Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration:

For information about requesting Arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (2)

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

Statement by The Four Deuces

Are Mass killings under Communist regimes, Communist terrorism, Putinism, Eastern Bloc emigration and defection and similar articles included in the topic ban for articles about Eastern Europe? Mass Killings under Communist regimes was originally called Communist genocide and part of the findings of the arbitration was that Martintg had canvassed other members of the list concerning the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide. The article includes mass killings by the Soviet Union including in Ukraine. Martintg says that this article is excluded.[11] However I made a request to Martintg and received no response.[12] The Four Deuces (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

MKUCR begins "The Mass killings under Communist regimes have occurred in the Soviet Union..." (my emphasis) which is a clear reference to Eastern Europe. The first historical example is the Soviet Union and there is a section about famine in the Ukraine. Communist terrorism is described as a "term... used... to describe... repression... in the Soviet Union (my emphasis). The Four Deuces (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles about Eastern European emigres and their organizations

Are these articles included under the topic ban? One article, Lia Looveer is about an individual who was a director of several organizations, like the joint Baltic Committee, that lobbied local governments concerning political relations with the former Soviet Union. Vecrumba has commented on the talk page.[13] The Four Deuces (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Martintg

Offliner already asked, see User_talk:Coren#EE_topic_bans, and The Four Deuces is aware of this query. Mass killings under communist regimes has significantly changed since Communist genocide and now is an international topic of general scope that also includes subsections on China, North Korea and Cambodia, as well as a general discussion on communist ideology as a factor. I've attempted to adhere to the spirit and letter of the EE topic ban and have kept well away from any EE sub-topic within this article. On a practical level I would like to expand the section on Ethiopia (having found an interesting book that does a comparative study of the mass killings of both the Cambodian and Ethiopian regimes), in addition to North Korea and other non-EE sub topics. I had previously sought guidance on the case page, with a number of arbitrators offering advice, for example FayssalF stating "What is understood is that editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones", but I have asked Coren for additional clarification and he replied that it is okay to edit non-EE subtopics within Mass killings under communist regimes here, as long as I am careful, as I intend to be. As far as the other article examples mentioned by TFD:

Response to Steve

Perhaps Steve wasn't aware that Coren was the one who originally drafted these topic bans, so I am some what astonished that he would disagree with Coren's own interpretation of what he himself drafted. Despite the fact that Coren is expressing his own opinion, I would have thought that he would know his own mind when he drafted these topic bans, and thus his interpretation of the remedies he himself drafted after spending several months hearing this case would carry some weight. Why does Steve finds "it is regrettable that this question has been so extensively discussed elsewhere"; it was extensively discussed on the EEML case Proposed Decision talk page, was that not the appropriate forum?

I must say that Fifelfoo's argument, that many other portions of the Mass killings under Communist regimes article can be linked to eastern Europe, stating "One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics" is some what disingenuous. Fifelfoo and his colleges have long been arguing precisely the opposite position in various AfDs, boards and on the article talk: that article violates WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK because there is no linkage or relationship between the various communist regimes discussed in the article, hence their inclusion together amounts to synthesis. I know some people adapt their arguments according to the forum audience, but this 180 degree reversal of position in order to convince the committee to broaden the topic ban against adding material to Cambodian, North Korean or Ethiopian sub sections seems unreasonable.

The problem with broadening these topic bans to include topics like Communist terrorism, is where now do you draw the line. It turns an easily interpreted boundary into a fuzzy line which is open to interpretation. That currently about a third of Communist terrorism is devoted to EE is more a function of WP:BIAS than anything else, the remainder is unrelated to EE and in need of expansion which would greatly increase the proportion of non EE content within the article. Is Pacific War now off limits because the Soviet Union was a part of that war for the last 3 weeks of WW2? Is it now the mere existence of 20, 15, 10 or 5% of EE content within an article that puts it off limits? --Martin (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Fifelfoo

If you believe there is no central theory linking the various regimes together and thus the article is a synthesized coatrack, how is it possible that you "find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage"? Either you can argue the article is a coatrack and hence the subsections can be alienated from each other, or you can argue that the subsections are related and cannot be alienated from each other (hence it is not a coatrack) and thus I should be banned from editing those subsections. But you cannot have it both ways. --Martin (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Commodore Sloat

There was no "locus of dispute" determined in final decision. The closest thing being this, which stated in part that certain members of the mailing list perceived those editing from the Russian nationalist viewpoint as opponents. There was nothing in regard to "ideological agenda" or "anti-communist agenda" as Commodore Sloat falsely claims. Nor was Communist terrorism ever discussed on the maillist, its AfD occurred in 2008, well before the maillist was even created. It is sad that those who hold pro-communist viewpoints attempt to exploit reductio ad EEML arguments in order to expand these EE topic bans to all those they perceive as their anti-communist opponents just because one former EEML member (myself) has an interest in communist related topics. --Martin (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo

This is an important clarification. One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics. (but I do await seeing the theorisation in the Ethiopian-Cambodian study you mentioned) Another is that article content has barely changed since canvassed AFDs despite title change. A third is that article process which impacts on EE subtopics is stewed, and any involvement with process will be involvement in EE process (for example the theory only versus subtopics argument). Similarly participating in an AFD would be impacting on the EE components. Moreover I find it a curious argument that subportions of an article could be separated out. So please make a clear determination.

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Time to put down such use of ArbCom, ANI etc. See [14] with same ~~complainants~~ clarificants. [15] same ~~complainants~~ clarificants. And the multiple quick-order AfDs on the article. Tznkai said "Also, I may start censuring people for throwing around EEML like Colonial Americans used to use the word "witch"--Tznkai (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)" The purpose of this ~~complaint~~ clarification is to remove editors with whom the ~~complainants~~ clarificants have a content dispute on any basis that they can find - including by going to every notice-board and process available. Use of ArbCom in order to have it get involved in content disputes is verging on abuse. Six bites at the apple should have been sufficient, no? Collect (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I am commenting only because Four Deuces solicited my presence. Dialog would be better served without observations contending collusion: "In this article canvassing occurred and note that Vecrumba, Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, Jacurek, Hillock65 and Piotrus have all participated in editing, discussion and/or voting in AfDs on this subject" which propagates the meme that the editors named were impotent to find the article on their own or express their own opinion. I stated clearly what I thought "Communist genocide", the article, should encompass at the start of the brouhaha.
The Cold War meme is that the Soviet Union was behind the spread of all Communism (capital "C"). The reality is that more than one despot perverted communism (small "c") to their self-serving purpose. Where the article in question here and others are concerned, it's up to the editors currently topic banned to show good judgement. It's also up to their editorial opposition to similarly show good judgement.
Lastly, to request clarification for hypothetical edits which have not occurred ultimately only invites continued rhetoric. As for myself, I am looking forward to putting my sources regarding Russia to good use outside the area of conflict. I suggest closing this and opening a request for clarification if and when required based on an actual edit (and not open a request for enforcement, which is more often than not an act of bad faith assuming bad faith, i.e., guilty until proven innocent). ►talk 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Nsk92

I think it would indeed be useful for the Arbcom to explicitly clarify the scope of the topic bans in this case, given how much poking around the edges has already occurred and in order to prevent matters from getting out of hand. In my personal view, the topic bans in this case should be interpreted as broadly as possible, to cover any articles and project-space pages that are in a significant way related to Eastern Europe (and not just pages/articles on EE subjects as such). Thus articles like Communist terrorism and Bering Strait ought to be covered by this topic ban, even though only parts of them deal with EE-related matters. Moreover, again to avoid confusion and to prevent gaming attempts, it should be made clear that if the topic ban applies to a page, it applies to the entire page and not just to sections of it that are EE-related. Basically the informal test should be something like: if you even need to ask, then the page is covered by the topic ban. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of the underlying topic bans, which is to prevent the spread of the kind of POV pushing and WP:BATTLE activities on EE-related subjects that led to the underlying arbcom case in the first place. Also, it should be made explicitly clear that the topic bans cover EE-related discussions at user talk pages. For example, non-sanctioned users should not be trying to engage the users under the topic bans, at the user talk pages of the latter, in EE-subject related discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Biruitorul

Statement by Igny

This group of editors as well as the related case were called the EEML only because most of them (not all) came from the Eastern Europe, not because they edited the EE related articles exclusively. Some of them were placed under the EE topic ban with a wrong premise that most of the conflicts in which they participated originated from Eastern Europe, and that is also only partially true. Rather than restrict these editors from contentious areas (such as ideological information wars or wars over propaganda issues) the ArbCom chose to ban editing of obscure EE related topics (which are not all problematic as pointed out by many). Moreover, only parts of the article directly related to EE are covered by the ban, not the article in general.

Hence a question. If only part of the article is related to Eastern Europe, are the restricted editors allowed to participate in AfD process (say, due to irreparable POV issues of the article in general and the EE related part in particular) of these articles?

Statement by Radek

I was not going to get involved in this but in light of Steve and Fritzpoll's comments below I find it necessary to make a reply.

As such (while personally I wouldn't mind seeing some slaps on the wrists to those involved in orchestrating this little charade) the proper course of action here is to AfD-ban the two articles in question (rather than those involved in orchestrating this little charade). Mass Killings should be put on a 6 month AfD restriction - seriously that many failed AfDs in such a short period of time sets some kind of a record, and the repeated re-listing of it at AfD is VERY disruptive to any improvement work that is attempted at the article (as even some "opponents" of the article, like Igny or Paul Sieber, recognize). So let the article breath. In similar vein, Communist terrorism should likewise be restricted from being AfDed in the same way that an edit warrior is still censured for edit warring when they move from one related article to another in order to avoid violating 3RR while carrying on the fight.

Response to Steve

Oy, Steve, I realize that it is very difficult to get someone to change their mind, especially once they set out their original position in writing, in the full view of the public. So please keep in mind that no less an authority than John Maynard Keynes has said that changin' ones mind is often the right thing to do [17].

Unfortunately I get the sense that you're relying on users' statements here rather than looking at the actual articles themselves. Communist_terrorism has hardly anything in it about Eastern Europe aside from a mention of the Soviet Union in the lede (which statement should probably be removed anyway - and of course a statement about the Soviet Union can be inserted into almost any article. Those Soviets, they got around you know). The article is instead about organizations in Peru, Columbia, Malaysia, Phillipines, Greece (not EE), Basque region, United States, Germany, Nepal, and India. Not Eastern Europe. Yes, there is a section about general "Marxism" and "Leninism" but please see FayssalF's clarifications on the arb com pages [18] where he answers to a similar question with "No. We are talking about a global ideology.". And anyway, I think everyone under the topic ban has a pretty clear idea that if a section has anything to do with Soviets or something similar it's off limits.

Likewise, the mass killings article is to a good extent about Cambodia and China. Yes, there is a good chunk about Soviet Union, but again, it's not a problem for anyone to avoid that section, to continue participating in talk page discussions as to the viability of the article as whole - in particular since most of the ongoing controversy is centered around Valentino's work which has nothing to do with Eastern Europe.

For myself, I'm staying away from that article just for the sake of my own sanity. But these kinds of cheap tricks that are being tried here are pretty noxious.radek (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to csloat

My belief that you are not acting in good faith is simply the result of your (voluntary) participation in the ArbCom case. There's nothing incredible about this, given the comments and the attacks you made during the case. It is reasonable and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines to assume good faith in regard to editors one hasn't encountered much before. It is unreasonable and in fact not required by Wikipedia guidelines to continue assuming something which has been demonstrated to be false by a user and his actions.

Please note that you share roughly the same position in regards to these two articles, and possibly other issues, with editors such as Igny, Fifelfoo and Paul Siebert, and I have no problem assuming good faith on their part - they have never given me a reason to believe otherwise. You have. So it's not your POV that causes me to assume bad faith on your part, but the way you have acted in promotion of this POV.

The article on Communist Terrorism was never discussed on the list, AFAIK. There was no "EEML disruption" on it. I had no idea that you voted to AfD in 2008, despite the fact that it is very well sourced, but that doesn't surprise me. MKUCR, back when it was Communist Genocide, was mentioned (in fact people disagreed on it) but it's been such a lightning rod and such a highly visible article that pretty much anyone who's voted on its AfDs or took part in discussion on it did so of their own volition and would have done so regardless.

And there's no "ideological agenda" here - either by me or by people who were on the list - except to ensure that reliable sources are used, fringe theories and authors are treated as such and that folks who actually DO HAVE an ideological agenda don't go around trying to sneak through article deletions based solely on IDON'TLIKEIT grounds.radek (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Csloat, I am not violating the AGF guideline (not policy). The guideline simply doesn't state what you think it states. In particular the guideline is clear about the fact that "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." I think your actions and comments in the past definitely fall within this provision (without which, this'd be a really dumb policy as it's impossible to require people to assume something that they know not to be true).

