Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 01:46, 10 August 2009 (→‎Request for clarification: ADHD: archive per committee request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Ryulong (4)|Request for clarification: Ryulong (4)]] none none 6 August 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (3)|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (3)]] Motion none 8 August 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (2)|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (2)]] none none 5 August 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology]] none none 25 July 2009
Request for clarification: Bluemarine none none 10 December 2008
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Date delinking|Request for clarification: Date delinking]] none none 14 July 2009

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Ryulong (4)

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

Statement by Mythdon

I am here to request a fourth clarification on the Ryulong case.

After some thinking, I have found that, even after my long list of questions in the last clarification, that there are still things that have been left unanswered.

I have the following questions:

  1. Term (C) of the "new remedies and enforcement"; "Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the talk pages of those guidelines and policies, or at the Tokusatsu WikiProject talk pages;" - Am I also prohibited from inserting or removing any citation of any article in regards to this remedy?
  2. Since the conduct probation was created for reasons that I refused to work with a mentor as directed in its predecessor "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship", is mentorship a sanction that administrators have the power to use as a discretionary sanction to enforce this probation?

If I have any additional questions, I will post them in this statement, though I likely wont have any questions in the future, unless the Arbitration Committee decides to amend the case again as they did in the second and third clarification requests. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • First question: Inserting citations is why we are all here. Removing citations —except removing irrelevant ones which incorrectly relate to the cited content— is considered vandalism. Second question: Actually, mentorship is not a sanction. It is a remedy that has benefits for the mentored user (inherently for the community). Now, this is an essay for you to read. Don't take it for granted since it is just an essay. That means that mentorship application would be up to the discretion and discussions of the administrators. Repeating... Any further question should be directed to the Arbitration Enforcement. Note that they may still ignore it/them or warn you for excessive and unnecessary questions based on the 'communication' remedy passed by ArbCom. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second Fayssal - adding sourced material is good, but removing same is too contentious for you to partake in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (3)

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

Statement by Wikidemon

Questions presented

My first request went something like this: Template:Blockquotetop Q1: May editors restricted from interacting with each other (a) unilaterally criticize each other, or (b) participate in meta-matters related to the others' edits?
A1: No. (see here) Template:Blockquotebottom There now seems to be some confusion among Arbcom members, administrators, and non-admin editors alike,[1] on the scope of the "no" answer here, and I have a further concern regarding the stay-away order. I'm therefore asking some follow-up questions: Template:Blockquotetop Q2: May editors topic banned from Obama-related articles:

  • file[2] or participate in meta-space discussions of Obama-related content[3] or events[4]?
  • participate in an AFD regarding Obama-related articles?[5][6]?
  • edit list articles about Obama?[7]

Q3: May editors under restriction "not to interact with each other":

  • accuse a group of several editors, including the editor with whom they are not supposed to interact, of bad faith?[8][9]
  • dispute the good faith of a meta-space participation of an editor with whom they are not supposed to interact? (see above)


A: ? Template:Blockquotebottom

Process notes

  1. I am wondering whether this should have been brought up as a request for amendment on the one hand, or a request for enforcement on the other? Instead of focusing on what the voting majority of arbitrators may or may not have intended at the time (the answer to which may well be "they were not thinking the same thing" as it is with the sanction durations, below), can we please concentrate on what the topic ban limits should be, and how to best maintain a productive editing environment on Wikipedia? The post-decision Obama-related incident among the parties to the case that gave rise to this question was clearly not a good thing. The question here should be: do we want to make clear that it is a violation of sanctions, or do we want to make clear that it is beyond the scope of the sanctions and instead a matter for the community to handle?
  2. Speaking of community matters, I note that a new no-contact order has been enacted between Baseball Bugs and ChildofMidnight,[10] not without some disagreement, and with terms that differ from the two no-contact orders issued in the Arbcom case. That would be the second instance - I believe Grundle2600 is also under some community sanctions that exceed his Arbcom sanctions. As a party to the current incident I believe I am within the bounds of my own restrictions to comment on the wisdom and process of these stay-away orders even though the discussion is occuring at AN/I rather than here. If anyone has any qualms about that please let me know directly and I'll bring the discussion here instead - or if you want to ban the parties from commenting over their own situations I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good idea. Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The first clarification arose over my dismay with accusations by ChildofMidnight on AN/I and his own talk page that I was acting in bad faith, trolling, stalking, and maintaining bias on the Obama talk pages. [11][12][13][14] As the first on the ever-growing list of content editors, passers by, administrators, arbitrators, and Wikipedia founders ChildofMidnight has attacked as vandals and trolls for getting in his way, I seem to be a favorite target for these kinds of made-up claims as to my intentions, frame of mind, and editing history. The difference now is that I was far away from ChildofMidnight, and the two of us were supposedly under a stay-away order. ChildofMidnight's attacking me when I wasn't around was problematic because I couldn't respond to defend myself given our mutual editing restriction, I couldn't file a notice board complaint or request assistance or advice from an administrator (something I assumed would be a sanction violation on my part because it would necessarily engage ChildofMidnight), and I could not afford to let the accusations lie. When it became clear that the accusations would not stop even after I stepped well clear of ChildofMidnight, I asked in this forum for a clarification on whether they were okay. The clear answer in so many words was "no". One administrator commented here that "any further (even mildly) negative ad hominem comments or niggly/baiting/whatever that occur could be at best described as disruptive and a significant block would be in order."

