Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

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

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Defender 911

Initiated by Blueboy96 at 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Blueboy96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiating party)
• Defender 911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (subject of case)
• Krimpet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (blocking admin)
• WJBScribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Krimpet: [1] WJBscribe: [2] Defender 911: [3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not applicable in this case, ArbCom has original jurisdiction regarding unbanning users.

Statement by Blueboy96

This past August, Defender 911 (talk · contribs) made several attempts to get in touch with H (talk · contribs), who was forced to leave the project due to serious on- and off-wiki harassment. He asked other users to act as intermediaries to establish contact with H.

H apparently expressed a desire not to establish contact, after which WJBScribe asked him to stop pursuing the matter. He continued to ask several others to help him establish contact, after which WJBScribe let it be known he'd be blocked if he continued. On the morning of August 11, Krimpet blocked Defender 911 indefinitely. This action received wide support both on- and off-wiki by other administrators, and he is therefore considered banned by the community.

However, as the result of a discussion about him on WP:AN#User:Defender 911, Defender publicly apologized for his actions and asked to be unblocked.

Now I'm not even going to try to defend his behavior. Violations of the right to vanish are a very serious matter, and Defender's actions bordered on harassment and trolling. However, he has apparently realized that he made a very serious blunder here. Not only that, but apparently he made no posts that required oversighting (I could be wrong on this). Therefore, I ask on Defender's behalf that he be allowed to return, albeit under some form of probation. From my research, users have been allowed back after engaging in more egregious misconduct than this, and without an apology coming from the guilty party either. It is obvious from the AN discussion that there are several admins who would be quick to indef him without further warning if he slipped up again. Given that he has apologized, I would think some good faith is in order.

Addendum I should note that if he did slip up again, I would strongly support an indefinite ban on this user--do not pass Go, do not collect $200. I only took this step because it seemed to me that Defender is getting treated more harshly than other users who have engaged in far more disruptive behavior and were allowed another chance. Blueboy96 13:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

The discussion on the administrators noticeboard clearly shows a consensus of administrators endorsing the indefinite block, hence making it an indefinite ban. The administrators endorsing the block from this discussion include myself, B, East718, Ricky81682, TenOfAllTrades, SirFozzie, JzG, Sean William, Bearian, Riana (emerita) and Raymond arritt, while not a single administrator advocates for unbanning this user. The administrators endorsing the block when it occured included Krimpet, SirFozzie, Alison and ElinorD. That's fifteen administrators endorsing the block, both now and back when it was placed, and none endorsing unblocking.

This user harassed and attempted to violate a users right to vanish, and continued despite countless warnings. This user threatened other users claiming they were obstructing his right to pursue those who forced H off the website, while frequently splurting disruptive attempted-legalspeak which caused animosity and turbulance. This user has no history of constructive contributions to the encyclopedia, a history of inappropriate use of userspace (as determined by frequent MfD's), and a tendancy to jump up and down and start yelling when he doesn't get exactly what he wants. The indefinite block after countless warnings and countless episodes was justified, as seen by the unanimous consensus of administrators commenting at the noticeboard thread over the past few days. Daniel 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

I believe this diff is the only involvement I have in this case. I would be reasonably happy, if there's support from the Committee and those involved with the ban, to see the ban on Defender 911 lifted, provided he remains on probation and probably only on the understanding that his ban will be reinstated should he repeat the behaviour which led to his ban in the first place. I only spent a few minutes trying to stop Defender 911 from pursuing his interest in User:H, but I know a number of other administrators spent a considerable amount of time trying to deal with the situation and were unable to reign Defender 911 in. I'd therefore urge the committee to accept the case to determine whether the return of Defender 911 is in the best interests of the project, to determine the necessary parole framework for any return, and perhaps to clarify what is and isn't acceptable behaviour relating to contacting users who have left Wikipedia, especially users who have left the project due to harassment by a third party. I wasn't aware of the WP:AN discussion until I was edit conflicted by Daniel's statement above. I've looked at the AN discussion and I have to say, in the absence of any support from any fellow administrator in supporting any sort of unblock, I cannot, in good conscience support any unblock which would fly in the face of the consensus and therefore the defacto community ban. Nick (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

I agree that what this user did was extremely silly, especially his antics in circulating a legalistic "contract" formalizing his agreement not to continue talking about contacting User:H followed by his pestering others to "sign" it or else; the proper way to stop talking about something is to stop talking about it, not to wikilawyer about the concept! He also bit me on my talk page shortly before being blocked. Nevertheless, I'm coming in on the side of unblocking him, on the grounds that I don't like the direction the WikiCulture has taken in recent times towards being a Judge Dredd-ish atmosphere of immediate WikiExecution for stepping on the wrong people's toes. I say give him another chance (and I support re-banning him if he goes right back to more behavior of the sort that got him banned in the first place). *Dan T.* (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Maser Fletcher

The behavior dispayed by Defender was quite disruptive and warranted an indefblock/ban from the project. However, four months have passed, and now he would like his ban appealed. My recommendation is that, just as Blueboy recommended, we wait until April, and then give him a good faith unblock. At this time, there are no administrators willing to overturn the block.

So long as he respects H's right to vanish, does not harass other users, and starts to edit the encyclopedia, I think we should give him one last chance. He has already agreed to these conditions, and I have a strong feeling he will try his hardest to abide by them when the time comes. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am now of the opinion that we have to wait at least eight months before allowing this user back on the project, given the diff's provided by User:Daniel. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by blocking admin Krimpet

I blocked Defender 911 for his large-scale forum shopping and disruption in an effort to contact a user who left the project; a block that was widely endorsed. If any administrator thinks it's in the best interests of the project to give him a second chance, they are free to unblock (hence lifting the community ban); however no administrators have come forward to do so after a lengthy AN discussion, suggesting that community consensus is against lifting it. --krimpet✽ 08:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by lucasbfr

I wrote "mostly" since I deleted some pages on his userspace after his block/ban. I went through his contribs after being made aware of his requests and after Blueboy96 asked me if it would be appropriate for him to request arbitration. I don't think Defender 911 "got" Wikipedia, as shown in the tremendous amount of time he spent building a paramilitary-like vandal fighting organization, with him as its head. When he learned H had left, he really went berserk, and started his campaign, which only made things worse for H, who left a bit more than a month ago and definitely didn't want that kind of attention. This whole story leaves me a sour taste in my mouth because, contrary to most users, Defender did not mean ill when he started to disrupt the project, and was not as disruptive as some other clueless banned users (User:Tweety21 comes instantly to mind). But on the other hand his immaturity sometimes made things worse when he was editing, and I wouldn't feel comfortable with him editing (a bit like an elephant singing very loudly in a porcelain store, if you see what I mean). Personally I don't support nor oppose the ban. I wouldn't have done it, but I see the other people's point here. I hope the arbcom will consider the request, in the light of the recent community ban process discussion, do give Blueboy96 and Defender 911 a definitive answer (things went irrational each time User:H was mentioned, for a while). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Kendrick7

This editor had been with the project six months, and this was his first block. Although his barnstar page is deleted, he had received three WP:Barnstars in the 72 hours prior to the block.

I wish ArbCom to give this review, because the August "ban" was handled improperly in a way that clouded the community discussion about the indef block which didn't actually begin until four months after the fact. User:Defender 911 was indef blocked at around 9:00 11 August, and this became a ban approximately two hours later.[4] There was no community notification during this time. This looks more like a back-alley mugging than a proper application of WP:BAN.

When the block was finally brought to the attention of the community last week, it was treated as if he was already banned; so many admins simply didn't want to overturn "consensus," yet no consensus was ever previously created on the matter. So those opinions not to overturn a non-existent consensus are now being used to justify a new consensus post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Confusion was also sown when an admin asked for diffs, and was informed by User:Daniel that diffs which would most clearly support the ban had been WP:OVERsighted.[5] This turned out to be false, but again swung the opinion of the community in favor of maintaining the supposed "community ban."

Obviously this editor touched a third rail when he inquired after User:H, and while I can't see why a few message on User_Talk: space could possible cause the project wide disruption he is accused of, the important thing is that he's come back and promised to stop his misguided zealotry.

I've asked repeatedly for diffs during the discussion at WP:AN#User:Defender_911 which support the repeated disparagements that would otherwise justify maintaining the block indefinitely, such as a pattern of previous trolling, etc., but no one has provided any. So I'm mystified, and more than a little disappointed, that no admin is willing to WP:Assume good faith here and lift this user's first block.