And what makes this "controversial" is that previous statements by some of the ArbCom members indicated that these articles would not be covered by the topic ban - hence, this being an instance of forum shopping.radek (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

The restriction was clearly formulated as anything about Eastern Europe. Any sections about Eastern Europe in articles like "Mass killings" are obviously covered. Any sections about China (or whatever is not Eastern Europe) are not covered, obviously. If you said: "anything related to Eastern Europe", then one could not contribute even in articles about Jack London because he was the most popular American writer in the Soviet Union.Biophys (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Commodore Sloat

Umm, this is weird. I am only commenting here because I have been named by Radek (talk · contribs) in a most inappropriate way. He says "So csloat came up with the bright idea (Mass killings talk page, again) to try and delete the article Communist terrorism instead. You know, when at first you don't suceed, try to game the system and try somewhere else." This is an example of the incredible amount of bad faith assumptions that EEML members continue to bring to Wikipedia discussions. I am not a party to most of the discussions that the EEML people were found to have disrupted; the discussions on communist terrorism and mass killings under Communist regimes, and their surrounding AfD debates, were the exception. However what I saw on the arbcom list was truly appalling. The fact that they appear to continue wikilawyering even after sanctions from arbcom is alarming. In any case, I did not "come up with the bright idea" of AfDing Communist terrorism in order to "game the system." I originally voted to AfD communist terrorism back in 2008, and I pointed out that this article raised the same issues. Radek surely knows this as the point was obvious in my comments; his blatant distortion of my comments here is troubling.

The biggest problem with this discussion is that people are focused on clarifying the topic area "eastern europe" without reference to the history of these articles. The question shouldn't be "is 'eastern europe' covered geographically by articles about 'communist terrorism'?" but rather, "does this article fall within the rubric of articles that the EEML has chosen to disrupt?" In this case, both articles should clearly be covered by the ruling because both articles not only fall within the ideological agenda these editors single-mindedly pursued in violation of Wikipedia rules, but in fact these were articles they actually did collaborate to disrupt in a demonstrable way, at least during the AfD process. csloat (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

response to responders

Unbelievable. I would think that users who have been sanctioned by ArbCom would make it a point to follow Wikipedia policies to a T rather than continue to flout their abuse of those policies. Both Radek and Martintg blatantly violate WP:AGF, with Radek even stating boldly (and without any rationale) that he will always and only assume BAD faith when dealing with me. He claims this assumption started when the EEML case started, but anyone familiar with the evidence (e.g. 20090821-0105) can see clearly that is a blatantly false statement. Martintg absurdly calls me "pro-Communist" when I have said nothing of the sort. If you want to pigeonhole me for my participation on these particular articles, my stance would be "anti-synthesis violations" or, simply, "pro-Wikipedia." I have never claimed to be "pro-communist" and only an absolute refusal to read my actual arguments would lead to such a conclusion. Both martin and radek are likewise distorting my claim above about the Communist terrorism article. The fact is that I participated in AfD in 2008 on this article because it was a hotbed of WP:SYN violations and WP:FRINGE theories elevated to the status of fact. The vote was indecisive primarily because of significant collaboration by members of the EEML, whether or not it was actually discussed on list (we don't know, since the archive doesn't go back that far). But we do know that the Communist genocide article suffered the same fate from many of the same players, and that there was a "call to arms" published and discussed on the EEML list (see 20090806-526 for example) on the communist genocide AfD; there was a similar call to arms on related articles on nuclear terrorism where at the time there was a discussion of some other WP:SYN violations created by another EEML member. (see 20090817-1427). This was all spelled out by multiple commenters on the evidence page of the arbcom case. I also think these guys misunderstand my point completely -- nobody is calling for further sanctions here; the point is just that the sanctions we do have should be interpreted broadly as Arbcom explicitly called for, and that articles where the EEML members have shown themselves likely to engage in objectionable off-wiki coordination should definitely be covered by the sanctions. I don't see how this is even a controversial point here. csloat (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

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

Statement by Abd

This restriction, prohibited me from "participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is [I am] not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s)." This remedy was taken from a proposal by Thatcher, and was based on a claim that I frequently intervened in disputes, but without any finding or examples showing that my interventions had been nonconstructive. I did not notice this proposal during the case, it appeared at the end, and I'd stopped reading the Workshop page by that time. I never responded to it. The principle would seem to chill neutral intervention, when that's exactly what is missing, too often, and I'd been successful with such interventions, the community eventually confirming my positions in many cases, and a number of sitting arbitrators know this to be true. In any case, without examples of disruptive interventions, I don't know what behavior, specifically, is being prevented.

The immediate occasion is this statement on the case page. I was definitely involved with the situation under the Climate Change request. My view is that this led William M. Connolley to take an opportunity to ban me, which explains his otherwise puzzling behavior as being based on a grudge. I presented evidence, expanded at [19], on WMC's wheel-warring at Global warming as part of the subject case. When I'd worked on Global warming, I encountered the very problems that led to the current request, and can provide diffs if needed.

Therefore I considered myself already involved in the substance, hence mentor approval was not needed, even though I was not a formally named party yet. I was surprised, then, to see this objection from Mathsci appear on my Talk. As I have knowledge in depth of the underlying situation, I believed it my obligation to testify, in any case, so I declined to comply. Apparently seeing the discussion, MastCell then filed an Arbitration enforcement request, and a request to a clerk to remove my comment. Mathsci commented extensively,[20][21][22], adding confusion (incorrect about the history, apparently assuming I'd misrepresented it), and continuing after the post had been removed and it was moot.

Mathsci did consent to the closure of the Arbitration Enforcement request, after both MastCell and I agreed on that, but the request was re-opened by WMC, based on the AN incident. This is cute: troll for comment by attacking an editor, then assert the reply as a ban violation. I've noticed WMC's behavior go downhill since his desysopping.

The sanction is being used in an attempt to prevent me from participation where I am already involved, either historically or through a current accusation, and it is being used as a cover to harass me. If the my original statement had been disruptive, in itself, it could have been removed by a clerk with no fuss, likewise any editor believing it to be a ban violation could have removed it without all this mess. I thought I'd send the statement directly to ArbComm by email, a minimally disruptive approach; however, the removal of my comment from AN by WMC and his reopening the AE case made me realize that more was required.

I intend a request to lift the ban, but not yet, and sound policy is to honor ArbComm decisions, even where I may disagree strongly. The mentorship proposal, which seems to have been assumed in the ban, did not pass. Editors may voluntarily take on mentorship, and without a mentorship requirement, and specifically that ArbComm approve a mentor, I would seem to be free to choose any editor willing to accept me. GoRight is, in fact, an experienced editor, one who has survived serious attempts to ban him, and he did offer to mentor me. I did not ask him in advance to approve the comment because I did not consider it violated the restriction; however, post-facto, seeing the edit and the flap, he approved it. But the substance here is not mentor/no mentor, rather what should be behind all our decisions is not compliance with technicalities, but the purpose of all of it, the project. If my statement was disruptive, in itself, aside from the ban, I should have been warned or blocked for that, but, instead, the only objection was purely technical. Wikilawyering, in a word, to avoid the presentation of evidence.

ArbComm may decide to approve a mentor, resolving the ambiguity here. I know that arbitrators are aware of a highly experienced and presumably acceptable editor who agreed to mentor me during the case. Perhaps they will allow this mentorship. GoRight was only offering his support ad-interim. I have not asked permission to file this request, since I'm clearly an "originating party" here.

I appreciate clarification, as well, of the intention behind the restriction, with guidance as to how to honor it where I believe I am, in substance, a party to a dispute, even if not formally named. I put a great deal of effort into the Global warming situation, and AN reports don't formally name disputants. If I am working with editor A on an article, and editor B appears and attacks editor A, and B goes to AN/I, and I have knowledge of the situation, am I prohibited from commenting because editor B did not mention me? Or suppose he does mention me, as WMC mentioned me on AN?

Please look, as well, at the tendentious behavior of other editors around this, most particularly William M. Connolley, and Mathsci's pursuit of an old vendetta, not related to the case in question. [that is, not related to global warming. It is related to the case on which clarification is sought. 04:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)] I have no significant complaint about MastCell but included him because he may wish to comment. --Abd (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

In that Abd is disallowed by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Abd editing restriction (existing disputes) from commenting in areas where he is not an originating source of the dispute, without consultation with a mentor, I consider ArbCom may be inclined to consider either extending Abd's parole to instances where either WMC (or Mathsci) unilaterally invoke Abd or the original dispute in unrelated matters, or require WMC (and Mathsci) to refrain from invoking either Abd or the dispute in unrelated matters. It seems to me that the latter would be preferable, in that it might mean less requests for clarification. (Per Abd I am including Mathsci as a party to the original decision, and not commenting on their actions subsequently).

I should note that my response to WMC's comments at AN alluded to WP:NPA and that WMC's later response to me appeared to disregard that they had not earlier commented upon the content User:GoRight's proposal or that I had neither - that I commented to caution WMC for poor faith commentary. It may be outside of the ArbComs remit, but I am concerned that WMC's behaviour is becoming erratic and suggest they may benefit from being required to withdraw further from interactions with Abd. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

Abd has as usual misrepresented various users. His account of the recent disruptive actions of GoRight and himself does not bear much relation to actual events. Here is my understanding of what happened (New Year's Eve commitments in California do not permit any further detail at this stage, diffs can be provided later if necessary - I've written this in haste without a word count):

All discussions have taken place on Abd's talk page, Tedder's talk page, the clerk's notice board and WP:AE.

Abd could have asked for clarification in a straightforward and discreet way, by email to any arbitrator. When I initially suggested this on his talk page, his reply was, "I'm not going to bother an arbitrator with this, their time is precious." Instead he has entered into a WP:BATTLEGROUND spirit, wikilawyering in an unreasonable way about his editing restrictions, even when two arbitrators, one clerk and one senior administrator had given the same unnuanced interpretation of these restrictions. I do not understand his use of the word "vendetta", just as I did not understand his use of the word "cabal". That GoRight is unsuitable as a mentor is not really something which seems open to debate, despite all of Abd's arguments to the contrary.

Abd has broken the terms of his editing restrictions twice (on RfAr and again by posting on WP:AN). His actions have been disruptive. He has attempted to deflect attention from himself by engaging in a smear campaign against his critics. In my case he is attacking an editor in good standing who has no involvement at all in any climate change matters on WP.

NYB indicated to me in an email response that he hoped that MastCell's WP:AE request would clarify matters without ArbCom involvement. Before Abd's surprise public request here, I assumed that things had been clarified to everybody's satisfaction. I apologize that further time has to be spent on what should have been an entirely straightforward matter. Thanks in advance and Happy New Year to all! Mathsci (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

There are some loose ends from the Abd-WMC case that need to be tied up. In particular, Remedies 3.2 and 3.6 refer to a mentor but the decision gives no details on how the mentor is to be chosen. It would be helpful if the Committee could provide such details; for example, whether the choice of mentor is solely at Abd’s discretion or if the Committee views itself as having a role in the choice and terms of the mentorship. Abd is of course free to choose whomever he likes as an informal mentor but the question here is the choice of a formal mentor in light of the Remedies. Abd recently has chosen a mentor and the mentor has stated that he is "as official as any mentor is required to be". This mentor has assumed the capacity to authorize Abd's actions as required in Remedy 3.2. Clarification of the Committee's intent with regard to mentorship in this case would help forestall drama.

Statement by Durova

Mentorship is not a panacea. It has its place within Wikipedia and stands its best chance of success when it happens informally. For nearly five years Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee let mentorships occur informally. For slightly over one year ArbCom has taken a more active role in mentorship, using attractive buzzwords such as "structured" and "empowered" that have caused resounding failures. I know of no instance where mentorship has succeeded as a formal arbitration remedy: formal ArbCom interference tends to turn the mentor into a political football and shifts the focus from long range improvement to the equivalent of a traffic cop.

To the new arbitrators: I used to mentor five people. One of them reformed after a long string of edit warring blocks to become a sysop on this site and four other WMF sites. He has become an OTRS volunteer and he serves on the Arbitration Committee of another wiki. Another became a featured content contributor and hasn't been blocked since 2008. There have been other successes. Yet my objections to the 2009 Committee's direction were so strong that I ceased accepting new mentorships and resigned from existing ones.

The most objectionable practice of the 2009 ArbCom was phantom mentorship: writing mentorship into arbitration remedies where no actual volunteer agreed to fill the role. Abd was one of the people caught in that bind. This request for clarification offers a golden opportunity to correct that problem by rewriting the remedy to return mentorship where it functions best: in the background. ³⁹⁰ 03:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

Abd is testing the boundaries of his editing restriction, as he has with every previous editing restriction under which he's been placed. It's what he does. I can't for the life of me understand how this particular restriction is in any way ambiguous, but here we are.