A few hours ago, a stream of such comments did occur. ChildofMidnight jumped into an AN/I subsection I had started to accuse me and two other editors of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NPOV violations, being among "abusive and disruptive editors who will come after you stalking and hounding you until you're blocked if you don't tow the line".[15] "mob rule", censorship, stalking, harassment, intimidation, abuse, and being "abusive trolls".[16] That was before I filed this request and the wider drama surrounding ChildofMidnight's ensuing block; far more creative and vitriolic streams of abuse were hurled at me and a dozen others (I believe he has called one administrator a worm now, another an obscene embarrassment, and a third, "cancerous") after I sought help here.

What happened is that several hours before, William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor with ongoing editing problems on the Obama articles,[17] filed an AN/I report over "mob and ownership tactics of the band of Obama article protecters" at Public image of Barack Obama,[18] and eventually requesting blocks and bans, after failing in his attempt to edit war into that article March's presidential taunt of the month[19] that Obama is the "teleprompter president". As the first of three editors who reverted this proposal[20] he was clearly referring to me. I offered some evidence and suggested a straightforward least-drama resolution to clear up the matter.[21] Another editor put my comments in a new subsection.[22] This kind of routine disruption is nothing that the Obama editors cannot handle if left to their own, and basically just requires everyone to chill out.

Unfortunately, we were not left to our own. In his first direct encounter with me since our stay-away order, ChildofMidnight jumped into my new AN/I subsection to accuse us three editors (plus perhaps another editor or two who had joined the AN/I conversation by then) of abuse, disruption, stalking, being trolls, and other nasties.[23] [24] This caused one editor to declare they were quitting the topic, and inflamed a bunch of others, including Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another party to the Arbcom case, against whom ChildofMidnight then filed another AN/I report.[25] In disrupting the Obama-related AN/I report, ChildofMidnight was not only shielding another editor's bad behavior in an Obama article through groundless accusations of bad faith, he was also furthering a content position on what the article should say.[26]

As with the earlier incident, the combination of ChildofMidnight's unprovoked personal attacks, and the ambiguity in the editing restrictions, left me no viable option other than to seek clarification here. Like Scjessey and a number of administrators, I interpret the Arbcom remedies broadly: not interacting with ChildofMidnight means not commenting about him behind his back, not insulting a group of three editors that includes him, not going to a discussion he starts to argue against his position, and so on - not saying, or reacting, or doing, or having anything to do with him. Similarly, I assumed that Arbcom's topic ban meant what it said, that ChildofMidnight was supposed to entirely avoid editing on the topic of Barack Obama broadly construed, whether it was content, the upkeep of the pages, links, deletions, categories, templates, administrative actions to protect the pages, etc.

ChildofMidnight's appearance in a sub-thread I started, arguing against my content and process position, and accusing me of being in bad faith, left me in an untenable situation. He had disrupted my discussion. I could not respond in any way, not even to say that my position was correct, because I did not want to violate the stay-away order myself. It's analogous to two people subject to a mutual restraining order who find themselves sitting next to each other on the bus. If you value your peace of mind you simply leave, whoever got there first - you don't get into an argument about which one of you has the right to the seat. Here at Arbcom we can discuss the seating arrangements on the bus. But over at AN/I, when ChildofMidnight jumped into the next seat to argue I was part of a pro-Obama mob I had to back far away. Fearful of violating my own editing restriction if I reacted at all, I hatted my own contribution and quit the thread.[27]

Variants of these and other close calls have been occurring regularly for the past month. By some counts ChildofMidnight has violated the Arbcom sanctions six or eight times now, each time with a new twist. Now he refers throughout the encyclopedia to the whole group of editors that includes me, not just me, of being censors, trolls, POV-pushers, etc. with respect to Obama articles (he has done this lately throughout the encyclopedia) without referring to me by name.

As before I was very careful in my initial filing to be neutral, minimize my references to ChildofMidnight, and not to seek any remedy, just an impartial clarification as to what the boundaries are. As before, my filing a careful report has resulted in a fresh volley of insults. I have rewritten my initial report here to be much more specific in discussing ChildofMidnight's behavior, but the block was not my doing. I am after some clear, effective rules going forward.

Discussion

If warranted I will expand an argument below that: (1) the existing Arbcom sanctions are ambiguous as to whether meta-pages are covered in the Obama topic bans and editing restrictions; (2) the edit warring, name-calling, accusations, etc., necessitating the sanctions, and harm to the project sought to be avoided were identical in article space, talk space, AfDs, ANI reports, templates, and user pages; (3) one cannot realistically prevent disruption to article and talk pages without preventing disruption to the meta-pages that exist to maintain order on those pages - if you disrupt AN/I as a forum for resolving problems in an article, you disrupt the article; (4) in this particular incident and in others in which I was not involved following the end of the case, ChildofMidnight's content disruption and personal attacks were the exact sort of behavior that merited the arbcom sanctions in the first place; and (5) given that a key reason mentioned explicitly by the arbitrators in enacting sanctions was that the conflict had spread to five or six project spaces, the intent of at least some arbitrators was that the sanctions should apply to those spaces.

