Questions

Fut Perf, you state that "community standards in matters of "involvedness" have generally become more stringent over time since...[you] first became an admin, and...[you are] quite happy to be even more conservative about such things". You also said that you "never had a pattern of problematic "involved" admin actions. Other evidence of (perceived or real) problematic behaviour was either unrelated to this topic area, or unrelated to...[your] role as an admin, and therefore never made for a good reason for this specific form of sanction."

1. Is it your understanding that Community standards of involvement pertain to admin actions only, and that comments about a topic, or an editor involved in the topic, are not taken into consideration?
2. Is it your suggestion that all (or nearly all) of the diffs compiled in this and this finding are not in relation to Greek/Macedonian topics?
3. Generally, what remedy do you think is appropriate if there is sufficient Community concern about an admin being involved in a particular topic area?
4. What approach should ArbCom (and the Community) expect to see from you if somebody expresses a concern about something you have said/done? (Note: this question is deliberately broad; an adequate response may require you to describe more than one possible scenario). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Fut Perf, this is not like a mere topic ban where we can give an user some rope and hope for the best; there is more to it than that as it goes right to the heart of admin policy. Wikipedia:Administrator#Expectations of adminship are pretty plain in that there are higher standards of conduct for admins (and contrary to the impression being given here, this is not solely applicable while acting in the role of an admin). Additionally, involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute (with more stuff in the entire clause, all of which was crafted quite deliberately both as a protection for editors and admins - including about strong feelings, be it actual, or be it as perceived by others). Having reviewed the case, and some of the compelling parts of the evidence at the time (including this example: [10] [11]) and the fact that ArbCom were required to become involved, I don't think your primary request (of completely vacating that part of the remedy) is reasonable. It is applying admin policy as intended in practice and preventing further issues from arising; I don't see it as a punishment.

Still, I think there is merit in considering your alternative request (to allow routine and non-controversial admin actions) both because it may be a more appropriate application of admin policy and for the other reasons you've stated which are in support of that request (and ironically, there were at least a couple of arbitrators who would've supported this back then if you'd expressed a willingness to limit yourself to routine actions in this area at the time). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that despite what ought to be the obvious, there are occasions where a few admins can insist on matters being escalated before they agree to abide by this standard (either because they think they are right and don't want to let go, or because they are willing to gamble their bit over it, or because they want AC to tell them when they've overstepped the mark; the many admins who resolve such issues out short of such escalation do not need such direction/restriction). Given your responses at the time, it did not seem like you were in the latter category. If you had, as you say, expressed such a routine-only willingness, then the two arbs would have supported it as I said; I expect a majority/minority issue to arise on this occasion too ironically (apologies for not being clearer). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Or clearer still.

In light of Fut Perf's repeated false accusations that I called him a liar when I didn't, and given that his response to criticism/advice (which wasn't too major in the grand scheme of things) was to the effect of "please stop commenting to me anywhere", I do not see what has changed in his approach since 2008/2009. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by largely uninvolved roux

Fut.Perf is quite simply one of the best admins that Wikipedia has. He is resolutely fair, disdains to entertain bullshit, and as a consequence not only tends to see to the heart of the matter, he is then able to explain it clearly and concisely. When this is in the context of interpersonal dispute, he brings both sides closer together, and while he ensures that blame is apportioned appropriately--part of his disdain for bullshit is a likewise refusal to engage in the usual Wikipedia illusions and self-deceptions, one of which is 'when in doubt, silence whoever's loudest and blame everyone')--he doesn't do so in a way that unduly shames or demeans anyone involved; Fut.Perf actually takes the goddamn time to look into an issue and understand what is going on before wading in. He calls a spade a spade, and his tone can often appear to be brusque or curt. I think, however, it is because he tries to be as unambiguous as possible, which necessarily calls for crisp use of language.

I have quoted frequently on Wikipedia the line "It is generally considered preferable [...] for opinions to be preceded by knowledge", and Fut.Perf is one of the very few admins who takes the preferable route consistently, no matter the situation.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in his understanding of the issues and major players involved in nationalistic disputes, particularly (obviously) the ones covered by this case. As he himself stated above, the very fact that nationalistic editors on opposite sides of disputes see him as fair is evidence enough that his insight is not only desired in the area, but sorely needed. I for one trust, implicitly, Fut.Perf's promises to hold himself to a stricter standard than would be expected of another admin, and to step back if or when his involvement would be problematic. Wikipedia has enough of a problem with lack of continuity in institutional memory, particularly in the area of the hotter nationalistic disputes, where admins burn out quickly and walk away. No blame attached, obviously; but when we have an admin who understands the issues, understands the personalities and people involved, acts fairly and in the best interests of the project, is self-critical, and actually wants to work in the seething morass of the various international disputes, there is no good reason to hamstring that person. Or as Jack said above, unless we are talking about unrepentant and serial damage to the project, punishments should not last forever. Arbcom sanctions should have a specific end, or be of 'indefinite' duration ala blocks. This one has far, far outlived whatever purpose it once had.

Question for Jacurek

Diffs or it didn't happen. You can't make inflammatory allegations like that and not back them up. → ROUX ₪ 08:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Jacurek

STRONG OPPOSE - Fut Perf. in my opinion is one of the most biased administrator I have ever dealt with. He very often misemploy his administrating tools. Please allow some time to prepare a full statement. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Im a perfect example of a biased behaviour of Fut Perf. who blocked me on every occasion and picked on me exclusively. He also picked on other editors while turning a bling eye on others in many disputes, especially Polish-German related. The misbehaviour and abuse of his administrating tools in this area is quite impressive. I'm in a process of preparing a full statement with many examples. While I can not dispute possible positive behaviour of Fut Perf. in other topic areas because I know him only form Arbcom case and as a "trigger happy" administrator who is often more that unfair. Im sure my statement will show a different "face" of Fut Perf. some editors know. Thanks --Jacurek (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Newyorkbrad: In this case I will present just 3 examples of his biased approach and lack of fairness when Fut Perf was involved in Polish-German conflict areas. I will have it ready by the end of tomorrow. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My experience with Fut Perf. was very negative. He was an involved [12] party here. [13]. After the case was over Fut Perf. started to bully and block editors he did not like or/and protect/unblock [14] editors who were his allies in the EEML case. I was among few he focused the most. He started to block me for the slightest offense and his blocks were severe. He blocked me for 1 month[15] for this conversation [16] with the editor who was harassing me [17]. The fact that the editor called me "an idiot" in the same conversation [18] was completely ignored by Fut Perf. My block was reduced by other administrator [19] and Fut Perf was criticized for his decision in the private email accidentally sent to me [20]. Fut Perf blocked me for 3 months [21] for a private message in Polish language I left on my friends talk page [22]. He later reported ONLY me [23] for edit warring ignoring the fact that there were other people edit warring at the same time [24]. Fut Perf even proposed an unsuccessful community ban to ban me from Wikipedia [25]. These are just few examples but there are more. From my perspective Fut Perf was not fair to me and he used his power to block and intimidate me. Hope this explains why I so strongly oppose giving him extra power in other topic areas. He used this power against me and I believe he will use it against others--Jacurek (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Russavia