It would be nice if WMC and others would never mention Abd again. It would be even nicer if Abd would just stay out of disputes where he isn't the originating party, which is after all what the sanction insists he do. No amount of tortured logic can make Abd into an "originating party" in the current Arbitration request, because he isn't one. This seems like a case where clear boundaries have been set, and are being tested. Ball's in your court.

I find it hard to characterize GoRight's sudden self-appointment as Abd's "mentor" in any but extremely cynical terms, but then I think it was a pretty cynical undertaking in the first place, and sort of makes a mockery of the idea of mentorship. If the language about mentorship from the previous decision could be tidied up, and GoRight's "mentorship" addressed, that would probably help. MastCell ^Talk 03:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GoRight

Any references I made to it having been discussed that I might fill the role of Abd's mentor were references to the discussions that took place during the original Arbcom case. Abd and I had no pre-arranged agreement related to his comment in the climate change request. Indeed, if we had such an agreement it would have made more sense to formalize a mentorship agreement BEFORE he made that comment, not after. So MathSci's implication of impropriety in this respect rings hollow as far as I can tell. In any event I dispute that any such impropriety or prior agreement regarding Abd's comment at Arbcom took place.

I have always made it clear that I was only assuming the role on an interim basis until more formal arrangements were made. This was necessitated by the current climate change request submitted by Tedder so that Abd could participate in a case where he has gained invaluable insights based on his review of the parties involved in my RfC which, unsurprisingly, are essentially the same parties in that case. --GoRight (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion

Given that the language allowing mentor approval is being removed and we are already gathered together, I would ask the Arbiters to consider adding language to the sanction which allows an existing party in a case to specifically request Abd's assistance. In my RfC his assistance was invaluable given his thorough and fastidious attention to detail as well as his clear understanding of Wikipedia policy. New or inexperienced users would benefit greatly from such assistance. I further request that it not be considered a violation of his sanctions to place a single neutrally worded offer of assistance on someone's talk page. --GoRight (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

Statement by JzG

Issues with Abd were identified in two arbitration cases. In both cases the principal issue identified was a strong tendency to beat dead horses. GoRight has much the same problem and is already mired in long-running disputes on climate change, which brings a near-inevitability of interaction with WMC as an expert in the field; GoRight also has long-running dispurtes with WMC. Bottom line: GoRight is not an appropriate mentor; if anything the two of them are likely to reinforce each other's worst traits and both end up banned. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

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

Statement by Biruitorul

Do the topic bans handed out here cover obvious vandalism? To give one example: three days ago, this guy, with four edits, vandalized four articles (vaunted BLPs no less). Vandalism has lain uncorrected in three of those. I, with 63,031 edits, over 99.8% of which have been constructive and positive contributions to the project (indeed, one of those articles was written by me), can do nothing about it. And I'm also the only one who seems to care. Doesn't the Committee find this state of affairs a bit odd? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Martintg

Carcharoth laments "There has to be a way to get others to revert vandalism like this", well there isn't. Most of EE is obscure to the majority of Wikipedians and they simply don't care to the point that sneaky vandalism goes undetected. There is only a small number who do care enough, but you topic banned most of them, the majority with 99.9% good contributions. And if something as simple as vandalism goes unattended, then certainly something more complex like content creation and expansion will be even more so neglected for 12 months while these editors serve out their topic bans. A 12 month ban on participating in AfDs or move discussions given the FoF on canvassing and a 12 month 0RR restriction to cover the co-ordinated edit warring would have been sufficient. The current broad topic bans are both punitive and damaging to the project, there were no FoF in regard to inappropriate content creation or vandalism. --Martin (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: ARB9/11 (Thomas Basboll's topic ban)

Modification of topic ban

Statement by Thomas Basboll

On December 8, a topic-ban against me that had been implemented under the 9/11 ArbCom ruling was suspended for a trial period of one-month. (See discussion archived here.) My original request, however, had not been to lift the ban immediately, but simply to define an end date. AE decided on a trial period which is now coming to a close. I hadn't expected to return to editing so quickly, but I've tried to do some work that might indicate what sorts of thing I'd like to do if I returned. On that basis, then, I am simply restating my original request to let the ban run out in April.--Thomas B (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Henrik

I was involved in the AE process which instituted a one month trial period as an admin who happened to patrol the page at that time. During the trial period, I continued to watch this user's editing and found it unproblematic and in line with our content policies (npov, fringe, and so on). He has been unfailingly polite and communicated well.

The main cause for concern is Thomas Basboll's insistence on only editing articles very closely related to 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracy theories, despite repeated suggestions by multiple arbs, admins and users that he by broadening his scope, even slightly, would demonstrate that any concerns were unfounded. Instead he chose to stop editing when the ban was imposed.

Naturally, while being interested in only a single topic is not in itself a problem, we have bad experiences with single purpose users in problematic areas and letting an unyieldingly polite POV pusher (which his critics claim is a fair description) into his area of interest could potentially cause much unnecessary work and slant towards fringe views in one of our traditional problem areas.

I tried looking into the original reasons for the topic ban (imposed by Raul) but didn't uncover any obvious smoking guns, nor did I find obvious evidence of the type of problematic POV pushing that has been attributed to him. Perhaps I missed it, or it was too subtle to detect for someone not an expert in the subject area. The worst I found was a relatively unpleasant conflict with MONGO.

In the end, I would advocate something in between continuing a total topic ban and a complete lifting of restrictions, perhaps a longer probationary period. I don't see any reason why waiting until April would improve matters however. • 12:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

Thomas appears to be working towards pushing Collapse of the World Trade Center to GA status*, and his involvement appears beneficial. If the other editors currently involved in that article do not mind his involvement, I think the topic ban should remain suspended wrt this article at least.

However, I think the general topic ban should remain in place until Thomas has worked on articles besides these very high importance/significance articles in the 9/11 topical area. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

If I recall correctly, the trial suspension was my suggestion, so I should probably speak as to my thinking:

Unblock and unban discussions tend to be speculative and irritating, and its often impossible to separate the baggage from the actual predictive evidence. This seemed a good opportunity to short circuit the existing norm (a lot of declarations and haranguing between supporters and opponents) and do something more useful. A suspension, in addition to moving an editor back towards their natural state (anyone can edit) more importantly functions as a diagnostic tool - in this case a month of recent editing patterns to give good facts for decision making.

This is not to say that a month of good behavior is necessarily sufficient however, and we are best served by multiple persons from the affected topic areas giving us their own impressions and reactions. If there is not enough reason to give confidence of an absence of problems indefinitely, another, longer, trial period is the natural next step.

As a final thought, the ban appears to have been logged as a discretionary sanction - and thus is subject to discretionary review. ArbCom has been invited to decide, but it need not accept that invitation.

Statement by JzG

Why can't Thomas just leave these articles alone? We have millions of articles he could edit, and a handful where his interaction has caused massive stress. There's no evidence that his strong opinions have changed, so I think it's highly unlikely that allowing a return to unrestricted editing of these articles is going to produce anything other than the same old problems. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison

Are there diffs or evidence that, during the trial un-ban, Thomas Basboll has tried to slant the article? No, of course not. Given the arbcom's scrutiny, anyone but a raving loon would be on his best behavior, and Thomas certainly isn't a loon. But then his individual edits were almost never problematic. The problem was that over time they slanted the presentation in favor of 'controlled demolition'.

Along with the natural state in which anyone can edit, is the actual state, in which people don't want to edit, at least in that area. Because of the constant pov pushing, endless demands to assume good faith and compromise with conspiracy theorists, repetitive talk-page discussions, et cetera, I've chosen to spend my time elsewhere. I no longer follow those articles, and won't be working with Thomas Basboll, so take this for what it's worth. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: Asmahan (2)

Amendment 1

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Arab Cowboy has been caught using a sockpuppet. He created this puppet on the 17th november while the arbitration case was processing, 3 days after the admins posted proposed remedys that would ban the both of us from changing the nationality or ethnicity of persons: [24] [25] He used it during the case while choosing not to answer the remaining questions. [26] He has used this sockpuppet to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction (look at all the edits he has done) and he has also used it at Asmahan. [27] This shows his true intentions. It shows what kind of respect he has to wikipedia, what kind of respect he has to the arbitration case, and what he planned to do (and also did) at the Asmahan article.

I am now requesting that Arab Cowboy becomes permanently banned from editing the Asmahan article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

There is a bit more to this. I'll provide a statement as soon as I can. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I forwarded an email to the Arbitration Committee (on what gmail says is 1 Jan 2010 13:04:56 -0500; I am assuming that is either 13:04 or 18:04 UTC) that is of relevance to this discussion. Any arbitrators looking over this request for amendment probably should look over that email first. Best wishes, () 17:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: Obama articles

Amendment 1

Statement by Sceptre

Carry-over from the previous amendment request: I do not believe that the word "fuck", used in exasperation, automatically makes a statement an attack. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 2

Statement by Sceptre

The intention of arbitration committee remedies, as I understand it, is to prevent further disruption. While the remedies passed back in June were needed at the time, I don't believe they are needed now, at least for me, Steve, and Scjessey. The restrictions, I believe, have served their purpose of persuading; at least myself and Scjessey, and probably Steve (as evidenced by this discussion) have turned to a less confrontational, more collegial and discussion-based method of dispute resolution. Unfortunately, I do not believe the same can be said for ChildOfMidnight or Grundle2600; COM is the subject of a current RFC and Grundle was community banned from politics articles several months ago. Per the principle of assuming good faith, I respectfully request the committee expire our remedies early, approximately five and a half months before their natural expiration. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

My restriction is one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles. I was given this restriction because of two specific instances of edit warring (one of which was only 2 reverts, and I was unblocked by another administrator). I have found this to be somewhat restrictive insofar as it forces me to check my contribs before every reversion I make in this topic, but not really a huge deal. In this particular topic, I engage in a lot of talk page discussion, but not much article editing. It would certainly be convenient to have the restriction lifted, but I'm not going to make any special effort to petition for that. I'd be happy to adhere to the spirit of the restriction voluntarily, if that helps, because it would save me from having to monitor my own contribs quite so religiously. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to be withdrawn from this Amendment

Although I felt the editing restriction I am subject was unjustly applied to me, it has not been too burdensome to deal with (as I stated above). I did not ask to be a party to this Amendment (I was notified only after the request was made), and given the fact that this process has been abused by another editor as an excuse to attack me, I think it would be better off not having anything to do with it. I am not sure if this is procedurally-appropriate, but I would like to formally request withdrawal from this proposed Amendment, reserving the right to appeal my restriction at a later date if I feel the need. If ArbCom agrees with my request, I give my permission for my entire block of statements to be struck out or deleted as seen fit. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to statement by ChildofMidnight

I do not see this as a violation of my interaction restriction with ChildofMidnight because Wikipedia must surely allow me the right to defend myself against that editor's misrepresentations. I see no point in referring to CoM implicitly, as he has attempted to do about me. Let me address each of CoM's points in turn:

And so that pattern of misrepresentations about me from ChildofMidnight continues. In my opinion, this tactic of his is the reason I was sanctioned in the Obama-related ArbCom case in the first place, but what's done is done. I am not seeking a relaxation of my editing restriction (although one would be welcome), so I can only assume CoM's pointy statement attacks me purely for his personal satisfaction. Hopefully, someone will have the good sense to refer to CoM's misrepresentations in this Request for Amendment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to statement by Bigtimepeace

Bigtimepeace refers to "some concerns about edit warring" with respect to me. Any accusations of edit warring have been found to be without merit, and I have received no sanctions or warnings. I think it is important this is made clear. I would also like to point out that the 1RR restriction applied to me (and CoM, for that matter) was as a result of this block that was applied after only 2 reversions. Both CoM and I have long agreed that we were both treated unfairly by both the blocking admin, and by ArbCom, with respect to this specific matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

His recent editing history also shows that he is as much or more of a problem than he was in the past.

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I'll comment here since I was mentioned repeatedly above and have a familiarity with the background. My advice to the Arbs would be to not act in any fashion on this request for amendment. Like ChildofMidnight, I don't think Sceptre's recent behavior remotely warrants a loosening of current ArbCom restrictions. That editor seems to have adopted a battleground take on the Obama articles (this edit to a current RfC, referenced by C of M, was just ridiculous) and as such it seems highly inadvisable to relax revert restrictions (incidentally, gratuitously referencing two editors who Sceptre thinks should keep their restrictions in his request here also demonstrates this battleground mentality). I think the revert restrictions are fine for Scjessey and Stevertigo as well (the former does not seem to mind them that much and apparently there have been some concerns about edit warring (addendum: though these do seem to be minor and relate to one incident, also as far as I know it's not an issue on the Obama pages), and I can't speak to the behavior or feelings of the latter) and need not be repealed early. Edit warring is particularly problematic on Obama-related articles, and I just don't see a convincing argument for removing any of the restrictions at this time.