Comment by Newyorkbrad

The outcome of this request is fairly clear, but I've posted a comment at User talk:Defender 911 that I hope he will read. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by B

The baggage now associated with this account is probably going to be insurmountable at any point in time. I would advise that if this user wishes to edit constructively on some other project or on this one at some point in the future after maturing as a wiki-citizen, he/she do so from a new, unrelated name. --B (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Carcharoth's question, keep in mind this user is probably just an immature kid. That's a situation that will eventually be remedied, whereas other situations where someone is banned because they came here with an agenda are different. --B (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Carcharoth

Following on from B's comment above, would the arbitration committee be able to comment on the viability of the user of the Defender 911 account making a fresh start under a new account? Does it depend on the circumstances of the ban? How long is too soon for a banned user to consider make a fresh start under a new account? 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? If they are found out, but have been editing productively, is an enforcement of the ban necessary? Would a review with a view to reversing the ban based on the good behaviour be more acceptable? Do banned editors need to ask permission first? How does this differ for community-banned editors and Arbitration Committee-banned editors? OK. That's too many questions to expect anyone to answer, but some things to maybe consider. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondary statement by Daniel

For those claiming he has "changed", I present Exhibit A and Exhibit B from the last twenty-four hours. It's blatantly obvious this user hasn't "changed" at all. Daniel 02:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondary statement by Kendrick7

Yes, Daniel, the community has now completely pissed off and alienated this contributor by failing to assume even a modicum of good faith. Go team! Never mind that you don't provide any diffs to show he was like that before the block, go ahead and use that as evidence that he hasn't "changed." That you are willing to twist his justifiable frustration into evidence that you've been right all along says far more about your apparent vendetta here than it does about Defender 911. -- Kendrick7^talk 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

• Decline. From the AN discussion it seems apparent that no administrator is willing to unblock Defender 911, which is the definition of a ban. Defender 911's contributions to the project prior to his ban were minimal, and in most editors' eyes overshadowed by his other activities, not just in relation to User:H but also various forms of empire-building and his interactions in userspace. Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Agree with Mackensen. I think the decision to indef block was sound and seems to be well supported by the Community. I think it is highly unlikely that we would overturn the block if we heard the case so it is not the best use of our time. FloNight (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reject Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Zscout370

Initiated by John254 at 00:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[6]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

As Zscout370 has been subject to emergency desysopping twice -- see [7] and [8] -- this case appears to qualify for acceptance as a "[review] of emergency actions to remove administrator privileges". Additionally, Zscout370's unblocking of Miltopia after the latter was banned by Jimbo Wales has been discussed extensively at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My block of Miltopia. A previous request for arbitration that I filed regarding Zscout370's unblocking of Miltopia was summarily removed by John Reaves before any arbitrators had reviewed the case; I ask that this disposition not be repeated.

Statement by John254

On 23:58, 26 October 2007, Zscout370 unblocked Miltopia after the latter was banned by Jimbo Wales. Unblocking a user authoritatively banned by Jimbo Wales on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation has previously been considered grounds for the removal of administrative privileges -- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Karmafist.27s_wheel_warring_with_Jimbo and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Karmafist. Consequently, Jimbo Wales desysopped Zscout370, but subsequently restored his administrative privileges. On 06:21, 14 December 2007, Zscout370 undeleted an article which had previously deleted by Dmcdevit citing WP:BLP concerns. Though I cannot view the deleted article, it appears that the article was comprised primarily of inadequately referenced negative information concerning a living person, and was thus correctly speedily deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material and CSD G10. The restoration of this article thus constituted a substantive WP:BLP violation, effectuated through the use of administrative tools. Moreover, pursuant to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Disputed_deletions and the decision of the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, the unilateral reversal of a good-faith deletion of a biography of a living person which was deleted with a reference to the biographies of living persons policy was improper. As a result of this undeletion, Zscout370 was subject to emergency desysopping again on 14:11, 14 December 2007 at the request of several arbitrators, though his administrative privileges were restored on 20:57, 14 December 2007. This case is necessary to clarify Zscout370's status as an administrator, rather than having further emergency desysoppings. Additionally, the permissible form of a request for desysopping by the Arbitration Committee should be articulated, namely, whether a request for this action by several arbitrators, but not a majority of the full Committee, is acceptable. (It is conceded that a steward may perform an emergency desysopping without any approval from the Arbitration Committee when the steward, in his/her personal judgment, deems this action to be necessary. The question here, however, concerns under what circumstances a steward should revoke a user's administrative privileges solely on the grounds of a request by the Arbitration Committee.) John254 00:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to statement by Ryan Postlethwaite: I'm not claiming that Zscout370 should be desysopped, but merely that a situation in which an administrator has been subject to emergency desysopping twice, and once at the request of several unnamed arbitrators, at least deserves review by the full Committee. If the second desysopping shouldn't have occurred, a finding regarding the acceptable form of a request for desysopping by the Committee should prevent similar situations in the future. John254 01:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note, Cary Bass has informed the Stewards that any future requests for desysopping must be requested in writing at the m:RFP page and that the administrator to be desysopped must be informed that they will be desysopped, unless that is impossible. Nick (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I really don't see the committee's need to look at this. It's clear the second desysopping was a mistake, and many would argue the first one was. The committee do not need to look into one undeletion - although people see it as poor practice, it's not at the stage yet where the ArbCom need to look further into it. I would argue there's been greater malpractive in this incident from members of the committee and others that played a role in the desysopping. Zscout, apart from these two incidents, has been an excellent administrator - if there was any concern whatsoever, we would have had an RfC - this hasn't even been thought about yet. I urge the commitee to reject this request. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to John - we really don't need any more drama - the second deysopping was a good faith mistake by a number of parties, who used the information they had available to come to a conclusion that is understandable. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

Would agree that this seems unnecessary. One matter which may need clarification however is that according to this diff[9], three members of the Arbitration Committee plus a person who was not a member of the Arbitration Committee at the time (although this seemed to be a matter of good faith confusion for the steward concerned) asked for Zscout to be desysopped in a move which was so quickly afterwards overturned. Apart from this, the matter appears to have been resolved and any further action will most probably not help the situation. Orderinchaos 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

I was preparing to file a case but decided to wait for a while, then this request showed up. My draft statement is at User:Thatcher131/Sandbox2. I think there would be some benefit to having this discussion out in the open and following the normal process rather than acting on an emergency and possibly hasty basis. I think there are three questions for Arbcom if it wants to tackle them:

1. What are the standards and consequences for reversing an administrative action without discussion? (Jimbo thinks even one reversal is bad; community opinion is divided.)
2. Are the rules for deletions that cite the BLP policy different than the rules for general deletions and how will they be enforced? (See Wikipedia:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards and the cautions issued to two other admins here.)
3. Shall Zscout370 be desysopped and on what grounds (violating the BLP policy, the wheel-warring policy, or both)?

Alternatively, if Zscout370 has, in public or private communication with the Committee, demonstrated satisfactory awareness of need for sensitivity and caution surrounding BLP deletions, the Committee may not feel there is any issue to Arbitrate here.

Statement by Krimpet

Unnecessary. This second desysopping was a misunderstanding, perhaps largely driven by reminiscence of the first desysopping. It's been agreed this was a mistake, and all parties have moved on. I concur that nothing good will come of an arbitration request. --krimpet✽ 03:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Zscout370

Getting to what Thatcher said, I been in contact with Jimbo and OTRS-L about the restoration and the consequences about my actions with the article. So they are fully aware of what I have done and they fully told me what I done was stupid and reprehensible. I fully accept that and apologize now in public. As for Soby's issue, I just told him that the mistake was OK, but I just requested that I was informed that I was desysoped when it occurred. By the time I sent that message, I was promoted back to sysop by Soby. As for ArbCom wishing to look at this again or not, that is up to them, but I personally feel that everything is settled. I am trying to get in touch with Dmcdevit to just make sure we both are on the same page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

If the Arbitration Committe does not reject this summarily, to go along with issuing an apology to ZScout (if a bad block requires an apology and action, I certainly hope a "misunderstanding" that led to an admin being de-sysoped would require the same)... I would hope that any Arbitrator who took the hasty, ill-informed decision to de-admin ZScout without discussion with the admin in question would recuse themselves from any decision to accept the case, and surely any proposed discussion or decision. SirFozzie (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Without going into the matter of who, why and when, it seems to me that Wikipedia is faced with an otherwise highly regarded administrator whose actions have been grossly inappropriate on two occasions. I suggest that in such cases a remedy is more appropriate than waiting for a series of further temporary desysoppings. Only the Committee can impose such a remedy. --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Amarkov