I would support FPaS' motion above, and agree with his reasoning to have the entire sanction revoked in its entireity. It is my experience that FPaS is a neutral (as one can humanly be) administrator who deals heavily in contentious editing areas. We need more neutral admins in areas like him. Editors who have a problem with FPaS are in my experience POV-edit warriors, sockpuppeteers, and generally pains in the arse who are usually eventually topic banned or indef blocked, who more often than not evade their bans. FPaS should be given the freedom to admin in contentious areas as we need more admins like him acting in such areas, the Greek-Macedonian area being one of these. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? ^{Two pints of lager} 09:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ZjarriRrethues

• AFAIK FutureP hasn't abused his admin rights and has maintained his neutrality, so I fully support his request. He should have full admin rights regarding all issues, because he's one of very few admins who understand the nature of the Balkans disputes and don't focus only on the technical aspects(3RR) of the issues.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional Comment: I don't know how accurate these uninvolved labels users are applying to themselves are since for example Vecrumba, who considers FutureP judgemental was blocked less than a month ago(block ended a few days ago) by FutureP because of a topic ban breach, so I suggest other users not apply such labels to themselves especially when they're heavily involved.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Vecrumba

Comment. While I am not sure I can agree with Jacurek on outright bias, I regret that I have found Future Perfect to be judgemental in their statements and actions and discourse with editors they believe to fit in a particular WP:PIGEONHOLE. Any editor on the receiving end of same I suspect may well use the term "bias." I would like to see what Future P. offers regarding separating their content-related and admin-related activity. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Volunteer Marek

Request for clarification

(Note: I am using the term "uninvolved" in the same sense that FP@S is using it - I do not edit Macedonia related articles. I am NOT using the term "uninvolved" in the same sense that ZjarriR is using the term - I have had disagreements with FP@S in the past. In fact obviously part of the problem here is with these two completely different usages of the term. Which is particularly ironic considering that ZjarriR is supporting FP@S's "uninvolvedness" while at the same time calling other commentators "involved" for basically the same reason - either FP@S is "uninvolved" but then so are these other commentators, or he is "involved" and so are these other commentators. You can't have it both ways. Perhaps a motion which clarifies this (extremely vague and trouble causing) notion of "uninvolvedness" by the ArbCom could help here.)

Anyway. I'm at a bit of a loss here, both as to the purpose of the original sanction and this appeal as well. It is my understanding that FP@S is in fact active in editing Macedonia related articles (creating new ones, participating in talk page discussions, etc.). As such, I don't quite get why a specific sanction barring him from using his admin tools in this area is necessary. OBVIOUSLY, if a person is actively editing a topic area, THEY SHOULD NOT use their admin tools in that topic area. This is basic policy and practice, and does not necessitate a specific sanction. So the original sanction seems to just reitarate what is expected of admins anyway. Hence it is neither necessary nor should it be "appealed" - which would seem to be an explicit permission to both participate in content conflicts in a topic area AND use admin tools to enforce a particular viewpoint in the same topic area.

I've got some specific opinions on the details of this request but I don't see a point in expressing them until it is clarified first of why an admin who's involved in editing content in a particular topic area would be allowed to use his block button in that area in the first place, sanction or no sanction.

Having said all that, were I at all cynically inclined, I might think that it'd be better for me personally, if FP@S abused his admin powers in a topic area which I don't edit - like Macedonia - rather than a topic area which I do edit. So, were I at all cynically inclined, I might support this appeal, with apologies to all Balkan editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(As a point of clarification, I don't think anyone would ever have a problem with FP@S taking administrative action against obvious vandals, as those kinds of actions are usually excluded from these kinds of "topic" sanctions).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

I think that this is ripe for at least narrowing; Future Perfect seems to have gotten the message on that one point and to be doing ongoing good solid work in all the other areas.

I don't see an ongoing preventive function necessary here. He's just not a problem.

If this is revoked and he goes off the deep end plenty of us can apply the loving mallet of correction either as admins or taking him back here for an un-revocation. His behavior doesn't seem likely to require that, though.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

I agree that the current restriction is now over-broad. Just say "Lifted, and FPaS is reminded that he should take care not to use any admin tools to promote or demote any specific viewpoints on any articles directly related to the original decision." Clear and clean solution, In my opinion. Collect (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Deacon of Pndapetzim

This kind of ruling is further evidence that, when it comes to these kinds of editorial issues at least, ArbCom are often the biggest problem of all. "We don't really undertand what went on, so we'll punish everyone and that'll guarantee we're at least partly right". No, not good enough. It's like killing half the soldiers in Europe c. 1943 and expecting war to stop cause you did it fairly: won't stop the war, and probably won't produce a different outcome. FPAS is not even a warring user; he is one of the good guys. Editors such as FPAS should be the ones evaluating ArbCom, not the other way around; and if encyclopedic reader-orientated values dominated Wikipedia the way socially-based editor-orientated values currently do, guys like him would be in charge. And if that were the case then the guys that cause all these problems would be spending their internet time on appropriate ideologue forums elsewhere.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

PS, can someone email me and explain why so many EMMLers have crowded here to attack FPAS on a case they weren't involved in? I have missed the user-history here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved MyMoloboaccount

Oppose. FP@S is one of the most engaged and emotional administrators I have encountered. I do not believe it is wise to abandon one of the core principles of Wikipedia, especially to an editor so heavily engaged. Administrator conduct states "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". I am afraid FP@S has been lacking in that department in several cases.Therefore narrowing restrictions doesn't seem a wise choice to make.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved Horologium

(I identify myself as marginally involved because I don't edit Balkan/Greece-related articles, but I was deeply involved in the arbitration case.)