If anyone really wants to solve this instead of wasting hundreds more hours of people's time in pointless process (which would add to a total in thousands), we need to recognize a few things. First, despite its title the matter here is not Obama articles or article probation. It is the behavior of several editors who happened to be at the same time and place during a 2-day period when Wikipedia was under politically motivated external attack. The attack subsided quickly, the articles maintained a stability, and there has never been a showing that these articles need the special (yet excruciatingly slow, bureaucratic, and frankly, ineffectual) type of attention Arbcom can provide. There is no problem addressed here that could not have been solved far more simply by a willing administrator. Second, once we acknowledge this as a simple behavior issue, there is and always has been only one editor here who has misbehaved to any significant degree. Can we stop this pretense and get real for a moment? If you look at the edit history of every editor involved in this latest incident, can you in all sincerity say that there is any systemic problem here? It is bizarre and dysfunctional to even be discussing the question of whether this peculiar institution we Wikipedians call a "topic ban" applies to one particular page or another, when it's so obvious we have someone acting out and causing trouble, who needs to stop acting out and causing trouble.

But if we must, on the technical question of whether the wording of the existing topic ban includes all Obama-related pages, or just article and talk space, the simple answer is that it is textually ambiguous. "You must avoid doing X in Y, including Z" does not by itself establish whether Y and Z is an inclusive or exclusive condition, or whether you must actually be present in Y to be doing X. It is a fair call to say that ChildofMidnight should not be sanctioned for violating the ban in places where it is ambiguous, but now that we are here as a clarification rather than an enforcement, arbitrators may resolve the ambiguity in whatever way they feel most accomplishes the goals of the project. Whether covered by the ban or not, X was a bad thing to do, and falls on the heels of dozens of other bad things that were done. Can we please get this editor to stop doing X? He has been allowed to do X for nine months now to 30+ different editors and many important articles. It is hurting the project and wasting all our time.

- Wikidemon (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChildofMidnight

This is outrageous. More harassment from an editor whose behavior was so atrocious and inappropriate they had to be banned from further contact with me. I haven't made a single content edit to an Obama article. Stalkers, including the one above, have pursued my contributions to any article they can argue is somehow Obama related. It's a joke. This is a continuation of their campaign of smears and half-truths against me. If I'm not allowed to speak plainly about this editor's behavior and activities then they shouldn't be able to file reports like this. This is absolutely disruptive. This editor has worked long and hard to have me banned and blocked (and I'm not the only one. Diffs available upon request).

It's enough already that Arbcom rewarded their harassment, stalking, and abuse. Put a stop to this. They are not allowed to interact with me PERIOD. I can't be expected not to comment on them if they are allowed to continue to stalk me in this way. Obama articles are Obama articles. I have let the disputes go on periferally related articles and walked away to avoid drama, but Obama comments on lots of issues and topics and the stalking of me and accusations against me need to end. If there's a concern that my editing is controversial or on an Obama article there are plenty of people who can let me know without this kind of smearing attack. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DIFF OF A SUBSTANTIAL CONTENT CHANGE I'VE MADE TO OBAMA CONTENT and I haven't made a single comment on an Obama article talk page.

That this editor is allowed to continue editing the Obama articles despite their behavior and stalking and harassment of NUMEROUS editors is an outrage. That they are also allowed to continue their abusive behavior against me is shocking.

This team effort to abuse editors who challenge their censorship and violations of our core NPOV policy cannot be allowed to continue. The policy states: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable source. These abusive and disruptive editors simply drag their opponents again and again and again through the mud on various boards. Without their activities we could all be contributing constructively to article content.

Arbcom should be disgusted with itself for rendering a decision that encourages this pattern of abusive behavior. As I stated in the Obama arbitration, failing to take action against those making personal attacks and harassing good faith contributors will only encourage the problem to grow. That's exactly what we've seen. More editors have been chased off the articles and off Wikipedia because of this disgusting abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede that I should not have added an article link to the list article page. It was a helpful edit and it's not content related or controversial, but it violated my topic ban. I think I didn't finish it (I was targeting it to the appropriate section) because I realized it was a no-no, but I don't really remember. I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time, but I shouldn't have made the edit at all. It was a mistake on my part and I apologize for it. I edit lots of articles so sometimes I may slip up. If someone wants to revert my change, go for it.

1RR on Obama articles would solve all this. I couldn't "edit war" and wouldn't have to keep dealing with this relentless stalking and harassment from these crazed POV pushers trying to find things to attack me with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I don't follow why this was brought here or what the confusion is. For question 2, the first answer was already given by Wizardman. Such editors may participate in meta discussions and AFD debates purely and simply because it's not a complete topic ban on all pages - it's limited to articles and their talk pages. However, they may not edit a list article that is related to Obama articles - that's, strictly speaking, a violation of the restriction. The diff supplied for ChildOfMidnight's topic ban violation which resulted in the block earlier today is accordingly incorrect.

As for the 3rd question on the comments made by CoM; I'm not aware of any restriction between the interactions of ChildOfMidnight and Unitanode. So there's no violation of some ArbCom restriction in those diffs, unless I'm missing something. However, they certainly have a quality that falls under general misconduct which can result in blocks and other sanctions of their own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC) modified slightly. 08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scjessey

With respect to Q2, I just assumed it was better to stay away from any Wikipedia document that involved Obama, except in processes such as these. It may be a broader interpretation than necessary, but it avoids confusion and it isn't exactly a hardship, is it? Wikipedia is a huge project, and the Obama-related articles can manage just fine without me for 6 months.