I'll also speak to ChildofMidnight's complaints which pertain in some fashion to me or my talk page. First I would point out that this is obviously not the place to discuss those issues, but Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight certainly is as I was one of the certifiers of the RfC and can therefore be put under scrutiny there (ChildofMidnight has not yet participated in the RfC, which has garnered a lot of comment). C of M's reference to "the RfC instituted by Bigtimepeace in collusion with editors who are not supposed to be commenting to or about me" is utter fantasy. Essentially all of the evidence for the RfC was provided only by me, and the editors to whom C of M is referring (as far as I know Scjessey, Wikidemon, and BaseballBugs are the only three editors in mutual interaction bans with ChildofMidnight) had absolutely no input whatsoever into the RfC either on or off-wiki.

The "Arbcom restriction violations" on my talk page to which C of M refers took place in this thread which originated nearly a month ago, but still had some comments a couple of weeks back. C of M commented about it at the time and I told him I did not think these were violations (while acknowledging that others might disagree), at which point he could have obviously pursued the matter elsewhere and did not. Basically two editors and I were discussing how interaction would work once certain Obama topic bans were lifted, and this was an issue I eventually discussed with Carcharoth and ChildofMidnight. In the course of discussion on my talk page references were made to ChildofMidnight by editors who cannot interact with him (definitely too directly in the end), however this was in the context of genuinely trying to figure out how several editors restricted from interacting would handle editing on the same articles. The question was put to an Arb by me and sort of left hanging at that time, and any sort of "Arb enforcement" over the conversation struck me as an eminently bad idea. I invite the Arbs to look over the thread linked above and if they feel I was remiss to allow that conversation to occur on my talk page then by all means put the blame squarely in my lap. It's a bit of a Catch-22 when it comes to editors with interaction restrictions trying to clarify those restrictions, and that's what I was trying to navigate when someone showed up on my talk page.

At any rate all of this is tangential to the matter at hand and not something ChildofMidnight should have brought to this limited request. If he wants to take me to task with specific diffs of my misbehavior (as I've invited him to do on countless occasions) he knows where his RfC is, and if he takes issue with Sceptre he can start a user conduct RfC on that editor. For problems with editors with whom he is restricted from interacting per an ArbCom decision, he should probably just e-mail the committee (or perhaps a neutral admin) directly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statement by Tarc

Both ChildofMidnight's and Grundle2600's behavior has been atrocious since the ArbCom restrictions...the former must be dragged to AN/I on a regular basis...ironically, for behavior in AN/I...and has a current RfC/U filed against him, which he has so far declined to particulate in, while the latter has had to be indef'ed first from Obama articles, then politics, and now politically-oritented BLPs.

But going by the sentiments expressed below in the Judea and Samaria case, there doesn't seem to be a need to request that these two be excluded from the amendment request, as arbcom does not honor blanket amnesties anyways. You can make your own request for amendments without having to worry that it must be applied across the board. Tarc (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Amendment 1

Statement by Nableezy

User:Canadian Monkey has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:NoCal100. NoCal100 was using a number of sockpuppets during the dispute that brought this case about (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive for examples and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NoCal100 for a list of confirmed socks) as well as a sockpuppet during the actual case. The entire process was disrupted by abusive sockpuppetry by one user. The actual dispute has seemingly been resolved by the community. The only thing the topic bans are doing now is depriving the encyclopedia of 6 highly capable users in a topic area that badly needs them. Other restrictions can be used to limit any edit-warring, such as imposing a 1RR for however long.

Statement by IronDuke

I have long felt this was a good idea, and I must offer heartfelt thanks to Nableezy for having the courage and thoughtfulness to propose it. I understand that the committee was unhappy with the editing patterns on I-P articles, and that unhappiness was well justified. However, we lost some of our best editors in the service of making things ostensibly more "pleasant" on those pages (which has not, AFAICT, in fact happened), and banned editors for extraordinarily picayune offenses. I would add NoCal to the list of parolees, NOT because I approve of sockpuppeting -- I am emphatically against it -- but because the "crime" he was banned for was so ultimately minor (compared to what so many others get away with on a daily basis) that a fresh start with a solemn promise never to sock again would benefit him, Wikipedia, and the subject matter at hand. 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mackan79

I think this request may have merit. To briefly recap for new and old arbitrators, the above case involved a dispute over the use of the terms "Judea and Samaria" (or either term by itself), and whether these terms have been superseded by the modern name, "the West Bank." The named editors in this arbitration were all clearly on one of two sides. On the one side User:Nishidani, User:G-Dett, User:Nickh, User:Pedrito, and User:MeteorMaker sought to limit the use of the terms, while on the other side User:Jayjg, User:Canadian Monkey, and User:NoCal100 sought to maintain or expand use of the terms. These were not the only editors to address the issue, of course, but it seems that they were the most actively involved.

It's now been accepted that two of the above accounts, User:Canadian Monkey and User:NoCal100, are the same user, and most likely the return of a previously banned editor. If arbitrators review the request for checkuser here, I think you will see that all of this was even more involved, with likely at least two more accounts of the same editor (User:I am Dr. Drakken and User:Mr. Hicks The III) having been used to bolster his position and perpetuate the larger dispute. All of these accounts were noted for their highly confrontational style. While presumably it was not known that these were all the same user, the fact that each of them appeared to be a sock of someone, and the possibility, had been noted.[45][46]

The difficulty in my mind is that all of these editors have been at least somewhat combative, even if at this point I think one has to consider the reasons why. The question may be whether the editors are willing to continue in a different mode. This may work in part, though in truth I have no hope that it will happen in all cases. Perhaps 1RR would work. One other approach would be to allow each editor to make an appeal based on a "change in circumstances" for why they should be unsanctioned. With a good explanation of what went wrong and what will be different, and a thoughtful evaluation, that could be a reasonable response and achievable for any of the involved editors. Not perfect, but maybe a possibility. I see in my edit conflict something similar is proposed by Vassyana. Mackan79 (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nickhh

While I appreciate the reluctance to approve anything that is perceived as being a "blanket amnesty", I think it is worth clarifying a few points, especially in the light of arbitrator comments below. Some of the individuals who are still on the committee may have forgotten the details of the timeline and case, newer members may not be aware of it. I'd also add that I'm not that bothered personally about being allowed to edit in the area itself - it's something I know a little about and have a vague interest in, and also happen to see a lot of bad editing in; but I'm not in fact desperate to fight any corner in this issue, and am actually far more interested in making minor edits to a range of other topics. Having said that, I resent the implication that the topic ban carries, and also the fact that it means I get chased off any article - especially journalism pages - as soon as anyone who disagrees with me on content waves the "it's an Arab-Israeli conflict page" flag at any passing administrator -

The only thing I personally would acknowledge is an occasional frustration with the political games that people play here when trying to push articles here to a particular point of view, and with the tendency for arbitrary administrative decisions - which often affect people in pretty serious ways, and break the fundamental principle here that people are free to edit - to be made without proper analysis of what has happened. I for one would not acknowledge that I had engaged in extensive edit warring, or disruptive behaviour of any sort. Hence I can't promise to "improve" my behaviour in either respect. Edit warring at all? Sure, bad. I promise not to ever do it again. It might even be easier not to now I and others are not being stalked around the place by an aggressive sockpuppeteer. If indeed the editor in question was User:Isarig from way back, I can only point out that from the moment I branched out from editing French wine articles and ventured a tentative inquiry into my first I-P article talk page (the Six Day War), it was they who roundly chased me out. And rarely left me - or others - alone subsequently, even on media pages not directly related to the conflict. --Nickhh (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 1A

Statement by Peter Cohen

I am disappointed by the initial response from arbitrators. I consider that the dispute that led to these editors being topic banned was hugely aggravated by an individual acting in bad faith through the use of multiple accounts. This factor has only come to light recently and was not known to arbitrators at the time of their decision nor to those who brought the original course or to admins who dealt with the dispute prior to the case being brought. I feel that, had they known at the time that there was a sockpuppeteer involved in the dispute, different actions would have been taken by these people in resolving the dispute.

I hope that the amendment as revised above will be seen as taking into account the reservations expressed by arbs below through:

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: Asmahan

Amendment 1

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

The scope of case as posted above show that Nefer Tweety has been involved in this conflict but no remedy was suggested against him, I had previously posted evidence showing that almost the only thing the Nefer Tweety account is used for is to back up Arab Cowboys edits, do the exact same edits as Arab Cowboy and revert to his edits, now after the case has been closed it has happened again, Nefer Tweety reverted the article back 4 months to Arab Cowboys last edit, not caring about edits made by several people [50] Some of the edits he reverted: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]

In this reversion he amongst other things reinserted copyrighted material, I had made a copyright violation report and a copyright admin removed the copyrighted material here, the exact same copy righted text was re added by Nefer tweety, personal life, section: [56] I had also corrected the sections according to previous collaborations and it was reverted: [57]

Nefer Tweety disrespect to other peoples edits and inputs in the article, only caring about reverting to Arab Cowboys edit, not about improving the article, I am therefore requesting that Nefer Tweety gets topic banned from the articles involved in this case or banned from wikipedia altogether for being an agenda account with only one purpose.

Statement by Nefer Tweety

SD and AC have been warring over this article for a long time and SD took it to arbitration. As a result, on 15 Dec, SD was “prohibited from making changes to any article (specifically this one) about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality.” SD’s edits of 20 Dec. are the same as those he had made prior to his prohibition. SD’s latest edits, exactly as before his prohibition, are intended to dilute Asmahan's Egyptian nationality in favor of a Syrian one, which is a violation of his prohibition. He's inviting more edit wars and he should therefore be blocked at least for the remaining period of his prohibition as stated. He has been advised by the admins to leave this article alone and focus on others, but he is not complying. He's also changing his input on the Discussion page after people have responded to it! Nefer Tweety (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

Further discussion

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motions

Requests for enforcement

ChildOfMidnight

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning ChildOfMidnight

User requesting enforcement: Sceptre ^(talk) 00:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: ChildOfMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight and Scjessey restricted

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: [58] As COM was not mentioned in the amendment request (and Scjessey was) apart from a non-controversial statement explaining why I'm not adding him to the request, I believe that this is not exempt like the arbitration pages normally are from topic bans, and is, in spirit, similar to COM posting in an AN(I) thread about Scjessey and contravenes his restriction set down in the case.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): COM has been blocked three times for contravening his topic bans.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [59]

Discussion concerning ChildOfMidnight

Statement by ChildOfMidnight

Statement by Bigtimepeace

Just a quick comment here as I'm out the door. I don't think this should be acted on, though it was not improper to file the request for enforcement. ChildofMidnight was named (I think unnecessarily) in the Request for Amendment mentioned above. It was reasonable for him to respond at that point, though it is true he should not have mentioned Scjessey. In so doing the he was largely pointing to what ChildofMidnight perceived to be violations of the interaction restriction between Scjessey and C of M (which largely took place on my talk page). I don't think those comments were violations (see my statement here, especially paragraph three), but it's not unreasonable to for C of M to mention them if he saw a problem. The rub here is that there has been some recent discussion (going back to early December) about how to construe an interaction ban between two parties, and some of that discussion has led to accusations of violating the ban, etc. etc. In that context (which is a bit confusing, and admittedly somewhat ridiculous) I don't think sanctioning anyone is a good idea, though everyone involved should definitely drop the whole matter. A block of C of M really will not accomplish anything, particularly as the amendment request which led to this issue is now being withdrawn by the editor who proposed it. I can provide more detail about the situation later if needed but will be offline for the rest of the night. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

In the interests of trying to foster good relations and avoid further drama, I would prefer that no action be taken against ChildofMidnight for this. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning ChildOfMidnight

Result concerning ChildOfMidnight

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

At the request of the two editors above, (especially Scjessey, whose statement I commend), I will close this request as "no action taken." () 18:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to modify topic ban (User:Thomas Basboll)

On December 8, a topic-ban against me that had been implemented under the 9/11 ArbCom ruling was suspended for a trial period of one-month. (See discussion archived here.) My original request had been to modify the ban: instead of being an indefinite ban it would become a two-year ban, to run out on April 21, 2010. I hadn't expected to return to editing so quickly, but I've tried to do some work that might indicate what sorts of thing I'd like to do if I returned. I'll leave it up to you to evaluate my editing and decide on the future status of the ban. Thanks for your time.--Thomas B (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Offliner

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedurally closing this thread; the action continues in the appeal below. 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Offliner

User requesting enforcement: Sander Säde 10:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: All following edits violate WP:BLP, specifically adding highly dubious category not supported by neither article content nor sources.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): [60] Arbitration enforcement by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights), later vacated as Offliner had not officially been warned under WP:DIGWUREN previously ([61])
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Extended topic ban from all BLP and Estonia-related articles

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Attempts by myself and others to resolve the issue without involving AE:

Offliner created category Category:Victims of Estonian political repression and added the category to three BLP articles - Mark Sirõk, Dmitri Linter and Johan Bäckman. There is no content whatsoever in any of those articles supporting the category as required by WP:BLP#Categories nor are there any sources whatsoever supporting it. Offliner has been repeatedly asked to provide sources ([63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]); so far he has not been able to do so and has only claimed that the inclusion of category is "clearly demonstrated" ([70], [71]).