FPaS should be released from the restrictions, which were overkill in the first place. After two years, during which most of the more problematic editors have either disappeared or been kicked to the curb, there is no reason to prevent one of our most knowledgeable editors from using his tools to deal with routine vandals and trolls in an area which seems to have a high incidence of each. Horologium (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Miacek

A quick look at the comments by Russavia and Biophys, two users who don't agree that often, has further strengthened my own perception of FPaS as a calm and objective enough sysop. His decisions on our often turbulent Eastern Europe area as a rule facilitate the work of constructive editors. That a sock puppeteering long-term editwarrior with a block log like this might disagree, seconded by a diehard nationalist flamer and hatemongerer convinces me further, that the sysop concerned has actually been doing a great job. It's not that FPaS is having a problem with such editors - the thing is that the whole community has problems with users like these. Thus, I support this request. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • General note to a few commenters: remarks along the lines of "I support the amendment request, he's a great administrator" or "I strongly oppose the request, he's unfair" etc., without reasons or details, don't help us much. We don't need hundreds of diffs, but please explain the reasons for whatever position you take, giving some specifics. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Future, would you be amenable to a narrowing of the restriction to the naming dispute proper rather than outright vacating it at this time? — Coren ^(talk) 13:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Either a narrowing, or a lifting - with the "caveat" suggested by FPAS [26] - seems reasonable. –xeno^talk 14:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think a narrowing would be the best option here. SirFozzie (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Lifting the restriction seems reasonable at this point. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion

Remedy 25.3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 ("Future Perfect at Sunrise temporarily desysopped") is lifted, effective immediately. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is reminded to abide by the policies guiding administrative acts in areas where one is involved, and to apply particular care to avoid conflict in areas related to Greece and Macedonia.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 16:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
3. SirFozzie (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
4. –xeno^talk 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Well-worded; full support for each aspect of the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Shell ^babelfish 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Risker (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

---

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2

Initiated by Andries (talk) at 17:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Ed_Poor_2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
2. user:Ed Poor has not violated these guidelines for articles in category:Unification Church
3. The talk page topic ban should be lifted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator), but uninvolved: I rarely edited Unification Church related subjects, except The Making of a Moonie
• Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Note:Kafziel claims that he is uninvolved, but user:Andries disagrees. Andries (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC) closed discussion started by KillerChihuahua's request for a topic ban by fulfilling this request.
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) requested topic ban
• Kitfoxxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Borock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Steve Dufour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Exucmember (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Marknw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Wndl42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
• Wolfview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles

Andries (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Ed Poor (diff of notification of this thread on Ed Poor's talk page)
• Kafziel (diff of notification of this thread on Kafziel's talk page)
• KillerChihuahua (diff of notification of this thread on KillerChihuahua's talk page)
• Kitfoxxe
• Hrafn
• Cirt
• Borock
• Steve Dufour
• Exucmember
• Marknw
• Wndl42
• Wolfview

Amendment 1

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2&diff=330919237&oldid=330918451
• Strike out talk page for articles in the[ category:Unification Church. User:Ed Poor is still not allowed to edit the article pages in the category:Unification Church

Statement by user:Andries

I formally request the arbcom to lift the talk page topic ban for Unification Church related articles of user:Ed Poor. Ed Poor is well known to be a committed long time follower of the Unification Church which he openly admits. I can understand that and why he has a article topic ban for the articles related to the Unification Church. However it seems that Ed Poor does not even dare to edit some rather unrelated talk pages, because of the possible consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=431407881

I check the talk pages of several Unification Church related talk pages and I saw no walls of texts or insults by Ed Poor. As far as I can see he has behaved constructively there or at least does no harm. Please understand that committed long time followers can give excellent comments on article talk pages. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unification_Church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Unification_Church_members

I know what I am talking about, because I am a critical former member of the Satya Sai Baba cult/new religious movement. I can give useful comments there. My topic ban was changed into an article only topic ban and I am now free to comment on the talk page. I can say that it was a relief to be able to comment there, because the article is about what was a big part of my life for nine years. I do not think I have done any harm with my comments and I have helped with sources.

I never had serious problems with Ed Poor regarding cults/new religious movements, though we worked together years ago. And we had some reason to get into a fight with each other because he was a current member and I am an apostate (critical former member).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andries&diff=431409793&oldid=430884030

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=430551195

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=431671329&oldid=431650555 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=330961567#User:Ed_Poor_-_POV_and_COI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Thanks in advance to the arbcom members, who volunteered to do a difficult job, but have little chance to make all people happy.

Sincerely yours,

user:Andries Andries (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Update 01 by Andries: two views of Ed Poor's edits

I think that there are two views on Ed Poor's edits which determine what diffs are relevant and who is involved in this matter.

1. Ed is a generally competent editor, but he does not see the limits of his competence and is biased in some subjects which has caused problems

2. Ed is a generally biased and incompetent editor who cannot see the difference between good and bad sources. As a result of that he has caused problems in some articles. In other subjects he has not (yet) caused problems.

