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
Very brief and neutral name describing the topic of the dispute		15 May 2024	0/0/0

[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 prior case: Russavia-Biophys

Initiated by Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} at Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted
2. Wikipedia:ARBRB#Biophys_topic_banned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Hodja Nasreddin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) formerly (Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Hodja Nasreddin

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted
• I would like the interaction ban to be reciprocated, which would prohibit Biophys from interacting with myself, and commenting on myself.

Statement by Russavia

Berezovsky

• I was active on the Boris Berezovsky article.
• There was an strong concern from numerous editors that Kolokol1 (talk · contribs) has a COI with the subject[1][2] and is whitewashing the article of much negative information[3][4][5][6][7][8]
• In response I was accused of working for the Russian govt [9]
• Kolokol was told not to make such accusations lightly[10]
• More accusations followed, and COI admitted[11]
• Another warning[12]
• Another accusation[13]
• I respond to the accusations and again raise the COI[14]
• Another accusation - fellow traveller is equivalent to useful idiot[15]
• Biophys enters on Kolokol1's talk page[16] and again links to these accusations from almost 3 years ago by another user. His words insinuate that i was responsible for the editor being banned -- in actuality the editor was eventually banned for abusive sockpuppetry.
• Biophys has used that diff in different discussions concerning myself in the past, and it is used to insinuate that I am not an Australian Russophile, but rather KGB, FSB, MID, MVD, etc, etc. Excuse me for not supplying specific diffs where he has done this, I don't keep such records. If diffs are indeed required, I will either find them, or remove this.
• Such accusations have been found in the past to be without merit
• The Committee refused 3 years ago to do anything in relation to Biophys and such accusations, as he
  • 1) Promised never to do it again
  • 2) Stayed on the right side of the line
• Use of such diffs by Biophys does not stay on the right side of the line, and only cements a particular mindset with other editors in regards to editors whom accusations are levelled against

AE request

• On 25 October, I made this edit
• Biophys has never edited the article before, nor has he ever used the talk page
• 24 hours later he posts this on the talk page
• 3 hours later he posts this on my talk page
• Biophys then appears at Talk:Controversies_and_criticisms_of_RT#Comment; another article he has never edited before
• I respond and tell him to stay away from my talk page
• Biophys returns to my TP
• I post this
• I am advised of AE request
• AE request here
• I raise different issues in the request, including hounding and misrepresentations on the part of Biophys
• Biophys states he made the request because no-one would - i.e. no-one else saw major problems, nor was watching
• The following of others contributions was found to be unhealthy by the Committee
• This echoes what I stated at WP:ARBRB; which saw me being placed with an interaction ban
• FPaS considers placing a mutual ban on Biophys under other sanctions[17]
• Other admins refused to even look at this problem

Statement by Biophys

Aeroflot (second amendment)

• On September 24, I made this edit in Aeroflot. This is a legitimate edit. That was not revert of previous edits by Russavia. I tried to restore some of my previous edits in several articles, and this is one of them.
• Same day Russavia reverts my edit [18] in violation of his i-ban. But I never reverted his edit back since then.
• I remind Russavia that he violated his ban and ask him to self-revert [19]. He apparently refuses.
• Same day Russavia invites Igny for help. His comment is clearly a violation of his i-ban [20]. Igny comes to comment at talk page of Aeroflot.
• On October 13, I ask other users what they think about my edit: [21].
• No one responded. Only Russavia responds [22], in a violation of his i-ban, again. He tells: "I really don't care if I am banned from interacting with you Biophys." He also refers to me as "WP:RANDY"
• Same day he invites Giano for help against "WP:RANDY". His comment is a violation of his i-ban [23].
• Russavia demands on AE to sanction me for my edit in Aeroflot. In response, I explained that he is very welcome to edit this article, and I am not going to interfere [24],[25].
• In response to my good faith suggestion, Russavia files this Amendment request and asks to topic-ban me from editing this article. Why?

In summary, Russavia asks to sanction me for a single legitimate edit, one that he already reverted a month ago.