In the case of Q3, it doesn't really apply to me. I've had no contact with ChildofMidnight, apart from occasionally commenting on the same AfDs, RfAs, etc. I intentionally avoid articles where CoM participates. I'm well aware of CoM's continuous stream of accusations against other editors (particularly the use of terms such as "POV pushers"), including in these ArbCom-related discussions, but I prefer to just ignore them. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt by association problem

This is partly a response to Wikidemon's "proposed motion". In the original case, proposed amendments and clarifications, discussions about me (and the sanctions placed upon me) have always been "lumped together" with ChildofMidnight. Except in the obvious case of the interaction sanction, I formally request that matters concerning me are treated completely independently from those concerning ChildofMidnight. Our editing histories, both prior and post the ArbCom case, could not be more different. Since the resolution of the case, our Wikipedia activity has been markedly different. I do not wish to be constantly associated with ChildofMidnight, because I am concerned that my efforts to be a better Wikipedian are being tarnished by what I view as guilt-by-association (both in the original ArbCom case, and the subsequent amendments and clarifications). This is not an unreasonable request, and I ask all parties (involved or otherwise) to give this matter due consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I think it's necessary for one or the other of Wikidemon's first two motions (or something like them) to be passed. The scope of the topic ban needs to be better defined, but I think that's completely up to the committee. As I previously mentioned to Wizardman, I had been interpreting the ban as something to be construed widely, akin to Wikidemon's first proposed motion. The question of how to think about the scope first came up in late June, and I was basing my thinking at the time on these comments from Arbs in a then-active request for clarification (the discussion had been linked to by another admin and it seemed very germane to the Obama topic bans). Reviewing those comments may or may not be useful as Arbs consider this matter.

I may well have been operating under a false impression of the scope of the topic bans and that's basically fine/partially my bad (though no one was blocked by me for violating a "broadly construed" topic ban), so long as it can be clarified here one way or another. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user Jtrainor

I urge the Arbcom to stomp all over this complaint fast and furiously, with big, wooden clogs that have cleats strapped to them. CoM is absolutely correct that there are people that have been following him around Wikipedia and attempting to both provoke him and wikilawyer his restrictions to cover as wide an area as possible. Jtrainor (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CIreland

I have previously applied the remedies in this case to prevent ChildOfMidnight from discussing Obama-related matters in project space (in particular, in deletion discussions). I did so on the basis of this recent Request for Clarification in which the arbitration committee explained that topic-bans which prohibited both discussion and article editing applied to all namespaces. CIreland (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Proposed motions

  1. The text of remedies no. 9 and 10 are amended as follows:
    [user] is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages. The ban is to be construed widely, to include Obama-related subjects within articles and associated talk pages whether or not the articles themselves are primarily about Obama, and pages in all namespaces (other than proceedings before Arbcom) pertaining to such articles.
  2. (alternate) The text of remedies no. 9 and 10 are amended as follows:
    (9 and 10): [user] is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages. The ban is to be construed narrowly, to include only articles and associated talk pages primarily about Obama, and not pages in other namespaces.
  3. The text of remedies no. 11 and 11.1 are amended as follows:
    [user1] and [user2] are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. For purposes of this remedy, negative comments about edits or behavior of the other, or procedural opposition to the other, in any namespace, whether by name, reference, or as a member of a small group of editors, (other than proceedings before Arbcom) shall be considered interaction. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

- Proposed by Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment: As written, I interpreted the ban to be just the articles and article talk pages. Granted, you still have to be courteous if discussing it on the project space, that's just common sense. I'll defer to how the other arbs interpreted these remedies, and if they would like to make a motion modifying them. Wizardman 21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (2)

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


Statement by Bigtimepeace

The issue here is a straightforward one which can be corrected quite quickly. The committee recently altered several of their remedies in the Obama case such that 1RR restrictions on several editors applied not to all articles but rather only to Obama-related articles. The problem is that two editors, ChildofMidnight and Scjessey, are also under a topic ban for these articles. The revised remedies now seem to conflict with that as worded. For example remedy 9.2 says that "ChildofMidnight is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles" for one year, except that for the next few months C of M is not supposed to be editing Obama articles at all. This was apparently cause for confusion as discussed on ChildofMidnight's talk page here.