If you believe in nr. 1, like myself, then his bad edits on climate change etc. do not matter and people not involved in Unification Church edits are not involved in this amendment. Andries (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Andries to request by user:Bishonen

I think the amendment is necessary because

1. It is important not to discourage contributors in Wikipedia by giving them unnecessary editing restrictions
2. Ed Poor can help to prevent mistakes in the article. Reputable source contain sometimes blunders. For example in the case of my former religious group, the New York Times (Keith Bradsher A Friend in India to all the world) made a blunder (leader supposedly silent in public) and both proponents and opponents agreed with each other not to include this statement in the article. I had a mistake corrected in the lead of the article Sathya Sai Baba by extensive arguing on the talk page. The article was linked to on the main page of Wikipedia, just after he passed away.
3. Ed Poor has access to reputable writings about the Church (among others by David Bromley), so he can help with sources. (I personally disagree with Bromley's hurtful negative generalizations about apostates, but I understand that they have to be seen in the context of the great American cult scare of the 1970s and 1980s)

Andries (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Andries to user:Orangemarlin

Your reply is off topic. My request for amendment is only about the talk pages of Unification Church related subjects. Andries (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to declare what is on topic or not? It would seem that Mr. Poor's ongoing pattern of edits is highly relevant here. It seems proper to leave such decisions to the arbitrators. --69.165.135.150 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you 69.165. 135.150. Saves me from leaving an uncivil and very pointy reply. Now get registered around here. We need good editors who stand up to the POV.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Andries to comment by user:KillerChihuahua

ad 1. There are no diffs of bad behavior on Unifcation Church related talk pages. So the offense level was and will be zero if the topic talk page ban is lifted.

ad 2. For many obscure or foreign subject, one could find mainstream English language sources that make mistakes of blunders. But if better sources that contradict these statements then Ed Poor can help to get the blunders out if all contributors (both opponents and adherents of the Unification Church) agree. This is not breaking Wikipedia's core policies but using common sense and discernment when editing. The job of the contributors/editors is not to copy every statement in seemingly reputable sources.

Andries (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Andries to comment by user:JoshuaZ and Ed Poor

JoshuaZ and Ed Poor, I thought and still think that the only persons involved are the ones that dealt with the topic ban of the Unification Church. I also posted on the NRM notice wikiproject talk page. Nevertheless, I will inform the listed contributors who edit or edited the Unification Church related articles. Andries (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC) JoshuaZ, you did not complain about Ed Poor's edits regarding the Unification Church, so I thought and still think that you are not involved. Who else do you think is involved apart from the users listed by Ed Poor?Andries (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement user:Ed Poor

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

In the whole time I've been topic-banned from Unification Church articles and talk pages, I have been asked many times to comment. Having thought that enough time might have passed, I responded as follows here, pointing out that I would be willing to join the discussion if no one objected. Unfortunately, this was not taken as a request to have the ban lifted but as an evasion of the ban.

Aside from that, I've simply been staying away. I'd like to return to editing, or at least to commenting when invited. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Ed Poor to Bishonen's list request

• Invitation to join AfD disscussion on Cult checklist. [27] Ironically, I was going to argue we keep it, even though it presents my church in a bad light. This, of course, is simply because I want Wikipedia to present each side of controversies fairly - regardless of what side I'm on.
• I've just suggested merging True Family into List of Unification Church members since the information in the first is mostly aready in the second. Please discuss if you like: Talk:List of Unification Church members#Merge in True Family. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC) [28]
• Hi Ed. Cirt and I has just started a discussion on the talk page about removing some of the extra examples and trivia from the page. Please join in if you care to. Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC) [29]

This is only three (not many), but if people are going to invite my input, why not let me respond? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Orangemarlin

NO fucking way. I could list another 25 recent edits of Ed Poor that would show his bias, quote-mining, use of non-reliable sources, and lack of understanding of NPOV, but to excuse date rape, to quote mine a right-wing Xtian article on contraception, and to try to state that there isn't a vast, solid, 99% support in the scientific community for Evolution is solid proof that Ed Poor should stay at Conservapedia, where, I am sure, his style fits well with their anti-science bias. Really, Ed Poor shouldn't be editing here at all, but I leave that to others.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Request by Bishonen

I used to spar with Uncle Ed on these matters a long time ago, and am dubious about the usefulness of the proposed amendment. Specifically, Uncle Ed gives an example above (one) of an editor who invited him to comment on a talkpage, but describes the overall situation as "I have been asked many times to comment." Can we see a reasonably healthy list of some of those many times, please, Ed? That might amount to "Evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary". Nothing on this page has provided such evidence so far. Aunt Bishonen talk 20:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

Comment on Andries' comment to me

I don't get it, sorry. I asked specifically for a list of examples (in other words, diffs) of some of the "many times" Ed Poor has been asked to comment, hoping that either you, Andries, or Ed would oblige, but that hasn't happened yet. Not sure what you're commenting on, but it's not on what I asked. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC).

Comment by 110.139.190.67 aka 125.162.150.88 ak by few former usernames

I've no involvement in any of this; have not even read it all... but a comment above by Andries caught my eye, and it warrants highlighting:

It is important not to discourage contributors in Wikipedia by giving them unnecessary editing restrictions.

110.139.190.67 (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:KillerChihuahua

I think the amendment is unwise because

1. It is important not to encourage known POV pushers and edit warriors by removing controls which have clearly worked, keeping problems with a chronic violator down to what is virtually a no-offense level. Kudos to Ed for trying to follow the restrictions; I'm glad they are working.
2. According to the requester, "Ed Poor can help to prevent mistakes in the article. Reputable source contain sometimes blunders." - meaning, Ed will change articles to align with non-reputable sources? Not a good idea. I remind Andries that Verifiability, not Truth, is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia.
3. Ed is welcome to contribute to non-restricted areas of the encyclopedia, until and unless such time as he indulges in his POV pushing to such an extent as he gets topic banned from them as well. I am sorry to sound so cynical, but past history, along with OM's linked edits above lead me to believe that is the path Ed might well be on regarding such subjects as evolution, global warming and contraception - all of which he continues to try to skew towards his own narrow view - see his edits of 13 May 2011, for example, trying to insert a creationist POV into Climatology. OTOH, I will be pleasantly surprised if he sees the light, mends his ways, and figures out what NPOV actually means. If that unlikely event occurs, I would happily support an easing of restrictions. It has not happened yet. If ArbCom in their wisdom decide to give this repeat offender a nth chance, I recommend leaving intact Remedy 1.1 that "He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking." so that if this gallant (or foolhardy, depending upon one's persuasion) attempt does not lead to improving the encyclopedia, but rather to the same tired tactics we've seen from Ed since the beginning, the mistake can be easily rectified.

