Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TParis (talk | contribs) at 16:37, 12 October 2013 (→‎Statement by TParis: Jreferee has self-reverted, this can be closed.--~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Infoboxes none (orig. case) 12 October 2013
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Ayn Rand|Clarification request: Ayn Rand]] none (orig. case) 11 October 2013
Clarification request: Race and intelligence Motion none 6 October 2013

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

Clarification request: Infoboxes

Initiated by uninvolved Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) at 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted

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

Statement by Anthonyhcole

In expanding Quattro pezzi sacri from a stub, Gerda added an infobox.[1] Neutralhomer offered to add infoboxes to articles for Greda.[2] Is Gerda permitted to add infoboxes to articles she significantly expands? In cases where she is not permitted to add infoboxes is it OK for Neutralhomer to add them on her behalf? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neutralhomer

As I said on the ANI thread, if Gerda needs an infobox placed on any of the numerous pages she edits, I volunteer myself to add it. There are instances (like DYKs and article updates) where the addition of an infobox is necessary and I feel uncontroversial. I also feel that an infobox is, in certain cases, a necessary addition to an article. My personal opinion is that a restriction put on one our more established and well-respected editors is silly and prevents her from editing and updating articles.

So, I ask that I be allowed to add infoboxes for Gerda. This way, articles are updated and expanded, Gerda wouldn't get in trouble and any issues/problems would fall onto me. I don't think this is an unfair request as it would help only the community and help create and expand articles, which is why we are all here (though I think some of us forget that sometimes).

I completely expect that this request will be shot down, but I live by the "it couldn't hurt to ask" philosophy. If ArbCom rules against this request, I will not fight it and will, albeit reluctantly, go with it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Gerda Arendt

  • I am under a restriction to only add infoboxes to new articles that I create. Being a DYK person, I believe expanding a stub more than 5* qualifies as new article creation, which is not equal to page creation. As this view was questioned, I asked others involved, Newyorkbrad and Mackensen. I ask you.
  • I have not requested anybody to add an infobox on my behalf, nor will I. Neutralhomer and others who volunteered to do so (some per e-mail) are of course free to do it anyway, in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thank you, Neutralhomer, for describing well above, what you and I are here for!
  • If the restriction was indeed as narrow as some interpret it, I would question that it is valid at all. It would cement ownership of articles, no? You "create" a one-line stub and have it "protected" from an infobox for ever? - If that is the thinking, I should create a few one-line stubs with an infobox.
  • I would have loved to celebrate Verdi's birthday by adding an infobox to his article and all his operas, because I think that would have been a good service to our readers. Under the restriction, I didn't even think of an identitybox, the compromise found for L'Arianna. Instead, I at least brought the venerable maestro pictured on the Main page and am quite proud of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folantin

I would have thought the concept of "creating an article" is pretty clear-cut. If an article already exists, then you can't create it. Any messing around with the interpretation of this restriction is likely to cause problems. This seems like a breaching experiment to me. --Folantin (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it goes without saying that an editor acting as proxy for another to allow them to evade restrictions is totally unacceptable. --Folantin (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Recuse from this and all future requests involving this case. --Rschen7754 04:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Clarification request: Ayn Rand

Initiated by v/r - TP at 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Ayn Rand arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Link to relevant decision

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


Statement by TParis

I am filing a case about an administrator editing through protection on an article with Arbcom sanctions without consensus.

Timeline:

  • At this point, two edit wars break out:
  1. Whether or not to call Ayn Rand Russian-American or just American: [4][5][6][7][8][9]
  2. Whether or not to say Ayn Rand founded Objectivism or if it's implied: [10][11][12][13]


  • 00:51 11 October 2013 I fully-protected the article due to edit warring
  • 01:02 11 October 2013 I placed the article under a 1 revert rule and created an edit notice
  • 12:39 11 October 2013 Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) makes an edit that again changes that section, this time specifying Russian-born American, and claiming to be carrying out the consensus of the RFC. However, the RFC was not about Russian American or American. It was about qualifiers before 'philosopher'.
  • 14:06 11 October 2013 I bring it to Jreferee's attention that this was an Arbitration action, and this article is under discretionary sanctions and urge him to self revert. I also suggest that he may not of known he was contributing to the edit war.
  • 16:07 11 October 2013 Jreferee declines to self revert asking to discuss it on the talk page instead.