ChildofMidnight now understands that the topic ban is still in effect, but it would probably be better if the language were clarified, or if an Arb simply made a statement here about how to interpret the remedies in question. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fayssal, I'm sorry but I find it highly illogical that the 1 year, 1RR restriction begins after the topic ban has ended. I don't think that can be true. For one thing, as Scjessey pointed out, the proposed decision specifically said "To run concurrently" (or at least that's what Wizardman said). There's no sign in the final decision that that had changed.
Additionally, we need to bear in mind that the original 1RR restriction (for Scjessey, ChildofMidnight, Sceptre, Grundle2600, and Stevertigo) was for all articles. Three of those editors were not hit with a topic ban, and obviously their restriction began immediately (indeed the whole reason that the original remedies were superseded was that one of the editors complained that the restriction was too harsh, so clearly it was in effect at that time and the committee treated it as such when it superseded the restriction with a narrower alternative). As far as I know there was no comment anywhere from the Arbs that the 1RR restrictions for Scjessey and ChildofMidnight were different, or that they were beginning in 6 months (again, that would have been bizarre, as the 1RR was not just for Obama articles, but rather for everything—why would it have not started right away and run alongside the topic ban?).
Additionally, despite what you are saying now, clearly all those in question believed they were under a 1RR restriction and I think myself and all other admins familiar with the case believed that as well. So they've already been abiding by that, but now you seem to be saying they have not even started serving their time (so to speak). That's a problem.
Finally, the whole point of switching from 1RR for everything to 1RR for Obama only was, I assume, to relax the original sanctions. While this has happened for the three editors who were not topic banned (they are not 1RR limited in non-Obama topics), your suggestion that the 1RR restriction does not go into effect for Scjessey and ChildofMidnight for 6 months has the effect of strengthening their sanctions. The original remedies clearly sanctioned them for a year, but now they have a year and a half of sanctions, which strikes me as rather excessive.
So I'm wondering if Fayssal maybe just got it wrong here. Regardless, the situation is in far more need of clarification than I thought. The committee needs to be much more clear about where we stand, and at this point that may actually require a further amending of the remedies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChildofMidnight

As I seem to have been the only one who was confused, I don't think a clarification is needed. I'm straightened out now. Frankly, I hadn't realized Scjessey and I were the only ones topic banned and had, indeed, read the new remedy as allowing me to edit Obama articles as long as I limited myself to 1 revert a week and discussed any reverts (an proposal that seems pretty reasonable). That would be a more appropriate remedy, but I see that the other "remedy" is still in place, and I'm sure that any requests for modification would need to be filed in a different venue and queue. Anyway, I don't see any need for action or clarification. If the committee believes a 6 month ban serves a purpose aside from benefitting the censors and POV pushers camped out on those articles and the harassing stalkers who continue to use any sanction against me at every possible opportunity, then that's their priviledge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Fayssal's reading of the sanctions. 18 months? But whatever. The various policy violations engaged in by arbcom, their punitive punishments, and their lack of willingness to work collaboratively with editors to solve problems speaks for itself. I have noticed some improvement in response times which is nice. We waited months to get the monstrosity of a verdict you rendered in this case, and of course it's done nothing but perpetuate and aid the continued animosity, hostility, and abuse dished out on the Obama articles. But you guys are the captains of this ship, so who am I to yell ICEBEEEEERG!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The day there'd be no ANI reports and all what comes with regarding a conflict then I'd be able to accept an appeal to reduce the restrictions' period. We do that all the time. From the part of ArbCom, that only necessitates a round of discussions and a motion being drafted. From the part of the concerned parties, that needs dedication; more work. The periods are less relevant ChildofMidnight. Everything can be amended. Now, it is up to the parties to show ArbCom some progress. It is up to you to avoid the iceberg, we are not captains... you are the captains as we have just given you the ship and asked you to give it back to us without any damage. The sooner, the better. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is utter bullshit and shows you have not the slightest understanding of the nature of how POV pushers, stalkers, and harassment works on Wikipedia. The day arbcom assists good faith content contributors like Giano, Malleus, Badagnani, myself and others, instead of aiding and abetting those who abuse the noticeboards to disrupt our work, will be a true triumph for Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Mythdon

It's indeed very clear that the topic ban on ChildOfMidnight is still in place. The topic ban, from my calculations, lasts until approximately December 21, 2009.

I really actually have no involvement in this honestly, and have not reviewed the evidence of this case, and do not edit Obama articles, but without regard to that, anyone reading the remedy will know that the topic ban is still in place.

While it's clear that the topic ban is still in effect, my assumption is that the 1RR restriction on ChildOfMidnight with respect to the Obama articles takes effect once the topic ban ends. Is this true? If so, it would make sense to reword the restriction to that effect. The same clarification should also be done for Scjessy's 1RR restriction, and if it's the same case with Scjessy, a rewording will be needed for that 1RR too. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question (on unrelated issue) by Wikidemon

May we please have a clarification of the new remedy duration as well? The original 1RR per week restrictions were one year from the date they were issued, June 21 2009. The modifications also mention a period of 1 year, but are dated August 2, 2009.[28] I would assume the intent was not to reset the end dates, i.e. the new remedy applies until June 21, 2010, not August 2, 2010. To avoid conclusion it may help to make that clear. I mentioned this to User:MBisanz as clerk[29] but have not heard back. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per FayssalF, below, the 1 year 1RR periods run successively rather than concurrently with the 6 year topic bans, a possibility I had overlooked. If that is indeed the intent, maybe it is best to add some text like "...after the conclusion of the foregoing sanction". - Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scjessey

I am a little confused. It was my understanding that the sanctions were to run concurrently (as indicated in the proposed decision that was written by Wizardman). I do not recall anyone suggesting that these sanctions were to run successively. If this is indeed the case, it seems an extraordinarily harsh measure (even with the recent amendment). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The set of the articles in question belongs to the BLP area and we all know how that specific area is sensitive. That said, —and for now— you can still consider my view as that of an individual arbitrator; we are still waiting for the views of my colleagues. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

Checking in from Margaritaville even tho I was trying to avoid teh internets. Ah well. Anyways, I'd thought this all was pretty crystal-clear, as several users were given 2 prohibitions;

1) a 6-month ban from Obama-related topics and talk pages
2) a 1RR/page/week project-wide.