Statement by William M. Connolley

I'm in favour of lifting the sanction. It is time-expired. I'd also be in favour of the sanction being reimposable (with a lower bar than normal, preferrably without recourse to arbcomm) if Ed Poor abuses the lifting. The main reason is the time-expired nature. Another reason is (that despite the faults in his editing viewpoint) Ed is generally very good about not edit warring, so taking out his problematic edits isn't hard.

Another reason is diffs like the one KC puts forward [30] (or perhaps the ones that OM does, though I'm not judging those): Ed has the same problems at other articles, and the topic ban (obviously) doesn't help there. But no-one (as far as I can see) is arguing that his ban should be tightened.

William M. Connolley (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I'm familiar with Ed's work in other areas (mainly climate-related articles). Granted he tends to make the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, but he's reasonably civil and doesn't edit war. I'd favor a lifting of the sanction with the knowledge that it could be swiftly reimposed at the discretion of any uninvolved admin if problems arise. (This is more or less in agreement with Killer Chihuahua's point 3.) Third Cousin Twice Removed Boris (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hodja Nasreddin

Support lifting the sanctions, basically per William and Boris. I saw his edits in several areas, and he is definitely a highly dedicated and well-intended contributor. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by JoshuaZ

I haven't given any real thought to the matter. I'm just noting my confusion about which editors Ed thought should be alerted. I filed the RfAr leading to Ed's sanctions but had not been notified. KC on the other hand has had almost no connection to that and is notified? This confuses me. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't file the amendment. Andries did, and I was puzzled about the same point. Shouldn't the regular contributors to the UC-related article have been notified? Like Kitfoxxe, Hrafn, Cirt, Borock, Steve Dufour, Exucmember, Marknw, Windl42 . . .? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement user:Hrafn

I must admit to being in three minds on this proposed amendment. Which is why, although I had been aware of this proposed amendment for some time, I had been holding off on offering a comment.

One the one hand, I have always found Ed Poor to be a problematical editor -- with an annoying mix of obdurate content (an inability to grasp WP:V and WP:RS, combined with a pervasive tendency to attempt to give equal validity to his personal views) and stylistic (a love of WP:QUOTEFARMs and a preference for bullet-points over prose) blindspots. On the other hand, I am not particularly comfortable with a permanent topic ban on anybody that extends to talk pages (it is after all not a restriction we normally impose, even on the most WP:COI editors). That smacks a bit too much of censorship. However, on the third hand, I can easily see how the inability to learn from his mistakes that Ed has demonstrated on article space could easily result in disruption even on talk (and can remember actually encountering such disruption on what was then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design (now Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Creationism) at a time when Ed was topic-banned from Intelligent design [31][32] -- though that is some time ago now -- though nothing I have seen of Ed Poor since indicates to me that he has reformed).

Therefore although I would like to support this amendment, I cannot bring myself to to do so, even only extending to UC-related talk pages, without some fairly heavy behavioural probation attached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

Essentially I agree with comments about this issue by Bishonen (talk · contribs), Orangemarlin (talk · contribs), and KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement Steve Dufour

I am also a Unification Church member, I have known Ed well in various online forums but have not met him in person. We often have had differences of opinion about the WP UC articles, since in my opinion his writing is too much addressed to "insiders" and sometimes intended to provoke controversy -- as others have mentioned. I'm not sure what he feels about mine. I do think letting him comment on talk pages is reasonable. He often makes valuable contributions there. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Waiting for more statements/Discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm torn here. I'll be honest, I think that the amendment is problematic as I think there's a high probability of unhelpful behavior reoccurring. I'd be willing to go with what David F and Coren stated below for a lifting of the talk page ban, with the caveat that lapses in behavior will see it reinstated quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Also waiting for any additional input. Based on the comments so far I am leaning against the proposed amendment at this time, as I am not persuaded that the problems that led to the topic-ban here have been addressed. I note with interest that the remedy that was being enforced here, from 2006, is of a type we have not used much, if at all, in more recent years; it may be useful to bear it in mind where relevant in future cases. I also would say in passing that while I understand that arbitration-related requests sometimes bring out strong feelings, and I do not favor enforcing an artificial or excessive veneer of faux civility, it will be appreciated if all commenters would maintain a reasonable degree of decorum on this page. Strident, nasty rhetoric does not help us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm all for lifting the talk page ban, with the understanding that any relapse is grounds for it being reinstated speedily. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think that a lift of the talk page ban would not be unreasonable at this point. — Coren ^(talk) 13:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Why not then - trial lifting, and any complaints of disruption that are upheld (and a low threshold of disruption will be judged to be disruptive) will result in revocation of amendment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion

The scope of the topic ban placed upon Ed Poor (talk · contribs) by Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 2009-12-10[33] as a result of enforcement of remedy 1.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 is amended to "any article related to Category:Unification Church, not including associated talk pages", effective immediately. Ed Poor is reminded that further disruption related to this topic may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
2. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
4. I can accept this given that we are discussing only talkpages and given the last sentence, which hopefully won't become relevant, though it will be there if it is. (There is an argument that reimposition of remedies under the decision could come through an Arbitration Enforcement request rather than from the Committee, but I'll let that go unless the nuance interests other arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Can give this a try. Shell ^babelfish 01:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys

Initiated by Hodja Nasreddin (talk) at 14:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

• Remedy 3
• Remedy 4

Amendment 1

• Biophys topic_banned
• I ask to review topic ban after one year, as suggested in the original decision by the Committee

Statement by Biophys

I would like to apologize for contributing to disruption and ask to lift this topic ban after one year. During this year I followed the rules and was not involved in a single edit warring incident. I was never reported to noticeboards and received no blocks and no warnings, even though I occasionally commented at AE and debated with people who edit in conflict areas (AA, RI and IP). I promise to follow all the rules in the future, work collaboratively, and do not jeopardize work of other editors who contribute positively in the area.

During this time I stayed out of trouble by following several rules:

1. Never revert other editors back if they reverted your edits. Start talking to clarify the situation if it is not already clear. Go edit other articles if consensus cannot be found after brief discussion. More advanced stages of dispute resolution (such as RfC) should never be used because they only increase tensions.
2. Do not edit any articles in a state of active editorial dispute between multiple parties. This is waste of time, although occasionally commenting at talk page or making a single compromise edit may be acceptable.
3. Never report other users at AE/ANI. If others started something, try to comment in a reasonable and neutral fashion. Do not comment about users with whom you have a current content dispute.
4. Do not be too active in any "difficult area". Leave the area at the first sign of trouble.