As you can see on the talk page, Jreferee is again being asked to self revert. Unfortunately, Jreferee has continued the edit war, used admin tools to edit through full protection, and will not revert despite being warned about discretionary sanctions. According to this motion, upon being warned that this protection was due to Arbcom sanctions, Jreferee should've reverted himself.

--v/r - TP 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: Using admin tools to violate discretionary sanctions is an issue for Arbcom, not AE Admins. AE Admins do not posses the full range of options to vet this issue.--v/r - TP 21:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jreferee has self-reverted, this can be closed.--v/r - TP 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jreferee

Query from NE Ent

Why here instead of WP:AE?

Statement by Thryduulf (re Ayn Rand)

Contrary to Risker's statement below, the about-to-pass resolution to the Manning case means that it is now fine for an admin to edit through protection if they disagree that the reason the protection applies to their actions has been explicitly given. This is independent of whether other users, including the protecting administrator, consider the explanation sufficient, relevant or understandable. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Proposed decision#Tariqabjotu's move.

I know this seems absurd, but it is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that case and I present it here to demonstrate that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The reason it's here instead of AE is that AE cannot remove an administrator's bit. Editing through protection is an extremely serious matter; it confounds the community's ability to formulate consensus when any administrator can impose their personal viewpoint into an article. The edit summary in particular concerns me ("Lead to this article from an AN request. Tweaked lead, revised redundant information, and focused more on important aspects highlighted by article section headings"), as it is clearly taking a position on the content of the matter, rather than the result of the RFC, which is what the report at WP:AN referred to. Jreferee, please revert yourself. Risker (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Race and intelligence

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 23:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
Mathsci interaction ban

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

Statement by Cla68

On 17 September 2013, Mathsci was given an interaction ban between him and I. Soon after, Mathsci announced he was taking a break. The day he returned, he posted an image on his userpage and linked to two Wikipedia articles in the caption he placed with the image. The first wikilink is the name of my organization of employment. The second wikilink is to an article on the small community in which I reside. After it had been there for two days, someone brought it to my attention and I filed an ArbCom enforcement request.

It appears that during his Wikibreak, Mathsci investigated and found my organization of employment and place of residence, which he then posted on his userpage hoping that I would discover it. The person in the photo is not me, but does bear a resemblance to me. Although my real name is easily discoverable on the Internet, my employment and exact residence are not, as far as I am aware. Thus, I believe it would take some dedicated effort and time to find this information. I have offered to provide documentation to ArbCom showing that I do work for that small organization and reside at that location.

Note- Mathsci has previously been warned about digging for and posting private information about other editors. Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

Anticipating this request yesterday, which concerns a now oversighted diff of a captioned thumbnail image on the fourth version of my userpage, I sent a preliminary communication to Roger Davies. Amongst other things it disclosed details of two short google searches, each on two terms. It was accompanied by copies of two emails to arbitrators. I requested that, if he thought it appropriate, he might forward these to arbcom-l, which he kindly did. I will post a detailed response to Cla68's statement here on or before Thursday October 10th. Sorry about the delay and thanks in advance for your patience. Mathsci (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the last statement I made to the arbitration committee, I mentioned that my main priority was to make an apology to Cla68 on this page; and that I expected a sanction. On Thursday I received a response from WTT asking about what kind of sanction I expected; and then almost at the same time a response from Roger Davies encouraging an apology by email. Almost immediately after Roger's email, I got an unexpected phone call telling me terrible news about a friend. That entirely changed any plans I had and occupied me for the rest of Thursday and the whole of Friday. Even while Roger was posting his motion, I received a long phone call from London about this; and then another from others In London while trying to compose this message. Regardless of the motion and these terrible events, some form of apology to Cla68 will happen. Even if Roger has changed his mind about an email apology, I probably will post a modified version of the message I sent to arbcom. I hope my statements about my temporary unavailability were not misread. Mathsci (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a slightly edited copy of the message sent to the arbitration committee.

