Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:18, 16 November 2010

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

Use this section:

To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems.
To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly)

How to file a request (please use this format!):

Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment:
1. The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header),
2. The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision,
3. The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and
4. A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words.
Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: Speed of light

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 16:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Speed of light arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 3: "Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum."
Motion 6: "Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months. "

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Brews ohare

Amendment 1

Renewal of remedy 3, either for another year or indefinitely.

Amendment 2

Expansion of topic ban in motion 6 to include, at a minimum, mathematics.

Statement by Timotheus Canens

In this AE report, concerns were raised that Brews ohare has now engaged in the same disruptive activity for which he was originally sanctioned, only in the fields of mathematics instead of physics, as explained in this comment by JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs). Multiple admins were of the view that sanctions in the form of a 1RR/week restriction or a topic ban was appropriate. However, as remedy 3 has expired, administrators were no longer authorized to impose such sanctions, and the report was closed with Brews accepting a binding voluntary restriction of one revert per week, per article, on any article in the natural sciences - which EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the closing admin, construed to include mathematics; naturally so, since the proximate cause was disruption on Pythagorean theorem.

Brews now claims that his 1RR restriction does not include mathematics articles, something that is supported by our article on natural science but also means that the restriction failed to cover conduct for which it was intended. As it is now apparent that the restriction did not actually address the problem for which it was proposed, it appears that either a broadened topic ban or renewal of the probation provision is necessary to prevent further disruption. T. Canens (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the committee is imposing a site ban, it may be preferable to include conditions on returning to editing, similar to what was done in these cases, to ensure that disruption does not resume when the ban ends. T. Canens (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Headbomb

Why go through all this hooplah to keep disruptive editors around? We're not fucking babysitters, yet we're here every second week clarifying, expanding, tweaking the scope of Brews' ban, or explaining it to him. The only effect of imposing a 1RR restriction on Brews will be that the next time he violates his ban, or new restriction, is that we'll be debating technicalities about whether his last 132 edits to an article, and his 150 edits on its talk page really consist of a 1RR violation. Last time we failed to block Brews because he made physics/relativity edits on a mathematics article, which is complete bollocks.
If it was not apparent by now that Brews endeavors to suck out time by wikilawyering every remedy, and debating everyone who wastes their time gives him pieces of advice, this amendment request should make it patently clear. On November 12, I told Ed Johnston he made a mistake by defining the scope of the restriction to be "natural sciences" since natural sciences don't include math, and that we'll be up at AE debating whether natural sciences include math or not within a month. And here we are three days later at AE doing exactly that. Let's stop beating around the bush, Brews had plenty of chances, plenty of explanations, plenty of time to improve. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, Brews ran out of AGF juice a long time ago, and there's no way Brews' contributions is worth keeping him around; for every hour he spends on Wikipedia, we sink a hundred hours of other editors' time in debating him, or being at some noticeboard.
Indef block him. Or failing that, block him for the rest of his ban (which will just have the effect of given people a one year break before this crap resumes). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

Let's be clear about this: Brews only made a statement, he hasn't edited any articles since the last AE procedure, let alone violated the intended interpretation of the 1RR per week.

I recommend that Brews stick to 0RR on any edits relating to his own edits. If he writes something in an article and he is reverted on that, he can't undo that revert. He can then start a discussion on the talk page about the revert. Then, if he starts a discussion on a talk page and this is archived, he can't undo that archiving, nor can he start a meta discussion about this. On issues not related to his own edits, he can revert, but if his revert is undone, he can't revert again as that would fall under the 0RR restriction regarding his own edits. So, this amounts to 1RR on anything unrelated to his own edits.

My opinion is that this sort of restriction is what is called for, instead of topic bans. The problem with Brews was never caused by the nature of the topics (physics or math), rather with problems in editing together with people who don't like his proposed edits. On Wikipedia, you always have to take serious the opinion of other editors, however you disagree with them. Count Iblis (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JohnBlackburne

As I noted here I was skeptical that the sanction would have much effect for the reasons given. I was not expecting it to have none, or at least for Brews ohare to claim that it does not apply to him (he does not edit biology and chemistry, and is already banned from physics), an interpretation at odds with every other participant in that discussion. But I should not be surprised, as this is yet another example of his wikilawyering, followed with his usual blaming everyone but himself for his repeated sanctioning.

On the wider point this is not about physics, or natural sciences, or mathematics. It's about every other page Brews ohare takes an interest in becoming a battle ground, of edit warring if its an article, of tendentious editing on a talk or project page – dominating the discussion so other editors are swamped, ignoring consensus and process, repeatedly refusing to AGF, ignoring requests to stop and warnings – before trying to lawyer himself out of the inevitable visit to arbitration. The current sanctions (including the latest one which it now seems does nothing) have had little effect, except to stoke his persecution complex and add yet more names to the supposed cabal against him.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here in some detail to Brews ohare's accusations of stalking. If he seriously thinks I, Headbomb or any other editor has been engaged in anything other than a good faith effort to improve this encyclopaedia he needs to provide diffs of our actions. If he can't he should keep his unfounded accusations to himself.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dick Lyon

As I've stated repeatedly, the problem with Brews is not topic related, so a topic ban is a lame remedy. He needs a good vacation from Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brews ohare

I'd like to digress a bit on a few highlights of my education at WP.

I came to WP in the area of circuits, and contributed what now appear to be very much too technical articles on devices and design, such as Widlar current source and Step response. They passed muster with little discussion because only other experts read them. Then I went to centrifugal force (I've forgotten how that happened) and discovered this rather technical topic was an interest of many with no concept of physics, and of others with very determined opinions on the subject. One of these was D Tombe, who was again unusual in that he was someone with opposed views who could accept arguments and respond to them. These discussions led to my addition of many examples to Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), some of which have survived DickLyon's campaign to delete "bloat". It also led to significant additions to several other articles on planar motion, inertial frames of reference, fictitious forces, and to historical articles on Newton's famous examples of rotating spheres and spinning buckets. These contributions were accompanied as always by numerous figures, some of which are found here.

Unfortunately those long analytical discussions (which I found engaging because D Tombe was very resourceful and responsive) were totally outside the norm of WP, leading me to false expectations of the community as a whole. Similarly misleading were the very useful and prolonged interactions with Sbyrnes321 in articles like Faraday's law of induction. It was a huge contrast when I proceeded to Speed of light where I ran instead into a combination of religious fervor and viciousness that brooked no argument and soon landed me in court as disruptive. From that time forth I have been harassed by a few from those days who want more to bother me than to make use of my talents. I acquired a symbolical persona as a mad scientist that is still with me, and has nothing to do with me. See my resume here.

At the moment, a band of administrators, those like Sandstein and now Timotheus Canens, are happy to support ill-conceived actions by Blackburne and Headbomb with knee-jerk sanctions. I attribute Blackburne's and Headbomb's animosity to a few arguments that stuck in their craws and offended their personal images as savants. I have made overtures to Blackburne, who steadfastly ignores them. The actions of these two editors, combined with administrator incapacity for assessment, have made my days here difficult, regardless of my actions or interests in contributing. A listing of recent WP:AN/I and WP:AE actions against me shows that Headbomb and Blackburne instigated all of them, possibly except the present action undertaken by Timotheus Canens, although this too is a follow-up of an action by Headbomb.

The most recent events, which ostensibly led to the present action, can be summarized as follows.

Timotheus Canens has based this request upon the statement by JohnBlackburne, which is concerned with some edits on the page Pythagorean theorem. I will summarize that activity shortly. Headbomb has asserted a different basis, that I inserted physics edits on the math page Euclidean geometry, a claim disputed by most (including EdJohnston) in his failed action to produce a judgment supporting a topic ban violation.

Below is a summary of the activity on Pythagorean theorem:

On the page Pythagorean theorem I inserted a single sentence about Euclidean motions which was reverted by DickLyon on the basis that it misused the phrase "tacit assumptions". I then rewrote the insertion to avoid this phrase, and added a source discussing Euclid's assumptions. That attempt was reverted by JohnBlackburne, who said it was "bloat". I then returned to the Talk page to suggest that "bloat" was vague, and not a WP guideline. On that basis I reverted JohnBlackburne's revert. This revert was the only one I made in this exchange of views. It was in turn removed by David Eppstein, and that is how the matter ended.

There was accompanying Talk page discussion, as is recommended for such content disagreements. It was civil and confined to a dispute over what was "bloat", and settled on a majority rules basis.

Blackburne's comments used as the basis for Timotheus Canens' case provide no basis for extending my probation, now expired, over a concern that I might "repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". A single main page revert was made by myself. Talk page discussion was used properly and civilly and ended in acquiescence to majority rule.

Likewise, Headbomb's abortive attempt to transform this math insertion into a physics argument when I placed it in Euclidean geometry provides no cause to expand my topic ban to include mathematics, as there is nothing controversial or "idiosyncratic" about my suggestion that Euclidean motions are an underlying feature of Euclid's geometry, as was supported by impeccable sources in my inserted text. (Also added were this and this). I made no attempt to intrude physics into a math article, despite Headbomb's insistence, and Blackburne, EdJohnston and others have agreed with me on that point.

I do believe the proposed actions presented below are overkill if based upon what actually occurred recently. The more serious question of whether there is a more extensive history that requires consideration is worth exploring, but that has not been attempted so far in this hearing. Such a question requires an inquiry into the history of my pursuit by Blackburne and by Headbomb. Should that be undertaken with proper discovery of evidence and presentation of diffs, rather than using he-said she-said and vaguely acquired perceptions based upon gossip, I believe I will be found to be a useful member of the WP society who unfortunately has run afoul of some very determined editors.

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.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I personally think this is a overreaction. I would note the irony of the same people being here asking for the same things. Recently a sanctions was not carried out due to a restriction voluntarily accepted. This wasn't far enough and so we get the request to indef ban brews? Maybe the committee would like to consider the cool calmness that was observed during the advocation motion and extend that to those who constantly howl for Brews head. Again I'd be willing ot completely butt out if there is a level playing field. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

I agree with Headbomb: we have spent enough time—more than enough time—catering to Brews' incessant attempts to argue his way around restrictions, and tolerating his perpetual conflicts with other editors on nearly every topic that he touches. Wikipedia is neither an experiment in online debate nor a game of Nomic; it's well past time for Brews to find himself a new hobby. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for other comments here, but I'm largely in agreement with Kirill. Shell ^babelfish 21:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to think on whether a full year's ban is the best solution here, or if we can come up with something lesser that will have the hoped-for affect. SirFozzie (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am reluctant to support a ban of a full year, but agree that something needs to be done here. I see that Brews ohare has been editing since he was notified of this amendment request, but I will leave him another note as he has not been formally notified that the response to the amendment request was the proposal by an arbitrator of a full one-year ban. I would like to hear from Brews ohare before voting on this. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Notification left.[reply]

Motions

1) Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support

Proposed; this needs to end. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regret, but as I have come to realize, not everyone is meant to edit Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is one of the rare cases of an editor who is simply unable to work within the constraint of a collaborative environment. It is no reflection on Brews ohare; not all personalities are compatible with the way Wikipedia works. — Coren ^(talk) 04:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not usually a great fan of fixed-period site-bans because a return to editing is guaranteed on the expiry of the ban, without establishing whether the banned editor has in the interim addressed the conduct issues that led to it. In this instance, I may be pleasantly surprised: I hope so. Roger ^talk 06:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Request to amend prior case: Climate Change

Initiated by Hipocrite (talk) at 17:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Sphilbrick

Amendment 1

New finding of fact

Sphilbrick has edited

27) Sphilbrick has edited pages related to Climate Change.[1]

Clarification 2

Regarding topic bans

Are topic banned users permitted to !vote in RFA's related to people who have once edited climate change articles? If yes, are they permitted, on request, to justify their vote, as long as such justification is not a re-fighting of the same thing?

Statement by Hipocrite

Sphilbrick is currently in the middle of an RFA. If he were an admin at the time the CC case went through the motions, I would have sought to have him mentioned similarly to StephanS. Since he was not an admin at the time, and was not a major participant in the troubles, he was ignored by most. However, as he is nearly an admin now, I think that it is important and relevant that ArbCom note that he edited Climate Change articles. It should also be noted that making this finding of fact will subject Sphilbrick to the "Involved administrators" standing order that individuals identified by name in the decision are not permitted to impose sanctions. Sphilbrick has already consented to avoid using any hypothetical admin tools to administrate CC articles in [2].

Further, I was recently blocked for a week as I !voted in an RFA, but when asked for a justification was forced to dodge said with the comment that I was topic banned. Was that the appropriate response, or should I have never !voted in any RFA related to any Climate Change related party, or should I have just provided a climate change related justification? (Or should I just have lied about my concerns?)

My goal, as I have stated before, was to leave the topic area behind, and I have done that. I was not involved in any of the flare-ups, but I don't think that I should be forced to have my voice discounted. I can provide other circumstances where I have dodged discussing climate change, if the committee desires. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYB - I was blocked for a week for my comment. I don't think my comment was incorrect. Please confirm if my comments were correct or incorrect. Coren [3] had previously commented that my understanding of my topic ban was overbroad. Hipocrite (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottyBerg

I agree with Hipocrite. His request was occasioned by an absurd block of him and Connelly for participating in that RfA. I would take his request one step further: topic banned users should receive a safe harbor from blocking, and should be permitted to vote and comment on RfAs, without restriction on their comments concerning CC. This trigger-happy blocking must stop; it is preventing a free exchange of ideas in one of the most crucial parts of Wikipedia. Come to think of it, this experience has made me change the view that I previously expressed on Arbcom voting/discussions as well. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jc37

I just wanted to note (in case anyone reading this wasn't aware) that the RfA part of this request may have somewhat of a time constraint, due to interactions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick. And this has been discussed in several places, most notably at WP:BN, and User talk:Hipocrite.

Also, I'm wondering if the comments concerning the arb elections at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Climate_Change_case_.283.29, would equally apply here. In particular, what should we consider "common sense", in usage and potential enforcement WP:AE.

While topic bans are not new, this particular case did seem to have some results which were unique to it, or at the very least, making topic bans seem unique when compared to other (typical) types of sanction. So typical generalisations about common sense would seem to be more difficult here. Maybe something general about what is common sense in how one may interact with other editors when under a topic ban. Since: topic bans suggest interaction with content, vs. these questions which involve interactions with other editors.

So clarification on this would be most welcome. - jc37 19:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

Arbitrator votes and comments

As Hipocrite correctly points out, in his RfA, Sphilbrick has already acknowledged that he has edited climate change. He also has confirmed (partly in response to a question by me) that if his RfA is successful, he will take no administrator actions in that topic area. I perceive no need to amend the closed case to make a historical finding of a clearly undisputed fact. (If we are asked for an amendment every time an editor on an article subject to discretionary sanctions starts an RfA, we are going to be very, and unnecessarily, busy on this page). ¶ The scope of the topic bans needs, as we have said several times before, to be interpreted in a common-sense manner. The observations made by several of us on various other requests for clarification on this page apply equally here. ¶ (Disclosure: I have cast a support !vote on Sphilbrick's RfA, raising a potential recusal issue. I see no value to recusing from making a general comment here and posting pro forma in another section. If a motion is proposed, I will reevaluate any need to recuse at that time.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not going to retroactively add a finding to the case every time someone who has edited in the area requests adminship. The remedy prohibiting enforcement by named administrators was created in the context of the specific administrators who were actually named in the case, and based on the nature and degree of their involvement; it was never intended as a general sanction against any administrator who might have a similar background. Further, given that Sphilbrick has voluntarily agreed to avoid any potentially controversial administrative actions, I see no reason for the Committee to be involved at all. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Kirill and Brad have said, no need for the amendment. As far as the clarification goes, that should technically be on a different page, but the question might as well be answered here. My view, as I stated elsewhere, is that civil and reasonable RFA comments that help the bureaucrats, that contribute constructively to the discussion, and do not stoke drama, are perfectly acceptable. Please avoid purposefully reigniting disputes over the disputed topic area (the topic area that is the subject of the topic ban in question). In other words, provide the bureaucrats with enough information to weigh the value of your comment, but also pay heed to the topic ban. If you are in any doubt, ask for clarification. It also helps to state whether or not you regularly participate at RFA and undertake a careful review of the candidates, or whether you tend to comment only on RFAs of those that you recognise. If you are only aware of an editor and their RfA because you've previously interacted with them in the disputed topic area, then that is less acceptable than if you've interacted with them elsewhere and are prepared to comment on their editing and actions outside the topic area. If you have no interest in anything outside the disputed topic area, that indicates a loss of perspective and an excessive focus on one topic area. So my advice to topic-banned editors who wish to comment on RFAs of editors who they are mostly aware of due to their editing in the disputed topic area, is to look at their editing and actions elsewhere, to review that, and then make a comment at the RFA accordingly. That allows you to contribute constructively, and avoids drama. Let others comment on the editing and actions of the editor in question in the disputed topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Topic-banned editors are not prevented from discussing the candidate in RFAs. However, they are under restrictions, and consensus – both here here and at WP:BN – seems to be that they should comment with restraint, common sense and some circumspection. As RFAs run seven days, there is plenty of time to comment and it might be sensible to avoid appearing to take the lead/provoke drama in areas that impinge on the topic ban. As there is of course no requirement that each oppose !vote must be made from whole cloth, it is difficult to see how a simple "Oppose: Concerns about [insert concern] per X or Y" or very similar, would result in either the !vote carrying less than full weight or in a breach the topic ban. Roger ^talk 08:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with my colleagues, particularly Newyorkbrad and Kirill. Risker (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking

Initiated by Gigs (talk) at 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Supplemental motion regarding User Lightmouse

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

7.1) Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia.
8) Lightmouse is limited to using only the account "Lightmouse" to edit.
Supplemental motion: "Nonwithstanding remedies #7.1 and #8, Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Gigs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

[4]

Amendment 1

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Supplemental motion regarding User Lightmouse
At this point I do not trust Lightmouse to use automated tools and take complaints seriously, and think that his sanction should be extended to an indefinite ban on all automated and semi-automated editing.

Statement by Gigs

Lightmouse has engaged in high speed semi-automated editing without BAG approval in apparent violation of the previous sanctions, such as: [5] [6] [7] [8], as a small sample. These edits drew several complaints as to their accuracy and appropriateness, including feedback from myself of a general nature, before I realized that Lightmouse was under ArbCom sanctions. This is documented at: User_talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2010/October.

There are several currently pending BRFAs:

Note that the sanctions limit Lightmouse to a single BAG approved task, so it is unclear to me what action BAG should take regarding these BRFAs. Rlevse approached Lightmouse asking for an explanation of the apparent violation, but now that he is gone, I'm not sure if anyone is following up on this. I am asking for an official response from ArbCom in order to bring clarity and closure to this, regardless of whether my amendment is accepted.

My involvement in this is limited to relatively brief conversations last month on WT:MOSNUM and on Lightmouse's talk page urging him to take complaints about his semi-automatic editing much more seriously. Gigs (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Gigs

To clarify, the sort of dismissive behavior that I observed on WT:MOSNUM and Lightmouse's talk page is what prompted my concerns. (i.e. [9] [10] [11]) This is exactly the same sort of behavior that lead to the sanction in the first place. Editing rates peaking at 5-8 edits per minute on systematically selected alphabetized articles surely does not fall under "manual editing". The editing stopped 2 weeks ago ~~only because Rlevse approached Lightmouse and asked for an explanation of the apparent violation.~~ Gigs (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC) may have been mistaken about causality 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

Statement by Ohconfucius

I'm baffled too, but no more so than by this amendment. AFAIK, Lightbot hasn't been in operation for over a month now, BAG has been unresponsive to repeated requests for the bot. Lighmouse himself hasn't edited in two weeks, some 48 hours before Vanished 6551232 (talk · contribs) (aka Rlevse) posted his message on Lightmouse's talk page. Prior to those two weeks, I see nothing "high speed", just some 'normal' (by that, I mean manual) AWB actions at an average rate of 50 edits per hour to remove overlinked common terms (hour!, kilometer!!, minute!!!, ) and some years. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC), amended 02:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Gigs' "additional statement", I combed through Lightmouse's contributions history for the last 2,600+ entries. Therein, I noticed nothing incompatible with the editing speeds achieved for human-supervised AWB usage. I examined in excess of 50 edits, and found that rarely did each edit contain more than one or two changes, such as removing wikilinks to days of the week, years, and other common terms such as 'week', 'day', 'hour', 'second'... which I note is firmly endorsed by WP:Linking. There were occasionally more changes, which included insertion of '{{convert}}'. As for the complaints on LM's talk page... Rifleman complains here that Lightmouse has been systematically removing repeat links, implying that he should be careful not to disturb his misleading piped links notwithstanding; once again WP:Linking is firmly on Lightmouse's side. The diff used above of the post from pdfpdf clearly shows Gigs was aware of the belligerence of pdfpdf, who not only expressed his displeasure of having the {{convert}} foisted upon him in articles he had on his watchlist, calling them "non-consensus changes" (viz: "'If you think square kilometres are confusing, just remove them.' - For heavens sake! We are NOT your mother nor your housemaid nor your servant. YOU made these non-consensus changes. YOU fix them!!"), he repeatedly replaced the message despite its removal by the owner (and by me, a talk-page stalker) insisting it wasn't uncivil – I would actually call it harassment even though LM was firm but always polite with visitors to his talk page. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingpin13

Speaking somewhat as a member of the Bot Approvals Group, I firstly apologise for the slow progress of BRfA recently, there's only really been about three active BAG members approving bots over the past month. As I understand it, the previous case banned Lightmouse from making any semi- or fully-automated edits from any account. The amendment then permitted him to make some from a single account, Lightbot. The only edits explicitly approved by BAG were 50 trial edits, all of which are listed here, to be made from the Lightbot account, this was approved by Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) here. The edits linked to by Gigs clearly show Lightmouse using the AutoWikiBrowser (a semi-automated tool) on his main account. This is very clearly disallowed by the ArbCom remedies ([emphasises added] "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia", where "automation is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever", amended by "Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task"), it was made abundantly clear in the amendment that the only account which the ban from using automation was lifted on was the Lightbot account (but the edits Gigs have issue with came from the Lightmouse account). In addition to this problem with the accounts getting muddled, the edit summaries used by the bot and AWB, are in my opinion, not clear enough (for example, the Lightbot edits do not make it clear that they were approved trial edits). Besides which, this clearly was not a dry-run/userspace test - it was a live run, with changes being made to the Wikipedia namespace. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

As I understand it, the Lightmouse account can be used with automation relating to units of measurement. Coren said the expectation was “it would cover the ‘’normal’’ work around a 'bot’ task: That includes the usual dry runs in user space, the test runs okayed by BAG, and whatever minor tweaks are generally included in a single bot request”. I’ve done tests in accordance with this. BAG has been unable to respond for weeks if not months.

If I've misunderstood the situation, I'd be grateful for more clarity.

I'd like to correct the false impression that "The editing stopped 2 weeks ago only because Rlevse approached Lightmouse and asked for an explanation ...". I was told by one editor quoted in this discussion to "get a life" and sworn at (details not pleasant), well I do have a life outside WP which took priority over WP. I stopped editing articles on 28 Oct. Rlevse wrote a note on my talk page on 30 Nov. The event didn't precede the cause.

I'd like to correct the false allegation that I was 'dismissive'. From time to time, an editor will say that I shouldn't add metric units, in circumstances that aren't documented anywhere on WP guidance. Or they want me to add a different format/unit of their choosing. I always try to be polite. But sometimes the debate becomes circular or is entirely subjective. I may invite editors to take WP style issues to the WP style talk page, or I may take it there on their behalf. That's an attempt to be helpful and inclusive. Where I say that an editor is free to remove a metric unit or change it, I'm not 'dismissive', quite the reverse. I'm trying to collaborate and add calm.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for the comment by BAG. It took two and half months to get approval for a 50 edit trial for the simple task of adding unit conversions using the Lightbot account. We've had a further delay of a month and a half waiting for comment on the trial. The trial edits were a success. The normal course for bot applications is that feedback about a first trial results in another trial. It's pleasing to see that this Arbcom case has given me the feedback that BAG would prefer a different edit summary, I'd be happy to amend that. While waiting for this bot to get approval, I've created more bot applications so that preliminaries can be dealt with now. I know that the workload for BAG and Arbcom is high, here the two entities have to collaborate on a bot application and the delays are inevitably longer. I think I'm being patient on an application that is technically quite simple and (where trialled) has been successful. I'd be grateful if BAG and Arbcom can find a way to move this application forward. Lightmouse (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Awaiting statements from Lightmouse and/or BAG; I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify whether Lightmouse has BAG approval for the edits he's making. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting statements and join in Kirill's request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus far, I'm not convinced that action by us is needed, but I'm still open to further input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill and Brad. Roger ^talk 08:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also not seeing that action is required at this point. Risker (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys

Initiated by Biophys (talk) at 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of users affected by this amendment

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

Amendment 1

Biophys topic_banned
Biophys restricted - this is a related remedy that may be enacted after the topic ban

Statement by Biophys

I would like to apologize for contributing to disruption and ask for review and direction at this point, almost six months since the beginning of my topic ban. During this time I was active, edited in allowed areas, avoided conflicts, and tried to deal with problems noted in your findings of fact [12].

What was my problem? I edited 4,000 different articles (and a lot of them are related to my Russian cultural background) and created 250 new pages. Few my edits caused anyone's objections, but I always returned back to the articles where someone reverted my edits to be engaged in prolonged disputes, edit warring and complaints. It came at no surprise that the trouble happened in a difficult area that has been already a subject of numerous sanctions.

To avoid this problem in a future I am going to leave any article to others and edit something else if a dispute can not be quickly resolved by talking and compromising. It is enough to remove an article from my watch list. I did just that during my topic ban. This helped me to make exactly zero reverts that could be interpreted as edit warring during all this time (a few “undo” are fixes of obvious vandalism problems). Here are a few examples of someone recently reverting my edits [13] [14][15],[16],[17], and I walked away from these articles. Yes, I fully realize that every editor had his reason for reverting my edits, even though I happened to disagree with them and explained why [18], [19], [20],[21]. There is nothing wrong with returning later to these articles. The entire point is to avoid creating the conflicts.

If there is something else I must do, please tell. I could not care less about ethnic and territorial disputes, but I may have a bias related to human rights issues, no matter if the victims were Russian [22], German [23] or Korean [24], except that I know Soviet subjects much better. But my edits usually describe mainstream majority views and are referenced to books by the best experts, as in the diffs above.

In summary, I only wanted to tell that I am ready to contribute positively in this area. If you do not want to see me there, that's fine. No, I do not feel any rush to return back to difficult subjects, but I am ready to make such decisions for myself. I am asking for an amendment mostly because I feel extremely uncomfortable being a subject of indefinite sanctions [25]. I simply want to be a normal editor again and stay as far as possible from all administrative pages. You issued a good preventative topic ban that helped me to spend my time in the project more productively. But it is no longer needed.

Response to Offliner

Offliner provides this diff. No, I did not really make such promises since they are not included in the final version of my statement [26]. Still, this is something reasonable and involves three different issues.

(1) Yes, I left EEML mailing list.

(2) With regard to edit warring, I thought it was enough to limit myself mostly to 1RR per article per day. That was a serious error of judgment, and Arbcom made it very clear to me that edit warring is totally unacceptable, no matter how frequently one does it. Hence I changed my behavior and was not involved in a single edit warring incident during last six months. But edit warring is only a symptom. The real root of the problem are serious personal conflicts, which is something very much different from debating content disagreements. The only way to avoid the conflicts in this environment is to leave an article (or a disputed part of the article) to your opponent if you can not come to an agreement. That is something I was doing during these six months and will do in the future. This is a serious commitment. If everyone made such commitment, the conflicts would disappear.

(3) My comments at administrative noticeboards. Yes, it was my intention to avoid any comments in such places. But after thinking a while, I realized that such position is wrong. The problem is not the comments per se, but the message. The comments may create or fuel the conflicts (and that is what must be avoided!), or they may help to make a correct decision, find a proper consensus, and minimize the conflicts. Besides, the involvement in such discussions may help someone like me to understand better the policies. Yes, I tried to help by commenting recently, and you can judge if my comments were made in a good faith [27] [28], [29], [30], [31][32][33][34](those are most recent diffs provided in reverse chronological order). But if this becomes an issue, I am ready to stop.

The alleged battleground on my part. Unlike some others, I did not file a single official complaint about others to AE, ANI or other similar places for at least a year. Offliner brings here an episode when Colchicum made an AE request about Russavia still stalking my edits. Yes, I get excited when Jehochman, Petri and Russavia started claiming that it was me who actually violated the ban, despite to clarification by Shell. However, Offliner forget that I striked through my comment as soon as realized that it was indeed inappropriate [35], and I did not object to the non-administrative closure of the AE case by Petri Krohn [36]. I regret about commenting anything at all in this case.

Yes, I was concerned with certain actions or words by Vecrumba, Radek and Martintg and left them a few friendly comments about this [37] and [38] (diffs by Offliner). I do not think that Vecrumba or Radek were offended by my comments. And frankly, there are too many bad faith accusations in the statement by Offliner. I remind to Vecrumba about Russian editor who was indefinitely banned, mostly for contributing in irrelevant discussions. I am telling Radek that "winning" is not the goal, and it might be better for him to loose a dispute or two. I am looking at new editors, like Marknutley and Collect, and ask one of them if she is aware of potential problems. Is that an evidence of the "battleground" by me?

Response to Dojarca

You quote an Arbcom remedy about me ("..."). Yes, that is what I ask to amend. This case concerns mostly behavior by sides during first three months of 2010, although there are also long-term problems with behavior of everyone involved. So, I thought that six months might be a reasonable period of time to make corrections if needed.

Other responses and discussion

@Carcharoth. Do you mean my editing in natural sciences? If so, I can ask someone to comment. But if you mean Soviet Union-related subjects, then almost everyone who knows me is probably involved, one way or another. This is a seriously understaffed area (unlike anything about US), with very few productive content contributors. All people with whom I collaborated are involved, banned or stopped their participation, which is not at all surprising. I too was not especially active in this area for a long time and probably will not be very active even if you lift this ban, for rather obvious reasons.Biophys (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please see my comments in "Communist terrorism" article talk page [39][40] [41] to judge if I can constructively discuss even the most controversial subjects. But this is just an extreme example. Speaking generally, there is nothing wrong with editing even such articles (if new consensus can be found, that's fine; if not, let's edit something else). Speaking practically, I would certainly avoid any articles in the state of active editorial war [42]. Biophys (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Offliner

I don't think there is sufficient reason to believe Biophys would not return to his old disruptive ways if the sanction is lifted. He has made several promises before (e.g.[43],[44]), but these never caused him to alter his behaviour (see here). Biophys also continued to participate in battleground discussions during his topic ban, defending certain editors [45][46], while attacking others [47][48][49][50][51]. Biophys' battleground mentality is still here, as clearly evidenced by diffs like this and this. Anyway, the sanction says that the topic ban is to be reviewed no sooner than after one year, not now. The ruling was pretty clear here, and modifying it now would make the original sanction look strange, even misleading. Offliner (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba and in Response to Offliner

Re: Offliner's reference of an exchange on my talk page here, Offliner's characterization is a complete misrepresentation as I was attempting to work through some conflicts in the topic area in question (and have received positive responses regarding my participation); Biophys' statement was one that I took as asking why I would seek out some area of controversy that is a known battleground (there was a raging Arbcom going on at the time I took interest to the articles in the area of dispute). Observing that there are battlegrounds and offering the observation that an editor might have better places to spend one's time is hardly exhibiting a "battleground mentality." What is a battleground mentality is Offliner always seeming to be the first to show up at these affairs to denounce those who he considers his editorial opposition. I'll spare diffs on his block shopping with regard to myself. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dojarca

I think Biophys is not sincere here. He has a long history of gaming the system, virtuously using the Wikipedia's rules against his opponents. Currently he is involved in a dispute in Communist terrorism trying to re-create this article and push material from a highly biased Black Book of Communism. He cited his topic ban as an obstacle for further discussion about this topic.

Also note that the topic ban imposed on Biophys is very narrow. It does not include Eastern Europe and Communism in general, but only the USSR-related topics. I doubt he is able to contribute constructively in this area judging from previous his contributions.

--Dojarca (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the Biophys sanction: Biophys is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the arbitration Committee.

So this application should be dismissed based only on the previous decision, because Biophys currently has no right to request the review of the ban.--Dojarca (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DonaldDuck

As far as I remember from my contacts with Biophys, he was very experienced in gaming the system. One of his tactics was moving from his battleground topic area temporalily, only to avoid sanctions, and restart his battle later. He several times declared retirement from Wikipedia during his arbitration cases (recently he asked to delete his userpage to remove traces of this multiple retirements). This recent comment by Biophys: "Besides, what difference does it make if someone follows the rules because he is now a different person or because he does not want to be a subject of sanctions?" gives reason to suspect that Biophys has not really changed his outlook, and only active sanctions keep him from returning to his battleground activity. --DonaldDuck (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Remedy 1

Statement by Martintg

I was involved in the original Russavia-Biophys case, after Russavia continually brought complaints against myself and others forced me to act. Subsequently Russavia was restricted from interacting with former EEML members and this remedy has been remarkably successful, freeing him from the incentive for stalking for violations and allowing us to contribute in a more collegiate environment. This kind of interaction ban does not prevent people from working together on the same topic because it allows for necessary dispute resolution born out of legitimate content dispute, as interpreted by the admins patrolling AE. But it stops the perpetuation of the battleground as it forces people to either work together or ignore each other by taking away the easy option of block shopping. Therefore I request that this interaction restriction be extended to a couple more people.

When User:Offliner accuses Biophys of "battleground mentality", he doesn't come here with clean hands. As I recall, Offliner was previously involved in the harassment and outing of Biophys that was perpetrated by Russavia. Offliner was recently site banned for six months for engaging in the most extreme battleground behavior of posting a link to a freezepage of material he knew to be soon oversighted. Just recently he launched yet another Arbitration enforcement case against Vecrumba [52] in conjunction with User:Petri Krohn. Petri Krohn has also been site banned by both the Committee and the community. Note that Krohn launched a bogus SPI case, and both of them have involved themselves in continuing their battleground having involved themselves in another recent failed AE request against myself[53].

Just as the Committee has grown tired of seeing the same old names over and over again, I am tired of it too. Very tired. We all want to move on. Except that Offliner and Petri Krohn seem to be stuck in the battleground headspace of 2009. Their ugly tactics are not constructive and have no place in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no attempt on their part at building a collegiate environment let alone engage in productive discussion, unlike other editors who have expressed such a willingness to work together. As univolved BorisG stated in regard to Offliner's latest AE case, this needs to stop.

Therefore I ask the ArbCom to amend Remedy 1 to:

"Russavia (talk · contribs), Offliner (talk · contribs) and Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution."

--Martin (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shell, sorry perhaps I didn't articulate this clearly above: an associated interaction restriction is related to Biophys' original request. With any relaxation of Biophys' topic ban, as they would not like such an outcome, it is highly likely either Offliner or Petri Krohn would agitate some kind of action or pile on into any future dispute involving Biophys, if their recent track record indicated above is anything to go by. Note that User:Dojarca appears to be associated with Petri Krohn, having proxied for him in the past, I would check his edit history, one of his first edits after an eight month absence was to comment here. Offline co-ordination? --Martin (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biophys

I think you need a new rule to penalize users for making battleground requests at AE.

The "battleground AE request" must satisfy two criteria: (a) it has no merit, no action was taken, and (b) it was filed as a "battleground action", as decided by consensus of AE administrators. A typical AE battleground request may be submitted essentially as a retaliation for a legitimate comment by user V, or it may be intentionally constructed to create a conflict between users V and P, although user P is irrelevant to Arbcom decision asked to be enforced, and so on. We are not talking here about newbies.

A standard penalty for filing a battleground request must include reinstatement of the most serious sanction previously imposed on the filer in connection with his previous battleground actions, whatever it was (an indefinite site ban, a topic ban, and so on). Saying that, I strongly disagree with BorisG who uses words "battleground mentality". We are not thought police. People should be held responsible only for their actions, such as filing the battleground complaints every week.

A lot was said about creating battlegrounds. True. Let's do something about it. Ask your AE administrators. Do they need it? And you do not need a "nuke". All you need is a motion to instruct AE administrators. I am not making any judgments about current AE cases. This should be decided by others.

As about interaction bans, I personally do not have any problems with debating anything at all with Petri, Offliner and Russavia if needed. I would even suggest lifting the interaction ban for Russavia with myself, rather than imposing new bans. And perhaps no interaction bans would be needed if you adopted a motion about bad-faith AE requests.Biophys (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(re to Martin above). Thank you very much, but I do not need any interactions bans; I do not foresee any problems with Offliner or anyone else (perhaps you and Vecrumba have problems), and I never had any serious disputes with Petri Krohn. Please do not patronize me.Biophys (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same as Brad. Statements if any should focus on this narrow issue only, not the broader topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to please get some views from those familiar with Biophys's editing who were not involved in any of the previous cases? Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This really should stay focused on the amendment made by Biophys; if there are other issues that need to be addressed, please open a separate request. Shell ^babelfish 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Kehrli

Initiated by Kkmurray (talk) at 23:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Kehrli arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 1.1) Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

kkmurray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Nick Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator of original case)
kehrli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Remedy 1.1) Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z and from articles related to Kendrick mass and mass units.

Statement by Kkmurray

There is a dispute regarding WP:OR and WP:NPOV at Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit) that is a continuation of the dispute previously discussed in the resolved arbitration case Kehrli that involved the mass and unit articles Mass-to-charge ratio, Thomson (unit) and Mass spectrum. User:Kehrli has resumed aggressive POV editing related to mass and unit articles. The locus of discussion for this dispute is Talk:Kendrick_mass.

As in the resolved arbitration case, User:Kehrli has over several months pushed original research and POV in mass and unit articles. He has used the general guidelines documents such as ISO 31, the IUPAC green book and a minority view from a single primary source document [54] to justify POV pushing and original research in mass units. He rejects [55] multiple secondary sources [56] and is not abiding by WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE and WP:OR in article editing.

As in the past dispute leading to the resolved arbitration case, User:Kehrli has engaged in disruptive activity such as deleting talk page comments [57], inappropriately flagging other users talk page comments.[58][59], merging without consensus.[60], removing page flags during discussion, [61][62][63], WP:PERSONAL [64] and lack of WP:AGF [65][66][67].

Dispute resolution steps so far

This dispute has been discussed extensively for several months (primarily at Talk:Kendrick mass) and has gone through a proposed merge, request for comment, and informal discussions with prior case administrators. The discussion has been useful in establishing the views of the editors and several new scientific references have been found that provide additional facts that shed light on the dispute. Informal discussions with administrators from the prior dispute process have led to further clarification of the situation, [68] It appears that further discussion will not likely be useful as User:Kehrli does not seem willing to compromise. [69]

Specific dispute resolution steps:

Kendrick unit article created December 18, 2009 by User:Kehrli [70]

PROD January 17, 2010 by User:Glenfarclas [71]

dePROD January 17, 2010 by User:Glenfarclas [72]

Move Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass January 25, 2010 by User:Kkmurray [73]

Reverse move and redirect Kendrick mass to Kendrick unit August 17, 2010 by User:Kehrli [74] [75]

Restore Kendrick mass and propose merge from Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass August 17, 2010 by User:Kkmurray [76] [77]

Request for comments from WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Mass spectrometry, September 24-27, 2010 by User:Kkmurray [78] [79] [80]

Open RfC October 17, 2010 by User:Kkmurray [81]

Informal request for assistance from prior case administrators November 1, 2010 User:Nick Y. [82] [83] [84] [85]

Examples of recent original research related to Kendrick mass

Kendrick mass [86]
Kendrick (unit) [87]
Atomic mass unit [88]
Thomson (unit) [89]
m/z [90]
The "Kehrli Plot" and original methods: [91]
Rationale for original research and rejecting published scientific literature: [92]
Rejection of secondary sources [93]

Additional comment

In both the 2006 and 2010 disputes, Kehrli has applied the broad principles of metrology to what he considers to be poor chemistry nomenclature.

In the 2006 case, he objected to mass-to-charge ratio being defined as dimensionless. Secondary sources defining it as dimensionless (e.g. IUPAC Gold Book [94]) were “minority opinion of a small group of scientists” [95] A single source that is consistent with his argument (Cooks and Rockwood 1991) was given undue balance and used to justify POV editing.

In the 2010 dispute, he objects to Kendrick mass being defined with units of Da. Multiple secondary sources defining Kendrick mass with units of Da (e.g. [96] ) are “outdated jargon of a part of a fringe group”. A single source (Junnien 2010 [97]) is given undue balance and used to justify POV editing.

The issue is sources and balance.

Whether this is dealt with as an amendment to the prior case or as a new case, this is the same behavior as before. --Kkmurray (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick Y.

I am very busy right now and won't be able to spend much time explaining this situation. However, I will state here that the examples given by Kkmurray are original research. The OR is logical and helps to resolve some outstanding issues in the scientific literature. In other words it might make a good, as in thoughtful and compelling, opinion article in a scientific journal. There are multiple sources that conflict with one another. Rather than stating such Kehrli has chosen to resolve the issues here at wikipedia with his thoughtful suggestions as to how things should be done. His suggestions make sense and are logical and consistent with how units of measure should be defined by the strictest of rules. It simply isn't his role as an editor at wikipedia to define new units of measure, or even clarify the definitions of things that look like units of measure and are present in the scientific literature in some form. We are here to summarize and report accurately, even when what we are reporting on is a mess or conflicting with conventions. The new behavior is essentially the same as what happened last time. I wholeheartedly endorse Kkmurray's course of action here as it is clear that Kehrli is unwilling to understand or accept any feedback on the scope of his responsibilities as an editor. I also find no faults in Kkmurray's position on the substance of this issue. --Nick Y. (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Amend or Restart To my understanding the purpose of sanctions is not to punish but to incontrovertibly inform and allow for some time and reflection. It is not alright to return to the same behavior after sanctions expire. The sanctions should have informed you that you need to listen and understand appropriate editing and behavior. Amendments to previous finding should be primarily for completing this job. "Is the same behavior persisting?" "What is it that is not clear about what is or is not OR?" "How can we help this editor to understand how to contribute effectively?" "Do sanctions need to be extended since they persist after previous sanctions, clarifications and admonitions?" The expiration of sanctions doesn't mean that the findings have expired and that the offending editor is free to return to their previous behavior. It means that the editor now has another chance to contribute as a good wikipedian.--Nick Y. (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Kehrli's Statement I don't have the time to have the protracted debate the Kehrli seeks, nor is it necessary for the arbitrators to understand the argument that Kehrli is making. The simple fact is that Kkmurray is advocating that the articles around this issue be based on the commonly used definitions and actual usage as found in the scientific literature. Kehrli can argue perpetually why this is wrong however Kkmurray's position is consistent with wikipedia policy. This is the same conflict with m/z in the past and note that inappropriate editing at m/z and mass-to-charge ratio nearly identical to the problems a few years ago are recent. Kehrli persists in trying disprove commonly accepted units and notations that are widely used within the scientific contexts that use them. He/she also persists in finding one-off suggestions in the literature that are not widely used nor supported by any authoritative body and weave them into wikipedia. Kkmurray's representation of how the Kendrick mass is used is dead on correct. Kehrli's arguments are for making it right. The question is do we represent actual common usage or do we make it right. --Nick Y. (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy on Units The relevant section is: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." I think that this is the single focus of the issues here. This is the only point that needs to be addressed. Do we use the most current, most widely used notation and units as most commonly defined and used within the area being covered? Or do we make up better definitions and better uses? These are the only questions that need to be answered. --Nick Y. (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kehrli (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The current Kendrick case has nothing to do with the previous m/z case

In the previous case I wrote an article explaining why the m/z notation is wrong. I thereby referred to the general principles of metrology according to which the m/z notation is indeed wrong. However, I could not produce a source that specifically said that m/z is wrong. This lead the arbitrators, which were all not experts in the field of metrology, believe that my article was OR.

In this case here, which is about a mass scale and not a physical quantity of mass per charge, I was much more careful. I learned from the past experience. I only wrote things that had literal sources. This time I did not rely solely on sources that showed that I used the correct methods. Everything I wrote is sourced. There is absolutely no OR, as I will show later.

In addition I wrote a much more balanced article. It was not an article that showed that some terminology is wrong. It is an article that discusses a method in physical chemistry in the correct terminology as well as in the incorrect terminologies. I then listed passages from the VIM (vocabulary of international metrology) that will indicate to the expert that the terminology is not compliant to the VIM. I did not write down this conclusion because it could have been seen as OR.

Note that even my adversary Nick says that I have the facts right.

I am not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, but since this is an amendment of an old case which has nothing to do with the new Kendrick case, I should now probably continue defending the old case.

Why the old m/z case came to a wrong decision

This previous case was about the question whether mass spectrometers measure the physical quantity mass-to-charge ratio m/Q (with dimension mass/charge) or a ill defined, nameless and dimensionless quantity m/z which is often used by the analytical chemistry branch of the mass spec community. My arguments based mainly on a paper written by two outstanding scientists (Cooks and Rockwood) that tried to introduce a new terminology in mass spectrometry by replacing the dimensionless quantity m/z by a well defined quantity with dimension mass/charge and using the Thomson (unit) for this quantity. Unfortunately, in this paper they themselves used terminology that was not 100% decisive. They continued to use the symbols m/z for their quantity. My argument was that they considered m/z as a quantity of dimension mass/charge which correctly should have the symbols m/Q according to the international conventions. This mistake is made by many mass spectrometrists. Of all those that use m/z symbols, about 1/3 thinks of it as a mass-to-charge ratio (my guess how the authors meant it), 1/3 thinks it is a mass (and use Da as units), and 1/3 think it is dimensionless. Kkmurray then argued that it was not certain what the authors meant with their symbol m/z and that my "assumption" (which was based on the actual text in the paper) was not solid and therefore my article is OR.

In the mean time, one of the authors has visited Wikipedia. He has corrected the article Thomson (unit) in my sense and has stated that the the authors thought of m/z as a quantity of mass/charge and the unit Th as a unit Th = Da/e. He added this section in the article: [98]

Unfortunately, the article proposing the unit of the thomson contains an ambiguity relating to the specification of charge. In one place the article refers to "charge number," as noted above, but in another place the article specifies charge in terms of actual units of charge: "Using standard rules for abbreviation, we have 1 Th = 1 u/ atomic charge." Or in other words the units of the thomson are units of mass (unified atomic mass units) divided by units of charge (atomic or elementary charge). This unfortunate ambiguity may have contributed to the controversey over the unit. The ambiguity about specification of charge does not affect the numerical value assigned to the mass-to-charge ratio of an ion, but instead relates to the dimensionality to be associated with the number. Clarification of the original intent of the authors has not appeared in the literature, although in private communications Rockwood states that the intended dimensionality was mass/charge with the specific units being unified atomic mass units per elementary charge.

He labeled this correction: Removed gratuitous comment and opinion refering to those who use the thomson as the "fringe" of the mass spec community. Which shows that Kkmurray edits were indeed non-neutral.

The author even engaged in a discussion with Kkmurray where he slapped his wrist for being non-neutral in the Thomson (unit) article: [99]

In other words: the author not only stated that my interpretation of the paper was correct, he also was angry about the non-neutral wording of Kkmurray.

In hindsight the appearance of one of the authors shows that my ban was incorrect. Since we are already engaged in an amendment, I therefore ask the arbitrators to reverse the ban that was given to me in 2006 so I get back a blank jacket. This would help me to better withstand the troll-like behavior of Kkmurray who engages in disruptive behavior in almost each of my edits, as I will show later.

I also ask the new arbitrators to spell a ban on Kkmurray for his disruptive behavior.

Why the new accusations of OR are wrong

Here is a list of alleged OR of mine. I will show for each one of them why it is not OR. This may get very technical. Please ask a specialist in metrology for an opinion,

Kendrick mass [100]

It is not quite clear what exactly should be OR, the claim is not very specific. I assume the following citation needed lables are the problem:

The Kendrick mass is a mass obtained by scaling^{[citation needed]} International System of Units (SI) masses such as atomic mass unit (u)^{[citation needed]}, or dalton (Da)^{[citation needed]} to simplify the display of peak patterns in hydrocarbon mass spectra.

Here is the explanation of the citation needed tags, in order of their appearance:

scaling an SI unit is a process that is not foreseen or described anywhere in the metrology literature. Metrology strongly prohibits fiddling around with units. It is actually against the law. For natural units one finds often the expression "scaling to 1", but not for SI units.
the atomic mass unit is explicitly called a unit outside the SI by all relevant metrology institutions
same for the Da

Kendrick (unit) [101]

I added a unit infobox for the Kendrick unit. What should be wrong with this?

Atomic mass unit [102]

Again, I added a standard unit infobox for the Dalton unit. What should be wrong with this?

Thomson (unit) [103]

I supplemented the charge state of the ions with their actual charge. This is completely appropriate since, as we now have learned from its inventor, the Thomson unit is a unit of mass/charge, not mass/(charge state). In the context of this article it would even be appropriate to eliminate any reference to charge state completely.

m/z [104]

I added a physical unit infobox, which is 100% appropriate since m/z is a physical quantity in the eyes of any metrologist.

The "Kehrli Plot" and original methods: [105]

The Kehrli plot is not even in the article. It is on the talk page where I try to explain a broader view of the Kendrick analysis. The Kehrli Plot would be OR if it were in an article, but on a talk page it is perfectly ok to explain things. This is a typical example of the disruptive behavior of Kkmurray.

Rationale for original research and rejecting published scientific literature: [106]

This again is not in an article. It is on a talk page where I try to explain the concepts of modern metrology to Kkmurray.

Rejection of secondary sources [107]

This again is not in an article. It is on a talk page where I try again to explain the concepts of modern metrology to Kkmurray. These are all concepts that implement the consensus terminology of the IUPAP red book, AND the IUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND the International vocabulary of metrology.

Conclusion: there is no OR on my side

Why Kkmurray should be banned for disruptive behavior

Kkmurray moved/renamed my Kendrick unit article to Kendrick mass without any prior discussion. Wikipedia rules, however, state clearly: if you believe the move might be controversial (consider using the movenotice template to draw attention to the proposed move and new title, and start discussion on the talk page)
Kkmurray reverts almost all of my edits, usually for no good reasons, just to stalk me.
Kkmurray had even my Sandbox articles deleted during a period where I was not active on Wikipedia, here. These were articles where I was working on improvements and removing OR, for heaven's sake. It is not reasonable behavior to prevent improvements on Wikipedia.
Kkmurray is violating the principle of good faith
Kkmurray is continuously inserting gratuitous comments and opinion (not my words) into my articles in order to sabotage them.
Kkmurray is pushing the outdated jargon of a fringe group (mass spectrometrists) over the international consensus terminology of the IUPAP red book, AND the IUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND the International vocabulary of metrology in all his edits. He thereby renders the articles non-understandable to the wider public.
He is stealing my time as well as the time of you, the arbitrators, with his stalking behavior

The Big Picture

Kkmurray is pushing the outdated jargon of a part of a fringe group (mass spectrometrists) into Wikipedia

I think Wikipedia should be understandable to the wider public and therefore think the international consensus terminology of the IUPAP red book, AND the IUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND the International vocabulary of metrology which is also used by some researchers in the same fringe group (mass spectrometrists), is more appropriate.

That's all. Both views can produce sources. That is why it comes down to a really simple question:

Should Wikipedia give answers to the wider public or should it address ivory tower specialist in their own jargon

PS: I am currently very short on time and may not answer immediately. Kehrli (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Nick's Statement

Kkmurray's position is consistent with wikipedia policy.

Not true. Wikipedia policy says here:

The use of units of measurement is guided by the following principles:

Avoid ambiguity: Aim to write so you cannot be misunderstood.
Familiarity: The less readers have to look up definitions, the easier it is to be understood.
International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific; apart from some regional or historical topics, use the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question.

The facts are:

The international consensus terminology (of the IUPAP red book, AND the IUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND the International vocabulary of metrology) is much less ambiguous than the jargon that is used in the field of mass spectrometry. For example, the definition of m/z has changed multiple times during the last 25 years. The use m/z is not consistent at all. 3 different researchers will have 3 different uses. This makes it completely ambiguous.
The international consensus is also much more familiar to most people except for those from the field of mass spectrometry, which understand both ways since, as I said above, even within the field there is no consensus on m/z use. For example, there are about 3 different uses of m/z and it is not clear at all which is the most common.

Hence I conclude that wikkipedia policy strongly favors my approach.

Kehrli persists in trying disprove commonly accepted units and notations that are widely used within the scientific contexts that use them.

They are widely used, but so are the ones that I promote. The later in addition comply with the international consensus on terminology.

He/she also persists in finding one-off suggestions in the literature that are not widely used nor supported by any authoritative body and weave them into wikipedia.

Not true either. For example, I found many different sources for the Kendrick mass units, among them a source from Marshall himself, which is the preferred source of Kkmurray. There is no "one-of" here.

Kkmurray's representation of how the Kendrick mass is used is dead on correct.

Not true: as you wrote yourself, there is no consistent use at all. Therefore Kkmurray's representation cannot be dead on correct. Sometimes the Kendrick mass is unitles and sometimes it is in dalton. Both is obviously wrong. Both do not comply with the normal terminology established by metrology. Both are mathematically incorrect.

Kehrli's arguments are for making it right.

No, my argument is for the consensus terminology since it can be understood by more people than the scientific jargon of a fringe group that makes no sense in the bigger picture.

The question is do we represent actual common usage or do we make it right.

No, we can do both, use the consensus terminology that all people understand AND thereby make it right.

In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic.

In Wikipedia we do not write scientific articles. That would be OR. We explain science to the layman. Therefore we need to, I quote: Use familiar units rather than obscure units—do not write over the heads of the readership. Familiar is mainly the international consensus terminology.

Statement by Physchim62

ZOMG! The finer points of metrological opinion as the basis for an ArbCom case! Where should I start? Well, firstly, both “sides” have tried to seek mediation from relevant WikiProjects without success. I’ve seen their requests on both WP:CHM and WP:MEASURE, but didn’t get involved because the dispute seemed to be about such small points of interpretation. I neither agree nor disagree with either “side” completely. To atone for my sins of Wikilaziness, I offer the parties the analysis below as a basis for moving forward: if there is agreement to look for mediation, we can always squat a page at WP:MEDCAB to sort out the details.

Extended content

To avoid any arguments over terminology, I shall call ℚ the physical quantity that mass spectrometrists pretend to measure. This quantity is related to m/Q by the laws of electromagnetism and (more precisely) to m/z because of the quantization of electric charge at the molecular scale. Note that Q and z are not the same kind of physical quantity: Q is continuous and has the dimension IT, while z is discontinuous and has the dimension 1.

I say “pretend to measure”, because ℚ (whatever name you give it) cannot be measured directly without a knowledge of the magnetic field, a recurring problem in metrology. The only way to measure the magnetic field along the path of interest is to calibrate the output of the mass spectrometer for an ion whose m_r/z is accurately known: let’s call this calibration output ℚ°. So the measurement result of a mass spectrometric measurement is actually ℚ/ℚ°, a quantity that is obviously of dimension one. The spectrometrist (or, more usually, the spectrometer) then multiplies by the known value of m_r/z for the standard to give ℚ. Yet both m_r and z are also quantities of dimension one, so ℚ itself must also be of dimension one. Or, to be more precise, it is a quantity of dimension one related to the physical response of the mass spectrometer by a calibration constant.

So where do the thomson and the kendrick unit fit into all this? Well, they are units that are not coherent with the SI. Nothing wrong with that, the dalton isn’t coherent with the SI either! But the current definition of the thomson on Wikipedia is a classic example of harmlessly sloppy metrology by chemists: it has units on both sides of the equation, yet units from different, incoherent systems! The formal way to deal with this problem is to define a physical constant, which will have different values (and maybe even different dimensions) in the different systems. So we define the “Thomson constant” m_Th such that m_Th = m_u/e = 1 Th. It is obvious that we can also define a “Kendrick constant” m_Ke = m_u/(A_r(¹²C)+2A_r(¹H))e = 1 Ke. The two units are of the same type, non-coherent with one another but both traceable to the SI through experimentally determined constants.

Secondly, this doesn’t seem to be a simple case of WP:OR on either side, although much of what has been argued over would have been better in a peer-reviewed article than on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the dispute is disruptive and appears to be spreading to more articles.

Finally, I’m sure I’m not the only one to question whether the reopening of a case from 2006 is really the best procedural way forward. If this case has to come before ArbCom, it should be as a new case: I would suggest that such a new case could probably be resolved by motion, given the limited scope of the dispute. Physchim62 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Awaiting statements; will comment thereafter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have some mixed feelings here. On the one hand, Kirill's point is well-taken, and it's difficult for us to talk about renewing remedies from a 2006 case given the time that has elapsed and the fact that not a single current arbitrator was on the committee in 2006. On the other hand, if, as appears to be true, an editor is currently engaged in exactly the same behavior for which he was sanctioned in 2006, it doesn't seem that the entire panoply of a new case should be required. Or, if we do ask for a new case, we should do our best to expedite it, which in the context of a one-editor dispute should certainly should be doable. In any event, waiting a couple more days (but only that!) for any additional statements to come in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further clarifying my thinking, and responding to the latest comment above, whether we act (if at all) through a motion or a new case might depend in part on what Kehrli has to say. At the moment, he hasn't said anything, but then again, he hasn't edited at all in the week since this request was posted (whether that's cause-and-effect or not is impossible to say). So, I think we need to wait a little while longer and see what happens next. My views might be very different depending on whether he offers a reasonable explanation of why the current circumstances differ from 2006, or whether he goes back to editing while ignoring the request, or whatever else he might do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting statements also - please note that as this is a case from 2006, I will only be reading the final decision as background. If more background reading is needed, please indicate this in statements. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having looked at the old case, the remedies there have expired, so if anything was done here we would be reinstating (and extending) them, rather than amending them. In essence, this should be treated as a request to reopen the case. My view is that given the period of time that has elapsed, and the complexity of the matter, the best thing to do is to reopen the case (or start a new one) rather than attempt to work out on the amendments page what is going on here. But I'm holding off on my final decision here until Kehrli has had a chance to make a statement. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur with my colleagues. Even though this does appear to be the same conduct issues, a new case would be best. Either that, or mediation. I would advise the filer to either refile for a new case, or to take up Physchim62's offer of informal mediation. Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a general point, I'm opposed to the idea of dragging a four-year-old case from the grave to impose new sanctions; arbitration remedies are not meant to be a perpetual hammer hanging over editors' heads long after they've expired. If there's a dispute that needs our attention, it would be better framed as a new case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My instincts are against resurrecting a four-year-old case, especially when the last sanction under it was in September 2006. I'd like to hear from Kehrli before finally deciding. Roger ^talk 08:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through the area, I'm going to have to decline this as an amendment, with the suggestion that it be re-filed as a full case (which would be reasonably be expedited) SirFozzie (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SirFozzie and others; this appears to need a full case rather than an extension of something from four years ago. Shell ^babelfish 22:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too think that, should this proceed, a fresh case is required. Risker (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my colleagues that this needs to be filed as a full case request. There is enough difference in context after four years elapsed that simply reviving a sanction this old without an examination de novo would be profoundly unfair. — Coren ^(talk) 12:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 612: / Line 612: @@
 *I agree with SirFozzie and others; this appears to need a full case rather than an extension of something from four years ago. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]]   <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 22:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I too think that, should this proceed, a fresh case is required. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 01:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
+* I agree with my colleagues that this needs to be filed as a full case request.  There is enough difference in context after four years elapsed that simply reviving a sanction this old without an examination de novo would be profoundly unfair.  &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 12:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 ----