• I will have no problem with editing in the Russia/SU area based on these principles, and especially #1 ("no editorial conflicts"). This area is a desert, with many neglected or non-existing articles and few active contributors. Yes, there are several flash points, like "communism-terrorism", Baltic republics or "mass killings under communist regimes", but I would be an idiot to start editing them (#2). Let me emphasize: I have absolutely no hard feelings with regard to anyone who edits in this area including participants of this case. I also feel very comfortable talking with anyone who wants to discuss content matters or avoiding anyone who does not.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Amendment 2

• Biophys restricted
• I ask do not enact this additional preemptive restriction for the second year.

Statement by Biophys

During this year I did not make a single revert that could be interpreted as edit warring. If I start edit warring again, someone will bring me to AE next day. This is obvious. I am asking about this amendment because I want to put the problems behind, return to normal editorial process and be again an editor in good standing. I do not care about DYKs, barnstars and other signs of recognition. But it is extremely important for me to have the same rights as every newbie. It hurts to be declared a permanent policy violator. I can not be very active in this project if I am no longer welcome. That's why I was not really active during last six months since the rejection of my previous request for amendment. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

response to Nanobear

I would like to remind that subject of this discussion is only review of my behavior during last year. Whatever had happened before (some diffs are dated 2007) belongs to drop the stick. But none of my recent comments violate any policy. The diffs to examine my alleged "mindset" are taken out of context and therefore do not support your assertions, but my "mindset" is not really relevant, as long as I follow all rules, and no one officially complained about my comments during this year, including AE administrators.

My behavior is impossible to predict? Oh no, I am very much predictable when it comes to sanctions or even recommendations by Arbcom. In fact, I followed exactly three previous recommendations (even if they did not mention my name or were not included in final decision): not talking about certain subjects, not communicating with Commodore Sloat and unsubscribing immediately from EEML, and I respected this sanction by editing in allowed ares and not being involved in any edit warring. If "Biophys - once again - returns to his old disruptive ways", he will be topic-banned at AE next day, and it will be no one to blame except Biophys himself. That was my first official sanction by Arbcom, and I am not going to be sanctioned again. Believe me. Yes, I certainly admit making a lot of mistakes in the past. But can we just WP:FORGIVE and drop the stick please, just as I am trying to do?

response to DonaldDuck

Yes, I probably should not be editing these articles, but two first diffs are minor Geography/Ethnography edits, 3rd diff is about a British historian (this diff includes nothing about Russia), and 4th diff is about work by a former Russian scientist in US (the edit includes nothing about Russia).

response to Paul Siebert.

Thank you for your last words. There is no such thing as EE Mailing List for almost two years, or at least I know nothing about it. I do not have off-wiki communications with any former members of the list. I have no interest in struggling or creating alliances with people previously involved in EE disputes. Yes, I would be involved in this subject area. Yes, I agree with you that constant references to the EEML are hardly polite and civil. But then why constantly make these references?

Statement by Nanobear

Before his topic ban, Biophys was one of the most biased and disruptive editors I have ever seen. Has he reformed? Difficult to know, although there are worrying indications that Biophys is planning to revert to his old ways after the ban is lifted.

What information do we have to judge this appeal?

Previous promises. We know that Biophys has made several promises before[34][35], but has always broken his promise and resumed his disruptive activities after the threat of sanctions has dissipated.[36][37] During the WP:EEML case, the wise ArbCom gave Biophys the benefit of doubt (although Biophys was a core member of the EEML and heavily participated in the group's campaigns.[38]) Soon after this decision, Biophys once again returned to massive disruption, quickly performing over 65 reverts in the first months of 2010.[39]

Point-of-view. There are clear indications that Biophys still has his old strong POV. [40] (yes, this is Biophys' "dissident" - a notorious banned edit warrior and sockpuppeteer.) We also know that Biophys' still advocates for the community banned HanzoHattori [41] (HanzoHattori is "best WP editor" according to Biophys[42]) after proxying for him in early 2010. [43][44]

Contributions outside his POV area. We know that Biophys is able to edit positively and constructively in non-Russian topic areas, where doesn't have a strong POV - as he has admirably done during his topic ban.

Should this appeal be granted or declined? I have no recommendation. My only wish is that ArbCom take full responsibility for their decisions and stop looking for scapegoats when things go wrong. In the Russavia-Biophys case, three editors were banned by ArbCom because they reverted Biophys' disruptive edits. One of them, User:Ellol, has now even left the project, partly because of the topic ban prevented him from participating in the only topic area that interested him, and partly due to Biophys' constant harassment of him.[45] The possibility of Biophys taking yet more editors down with him if released from jail is worrying indeed.

If this appeal is granted, and Biophys - once again - returns to his old disruptive ways, it is the ArbCom we have to blame. And if he doesn't - then we have the ArbCom to thank. Nanobear (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Three further points:

• 1. It's interesting that Biophys is appealing that the 1RR restriction which was supposed to come after the topic ban, is not enacted (please note the slightly misleading wording in his appeal). No one needs to edit war, so why is he asking for the ability? It is not far-fetched to assume this means Biophys plans to return to edit warring once again as he has done previously.
• 2. It's irresponsible of the ArbCom to release Biophys from his topic ban and then rely on other people to report him if the resumes his disruption. History has shown that everyone who reports an EEML member to a noticeboard is immediately attacked in the harshest possible way - regardless of the whether the report has merit or not. Piotrus' comment on this page is a good example: it displays all the hallmarks of these personal attacks. I'd like to encourage the ArbCom to study it thoroughly and also look at previous admin board and AE reports to see what kind of problem we're dealing with here.
• 3. Biophys claims that he stopped tag-teaming but in reality this is not the case. Look at his courting of User:Mbz1: Mbz1 has had no connection to the EE topic area to the users in it. Courting him was started in 2010 by Vecrumba [46] (related to this [47]) and was continued by Biophys.[48][49][50] Biophys' teaming with Mbz1 has got to the point that third-party editors are complaining about it. [51]. After the previous amendment request Biophys tag-teamed at three arbitration enforcement requests: [52][53][54][55][56]. Nanobear (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

[57] -> Pot calling the kettle black. Seriously, such continued bad faith/harassment (negative comments on one's "opponents") instead of trying to mend fences is what makes such wiki conflicts persist. If editors leave the project, it is because they are constantly thrown mud at (I've written more on that here).