He was desysopped temporarily. Then the issue was resolved, and he was given adminship back. This ideally should not be a huge deal, and certainly doesn't need Arbcom to do something else. -Amarkov moo! 16:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

I would like to see this case accepted so the committee can make a ruling on what constitutes wheel warring. Zscout undid another admin's actions without discussion in two of the situations most admins feel reverts are particularly inappropriate -- first, he undid a block by Jimbo, and secondly, he undeleted a deleted BLP, in violation of the BLP policy. Zscout clearly feels his actions don't constitute wheel warring, yet if everyone behaved like this, there would be a great deal of bad feeling and chaos. I therefore ask the committee to examine whether that type of undiscussed admin revert is ever acceptable. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just had another experience of an admin undoing a deletion of mine on BLP grounds (an edit summary, not an article), without contacting me first. All the wheel warring achieves is to draw even more attention to the issue, when the aim of the deletion was to draw less attention to it. I therefore again ask the ArbCom please to take this case to examine this problem. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SSBohio

I'm rather of two minds on accepting this case:

• My first thought is that the involved parties in this matter are (at least) ZScout, Jimbo, and Dmcdevit, and that the scope extends beyond the desysopping to the underlying issues, including the Miltopia ban and the Carolyn Doran page deletion. It's difficult to meaningfully discuss the effect without discussing the causes. For these reasons, I believe ArbCom should accept and consider this matter in its entirety.
• However, my first thought led quickly to my second thought. Since the purpose of the ArbCom action would be to review (in part) an action taken by Jimbo Wales ex officio. For lack of a better analogy, I assert that Wales has sovereign immunity and his actions would be beyond even the review of ArbCom. Without reviewing the initial events, it's hard to see where this would be a productive exercise, so, on that basis, I would favor ArbCom's rejecting the case.

There is, however, an issue I see with BLP as implemented. It's one area of the project where an admin can take an action without being required to disclose the issues that required the action to be taken. Once deleted, the revisions are beyond the review of even experienced editors, and our only choice is whether to accept the admin's "trust me" or not. I believe that trust requires verification, and secret processes break verification and hence degrade trust. --SSBohio 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to SSBohio by Daniel

In response to the last part about no discussion with deletions:

Administrators generally, except in the most egregious cases, will respond to an email from an established user and explain, using discretion with regards to the details provided, the reason for the deletion. The principle at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Responsibility is applicable here. To suggest that they are not up for review or discussion seems incorrect — for deletions can go to deletion review if you are dissatisfied with the deleting administrators' response, and even OTRS actions (which don't, and often can't, be explained due to confidentiality of communication) can be reviewed through a request to any other OTRS respondent or by instigating a discussion on the OTRS mailing list (which can be done, also, via request through another respondent).

The key about biographies of living persons deletions, per the Badlydrawnjeff case, is they cannot be restored without a consensus to do so. Daniel 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Daniel by SSBohio

The only significalt BLP controversy I've been involved in has not gone that way. Instead, the revisions were deleted, then undeleted, then deleted again by the same admin, then almost undeleted. Months of discussion have yet to establish the fact(s) by which the deletion is justified. The specifics aren't relevant here, but I'm willing to discuss them.

In such a case, the deleting administrator holds all the cards; if he decides not to disclose the facts, than an editor would literally be going into DRV blind. The effect of the policy, as implemented, is to make such deletions immune to review by non-administrators. The paramount importance of applying content policies with extreme care in BLP situations cannot justify taking action without a willingness to discuss that action. In addition to responsibility, transparency is vital to maintain faith in the process. Situations like mine and like this one erode that faith. --SSBohio 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

In my mind, the issue best presented by this case is when can a subset of arbitrators act on behalf of the committee - but since the ArbComm controls the arbitration policy, they can discuss and decide upon that without needing a case, and it would be better for the new ArbComm to do so if that is the only issue to be addressed. So my primary recommendation is to reject the case and clarify that policy without holding a case.

If a case is held, the party list is obviously incomplete. If a case is held at all, Dmcdevit and the two to three arbitrators who encouraged Dmcdevit to think the ArbComm was acting are obviously parties as their actions are under review. If the steward has a disclosed account here, they should also be a party.

Reviewing the timeline in Thatcher's draft outline, this is a terrible case for discussing wheel warring, as if there was a wheel war the only admins that even arguably wheel warred are Drini and Jossi - so if wheel warring is an issue Drini and Jossi must be parties to the case. This also isn't a great case for BLP issues, but to the extent BLP is an issue in a case Dmcdevit, Drini, Jossi and Penwhale are needed as parties. GRBerry 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Responding to SSBohio on a matter of procedure only, early this year User:Jimbo Wales accepted that the Arbitration Committee would have jurisdiction to review and, if it decided to do so, overturn any admin/bureaucrat/steward decisions made by him, and that ArbCom's decision in such matters would be final. Without belaboring the analogy, this has generally been viewed as a waiver of anything analogous to "sovereign immunity" that Jimbo might previously have possessed. (Not commenting one way or the other on whether the case should be accepted.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/3/0/0)

• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestion -- since this is clearly not a pressing matter, but is a matter that has some interesting issues, perhaps we might shelf this until the influx of new blood joins ArbCom in the next few days. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. The confusion here was very regrettable, and we must endeavor to deal with such situations in a more clearly organized manner in the future; but there is little benefit to holding an extended proceeding at this point. Kirill 19:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. As Kirill. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to clarify our stance on how emergency desysoppings are handled and to document the matter in an organized way. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. There are issues which might profitably be examined here. Paul August ☎ 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Place new requests at the top.

User:Rosencomet

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Rosencomet and Starwood related articles. Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to promote his interests in the encyclopaedia, and to aggressively resist attempts to remove or tone down said promotion. Do we need a new case, or can we look at a topic ban? Guy (Help!) 10:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Premature. Thatcher131 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Advised to try a user conduct RFC and approach the committee in January if necessary. Thatcher131 04:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, although the fact that he was previously brought before ArbCom and sanctioned for precisely the same behaviour and has refused to address the issue thus far does not augur well for success. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The prior case resulted in a non-binding, non-enforceable caution. Do what you will. Thatcher131 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I recused on the case because I reverted some of Rosencomet's edits so I'll recuse again. Not sure that a conduct RFC is needed since the last RRArb gave Rosencomet feedback similar to a RFC. If one is done, I don't think the Community needs to wait for a long period of time before a case is started if the behavior continues. FloNight (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for review of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

While merging the list at Wikipedia:Article probation into Wikipedia:General sanctions, I noticed that this 2006 case needs a review. The article probation remedy stated:

Articles which are the locus of dispute, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.

The one year review was due in July 2007, but apparently has not been done yet. After looking at the edit histories of these articles, I recommend that article probation be lifted for some, but not all of the articles. In particular, I noticed recent editing disputes at 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression, and several of the articles still have neutrality disputed tags. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I expect that we will conduct a review of all the currently active general sanctions in January, once the new arbitrators are on board. Kirill 15:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested motions to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

I request that the Committee consider the following motions. It is not clear where request for motions in a prior cases ought be placed, so could the clerks move this to the right spot if this is not it. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: I have moved these requests to the "requests for clarifications" section as probably the best place for them. I agree with Marting that it is not clear from the instructions where a request for relief from a prior decision should be posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspension of bans for both User:Digwuren and User:Petri Krohn

It is now obvious, after an initial bit of confusion and subsequent clarification, that the remedy 11 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction will be most effective in combating incivility, which was the core issue of this case. No one was calling for year long bans for either party in the original case, in fact most involved and uninvolved were explicitly against any ban, as Alex Bakharev succinctly argued here and seconded by many others including Geogre and Biophys in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Remedies_are_too_harsh. Note too that Digwuren did make a reflective and conciliatory statement aplogising to those he had wronged and forgiving those who had wronged him Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Digwuren. Compare this to the recently banned Anonimu, where there was a clear concensus for a ban and he was defiant and un-remorseful to the end.

While a year is a long time, and shortening it may be useful, I'd like to see those users expressing remorse, telling us what they have learned and promising not to continue behavior that led to their ban before any shortening or suspension of a ban is considered.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in banning these editors, especially Petri, who unlike Digwuren, even sincerely apologized long before the case and was still punished for his actions taken prior to the apology, unlike Digwuren who continued to create "occupation" badwagons, revert war and bait contributors even while his arbitration was ongoing. Still, as far as Digwuren is concerned, I neither proposed nor supported a year-long ban. I have a very thick skin towards incivility and this aspect of his conduct did not bother me much. But if he is unblocked, he must be on the short leash regarding the number of reverts and coatracking.