As a background information - Mark Sirõk and Dmitri Linter organized a demonstration which became a looting and rioting (see Bronze Night). They were arrested under suspicion of organizing mass riots, but the court acquitted them of the charge and monetarily compensated the time they were arrested, as they were not responsible for the demonstration's becoming a riot - and peaceful demonstrations are obviously not forbidden. There have been no claims by them nor any other source that they were arrested for their political views.

Johan Bäckman has repeatedly calling to violently overthrow Estonian government. He attempted to come to Estonia without travel documents required to cross borders between Schengen countries, was detained (not arrested, like Offliner has repeatedly claimed) for a few hours and denied entry to the country under a brief entry prohibition (two weeks, if I remember correctly). No source has claimed he was "victimized" nor that he is a victim of "Estonian political repression".

Offliner has a history of BLP violations and tendentious editing of Estonia-related topics:

Mark Sirõk. Edit-warring to include BLP-violating material (health information sourced in a web forum!) and to remove well-sourced material: [72], [73], [74]
Kaitsepolitsei: Including and edit-warring to include criticism from non-valid sources (Johan Bäckman's blog and self-published book): [75], [76],

[77], [78], [79]

Creation of one-sided WP:POVFORK Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia, merged quickly to Human rights in Estonia after AfD.
Creation of draft in his userspace, which started "According to organization X, there is considerable glorification of the country's nazi past in Estonia, with parades of former SS-officers taking place in the capital Tallinn annually", an utter fabrication to a degree where it was seen as an attack page by an Estonian editor [80].

Response to Offliner

Please do not misrepresent BrownHairedGirl. She did not claim that removal of category from BLP articles during CfD discussion was inappropriate - in fact, she did the opposite, supporting removal of categories from articles that violate BLP principles, providing the articles are listed in CfD discussion and removal of category is clearly spelled out. And as I left a very clear notification to the CfD discussion prior to removing categories ([81]) and the articles are linked in the discussion...

You still haven't provided a single source supporting inclusion of those articles in the category, a policy which is very clearly spelled out in WP:BLP#Categories - and that despite close to ten requests to provide sources for your claims. Like you wrote below, you believe the inclusion of category to the articles is justified. Wikipedia does not work with beliefs, Wikipedia works with sources. Hence inclusion of this category to articles without single supporting source is a violation of core Wikipedia principles.

I fail to understand what has EEML has got to do with your policy violations? Also, you are (again) misrepresenting Arbitration Committee, as there are no FoF's related to "organizing campaigns aimed at getting rid of editors who had content disagreements with the group". Would you please stick to the truth at least on this page? --Sander Säde 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [82]

Discussion concerning Offliner

Statement by Offliner

User:Sander Säde emptied the category by removing it from all articles while the category was discussed at CfD.[83] This is inapproriate and forbidden under CfD policy: Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Therefore I reverted his removal.

As I have explained on the CfD, I believe the inclusion of the category in the three articles is justified. I definitely do not see a WP:BLP violation and neither did any of the other participants in the CfD. I have no objections to the category being deleted or removed from all articles if this is the consensus; I only reverted Sander Säde's removal because it is inapproriate during a CfD.~~as confirmed by admin User:BrownHairedGirl: [84].~~

I'd reluctantly also like to point out that User:Sander Säde was a member of the WP:EEML cabal, which according to ArbCom was responsible for organizing campaigns aimed at getting rid of editors who had content disagreements with the group. Offliner (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I was alerted to this discussion by a note on my talk page.[85]

I have no knowledge of the dispute between these two editors other than what I have seen at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression, and no comment on the dispute other than in relation to my note on removing articles from a category while it is being discussed at CFD.[86].

Offliner is incorrect to claim that I said that "it is inappropriate during a CfD". What I actually said was "Per WP:BLPCAT, I will always support the removal of BLP articles from categories which are not supported by references."[87]

In the same comment I also noted that "However, doing so whilst a CFD discussion is underway has a major impact on the discussion, so any such removal should be clearly notified at the CFD, listing the articles removed and explaining the reason. Editors discussing the fate of a category need to know why it has suddenly been emptied, because without that information they cannot reach a meaningful decision. Unless the decategorised articles are listed at the discussion, the removal appears sneaky, even when the removal has been done in good faith."

However, User:Sander Säde's comment at CFD noting the removal of articles did not actually list the articles removed.[88] They had been listed elsewhere in the discussion, but it would have been clearer for all concerned if the note on their removal had explicitly listed them, which User:Sander Säde has now done in response to my comment.[89] None of the three edits removing the category from articles[90][91][92] has an edit summary explaining the reason for their removal, which would also have been helpful.

At this point, rather than a further argument about process, it seems to me that since Offliner supports the categorisation of these three articles as "Victims of Estonian political repression", Offliner should explain which references to reliable sources explicitly support this view, without WP:OR or WP:SYN. My understanding of the relevant guidelines and of the general principle that wikipedia relies on secondary sources is that it is insufficient for a reference to simply report events; what is needed is references to reliable sources which explicitly make the value judgement that the actions against each of these people did amount to political repression.

As a wider point, I would like to note my only other comment in that CFD debate, in which I expressed a concern that the whole series of categories under Cat:Victims of political repression are too subjective to be viable.[93] It seems to me this particular dispute is an inevitable consequence of wikipedia's use of this group of subjective categories, and I am surprised that these categories do not appear to have generated many more similar disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Offliner

Result concerning Offliner

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

User:Offliner is placed on a 1RR restriction for 6 months, with the additional condition that the user is also required to discuss all reverts. • 13:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Appeal by Offliner

Statement by Offliner

I was given a 1R restriction by User:Henrik for making only 2 reverts in 24h in 3 different articles. I have done very little reverting since July 2009 (after I changed my habits), and practically none during the last two months. My recent contributions have been positive and a result of hard work. I believe these reverts are my only actions in recent months that could be regarded as controversial.

I reverted Sander Säde's 2 removals because my interpretation of the WP:CFD policy was that removing the category from articles is forbidden while the category under CfD. (...please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision...)[102]

Sander Säde then submitted an WP:AE report about me, souping it up with some old (pre-July 2009) diffs which I think are irrelevant to this case and also misrepresentations. I do not believe that this report was made in good faith, taking into account that Sander Säde was a member of the WP:EEML, which is known to have organized noticeboard campaigns aimed at getting rid of the group's content opponents.

There are indications that admin Henrik made his decision in haste (only 3 hours after the request was filed), without checking all the facts. For example, he claims that User:Sander Säde discussed his reverts on the article talk pages[103], which is simply not true. The only post regarding the category on the talk pages is from User:Termer.[104][105][106] (Neither did Sander Säde give any edit summaries in his reverts, marking them as minor edits.)[107][108][109][110][111][112] Henrik also says that he doesn't "see any attempts to engage in discussion" from me, and that I made the reverts without discussion.[113] But this is again, simply not true. I commented on the category at the CfD, which I thought was the correct place for such discussion: [114].

I thought that the inclusion of the category in the three articles (Johan Bäckman, Mark Sirõk and Dmitri Linter) was justified based on the article content (all three were arrested in Estonia for political reasons.)

However, after thinking this over and seeing the comments at the CfD, I now believe that adding this category to these articles was a mistake, because many sources do not explicitly say that they were victims of political repression (which I now think should be a requirement for the categorization.)

I now support removing this category from these articles and I also support deleting the category since the removal would make it underpopulated. I have changed my vote at the CfD accordingly.[115]

I feel that getting a 1R restriction for making two errors (mistakenly believing that adding the category to the 3 articles was justified, and misinterpreting the CfD policy), especially with no recent background of edit warring, is extremely harsh.

I will promise not to create categories on politically controversial subjects in the future and be very careful when adding categories to such articles. I will also promise to avoid edit warring and to follow a voluntary 1RR from now on.

I'm not asking for the 1R sanction to be lifted because I want to edit war, but because I think the sanction is unjustified and because I'm concerned about the effect it will have on my reputation.

Statement by Henrik

This user was very nearly restricted (1 revert per week, indefinitely) half a year ago[116] for the exact same thing: edit warring over contentious categories, a restriction only vacated on a technicality and apparent exhaustion[117]. And in October [118] and again now ([119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127] - as linked above) this user does the exact same thing again, which unfortunately, combined with a general tendency towards battlefield behavior and tendentious editing meant that I considered restrictions necessary (though granted; there are others, on both sides, which are likely worse in this aspect). As 1RR and discussing reverts is only standard good practice for contentious areas, I consider it a fairly lightweight and limited restriction.

I'm glad that User:Offliner admits his mistake and promises to have learnt from it, but as this is one continuously troublesome topic area, I think a formal restriction will have a better chance of not being forgotten in the heat of the moment. • 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by Offliner

I don't really have an opinion about Offliner's 1R, however not so long ago I was slapped with a 1R by admin Future Perfect after I didn't even reverted more than once, I made 2 single reverts one of each I self-reverted after i was notified it was a wrong revert. Unlike Offliner I also I don't have a history of edit warring. If Offliner's restriction is lifted it goes without saying that I expect mine to be lifted too, almost by default. Dr. Loosmark 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sander Säde (ec)

Just... sigh. A lot of - shall we put it mildly - misrepresentations by Offliner.

Offliner brings up EEML once again, without explaining what it has to do with his breaking a core Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP). And "WP:EEML, which is known to have organized noticeboard campaigns aimed at getting rid of the group's content opponents" - strangely, Arbitration Committee did not find such thing in their very thorough investigation. No one but myself, Offliner and BrownHairedGirl posted to the AE request.

I did not "at the same time, removed it from all articles", I removed the category three days after I had requested Offliner to provide sources ([129]), and Offliner was unable to come up with a single source supporting the addition of category to BLP articles, as it is very clearly spelled out in WP:BLP#Categories. And I notified that I am removing the categories in CfD discussion, before removing them ([130]). After his first reverts I posted a very clear request for sources to his talk page ([131]), which went completely unanswered, same as Termer's posts to article talk pages.

As for not giving edit summaries - indeed, I used HotCat (default settings) to remove categories. I did not know until Offliner brought it up here (linking them twice for some reason in his appeal) that HotCat marks the edits as minor. I had no intentions of sneakily removing the categories; if I would have wanted to do that, then it would have been rather silly to announce it in CfD beforehand, which is monitored by far more people than those articles.

"irrelevant to this case and also misrepresentations" - no, they're definitely not misrepresentations. Or are you claiming that you didn't edit war to include health information sourced to web forum (!) to BLP while at the same time removing well-sourced "uncomfortable" material - and that you also included and edit-warred to add criticism from non-valid sources (Johan Bäckman's personal blog and self-published book) to Kaitsepolitsei? They were relevant to the case in hand to show your prior BLP violations and highly tendentious editing of Estonia-related topics.

And for the third time Offliner claims that Johan Bäckman was arrested, which also isn't true. He was briefly detained (he didn't have travel documents) and denied entry to the country. He was never arrested. Other two were not arrested for "political reasons", as Offliner believes, despite being unable to come up with a single source supporting that view - they were arrested under suspicion of organizing mass riots, but the court acquitted them of the charge.

And finally, I believe Henrik's decision came with consideration of Offliner's prior blocks - he has been blocked twice for edit warring. I have no comments on merit of this restriction but I think it is fairly mild and would not be an issue unless an editor plans to continue revert-warring. In fact, I think I will adopt it myself - only one revert in a day unless I am dealing with obvious vandalism - and requirement to discuss reverts is something that should be more pronounced in Wikipedia policies.

Comment by Sandstein

Henrik's reasoning is persuasive, and I do recall Offliner's username from numerous previous AE cases dealing with Eastern Europe. But his admissions of mistakes and promises to observe a voluntary 1R restriction are also very encouraging. My recommendation to Offliner is to withdraw this appeal at this time, but to re-approach Henrik after a month or two of trouble-free editing. Henrik might be inclined to lift the formal restriction at this time, and if he does not, a new appeal might fall on more receptive ears. 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by The Four Deuces

I do not see how Offliner's actions can be seen as being outside the ordinary. Here is what happened in all three articles. (For disclosure, Offliner asked my opinion of this matter.)

Essentially Offliner twice restored (with edit summaries) his edits that had been removed without explanation in the edit summaries or any discussion thread having been set up on the talk page. At some point Offliner should have used the talk page and dispute resolution but it is not obvious when this should have been done.