Number 2 was rescinded on appeal for all, leaving only #1. This is now the 4th time that one, ChildofMidnight, has violated Prohibition #1. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Allstarecho

Whatever is decided here, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee should be updated to reflect such. This would help with any confusion.

Comment by Ncmvocalist

Why not review at a more appropriate time - specifically, 6 months after the topic ban has expired? Whether there is a need, or not, for the extra 6 months of 1RR to continue in the area of conflict, can be clarified at that time (when it's more relevant). I don't understand why there is a sense of urgency to know now, when it's possible that it (or a harsher or a less restrictive sanction) potentially may be re-imposed closer to that time anyway. Alternatively, closer to that time, there might not be a need for it. On the ever-growing list of things-to-do for ArbCom, this probably is one of the simplest ones to answer: no action until 5 months after topic ban has expired. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • If merging remedy 9 and 9.2 together (also 10 and 10.2) would help then I'd not have a problem. Whatever is the case, ChildofMidnight and Scjessey are both topic banned from all Obama-related articles for 6 months. After the 6 months are expired then both users are restricted to not revert more than 1 revert per week for a whole year. Both restrictions cover 18 months. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer the question on the dates, they're not reset, so they still started at the end of the case. On this one, I doubled checked and actually wrote it as meaning to be concurrent, i.e. topic ban and 1rr 6 months (in case the former was lifted), then 1rr the next six months. I will defer to my fellow arbs on how they interpreted this restriction though. Wizardman 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

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

Statement by Damian Yerrick

Remedy 8 ("Editors instructed") requires users "(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration". However, some Internet service providers run all users' Internet connections through a proxy. This includes or included AOL and the only ISP in Qatar (see WP:SIP). Other Internet service providers, such as all ISPs in the People's Republic of China (see WP:TOR), use other forms of connection filtering, and users of those ISPs cannot view or edit Wikipedia except through proxies. On behalf of people affected by an ISP's proxy, I request an explanation of why these people should remain topic-banned.

Statement by other user

Statement by OverlordQ

The method currently described by the pages on WP:WOCP has not worked since CentralAuth was enabled, as such mine has never been online, nor had any users. Q T C 16:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Note that the preamble to the remedy 8 rulings limits them to "edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:" — Rlevse • Talk • 12:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was inactive on this case, and I may not quite grasp the technical material being discussed here, so I will defer to those of my colleagues that were active on the case, and to those who can answer the technical questions better than I could. Carcharoth (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the purpose of this remedy is to reduce the prevalence of socking and mischief on these articles by ensuring that each editor on the pages edits from only a single account and does not use commonly used methods such as proxying to disguise editing through multiple accounts, editing despite a topic ban, etc. If there is a real issue with the remedy winding up having the effect of preventing non-problematic editors from editing these articles despite having engaged in no misconduct, then a modification of the remedy may be in order. Before doing so, I think we would want to know that the issue is real rather than theoretical, so a more detailed explanation of the affected editor(s)' situation may be helpful to us (this can be submitted via e-mail rather than on-wiki if there are privacy issues involved). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to state outright that I would not interpret that a proxy imposed by a normal, commercial or national ISP is "editing through a proxy configuration" by any reasonable interpretation: that remedy was directed at those who would seek to "anonymize" their editing by circumventing normal IP routing. This does, however, include usage of TOR or anonymizing proxies. — Coren (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Coren. Use of tor or anonymising proxies or other open proxies is not acceptable. Known commercial or national ISPs are not included. Risker (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newyorkbrad frames it well. I also agree with Coren. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newyorkbrad explains the "why" quite well. However most of the scenarios given are not topic banned. Here is an overview:
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies is not operational, so that appears to be a non-issue
    • private customers of ISPs like Qtel are not restricted simply because of the way their network is set up
    • editing Scientology via TOR is prohibited, however if someone can demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that they have a valid reason to edit via TOR, such as Internet censorship, we committee will review the request privately.
    John Vandenberg (chat) 13:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with NYB, Risker, ect. A national ISP is fine, but anonymization is not. Cool Hand Luke 16:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the above arbs comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Bluemarine

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

Statement by Sandstein

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine, on 1 February 2008, the Committee decided upon the following remedy: "Bluemarine is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year to run concurrently with the existing indefinite community ban."

On 10 December 2008, the Committee passed the following amendment to that case (permalink):

"Limited unblock with conditions:This committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova (talk · contribs). Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.
Passed 7 to 0, 09:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)."

Yesterday, I blocked Bluemarine for a week following a report at WP:ANI#Matt Sanchez part 2 that he had violated these restrictions. The block has since been contested at the ANI thread by Durova and one reviewing admin, Jpgordon (talk · contribs), who unlike me believe the restriction(s) on Bluemarine are no longer in effect. As of this writing, there is also an open unblock request at User talk:Bluemarine#July 2009.

I ask the Committee to clarify:

  1. whether the community ban of Bluemarine as referred to in the remedy and amendment remains in effect,
  2. whether the conditional lifting of this ban and the restrictions on Bluemarine's editing as specified in the amendment also remain in effect.