Overall, I think that case needs a new hearing in light of how editors see it now in the retrospect and by the hopefully wisened up ArbCom as well. Also, there were several new developments, chiefly, editors using the "editing restrictions" to blockshop and vigorously "investigate" each other. This whole matter needs a fresh look, perhaps by a renewed Arbcom after the election which is almost over.

I would object to selective reversals of the original decision. The case was handled badly in a hands-off-by-ArbCom-type way during the entire precedings. Selective return of Digwuren and doing nothing else would just make matters worse. Rehashing that decision overall may be a good thing and hearing all parties in an orderly way by the arbitrators who actually listned and engage would be a good thing though. --Irpen 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the involved parties had findings of fact regarding revert warring. The differentiating aspect for Digwuren and Petri Krohn was using Wikipedia as a battleground. Note that the root cause of this battle was the Bronze soldier controversy, which has now largely resolved itself, the threat for further battling has significantly diminished. Also given that bans are in principle intended to stop further damage to Wikipedia, rather for retribution and punishment for its own sake, and they have already served some months of this ban, I see no reason to continue this ban, particularly since there seems a concensus against a ban in the first place, the parties have shown remorse as I have linked above and the Bronze soldier issues have dissipated. I am not asking for selective reversals, just a suspension. Martintg (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Strike User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber from the Involved parties list

These people were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day. No or little evidence was presented against them and no finding of fact either. In fact they had absolutely no involvement in the issues of this case and were only mentioned because they were included in an earlier checkuser case. Note however it is a finding of fact that Petri Krohn used Wikipedia as a battleground, and the checkuser case against these and other Estonian users was a part of that warfare. We don't want to perpetuate this wrong against these three editors.

Therefore I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact I made a similar motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties during the case and it was seconded by the clerk Cbrown1023 at the time. I know it is a minor issue, but it is an important gesture that ArbCom ought to do to further heal the hurts and encourage them to return, particularly User:3 Löwi who has been an editor of good standing since 2005.

Expand definition of "uninvolved admin" in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

The principle of involved admins not being permitted to issue blocks is founded on the issue of conflict of interest and that trust should be maintained in the impartiality of the blocking admin. Generally "involved" means personal involvement in the immediate issue or article. However, given that the span of this general restriction covers all of Eastern Europe, and the principle that trust should be maintained in the blocking admin's impartiality, and that political issues (the role of the Soviet Union and communism) is the basis for much of the conflict on Eastern Europe; the definition of "involved" should be expanded for this remedy to include admins with overt and obvious political view points or past significant involvment in content disputes within Eastern Europe

The recent episode concerning blocks issued by El_C illustrates this problem. An admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. Note that this is same admin saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors". This fact of questionable impartiality and lack of trust only served to inflame the situation resulting a commited and significant editor and wikiproject coordinator Sander Säde to leave the project.

While one must endeavour to assume good faith, never the less, there would be an issue of trust in the judgement of an admin if, to illustrate with an example, they had a vanity page consisting of images of Osama bin Ladin and Hezbollah on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding Israeli related topic. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved enforcing this remedy.

Good point, but it all boils down to the issue of anonymity. El C at least declares some of his POV on his user page. I, for example, declare quite a few more things. Would you prefer to trust a user who declares nothing? How can we be sure if such declarations are truthful, and not ironic or simply deceptive? Looking back at the Essjay controversy I still think all admins should be required to reveal their identity, education, and POVs... but I am well aware this will not fly. I think "uninvolved admin" should be one that is accepted by the parties; but of course that creates a possibility for the parties to evade judgment by refusing to accept any admin as uninvolved. Perhaps to avoid that but deal with the problem you outlined, we should have a procedure parties can lodge complains about admin's involvement, where this could be reviewed by other admins and if involvement is determined (something like CoI), the admin's action is reverted and warning issued? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is time served included in block time?

Privatemusings [10] was prohibited from editing for 90 days Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision due to an arbitration decision. Does the 90 days start from the time of the decision (December 2) or from the time his block for misbehavior started (November 18th)? Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The general rule is that remedies take effect at the time the decision is finalized and announced. I have suggested once or twice that the time might better run from an earlier effective date based on the equities of a specific case, but the idea has never been endorsed by any of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If by some odd twist of fate you should find yourself enjoying the fine fruits of membership of that august body, you might push again for such a position. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge restricted

A user has suggested that editing on presidential candidate Mitt Romney would violate this edit restriction because Romney's an anti-abortion flip-flopper. User specifically opposes Ferrylodge's participation in a debate about including reference to Romney's polygamist ancestors (because, it's argued, polygamy relates to reproduction).[11] Is Ferrylodge in fact restricted from these topics? Is he close to the line? Cool Hand Luke 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not banned from articles about abortion. The ArbCom decision stated: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." First of all, no admin has remotely suggested that I have edited the Mitt Romney article inappropriately. That article has never been reverted by me once, and no admin (involved or uninvolved) has suggested otherwise, much less banned me from the article. Also, of course, the Mitt Romney article is not related to pregnancy or abortion. One could argue that every article is in some sense a result of pregnancy, but such arguments would be absurd. If I were editing an article on polygamy, could an uninvolved admin ban me from that article for editing inappropriately? I think not, but let's plunge off that bridge when we come to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The restriction is meant to be imposed on a case-by-case basis by an admin. Ferrylodge is not under any general ban. Kirill 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is my two cents on FL's progress since the ArbCom ruling. During the ArbCom case, it was discussed and proposed that FL, in addition to being banned from abortion/pregnancy articles, also be banned from political articles. The committee in the long run did not add this to their remedies, and based on FL's edits since coming back to WP, I'm not sure that was the right decision. On December 1st, after a bit of incivility ("but Turtlescrubber thinks that false info in Wikipedia artoices is fine?" [12]), FL (and another editor) were warned by The Evil Spartan, being told to "cease-fire"[13]. Because of the content dispute, the article has since been protected, however FL has harassed contacted the admin who protected the article multiple times here, even after a RfC and two separate edit requests failed to accomplish FL's edits. While not clear cut abuse, I believe this added together is disruptive. And to give FL credit, there are other editors on the other side fighting for their POVs (you can't have a content dispute with just one side. there are always two sides). But I am extremely disappointed that after the close of the ArbCom case, FL has not taken the opportunity to prove to the community that he can be productive and increase the encyclopedic value of non-controversial articles, but instead has picked up arguing over petty matters at days length on highly contentious articles. I would suggest to FL to please stop editing presidential candidates articles for the time being, and do some neutral contribution to gain the trust of the community. Getting into such a large (yet in the long run insignificant) content dispute so soon after the ArbCom case just doesn't look good.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, you are hardly a disinterested party here. For example, you accused me during the ArbCom proceedings of "aching for a fight," among many other things.[14] I politely decline your suggestion that I stop editing certain types of articles. Any objective person would see clearly that my edits to presidential candidate articles are very helpful, such as these edits today to the John McCain article. And there was no ArbCom vote about restricting me from political articles, contrary to what Andrew c suggests. Regarding the Mitt Romney article, there is certainly a dispute there, and I have supported at least one admin in that dispute. That article was certainly not protected due to any revert by me. I have never reverted the Mitt Romney article, not once. I thought that the ArbCom proceedings were over. Alas.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Re-opening the arbcom remedy is another question that I'm not asking. I just want to know whether there's anyway he's barred from editing Mitt Romney. It says that the subject should be interpreted broadly. I would say he's clearly forbidden from editing on a candidate's abortion stance, but editing on the candidate generally seems too weak a tangent to me. I want to know whether ArbCom could have possibly meant to forbid anything like this. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the remedy very carefully. He is not barred even from broad abortion and pregnancy topics, unless an uninvolved admin declares him to be in specific instances, in specific articles. Since no admin, involved or uninvolved, has done so at all, he cannot be argued to be banned from any article or topic at this moment. The mental gymnastics required to interpret the remedy, even in the broadest sense, to apply to presidential candidate articles in general would require facial expressions that I would actually pay to see. - Crockspot (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If FerryLodge were to edit the abortion-related parts of the Romney article in a disruptive fashion, an uninvolved admin could indeed ban him from the article, but he is under no blanket ban. You can ask any uninvolved admin to review FerryLodge's edits or post a request at Arbitration enforcement and if the admin decides a ban is needed, FL will be notified and the ban logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thatcher131 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Ferrylodge has returned to editing abortion-related articles and is pursuing the same very narrow ends which he's pursued for a year. On Roe v. Wade, he reintroduced commentary on a poll,[15] which he has singled out in this manner since December 2006.[16][17][18][19][20] At Talk:Abortion, he continues to advocate the addition of an illustration of a fetus,[21] although adding such an image to the article himself in September lead to an edit war.[22][23] The point is that the ArbCom decision applied specifically to articles related to pregnancy and abortion, and, even in its wake, Ferrylodge has not moved on from pursuing the same narrow, highly specific goals that he pursued earlier on articles like Abortion. I believe this warrants appraisal. -Severa (!!!) 18:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