In fact, Sander Säde did not post any discussion on the talk page and nothing was posted there until Offliner's final edit. Neither Sander Säde nor Termer had raised the BLP concerns. Since the purpose of the BLP policy is to protect subjects against unfounded claims, there was no violation of the spirit here. Furthermore, Sander Säde posting to Offliner's page was not inviting of discussion:

Incidentally, it is not normal to add sources to categories. The policy is: "...the case for each category must be made clear by the article text. Articles must state the facts that support each category tag, and these facts must be sourced". The articles clearly state that two of the subjects were unsuccessfully prosecuted for actions at a demonstration while the third was denied entry to Estonia. The dispute really is not whether sources exist in the article, but whether they rise to the level necessary to include them under the category.

Regarding BLP, although Sander Säde did mention in the CfD application that the articles were BLP, there was no discussion of the significance of BLP until after Offliner's second reversion:

I note that despite Henrik's concern about BLP violations he did not revert Offliner's edit and Sander Säde did not use the article talk pages or any other method of dispute resolution other than the CfD to notify other editors of the supposed BLP violation.

While I do not "assume that it is acceptable to incite violence against a democratically elected government", I can see that some people might believe that the charges against them were false, especially considering that the prosecution was unable to prove their case.

Result of the appeal by Offliner

Appeal by Nableezy

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Appealing user: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: 2 month topic ban from I/P conflict articles and block for violating that ban by filing a CU request

Editor who imposed the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)

Notification of that editor: [135]

Statement by Nableezy

Executive summary

As requested: Sandstein topic-bans me for 2 months as a result of edits to the Jonathan Cook AfD. After being informed that nearly all of my edits to the AfD came after the conclusion of my talk page ban, which AGK clarified as including AfDs, Sandstein raises the issue with the two edits I made prior to that ban concluding which were reversions of other users removing Nickhh and Nishidani's comments. Later he blocks me for editing a CU request regarding a suspected sock of NoCal100 on the basis that the suspected sockpuppetry took place in the I/P conflict so the SPI is off-limits. I am appealing both actions.

And Tznaki, before this topic ban was placed both the article and the talk page ban had expired

Full summary

Sandstein imposed a 4 2 month topic ban as a result of this AE thread that centered around edits made to an AfD about Jonathan Cook. In that complaint I wrote that AGK had clarified the scope of my topic ban and that AfDs were to be treated as article talk pages, from which I was banned from one month starting 21:02 October 29, [136]. I also wrote that my actions at the AfD had previously been discussed in another AE thread, (here), which Tznaki had declined action as a result of AGK's clarification. Epeefleche, who had been actively campaigning for disciplinary action in that thread, opens another thread about the same AfD but also including Nickhh and Nishidani in the request for enforcement. Having just dealt with this issue I said that AGK had already clarified that my topic ban on AfDs was for 1 month and that a previous AE thread had already been opened, and closed, about my actions at the AfD. As the result was still fresh, it did not occur to me that diffs were needed, especially given that Tznaki had closed the earlier thread and had commented in the new one. Tznaki's comments in the new thread included In this case, Nableezy is not sanctioned under Westbank Judea-Samaria, and no action will be taken against him under this request.

Sandstein, 2 weeks after the thread had any comment, comes to AE and closes the thread, saying that in my case By editing the I-P-related AfD, he violated the I-P topic ban imposed as a discretionary sanction in effect at the time. He is also unapologetic, asserting that "AGK has clarified that my topic ban does not include AfDs and my actions here have already been addressed in an earlier AE thread", but providing no diffs to support these assertions, which makes them immaterial. What matters is the sanctions log, which clearly states that the ban applies to "all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case", which includes AfDs.

Within two hours I provided Sandstein the diff and prior AE thread that he had said was "immaterial". Sandstein then adjusts his position on why the topic ban is justified by raising 2 diffs of edits I had made to the AfD in the 24 hours prior to my talk page ban expiring. Those two edits are [137] and [138]. As to these two edits, as they are now used to justify a two month ban a month after they occurred: yes, they are technical violation of my topic ban. The reason for reverting those edits was that I felt, and still feel, that highly involved users should not be attempting to enforce arbitration decisions, there is a reason that task is left to uninvolved admins. I asked both users who I had reverted to instead go to WP:AE if they felt that Nick and Nishidani were violating their topic ban and let an uninvolved admin make that determination and decide how to enforce the decision instead of unilaterally deciding that they had in fact violated the topic ban and removing the comments. One of those users, Mr. Hicks The III, has since been shown to be a sockpuppet of the banned user NoCal100. I felt, and still feel, that my reversions were essentially reverting vandalism as the other users were removing or modifying other peoples comments. I purposely did not comment about the AfD itself until after my talk page ban had expired.

After placing the topic ban, Sandstein blocks me for violating that ban by making edits to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 (edits that have since been endorsed by a CU clerk as meriting a CU). Sandstein maintains that as these edits were about sockpuppetry in the I/P area that my topic ban precludes me making such edits. Now forgetting for a second that he could have just told me that instead of blocking me, these edits are in no way related to the I/P conflict. I do not discuss the conflict at all in those edits. Sandstein cites a recent request for clarification as proof that such edits fall within the scope of the topic ban. The only thing that I see that could possibly lead to that interpretation is Vassyana's comments that shifting discussion to another venue is a violation. But I did not shift any discussion, I did not discuss the actual conflict anywhere. I requested an unblock asking for any reasonable person to show how those edits were related to the I/P conflict. Sandstein replies that as an arbitration enforcement action the block may only be overturned by coming here, which as I was blocked I was obviously unable to do, and the reviewing admin threatened to remove my talk page access for "abuse" of the template, apparently for having the audacity to post one single unblock request. As I still feel that my block log contains a block that was wholly without basis I request that a note be made in the log that the block was improper.

I request that the topic ban be either revoked or drastically shortened as my edits after those two listed above were not in violation of my topic ban. If it is felt that those two edits merit an additional topic ban I feel that ~~four~~ two months is far too long for two edits made over a month ago.

Note

If somebody wishes to start a separate section on an unrelated topic please do so, but I ask that we not clutter this one up with arguments. This section is to address specific things and topics unrelated are topics that distract. - 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

The topic ban I imposed lasts for two months, not four ([139], [140]). But then I suppose we would not be here if Nableezy were in the habit of paying attention to the sanctions that apply to him, though he is to be commended for finally going about this the proper way and making an appeal for community consideration. (Edit, 22:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC): This has now in part been amended to read 2 months; the original appeal referred to a 4 months ban.)

The reason for the topic ban is noted at the AE thread. The matter has been discussed at great length, and frequently impolitely, at User talk:Sandstein#What a way to start the New Year!, so I'll not repeat here what I said in these threads. In view of Nableezy's unapologetic and generally confrontative attitude to his infringement of the original topic ban ([141]), and considering that he infringed the new topic ban from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within three days of it being imposed ([142]) instead of making an appeal (a request for lifting the resulting enforcement block was declined, if a bit curtly, by another admin), I recommend that this appeal be declined and the ban maintained, both to disencourage Nableezy and other editors from infringing arbitration sanctions and to prevent disruption in the area of conflict.

Of course, I am also fine with whatever consensus develops here at AE to modify or lift the ban, if administrators who may be more acquainted with the underlying dispute(s) than I deem it appropriate. One might ask, however, why an editor who labels himself as retired, which he maintains is meant seriously and not as a gesture of protest ([143]) has any interest in filing an appeal against a topic ban. 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: it might be of interest to whoever determines the outcome of this appeal to evaluate whether the notifications by Tiamut (talk · contribs), beginning on 21:22, 5 January 2010, may be an attempt at votestacking insofar as they appear to be addressed to editors who seem to share her and Nableezy's point of view in content disputes in the area of conflict, except for Epeefleche. 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by Nableezy

I don't really understand the ins and outs of this, but I don't think the details matter at this point. I appeal to Sandstein to lift whatever blocks or topic bans are in place against Nableezy. He's a good editor who tries hard to be neutral, which includes making edits that I'm pretty sure he doesn't personally agree with. I don't have diffs to hand, and wouldn't know how to find them, but I've seen him do it several times.

The first topic ban came about because he was reverting too much on the 2009 Gaza War article, but he was trying to insert the alternative name for it, "Gaza massacre," which was well-sourced as an alternative, and while too much reverting for any reason is never good, content-wise he was in the right. A warning would have been better than a topic ban at that point. Had that ban not been imposed, his edits to the Cook AfD would have been unproblematic and this one wouldn't have been imposed, or violated, or whatever has happened since.

It would be good if Sandstein would bring a halt to Nableezy's slide into frustration and retirement by simply lifting whatever remains of the topic ban and asking Nableezy to be more careful in future. 21:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have found one diff of the kind of thing I mean. I removed from the infobox at Modi'in Illit, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, that it was in Judea and Samaria, because I see it as POV to use that term when the majority term is the West Bank. I am guessing that Nableezy would largely agree with me. He nevertheless reverted me, [144] because the issue had been discussed elsewhere, and a consensus had apparently been reached to use Judea and Samaria in that context, because it's the formal Israeli name for that district. He stuck with that consensus, regardless of his personal views. I realize this is only one diff, but it's typical of my experience of editing with Nableezy that he seeks to follow the policies. 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I have been able to figure out Nableezy's description of the events is correct, and I think the appeal should be heard. I think the admin who warned Nableezy about abusing the unblock template misunderstood something, probably an honest mistake. I am about as uninvolved as it gets and I have never edited much in the Israel-Palestine area. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if Nableezy would provide an executive summary, but I am concerned with which the frequency of which Nableezy has ended up on AE on shaky ground. The last time I checked, aside from the ban on point, Nableezy was topic banned from articles only. Have I missed something?--Tznkai (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tznkai, this is one of those situations where the first sanction was arguably mistaken, and led to the second, which led to the third, in an escalating series of misunderstandings and frustrated responses. Fresh eyes on the whole situation are what's needed at this point. 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
And, Tznkai, several of these cases involving Nableezy were repeat referrals of this same matter concerning the afd page.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Epeefleche.

If this is as Slim suggests, about character and editing, without diffs, I'll simply say my impression of Nableezy is polar opposite of that described by Slim directly above. I've found Nableezy to be tendentious and disruptive, exhibit a strong POV, not have much respect for WP topic bans, skirt his own topic ban, and enable topic ban violations by others. His behavior, even after being topic banned, is a strong sign that he doesn't feel a need to pay much attention to what the arbs and others have had to say about his behavior. That behavior is a time-suck from positive editing efforts by others. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the ban extension here was already appropriate for reasons discussed at length at the AE. As were the points being made here all over again. Sandstein did a commendable job in his close, IMHO.

I'm concerned w/the apparent vote-stacking here. Tiamut contacted 20 other editors, none of whom from what I can tell have expressed the view that Nableezy acted inappropriately. At the pace of one-to-two-a-minute. He appears to have stopped notifying people for a five minute period. I then at that point (not having been notified, but with an eye on the appeals page) make a comment here, and only then--five minutes after I've already commented--am I helpfully noticed by him that "since" I filed the complaint he "thought [I] might want to know that Nableezy has decided to file an appeal." (Nor does he notice anyone else after me--I'm last on his list, though he did toss in a throw-away notice to another editor before contacting me). The suggestion of vote-stacking is worrisome.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Tiamut

I am deeply concerned by Sandstein's decision to reinstate the topic ban. First, because it encourages forum-shopping. After User:Tznkai declined to take any action against Nableezy stemming from User:Cptnono's complaint regarding Nableezy's edits to the Jonathan Cook AfD here, Sandstein should have dismissed the complaint by User:Epeefleche here, or at least the part that dealt with Nableezy, since it was a repeat of what Cptnono had complained about. Nableezy was essentially tried twice for the same wiki crime (double jeopardy). Sandstein does not see this legal concept to be relevant to Wikipedia as expressed in his comment here. Judging things purely by Wiki standards, however, retrying the same case and coming to a different conclusion than another admin means Sandstein's actions give the appearance of wheel-warring, at least in spirit. User:John Z raised this concern with Sandstein, asking for his thoughts on that on his talk page here, but Sandstein has declined to answer that specific question. ^talk 22:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Sandstein's concern re:votestacking (also raised by Cptnono and Epeefleche, the only two editors to so far agree with his decision, both of whom filed the double jeopardy complaints against Nableezy) - I told Sandstein that I would be contacting every editor who commented on his talk page about Nableezy's topic ban and subsequent block here so as to file an appeal or open an RfC. He did not dissuade me from doing so. True to my word, I contacted everyone who commented, even User:Breein1007 and User:No More Mr Nice Guy (both of whom did not express support for Nableezy, but rather argued with others who posted there). I then also decided to contact every editor who commented on Nableezy's talk page, expressing their concern about what had happened. Upon further reflection, I decided to contact User:Epeefleche as he filed the report that led to Nableezy being sanctioned. I did not contact Cptnono, even though he also filed a complaint, since he erased my last two talk page comments to him with the edit summary putting this behind, and asking for a block next time. I took those to mean I should not discuss this issue with him on his talk page any further. ^talk 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And Sandstein, its not my fault that out of the eleven people who commented on your talk page about this decision, nine found it to be ill-advised. ^talk 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Your statement that I only contacted people who share Nableezy and my point of view (which is not exactly the same by the way) in the I-P editing arena is demonstrably false. Besides the three editors listed above (Epeefleche, No More Mr Nice Guy, and Breein1007), I also contacted IronDuke and Nsaum75, who commented below (who are on the "I" side, if any), and Apoc24, Malik Shabazz, among other editors, who do not belong to a side, as far as I know. Please refrain from assuming bad faith about those critiquing your decision. ^talk 00:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Malik Shabazz

I note that Sandstein's comment is dripping with sarcasm and condescension. I tried to discuss the matter with her/him civilly yesterday, and Sandstein insisted she/he had no personal motive. See User talk:Sandstein#nableezy. After today's little show, it's hard to accept that argument.