Thanks,  Sandstein  05:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Allstarecho

I'd just like to clarify that Matt Sanchez, aka User:Bluemarine, was under a community ban before his Arbcom ban. His 1-year Arbcom ban did expire in February of this year, which would have been before the 60-day stipulation to end. 60-days would have put him under Arbcom ban until March when the initial 1-year ban expired in February. So technically, there is nothing Arbcom can, or needs to, rule on here as Arbcom's jurisdiction ended in February by the original Arbcom ban or in March by the Arbcom 60-day stipulation - depending on how you interpret the Arbcom ban. What is left to do is for the community to decide whether or not to lift his community ban, which again, he was placed under before his Arbcom ban.

This is all brought about because he made 6 edits yesterday while still under community ban, after having been informed he was still under the community ban back in May when he made edits. In May he was told by Durova not to edit anywhere but his talk page until the matter was resolved. Unfortunately, it went stale and was never resolved then but as he wasn't informed that it was resolved, he should have asked on his talk page what the status was.

As I have agreed with Durova in recent past discussions with her, I support the lifting of his community ban with the stipulations that he is banned from editing his related BLP article or article talk page as well as the same for the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article. In addition, as also agreed with Durova in recent past discussions with her, based on Sanchez's history of vile personal attacks towards other editors, should he lodge any personal attacks, he shall be immediately and indefinitely blocked again. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 07:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jpgordon

Just a slight correction -- at this point I have no idea what the status of ArbCom's restricted unblocking is. It's not clear from the language whether the committee intended it to outlive the committee's original sanctions. A reasonable person could interpret it either way. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Recommend remanding this to the community. Bluemarine's arbitration ban has expired. The community could clarify his status and/or impose new restrictions on its own. Durova284 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect extended toward Newyorkbrad's comment, the basic structure of a new editing restriction is something the community should be able to handle quite well. In about May I made such a proposal (basically a topic ban from his old areas of conflict). There was a socking concern that got raised, which turned out to be a nonissue, but investigation delayed discussion so the proposal didn't achieve consensus (mainly because the noticeboard was fast-moving). Shortly afterward Bluemarine went away on business and has had limited Internet access since then. That's the only reason a second proposal hasn't already gone to the community. Durova285 01:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although nobody formally closed the discussion, it appears the community has decided upon a topic ban. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive555#Matt_Sanchez Durova293 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by Lar

This user is not worth the trouble, in my view. Their past history is filled with disputes with all and sundry. The word "collegial" is not, in my view, in their vocabulary. Recommend putting or keeping a complete ban in place. Else we'll be here again soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 09:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sam Blacketer

I was drafting arbitrator on the original case. I also voted to support the amending motion in December, and remember thinking when doing so that it would be good to progressively lift Bluemarine's editing ban in the period leading up to the end of the year ban when he would be free to edit. Obviously any community sanction is administered separately. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChildofMidnight

I suggest that Bluemarine be unbanned along with a stipulation that on the Matt Sanchez article and maybe a few other closely related articles he limit his contributions to the talk pages (per standard COI type concerns). I also think a mentor would be helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:ani#Matt Sanchez there seems to be a good consensus in favor of revising and updating Bluemarine's statud to the following edit restrictions:

  • Bluemarine is banned from the Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages.
  • He is prohibited from editing LGBT article topics and related talk pages, broadly construed.
  • Bluemarine is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial or of personal and emotional investment so as to avoid dispute and confrontations and to gain experience editing Wikipedia collaboratively. As the community is extending good faith, please return it by limiting yourself to the one account and remember that personal attacks will not be tolerated. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked for an appropriate increment of time at the discretion of an administrator.

Is a more formal vote needed or can we move forward with this as agreed to and supported by his mentor, myself, Allstarecho, and other editors who made comments in the discussion? The only concern was whether Arbcom approval of some sort was needed, but my understanding is that you want the community to make the determination.

Statement by Will Beback

I sugges that the ArbCom give some statement on this editor's status, at least on an interim basis, while a final decision is made. At the moment no one is sure what his status is.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

Looking at the history of this, it would appear that this user has exhausted the community's patience. Clearly an agenda-driven editor whose goals here appear to be completely contrary to a collaborative editing project, at least in politically-oriented articles. Short of an outright ban, a topic ban would be the only other option. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other Jac16888