I request clarification of this Remedy. El C applied two blocks [24], [25], and over 24 hours later Thatcher131 places a notice of restriction [26]. Is the action of these two admins against the spirit of this particular remedy in that the notice of restriction should be applied first as a warning to that editor that any further violation may invoke an enforcement block, the intent being that the editor is given fair opportunity and chance to cease that particular behaviour? My concern is that the action of an over zealous admin may have driven a very productive editor away [27]. Martintg (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor note: What did you expect when this botched ArbCom ended? I mean, here we are, with El_C, admin and Che Guevara (Communist) wannabe considered "uninvolved" when the whole issue here is not "Eastern Europe", but the heritage of Communism and Soviet Russian occupation. Not to mention that you have the same definition of the "conflict area" in the recent Anonimu ArbCom. Just take a look who is defending the Communist and Soviet POV-pusher User:Anonimu. It's the "uninvolved" Communist User:El_C and the Russian User:Irpen. Miraculous, isn't it. :) Dpotop (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case the block was issued because of this one single comment on a user's talk page [28], yet there is seemingly no action when grossly more disruptive behaviour is brought to light here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Dr._Dan_inflaming_Eastern_European_topics Martintg (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Action has finally been taken. Martintg (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The intent of the notice (not "warning") clause was to ensure that parties subject to sanctions would be informed of the existence of the general restriction prior to it being applied to them. Editors obviously aware of the restriction—notably, the parties to the case—are not meant to receive additional notifications. Kirill 13:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, so you are basically saying that the meaning of this remedy is that all and every single editor of EE topics, is already subject to this general restriction? So why is it worded "may be made subject to an editing restriction" if this is the case. So as editors of EE topics, we either all are subject to this editing restriction, or we all may be subject to the editing restriction given the appropriate notice, which is it? Most confusing. Should not every single editor of EE articles be now notified on their talk page that they are all subject to this general editing restriction? This need to be clarified. Martintg (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The remedy says that if someone is uncivil, makes personal attacks, or assumed bad faith, then an administrator may make them the subject of an editing restriction (ie, a block). How is that confusing? Obviously not everyone is currently affected by such a restriction, as not everyone is blocked. Kirill already answered your question regarding notification: those that are unaware should be notified, those that are already aware need not be. --Deskana (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. So who should start with this notification process, I suspect that there are a lot of regular EE editors who may not be aware of this General Restriction. I suppose this notification should be similar to this User_talk:Sander_Säde#Notice_of_editing_restrictions, which warns "future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking". Martintg (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Deskana, I am still confused by this template {{subst:Digwuren enforcement}}, which you and Kirill must admit is structured as a warning notice, which must be logged in the appropriate place to take effect, according to the text below:

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

I am not wiki-lawyering here, I just think it is necessary to clarify this mechanism for the benefit of not only us editors at the coal face, but also the admins who have to administer this. Let's have some clarity here to ensure the smooth running of Wikipedia, that is all I ask. Martintg (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, Deskana, not wanting to labour the issue, but there is a distinction between an editing restriction and a block, is there not? You both seem to be implying that that they are the same thing, the block is the editing restriction. But this is at odds with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement_by_block: "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked", an explicit distinction which Kirill himself drafted. I mean, there are all sorts of general editing restrictions in force, 3RR being one for example. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this suppose to operate thus:

1. Misbehaviour -> Editing restriction placed via notice on user talk page and logged
2. Further misbehaviour -> block applied and logged.

I know admins are encouraged to ignore the rules, but we do need clarification here before some over zealous admins begin driving good people off the project for the slightest infraction, as in the case of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Estonia coordinator User:Sander Säde. Martintg (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you're correct. Keep in mind, though, that the main intent of the notification requirement is not to serve as a warning, per se; but, rather, to make sure that editors unaware of the existence of this remedy would not find themselves blocked without finding out about it beforehand. When the editor in question, having been a party to the actual case, is already well aware of the need to conduct themselves civilly, we're not going to crack down on admins for forgetting some of the paperwork. To be quite honest, anyone involved in the case has no excuse for being uncivil at this point; I think that we made it very clear that the poor behavior seen in this area is not acceptable. Kirill 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not looking to have an admin flogged for forgotten paperwork, just clarification and guidance for the benefit of editors and admins alike, because this does apply to the entire Eastern Europe, broadly defined. It must be noted that User:Sander Säde did subsequently apologise in his block review request.

How ever it appears that in his exuberance User:El_C used this remedy (which is aimed at incivility) for blocking User:Alexia Death for basically revert warring [29]. The revert warring was over this comment [30], and to interpret this as incivility is an asumption of bad faith. In fact this comment is a salute to Ghirla for the tough battles of the past with well wishes for the future. Using this remedy for edit warring is an inappropriate, so therefore I request that User:Alexia Death's logging of her enforcement block and associated notification log be removed from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement_2. Martintg (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Could you, Kirill, please comment on the fact that logging this block as enforcement block happened at least in my case 2 hours after the fact. Is this appropriate? See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel_Case. If logging blocks is allowed with this much delay it opens up venues for block laundry. I propose that blocks that are made as enforcement blocks must be logged immediately.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This was apparently a case of forgotten "paperwork". Kirill has confirmed that for those who were not a party to the original case 1. Misbehaviour -> Editing restriction placed via notice on user talk page and logged, 2. Further misbehaviour -> block applied and logged. For those who were a party: both applied at the same time. Martintg (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to have been a fair amount of confusion regarding what exactly the remedy was. For future use, I've created Wikipedia:General sanctions to keep track of these wide-area remedies. I'd appreciate it if people could leave links to it where appropriate. Kirill 06:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about the notice. I was part of the case and I acknowledge it to be unnecessary. I talking about logging the block itself and requesting comment on delay in logging it as an enforcement block, witch I personally doubt it was.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions sounds like a good idea. I have taken the liberty to add the second Armenia-Azerbaijan case (with some rewording, for consistency) to it. I submit it to your and other members of the Committee's approval. El_C 09:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, but keeping the actual wording is probably the better approach, to reduce potential confusion. Kirill 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirill. Please see my refractored comment here. El_C 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, one more clarification needed on applicability. This remedy is only applicable to EE topics right? I mean if it happens in areas outside EE, for example, an editor gets into a discussion with an admin on another admin's talk page and they start revert warring over the editor's comment "So these are "Durova-style" rules! LOL. I cant take Wikipedia seriously any more. This is ridiculous!", [31], [32], [33], [34], and rightly or wrongly that admin ends up blocking this editor as a result [35] (I've searched and searched but cannot find this alleged inflammatory comment "you guys could do with little sunshine in your lives"), is it appropriate that this block be logged under this particular remedy? Martintg (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The remedy, as written, is applicable to any editor working on EE topics, but places no limitations on where the actual incivility would need to occur. Given that a large part of the past problem was EE editors sniping at each other on user talk pages, noticeboards, etc. (often on topics unrelated to EE, but merely continuing personal fights that had started on EE matters months or years before), I think it's appropriate that editors subject to this remedy need to watch their behavior generally, not only on article talk pages or when directly engaged in article disputes.

(The comment is made here, incidentally.) Kirill 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that the initial statement by Alexia on Ghirla's talk page (do we assume good or bad faith here?) was the trigger, it quickly descended into a personal conflict between Alexia and User:El_C spanning across several user's talk pages. I don't believe that Alexia or User:El_C have had any personal fights in the past related to EE. By no means was User:El_C blocking action uncontroversial as another admin overturned the un-noticed block (forgotten paperwork) as evidenced here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case. User:El_C clearly states that the main reason for the block was for this subsequent dispute, not the original triggering event:[36]. Of course the irony here is that User:El_C himself was as much a contributor due to his own combative and inflamatory approach.

