Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 45

---

Initiated by GregJackP Boomer! at 13:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Fringe science arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 1: Relevant comparisions
2. Principle 2: Citations
3. Finding 1: ScienceApologist
4. Remedy 1: ScienceApologist topic banned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [1] (diff of notification of this thread on ScienceApologist's talk page)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Relevant comparisons
• Clarification that a significant minority view (see WP:UNDUE) is not WP:FRINGE if one can identify prominent adherents, such as scientists Anthony Watts, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels or any of the ones listed at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming indicate that there is a significant minority or in some cases an "Alternative theoretical formulations" as noted in the WP:NPOV/FAQ#Balancing_different_views and are not WP:FRINGE. The statement in a previous ArbCom case that ScienceApologist was involved in, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Alternative theoretical formulations, may be appropriate with little to no modification.

ScienceApologist views all dissent from the consensus scientific view as WP:FRINGE. An article on a book was nominated and assessed for GA status, passing here. Within 24 hours, ScienceApologist began an individual reassessment with an edit summary of "to fail." In numerous comments, ScienceApologist misapplies WP:FRINGE, analyzing the science that the book is written about instead of the book. See [2], [3] and [4]. In addition, ScienceApologist equates skepticism with denialism, as shown [5],

Greg's definition of "fringe" doesn't seem right. AIDS denialism is a fringe view by any reasonable definition; yet I can easily name prominent adherents, including a member of the National Academies of Science, a Nobel Prize winner, and a former head of state. That makes it a notable fringe view. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Content ruling, beyond arbcom remit. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Citations
• Clarification that citations need to actually state what they are purported to represent and say.

ScienceApologist has misrepresented what references actually state, and has misrepresented that the articles referenced are peer-reviewed when they are not. See below, Statement by GregJackP (3) for diffs and details.

Statement by GregJackP that I "misrepresented what references actually state" and "misrepresented that the articles referenced are peer-reviewed when they are not" are both disputed by myself. No amendment of this sort is necessary.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist
• ScienceApologist has misapplied WP:FRINGE and has misrepresented sources to at least one article, continuing to edit aggressively from a WP:POV position, in spite of earlier sanctions and despite having been cautioned to: "to respect all policies and guidelines," he has attempted to insert negative information into a BLP.

ScienceApologist inserted negative BLP information [6], [7] stating that 3 references were peer-reviewed and that they stated that Anthony Watts was a global warming "denialist" when the references ([8], [9] and [10] (I can forward the last one to any ArbCom member that does not have access to this journal)) stated "skeptic" and were not peer-reviewed articles. He continues to assert that they are peer-reviewed and say denialist ([11], [12], [13], [14]) even when it is pointed out to him by Marknutley ([15], [16], [17], [18]), by GregJackP ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), by Slowjoe17 (as BLP vio, [24]), by NuclearWarfare ([25]), and by Polargeo ([26]).

Part mentioning me struck. I was only seeking clarification on the issue; I didn't get a chance to look into the issue fully. NW (Talk) 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on my post re NW: the diff was to illustrate that you read the 3rd ref, did not see any evidence of Watts being labeled a "denialist" and asked ScienceApologist to clarify where it came from. It was not meant to indicate that you warned him nor that you took any administrative actions against him. GregJackP Boomer! 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Claims of a BLP-violation seem specious since there is currently acknowledgment on the talkpage that a line identifying Anthony Watts as a denialist/skeptic/anti-environmentalist should exhist in the lead, perhaps with different wording than what I suggested. Whether inserting information that a living person is a "skeptic" or a "denialist" when sources are provided to that effect is a content dispute: beyond arbcom remit.
2. Determining whether "skeptic" and "denialist" are synonyms or not is a content dispute beyond arbcom remit.
3. Claims that the references are not peer-reviewed are subject to debate as to the strict or loose definitions of peer review within the fields of the social sciences. This discussion is not easily decided as a simple "yes" or "no". Additionally, with the sole exception of one diff from Polargeo, all the evidence above submitted is communication exclusively from editors with an acknowledged bone-to-pick with mainstream climate science and related issues. The statement made by Polargeo started a fruitful discussion on his talkpage that was resolved to my satisfaction. Discussion as to what that will ultimately entail is still ongoing. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming skepticism which is a currently-active AfD on a newly created article by GregJackP who created the article to prove his point.
4. All areas of dispute resolution have not been exhausted before bringing this here, and there is no indication that arbcom should get involved at this time.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist topic banned
• ScienceApologist should be topic banned from all articles dealing with WP:FRINGE, pseudoscience, climate change, or other areas involving minority scientific views, including related BLPs, interpreted broadly.

It is clear based on ScienceApologist's edit history and block/sanction history that there is a problem in his view of WP:FRINGE that has resulted in a number of disruptive or BLP issues. Previous attempts to address this problem area have not been successful, as noted above. A topic ban as outlined, which can be reviewed at some point in the future, may give him time to reflect and/or seek a mentor that perhaps can help him understand these issues. Until that occurs, it is best for Wikipedia that he not edit in these areas.

The topic ban in question expired on December 12, 2009.

Since then, I have been subject to zero blocks.

No arbitration enforcement whatsoever has been requested or applied to my account since then until this malformed request.

Recommend dismissal on the basis of a bad faith filing and a sanctioning of the editor who brought this malformed request for amendment to this page since Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Until eight days ago, I have no recollection of ever encountering GregJackP.

I criticized a review that GregJackP did of The Real Global Warming Disaster, which is a book written from the perspective of global warming denialism about the history of global warming. The reassessment was challenged by GregJackP's acknowledged IRL friend, User:Minor4th who seemed to delight in his discovery that I was sanctioned by arbcom two years ago and then went on to write a summary dissent of my review explicitly referencing this. GregJackP then took over the job of being a enforcer of his idealization of Wikipedia rules and regulations and GregJackP then explicitly threatened me with retaliation at a separate article. He then went on to poison the well on the original article.

I normally take such attacks, which are common in the areas to which I contribute, in stride. The ideological battleground mentality of certain actors in fringe science areas is inescapable, in spite of some distasteful tactics, contributions from a wide range of people can be valuable to Wikipedia. I recommend that this malformed enforcement request be summarily dismissed with a caution to GregJackP about filing frivolous enforcement requests in the future. Allowing this kind of activity will encourage a situation similar to that which existed on this page two years ago when dozens of frivolous and ultimately dismissed enforcement requests were filed against me over the period of a year.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@Krill. I agree, and I have notified him of this request, but I don't know how to get him to reply here. I would note that he has made comments on Polargeo's talk page showing that he is aware of this request. GregJackP Boomer! 01:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
@Steve Smith. How can I clarify these issues? I do not intend Amendment 1 to be in regards to content at all, nor to fix exact boundaries. I believe that ScienceApologist views anything that is not the consensus view as WP:FRINGE (based on his comments) and is applying that standard to non-science articles, such as an article on a book that happens to be critical of the science. The key factor should be if the book itself is notable, and its reception, not whether the book was reviewed by scientists or peer-reviewed journals before it can be considered notable or to meet the standards for a Good Article designation. I did not view that as a content issue, but a procedural or policy issue. On Amendment 2, no admin has taken any action, although it is a clear violation of policy on referencing, but if this should not be here, my apologies. Where would I take that issue, if this is not the right venue? I view Amendments 3 & 4 as being closely related, should I combine those into one amendment? This is the first issue that I have brought here, so if I have made an error on something, it was not intentional, nor intended to be disrespectful of your time and attention. If I can fix any of the issues to be framed in a different manner to be in compliance with your guidelines, I will be happy to do so. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As ScienceApologist is a main participant in this, Rlevse should recuse. [27] Cardamon (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that parties not bother ArbCom with this and instead head to the CC Sanctions board. That board is active until further notice. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw this enforcement action being developed, that's where I thought we were headed. I'm surprised it ended up here. I was going to not comment at all, but the arbitrators actually asked for a statement from me. I obliged them. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Given ScienceApologist's lengthy history in front of the Committee, I've actually been struck by the change in his approach (for the better) in his editing over the past few months. I don't really see the grounds for imposing an editing restriction at present, particularly not the extremely broad restriction proposed by Greg. It seems to me that 90% of Greg's complaint is based on simple disagreement with SA, and the remaining 10% consists of gray areas that seem to have been resolved in any case. MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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

• It doesn't look like any action will be taken at this time (at least not here; there is a parallel request open at WP:GS/CC/RE). Can this be archived? NW (Talk) 23:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a response from ScienceApologist before we consider this further. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In response to GregJackP, we'll give him a few days to make statements here. Ultimately, though, if he doesn't want to participate, we're just going to start without him, which is unlikely to be in his best interests. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Recuse. Risker (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Amendment 1, as proposed, is a complete non-starter in my books: first, it drags ArbCom far too deep into evaluating an individual content dispute, one which we're entirely unqualified to resolve. The case already makes clear that there is a category between fringe science and majority scientific view, and an attempt to fix exactly where those boundaries are, especially with respect to a specific area of science, is beyond both our mandate and our competence. Amendment 2 is nonsense; if a hypothetical editor is currently not adhering to that rule, which is plainly stated in policy, what reason is there to believe that that editor would suddenly start adhering to it once it was plainly re-stated by ArbCom? I do not understand what action Amendment 3 is proposing, unless it is merely a justification for Amendment 4. I will have to investigate Amendment 4 further before commenting, with that investigation ideally to include reading a statement from ScienceApologist on the matter. Steve Smith (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Waiting for response from ScienceApologist. Carcharoth (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree with MastCell (and take no action), but would add that ScienceApologist needs more than anything else to rein in any aggressive aspects to his postings. If he finds himself being annoyed by what others are saying, find ways to take a break or rephrase replies. It is a fine line between strong arguments for what you are saying, and being dismissive of what others are saying. I think both ScienceApologist and GregJackP are capable of sorting things out here if they make the effort, and possibly with help from others if they continue to end up in disputes. Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Remain recused. Cool Hand Luke 14:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see anything here that requires ArbCom intervention. Issues over content should first go through lower levels of dispute resolution (and aren't likely to gain tranction at ArbCom ever); other issues seem to be requests for enforcement rather than something that would require amending a case. Shell ^babelfish 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• I think I am going to decline these amendments, that no action needs to be taken at this time, and agree with Carcharoth about the suggestion on how this should go. SirFozzie (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues that intervention by the committee at this time would not be useful. — Coren ^(talk) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by Lightmouse (talk) at 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedies

• 7.1): "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."

• 8): "Lightmouse is limited to using only the account 'Lightmouse' to edit."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

• Jarry1250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [28] (diff of notification of this thread on Jarry1250's talk page)

• 7.1) amended to: "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia, except that he is permitted to do so in the field of ‘units of measure’ on a three-month trial basis, under the supervision of User:Jarry1250."

• 8) amended to "Lightmouse is limited to using only the account 'Lightmouse' to edit, except that during the three-month trial he is permitted to use the account 'Lightbot' to edit only in the field of units of measure, under the supervision of User:Jarry1250, in accordance with the relevant section of the BAG approval.¹"

I've been a Wikipedian for more than six years, and have played a key role in ensuring that metric and non-metric units are provided in the clearest and most conventional ways for our international readers. I was early in recognising the value of automation for janitorial work in such a large, global project, and taught myself automation skills. I believe I have significantly benefited Wikipedia. Many editors have used and continue to use my scripts; some have been inspired to create their own.

I edited first as Bobblewik (talk · contribs), then as Editore99 (talk · contribs), then (from 2007) as Lightmouse (talk · contribs). The name changes were due to forgotten passwords. I created two bot accounts: Bobblebot (talk · contribs) (unused) and Lightbot (talk · contribs).

I became a key player in encouraging a more discerning approach to internal linking, particularly dates and times. In the early days this resulted in a number of blocks. I probably didn't respond in the right way to sysops who blocked me, finding it easy to think of them as "involved". I believe I’ve learned from this. I’ve always been polite to users who have questioned my edits.

Finding the adversarial atmosphere of the case difficult to cope with, I ultimately declined to defend myself. I now regret my failure to participate properly, which I realise is frowned upon. I was strongly criticised during the case over a bot application to BAG in which I failed to declare previous usernames, and blocks thereunder. I realise this lack of transparency on my part made me look untrustworthy. My wikifriends have convinced me not to state that I didn’t appreciate the significance of this lack of disclosure because it would not be credible to the Committee. I can only apologise for my actions and for any other perceived indiscretions, and state that I have learned from these situations.

Since my return after the 12-month ban I have resumed manual janitorial work. I would like the chance to show good faith in the use of my skills in automation for the benefit of the project. Therefore, I am applying for an amendment to two of the three current remedies so that I might return in an open, narrowly defined way to automated editing. A sysop member of the BAG, Jarry1250 (talk · contribs), has agreed to supervise my contributions during a trial period. Lightmouse (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia benefits from experienced automation experts such as Lightmouse. When I first became aware of Lightmouse, I found that he was always acutely sensitive to feedback from upset editors after a bot produced unexpected and undesirable results. He quickly (typically in a matter of hours) would tweak the code to make the bot properly deal with whatever novel situations arose. Much of the to-do with Lightmouse’s involvement with date-related bot activities arose from his moving forward when he believed a clear community consensus existed on date linking. In the end, the consensus he believed existed at that time proved to be well founded and is the current consensus today—and our guidelines reflect that consensus. Since the date-related conflict was rather unique (a particularly contentious issue with impassioned editors on both sides), there is no reason to think that Lightmouse can’t be trusted to go back to doing what he did before he got swept up in the date-jihad maelstrom: make and run sophisticated bots that improve Wikipedia far more consistently and faster than humans can. Greg L (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have found Lightmouse proactive, reactive, and curteous at all times. Lightmouse has been a great inspiration to me, not only because he demonstrated to me that he cares deeply about the project, but also because he understands the potential benefits of automation for this project, which is filled with quirky inconsistencies due to the inherent collaborative nature that lend themselves well to standardisation and automated maintenance. I missed his presence from the project, and have been motivated thus to take up scripting myself - of course, I cannot fill the huge gap left by Lightmouse. His remorse appears sincere and heartfelt; his gradual return to automation, under the parameters laid out appears to be well thought out, and seems to me to correctly balance the safeguards which the project may reasonably expect with the right of editors to engage in automation. I heartily support this appeal. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I too have always found Lightmouse helpful and unfailingly courteous, and always willing to act promptly to fix any problems (which were few) in his scripts and bot. I believe that WP has benefited greatly from his involvement and will continue to do so if he's allowed to use his skills to the full. I heartily support this request. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read the statements by Users Greg L, Ohconfucius, and Colonies Chris. I would like to say that my own experience strongly supports what they say. Tony (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much more I can add to the above, except to say that I wholeheartedly agree.  HWV258.  09:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't say anything else about Lightmouse without repeating what those above me have already said, so I won't. I urge the ArbCom to give Lightmouse a second chance, as they have with other parties to the date delinking case. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have, to the best of my knowledge, never interacted with Lightmouse before this present appeal - that is to say, I have no prior axes to grind, only good faith. Okay. So now I think about it, it seems the best plan is thus (and I shall post this suggestion to Lightmouse's talk momentarily): 1) Lightmouse submits a new (date/unit) BRFA; 2 or 3) The BRFA is endorsed by Arbcom - they amend prior remedies to allow its passage; 3 or 2) The BRFA passes (or fails) the standard process, which will include a short trial. 4) Instead of being free to continue as he pleases, Lightmouse will remain under trial conditions for three months. Put simply, he will be on best behaviour and expected to be a top operator in responding to comments and complaints; he will be expected to, and I will, check a sample of his own edits at regular intervals; admins and others will be more heavy-handed in stopping the bot from continuing. That is my recommendation at least. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. The BRFA will be called 'Lightbot 4'. It will be a copy of the units of measure section of Lightbot 3. It will not contain any reference to dates. Thus the text will be:

"I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing units of measure in a variety of forms.

• A 'unit of measure' is any sequence of characters that relates to measurement of things. This includes but is not limited to units defined by the BIPM SI, the US NIST or any other weights and measures organisation or none at all. This includes but is not limited to time, length, area, volume, mass, speed, power.
• Edits may add or modify metric or non-metric units.
• Edits may modify the format.
• Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve units.
• Edits may add, remove or modify links to units."

If I need to start the BRFA now, just let me know. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

BRFA started, as directed by Kirill. See BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Lightbot_4. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to pick up on one point made above, add a general point about bots such as this, and point out one illuminating exchange that occurred elsewhere.

• (1) Ohconfucius talks above about "...the potential benefits of automation for this project, which is filled with quirky inconsistencies due to the inherent collaborative nature that lend themselves well to standardisation and automated maintenance". In my opinion, this strikes to the heart of the conflicts that arise between those who would like to see the guidelines presented in the Manual of Style implemented and enforced across the entirety of Wikipedia with the use of bots, and those who think that such an approach will create more drama and conflict than it is worth (as individual editors and groups of editors object to bots sweeping through and making changes that at times seem arcane to those who have not followed the discussions at the Manual of Style). The fundamental divide is between those who want to see order and consistency brought to pages across the whole of Wikipedia, and those who think an organic process is better and less disruptive. I would have thought a wider debate on precisely when automation on this sort of scale is needed (and when it is not needed) would be a good idea, and would be a good idea for any process that has the potential to affect every page on the whole of Wikipedia.
• (2) In my experience with bots such as this, a common problem is that they try to do too much and over-reach. Even the best bot operator in the world will get overwhelmed if they try to run a bot that makes thousands of similar but slightly different changes, that many people won't understand. Such bots need to be split into smaller tasks and those who frequent the Manual of Style pages and support such bots should have the patience to wait for a series of smaller tasks to be run, rather than everything being done in one go.
• (3) There are still levels of aggression, incivility and battling to be seen with those who support this and similar proposals. The first two editors above (Greg L and Ohconfucius) who showed enthusiastic support for Lightmouse were also the first two editors from this request to turn up at the bot request (where a discussion was already in progress), where they promptly escalated matters with these edits: [29], [30], [31] (note the reference to gatekeepers, enemas, and the gratuitous insertion of a link to an image depicting a 'gatekeeper'). Tony1 was quick to intervene and restrain them with this advice, and Dabomb87 moved the comments to the talk page, but I would suggest arbitrators consider what happened there and whether any form of restrictions are needed to prevent a similar dynamic arising again where a familiar group of users turn up to use inflammatory language to defend Lightmouse, his bot, or his proposals.

I hope that some of the problems that occurred with this sort of approach in the past can be avoided here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I agree Greg's and Ohconfucius's comments were a bit over-the-top and reminiscent of the old toxic MOSNUM discussions, but I think further restrictions, given that this was a one-time incident quickly contained, would be a bit much. Of course, if that occurs again, I couldn't blame you (or rather, the non-recused ArbCom members) for pursuing additional action. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. My intentions didn’t come through as I had intended and I must apologize for my post, now located here. When I wrote that, I perceived that Lightmouse was the recipient of unnecessary third-degree by Anomie. But, apparently that is a legitimate role of Anomie’s so I shouldn’t have criticized him for being out of line. I am truly sorry for that. As for my “gratuitous” image when I linked to “gatekeeper” I had intended that to be a bit of humor to defuse the seriousness of the matter. Seeing Carcharoth’s reaction, I clearly failed at that too, and just made things even more serious. For that too, I apologize. Greg L (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• What Greg said. I apologise. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot say this request encourages me. The best summary of the situation is this comment from Anomie: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4 is a vague request (it took a while even to get specifics out of Lightmouse) for a general-purpose bot which can do anything Lightmouse fancies on a wide array of topics, some of which aren't even units.

The assertion above that Lightmouse is particularly competent at automation seems rather doubtful; he admits he cannot write a bot which will count how often it has edited a page or queue changes; he is unwilling or unable to produce a bot which will write edit summaries reflecting what it actually does; and I see no reason to believe that this bot (if overriden by a human editor), will not come back and revert war.

Anomie also remarks, correctly, that the request for approval is backed by Lightmouse's fanclub at MOSNUM; so - aside for Jarry (I hope he realizes what he is getting into) - is this request for amendment. This is the same group and the same situation as the date-delinking case; a small group of editors would very much like to make sweeping changes of format for which they have no consensus beyond themselves - so they want a bot to do whatever changes to units they decide they want. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, date-delinking was born out of a desire to improve WP. Date-delinking received enormous community support (via the various RfCs), and the end result of delinking was the removal of almost all linked dates (and date fragments) on millions of pages—something that has received little negative feedback. The hard-working and dedicated efforts of the "fanclub" [sic] should be commended as the results are a simpler and easy-to-use WP for all viewers and editors.  HWV258.  21:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly; all these disruptive initiatives have been produced by a desire to improve Wikipedia. The reason for the ArbCom decision was the absence of any consideration that others might not feel the same about what does improve it; this proposal that Lightmouse/Bobblewick, of all people, should have a general purpose bot to impose his whims shows that nothing has changed, and the children of Robespierre still wish to improve us, whatever we may want. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Quoting you, PMA: …children of Robespierre still wish to improve us. Robespierre is the architect of the Reign of Terror and was executed in a coup d'etat. The issue here is the technical merits of the bot. Calling others “children of Robespierre” was designed to provoke. I know that; you know that. Moreover, both “bot to impose his whims” and “[who] still wish to improve us” are failures to assume good faith and are arguably personal attacks. Please behave yourself if you are going to weigh in here. Greg L (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they are failures to observe good faith. It was a bad idea to give the Jacobins a guillotine; I'm not sure giving these doctrinaires a bot is a good idea either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• What is the status of this amendment request? As far as I can see, the bot request is still in progress (it has been open for 22 days and is still being edited), and that request needs to be either accepted, or modified and accepted, before any motions can be proposed here by arbitrators (per Kirill's statement: "Lightmouse/Jarry, please go ahead and move the request through BRFA; once it's verified and approved by BAG, we can pass the necessary motions on our end to allow you to actually implement it."). Until that happens, things here are on hold. As far as I can tell, the bot request isn't making very fast progress. I would also ask arbitrators to read through the bot request (both now, while it is in progress, and once it is closed) before proposing or voting on any motions. The underlying tension at the request seems to be between a desire on the one hand for simple bot requests that are easy to check, run trials on, and approve, and on the other hand a desire to have a more open-ended, flexible request approved, that allows the bot operator to reprogram the script without constantly going back to BAG. The problem being that open-ended requests are harder to assess and approve, which is (in my view) why the request is still open and struggling to make progress. Carcharoth (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that the user who I think has been the only active BAG member on this matter has now gone on vacation until 16 August. I have no idea about BAG processes, but I wonder whether it is possible for other BAG members to be requested to be a little more active. Tony (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Tony that other BAG members should be urged to comment. I think Carcharoth has a point about the inherent tension in the 'open' nature of the bot request, and the demands within the BAG for it to be firmly nailed down. I would like to remind all that the objective of this appeal is the first step in the rehabilitation of Lightmouse. On one hand, it is to give the community some sense of security that LM will not be allowed complete free reign to once again commit whatever 'errors' and 'negligences' he is alleged to have committed; OTOH, it is as much for Lightmouse to demonstrate that, without being put into a straightjacket where he cannot possibly do anything wrong (after all, what's the point?), he is responsive and capable of running a bot in a responsible manner.

  That the BAG operation should fall within the auspices of Arbcom in this particular instance may be a factor in the low participation rate there. The balance is not being struck apparently because an unnecessary complication – behavioural considerations – has been brought in. IMHO, behavioural matters are Arbcom's province; the BAG's role thus ought to be limited to technical considerations. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• With apologies to Gatoclass, I would like to add here for the record the following diff: [32]. I don't think it is ever too late to bring up points such as that made by Gatoclass (and later withdrawn). I would actually like to see links to the discussions Gatoclass refers to, and those links should at a minimum be supplied to any BAG discussion, and arguably any BAG approval could be invalidated unless notification was given at the venues where this has been discussed before. Of course, Gatoclass may have missed other discussions, so what is really needed is a full and honest listing and assessment of past and present discussions about this subject. Hopefully that can happen and ArbCom will consider how many people took part in or were notified of the BAG discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an update. We have been in discussion at BAG for a month and a bit about reviving Lightbot with just the units of measure component. I thought it was simply matter of restating the previous Lightbot BRFA with just the units component, and amending if needed based on real examples of where it may have made systematic errors. Unfortunately, I was wrong about that top-down approach.

I'm now proposing a very limited trial (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4) with just a small set of units. It is possible to use automation to maintain/convert units of measure. Using automation to maintain/convert units is a 'good thing' and I'm sure we'll find a way. There aren't many editors contributing to the discussion and it'd be useful to have a wider range of views. Feel free to comment there. Lightmouse (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous debate at BAG (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4) became bogged down in detail. A new discussion (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5) but I'm not sure when that will end. As far as Arbcom is concerned, the connection with BAG and Lightbot is only relevant to:

• remedy (8) "Lightmouse is limited to using only the account 'Lightmouse' to edit."

I had thought that the BAG revival of the unit portion of Lightbot would be a mere administrative matter. I was wrong. Some editors involved in the date delinking debate (from both sides) have become involved in the debate about units. Nobody (apart from me) appears to be considering moving forward to a trial. So we're still a long way off. The caution is understandable but it may lead to the debate taking a lot longer. It may also lead to BAG deciding not to revive the previous permit of Lightbot to add/maintain units.

Consequently, this is a formal request to Arbcom. Please allow progress by amending the remedy that also applies to the Lightmouse account:

• remedy (7.1) "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."

Add/maintain units is rather tedious work when done by hand. An amendment would allow me to do what many editors do, use a normal account to use semi-automation to add/maintain units of measure. Hopefully, the new fear, uncertainty and doubt relating to bot usage for similar tasks will be resolved at some point in the future. Lightmouse (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

• Recuse, as I presented evidence in this case. Steve Smith (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse as I recused in the original case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Have now made a statement above. 01:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Lightmouse, I am willing to give you another chance to engage in automation work, provided that it is done under appropriate supervision from BAG to ensure that we don't fall back into any repeats of your past conflicts. Having said that, the Lightbot 3 BAG approval request included a number of functions that are not relevant to what you seem to be proposing, or that would be inappropriate in the current circumstances. I would like to see a current statement from BAG indicating specifically which functions you will be performing during this trial, and how they will monitor the results, before we move forward. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Lightmouse/Jarry, please go ahead and move the request through BRFA; once it's verified and approved by BAG, we can pass the necessary motions on our end to allow you to actually implement it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Generally I agree with Kirill; I'd like to make sure we've got the details down before going any further here. Shell ^babelfish 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Per Kirill. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with Kirill; I'd like to see the BAG reviews before implementation but, if all looks good, then it will be a straightforward matter. Risker (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed as well. I'm not opposed to allowing a BAG reviewed automated process. — Coren ^(talk) 13:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• As long as it's reviewed by the appropriate people and the details made clear, I have no problem with it. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed, broadly per Kirill.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• I generally agree with my colleagues who have commented on this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there any update on the status of this, or currently pending request for action? If necessary, this request should be withdrawn and re-filed when it is ready for action. I don't think it's a good practice for requests to stay open on this page indefinitely. (This is a process point, not a criticism of anyone.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The current configuration is wholly dependent on BAG. I thought BAG would simply revive the relatively uncontroversial non-date portion of Lightbot. Unfortunately, those involved in the date delinking dispute (on both sides) have become involved. I think we'd get an early and defendable decision if we had a new BAG application (e.g. Lightbot 6) with contributions only from editors uninvolved with date delinking. Also, did you see my [formal request]? I don't want the one year restriction to go much further into its second year. Lightmouse (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Is it possible to make progress on this? Lightmouse (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Given that we're essentially waiting for BAG in any case, I don't see any need for this to remain an open issue from our end. I've proposed a motion below to leave this in BAG's hands. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you. However, the requested amendment to 7.1 was to be "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia, except that he is permitted to do so in the field of ‘units of measure’...". This would allow me to use the Lightmouse account to do routine script-assisted work related to units of measure that I used to do (and many editors still do, even with variants of code I may have written myself) as a non-bot. I may even use such non-bot work to support the case for a bot. The Kirill proposed amendment is welcome but it not only puts BAG in charge of a non-bot account (which is a variation from the normal BAG scope), but it also prevents the Lightmouse account from applying non-bot semi-automation to units of measure until the BAG debate ends with a 'yes' at some unspecified time in the future, and worse for me, it may end with a 'no'. Please can you consider the text I proposed which would not connect BAG to the non-bot activities. I hope you don't mind. Lightmouse (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You're free to ask BAG to simply authorize the semi-automated editing you'd like to do, independent of any bot request, and I see no particular reason why they would refuse to do so. However, given the problems we've had in the past, I'm not willing to give you a blanket permission to use automation—even in a very limited form—without having some sort of oversight from BAG in place. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Thanks for the reply. I'll ask BAG as you suggest. Lightmouse (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to post this (please relocate if not). I’m confused about the Motion and the Alternative Motion. Can someone help me understand the following issues?

1. It appears that the Motion permits LM to test proposed Lightbot functionality before taking the proposal to BAG either as a automation request or an amendment to an existing Lightbot approval. I’m picking up that most or all bot editors would regard this as good practice. On the face of it, the Alternative Motion appears to forbid such tests. Is this correct?
2. It appears that the Motion allows BAG to approve new applications and to amend an existing approval without reference to ArbCom. The Alternative Motion seems to require a separate application for amendment here, no matter how trivial the request change might be. I note Coren’s statement “to allow for ‘’one’’ approved bot task, giving us an opportunity to reevaluate the situation in a while”. Is this correct?
3. Can both motions apply at the same time? Tony (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• While I hope this won't be seen as encouragement to try and game around the amendment, it would cover the normal work around a 'bot task: That includes the usual dry runs in user space, the test runs okayed by BAG, and whatever minor tweaks are generally included in a single bot request. — Coren ^(talk) 11:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• And no, the motions can't apply at the same time: they are alternative to each other. The first proposed effectively lifting the restriction, the second allows for an exception only but leaves the restriction in place for the time being. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. On the basis of what you say, both motions permit testing of the BRFA functionality using the Lightmous account. Since one motion has passed, I'll start testing the BRFA functionality immediately to support the ongoing BRFA discussions. What'll happen if both motions get five votes? Lightmouse (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Normally, we then go with preferences, then with "least opposition". As a rule, though, we prefer it when things aren't that ambiguous and we'd work it out before enacting one or the other to clarify everyone's position. — Coren ^(talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Date delinking case is amended as follows:

1. Remedy #8 ("Lightmouse accounts") is rescinded.
2. Remedy #7.1 ("Lightmouse automation") is replaced with:

   Lightmouse is permitted to use automation only for tasks authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever.

There being 8 active Arbitrators, not counting 1 who is recused, the majority is 5

Support

1. Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
2. That pretty much covers the comments. Shell ^babelfish 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Equal preference for both motions for me at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Equal for both.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This goes too far in the other direction, given the amount of past trouble borne out of Lightmouse's well-intended but ultimately disruptive automated editing. I am amenable to supporting a loosening of the restrictions to allow for one approved bot task, giving us an opportunity to reevaluate the situation in a while. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Normally, I'd be a second choice here, but I think the other one is better, and both on the verge of passing, so, indicating my preference for the other one as such. SirFozzie (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Per Coren. - Mailer Diablo 20:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

Recuse

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Date delinking case is supplemented as follows:

Nonwithstanding remedies #7.1 and #8, Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever.

Enacted - Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There being 8 active Arbitrators, not counting 1 who is recused, the majority is 5

Support

1. Proposed. At the conclusion of that task, the Committee will be in a much better position to evaluate whether further relaxation of the restriction is warranted, and to what extent. — Coren ^(talk) 15:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
2. SirFozzie (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Equal preference to original motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Equal for both.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Better than nothing, but I expect the insistence on a single task will cause all sort of headaches for us down the line due to the distinction between the fully automated and semi-automated versions of the unit conversion BAG request. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Gradual return. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Sounds better. - Mailer Diablo 20:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
8. KnightLago (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. Carcharoth (talk) (implied by the other motion, — Coren ^(talk) 15:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

---

Initiated by Miami33139 (talk) at 06:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Tothwolf arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 1

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Tothwolf

• Tothwolf restricted
• This recently expired. It should be extended for one year without opening a new case. It should be amended to include making accusations.

[33] On the xpiration of his Arbcom sanctions, Tothwolf recently started an ANI discussion accusing me of hounding and harassing him again in the same manner that brought this issue to Arbcom the first time. He singled out the handful of deletions that involve him and his preferred editing area (IRC clients) from the dozens of deletion areas I have been working in (Table-top role-playing games, Web browsers, media players, firewall software, and other miscellaneous software).

In finding 3 of the Arbcom case it was found not credible that I was singling him out.

In finding 6 & 7, it was found that Tothwolf's repeated accusations (against many editors, including myself) were often in bad faith, against evidence to the contrary, and poor decorum.

Evidence in the Arbcom case showed Tothwolf has a history of "crying wolf" (making accusations) when people edit in his area.

In this ANI post, he is essentially repeating the accusations of persecution that he made about myself and others in the Arbcom case. He blames Arbcom for his troubles. I do not feel I should have to defend myself all over again when he has sympathetic administrators (his claim) on ANI ready to pounce on his accusations.

I understand that deletion of material often upsets people and I have acted at Arbcoms suggestion on my deletion activities. I have slowed down the rate of proposing deletion and deletion requests to be more managable. The overlap with Tothwolf is minor and not any sort of personal vendetta against him. Requesting MfD requests of deleted articles kept in userspace is simple followup of deletions made six months or a year ago.

Response to Seth Kellerman

2% of my editing in the last two month has any overlap with Tothwolf. None of these overlapping edits are about him. Even while nominating his two userspace articles at MfD I did not direct any commentary to or about him. His accusation that a small handful of edits are persecuting him are non-credible.

Response to Carcharoth

Do you actually think since after the close of the Arbcom case and prior to the ANI that my editing had any interaction with Tothwolf? My nominations of two of his userpages for MfD particularly avoided discussing him and only focused on the fact that the content was previously deleted and stale. How could I be harassing Tothwolf without interacting with him? Tothwolf needs to produce evidence, please, that predates the ANI discussion.

Response after Uncle G

I see based on Uncle G description, how the timing of the MfD of Tothwolf userpages could appear baiting. It was not. I did know which article Tothwolf kept in userspace and did mean to ask to be deleted. It was not timed for baiting purpose. I knew it was many months since they were deleted at AfD. I verified they had not been worked on since deletion. I nominated. All I ask is AGF. Uncle G was actually inflammatory role here. Uncle G advertising MfD in various places, using phrases like "flaring up" "not wise" and "being gamed" and highly suggestive of his opinion. This drew !voters questioning motives rather than the straight content issues raised about WP:FAKEARTICLE. WP:FAKEARTICLE is a standard rationale at MfD. These MfD would have concluded without drama had Uncle G not advertised them.

Uncle G show no other evidence, except bad faith on my motive, that I harass Tothwolf or that my editing shows substantial interest in Tothwolf. I have no interest in Tothwolf other than followup to delete articles in userspace that were previously deleted. I have been engage at userspace issues two years before any intersection with Tothwolf [34].

Uncle G raise deletion activity which is not at all related to Tothwolf and Uncle G show no connection to Tothwolf in my activity. Uncle G claim I have not adjusted my actions towards deletion. Prior to Arbcom I would propose or nominate many pages each day for deletion. After Arbcom I do maybe one per day. I have nominate for deletion less than 20 Wikipedia articles in more than two months, which is a drastic change. Uncle G claim I am careless about deletion. In fact, of last nine closed AfD where I nominate, 5 were deleted with consensus of community. 2 were close as no consensus. 2 were keep. I do not think this is a record showing carelessness.

My deletions have nothing to do with Tothwolf or any other volunteer. I follow a template like Template:Web browser or Category:Open source games and open each article. The ones which look bad, I nominate. Another volunteer is heavily interested in web browser or open source games so Tothwolf "stalking tool" will show overlap between our edits and he claim I stalk other volunteer. This type of accusation is most frustrating to me!

Uncle G also has a different Wikipedia philosophy than me, and is hardly neutral towards my deletion activity which is why he raised it. Uncle G take out of context my statement "I vote delete on everything" from a prior AfD. I made that comment because I rarely vote Keep. I do not vote Keep often because other editors have already said it and my opinion not necessary. I made that statement to give weight to fact that I voted Keep on that AfD. Uncle G also has philosophy about sourcing requirement of articles. Uncle G claim at AfD that people like me are required to put source in article. Untrue according to Wikipedia guideline, it is burden of person adding material to add source material. It is indeed, "Somebody Else's Problem" to source article. This is basic conflict of Wikipedia editing and deletion philosopy between Uncle G and myself but this is a schism between all volunteers on Wikipedia. My own opinion, that material should be cited before it goes into article, is not unique [35] and even agrees with Jimbo, that unreference material should be deleted [36]. I should not be punish for disagreeing with Uncle G on Wikipedia philosophy.

Uncle G raise significant issue with evidence on questionable deletion activity involve JBsupreme. He can defend himself. When reading Uncle G statement, be careful to differentiate JBsupreme edits from mine. I should not be punish for JBsupreme activity. JBsupreme obviously in contradictory philosophy to Uncle G too.

Uncle G make some claim about Theserialcomma. He can defend himself. Undoubtedly Theserialcomma have Tothwolf pages on his watchlist and follow to MfD. His involvement on WP sporadic for several months. Since at least April I see no other intersection between him and Tothwolf. I hardly think two delete !votes[37] constitute some major Wikipedia crime or evidence of baiting.

This stems from an ANI initiated by Tothwolf at Wikipedia:ANI#Wikihounding_and_disruptive_editing.3F

As an outside observer it appears to me that Tothwolf has been failed by the wikipedia system repeatedly throughout this ordeal. Baiting is difficult to demonstrate, and more difficult to demonstrate without walls of text. Tothwolf tends to be verbose and disorganized with providing difs, and he (IMO) Plaxicoed himself during the case itself with his brazen taunting (i.e. repeatedly telling others to "kick rocks"). Tothwolf's actions during the case were not excusable, however, Principle 3 states Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards. It is disappointing that such little scrutiny was given to the behavior of Miami, JBSupreme and Theserialcomma, especially with such a parade of users who suffered bad experiences at their hands submitting evidence.

Furthermore, there appears to be much consensus among editors that Miami was attempting to deliberately provoke Tothwolf.

• Miami nominated userfied articles within Tothwolf's userspace for deletion. I have no difs to provide as the articles have been moved several times and may be deleted, but Miami should not have done this.
• In response to Tothwolf's post on ANI, Miami responds with "tl;dr" [38], he has yet to explain why he chose to do that.
  • In that same dif, he said "Paranoid ramblings of Tothwolf", "Other than his walled garden, I ain't following his editing or hounding him", "enough paranoia", "paranoid ranting"
• Miami subsequently posts on JBSupreme's talk page "Call the Waaaambulance that same old someone had a fit again."
• Miami posts the same on Theserialcomma's talk page, with the addition of an edit summary "whine one one"
• Despite requests from myself and Crossmr, Miami has declined to explain why he mocked Tothwolf with "tl;dr". He justified the taunting posts on the talk pages of JBSurpreme and Theserialcomma based on Tothwolf not having notified them of the ANI discussion.

In conclusion.

• Miami33139 and JBSurpeme are in violation of policies WP:HARASS, WP:CIVIL, WP:BAIT and WP:HOUND.
• The sanction against Tothwolf, that he shall not cast aspersions without evidence, is irrelevant as the general consensus on ANI is that he has evidence and that he has a good reason to feel he is being hounded.

Seth Kellerman (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Further comments in regards to Miami33139 and JBSupreme's participation in deletion discussions. Finding 3 of the arbitration case states Miami33139 and JBsupreme are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing. Although I am admittedly ignorant of all things IRC and not a good judge of reliability of sources and thus notability of software, I can see bad deletion discussions.

It does appear that Miami has improved his deletion practices somewhat. His AfD nominations have all been reasonable. I am still seeing the old "That source isn't notable enough" arguments in other discussions, though.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orion_Network_Licensing_Platform (Miami argues with Hobit over whether a mention in a reliable source is trivial)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Labyrinth_Lord ("The Ennie awards are a bunch of fandom nerds.")

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shuttle_Inc. Although Miami votes keep, he comments "I vote delete on everything".

It does not appear that JBSupreme has improved his deletion practices any more than he improved his civility. I am particularly concerned about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_mobile_Internet_Relay_Chat_clients_(2nd_nomination). This discussion was initiated by JBSupreme, with Miami33139 showing up to support him. This article was kept nearly unanimously during its first AfD, with the only delete !votes being JBSupreme and Miami33139. As of this posting, during the second AfD, again the only delete !votes are from JB and Miami.

I also find Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Hm2k/MIRCStats symptomatic of WP:HOUND

Seth Kellerman (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am uninvolved w/ the case, but left some comment on the AN/I discussion. With regard to the furor over the use of tl;dr, perhaps he felt that totwolf's comments were too long, and didn't read them? I know it was probably meant to mock the editor, but how much blood can be squeezed from that turnip? The comments were retracted. Protonk (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I know I made some huge mistakes in allowing myself to be baited back in December while the original case was open. While not an excuse for my own behaviour in how I responded, at the time I was extremely frustrated with how long the case had been dragging out without any resolution to the wikihounding, baiting, taunting, etc which was still ongoing. I also know the evidence I presented during the case [39] may have actually been too detailed, potentially making it difficult to parse.

I believe I also made a mistake when I presented evidence during the case which focused mainly on my own interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139 and JBsupreme. It was later explained to me that it might have been better had I focused more on showing how they had been doing similar things to other editors. Towards that end, as I mentioned on AN/I, while I was blocked by Sandstein I spent a considerable amount of time reviewing and documenting both my and other editors' interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme. That documentation can be found here. While the sections which cover Miami33139 and JBsupreme's behaviour and interactions with other editors are far from complete, the section which covers Theserialcomma's behaviour [40] is fairly complete and gives a pretty good overview of their interactions with other editors. Note that while that page is currently protected from editing by the general public, it can be transwikied if needed.

The statement made by Uncle G to which Carcharoth referred to below was on WP:AC/N. [41] I had replied to Uncle G via email after he left a notification on my talk page [42] of the two MFDs which Miami33139 had initiated. [43] [44] When Miami33139 initiated those MFDs, I hadn't even edited since June, [45] which as I explained on AN/I was due to the combination of the continued wikihounding and my workload. As I also mentioned on AN/I, Theserialcomma and JBsupreme also became involved in these two MFDs. [46] [47] [48] [49] At the time Theserialcomma became involved, they were not even actively editing. [50]

I'd also really like to see JBsupreme provide an answer for the question DGG raised in one of the above MFDs [51] as the answer which JBsupreme gave previously [52] seems to be more of a dodge than an answer.

Another example of the continued disruptive behaviour can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ircle. I think this AfD is representative of the continued disruption and misuse of deletion processes by these individuals. This article was nominated for deletion by Miami33139 shortly after I contested the prod deletion with the admin who deleted it. There are other articles that were similarly prodded/deleted which should also be contested, but that is not something I have the time to work on right now. While not showing the larger pattern, the edit history for {{IRC footer}} [53] will begin to help show why Miami33139 has intentionally targeted articles like Ircle which are within the scope of WP:WPIRC.

Upon Miami33139's return, not only did he resume his wikihounding of myself, but also other editors. An extreme case can be seen in Miami33139's interactions with Beyond My Ken (and his former usernames). Beyond My Ken also made a statement regarding Miami33139's behaviour which should also be taken into account. The wikihounding of Beyond My Ken by Miami33139 can be easily seen in the edit histories of the articles from these links: [54] [55] [56] Note the massive numbers of automated or semi-automated edits by Miami33139 which remove Beyond My Ken's changes to the articles. I also noticed that the script Miami33139 uses for this task doesn't function properly in that it often improperly re-orders navigational and stub templates and removes intentional formatting changes which fix things like bunched-up edit links.

While this is an incomplete list, other editors which Miami33139 is known to have followed and wikihounded include: Mabdul, Neustradamus, EdoDodo, and Hm2k. I note that Mabdul in particular has been a target of particular interest to Miami33139. He has worked very hard on expanding articles about FTP clients, web browsers, email clients, etc which Miami33139 began to target after he noticed Mabdul was also a member of WP:WPIRC. [57] Oddly enough, today Mabdul removed himself from the WikiProject's participants list. [58]

I think these diffs should also be taken into consideration: [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] I previously presented these in the original evidence, [66] but as I mentioned above, because I gave so much detail, they would have been easily overlooked.

While I would very much like to return to actively editing Wikipedia, as it stands now I don't feel that I can unless the disruptive behaviours from Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme are fully addressed. When I'm not here editing, these individuals are not as readily able to tendentiously target articles/pages I would otherwise be editing, which ultimately results in less harm to the encyclopedia. That said, while I certainly felt less stress when I stopped editing, the behaviours clearly continued even in my absence, as even when I wasn't here they continued to target both my past contributions and other editors. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth

I'm really not sure what else I can add here in addition to what I brought up on AN/I but I'll see what I can come up with in the next day or so.

I do wish these editors would stop with the personal attacks though. I don't really care to be called "paranoid", "delusional", etc and the semi-constant claims of WP:OWN and WP:COI are not in any way helpful.

I'm not really sure that a simple non-interaction restriction would help resolve things either. Jehochman and I discussed just such a potential solution before the original ArbCom case was filed. I have a strong feeling that if a simple interaction-type restriction were put in place, these editors would still follow my edits in order to remove content from or nominate articles and pages for deletion, or attempt to superficially involve themselves in related topic areas such as technology and computing where they did not edit previously (as they've already been doing) in order to block or restrict my edits while claiming they were already editing articles in those topic areas.

Sigh, I dunno... Seth Kellerman really is correct above where he mentions that I Plaxicoed myself when I fell into the baiting which was happening while the original case was open. I really want to be more careful with what I say here this time so as to not say the wrong thing and otherwise somehow make things worse. I think at this point I'd really like to see what the community decides in the AN/I discussion before we go too much further here. My own stress levels went down as far as the wikihounding goes when I simply stopped editing entirely, but it didn't fix the problem, it just meant I wasn't here to feel stressed out about it. If AN/I is ultimately unable to resolve things, I think I'd very much support reopening the original case. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Uncle G

I've found it largely counterproductive to argue with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme, or attempt to edit an article they've nominated for deletion. They argue against reliable sources, revert/remove my edits, or otherwise attempt to discredit me in some manner, often claiming WP:OWN or WP:COI.

As for User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clients and User:Tothwolf/List of quote databases, I was advised not to participate in the MFDs that Miami33139 initiated, which seemed sensible to me given the past results of interacting with these three individuals. With Ircle specifically, I emailed an arbitrator to ask how I should handle this action by Miami33139 [67] but haven't yet received an answer. After the AfD was closed as keep, Miami33139 removed the bulk of the article stating "I have remove information that is uncited and is not found on product web page.". As far as I could see, every single fact there can be cited, with the reference that Miami33139 also removed easy to locate via archive.org [68] and also via a simple Google search. [69]

There are tons of things which I really should get back to editing. I still have a number of in-progress Template: namespace projects such as {{Cite IETF}}, {{External link}} (created for Category:External link templates standardisation work), and the reimplementation of {{LSR}}/{{LPR}} that I largely put on hold starting in November 2009 when the ArbCom case was initiated. As I've previously mentioned, I really do not feel that I can edit while the wikihounding and harassment is taking place and I found it much less stressful to instead focus on my work outside of Wikipedia.

Just as a general question to whomever wants to answer, wouldn't this [70], followed by [71] (history) be considered both disruptive and wikihounding? I created this LSR template on July 9, 2009 (using the same method we use in the majority of Category:Software comparisons) to make it easier for the anonymous editor to update the version information, which previously resulted in nearly daily edits to the large comparison tables. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

When someone chooses to harass a person here, there are two things necessary in the target: some weakness that an be exploited as the basis for the harassment, and a tendency to sometimes reply inappropriately. In a sense, almost anyone meets these requirements to be a target: Any active editor has made mistakes, and very few people can be fully calm after sufficient insults--and, in particular, while being set upon by more than a single harasser. As applies here: some of the IRC articles were rather weak; the subject is not really among the best-controlled tenth of WPedians; the almost simultaneous actions from three people would be enough to infuriate almost anyone. As I see it, concerted harassment should be treated as a major aggravating factor or even as meatpuppettry, whether done by coordination or just from exploiting the opportunity. And one sure sign of harassment is when it takes more than one route, or when it continues after the success of the initial round; I see the MfDs in exactly these lights: carrying things to that extent is persecution. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here, by two people. I've hesitated because I really don't want to get entangled in this. There's not much that I can add, strictly speaking, that isn't already available for perusal. Apart from the electronic mail messages sent to me by Tothwolf and two administrators, it's all on-wiki, albeit that there's not a central collection of diffs and links.

As I suggested at the ACN talk page, it does look like things are being gamed here. This request to mute Tothwolf is more such. I'm not sure that we should be continuing to buy the self-descriptions that aren't borne out by actions over the months, or the It's-not-interaction-if-I-nominate-a-user's-draft-article-userpages-for-deletion-just-before-the-previous-restrictions-are-set-to-expire-as-long-as-I-don't-mention-the-user-by-name argument. I think that, as I questioned before, it was most unwise of JBsupreme and Theserialcomma to jump on Miami33139's bandwagon there. It was particularly unwise of Theserialcomma, who otherwise has mostly lifted xyrself out of this, it appears to me.

This leaves us with Miami33139, Tothwolf, JBsupreme, and all of the people who have, variously, interacted with them over the months.

Whilst Tothwolf has apparently resisted temptation to blow xyr top this time around, xe still hasn't done xyrself any favours. Actually rolling up xyr sleeves and editing User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clients (MfD discussion), User:Tothwolf/List of quote databases (MfD discussion), User:Tothwolf/MIRCStats, or even Ircle (AfD discussion) would have probably resulted in snowball closures of the discussions that Miami33139 initiated, with Miami33139, JBsupreme, and Theserialcomma more clearly standing out as the dissenting trio, instead of the more mixed reaction that occurred. So there is some fault for the continuance of this whole mess to be laid at Tothwolf's door. But extending restrictions doesn't address it in the slightest. All that the restrictions have done is supply parties to the case with something to game.

Which brings me to the best practice reminder in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf. It, too, doesn't appear to have worked. If anything, things are worse now than they were at the time. Neither Miami33139 nor JBsupreme are following best practices, or indeed deletion policy, despite the attempts of myself and others to persuade them to do so, time and again. I know that for at least one other editor the assumption of good faith has been negated by months of evidence, here; and as Seth Kellerman points out above, Miami33139's "I vote delete on everything." rings much truer than the statements to the contrary on xyr user page, given what can be found in Special:Contributions/Miami33139 in the project namespace over and over again. What we really have here are two accounts that have failed to follow good practice for a long time, and have reached what is probably an all-time low (more on which later) quite recently, primarily in conflict with an editor that in turn does xyrself no favours by not actually getting down to writing.

I can understand why the assumption of good faith has gone out of the window for that editor that I mentioned. It's fairly clear from the actions by JBsupreme at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clientsuser that there's action in bad faith occurring. Here's the sequence:

1. JBsupreme says that the page is close to "an abuse of userspace".
2. After the MFD discussion has run for several days, Tothwolf requests speedy deletion, which xe notes on the Administrator's Noticeboard and Village Pump.
3. JBsupreme, some 45 minutes later, renames the page into xyr own user space and removes the speedy deletion request.
4. When asked about these actions by DGG, xyr response is "Do you really not know? I think you do."

Yes, I think that we really do know. We really do know that JBsupreme is acting to always oppose whatever Tothwolf happens to want here, rather than in pursuance of xyr stated position, and not acting in good faith. It flies in the face of reason to assume that an editor who declares something an "abuse of userspace" one minute is acting in good faith when xyr next actions, in relation to the editor who is, supposedly, abusing that userspace, are to then attempt to re-claim, and prevent the deletion of, the page in xyr own user space.

There's plenty more evidence to be found. I'm not going to provide an exhaustive list because, as yet another editor has said, doing so is a large task (and I really want to get around to society page, which I keep getting distracted from, some time this century). Here are some of the highlights, therefore:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lazarus Effect (film) — I mentioned snowball keep decisions where single editors stand out, earlier. Here's one such. The editor standing out is JBsupreme.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients (2nd nomination) — JBsupreme and Miami33139 reiterating their argument, presented numerous times before to sound rejection by many people, that it's not up to the two of them to put in the effort of looking for sources for information that has no sources cited, but that that's Someone Else's Problem.

  (Of course, this is a re-nomination of an article that Tothwolf actually did work on, by the same editor as before, and, as can be seen from Special:Contributions/JBsupreme, one made a mere two hours after the messing around at User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clients.)

• edit to Ircle — Miami33139 demonstrating this attitude in action, even though some of the information removed (dealing with the authorship) is directly sourceable to page 58 of the very book cited in the AFD discussion.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaicho — Another piece of evidence that putting deletion and content policies into action correctly is at a new low. At the point of this discussion contribution by JBsupreme, the article in question had stood like this for just over 12 hours. Not only is no effort being put into looking for sources, it's fairly clear that little, possibly no, effort is being put into even reading the articles themselves before joining in deletion discussions.
• "PENDING REVISIONS WINS AGAIN SUCKERS" — Even the note about decorum in the arbitration case has failed to register.

So it seems to me that nothing particularly good has come out of the previous arbitration case. The interaction restrictions are being gamed, the taunting continues, and the behaviour in deletion discussions is even less an example of good practice than it was those several months ago. I think that it's time that the arbitration committee, or the community at large, address some of the clearly unaddressed problems here, that we are being deflected away from by motions such as this one, more directly. If Tothwolf were subtracted from this entirely, there would still be concerns to answer on the parts of the other accounts. Tothwolf hasn't behaved well, and clearly could have garnered more sympathy by writing and contributing, rather than arguing. But Tothwolf being the focus, or the entirety of the cause, clearly isn't correct. As observed, Miami33139's actions are serving quite ironically here to show that the spotlight should be shining on other accounts a bit more than it has done.

To that end, I suggest that it is in Tothwolf's best interests to concentrate upon article writing, rather than this, for a time. I suggest, for starters, getting ircle past stub status.

Uncle G (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I will take resolute action next time Tothwolf complains to me about baiting, taunting or bullying by the folks who've already been warned. Those folks would do well to steer a wide path around Tothwolf, and to scrupulously avoid committing similar abuse of any other editors. You have the chance to make exactly one more mistake. I especially like DGG's analysis.Jehochman ^Talk 11:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

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

• Thanks to Uncle G for the statement and thanks to others for their statements. There should be enough here now to allow an assessment of what to do here. Currently waiting for further comments from other arbitrators before deciding where to go from here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Carcharoth. Miami, the comments you have made are over the line and cross into NPA. You are apparently unable or unwilling to see that. I agree with Carcharoth that this area may need to be reopened, or an amendment passed here. SirFozzie (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think Tothwolf is the wrongdoer here. I don't know whether this requires an amendment, but it does appear to be hounding to me. Move on, Miami. Cool Hand Luke 14:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• We may need to reopen this matter for some form of review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• I think we have two issues to address here - Miami33139 and JBSupreme's behavior towards Tothwolf and in deletion discussions. Shell ^babelfish 21:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Update: I've proposed some motions, 2 new remedies in the case and one minor update to reflect what appear to be the prevailing concerns. Due to confusion over interaction restrictions in the past, I've attempted to flesh out the restriction a bit more and wouldn't be adverse to other Arbs tweaking it if I've missed the boat there. Shell ^babelfish 08:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Shell, thanks for advancing the discussion. Re the section below, are these ideas you are raising for discussion purposes or are you asking that they be voted on as motions. If the latter, someone (I'll do it if I'm here, or a clerk, or anyone really) should set them up with the support/oppose/etc. paraphernalia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Oops :-) I've added in the bits I completely missed since they were meant as motions, but I'm certainly open to discussing any of the motions and changing them as needed. Shell ^babelfish 10:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

---

1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · logs), Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) and JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) are banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed. This includes things like not editing each other's userspace, not becoming involved directly with each other in discussions, and not nominating articles for deletion which another one has started. This does not prohibit commenting in the same discussion without directly interacting or editing the same articles so long as they are not directly in conflict. They may request enforcement of this restriction at the Arbitration Enforcement board or by email to the Arbitration mailing list; they may not request enforcement or action against each other for any other reason or at any other venue. Attempts to game this restriction should be treated as a violation of the restriction.

Enacted - Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There being 9 active Arbitrators, none of whom are recused, the majority is 5

Support

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Shell ^babelfish 20:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
3. SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
5. — Coren ^(talk) 13:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
8. We can try this regime and see if it helps. If not, we may need to reopen the original case for a more thorough review of recent developments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Mailer Diablo 20:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
10. KnightLago (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

2) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or disruptive to deletion discussions, Miami33139 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement portion of the case. The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

Enacted - Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Shell ^babelfish 20:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
3. SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
5. — Coren ^(talk) 13:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Mailer Diablo 20:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
9. KnightLago (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. The reason for the motion is understandable, but I think (1) might well be sufficient and my preference would be to try it alone first. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

3) Remedy 2 (already updated once) is changed to "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or disruptive to deletion discussions, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months is reset to start from the day this motion passes.

Enacted - Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Shell ^babelfish 20:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
3. SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
5. — Coren ^(talk) 13:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo 20:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
8. KnightLago (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Per my comment on (2). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Initiated by Martin (talk) at 20:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 7

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• N/A

• [72]
• This is a request to amend EEML Remedy 7 to end the topic ban that applies to Martintg and allow him to edit articles related to Eastern Europe.

The locus of the WP:EEML case relates to off-wiki co-ordination and canvassing, which was done via a mail list. In the nearly nine months since I've taken stock, while taking a break to pursue some postgrad study. During that time I've reflected on what went wrong. I joined the maillist primarily as a convenient way to socially network with a bunch of people I've come to know through contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately this convenience led members of the list, myself included, into behaviour that crossed the line. This was due to a kind of mob mentality and a sense of hubris that developed along with it. This I regret. Prior to joining that list I was an editor in good standing, a clear block log, no ANI reports, no 3RR reports, no RFC/Us, no ArbCom cases about me, nothing.

In support I would like the committee to consider:

1. my previously un-problematic record (clean block log prior to joining the EEML and this affirmation of my previously good standing), indicating there is no issue of recidivism
2. my previous relaxation [73] had caused no problem
3. no violations of any WP:EEML sanctions since the case closed
4. your support for the relaxation of the topic ban for other editors
5. my expression of regret at the trouble caused by EEML membership and undertaking to put all that behind me

Since December I have created some articles on German politicians and political organisations and had sourced a small number of Estonian biographies without any issues (many were not notable so I hadn't bothered with those) after I requested and was granted a relaxation to my topic ban[74].

In regard to my plans in the area, I would like to continue to expand the range of arts and literature topics for Wikiproject Estonia. Previously I had filled in many significant gaps such as Culture of Estonia, along with a lot of related articles on literary figures (for example August Sang, Villem Grünthal-Ridala, Johannes Aavik), movements (e.g. Arbujad, Young Estonia and Siuru) and institutions like Art Museum of Estonia and Estonian Literary Museum. (A more comprehensive list is on my user page). There is still a lot to do, as you can see by the red links in Template:Culture_of_Estonia. Despite my continuing studies I expect to devote a little more of my time than in the past few months, as I do enjoy contributing my free time to Wikipedia.

Having ended such off-wiki co-ordination, and given an undertaking not to engage in such behaviour going forward, the conditions that led to the problematical behaviour no longer exists. There will be no off-wiki coordination, no canvassing, no usage of hidden communication to create the appearance of a consensus. I have learnt my lesson, will ensure this will be avoided in the future.

On a final note, I could have just as easily waited out the remainder of my topic ban and quietly slipped back into editing the area without subjecting myself to this, without having to acknowledge the issues that led to topic ban or make an undertaking in regard to the future. The fact I am requesting an early relaxation and thus am prepared to acknowledge these issues and make the undertaking should be viewed as a positive development by the committee and be applauded, not ignored or viewed sceptically (which would be wholly unjustified given my previous good standing and good behaviour since).

After nearly eight weeks of waiting, I am appreciative that the Committee is finally acting on this and has proposed a couple of motions. But I have to question whether Brad's proposed motion isn't a pandora's box of gaming potential (as it was originally pointed out when he first proposed it in the EEML case). Not gaming by me, but by my opponents who would seek to exploit the ambiguity present to game and shop for admin action.

This isn't an idle concern, recently Biophys was topic banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics [75], yet when he edited Pyotr Chaadayev, an 18th Century figure of Imperial Russia (thus clearly not a former Soviet republic and outside the scope of his ban), that didn't stop his opponents from claiming otherwise [76][77], with one going as far as suggesting that Biophys broke his topic ban because the source of the quote he inserted into Pyotr Chaadayev was from a book written by an author who also wrote about the Soviet Union![78][79], while admins like Jechochman ominously choose to take the negative view[80], despite Shell clarifying the scope of the topic ban [81]

So I'm not confident that creating an article as innocuous as Visual arts in Estonia will not attract the attention of my opponents who would attempt to wiki-lawyer a case that I had violated this new amended topic ban and shop for admin action, given that the Soviet period had a significant impact on visual arts in Estonia. I don't think it would be fair on me to provide such a vague amendment that has the potential to be gamed and invite such a circus to decend upon me.

Therefore, given that I've already served almost 8 month of my topic ban, I ask that the committee take into consideration my former good standing, post ban good behaviour and assurances going forward (which seemed sufficient here so why aren't mine?) and support the first motion to lift my ban entirely so that I can have clear air to make a positive contribution without the threat of vexatious litigation. --Martin (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I can not recommend the lift of the ban for Martin based on his recent WP activity. In the recent 100 edits he just wasted everyone's time when participating in Russavia-Biophys EEML-related ArbCom case, and after some break just when EEML case was due for review and just when others filed for an amendment Martin rushed with several BLP fixes for EE related persons as if it was simply done to satisfy the previous amendment and justify a new one. (Igny (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

Update: I understand I could be too harsh in my statement and quite possibly our personal clashes in the past contributed to this. But in any case a "site-wide self-imposed ban" is not the right way to deal with topic bans. Topic bans were placed in part to reduce battleground mentality in controversial areas and productive work elsewhere was needed to demonstrate how an editor in question copes with withdrawal from the battleground. Just going into self-imposed exile for the length of the topic ban (regardless of the real life constraints) does poor job answering the question whether editor's problematic behavior occurs again when he returns to the EE disputes. I still think that Martin's lift of the ban is premature at the moment. Also tu quoque was not the right counter-argument to my point above.(Igny (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

Re NYB and SirFozzie, I understand that you are willing to put your trust in that Martintg will not return to the "previous behavior". Could you clarify by showing examples of particular behavior that might warrant reinstatement of the ban? (Igny (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

I support lifting the ban for Martin because he was productive and created sixty six new pages. Whatever problems he might have in the past, six months was a long time, and Martin was never a major "violator" anywhere. So I wonder what was the reason for the statements against him? Most probably, this is happening because he commented in a number of cases, including my case (which he was allowed to do). He should not be commenting on any cases according to the anonymous e-mailer to Petri. No so. In fact, the comments by Marting on-wiki were very much legitimate, much better than the cowardly letter by the anonymous emailer to Petri. Biophys (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I object to lifting this remedy. Considerable time was spent on the EEML case and its members, rather than accepting the facts presented, wasted months of time of arbitrators and witnesses and were very offensive to them. Martintg's defence is basically that he fell into the wrong crowd and he is sorry. However, Martintg does not mention any actions he took that he regrets, any articles that he and his colleagues edited and now wish to repair or any editor he offended he now wishes to apologize to. This group shared a minority political point of view and damaged the neutrality of numerous articles and continued to collaborate off-wiki even after the case was presented against them. They do not accept that Wikipedia articles should be neutral and tied up the time of numerous editors. While it may be that they will no longer coordinate their efforts, their approach as individuals is damaging to neutrality. It is irritating that as I and other editors were arguing with Martintg and his colleagues and they were presenting arguments against us that off-wiki there were agreeing that our arguments made sense and trying to develop a new approach. Surely editors like this drive away most of the editors we want to attract, people who have the ability to write articles and those who remain are tied up in silly disputes. Dispute resolution, reporting editors for 3RR, writing Wikiquette and ANI reports are extemely time-consuming and allowing editors like Martintg will only discourage capable editors who are discouraged by the processes to counter editors like Martintg. TFD (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I loathe getting in any way involved in the Wikipedia arbitration process and have thus far been able to avoid any involvement – so much so, that I have not even written a word to my defense in the now infamous WP:DIGWUREN case. However, someone, who wishes to remain anonymous, contacted me, and – knowing the strong feelings I have privately expressed about the issue at hand – implied that I am a pussy if I do not express my strongest objection to this motion. He also sent me evidence (see appendix) he had prepared in response to Martin's latest comments.

Martin's actions on the Internet, on and off Wikipedia, show that his only interest on the web is promoting a fringe nationalistic agenda, or in Wikipedia terms, he is a single purpose account. Since our paths first crossed sometime in early 2007 the underlying dispute has taken the form of a global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th century. I believe in some ways the early editing disputes and the formulation of opposing positions on Wikipedia talk pages have later influenced the positions some of the main players in this battle have taken. I may be as much involved in this ideological battle as Marting is. However I have not used Wikipedia article space as a platform to promote my fringe ideas. I will rather let the Historical Truth Commission and the Simon Wiesenthal Center speak for me.

From this POVish point of expertise I can testify that Marting is the chief battle axe of the opposing side. He is not the benign Wikignome he now pretends to be. Anything he touches will turn into distortion of facts or into a political battlefield. His presence on Wikipedia, in the contested subjects, is venom to the key principle of neutral point-of-view. So far he has shown no interest in editing outside his chosen battlefield, for example in his field of professional expertise.

For several years now Martin has been waging a politically motivated attack campaign against me, that is my Wikipedia account and the real life me. This has extended to multiple forums on the Internet outside Wikipedia. In the evidence sent to me were new instances of this campaign, unknown to me previously. If this proposed motion were to pass, I feel that I will finally have to start an arbitration case against Marting on this issue.

I have no objections to Martin using his freedom of speech to promote his ideas on the Internet. However, I cannot see why – having broken the key principles of Wikipedia – he should again be given a license to distort Wikipedia to fit his political agenda. -- Petri Krohn (talk)

Amendment – I find this latest edit by Martintg a clear indication that he is NOT ready to enter into editing EE topics. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To TheFourDeuces' gross misrepresentations, suppositions, and personal attacks, I invite him to provide evidence where anything I (or other EEML members) have represented on Wikipedia is other than a fair and accurate representation of reputable sources—and representing majority scholarly opinion on the Baltics and Eastern Europe. I regret that more than half a year has passed since imposition of the topic ban and TFD is not alone in continuing to demonstrate offensive bad faith in re-litigating EEML with unfounded charges.

I believe Martintg is ready to return to productive editing. If his behavior is less than exemplary, ArbCom will be watching. Perhaps a review at three months to "re-up" the lifting of his topic ban for the rest of the original term if impartial, uninvolved editors have a genuine concern. Martintg has nothing to fear from objective scrutiny. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Please desist from further discussion of private correspondence. Any discussion of you emanated from your acting as a proxy filing an arbitration request as a direct result of Offliner's lobbying you. I regret needing to remind you that you were the origin and only reason for your own mention. This is the second instance of your discussing private correspondence and professing to be a victim of EEML editors. At least I now know (your feeling you were victimized when you, in fact, victimized Baltic and EE editors) where your outrageous accusation came from that I likened Giano to Nazi Germany at the EEML proceedings. Please consider taking your own advice and stepping away for a spot of tea. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will keep it short. Pro-nationalist editors involved in disrupting Wikipedia should be topic-banned for quite some time. I doubt that lifting Marting's ban would be a net positive for the project. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 12:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I oppose any loosening of sanctions on Martintg, unless there is a specific restriction against pursuing past disputes stemming from the EEML Case. Per my explanation here, Martintg has recently been violating or testing the limits of his existing topic ban. My name featured prominently in the mailing list archives as somebody to be neutralized. It is not at all appropriate for Martintg to be carrying on, today, a vendetta against me. Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC) and 12:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

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

• Recused on EEML. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Recused  Roger Davies ^talk 12:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

will think on this more. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am simply unconvinced. Would reconsider around Oct. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• As with some of the other editors who were sanctioned in this decision, I would be agreeable to at least some curtailment or narrowing of the remedy—partly based on the feeling that the breadth of the remedy may have been wider than necessary to begin with, and in any event due to the lapse of time. Of course, if the remedy is lifted or narrowed, there would be a strong expectation that the problematic behaviors addressed in the original decision must not recur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My view remains as stated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Looking at this, I'd be willing to let this go, with the caveat that there's not much wiggle room here, and that a return to previous behaviors will mean it's near-immediate reinstatement. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• I would consider a lifting or narrowing of the restrictions now, or in the future between now and October but, will not be initiating that myself. I think more arbitrators need to comment first. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Update: Will post a motion this week. Carcharoth (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Noting that I've read Martintg's response and the postings at the user talk pages of Newyorkbrad and Rlevse, and my votes remain as posted below. I would ask that the editors that oppose this amendment think twice before trying to dispute editing that Martintg does following the passing of the alternative amendment. It will only serve to promote more ill-feeling. At some point, you need to learn how to work together, even if that seems impossible right now. And if you can't work together, learn to avoid each other. Carcharoth (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• I think we had good success in the past with a more gradual return to the topic area, and I would support a more limited relaxation at this time. I am not, however, very favorable to removing it entirely at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 7 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Martintg topic banned") is lifted.

There being 8 active Arbitrators, not counting 1 who is recused, the majority is 5.

Support

1. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. In favor of alternative motion below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Prefer the alternative. Risker (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Per above. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Too much too fast. Support alternative below. — Coren ^(talk) 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Mailer Diablo 12:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

Recuse

1. Shell ^babelfish 20:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 7 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list "Martintg topic banned") is replaced with the following:

Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, until December 22, 2010 (one year from the closing of the original case).

Enacted - Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. I think this modification would allow Martintg to edit all the articles he's mentioned in his request, without getting involved in the nationalist dispute articles that have previously been troublesome for these editors. The existing broader topic-ban expires in December, and I've left that timing unchanged. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

   Some additional discussion is on my talkpage here. My apologies for the cross-posting, but I'd responded to both Martintg and Jehochman there before seeing that they'd posted here as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Good alternative. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Risker (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
5. This, I can support. — Coren ^(talk) 15:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
6. SirFozzie (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Mailer Diablo 12:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
9. KnightLago (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. Shell ^babelfish 20:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by aprock (talk) at 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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

• aprock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Slrubenstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Slrubenstein
• WeijiBaikeBianji
• Vercumba
• Snowded
• Captain Occam

There is currently a meta discussion on Talk:Race_(classification_of_humans) amongst the affected users listed above about whether or not User:Captain Occam's topic ban includes that page or not [133]. The findings of fact indicate: Of the 306 edits made to date to his ten most-edited articles, only 17 (6%) do not relate to race and intelligence[134]. When the tool server stats are consulted, the implication is that "race" and "intelligence" articles are being considered here [135] (the non R/I articles seem to be William Beebe and Marquand Park).

Given the fact that there seems to be some confusion about what the scope of articles covered by the remedy: "8) Captain Occam (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed." [136], I would like to request a clarification of what articles are covered. (Note, I'm not sure of the best way to handle this request, so if this is premature I apologize and request guidance.) aprock (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to specifically ask whether New_Black_Panther_Party is covered by the topic ban. aprock (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I thank aprock for his notification of this clarification request. Yes, I too am interested in the scope of the topic ban under the Race and intelligence Arbitration Committee case, because I have already asked, with a helpful response from arbitrator Carcharoth, how the community might help make editors aware that some articles are within the scope of the discretionary sanctions to be adopted in the soon final decision of that case. I have already written a template for article talk pages and a template to remind editors, inviting comments about and edits to those templates from more experienced editors, so that all members of the community will have notice of the ArbCom decision and its topic scope. I have given the individual findings of fact on editor conduct in the ArbCom case a close reading to determine which articles are subject to the topic ban, but at least one editor who is about to be banned seems to read the topic restriction more narrowly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that there is contention regarding the role and nature of race (societal, biological, genomic) and that there is still debate as to what degree "race" as a societal concept is mirrored in real genetics, any race related topic dealing with concepts of, evolution, biology, heritability, etc. could be considered as being in scope. I would request that for the editors subject to the topic ban, that clear (and "single voice of ArbCom") guidance be given regarding specific articles in and out of scope of the topic ban at the case mentioned. Editors should not find themselves in the position of interpreting a topic ban, interpreting ArbCom discussions as to scope of ban, or be potentially subjected to, for example (unfortunately), harassing policing by their editorial opposition where there is a difference of opinion on scope of ban. A prompt and clear response will go a long way toward calming the subject matter area. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

To some of the commentary subsequently, I would respectfully request that we stick to the request for clarification, not relitigate R&I in the light of other articles. Either "Race (classification of humans)", for example, is in scope (that is, with respect to all sanctioned editors, so individual editors conduct at any impacted article is immaterial), or it is not. Plain and simple. A single:

This article falls under the "Race and intelligence" topic ban of (DATE), widely construed. Participating editors are reminded not to contact topic banned editors regarding this article as such contact can be taken as baiting editors to violate their topic ban. Thank you for everyone's cooperation.

at the top of article talk will do. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

First, at Race and Intelligence, Captain Ocaam, David kane and Mikemikev generally pushed two views: that average diferences in IQ according to race have or likely have a genetic basis, and that races are biologically real (or natural divisions among humans). The first claim was relevant to some other articles, like Heritability of IQ whereas the second claim was relevant to different articles, especially Race. Captain Occam's first edit at Race this year was specifically concerning "race and IQ" [137] so it is pretty clear to me that his interest in this article is tied to his interested in the Race and IQ article.

Second, it is my opinion that Mikemikev, David Kane and Captain Occam only began editing the Race article because of the way the conflict at R&I heated up. In other words, they went to Race not only to push the same POV as they were pushing at R&I, but also to change a WP article so that it would support the edits they were making at R&I.

For these reasons I think Race is relevant to the recent ArbCom ruling. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane who is one of the editors subject to a topic ban on race and intelliegence, was recently blocked for edit warring on Race (classification of humans). Mikemikev who according to the arbitration proceedings is due to be site banned for a year, was recently blocked for edit warring on Race (classification of humans). Mikemikev was later indefinitely blocked for incivility and harassment due in part to comments made in edit summaries to Race (classification of humans) and other controversial statements linked to the main Race article as described in in this ANI report.

There is a suggestion that the evidence submitted to Arbcom only pertained to race and intelligence article. The first diff in this section of my evidence submission is linked to the Race and genetics article. In summary, I have always taken for granted that this current controversy is spread over a number of related articles including Race (classification of humans) and Race and genetics.

Finally I would like to seek clarification on the Meatpuppetry. Would it be necessary to file a completely new request or can this be handled in this case. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Cool Hand Luke is commenting here, I’m assuming that it’s acceptable for this to be discussed here when the case isn’t closed yet, so I’m going to offer my statement about it now.

I need to make it clear that I have no intention to actually continue editing the Race (classification of humans) article, and I’ve stated this several times on the talk page for that article. The reason Aprock, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi have been asking about this here is because I also stated on this article’s talk page that I consider my decision to stay out of this article a voluntary one, so I did not think it should be necessary for me to promise to never edit this article for the duration of my topic ban. But apparently, my statement that I would be voluntarily staying out of this article was unacceptable enough to them that they needed to bring this up here.

However, I do intend to eventually create an article about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. And this has nothing to do with my interest in race—I consider this a politics topic, and it’s the only recent political controversy in the United States that does not yet have its own article here. In this thread on the proposed decision talk page, I asked the arbitrators whether my topic ban extended to this article, and all three of the arbitrators who expressed an opinion there (Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, and Carcharoth) stated that in their opinion it did not. Rlevese and Carcharoth both also explained why in their opinion it did not:

[138]: Without reading the findings, especially the ones one locus, and case history, one could read it as being about "race and intelligence" or "race" and "intelligence". But if you read the findings on locus and case history, they clearly center on "race and intelligence". The proposed article by Captain Occam seems, from what I can tell to lack the "intelligence" aspect as it's about voting.

[139]: The locus findings make clear this case is narrowly about race and intelligence (the category is linked there). One of the reasons the locus is so narrow is because the editors in question had a very narrow focus and the further questions arise because these editors are expanding this focus. I did propose a remedy that was purely race-related, see remedy 4, but that failed to pass.

This seems reasonable to me. Although my involvement in other race-related articles was brought up in order to show the focus of my editing over the past year, the locus of dispute makes it clear that this arbitration case was specifically about articles in this category, and I don’t think there’s any evidence that I’ve caused disruption outside of this category. For example, I’ve only made a single edit to the Race (classification of humans) article in the past three months, and have only edited it a total of 11 times in all the time I’ve been active on Wikipedia. Contrary to Slrubenstein’s statement, the arbcom ruling about me also does not state that I’ve engaged in POV-pushing on these articles—I’m being sanctioned for edit warring and false claims of consensus, and the finding of fact about me does not mention POV-pushing at all. For these reasons, as well as the reasons given by Rlevse and Carcharoth that I quoted, I don’t think my topic ban should be extended beyond the locus of dispute for this case.

As I said, my ability to edit the Race (classification of humans) article is not important to me, but I would definitely consider it a loss if I were disallowed from editing any article that mentions race or IQ, the vast majority of which are far beyond the topic area where I’ve caused any disruption. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I’d also like to add that in order to avoid similar requests for clarification being necessary in the future, it would be helpful if ArbCom could come up with a clearly-defined boundary for my (and David.Kane’s and Mathsci’s) topic ban. For example, if the topic bans cover every article related to the race and intelligence controversy, then that’s very easy to understand—it means that if an article is listed in this category then we can’t edit it, but if it isn’t then we can. However, I predict that a less clearly-defined boundary will result in a lot of further confusion over this. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In light of the comments below (particularly Cool Hand Luke’s comment), the way that I’m currently interpreting the scope of my topic ban is that it covers all controversies that are specifically about race—such as what causes the difference in average IQ between races, to what extent racial groups line up with genetic clusters based on geographic ancestry, etc. But the conclusion I’m drawing is that my topic ban does not extend to articles about controversies where race is only one of many elements they involve, and not the main element. So on the topic of the voter intimidation case, there’s a race element because the New Black Panther Party is considered a black supremacist group, but the central controversy is over whether Obama’s department of justice is allowing politics to interfere with the objective application of justice, and that’s why the topic ban doesn’t cover it.

It would be helpful if arbitrators could clarify whether this interpretation is correct. I also approve of Vecrumba’s suggestion above, that labels be placed be placed on all of the articles covered by topic bans in order to forestall any future confusion over this. However, if this solution is to be used, I think the labels need to be placed by either clerks or arbitrators themselves. Otherwise, they’re going to represent only one editor’s interpretation of the scope of topic bans, which is not necessarily correct. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, editing Race (classification of humans) is prohibited by the topic ban. The remedy says that the topic ban applies to "race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed." Construing it broadly, I think all articles about race controversies are included, including the Race article, and we did include this article when counting R/I edits, as aprock says. I may be open to allowing this editing after a few months of non-controversial editing (and I would personally entertain a request for amendment at a future date to allow such editing). However, I see no reason to allow such editing immediately after the case closed; users should take this opportunity to branch out. (Actually, the case isn't even closed yet, although it should be according to the time-stamps.) I have no strong views on whether New Black Panther Party is included; I think it is technically outside of the topic ban, but I would caution the user. Controversial editing in this area may lead to AE or other discretionary sanctions. Cool Hand Luke 04:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC) revised 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that New Black Panther Party is not primarily about race in the way that articles in the R&I category or Race (classification of humans) are centrally about race and claimed differences between races. I agree that it's outside of the topic ban for that reason. However, I reiterate that it's a very bad idea to edit in such a controversial area on the heels of an ArbCom case. See NYB's comment. Cool Hand Luke 22:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• There are two different things here and it is best to keep them separate.
  First, the discretionary sanctions apply to editors working on articles within the Race and intelligence controversy category and any closely related articles (which, for example, were for whatever reason not tagged as part of the controversy category). However, individual sanctions under this remedy can be very wide-ranging and can prevent specified editors working on any article, or commenting on any page.
  Second, the topic ban applying to named editors is much broader (which is why it doesn't use the same language as the discretionary sanctions) and applies to articles about race and about intelligence. The topic ban's objective is to prevent exportation of the dispute to other areas and to prevent pushing of permutations of the same POV agenda.
  I have no current opinion on the Black Panther article.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Expanded  Roger Davies ^talk 08:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• The two Arbiters above covered it fairly completely but I'd also like to note that topic banned editors shouldn't be discussing the topic with other editors, especially not to try to influence their editing. I also want to remind Captain Occam that if people known to be associated with him suddenly start editing these articles, it will not be viewed favorably. Shell ^babelfish 07:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am in general agreement with the other arbitrators on their interpretation of the scope of the topic-ban. I also reiterate my view that while the New Black Panther Party case is not within the scope of the topic-ban, it is a really poor idea for Captain Occam to start his editing career outside the race-and-intelligence area with this article. Please find another area to edit in; at a minimum, if your editing in areas relating directly or indirectly to race issues or matters pertaining to members of a particular race or ethnicity is tendentious or problematic, I anticipate that we will be asked to expand the scope of the ban, and that we would have to consider that request very seriously. I hope that this will not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with prior arbiters. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Given what has elapsed here, I think the topic ban should be extended to include race-related articles. However, as I pointed out, a remedy proposing that in the proposed decision did not pass. I regret that Captain Occam chose (on the proposed decision talk page) to interpret this as implicit support for him editing so close to the boundaries here. There are plenty of articles he could chose to edit that are unrelated to either race or intelligence or both. There is absolutely no need to test the boundaries here in any way whatsoever. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed with those above. SirFozzie (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---