As I've written, before I deeply regret posting the image. It was not outing. I acknowledge now that, although unlikely to have been noticed by anybody on wikipedia, it was likely to have been examined and analysed in detail by members of wikipediocrarcy who have been following every edit by me and about me. One of those active on wikipediocracy would have made a connection and drawn it ro Cla68's attention. That appears to have been what happened.

Even in this convoluted form—a message sent from WP to WO—it was a form of veiled taunting or harassment. I am ashamed that I did it and I see that, even given the bizarre circumstances, it was very wrong to post it. The image contained a message for Cla68 that only he could interpret. The commentary on WO had misled me to think it reasonable to let Cla68 know that the unwelcome attention I was receiving there could work in both directions. It was a one-off misuse of Wikipedia which I fully acknowledge was a serious misuse of wikipedia and should never ever have happened.

It was out of character.

Even if I was under abnormal stress and being intensively trolled on WO, there was absolutely no excuse. I don't bear a grudge against Cla68, although there is some ancient history going back to Will Beback and before that to Abd and William M. Conolley. However, whatever the preceding events on wikipedia or elsewhere, I owe Cla68 a public apology.

As I have said in my first post to arbcom I expect to be sanctioned and fully understand the reasons why, even if there might be mitigating circumstances.

Yesterday, on October 9th, I decided to spend a soul-searching few hours looking at Cla68's first years on WP. I am full of admiration for what he accomplished: he used wikipedia to explore his hobby of military history. I also read about his wish to visit the Peace Park in Hiroshima. Reading that, I now feel ashamed that I posted that particular image, without very clear thoughts in my head. I can see now that, if for any reason it came to Cla68's attention, it would send a negative (unintended) signal.

I have previously explained the serendipitous way in which the image came to be discovered: it involved a private message in September to an arbitrator about a matter which was not pursued; and an idle google search on October 2nd lasting about a quarter of an hour after seeing a posting on WO. I decided on a whim to post it later on that day. It was an act performed in an unguarded moment without premeditation. My editing was in turmoil, being completely confused after the motion, and amid the ensuing trolling commentary on edits on WO. Whatever the circumstances of that one-off out-of-character edit, it was very wrong to do so and should never, ever have happened. I have often complained about bringing wikipediocracy ethics to wikipedia: in making that one edit I completely broke that rule and let myself down as well as the community on wikipedia.

I understand that even veiled and indirect attacks on others based on sleuthed personal information, even if incorrect, are absolutely forbidden on wikipedia.

Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will in addition send a private apology to Cla68 further to the statement above, as Roger had suggested. A copy will probably be sent to arbcom. I have witnessed supposed disputes in the past on WP which have evaporated. That certainly applied in the case of Elonka, whom I later met with her father here in Aix-en-Provence. My computer account in France will terminate at the end of the year, after which I will be at a so-far unknown location. Mathsci (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent a message to Cla68, with a copy to Roger, which he may distribute to other arbitrators if he wishes. Even if this was sparked off by one single edit, sadly I have to agree with Carcharoth, Timotheus Canens and Newyorkbrad. In my email apology to Cla68, I wrote that I feel burnt out, physically and mentally. Mathsci (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

While superficially straightforward, this case raises some nasty tangles. I have no interest in what was on Mathsci's user page, and am happy for Arbcom to rule on whether it was (probably) an attack. However, if that ruling is made, I ask that Arbcom address whether off-Wikiedia provocation has occurred, and, if so, whether its extent should be regarded as a mitigating circumstance.