In what way inflammatory you may ask? People like us Kirill, who were brought up in comfortable USA or Australia where images of Che may be considered mere t-shirt art, need to be sensitive to the fact that many people suffered under communist rule in Eastern Europe. For example I read that in the Baltic states, almost everyone had some family member who was deported or otherwise repressed. It touched everyone. So when an admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. This was the substance of this dispute that lead to Alexia's block. Would you trust the judgement of an admin with images of Adolf Hitler on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding the Holocaust? This is same admin who saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors", and exhibited continued assumption of bad faith against the unblocking admin in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved resolution of EE disputes, particular given the extra powers afforded by this remedy.

Anyway, thanks again for your clarifications. Rather than continuing on here, I'll be putting together a case to address this issue of involved admins and will putting it before the Committee in due course for consideration. Cheers. Martintg (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

These uninhibited attacks by this user, who feels it necessary to link to my user page five times in a single five-sentence paragraph, are nothing more than cheap theatrics. Of course, I am far from being a supporter of the Social imperialist Eastern European caricature-communist regimes, and of course I saw a problem with the the behaviour of Anonimu (still, he was ruthlessly attacked, too; just the Bonparate front, tens of socks). I already responded to many of these other distortions elsewhere at length. El_C 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I cite: "far from being a supporter of the Social imperialist Eastern European caricature-communist regimes". Hm, the photo of Lenin on your page seems to say something else. In case you don't know, it was him who presided the imperialistic occupation of Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaidjan by the USSR. But imperialism was not his worst deed: He and his buddies created the Cheka and the widespread famine, and the politicide, a.s.o. Dpotop (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion, don't pretend to be an honest broker on these subjects. Dpotop (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you don't know. I have long ago ceased to respond to the crude, intentionally-insulting demagoguery of Dpotop. El_C 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My formulation was based on an assumption of good faith from your part. Otherwise, I can't see how you could state on one side that you don't support imperialist communists, and on the other side support Lenin. Dpotop (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that such accusations of "demagoguery", "combativeness", a.s.o. would have ended in a block for any other Wikipedia users. It's sad to see that some editors (you, for instance) can do whatever they want with impunity. Dpotop (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Above, he calls me he a wannabe, a few days ago he calls me a hypocrite. It's all standard practice for Dpotop. El_C 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion to Dpotop. Why dosen't he make a few edits that are not related to targeting myself or reverting Eastern European articles. It'd go along way toward establishing calm on these two unrelated fronts. El_C 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The original question has been asked and answered. In the case of Alexia Death, the formal notice I placed on her talk page was not required as she was a listed party to the case and was informed of the decision at the time it closed. Editors who were not parties to the case should be notified about the editing restrictions before any enforcement action is taken pursuant to those remedies. Are there any points that need additional clarification? Thatcher131 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that doesn't involve targeting me, I'm sure. El_C 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a moment, I just looked at the Case again, and civility restrictions 1 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Alexia_Death_restricted and 10 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Sander_S.C3.A4de_restricted were never adopted, so I don't think El_C was correct in blocking them with enforcement blocks. At most he should have placed the notice of general restriction first. Surely if ArbCom wanted the parties to be blocked without further notice as you suggest Thatcher131, they would have passed those remedies. Martintg (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of ArbCom action does not condone bad behavior nor prevent admins from dealing with bad behavior through the normal means. Since these folks were party to this case, they were well aware of the general restrictions, so there was no need for further notification. The fact that they have been given additional notification subsequently is a courtesy intended to help them comply. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Note JamesF's vote in opposition, "oppose in favor of the general restriction." As the general restriction applies to all parties upon notice, and the closing clerk notified both Alexia [37] and Sander [38], then the notification requirement has been met. I applied the warning template as a formality and because Sander was listed as a party in the case opening, but he clearly was considered a party when the case closed, as noted on the proposed decision page and as demonstrated by Cbrown's notification. Thatcher131 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And FloNight in support of the general restriction said "I prefer this to keep newer users from gaining the upper hand by bashing our established editors over the head with our decision at the time these established users are trying to adjust their conduct to match our remedies." Didn't the thing that FloNight wanted to avoid just happen in this case, Alexia and Sander were bashed over the head without a chance to adjust by being notified first according to remedy 11? Martintg (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the notices you linked were provided at the conclusion of the case and only mentioned Remedies 2, 5 and 10. There was no mention of Remedy 11 in that notice. I am particularly concerned about the other Involved Parties, User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber, who were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day, returning some time in the future and being clobbered over the head without a chance to adjust. Martintg (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The general restriction is indeed linked in that notice. Thatcher131 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct, I mis-read the notice. However what of FloNight's concern and the issue of the three involved parties I mentioned being potentially bashed over the head without being given a chance to adjust? It's pretty tough on them, isn't it? No finding of fact against them, yet they have this threat of instant block hanging over their heads. Martintg (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As I read Flo's comment to mean that she does not want new unnamed editors to have the upper hand on older editors named in specific remedies, hence the general remedy. (Although you are welcome to ask her specifically.) Regarding inactive editors, I can only say that I would hope that they read their talk pages (and indeed, they have an obligation to follow up on an Arbitration case naming them that was pending when they last edited), but even so I personally would issue another warning before issuing blocks. And in any case, the initial blocks are meant to be brief, and only escalate on repeated violations. If you wish to specifically exempt these editors you will need Arbcom to vote a motion modifying the decision. Thatcher131 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you would personally issue them with a warning, but other admins may not. As for your stated obligation that they should follow up any ArbCom case pending since their last edit, the fact is they have been off line long long before this case was ever requested, let alone pending. I have no idea why they were even listed as involved parties, apart from their ethnictiy. It would be bit of a nasty surprise if they ever return to find this notice on their talk page related to a case that they never participated in let alone a finding of fact made against them. And yet they have been singled out for no other reason that they happen to live in Estonia and subjected to harser regime than you or me, we get a second chance because we get a notice only after the first infraction, and they get none. Don't you find this disquieting?

So I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact a motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties was made during the case and seconded by the clerk User:Cbrown1023 at the time, but may have been overlooked in the general noise of the Workshop page. Martintg (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom warnings and reminders

Sometimes, ArbCom will close a case with a remedy, where an editor is warned/reminded not to do something but is not punished. What if the editor ignores the warning/reminder? Is there a process to tell ArbCom that the editor ignored the warning/reminder and should be punished? --Kaypoh (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bringing a new case, typically. Non-binding remedies are just that: non-binding. Kirill 12:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings sockpuppet principle

I would like to request clarification on one matter here, namely the restriction that "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." I know I'm not the only administrator to use a secondary account for security purposes while on a public or shared machine. Generally, such secondary accounts are clearly marked as to who they are controlled by, and cannot be used, for example, for circumvention or "bad hand" purposes, as they are clearly linked to their owner. Does the committee intend this ruling to apply even to such accounts? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This use came up during the Committee's discussion about our understanding of the sockpuppet policy. As long as the accounts are labeled in a way that makes the connection obvious there should not be a problem. Going the extra step of signing these posts with both account names will help if the account names are not obviously the same person. FloNight (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a related thread (from the proposed decision talk page here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova, part II

I ask clarification in the application of the enforcement clause (link).

The decision says that "[t]hose edit-warring against an administrator following this ruling so as to restore private content without consent of its creator may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator, up to a week in the event of repeated violations". However, as pointed out in this edit by Thebainer (talk), arbitration decisions generally only apply to the case they're made in (exceptions including a number of decisions in the BDJ case, etc.).

So, I ask, does this enforcement apply to the parties/involved users in this case, or all Wikipedians? Naturally, if it is the latter, it should be expected that the user be given a final warning if it can be reasonably assumed that the user wasn't aware of the decision. Daniel 23:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The enforcement applies only to the particulars of this case. Paul August ☎ 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I think your statement is ambiguous. Does "particulars" mean "particular facts" or "particular parties"? GRBerry 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The general principle is that the principles, findings, remedies and enforcements of a given case apply only to that case. It is not intended that a case decision make new policy or be precedent setting. Thus the enforcement in this case is to be construed conservatively and narrowly, to apply only to the particular parties of this case, and only to the particular private content of this case. It is not intended to apply to other parties or other private content. Paul August ☎ 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still unclear. Applies only to the parties in this case, and the private information cited in this case? Mercury 00:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 17:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova

(Apologies if poorly worded; I'm tired)

Clarification is requested to ensure the community correctly interprets principle #3 in this case. In past cases well-intentioned but unforeseen interpretations of a case principle have led to diverse interpretations and many problems. This one has the same potential so following discussion with Mackensen, I'm requesting clarification early on before any incorrect or assumptive meanings are accidentally drawn. The relevant sentence requiring clarification is:

"If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee."