I can't fathom Sandstein's logic in imposing a two-month topic ban on a month-stale complaint. When Sandstein was shown that her/his knowledge of the facts was incomplete, instead of reconsidering the topic ban, Sandstein replied, "it is your own responsability [sic] to submit any evidence in your favor in a timely manner." [145]

It's time for Sandstein to act like a grown-up and admit that she/he made a mistake. Since Sandstein seems to have taken this matter as a personal affront, it's time for a truly uninvolved administrator to take a look. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The complaints against Tiamut of canvassing are much ado about nothing. Most of the people she contacted left messages on Sandstein's Talk page yesterday and probably had it on their watchlists. Tiamut's messages were all left after nableezy notified Sandstein that he had made this appeal, [146] and probably were unnecessary for most of us. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Peter Cohen

I consider Sandstein's actions to be ill-judged. Nableezy's actions on the AfD page had already been dealt with here. It is therefore a case of double jeopardy for him to be punished for the same actions. Sandstein has claimed in this post that double jeopardy does not apply on Wikipedia. But some things very like it do: WP:WHEELWAR and WP:FORUMSHOP. In this case another admin had made a decision. Nableezy's enemies then decided to ask the other parent. Then, rather than discuss the original closing admin's decision, Sandstein has decided to go off on his own and aggressively defended his decision by blocking Nableezy when Nableezy has reported a likely sock of a well-known troublemaker. It is not a good idea to reward forum shoppers by letting them get what they want. I think this is a situation when several people, not just Nableezy and Sandstein the apparent subjects of this appeal, need to take a metaphorical teabreak and calm down with all actions being rolled back.

Just for the record, I note that Epeecleche was one who asked the other parent on this very matter with this thread that postdates the first thread on the same matter I mention above. It strikes me that rather than being an innocent victim of "time-sucking", he seems to have sucked it out of admins on this very board. Repeated frivolous referals of Nableezy here can mislead people into thinking that that user is the problem when several others are contributing too--Peter cohen (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is just to note, just in case is not apparent to others, that I was not aware at the time of imposing the sanction that the same conduct by Nableezy had been the subject of a previous, archived AE request by another editor, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#nableezy. In that earlier request, Tznkai declined to take enforcement action. That decision is in no way prejudicial to my decision to act on the later request, though I would of course have taken it into account had it been mentioned and linked by any editor in the later request. 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- True, the case was not linked, but had you read your fellow admin's comments in that case carefully [147], you would have noticed the following: "Third, we do not relitigate, retry, or reargue cases. We do not expand, or minimize remedies unless they explicitly invite us to do so. While we may accept or deny requests to enforce on our own discretion, we are not in the buisness of arbitrating ourselves. In this case, Nableezy is not sanctioned under Westbank Judea-Samaria, and no action will be taken against him under this request. You can see me comments in an above section for what will or will not bring sanctions down on his head."
- That comment should have prompted you to look for the "above section", which by the time you decided to come along, had long been archived. You could have asked Tznkai what he was referring to exactly. Instead, without probing further, you made your ill-advised decision. And when people pointed out to you that you had effectively retried the same case twice, you refused to back down and you still refuse to acknowledge that perhaps you may have been wrong/hasty. This is a huge problem in my opinion. You need to learn to be more receptive to the views of your fellow admins and editors. You also need to learn that no one is infallible, and that when you make a mistake you should own up to it. ^talk 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- (Replying to Sandstain not Tiamut.) Fair enough. But once the matter was mentioned, I think that you should have been aware of WP:OTHERPARENT and reconsidered your decision in the light of that, consulting Tznkai in the process.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  - All: The earlier case and disposition by Tznkai was mentioned and linked in this case - in Epeefleche's background statement [148] : "and at a concurrent WP:AE on the same facts, which took place as the arbitrators were taking the above position, enforcement was declined.[149] ".John Z (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    - Yes, now I see it too. I overlooked that - sorry - presumably because I assumed, obviously in error, that Nableezy himself would raise any circumstances in his favor such as a previous AE request. Had I noticed it in time, I would probably have deferred to Tznkai's judgment in the previous request. However, by now, given Nableezy's erratic and confrontative conduct after my sanction, including a "retirement" that appears not to be serious, legal threats to induce an indef block (albeit apologized for later) and breaking the sanction, I do not think that simply lifting it would benefit Wikipedia. I am amenable, though, to EdJohnston's suggestion to reduce it to one month; that might suffice to get the point across that topic bans are not to be infringed under any circumstances and to cool Nableezy down somewhat. 07:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What you are now saying, in effect, is that you wouldn't have banned him if you'd known about the prior case, but since he got pissed about it, you think it should stand? Sorry, but one cannot legitimize a ban on the basis that the user overreacted when it was applied. If that is your only remaining rationale, I think you should just do the right thing and withdraw the ban altogether. We don't do "cool down" bans at this project either BTW, you should know that. Gatoclass (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this business of the legal threat is unfair. Nableezy wrote: "If you feel that is ban worthy so be it, but please indefinitely block my account right now ... If you decline to block my account I will sue you all, (that line should give you reason for an indef block, NLT)." [150] That's not a legal threat. It's satire. Yet he was blocked for it by Chillum, and had to apologize, giving rise to the new meme that he had withdrawn a legal threat, when in fact he hadn't made one in the first place. It's clear from this alone that we're dealing with a series of misunderstandings here, each one triggering the next, so that Nableezy now has this pile of claims and counterclaims he's expected to explain clearly before he can be unblocked, which in turns give rise to the impression that there's no smoke without fire.

What is needed now is for the topic ban to be lifted completely, and Nableezy to be advised not to revert too often and to be extra-polite to everyone. End of story. 13:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cptnono

I don't think any appeal would stand a chance if Sandstein would have put in his decision that it was based on continuous edit warring, incivility, and just generally stirring up trouble. He didn't though. He based his decision on what appeared to be a disregard for the sanction at the Cook AfD. Nableezy did break his sanction several times after it was reduced from 4 to 2 months but this wasn't one of them. Sandstein mentioned that Nableezy's assertions that AGK said it was OK could not be considered because there was no proof. Instead of saying that there are "Too many stupid people here. Bye" and calling Sandstein 's decision retarded, he should have shown the -->diffs<-- from AGK's page. Nableezy has had his ban reduced once and hasn't exactly changed as this recent event shows. If this appeal is successful, I hope that it is another reminder to not edit war and to try to be a little more civil.

I am also concerned with the consensus possible with this appeal and the upcoming RfC on Sandstein. Due to a mainly targeted campaign with one-sided wording by Tiamut ("Nableezy/Sandstein" messages), there are many eyes on this that I fear are not being completely objective (might be completely unintentional). Many people see the above decision as "shameful" and "piss poor" but others who are less vocal see some reasoning behind it. Hopefully, everyone can keep an eye out for themselves and there won't be any problem.Cptnono (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up, Nableezy said that he did show him the above diff. I don't recall seeing it so I stand corrected.Cptnono (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

- Here is the diff in question. It was posted two and half hours before Nableezy's posted those other comments, which while regrettable, were obviously posted in frustration over this wholly unjust decision. ^talk 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy should have filed an appeal with it instead of letting it sit (more than likely unnoticed with all the back and forth) and not overreacted. It happens and live and learn though.

And please don't misrepresent the situation as you did a couple sections above, Tiamut. You restoring material from other editors and increasingly combative tone led to me giving you the required notice. Also, I have much more to say about what I think is at the very least potential canvasing but I'm not sure if this is the proper venue and it detracts from the primary discussion.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, I provided the diffs to your edit summaries so anyone can see what was at stake. My intention was not to misrepresent anything, only to explain why I did not contact you. ^talk 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was your intent. In fact, I'm not even allowed to comment on what I feel might be other editors' intentions with my sanction. Just like the potential canvassing, it is more of a result of how you went about it not why you did it. As both Nableezy and I have mentioned up above, this is straying away from the main point of this appeal. and I am happy to stay on topic: Did the Sandstein have sufficient reason to close it as he did?Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Nsaum75

Firstly, for the record, Nableezy and I usually edit from opposing viewpoints; however I feel compelled to comment based on my concerns that the actions taken against him may be incorrect with regard to the recent block. While I think both sides could have handled this situation using a more civil tone with less "attitude" (which may have kept things from escalating to this point) I am concerned and confused by Sandstein's application of the IP ban/sanctions and subsequent block in response to Nableezy's CU request. I might (and it would be a weak might) understand the sanctions/ban-based block if Nableezy had a history of initiating frivolous SPI/CU requests with the intent of creating disruption at IP articles; however from a quick review of Nableezy's past SPI requests, that does not appear to be the case. In fact, the last few SPIs that Nableezy took part in have been successful in exposing sockpuppets of repeat offenders. If Wikipedia is going to start allowing IP sanctions & bans to be applied to administrative and clerical functions, it sets a dangerous precedent and creates a whole new interpretation of the IP discretionary sanctions -- an interpretation that may not have been the intent of the original arbiters of the case. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 00:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by IronDuke

Let me say first off that I’m commenting with a bit of a bias here: I have worked with Nableezy on several articles in a highly productive manner, and have come away with, generally, highly positive feelings about his editing style. I hope he won’t mind if I say I put him squarely on the P side of the ledger in the I-P debate, but unlike some on the P side, he is actually willing to compromise and debate productively without stonewalling.

I think the purpose of this ban – of any ban, really – is or at least should be to protect Wikipedia from disruption and bad/unstable articles. And, while some completely justifiable bans do cause disruptions, they are sometimes necessary. I’m not sure I see how this one is, however. Was this ban, therefore, a case of horrible rouge admin shenanigans? No. But it’s better for the topic area if it were lifted, IMO. And if notice need be given to Nableezy to mend his ways (and I’m not convinced it need be), surely this experience will recommend caution in the future. 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Since Tiamut insists on dragging me into this, I'd like to make the following points:

I did not comment on Nableezy's ban. Anywhere.
Tiamut practically admits on my talk page that she contacted me to avoid being accused of canvassing.
Of the nine people who commented on Sandstein's page and found the decision to be "ill-advised", there's one I've never seen editing on Nableezy's "side" on IP articles. Several are in fact on very friendly terms with him, as their talkpages show. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, as I explained to you on your talk page in this section, "You may not understand that in order to avoid being accused of canvassing, it is my responsibility to inform to all interested parties (all those who commented at Sandstein's page and Nableezy's of any intended initiative. I did not think you would support such an initiative, but you have the right to know about it, so that you can oppose, if that is what you wish to do." I'm glad to see that you took me up on that offer. ^talk 00:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what you said. And I'm saying I did not comment on Nableezy's ban and thus am not an interested party (at least I wasn't until you wrote my name here). Your notification is a (pretty transparent) attempt at avoiding accusations of canvassing. The same can be said about your contacting User:Breein1007. He didn't comment on the ban either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, as I said to you on your talk page: "You responded to another editor's comments regarding Nableezy's ban on that page. If I misunderstood, and you do not want to be informed/involved in the discussions to follow, then you can simply disregard this message." Clearly, you have chosen to respond to the message. However, the subject under discussion here is Nableey's appeal of Sandstein's sanction. If you have nothing to say about that, then I suggest you cease commenting here, and open a separate section for a review of my actions, should you feel that to be necessary. ^talk 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by JGGardiner

I have to say that I'm not very knowledgable about procedure but that is what compels me to comment here. I'm certainly in no position to question Sandstein's conduct but I think there may be a systemic problem here. It seems to me that Nableezy was punished for misunderstanding the extent of his initial ban. I think that's unfair. The ban should be explained explicitly, if not exhaustively and a reasonable misunderstanding shouldn't result in punishment of the editor. I was troubled when I read this comment from Sandstein: "It is immaterial whether or not Nableezy says that he believed that he did not violate the ban. Based on its plain language, he ought to have known that he did."[151]

Sure, one could argue that Nableezy did know but to say that he should be punished even if he did not know seems remarkable to me. It is absolutely unjust. Like I said, I'm just an unsophisticated editor with a small edit count and I have no ability to second guess an admin. like Sandstein. I'm sure his comments reflect policy or precedent -- stare decisis or whatever. But why would we ever need to be so Draconian and inflexible? I could understand if this was an army barracks where punishment needed to be swift and severe to deter others. But the last time I checked, admitedly it was some time ago, this was an online collaborative writing project. For fun.