Berezovsky. Here Russavia asks to sanction me for a single comment (everything else are claims by Kolokol1 who I never knew before): a month ago I saw that Russavia and Kolokol1 accused each other of COI and asked Kolokol1 that he should not make such accusations [26]. Kolokol1 replies: "Thank you for the warning", and so on [27]. To convince Kolokol1, I told him about another Russian-speaking user who was banned soon after making similar claims. Yes, I gave him a couple of diffs with examples of questionable COI accusations from my talk page (one of them was about myself). Yes, the user I refer to was banned on ruwiki precisely for making that kind of claims, but I am using him only as an example. After having this conversation Kolokol1 stopped making accusations about Russavia. Hence, it worked, and I actually helped Russavia. Now I am puzzled that he interprets this as harassment.

AE request. Please see my statement in AE request. I always followed all sanctions and advice by Arbcom and believe that others should do the same. It was clear that Russavia did not obey his interaction bans almost a month ago, but that only involved him reverting my edits in the area where he is a good contributor. Therefore, I simply left him the article in question [28] and did not report anything at the moment. However, he later started doing the same with other contributors. I provided Russavia an opportunity to self-revert after his other violations prior to reporting him to AE. I thought that would be only fair, but he now considers this as an evidence of wikihounding. I tried to explain it here. Most important, that was a legitimate report about systematic violations of editing restrictions.

So, with regard to alleged harassment... No, I did not follow edits by Russavia to cause his distress, I did not revert a single edit by Russavia anywhere, and I did not accuse Russavia of anything except violating his i-ban, but he actually did it many times. Maybe other people are at fault, but I have nothing to do with their statements and actions. My only interest here is that everyone must follow their editing restrictions as long as such restrictions exist. On the other hand, I am not opposed to lifting all i-bans for Russavia and others if this is orderly decided by Arbcom.

I believe this entire story is about the refusal of Russavia to follow his i-bans. When the amendment to lift the Russavia-Martin ban was close to rejection by Arbcom, he first decided to retire, but then came back to openly violate his restrictions. As follows from his letter to Arbcom and other statements (e.g. here), he also has problems with at least seven users (including Collect, Colchicum, Off2riorob and Kolokol1), and the problems are taking place in a wide range of subjects, from Poland and Baltic republics to Russia (Berezovsky and Aeroflot). However, I have nothing to do with these problems. I only made a legitimate edit in Aeroflot more than a month ago, and I brought a legitimate request to AE. Biophys (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I regret that at this point I just see this as a cynical attempt by Russavia to expand their fiefdom of article ownership and institutionalize their ability to indulge their whims of drive-by disruption on the assumption that any mutually i-banned editor can't do or say anything subsequently once Russavia has touched an article without being slapped by Russavia with an i-ban violation enforcement request. I've already explained elsewhere how i-bans should work to promote constructive behavior, but the abject lack of interest and discussion regarding that has been, frankly, appalling. "Metrics drive behavior." As long as the status quo rewards disruptive behavior and does nothing to promote collegial behavior, the WP:MESS will continue—not just limited to the Soviet legacy et al. Really, if you're all so jaded and poisoned that all anyone considers anymore is who to WP:WHACK and for how long and have given up on how to promote collegial behavior in areas of contention, you should resign from admin/ArbCom duties. I've been suggesting for years how to promote collegial behavior, how to disarm antagonists, and apparently no one gives a damn, just rolling out the usual tired self-righteous pontifications on nationalists, SPAs, etc.

Apologies I got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

The irony is that Russavia and I have been able to interact cordially, however, any attempt to do so is currently banned and what we have is this crap instead. ...Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?

Same response on proposed amendment #2, that being an outright request for article ownership. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I do find myself having to comment further on Russavia's allegations of stalking and harassment. As I recall, Russavia was topic banned from the topic area of contention before, however his "enemies" were gracious enough to not object to Russavia's editing articles broadly in scope but outside the area of contention, allowing for his topic ban to be relaxed. That past graciousness is now repaid with drive-by content deletions (previously discussed in prior et al.) and a personal double standard where he (falsely) decries poor conduct in others which he himself has been practicing for years in the area of contention. (The classic stalking of my Aspic edit and lecturing me on behalf of ArbCom diff is available if need be.) I regret to conclude that, at least as of now, granting Russavia anything when there is no actual conduct on the part of any other editor which needs to be addressed while ignoring his obvious disruptions will only beget more of the same. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Greyhood

Links provided by Russavia clearly indicate the following issues:

#1 Biophys using against Russavia the strange situation, when Russavia is prohibited to interact with Biophys, but Biophys is not prohibited from interaction with Russavia. From a point of view of someone who doesn't know much about EEML, the EEML-related sanctions and the previous history of Biophys-Russavia relations, such a non-balanced situation with interaction bans might look like if Russavia had done something wrong in his past interaction with Biophys and was i-banned for that, while Biophys had done nothing wrong and was not i-banned. But of course this is not the case: in fact Biophys had received a tougher sanction, having been topic-banned from the area which caused disputes with Russavia. At that moment such a solution resolved the problem, practically excluding Biophys-Russavia interaction, and the mutual interaction ban was not necessary or important then. But after some time had passed, the ban was lifted from Biophys since it was thought that he would change his editing practices for the better. Russavia's sanction was left intact, however, which led to the present situation of injustice of non-mutual interaction ban. Biophys received a non-deserved interaction advantage over Russavia, while Russavia received a non-deserved drawback.

That wouldn't be a real problem, though, if Biophys had avoided interaction with Russavia and didn't used the situation for his own editing advantages. But he came to an article such as Aeroflot, which he was previously topic-banned from, which is at the core of Russavia's editing interest and expertise, which he knew was watched by Russavia and was recently significantly edited by him. That was OK up to that point still. But Biophys restored without pre-discussing an old problematic edit discussed and removed long ago, waited until Russavia reverted it, asked of self-reverting, and insisted on reverting even after Russavia was supported by other editors. When on a different article Russavia reverted Vecrumba (another strange non-mutual topic ban, especially given Vecrumba's claim they were able to interact cordially before the ban), it was not Vecrumba, but for some reason again Biophys who reminded of the interaction ban on the talk page of the article (which seems he didn't edited before). OK, that wasn't nice, however formally Biophys had a right to do so. But then he made quite an unnecessary move looking provocative. As if to make things even less nice on purpose, Biophys posted not only to the article talk, but right onto Russavia's talk page as well, asking for-self-revert via the link. In this situation 1) if Russavia answers Biophys, whether politely or not, he violates the interaction ban again 2) if Russavia doesn't answer Biophys, Biophys has an additional argument against Russavia (that Russavia was warned about the revert). When Biophys was told not to post on Russavia's talk, he still did unnecessarily post one more time, as if to purposely enrage Russavia even more (the emotional reaction of Russavia was quite clear before that). Biophys made an AE request against Russavia and Russavia was blocked.

I understand Russavia very well: from his perspective especially, the series of actions by Biophys looked like a strategy of making provocations, gaming on undeserved non-mutual i-bans, sanctioning Russavia for their violations, and interrupting Russavia's editing of certain articles. I hope Biophys didn't really mean all that, but he should understand that his actions might be seen as provocative even by uninvolved editors, like me, and from Russavia's positions and with the background of past problems, those actions were sure to be taken for gaming the system and hounding.

#2 Biophys reproducing old insinuations against Russavia, while at the same time being sensitive about old attack material against himself. I don't find such a position exactly nice. Biophys and many other editors, including non-EEML editors, find it inappropriate to provide links to some old attack pages, but at the same time Biophys provides links containg old insinuations against Russavia to new editors. If he just would have warned against similar insinuations in present, without providing the links, that would be different. But he did it in the way as if on purpose to resurface the old attack stuff.

Thoughts on solution. Biophys seems to agree to withdraw from further direct communication with or commenting on Russavia. Basically this is very close to voluntary i-ban, and as Biophys is ready to accept that anyway and that wouldn't harm him, better make it formal admin-approved ban, so as to exclude the possibility of gaming the system in principle. Another solution, on the contrary, would be to allow Russavia freely interact with Biophys and other EEML members making them fully equal in editing, but given the level of existing mistrust between them, aggravated by the recent events, seems this is not an option. GreyHood ^Talk 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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.}

Amendment 2

• Wikipedia:ARBRB#Biophys_topic_banned
• Biophys topic banned from all articles relating to Aeroflot, broadly construed. This would also include BLP articles such as Viktor Ivanov and Boris Berezovsky. It may be appropriate, given past history to consider topic banning Biophys from all Russian BLP articles, broadly construed. This ban to be set with no expiration, but rather to be lifted only upon onwiki appeal to the Committee.

Statement by Russavia (2)

Aeroflot

• In mid-September, I began to introduce rewritten information and an expansion of Aeroflot[29]
• The Boris Berezovsky article issues interrupted this (as detailed above)
• As part of the discussion on the Berezovsky talk page, I posted this.
• Almost immediately after that, Biophys makes this edit to the Aeroflot article.
• The edit is almost identical to an edit from September 2009[30]
• This information was removed from the article by other editors in 2009 due to this.
• Note The information that Biophys has re-included into the article, includes reference to Aquarium (Suvorov); a fictionalised autobiography. As noted on the talk page, it is a novel.
• Including negative information based upon a novel into any article is IMO forgivable only on the first occasion.
• The information also includes a WP:BLP violation, in that it notes that Viktor Ivanov is in the FSB hierarchy, thereby implying that his position at Aeroflot is connected to his position in the FSB; ignoring that he is also involved in other business and is also involved in politics.
• Biophys has a long history of reintroducing information into articles which has previously been removed. This case is full of such examples.
• Given the short time frame between my post on the Berezovsky talk page and Biophys' return of two year removed information into the article, it is fair to assume that he did this due to my post on the BB talk page
• Biophys knew I would be 1) unable to remove it or 2) discuss it -- for all intent and purpose it would be left in the article, even as I was going to continue with rewriting it.
• I revert his addition
• I post this on the talk page
• I implore that Arbs read the entire section, as it is evident that Biophys attempted to use the interaction ban as a weapon to sideline myself from the article entirely
• Biophys posts this[31] - he uses the interaction ban card to try and lock me out of conversation
• This is posted on another user's talk page, asking for advice on what I should do in relation to the situation as it was at the time (e.g. accusations against myself coming from numerous editors). It was not an invite nor even a call for help on the Aeroflot article, but a request only for advice.
• Another editor, aside from Igny, agreed with the removal of information.
• Immediately after the appearance of User:Collect on the talk page, given his misrepresentations against myself, I had enough and retired
• It was my intention to leave enwp entirely, but returned after a week/week and a half and made it clear I wouldn't be hounded from the project.

Comment by Biophys

Perhaps this needs additional response.

1. "Aquarium" by Suvorov (especially English edition) provides a lot of factual detail, including plan of GRU headquarters.
2. Info about someone being an FSB member and Aeroflot chairman is not a BLP violation. Those are simply official places of work. Yes, there is an implicit conjecture here, but this is a conjecture made in a source, not by me.
3. I explained to Igny already why I made an edit in Aeroflot and several other places [32]. I forgot about this information removed from Aeroflot by Vlad Fedorov, but it came to my mind after talking with Kolokol1. Russavia tells: "Biophys knew I would be unable to remove it". Yes, this is true. I absolutely did not expect that he will remove this information (as he did). I simply wanted my contributions be placed back in the article, and perhaps improved by other regular contributors.
4. Saying that, I can see concern by Russavia and therefore proposed Amendment 3 below. Biophys (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Amendment 3

• The remedy of the Russavia-Biophys case is amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Hodja Nasreddin. The editors are reminded to use the utmost diplomacy on any articles which they choose to discuss with each other or to edit in common.

Statement by Biophys (2)

I propose lifting the interaction ban for Russavia with myself. No, I do not enjoy interactions with Russavia, and I am not looking forward editing any articles together with him. I will also stay off talk page of Russavia as he recently requested [33], unless he changes his mind. However, if we happened to edit the same article (like Aeroflot), we must be able to discuss the changes, and yes, we can do it. There is no other way around. Maybe that will help Russavia feel better. Anyway, I am not going to be very active in this area, even if I return back to editing at some point.Biophys (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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.}

Further discussion

Biophys was allowed to return to this topic area after an appeal. Arb comments are at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_4

Please note Biophys has again retired. As evidenced in the initial case this is often done by Biophys to escape scrutiny and sanctions. This request should be allowed to continue regardless. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 03:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

An "O Cataline" moment on the arbitration pages? This is not the best place to seek bans on such wondrous bases as "he retires to avoid it" considering a recent block and [34] a request for an unblock because he was still complaining at AE, [35] with edit summary can someone deal with this shit - stay away from my talk page doesn't mean come back and post yet again - GO AWAY) which shows a possible civility concern, [36] showing a rather cargumentative nature about me daring to call myself "uninvolved" in a case where I was actually uninvolved (and where he edited my post to change it to "involved"), [37] his own one week "retiremenet" and all in a short period of time. I rather think Russavia should simply be told to stay away from routine posts to ArbCom and to let things quiet down a bit. And have a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC) By the way, he did not give me the courtesy of a note that he accuses me here of "misrepresentations. Again - simply telling him to have a cup or two of tea should work, I sincerely hope. Collect (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Colchicum

Quousque tandem abutere, Russavia, patientia nostra? The idea that the mention of Viktor Ivanov's FSB affiliation, not in the least contentious, is a BLP violation is just ridiculous. I have a hard time trying to believe that Russavia is even serious here. The rest of the request is probably of similar quality and needs very careful research and scrutiny before placing any sanctions on anybody. Well, everybody here has probably learned by now that his allegations should never be taken at their face value. Also note that per the same reasoning Russavia himself should at the very least be topic-banned from all things Baltic and Polish. Supporting evidence abounds, but I can point it out specifically if anybody doesn't know what I mean. As to the retirement tactics, Russavia himself temporarily "retired" in September, shortly after this [38], which would most certainly yield him a lengthy block otherwise. Colchicum (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "This information was removed from the article by other editors in 2009 due to this" – and there was nothing even remotely similar to a consensus in that discussion. Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs) was there instead, if you know what I mean. In fact, I see absolutely no valid reason why Biophys shouldn't have edited Aeroflot. His edits might be a bit controversial, but certainly nothing to worry about too much, and his interest in that topic predates the imposition of the interaction bans. And then Russavia effectively declares that he willfully violated his own interaction ban and expects this to be taken lightly? Hmm. The more I read this proposal the more it looks like at least one of us has lost touch with reality. Colchicum (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

---

Request to amend prior case: Climate change

Initiated by Scjessey (talk) at 15:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• none

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• n/a

Amendment 1

• That the voluntary editing restriction be lifted.

Statement by Scjessey

Per this comment and this discussion, I have completed a voluntary editing restriction in the topic of climate change for well over a year, and per advice given by Roger Davies here, I would like to request that the binding voluntary restriction be lifted. I have no specific goal in mind, but I would like to the opportunity to contribute to the topic again. Since voluntarily withdrawing from the topic, I have been variously employed at patrolling recent changes (including checking new pages and removing vandalism), editing in topics of interest and volunteering at WP:MEDCAB. I am not currently under any active sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• In response to this comment by Collect, I would like to point out that I was not subjected to any sanctions - my restriction was voluntary. In stark contrast to most of the editors involved in the ArbCom case, my involvement in the topic of climate change concerned only a single article (Climatic Research Unit email controversy) and no BLPs. Accordingly, it would make more sense for my proposed amendment to be treated independently by ArbCom, rather than lumping it in with any amendment involving sanctioned editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  @Collect - That's all well and good, but your proposal suggests certain bans and restrictions (such as on BLPs) that I'm not currently subject to; therefore, imposing them upon me would actually be adding, rather than removing restrictions. For this reason, it is not unreasonable for me to expect my amendment to be handled independently of any that may concern other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  @Collect - No, it is not "spot on". You propose converting a voluntary restriction covering the scope of the topic ban into actual sanctions covering specific things like BLPs. How would you justify imposing these sanctions upon me after a voluntary 14-month absence from the topic, concerning BLPs I've never edited? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  @Collect - You are missing the point entirely. Right now, I am not on the list of people under active sanction, but your proposal would put me on that list. So I ask again, wow would you justify imposing these sanctions upon me after a voluntary 14-month absence from the topic, concerning BLPs I've never edited? To be honest, I expected this amendment to be a formality. I did not imagine for a second I had to fend off calls for me to be sanctioned. Do you think I deserve to be sanctioned? If you do not, please excuse yourself from this amendment proceeding. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad - In contrast to most of the other editors who became entangled in the Arbcom case on climate change, my activity didn't really go beyond the article on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I know very little about climate change and I didn't frequent articles in the topic. I first went to the CRU article after reading about the hacking incident that took place at the University of East Anglia. Being English, I was interested in how the hacking incident was being covered in the British media at the time. I was dismayed to see that the article discussing the incident was being exploited by a group of editors who seemed convinced that some grand conspiracy by climate scientists to deceive the world had been uncovered. I'm not going to re-litigate everything that followed, but at the time I felt that Wikipedia was being used and I didn't like it. With hordes of skeptics/meatpuppets/sockpuppets attacking the project, my defensive stance evolved into a combative stance.

My behavior seemed perfectly reasonable to me at the time, but looking back on it I can see that I achieved absolutely nothing but unnecessary conflict. I've been volunteering at MedCab since then and it has been instructive to observe these sorts of fires from the uninvolved position and then try to help involved editors extinguish the flames. I still edit articles that interest me, but I've tried to avoid those that are generally controversial; however, I continue to edit at controversial articles like atheism, pseudoscience and Barack Obama without getting into conflict. To be honest, I didn't really understand the "binding" part of my voluntary restriction (which seems to make the "voluntary" part redundant), so I think my application for this amendment demonstrates my willingness to tread carefully moving forward. There's no reason to think that any editing I would do in the topic of climate change would be any different from editing I have done (or are doing) elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

As the entire area seems to be relatively calm, and with the WMC precedent, perhaps the time has come to make each and every person addressed by the original sanctions now be bound by a "zero tolerance" rule, enforceable by any administrator, for any battleground behaviour, including any use of tags and substantive reverts, singly or by multiple editors, with a new specific ban on any of them yet delving into any BLPs, or articles reasonably falling under WP:BLP, related to Climate Change? Collect (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@SCJ - I recognize that your restriction was voluntary, though, IIRC, you were a potential candidate to get a less than voluntary restriction. My suggestion is not based, however, on such fine legal points, but on what I consider a desirable method for ArbCom to handle the additional requests likely to ensue, and was aimed only at giving my own personal suggestion as to how the committee might reasonably and expeditiously deal with such potential requests. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)\

@SCJ Alas - looking at 16.1 does not appear to coincide exactly with your recollection. Positing the BLPs related to CC as a subset of the entire topic would certainly imply that such were included in your status (16.1) Scjessey has proposed a permanent binding voluntary restriction that he makes no edits within the scope of the topic ban, with the exception, as part of Recent Changes patrolling, of making routine cleanup-style edits and reverting cases of obvious vandalism. Scjessey is instructed to abide by these restrictions. seems to be rather all-encompassing, and a mandatory version of the voluntary restrictions). Thus my suggestion appears to me to be "spot on" in this discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@SCJ - ok - a "permananent binding voluntary restriction" covering all of Climate Change had absolutely no force when it comes to BLPs which are in that area. I think I understand your position. It is wrong, though. Any normal reading would find the CC BLPs to be a subset of CC articles and not totally outside the area of the binding restriction. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@WMC As I was not actually remotely an active editor on the CC articles, and I only became "involved" as a result of some statistical studies I made, I am rather at a loss to explain your post. I have made many posts in many areas of WP, and even on different areas other than enWiki, I fear I do not understand any reason why I ought not continue posting in such varied areas as I see fit. The purpose here was to suggest a simple solution to what I fear might otherwise become a long series of requests which could be dealt with by a single motion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley

I am in favour of Scjessey's request. I am opposed to Collect's idea. I am opposed to a blanket amnesty at this point.

It really isn't clear to me why Collect feels the need to offer his wisdom on all the ARBCC stuff and to argue his points so strenuously.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Since the huge climate change arbitration of 2010 things have become very peaceful in the topic. I'm pleased to see that some of the editors covered by injunctions and sanctions under the case have acted well since then and are gradually being allowed to contribute again. The old "wild west" atmosphere of constant conflict has gone so, provided the general sanctions remain in operation, I encourage the arbitration committee to consider requests to edit again generously in the light of the improved circumstances and much improved editing conditions. --TS 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

I would back the request of Scjessey and agree with the statements by William M. Connolley and Tony Sidaway. Collect's proposals do not seem to be realistic; for the time being requests like this should probably be handled on a case-by-case basis. Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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.}

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

• Awaiting further statements. I would welcome Scjessey's thoughts on what went wrong in the past and how, if this request is granted, things would be different going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Scjessey's response to my question is helpful. I anticipate supporting the motion that Risker suggests she will propose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• I think it would be reasonable to consider lifting this restriction; if nobody else does it sooner, I will probably offer a motion over the weekend. Risker (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Motion proposed, below. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Motion

The editing restriction described in remedy 16.1 ("Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction") of the Climate change decision is terminated, effective on the passage of this motion.

For this motion, there are 15 non-recused Arbitrators, so 8 is a majority.

Support

1. Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Suggested copyedit (just for consistency with similar motions): "lifted" --> "terminated, effective immediately." Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Support; with or without the (desirable) copyedit. — Coren ^(talk) 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
4. SirFozzie (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
5. Have copy edited to "..is terminated, effective on the passage of this motion." Colleagues may revert my copy edit if they feel it is appropriate. Risker (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
8. PhilKnight (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

---