There are several points of principle that may arise; I'd like to raise them all just to be safe.

1. In the past, when arbcom has specified a process or a new principle in its cases, that has always been stated or understood to be a proposal, or ad-hoc process, which the community can review or finalize. Or it runs in parallel with the community's view. In other words, it's akin to "this is the starting point, until things get discussed more". Other than asserting Arbcom's right to be involved, rulings don't usually override future consensus by the community at large on the matter. However, a literal reading of this sentence might be taken to mean, "Arbcom has spoken; this is how confidential information is obligated to be handled. All (and future) community discussion futile. Matter decided."

   Evidence of need: posted today on a proposed policy talk page: "I think the "process" section is ... perhaps not necessary. ArbCom expressed in its ruling that all confidential evidence has to go through them, so it wouldn't seem to admit any other [approaches], not even a subset of ArbCom" [39]

   Clarification #1 - Confirmation that in general, when Arbcom makes decision in the form of a process, it's not intended to have a chilling effect on communal learning, or prevent the community considering, finding, and later rethinking, its own ways, over time. (In fact my understanding is that the community is actively encouraged to do so.)

2. In the past, behavioral evidence has been used against certain sophisticated sockpuppet users. For example, some 60 socks of repeatedly-banned vandal HeadleyDown (AKA. KrishnaVindaloo, maypole, ...) have now been blocked. In proposed policy discussion, more than one person has commented that evidence against well known sockmasters often cannot be placed in public, since its first use would then be to allows the sockmaster to change their "give-away behaviors" ("not a suicide pact").

   Clarification #2 - does Arbcom confirm it now wants all such matters to be its domain now, and no actions of this kind decided by any other user or users?

   Clarification #3 - If so, is this to be a permanent ruling, or more an interim one until the community finds a better proposal that gets consensus. Ie, if the community develops a suitable consensus on an alternative means of handling "confidential information" would Arbcom need to be asked to sanction the communal proposal, before it could replace this ruling?

   Clarification #4 - is it necessary to ask #3? (Not a trivial question, it goes to the heart of how such rulings by Arbcom may be changed or removed, and Arbcom's view on their standing of process rulings it may make)

3. Finally, if appropriate to ask, does the committee encourage or support the community in developing a more long term policy on handling of confidential information? (One is being developed, but the perceived announcement by Arbcom that it will exclusively handle such matters from now on, has led to question of its merit by a number of users and a diminishing of effort.)

In general what is being requested to be clarified is two things - 1) when Arbcom makes a ruling that will specify what some communal norm, process or conduct should be, how much can the community then develop it own answers going forward, and, 2) in this specific ruling does Arbcom really intend that all administrators who have sockpuppets they can identify via "give-away" behavior, should cease handling these from now on unless Arbcom (as opposed to other people) have reviewed each incident?

I'm fairly sure what Arbcom's ruling means :) and I'm fairly sure it's intended to mean commonsense applies. I feel though that it would be useful to have this sentence re-explained, to ensure no incorrect meanings are drawn causing conflict.

Apologies for presenting a few extreme interpretations. It is because such meanings might be drawn by well-intentioned users, that I'd like this important set of clarifications made asap :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Let me respond to each in kind:

1. Unless it specifically states otherwise, Arbcom rulings do not preclude the development of new policies. Arbcom rulings reflect policies as the committee understands them at that particular time. Arbcom does not, as a rule, create new policies, although it may reconcile conflicting policies.
2. No, but the administrator should in those cases be able to state which banned user is being blocked, so that users have a point of reference.
3. See #1, for the most part. If policy evolves in a different direction then the situation can change.
4. See #1. Arbcom rulings are not court rulings, nor legislation. Arbcom rulings should not be understood as to prevent the development of new policies.

• As I've said, this ruling reflects policy as we understood it, and I think there's consensus that only Arbcom ought to handle truly "secret" evidence. On the other hand, if a sock is obvious to one sysop, it'll probably be obvious to another. Common sense applies. Arbcom is not the grand clearing-house of sockpuppet investigations. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The community is entirely free to develop a policy to handle matters involving confidential evidence (within reason); our rulings, in general, speak to what we consider to be the present state of Wikipedia convention and practice, and don't make assumptions about future developments.

As for what the principle itself means, there are really two implicit points:

1. By long-standing tradition, the Committee has the authority to take actions based on evidence that, for various reasons, cannot be revealed to the community as a whole.
2. Other individuals or groups do not have such authority (with certain narrow exceptions having to do with WMF-authorized work, and so forth).

Thus, users can't take action based on non-public evidence without consulting us and then refuse to explain their action to the community. The question of what sort of explanation the community considers sufficient is, of course, a question for the community as a whole rather than the Committee. If there is wide consensus to allow or disallow some particular option here, that's perfectly open to discussion.

Does that answer your questions, or did I miss something? Kirill 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Enforcement Log
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Enforcement Log

There seems to be a decent amount of activity. For the sake of convenience the logs of these two cases should be somehow merged, perhaps templatified so that same log is visible on both pages and when a new entry is added it shows on both pages. This is trivially easy to do. {{Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Enforcement Log}} can be created and transcluded on both pages for this task.

-- Cat ^chi? 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have created the sub page per WP:BOLD. I have not transcluded it yet tho (I am not THAT bold). I'd like to do so per some sort of approval. -- Cat ^chi? 06:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"For the sake of conveniece" Do you mean for your convenience? If so,why would it be convenient for you, and why should your convenience be a reason to merge two separate and extremely controversial RfC records? Meowy 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? My convenience? I am neither an admin nor an involved party. How does this make it "more convenient" for me? These are two closely RfAr cases and not RfCs at all. The record in question are copies of block logs. Same information is available in the form of block logs. Merge suggestion was to simplify an already complex case with a centralized list as both cases are very closely related. Frankly this opposition baffled me. Yes I am quite surprised. -- Cat ^chi? 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how it would be "more convenient" for you. You made the "convenience" comment, so you are the one who should know! The case is complex because the second RfA case was exceptional in its outcome, especially in its draconian powers and in (what I believe to be) the unparallelled breadth of its scope which extended the remit of the original RfA far beyond reasonable and normal limits. There should be no move to minimise or disguise that situation. Meowy 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How is that "draconian" argument relevant to the block log? This is merely merge the block logs, something available in machine generated logs...

It helps distinguish really disruptive users that got regular blocks from others. For example, we had several users that had engaged in disruptive sockpuppetary. Past blocks may be overlooked in a hypothetical situation if a user was blocked per RfAR case 1 and needs to be blocked again per RfAR case 2. The complicated nature of the cases as you pointed out makes review rather difficult which exactly why simplifying that process as much as possible is necessary. Some logs are relentless! Such a synchronized block log would minimize the confusion. Block logs are public data and this suggestion isn't even remotely controversial.

Does you opposition have a reason? If so please state it because I do not see the mention of such a reason so far.

-- Cat ^chi? 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Will a single arbitrator or clerk comment on this? -- Cat ^chi? 12:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: no. The two cases are distinct; merging the logs will merely confuse everyone regarding what exactly each case allows for. Kirill 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

I'm requesting a review on my placement under supervision by User:Ryan Postlethwaite for the following reason. The AA2 remedy #2 states: "Any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions." Ryan Postletwaite claims that "Although I don't see any incivility, the scope of the remedy was supposed to cover disruption via incivility or edit warring". I don't see the word OR, which Ryan felt so strong about that he made it appear bold.

This is what Thatcher131 told me month ago: "So far, no admin including myself has found that you yourself have edited these articles in an "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" and so you have not yet been placed under the restrictions described here. Thatcher131 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)"[40]

Am I being compared to E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Previously indef banned for edit warring, who was simultaneously edit warring with me and another user [41], [42], [43], . Who breached WP:3RR [44], [45], [46], [47], Who kept insisting (by reverting) that its gonna be his way and no other? even by reverting my minor edits [48]. Who generally disregarded the talkpage and is yet to give justification for most of his POV reverts. Was I wrong, when I tried to compromise and only reverted partially? Was I wrong when I tried to keep the article as neutral as possible? As I said before, even though I was not under the restriction and supervised editing, I never reverted without justification, always explained and justified my edits in the talkpage. Most importantly my edits were not marked by incivility.