This seems quite simple to me. As Biophys sais himself, if he errs again, he will be punished, and likely, with a harsher sanction. That sounds reasonable, and I would not be commenting on that, other than that while everybody deserves a chance, they also deserve not to be constantly bathed in mud and feathers. Credit where due, WP:AE application of WP:BOOMERANG I've seen in the past year or so was refreshing. It would be nice if good faith and civility were to be more actively enforced on other arbitration pages, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I regret that Nanobear in particular has seen this as an opportunity to relitigate and escalate past conflict and accusations of conspiracies and hope that is seen for the unconstructive and disruptive behavior it is and is dealt with appropriately.

Hodja Nasreddin has been scrupulous in their Wiki-related behavior from all I have seen over the past year. Additionally, he has not contacted me in any way off-Wiki or on-Wiki to solicit any sort of behavior on my part other than their occasional friendly on-Wiki advice I should get a life (that is, step away). Any uninvolved review of Hodja Nasreddin's activities will confirm that. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie, Nanobear has not been active at all editing in the area of contention. His comments here should not be taken as polarization in any topic area (which ergo requires protection from Hodja Nasreddin). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 07:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, I thank you for your willingness to AGF at the outset of your statement. I regret that you saw fit to add speculation clouding the issue at hand. I do not lobby to restrict your editing on a content base inclusive of edits by other editors with whom I believe you share a similar editorial POV. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement mbz1

I am saddened by user:Nanobear comments. All differences presented in that user comments are more than a year old, all of them are referring to the edits made by Biophys before they were sanctioned.

I believe responding a complex question, if Biophys's topic ban should be lifted, is as easy as responding a few simple questions:

1. Does Biophys have the right to appeal their ban now? The answer to this question is: "Yes"
2. Has Biophys admitted that the sanctions were fair? Yes, they have. The editor writes in this very request "I would like to apologize for contributing to disruption.
3. Has Biophys demonstrated their ability to contribute constructively to the other areas of the project during their topic ban? The answer to this question, is :"Yes".
4. Has Biophys violated his topic ban ever since they were banned? According to the editor block log, the answer to this question is: "No".
5. Is Biophys promising to behave in a feature? Yes, they do "I promise to follow all the rules in the future, work collaboratively, and do not jeopardize work of other editors who contribute positively in the area."

According to all of above I believe Biophys's topic ban should be lifted. If the members of ArbCom have some doubts (and I see no reasons for such doubts) the editing restrictions could be lifted gradually. For example an editor is allowed to make contributions to the articles discussion pages for 2-3 weeks, then the topic ban is lifted completely, then in a month 1RR is lifted.

Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

response to Nanobear

I was so astonished by your unbelievable assumption of bad faith that at first I even did not know, if I should cry or laugh over it. In the end I decided to laugh. You allege: "Courting him was started in 2010 by Vecrumba secretly [58] (related to this [59])" "Secretly" you say? I guess it was sooo "secretly" that I have never been able to figure out (up to now that is) what that message left on my Wikimedia Commons talk page was about, and who wrote it. So, thanks, for helping me out :-)Now I know that it was Biophys who under an undercover name of "Vecrumba" tried to court me :-)

To members of ArbCom.

I of course know Biophys, but it is not why I am here. I am here because I am a strong believer in giving a second chance to editors. Biophys has been topic banned long enough. At this point declining an appeal only because the editor caused disruptions more than a year ago seems rather as a punishment that topic bans are not.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by DonaldDuck

Over the past year, there were some minor topic ban violations by Hodja Nasreddin: 1, 2, 3 4.

Hodja Nasreddin edited constructively in the other areas of the project. But will he behave, if he returns to his old topic area? I have some doubts. I believe, his revert restriction should not be lifted immediately after lifting of his topic ban. It should run for 1 year consecutively with the topic ban, as in original Arbitration Committee decision. --DonaldDuck (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Paul Siebert

I have had some experience of interaction with many EEML (currently ex-EEML) members, and I have no ground to believe that Hodja/Biophys hasn't learnt due lessons from this case. I do not see any reason for not lifting the sanctions; moreover, I even do not see the need in 1RR/week restriction for Biophys. However, I think that one restriction should probably be considered instead, namely, the prohibition to pretend to be an independent editor when Hodja is acting in concert with other ex-EEML members. Concretely, during last year I found that some ex-EEML members are still acting in concert in some WP articles. Although their actions are quite civil, and they do not go beyond the limits set by the WP policy, we must remember that all of them have strong personal ties, and are probably watchlisting the edits made by other members. In other words, despite the absence of off-Wiki coordination, the team still exist, and the members are still able to help each others even without resorting to on or off-Wiki canvassing. In connection to that, I, as well as some other editors, encountered a problem: when two or more ex-EEML members are participating in, e.g. RfC, I cannot openly declare that the opinions they express are not quite independent, because constant references to the EEML are hardly polite and civil (moreover, since some of them have changed their usernames, to refer to their EEML past can be considered as outing). However, to ignore the fact that their voices are not totally independent is also incorrect, because the failure to take into account this fact may affect the results of the consensus decision. In my opinion, this issue can be resolved if Hodja will be prohibited to participate in RfC where other ex-EEML members already expressed their opinion, unless he is coming up with some principally new viewpoint (in other words, the posts like "Support X" are not allowed, but the posts where a new viewpoint, which contains no repetition of the ideas expressed by other EEML member, or which is based on some new reliable source presented by Biophys, are allowed). Similarly, Biophys should be prohibited to continue a series of reverts initiated by other ex-EEML members if the total length of the chain of these reverts exceeds three. In my opinion, imposing these restrictions would allow us to lift all other sanctions imposed on Biophys previously, and that would allow him to work freely and productively in all areas of his interest.
In addition, in my opinion, the idea that an editor cannot continue a series of reverts started by others when the length of the series exceeds 3 reverts is universal, and I even suggested to add that to policy here. Interestingly, this idea has been supported by one ex-EEML member (Piotrus| talk ), which is a convincing demonstration of Piotrus' good faith, but it has been opposed by two other ex-members of this currently non-existing list. One of those two users was Hodja, and that fact may serve as an indirect evidence that he hasn't completely ruled out a possibility of his participation in future chains of reverts started by his ex-colleagues. By applying the above described restrictions, we would protect him from a temptation to do that (and from being sanctioned for that), and simultaneously will allow to edit relatively freely.
In summary, I support lifting of all sanctions imposed on Hodja previously, however, during his future WP activity he should remember that he cannot be considered as an uninvolved editor when he is acting in concert with other ex-EEML members.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Responses to arbitrators