There was a difference of opinion about some of the terms of the ban. Frankly that's the fault of those who wrote it, not those who were subject to it. But whatever, we should work out the ambiguity and move on. And even if something had to be said immediately, then it should be said. Nableezy wasn't selling crack to children on the Sesame Street article. A warning would have been sufficient. Maybe that's not the rule but that's what the rule should be. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And I should add that I saw SlimVirgin's comment about Nableezy being a good editor and Mr. Nice Guy's comment about messages coming from editors who were friendly with Nableezy. As well as Jaakobou's below. So I thought I might address them all. I didn't send any of those messages but I am an editor who is friendly with Nableezy, because he started it. We met at the Gaza War talk page and disagreed over this very issue, the "massacre" thing, last year. You can see the diff from my second ever message to him: "Thanks again for all of your patience and consideration of my concerns. It makes that talk page a little less scary to know there are actually good users who are willing to actually talk things out."[152] We worked on a compromise edit that'd I'd like to think was the basis for the eventual inclusion. But at the time Nableezy was the only willing to listen and compromise. Besides, you know, me. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes and Query by Jaakobou: No More Mr Nice Guy is right about the nearly uniform POV of those who commented on Sandstein's page and found the decision to be "ill-advised". It's a given that if any pro-Palestinian editor is up for sanction, then, for example, Tiamut and Nishidani will show up protesting that they are, in fact, incredibly good editors, who have been dealt with unjustly. It's also no surprise that Tiamut appealed to the admin Gatoclass, who shares that same POV, and can be relied on to nix any DYK that seems even slightly pro-Israel. Nableezy was given more than a fair chance by the reduction of his recent sanction from 4 months to 1 month talkpage ban and a 2 month article space ban (I promoted at the time a reduction to 2 weeks and 1RR hoping it was enough to persuade improvement[153]). From my perspective, Nableezy and Tiamut started a tag-team edit-war -- Hamas/Israel related -- a mere 57 minutes after Nableezy's reduced 2 month ban ended[154] and made strange talkpage assertions, making up that Hamas supposedly supports a bi-national state alongside the Jews (and adding this into the article[155]). There is a basic merit to allow banned editors the option of raising sockpuppetry concerns but it feels as though there's more than just that going on. There's editwarring, incivility and a fuck all attitude[156] with likeminded editors rooting from the sidelines and shouting at the referees when they don't like the play. Nableezy has some upside as well. don't get me wrong, but I'd like to know if he had made or is willing to make any comment or action to suggest that he plans to correct his errors that result in this type of drama?
With respect, 02:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
p.s. I'm expecting a lot of response to this, for sure, none of it positive. Still, it's all the truth. 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'll get one from me, since I think you put this in perfect perspective. You can find all the usual suspects here at AGK's page appealing (no, complaining about) the initial ban which was based on months' worth of edit-warring (in which I participated, which should be brought up, and for which I am still subject to a ban). After AGK made the decision to ban Nableezy based on his reading and best judgment of the situation (and which some of us considered not unreasonable, but we did not swarm AGK's page urging him to keep the ban in place). First step should one of their group be sanctioned is for the forces to come in and sing praises. If this does not work then to point fingers at others in the opposite camp. Then comes the bitching and personal attacks. AGK made his judgment in good faith and in good faith reconsidered it, cutting the initial article ban in half and the talk page ban by three/quarters. But talk about a fuck-all attitude? Here's is Tiamut on AGK's reconsideration: "Sorry AGK, but your reconsideration is simply not good enough" and "While you may pride yourself on being somehwat lenient, the impression your decisions have given me are that you are biased." and here "you should admit your decision was a piss poor one" and accuses him of "rather weak reasoning" She goes on to accuse him of bias, poor judgment and lack of evenhandedness. Finally she ends with this: "Where can voice my opposition to your bid to be arbitrator by the way? It is very dangerous for someone like you to have that power in our community, and I strongly oppose." Just Outrageous! Stellarkid (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I fear they will now turn this into a referendum on Sandstein, rather than with respect to this decision, right or wrong. Even if wrong, there has been an issue over I think Sandstein felt that we are all enough of adults to know what the I-P ban does and does not include, and if we need clarification we should go to the banning admin or ask for clarification. Stellarkid (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass

As I said to Tiamut earlier, I can see some merit in both sides of this debate. On the one hand, Nableezy clearly violated his topic ban at the AfD, then exacerbated the error by edit warring on the same page - the very offence for which he was originally sanctioned by AGK. He then followed up not long thereafter by making a series of personal attacks against Cptnono on another page - attacks for which he later apologized, but which might have been considered sanctionable in themselves. He also edited I-P pages in technical violation of his ban, albeit to remove vandalism. His response when confronted with these infractions has generally been defiant rather than conciliatory.

In that regard, I think one can see how Sandstein came to the conclusion that a renewal of the sanction would be appropriate. Quite frankly, were I not an "involved" admin in the I-P area, I may have come to a similar conclusion.

On the other hand, I think AGK's initial sanction was overzealous - a four month topic ban, reduced to two on appeal, for an apparently isolated instance of edit warring. I'm inclined to the view that so-called edit warring is too heavily policed on this project in general, but I think two months for a single episode is excessive even by prevailing standards.

Secondly, it seems that Nableezy was subject to double jeopardy in that his edit warring at the AfD had already been processed by Tznkai in a previous AE request. And while arbcom quickly confirmed that ARBPIA applies to AfD pages, I think it's clear that there was at least a degree of uncertainty amongst the participants at that page before the arbcom confirmation.

Finally, Sandstein's sanction came more than a month after the original offence, after Nableezy's original ban had expired and he had apparently returned to productive editing. The question then arises as to what benefit there is from imposing a sanction so belatedly. I think it's a fairly well established principle around here by now that one doesn't generally apply blocks and bans when the misconduct has ceased, unless there's evidence of an ongoing pattern of misbehaviour.

So I do think there are reasonable grounds for appeal. On the other hand, I think it's also important to set clear standards, and my impression of Sandstein's contributions over time is that he makes a genuine effort to do so. Part of the problem with AE, I think, is that different admins have differing standards, and that outcomes can consequently look very arbitrary. I've long been of the opinion that there is simply not enough guidance for AE admins when it comes to a consideration of appropriate sanctions, any ... measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project is really not very helpful. Perhaps it's time we started thinking about some sort of graduated regime of sanctions for set offences?

Other than that, like nsaum above I too am concerned with the apparent extension of ARBPIA into the realm of Checkuser requests, and I think there are grounds for a Request for Clarification on that issue. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by EdJohnston

For the record, I voted in the Jonathan Cook AfD. Here are some issues that should matter to admins:

Nableezy was still under a topic ban at the time he was editing the Cook AfD. As confirmed by Arbcom in their clarification, Nableezy's editing of an AfD was ruled out by his topic ban in the I/P area. His argument that he was reverting vandalism in the AfD, since he was restoring comments deleted by others on grounds of ban violations, is not ~~credible~~ persuasive.
Nableezy's conduct in the AfD was reviewed by Tznkai in an AE complaint that he closed in early December with no action. This might have appeared to be a verdict that no further consequences would happen to Nableezy due to his AfD editing.
Epeefleche made a new AE complaint on 15 December also complaining about Nableezy's AfD editing, and not mentioning the previous AE case that had been closed by Tznkai. The other participants did not mention the case either.
On 1 January, Sandstein closed Epeefleche's case with a two-month renewal of Nableezy's topic ban. It appears that Sandstein was not aware of Tznkai's earlier ruling, but in a comment cited above, he indicates that he still thinks his action is correct.
Later, Sandstein issued a short block of Nableezy for editing an SPI request about someone who'd been working on I/P articles. Since this is presumed to be a violation of the ban, given Arbcom's very wide interpretation of it, I don't see any reason for the closer of this AE to do anything about the block, which has expired anyway. This SPI issue came *after* Sandstein's January 1 ruling so didn't form any part of his reasoning on that.

My conclusion is that Sandstein's action of 1 January is technically justified. He was not obliged to take Tznkai's previous ruling into account. Nonetheless I suggest that the closer of this AE should reduce the two-month ban to one month, applying to both articles and talk pages. The ban should be interpreted to rule out mention of any I/P articles or editors, anywhere in Wikipedia, including AfDs, admin noticeboards and sock complaints. If any new socking issues come up, Nableezy can write to an admin's talk page to get advice on how to proceed. EdJohnston (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by CasualObserver’48

From a distance, I have been watching some of what has been going around, starting with my vote at the Cook AfD; I now note that it has grown and come around to AE-appeal. It seems like a topic-ban has grown to a ban-ban, with insufficient consideration of AGF regarding the original topic scope. Although peripherally related, an AfD should rightly be considered a whole new ball of wax beyond just I/P, it is basic to how Wiki works. I also regard the decision being appealed to have been ill-considered; I support Nableezy's appeal. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sm8900

Gaaahh, this is complicated. I usually try to be more insightful in my comments, but this is a little beyond me. I didn't expect it to get so complicated. I don't think Nableezy should have gotten a ban though. I say that as someone who is often on the other side of various issues from him. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Nableezy

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Accusations of POV bias are unwelcome.

I have zero interest in these things, and I furthermore, consider them disruptive. I highly recommend everyone carefully go through their statements and decide if what they have to say is truly on point. We are here to discuss whether Sandstien's decision was correct in the first place, and relatedly, whether there is an independent reason to lift the ban.--Tznkai (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We appear to have exhausted any useful contributions to this discussion, and from the above, it appears the only admins here intending or capable to act on this request are myself and Sandstein, and due to the unique procedural history here, that seems like a wheelwar waiting to happen.

If I have read the above correctly, we have a couple of major problems. The first is Nableezy's topic ban by AGK was a bit confusing. When the original thread came up I confirmed with AGK that he did not intend to exclude Nableezy from AfD discussions. (As a side note, Nableezy was never sanctioned under West Bank). The second one is the confusing signals from multiple admins functioning in a strange (and possibly defective) environment and that issue there is no clear answer or one likley to come. The third and most important, is that Nableezy did not - as it would have behooved him to - link specifically to the past clarifications or insist that AGK or myself update the sanction logs. Unlike most courts of law that I am aware of however, we do not, for better or worse, have published rules of procedure and trained advocates to navigate them. I think it is unfair and unwise to punish sanctioned editors for providing a procedurally defective defense at the time an issue came up, especially in light of what has been brought up now.

In light of the information in the above thread, I do not intend to enforce Nableezy's ban, discourage other admins from enforcing it, and I highly recommend to Sandstein that it be modified.--Tznkai (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. In view of the tenor of the discussion above, and because the matter is now becoming too confusing for most outsiders to follow and usefully comment on, the ban is hereby lifted in the hope that Nableezy will not engage in any conduct that will require its reimposition. I will log this on the case page. 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Questions for article:
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /vhosts/wikipedia.openfun.org/wikipedia/index.php on line 1154

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Contents

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (2)

Statement by The Four Deuces

Articles about Eastern European emigres and their organizations

Statement by Martintg

Response to Steve

Response to Fifelfoo

Response to Commodore Sloat

Statement by Fifelfoo

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Statement by Vecrumba

Statement by uninvolved Nsk92

Statement by Biruitorul

Statement by Igny

Statement by Radek

Response to Steve

Response to csloat

Comment by Biophys

Statement by Commodore Sloat

response to responders

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Statement by Abd

Statement by LessHeard vanU

Statement by Mathsci

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Statement by Durova

Statement by MastCell

Statement by GoRight

Motion

Statement by Enric Naval

Statement by JzG

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

Statement by Biruitorul

Statement by Martintg

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: ARB9/11 (Thomas Basboll's topic ban)

Modification of topic ban

Statement by Thomas Basboll

Statement by Henrik

Statement by John Vandenberg

Statement by Tznkai

Statement by JzG

Statement by Tom Harrison

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: Asmahan (2)

Amendment 1

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Statement by John Vandenberg

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Statement by other editor

Further discussion

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: Obama articles

Amendment 1

Statement by Sceptre

Amendment 2

Statement by Sceptre

Statement by Scjessey

Request to be withdrawn from this Amendment

Response to statement by ChildofMidnight

Response to statement by Bigtimepeace

Statement by ChildofMidnight

Statement by Bigtimepeace

Further discussion