In fear of turning this board into another "he said she said" I request that only administrators respond to this request. VartanM (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration remedies are not meant to be carte blanche for administrators unless they explicitly provide for such authority. Ryan's interpretation of the decision here is incorrect; the remedy is applicable only to cases where the editor is incivil. Kirill 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How about many other users, such as User:Aynabend and User:Baku87, who were placed on parole without any prior warning, while they both had a clean block log and never made any incivil comments? I don't think E104421 was incivil either. Both VartanM and E104421 were placed on parole for edit warring on Shusha article, since they made 3rvs each. VartanM had a previous official warning from another admin to stop edit warring, otherwise he would be placed on parole [49]. So I think we need a clarification here. Can admins place users on parole for just edit warring, or they need to be engaged in both edit warring and incivility to be placed on parole? If the latter, then parole of some users has to be lifted. Grandmaster (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Krill for a super fast reply. Grandmaster the answer to your question is most probably that they need to personally come here and make their case. Assuming good faith on GM's part for ignoring my kind request. Good night to all. VartanM (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to clarify the general principle of application of this remedy. If it applies only for incivilty, then User:E104421, User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 should be all relieved of it, since they never violated any civility rules, and the latter 2 editors have no previous blocks, warnings, etc, unlike User:VartanM. Grandmaster (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, User:VartanM is violating Users national background and neutrality principle by engaging in edit warring and POV pushing across several articles without restriction. We are yet to see how you address that by giving him a green light to continue doing what he is doing. And if VartanM's behavior was not marked by incivility, then how did the ArbCom address these [50], several counts of incivility not ever supervised, restricted or paroled? And if the VartanM's continuous editing conduct allows for interpretation against supervised editing, then how would supervised editing apply in case of the other user User:E104421, whose edits were not incivil. Based on POV pushed by User:VartanM throughout Wikipedia without any review or restriction, and paroles being deliberately applied only to contributors of certain one side, lifting the supervised editing is a delibreate violation of neutrality. Atabek (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And why does VartanM cross out administrator's decision [51] when this should be done either by administrator or arbitrator? Atabek (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• The ArbCom notice reads: "Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page." I edited the Shusha article for the first time yesterday. I did not edited in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. I provided sources, cited the references, commented on the talk pages and edit summaries. On the other hand, VartanM deleted the new section, references and quotatins on "cultural life" added by myself from cited references. VartanM's POV is focused on my previous block-log due to my long term conflicts with Tajik on Nomadic Empires related topics. My last block is dated 1 April 2007. That case was closed. I edited for the first time an Az-Ar related topic in my life (just 4 times + 1 minor spell check), but it's claimed that i have history of Az-Ar related topics. Now, i was placed under the parole, but VartanM's parole is removed. What kind of double standard is this? Deletion of referenced material constantly is not regarded as edit-warring, but addition of "new section and references" are claimed to be edit-warring. What happened to the basic Wikipedia policies: "WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:DR"? Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks Kiril for the response here. I was under the impression that this remedy tried to stop disruption in all forms (i.e. edit warring or incivility) due to the history of editing on these pages. Whilst I see that both users here have edit warred on the pages, I fail to see any incivility coming from them, so unless there's evidence of that, I'll remove both names from the supervised editing log. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Both User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 were placed under the same parole for a single page edit and without any incivility cited. So please, review their paroles as well. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Baku87 and VartanM for now - I'll wait for a response from the administrators that put E104421 and Aynabend under supervised editing before removing their names. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. Atabek (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, if I get this right, the remedy implies that the editors are free to edit war on topic related articles as long as they remain civil? If not, what the arbcom remedy proposes to stop edit wars, which were the reason to 2 arbcom cases in the first place? Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I share a similar concern with this remedy. Given the scale of the disruption on this topic, I don't think it's a good idea that users must be incivil with edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive on its own and this does seem to advocate edit warring on the pages provided that the users remain civil. I think when a case like this goes to arbitration twice, administrators should be given a little bit more freedom to interpret decisions because per the clarification from Kirill yesterday, I've had to remove five names from the supervised editing list that should all most probably have had their editing placed under supervision, but can't because of a technicality. In many ways it seems it's a way to game the system. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Last month I requested a RfC on the apparent arbitrary extensions of the powers that the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy created. Being out of the country for 4 weeks, I did not have the opportunity to see its result. Where (if anywhere?) would the archive of that discussion material be stored? I must point out to the initiator of this RfC, that remedy 2 does not actually contain the words he has quoted. The fact that it does not, was the crux of my RfC. Meowy 18:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I recall that one of the arbitrators said that he was happy with the way the remedy was enforced, and that was after a number of editors were placed on parole for edit warring and sockpuppetry. [52] Grandmaster (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but they aren't the ones that have to deal with the situation day in, day out, and might not be fully aware as to the extent of the problems on these pages. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And the other 5 arbitrators didn't even bother to respond? Astonishing, especially since I personally asked each of them to do so and also pointed out in some detail the flaws in both the use and scope of the RfA remedy. I am seriously considering making a RfA on the validity of the mess that is the Armenian-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy. Meowy 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There was another prior discussion here: [53], and I might be wrong, but the remedy seemed to be interpreted differently at the time. Grandmaster (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for this initative. I indeed have no problem in coming ahead, stating and being very proud that I have never used any incivility in my communications neither in this page nor somewhere else, and would highly appreciate if this injustice be corrected. Thanks again --Aynabend (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like nobody is going to comment. But I would be really interested to know the opinion of the arbitrators about how the remedies passed under the second Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom are supposed to stop disruption on topic related articles, if they limit the application of the remedy 2 to incivility only, while disruption on topic related articles was never limited to incivility? The Armenia – Azerbaijan 2 case specifically mentions among the principles that edit warring, disruptive editing and sockpuppet abuse are considered harmful, but now it turns out that the editors placed on parole for those specific abuses should be relieved of their parole, because the remedy in fact provides for only one specific form of disruption. It seems like Armenia – Azerbaijan 2 case might not be the last one. It would be nice to get additional comments from the arbitrators with regard to how this remedy is supposed to stop disruption by new users, not restricted by any measures from the 1st case, and who are now free to edit disruptively as long as they remain civil? Thanks in advance for any comment. Grandmaster 11:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

An update on the present situation. Since the time a number of editors were removed from the list of users placed on parole, 2 pages got protected due to edit wars, in which those users took an active part. Those articles are Shusha and Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907‎. There are other articles (such as Shusha pogrom (1920)) heading the same way. Note that since the end of the last arbcom case no pages have been protected until now. The activity of User:Andranikpasha I believe deserves special attention. Grandmaster (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Grandmaster's "name-dropping" abuse know no end? This editor arbritrarily added the names of numerous other editors to the Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA after his own name was added, probably with the knowledge and expectation that ignorant administrators would convict said editors for no other reason that that their names were there and were thus "involved parties" and guilty by association. I would also like to get a response from some administrators about how easy it is for an editor to involve other editors in disputes and blacken their names by doing nothing more than placing their names in a RfA page. Grandmaster placed my name in the A-A2 RfA and for that reason alone I became an "involved party". Even though the text advised "do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case" and I did not edit it, Seraphimblade later justified his threat of imposing editing restrictions on me by accusing me of being "a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2". Meowy 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand this. You were involved in editing the region related articles, got 3RR block for edit warring on Church of Kish, why do you believe should not have been a party to this case? Also, you don't have to be a party to a particular case to be placed on parole, the remedy says "any editor" can be placed on parole for a certain offense. And if anyone is interested why a particular name is mentioned, I can provide more details. Grandmaster (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we all know by now that you have a long list containing all the names and details of your Wikipedia "enemies". Meowy 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF? Grandmaster (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you? when you added him to the involved parties. It's no secret that Meowy was added because you had a disagreement with him. VartanM (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF again? I added him because he was engaged in disruptive editing. And I have absolutely nothing to do with Meowy being placed on parole, he was paroled for repeated incivility, covered by the remedy. I was not involved in that in any form. Please stop these bad faith accusations. Grandmaster (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? The only article which he edited that had anything to do with the conflict was the Church of Kish when you added him. Assuming good faith? What about your finding of fact on him which was amounting to propose his banning? For what? Because of one single article. I reiterate my previous above comment and will stop answering, I am not interested into another who will have the last word match.VartanM (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither am I. It is enough to check Meowy's block log, no comment is necessary. Grandmaster (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)