According to statements made by Demiurge1000 at AE (permalink), it is very likely that Cla68 has been participating in off-Wikipedia harassment of Mathsci for an extended period. Unfortunately, as well being one of Wikipedia's highly talented editors, Mathsci is also highly trollable. Those who have been attacking Mathsci literally for years at the bad site know his weakness—indeed, it is because he keeps responding that they maintain their interest.

I support the principle that Wikipedians should generally ignore off-site behavior, so X saying something bad about Y off-site does not excuse Y responding badly on Wikipedia. However, it would be particularly unhelpful for this case to reward the prolonged attacks at the bad site when they finally provoke a bad response. If Arbcom rules that an attack has occured, rather than a project ban, a final final warning should be issued—much like the undertaking that I think was eventually wrung from Cla68 regarding outing a certain editor unrelated to this case. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

I understand that this involves non-public identifying information, but at the Enforcement request, I saw a statement that the edits were suppressed, as potentially outing. I think the Committee settled the interpretation of WP:OUTING in the TimidGuy Ban Appeal, where the intent was more judged rather then the accuracy of the outing information. Even if Mathsci has gotten the information wrong, the fact that he posted this information in an attempt to intimidate another editor, no matter what conflicts they've had before, requires a most strenuous response. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

Though the irony in this request is mind boggling, mathsci's actions are disappointing. The posted information is not really outing - since no independent user could have specifically connected it to cla68 - but it certainly does look like harassment with its "I know where you are" message. That is definitely inappropriate and I can see that it is going to be hard to get over that. But, it is also important to recognize that Mathsci is a valuable editor on Wikipedia who, to some extent, is responsible for the fact that our R&I articles are reasonably balanced and neutral. Doing a great balancing job in a contentious area that is rife with SPAs and POV pushers comes with a load of stress, all of which has been obvious and very visible in the case of Mathsci and now this stress is manifesting itself in a bad way. Along the lines of Johnuniq above, I hope mathsci can present arbs with a reasonable explanation for what caused him to use such an obvious form of harassment and I hope arbs can work their way through this mess in a way that doesn't lose us one of our more committed editors. There are, in this world, trees and there are forests - we should try not to lose sight of the latter.--regentspark (comment) 13:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Like RegentsPark, I find Mathsci's actions very disappointing, and note that they require some strong sanction being placed on him, however, I do not believe that an indef ban would be, overall, beneficial to the project of building an unbiased encyclopedia. I urge the committee to find another sanction, as harsh as deemed necessary, which will allow us to retain Mathsci's considerable contributions. I believe that a significant mitigating factor here is the extended campaign of harassment that has been conducted against Mathsci for years by multiple editors, some now banned and some still editing, which included on several occasions disclosing Mathsci's own place of residence. That Mathsci has not been able to follow the advice of others to ignore the attacks against him is regrettable, but understandable: such advice is much easier to give then it is to follow, as any editor who has ever been harassed or attacked by another can attest to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

I agree with Beyond My Ken about imposing an indefinite ban being problematic here. I would suggest doing now what was done with Cla68 after he was indefinitely banned. In that case there were discussions between him and ArbCom to make sure that after being unblocked, Cla68 would stick to certain rules to make sure we would not see the same problems again. Similar discussions can be conducted with Mathsci right now. Count Iblis (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re R&I)

In cases such as Betacommand 3 (regarding user:Δ) and Rich Farmbrough much was made of the need to have bright line rules, stepping beyond which would result in sanction. It seems to me that Mathsci has been given such bright-line rules, has been cautioned many times about the need to observe them, and explicitly warned that breaching them would lead to a ban.

Iff mathsci has broken those rules, then I can see no justification for not following the course of action (i.e. banning him) that he was warned would occur.