@SirFozzie. If you mean me, then no, I do not have ill-will. I only want to be again an editor in good standing and peacefully contribute in this area. I worked hard towards this goal, and I hope to deserve it. If you mean others, let everyone be responsible for his own actions. In fact, my help is needed in this area. There were several Russian-speaking editors who came for help to my talk page, even during my topic ban [60]. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens. Yes, I know the dangers and who is doing what in this area. Hence I must be very careful. I do not enjoy conflicts and therefore may not be very active in this area, especially if you enact 1RR restriction (almost any two non-consecutive edits in the same article during a week may be interpreted as edit warring and collected to bring them to AE). Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

@John Vandenberg. The most complicated dispute was certainly that one. It was related to this template created by me and significantly improved by Boghog and a couple of other templates. The dispute involved several parties and even outside organizations, although I would rather not discuss details. The matter was beautifully resolved when one of outside labs has improved their software to better fit the needs of wikipedia and other their users [61] (whole discussion). The dispute was about linking wikipedia templates to different external biological databases (PDB and PDBsum). As an outcome of the discussion and the hard work by outside developers, both databases made changes to allow easily runnable queries from wikipedia templates. Now the template links to all three major resources in this area: PDB, PDBe and PDBsum, and there is a much better view of results in the source databases, especially PDBsum. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are looking for. For example here someone reverted my edits. We talked and came to an agreement after discussion. There are other cases like that. The entire point of my strategy (see above) is to avoid creating difficult situations and do not contribute to development of difficult situations. This requires leaving the disputes as soon as discussion becomes unproductive and other parties start edit wars. It goes like that. I made a compromise edit [62] and corrected wrong quotation [63]. Someone is working towards a compromise version [64]? That's fine. I work together with you [65]. And I explain my edits at article talk page [66]. But someone did not listen and reverted to a month old version with misleading edit summary [67] (there was an extensive discussion and no serious objections to my edits)? Good bye. I am not going edit this article. I have had enough. P.S. Obviously, "the most difficult editing situation" is the one where you can do nothing. Yes, that's the one. But it is important to know your limits. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@PhilKnight. I think the 1RR restriction is completely unnecessary based on my behavior during this year (not a single episode of edit warring). Besides, two-year sanctions are questionable. One year is a lot of time. If someone does not get a message during one year, he must be indefinitely banned. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad. Yes, I certainly would like to contribute in the area of my current topic ban, as should be clear from my statements above. Thank you and all others for willingness to lift the topic ban and possibly reconsider 1RR restriction at an earlier point. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Xeno. If this matter has been resolved, could we please decide something, for example, along the lines you suggested? Biophys (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• As stated above, I assume Bio realizes that stepping out of line will probably be met with a quick hammer and harsher sanctions. I'm open to lifting the ban provided that everyone knows going in what will result if further disruption occurs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm of two minds. A) Yes, I agree with David F above me. However, I have concerns that this area is so polarized by past issues that my general thought is that any return to the area is fraught with drama and ill-will, and am wondering if it would be better to leave it in place. SirFozzie (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• SirFozzie makes a good point, but fundamentally we must presume that editors are adults who are capable of exercising appropriate self-control. If Biophys wants the fence taken down so he can ride his pogo stick into the minefield... he appears to have adequately met the parameters needed to do that. Wise or not, I don't see any reason we should either stand in his way, nor give him another chance if he blows this attempt to return to the topic area. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Hodja Nasreddin, could you provide a brief outline of the most difficult editing situation that you found yourself in during the last 12 months. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That dispute was resolved by external changes. Could you describe a content dispute you were involved in where compromise was needed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks; that is what I was looking for. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm ok with lifting the topic ban, however I'd prefer to enact the 1RR/week restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Point of order, but it's already enacted. –xeno^talk 14:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• My inclination at this time is to lift the topic-ban, with a proviso that if problems recur, it can be reimposed at Arbitration enforcement. As for the 1RR restriction, see my comments on the proposed decision at the time it was voted on; my current inclination is to leave the restriction in place at this time, but allow another amendment request to revisit this issue after three months of reasonably collegial editing in the Eastern European topic area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Question to Hodja Nasreddin: I am considering making a motion, but I also see the wikibreak template on your userpage. I assume you would like to keep doing some editing and want us to go ahead with this request, but please confirm that. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm always favorable, in principle, for a good faith return after a sanction. I will support a motion to lift it provided it is clear that the community (and, I expect, the committee) would have little patience for a return to problematic behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• As with the others above, I am willing to support the expiration of the topic ban, but think that the 1RR restriction should remain in place for the time being. I would be willing to revisit the 1RR restriction in six months and would be prepared to lift it at that time provided there is sufficient evidence of problem-free editing in the topic area. –xeno^talk 14:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As an FYI, the SPI request linked by Nanobear has been closed with no action [68]. Nanobear, please do not frame unproven suspicions as accomplished fact. –xeno^talk 14:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion

The topic ban placed upon Biophys (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Russavia-Biophys is lifted, effective immediately. Biophys is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

Support:

1. With a reminder that this activates remedy 4 of that same case ("1 revert per week per article in the topic area"), which remains in force. We can then revisit that restriction in a few months. — Coren ^(talk) 16:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 16:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
4. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Per Coren. I hope that I won't regret this vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Shell ^babelfish 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Per Coren and Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse: