Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

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

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: World War II|Request for clarification: World War II]]	none	none	25 June 2011
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Russavia|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Russavia]]	none	none	25 June 2011

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Request for clarification: World War II

Initiated by Communikat (talk) at Communikat (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

• Communikat (initiator)
• Binksternet (talk)
• Edward321 (talk)
• Nick-D (talk)
• Petri Krohn
• (Hohum ^@)
• TomStar81 (Talk)
• Stor stark7 ^Speak
• Paul Siebert (talk)
• Jim101 (talk)
• Habap (talk)
• Fifelfoo (talk)
• User:Shell Kinney
• BorisG (talk)

Confirmations of notices sent:

• Binksternet
• Edward321
• Nick-d
• Petri Krohn
• Hohum
• TomStar81
• Stor_stark7
• BorisG
• Shell_Kinney
• Paul Siebert
• Habap
• Fifelfoo
• Jim101

Statement by Communikat

I am topic-banned from editing or discussing articles about Aftermath of World War II To avoid conceptual confusion, potential disputes, complaints, or edit-warring, I request in good faith that Arbcom provides semantic clarification as to the practical, contextual meaning of "Aftermath of World War II" as referred to in the topic-ban decision.

I propose the word "aftermath" be agreed upon as meaning the immediate aftermath of World War II, and the end of 1948 be accepted as the World War II "aftermath" cut-off date. I propose this for the following reasons:

• There exist two distinctly separate Wikipedia articles. One is titled Aftermath of World War II the other is titled Effects of World War II.
• The aftermath of World War II has long been defined here by one (then) active editor as meaning "(T)he state of the world immediately after World War II", whereas the "Effects of World War II cover the long lasting effects of the war." (My emphasis added). I concur with this definition, which has never been disputed.
• Another (then) active editor has pointed out here that content going beyond the immediate aftermath period would amount absurdly to an "Aftermath of the Aftermath". Nor was that ever contradicted or disputed.
• 1948 is the most frequently cited date in the text of the [[Aftermath of World War II] article, and for practical purposes this should be the end of the Aftermath of World War II, to which part of my topic-ban applies.

Response to Sir Fozzie comment

Kindly note: I've not asked for topic ban to be lifted. I've asked specifically for clarification. Kindly comply. Your pertinent input would be appreciated. Thank you. Communikat (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Nick-d statement

Re: As David Fuchs (talk · contribs) notes, there's no magic date in relation to World War II and its aftermath and specifying one would quickly become unworkable. Nick-d has not provided a diff or link to his quote from David Fuchs. Nick-d, please do so; and if that quote does in fact carry verifiable weight, then you should revise and reorganise entirely the Aftermath of World War II and the Effects of World War II articles, as referred to above in my opening statement. Communikat (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the specific substance of my request for clarification, Nick-d has confusingly paraphrased David Fuch's comments almost beyond recognition.

As regards Nick-d's claim that I am "continuing the dispute over the World War II article": that is not true. I have simply acknowledged Binksternet's continuation of the WP:DEADHORSE dispute over WW2 article. If it is Nick-d's intention to have me gagged completely, then he should just say so. WP:CENSOR has relevance. Nor am I trying to "have softened" the editing restrictions upon me. I am trying to obtain clarification as to the exact scope of those restrictions, so that I may edit productively and avoid further tedious and disruptive disputes with him and others. Nick-d's failure to assume good faith is apparent. Communikat (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to arbitrator and others

I suggest commentators here should refrain from speculation about my future behaviour. The normal way of resolving uncertainty is to ask for clarification. In my instance, I have asked specifically for clarification as to whether or not 1948 may be agreed upon as a practical date cut-off date relative to resumed editing within the constraints of my topic-ban. So far nobody has answered my question. Instead, there is this continual shying away from the key question by hiding behind a behavioral issue for which I have already been sanctioned. But since everyone here seems to be preoccupied with behavioural issues, allow me to quote one military history project co-ordinator, milhist articles “exist in a constant state of chaos”. This was true even before I started editing there. To quote another, very active and experienced WW2 editor Paul Siebert: “ ... let me remind you that he (Communicat) initiated several discussions that led to significant improvement of, e.g., WWII article ... we all must remember that initial impetus to this work was given by Communicat”.

If you don’t want me to edit or discuss anything relating to any and all post-1945 military history articles, then just say so. It is problematic to say the scope of the topic-ban should be interpreted "broadly but reasonably". What may be reasonable to one editor might not necessarily be viewed as reasonable by others. That is a recipe for potential conflict, which I’m seeking to avoid. In similar vein, Nick-d has claimed recently that Arbcom rulings are “deliberately broad in order to provide admins with the discretion they need”. What this “discretion” has recently amounted to in effect was a perceived prohibition in terms of my topic-ban preventing me from exercising any right of reply to personal attacks, and/or referring to the earlier Arbcom proceedings.

Now, my thoughts (as invited by NewYorkbrad) on what might need to be done going forward that would minimize the risk of conflict. A precise clarification of what “aftermath” means would be helpful for a start. In the longer term, the issue of systemic bias may need to be addressed, and I am not alone in this view. As stated by one participant in the Arbcom case: “The inability of the WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS to incorporate non Anglo-American POVs in practice can be extremely frustrating for new editors on Wikipedia ... (leading to inappropriate behaviour)". And to quote WW2 editor Paul Siebert again:: “... numerous evidences presented here demonstrate only that Communicat's behaviour is inappropriate and ... (it) is insufficient to conclude that the WWII project is not biased.” There is also the compelling evidence by peer review editor Fifelfoo: "Wikipedia's articles in the Humanities and Social Sciences suffer from a systematic i18n failure, and typically privilege US normative accounts … No systems exist to resolve high order structural, literary, or taxonomic disputes; encouraging bad editor behaviour from all sides of debate... At a point, persistent content failures become a domain-of-knowledge wide conduct failure. Military History is very successful at resolving many lower order content failures. But even this successful project has not been able to resolve higher order issues ... Previous sanctions specifically addressing conduct in domains of knowledge (Eastern Europe, etc.) have failed to change community conduct in content production: ... Individual disciplining does not resolve the failure to produce encyclopaedic content ... Cases like this come forward on a reasonably regular basis; demonstrating the failure of past individual sanctions to address the failure of community conduct under policy."

Further: "Humanities and social science articles generally have terrible problems with: ...determination and characterisation of weight of English language perspectives versus non-English language perspectives; determination and characterisation of weight of US/UK English language versus other English language perspectives; and,recourse to encyclopaedically unprofessional conduct in the location of, characterisation of, and weighting of appropriate secondary and tertiary (in the sense of field review articles) sources ... The impact of a major failure of editor conduct around the content production failures above — and the content failure itself ... seriously threatens the credibility of encyclopaedic project in Humanities and Social Sciences areas ....Discussion has recently occurred amongst some editors about Wikipedia's failure in taxonomy, classification, characterisation and weight content production in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Included in this discussion has been the failure of past conduct limitations … to resolve the problem of production of encyclopaedic content (which) exemplifies a threat, and itself threatens, the encyclopaedic project in the humanities and social sciences area (and) should be taken to arbitration”.

In short, I suggest the editors, arbitrators and administrators here present should not always and arbitrarily separate the issues of content and behaviour. The two may frequently be inseparable as the product of systemic bias inherent in the wikipedia system itself. I am not suggesting such bias is necessarily deliberate, though that may sometimes be the case. It is more a demographic and a design problem, and it is a symptom of system failure, which is defined as that which occurs when a system does not meet its requirements. If Wikipedia is to live up to its ambition of being encyclopedic by incorporating a diversity of verifiable and notable viewpoints, then the subject needs to be addressed productively and not be evaded simply as a “behavioural issue” in isolation of the core issue, which is clearly the issue of systemic bias. Communikat (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Edward321 suggestion

A topic ban "broadly construed" as relating to all World War and Cold War articles would mean in effect and for example a ban on editing or discussing the Moon landing. This because the moon landing was the ultimate outcome of rocket technology originating in World War II and developed further during the Cold War arms race. Similarly traceable chains of cause and effect "broadly construed" can apply to thousands of other topics. Which is what this present request for clarification is all about. Communikat (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Further, re Edward321's suggestion that Aftermath cut-off date to be "broadly construed" as 1991: if that suggestion is indeed adopted, then I'd need some hard convincing it does not go against the letter and spirit of WP:CENSOR. Communikat (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Edward321's erroneous claim that I have "falsely tried to claim consensus" as to 1948 being the Aftermath practical cut-off date relative to my topic-ban. The true version is: prior to lodging this present clarification request, I tried repeatedly but without success to engage Nick-d in discussion as to Nick-d's view on a suggested cut-off date. I proposed 1948/9 as a practical date. Nick-D failed to respond. It was important to me to obtain Nick-d/s view because he was repeatedly reporting me after I had unintentionally broken my topic-ban, and I sought to avoid doing so again. At the same time, I also tried to elicit from Nick-d some clarity as to whether or not my topic-ban prohbited me from responding to personal attacks, and/or from referring to the Arbcom case in a related discussion that had given rise to Nick-d reporting me for breaching my topic-ban. He failed to respond in any way. I was subsequently blocked for one week, as a consequence of Nick-d's allegation. I did not bother to appeal. I accepted Nick-d's silence on the cut-off date as tacit concurrence that 1948/9 was accepted by him as practicable, and I informed him accordingly. It is common practise that tacit concurrence may be inferred in the absence of contradiction, opposition or open discontent. Maybe things work differently on wikipedia; I don't know. In any event, Nick-d subsequently reneged on what IMO amounted to tacit concurrence. At no time have I "falsely tried to claim consensus" as wrongly alleged by Edward321 and by Nick-d himself. Consensus is what I am seeking here in this present request for clarification. Communikat (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Hohum remark

No, I'm not suggesting Wikipedia should change itself to fit in with my behaviour. Your inference is laughable. Communikat (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Binksternet comments

Binksternet should refrain from wild speculation as to the topics, content and quality of my future edits, if any. In addition, the matters he raises have comprehensively and satisfactorily been dealt with in previous discussions. I see no point in repeating them.

As to Binksternet's suggestion that Aftermath cut-off date to be set at "the end of the Cold War": I repeat my comments already directed at Edward321, namely, if that suggestion is adopted, then I'd need convincing it does not go against the letter and spirit of WP:CENSOR, as does Binksternet's suggestion here. Communikat (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to TomStar81 comment

The 1950 start of Korean War is reasonable and acceptable, as suggested by this milhist project co-ordinator, who otherwise fails to assume good faith. Communikat (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Request to arbitrator(s)

I request this matter be left open for at least another three or four days before making a decision, so as to allow for the possibility of further community editor participation, if any. Communikat (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to arbitrator Risker question

The list of involved or affected users consists of those who gave evidence, or participated in workshop proposals/discussions that might have had an influence on the outcome of the Arbcom decision, and/or were otherwise named or referred to during the course of the Arbcom case.

Shell Kinney was included because I had requested guidance via the Help desk, to which she replied helpfully under Ticket#2011061910008112. I specifically asked whether I could request Arbcom clarification while I was still under a (then) one-week block. I asked further if it was permissable for me to invite wider community participation in Arbcom clarification discussions by posting on a relevant Rfc Noticeboard a notice inviting broader community participation in the Arbcom clarification request, given that Arbcom, by its own earlier admission, lacked the capacity to deal with content issues. IMO the current clarification request is essentially a content issue. Shell Kinney's advice was noted. To that extent, she was IMO "involved" in this current clarification matter. If I have misconstrued the word "involved", then I have no problem with redacting her username accordingly. I trust this answers your question. Communikat (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Habap claim

Avoidance of Russophobia does not mean my edits are "emotionally" invested, as falsely alleged. Communikat (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Korean War started in 1950, not 1948 as stated inaccurately by this military history editor. Communikat (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Statement by Timotheus Canens

Re your query "Why exactly wasn't Communi[ck]at site-banned, again?" I have never been site-banned, not under the username Communicat nor under the username Communikat or any other username, of which there are none. The username Communicat was cancelled by me six months ago, I didn't know how to reinstate it when I returned recently, and hence the new username Communikat. Do you have any thoughts on a practical Aftermath cut-off date as currently under discussion? Communikat (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Timotheus Canens will recall he was the administrator who recently blocked me for one week after Nick-D reported alleged disruptive behaviour and breaches of editing restrictions imposed on me by Arbcom. During discussions in that matter, I repeatedly asked the administrator and the complainant Nick-d whether my topic-ban prohibited me from replying to personal attacks and from referring to the earlier Arbcom proceedings, as had occurred during the course of separate CCI discussion that gave rise to Nick-d's complaint. The record shows that both of these administrators failed to reply. The record also shows I tried repeatedly and without success to elicit experienced guidance from them about the scope of the topic-ban upon me. This is why it consequently became necessary for me to take up Arbcom's time in this present request for clarification, which IMO could and should have been avoided if these two administrators had taken it upon themselves to behave in an appropriately collegial manner. Timotheus Canens is therefor directly involved in the cause of this present clarification request, and I am listing him as such.

I further put it to administrator Canens: Given that WP:BAN states it is inappropriate for editors to bait or mock a banned editor, does he really consider my conduct to have been unreasonable or in breach of my topic-ban by virtue of responding to personal attacks and false statements about me? It may be recalled that one other editor present in the discussion supported the view that my actions were not unduly disruptive. Communikat (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hohum

I feel certain that Communi[ck]at will find himself in conflict again if he edits about the military/political situation surrounding the Cold War as well. However, I don't know if the arbitrators intended to be that wide in their definition. (Hohum ^@) 18:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me Communi[ck]at prefers wikipedia to change the way it operates, to fit with his behaviour, rather than the converse. (Hohum ^@) 19:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG

@SirFozzie, Communikat is not aksing to lift the topic ban. He is asking for clarification of its scope. I have no opinion on the extent of the ban. In my view, the boundaries of the sanction are unclear, and clarification is in order. - BorisG (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

@Communikat, I am now sensing that the Arbitrators are inclined to interpret the ban to apply to anything related to WWII, regardless of dates. Ideally you should probably start editing some completely unrelated areas of wikipedia. - BorisG (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nick-D

Communicat/Communikat has only returned to editing in the last few weeks, but has already been blocked twice for violating both editing restrictions by continuing to carry on the disputes which were discussed in the arbitration case concerning Wikipedia's coverage of World War II and making personal attacks on other editors: [1], [2]. This conduct and now this request seem to imply an intention to carry on the dispute, and relaxing the restriction as proposed seems unwise. As David Fuchs (talk · contribs) notes, there's no magic date in relation to World War II and its aftermath and specifying one would quickly become unworkable. The current wording seems to be to be perfectly clear, and quite straightforward to observe. It's worth noting that Communikat has been misrepresenting the editing restrictions placed on him by claiming that they include a ban on disclosing the articles he's banned from editing here, which combined with the above violations of these conditions hardly inspires confidence. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Communikat, the comment from David Fuchs is below (his signature is Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs). Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Communikat's above comments are continuing the dispute over the World War II article and related arguments that led to, and were discussed in the arbitration case, and actually seem to be a clear violation of the editing restrictions he's trying to have softened. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Binksternet

This is a move by Communikat to continue his campaign to right wrongs of the standard historiography of World War II and its aftermath. He wishes to bring his years of research to bear on articles about how the various former Allies began scheming to remake the world into a form more friendly to their aims at the detriment of other nations and powers. This information is already part of the historiography of WWII and its aftermath but Communikat wants to highlight the issues in a non-neutral way, to rub the guilty nations' noses in the mess they created. His ideal article would make the reader angry that the UK was on the winning side of WWII—a violation of WP:NPOV.

We do not need more of the headache that Communikat has already given the involved editors in his campaign. We already experienced the drama, with many hours of editor time wasted, and if we approve of his wish to edit articles in the post-1948 world we will see once again his injection of anger and non-neutral wording regarding the long-term fallout of WWII; the five-, ten- and twenty-year results of sneaky decisions made during WWII by Churchill. I agree with some other involved editors that the end of the Cold War should be Communikat's cut-off date, imposed to keep him from adding non-neutral and angry text along the lines of his book Between The Lies (how's that for a non-neutral title?) I assume from observing his past behavior that giving him his wished-for answer will soon see Communikat blocked again for edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Edward321

Communickat has already falsely tried to claim consensus for his proposed cutoff date.[3] [4] If Communikat's suggested cutoff data is accepted, it would be lifting a major portion of his topic ban. If the Arbitration committee feels a specific cutoff date is needed for clarification, I suggest the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 as that date. If no specific date is needed, I suggest rewording Communikat's topic ban to "all articles related to World War II or the Cold War, broadly construed". Edward321 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by TomStar81

I'll concede a point that there does need to be a date of some sort given for the aftermath of World War II, but I would place its aftermath as the period of time from the official surrender of Japan till the Start of the Korean War, or 1945-1950. Having said that, I want to know why we are being asked to clarify the point. I sense that the ultimate object of the clarification is to provide a loophole through which you can edit the pages with official sanction from the arbitration committee. It is my opinion that the clarification, once reached by arbcom, should come with a stipulation that are also banned from editing the post WWII pages as well. Note that due to circumstances beyond my control I expect to absent for long periods of time here, and I am not sure when or if I will be back before a consensus is reached. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Habap

It was Communi(ck)at's behaviour far more than the unsupported arguments that were the problem. If the behaviour continues, it doesn't really matter whether the topic is WWII or children's toys. I believe that one of the reasons that such bans are put in place is to encourage editors to go edit in areas in which they have less emotional investment and can edit in a more detached manner. With an opportunity to edit in a less tendentious manner, the editor can then take those habits back to the topics from which they had been banned after the topic ban expires and use those new habits to edit in a constructive manner. It sounds as though Communikat is having some issues again. I would suggest that he edit articles which are less controversial and which he has less emotional commitment to over the next six months so that when the topic ban expires, he will have experience in more collegial editing and can bring his ideas back to those controversial articles.

Using 1948 as the cutoff date would include the Korean War, which I think will be problematic, based on his prior editing. I think that anything which Communikat relates to WWII, such as accusations that American or British actions taken during WWII caused things in later years, is going to inspire the same inappropriate behaviour by Communikat. As such, I think it entirely appropriate to interpret the topic ban broadly and for Communikat to take the next six months to learn to edit in a more approrpiate manner while editing articles that about which he is not emotionally committed. --Habap (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Why exactly wasn't Communi[ck]at site-banned, again? T. Canens (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Considering the topic ban was just placed in January, I see no compelling reason to lift it at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• If Com.'s editing problems persist, than explaining a distinction does nothing to address the fact that the problems will creep in. There's really no magic date that can address behavioral issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• The scope of the topic-ban should be interpreted broadly but reasonably; I agree that what we have here is a question of line-drawing. It was by a narrow margin, as the author of the decision, that I decided to propose a topic-ban rather than a full site-ban for Communicat. I am concerned that if he returns to editing topics closely related to on which he edited problematically in the past, he will continue to do so. Communicat, do you have any thoughts on what you might do going forward that would minimize the risk of such problems? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Before going any further, I'd like Communicat to explain why Shell Kinney is listed as an involved editor; indeed, I'd like to know why each of those users is "involved". Risker (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• No idea why I was listed as involved here, but I'll reiterate my advice from the reply to your email while blocked - avoid anything that reasonably could be considered related to WWII or it's aftermath. Shell ^babelfish 14:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Russavia

Initiated by Martin (talk) at 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

• Tammsalu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• AGK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified

Statement by Tammsalu

I am not happy with the way the AGK has handled the above mentioned AE case, where I reported Russavia for breaching his interaction ban, and seek clarification of some issues that have arisen in wake of this.

Background

I was minding my own business editing Occupation of the Baltic states, where I had corrected some obviously POVed piece of unsorted text that made a misleading assertion [5]. Unfortunately before I could add the appropriate reference to support the change, Russavia reverted the text in the very next edit[6]. Because the revert is not permitted per WP:IBAN, and Russavia is subject to an interaction ban, I asked Administrators to take action in an appropriate forum being WP:AE, as permitted by Wikipedia:IBAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans. Russavia was subsequently blocked for 48 hours and AGK asked for input from other Administrators if any further action should be taken[7].

However no other Administrator had made any comment despite AGK's request for input while the case remained open during the week, thus most people would construe that no further action was necessary. In fact the case remained open for such a long time that Russavia was able to comment further after his block expired[8], seeking a retaliatory block. AGK duly complies and blocks me, claiming the filing an AE report about Russavia's violation was a breach of my own interaction ban[9].

When I and others subsequently point out that WP:IBAN explicitly permits the reporting of the other party in mutual interaction bans, AGK agrees that my filing of an AE report was not a violation of my interaction ban[10], but then claims this edit[11], made six days after Russavia's ban breaching revert was a violation of my interaction ban.

However it is a general principle that edits made in defiance of a ban should be reverted, Wikipedia:IBAN#Enforcement_by_reverting discusses this. As Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement states, Wikipedia's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns, in this case:

• Maximizing the quality of the encyclopaedia and;
• Dissuading or preventing banned editors from editing Wikipedia or the relevant area of the ban.

It would just simply be untenable that a breaching edit, such as revert or even a comment on a user talk page cannot ever be undone, not in one week, one month or ever. It would lead to all sorts of kamikaze sanction breaking edits if there was some profit to be derived from that.

I am a long standing editor of Occupation of the Baltic states with 132 edits since March 2007 compared with Russavia's 5 edits since May 2009[12]. My edit of the 17th of June[13], coming six days after Russavia's original breaching edit[14], was not a blind revert but was made in the spirit of Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, removing the ban breaching edit and adding the two references I was was going to add before the disruption.

An additional issue is that I asked AGK to amend the result of the AE case to reflect his new reason for the block[15], he has not done so.

Points for clarification

Can the Committee clarify whether:

• WP:IBAN permits reporting the other party for breaching a mutual interaction ban, WP:AE being the appropriate forum for such requests for Admin assistance
• In the case that an Administrator has determined that a particular edit has breached the interaction ban, that disruptive edit can be undone per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting

Thanks for your time. --Martin (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to EdJohnston

EdJohnston claims there is no wording in WP:BAN that permits reverting of ban breaching edits, yet this clearly states:

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert."

Of course regular reverts are prohibited by WP:IBAN, but what AGK and EdJohnston are saying is that, for example, if someone should make an edit in defiance of their IBAN by leaving a comment on my talk page, and I would not be allowed to remove that ban breaching edit from my talk page after the matter has been reported and the other party blocked. In other words, AGK and EdJohston are saying that a long standing editor of an article (132 edits since 2007) can never edit that particular section of an article ever again because the other party (5 edits since 2009) has defied their IBAN by disruptively editing that section, even though the matter has been appropriately reported and the other party blocked for defying their IBAN. --Martin (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to AGK

AGK raises the issue of "unclean hands", however my revert came six days after I reported Russavia's edit and after it was determined that edit was made in defiance of Russavia's IBAN, so AGK's claim that I came to AE with "unclean hands" is some what misleading because my AE request significantly pre-dated the supposed "unclean" edit. --Martin (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeking your opinion, which has been proven to be wrong in the past, (you confirmed that you had always intended to block me[16], but apparently lacking any evidence you request input from other admins[17], and when that did not materialise, you make up a justification that is contrary to policy[18]; I note that you had closed the AE report[19] without annotating it to indicate your original decision was completely flawed, resulting in a misleading record being archived), but clarification of two issues by the Committee. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Question to Shell

Shell, reverting out of the blue isn't identical to reverting an edit in context of an AE report which has found that specific edit presented as evidence had breached the ban.

Are you saying that if A breaches their interaction ban by, for example, leaving a comment on B's talk page and is subsequently reported and blocked, party B cannot subsequently remove that ban breaching comment from their talk page ever? Don't you think that turns the spirit of Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, which seeks to dissuade banned editors from editing the relevant area of the ban, on its head by incentivising undesirable behaviour by making such edits sticky? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

Russavia reverted Martin, in violation of WP:IBAN and WP:EEML#Interaction ban. I blocked Russavia, which Martin did not contest. Martin then re-reverted Russavia; for this, I therefore also blocked Martin. It is a given at AE that editors with "unclean hands" who request enforcement may also be blocked or sanctioned. I do not see what the issue is here. AGK [•] 16:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin: I agreed with you that you did not violate the interaction bam by submitting an enforcement request. That is not an issue here. As I have said repeatedly, you were blocked for reverting Russavia. Admittedly, you did not revert until after you filed the enforcement request, but it was a revert nonetheless - and therefore a violation of the interaction ban. Again, I do not see what your complaint is. AGK [•] 21:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

I believe that WP:IBAN does not allow the action that Tammsalu says is OK. He makes a statement which I can't find support for in policy: "Having found that a particular edit has breached the interaction ban, that disruptive edit can be undone per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement by reverting." There is no wording in WP:BAN which supports that either. He might be thinking of the provision of WP:3RR which does not include reverts of a banned editor as counting toward the limit of three reverts. Tammsalu is not allowed to revert *any* edit of someone from whom he is interaction banned, so the fact that such an edit won't count towards 3RR is not of interest. Tammsalu is asking Arbcom to rule on what the policy says, and I think it supports AGK's view of the matter. I would also recommend that Tammsalu change his signature to match his user name, since 'Martin' causes puzzlement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

My thoughts are that someone may let an admin know that a mutual interaction ban has been breached, but reverting the edits yourself is a step too far. SirFozzie (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Fozzie here; reporting someone is one thing, going on to repeat the behavior yourself is right out. Shell ^babelfish 14:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

---