It will be a shame to lose a good content contributor, but no one editor can be bigger than the project. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@IRWolfie-: The block will be to protect cla68 and other users of the project from harassment in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IRWolfie-

What is the purpose of the six month block, considering blocks are not punitive? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting statement by Mathsci, but at the moment my view is as follows: this seems to be plain harassment of another long-term contributor, for which I am minded to consider an appropriate sanction on Mathsci – up to and including a project ban. Veiled harassment of this nature is utterly unacceptable. AGK [•] 23:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Cla68 and Mathsci have submitted e-mails on this matter, but am awaiting an on-wiki statement from Mathsci (and responses to various e-mails from both editors) before proceeding further with this. Statements from other editors are not likely to help; if made they should be kept brief. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirming that AGK and Carcharoth have correctly described the situation, which the Committee is reviewing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concurring with the comments of my colleagues. Also noting that the Arbitration Committee has at this time declined Cla68's offer to share his personal non-public data. As both editors have submitted email statements and/or comments, and the matter does involve personal non-public information, I am hesitant to have a lot of public discussion on the exact nature of the content involved; non-party comment should limit itself to principles rather than the material that has been identified. Risker (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm concerned, Mathsci's behaviour was reprehensible, and his side of the story has done nothing to convince me otherwise. I'm still awaiting further responses to emails before I make a final decision, but concur with my colleagues that statements from other parties should be kept brief and regarding the principles rather than the material. WormTT(talk) 07:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, to be entirely honest, Sir Fozzie, this is not a clear case of outing; Mathsci, basically, put a pic on his userpage linking to an organisation and to a small community. As it turns out, Cla lives in that community and works for that organisation, although Mathsci never linked those elements to him (basically, Cla was outed by his own public reaction – which was something I wanted to avoid and so I suppressed the diff on Mathsci's userpage containing the image and the caption). So, as I said, this is not really a case of outing, but rather of harassment ("I know where you live and who you work for") and no amount of off-wiki harassment should ever justify such an action. Wikipedia is not a place to settle scores. That said, I'm still waiting for Mathsci's reply before deciding what to do. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-involved admin could have blocked Mathsci for this incident, and would have been supported. However, given the circumstances and Mathsci's history, it is appropriate it has come to ArbCom to deal with. I think by now it is clear that if any user sleuths personal information on another user, and then uses that information in a private vendetta to harass, silence or intimidate the other user, they will be removed from the Wikipedia community, and will need to convince either the community or ArbCom that they can be trusted before being allowed back in. That the user doing the harassment is already under formal trust not to mention the other user on Wikipedia, let alone post something that indicates: I know where you live, and I know who your employers are, then we are dealing with a serious issue. The Committee are looking into the reason why Mathsci did what he did (was he provoked by Cla68 for example); however, I do believe Mathsci has been given guidance in the past not to respond to provocation, and especially not to take matters into his own hands. I don't see that ArbCom have any room for manoeuvre here; this is an indef ban. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (Mathsci)

For there are 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

For posting inappropriate material referring to an editor with whom he is subject to an interaction restriction, Mathsci is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban not less than six months from the date this motion passes.

Support
  1. The facts are not in dispute. If consensus is that an initial six months is too lenient, please copy edit accordingly,  Roger Davies talk 08:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've not seen anything that persuades me that this should be anything other than an indefinite site ban, indeed off-wiki communication has strengthened my resolve. My current preference is an initial 12 months restriction, but I will support 6. WormTT(talk) 08:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Roger. The facts are not in dispute. A lot more could be said, but at this stage it seems it would be best (for his own good as well as that of others) if Mathsci took an enforced break from this Wikimedia project. Carcharoth (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With the same thinking as in the comment I made when this request was originally filed. AGK [•] 10:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Unfortunately necessary. T. Canens (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree with Roger on the substance of the matter, but would prefer an initial 12-month term. Courcelles 12:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Carcharoth and T. Canens. Made a trivial copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=576875186"