I was not aware of this arbcom issue, nor am I involved in anyway, but it should probably be noted that I have just blocked bluemarine for 72 hours for this personal attack, [30]--Jac16888Talk 13:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My view is that we should cut to the chase, and decide what editing restrictions, if any are needed for the editor. Once that is enacted, then the past sanctions do not matter. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands there are no more active arbitration remedies, but the community ban remains in effect (the original decision deliberately did not override that). Bluemarine can now either appeal the ban to the community, or appeal it to us. --bainer (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Bainer, with preference the community handle this. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On an initial look, I agree with bainer's comment. I do want to look at this more closely though, so may return to this at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a closer examination (and following the recent request for arbitration), the community now appear to be handling this, but I share Risker's concerns. Bluemarine needs to disengage from the areas he is topic banned from, and diversify his editing. I've reviewed his editing history, and a vast number of his edits are to the talk page of one article. There may well be good reasons for that, but there are other ways (off-wiki and through intermediaries) to address such concerns other than using an account almost exclusively for a single purpose. Carcharoth (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the best path forward is to figure out what restrictions, if any, are needed going forward, rather than to focus on which past ones technically are still in effect or not. I'm not sure, however, that I agree with the preference expressed above that the community debate the restrictions, since there are sensitive BLP and other issues involved that might best not be addressed on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Stephen Bain. Should Bluemarine wish to appeal his community ban, he can appeal either to the community or directly to the Arbitration Committee. I do take note of Bluemarine's talk page, and remain concerned that Bluemarine's main purpose at Wikipedia is to directly influence a single biographical page; this is something that Bluemarine will need to address in any ban appeal. Risker (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take note of the current discussion here, where it appears that an administrator has advised Bluemarine that his community ban is lifted (with restrictions), but Bluemarine was subsequently reblocked for personal attacks as mentioned above. While I do not object to the community deciding to lift the ban, I remain concerned about this user, and hope that his behaviour is carefully monitored by several editors/administrators, particularly in view of the activities of recent days. Risker (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the time being, I believe the community can discuss and coordinate with the mentor all the details of any restriction or deal. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Date delinking

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

Statement by Ohconfucius

In view of the following remedy in the recent ArbCom Date Delinking Case:

"31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions."

I seek clarification as to whether "Editing guidelines" includes the WP:Naming conventions, which is a policy page.

The user has edited the policy page 6 times since the case closed (1 2 3 4 5 6) In the fifth edit, he remove a link to the WP:Manual of Style and replaced it by a link to an article, with a possibly deceptive edit summary.

This undiscussed change may well have been contentious (it has since been reverted) and appears to involve just the scope that Remedy 31.1 refers to

I would ask for the status of the edits to this guideline be clarified in relation to the remedy. The editor has been made aware of this request. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MBisanz: Maybe I misunderstood the function of this page, but if clerks believe it should be moved to AE, then so be it. The reason I brought it here was because I am only seeking clarification as to what was covered – I am under similar editing restraint and would gladly like to know whether same freedom applies to me. Anyway, I was not specifically after enforcement at this point, not clear as if there had been a breach.
Response to Mandy: I guess that the animosity and sarcasm from Manderson is to be expected, bearing in mind our historical antagonism. BTW, I am not one to judge whether the one "outrageous edit" was intended to game the system. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this thread can be closed - I have now moved this request to WP:AE, per the advice from Matthew. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pmanderson

What does this have to do with date-delinking? Why am I being dragged back into it?

Ohconfucious appears to have missed this outrageous edit in which I inserted a space between two paragraphs.

As for the edit summary complained of, it says, in full: refer to article, with sources; there are advantages to working on an encyclopedia. There are; these include access to articles on English grammar when we want to indicate what that grammar actually is; they have citations and sources; MOS doesn't.

As Roger Davies wrote, now on the talk page of WP:ARBDATE, topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. The naming conventions are in fact much less contentious; it was with relief that I returned to discussing them, as I have been doing for years. Applying them is less so, as the recently concluded Macedonia case will show; I have been discussing that also, and its consequences, with several admins and some arbitrators. Nobody suggested that this topic ban applied in any way.

It may indeed be possible to apply this decision mechanically, so that it will amount to a site ban; did ArbCom mean that? (And if so, did they mean it, somehow, just for me, or does it apply to all parties alike?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MiBisanz: If the arbitrators intend their wording to have anything like this scope, it would be nice if they would say so. But if this is simply moved to AE, would you make sure my response goes along? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Sigh. It's another thing to actively watch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Ohconfucius: Why no; I added this line to divide a paragraph into two, as the edit summary (divide paras) says. This made that section uniform with all other sections.
  • The insinuation (Cicero had a term for this figure of speech) that I have been gaming the system is incivility; so is the distortion of my username. I have two; either would be acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

Without looking at anything beyond the first couple of lines, this looks like something for WP:AE as it does not seem to rise to the level of an intractable dispute between enforcing admins over what a remedy means. MBisanz talk 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Pmanderson
I'm recused on this case, so I won't be doing anything clerk-ish or admin-ish with regard to it. Best to ask another clerk. MBisanz talk 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment No. Naming guidelines, while a policy, are not within "style and editing guidelines" vis a vis the scope of the date delinking arb case. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't naming guidelines as within the scope of the restriction.  Roger Davies talk 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AE is a better venue for this request. An admin and other uninvolved editors can decide if the edits are problematic considering the letter and spirit of the editing restriction. In any given situation, it is possible for edits to be considered disruptive or good. For this particular case, I see no reason to automatically increase the range of the topic ban to the point that every edit is reviewed for a potential misstep. But if the edits are tendentious, disruptive, or controversial in other ways then it would make sense for an admin to enforce the editing restrictions in the broadest way. In my opinion, this is best decided at AE. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I'll concur with my colleagues here and agree that naming guidelines are not a matter of style, but of contents. Therefore, discussion there does not fall under the restriction's scope. — Coren (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting here (on the off-chance that any motions are proposed) that I recused on the original case. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my colleagues, this (a) belongs at the Arbitration Enforcement page, if anywhere and (b) does not appear to fall within the editing restrictions. Risker (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've offered a motion in the amendments section, that if adopted, would probably render this issue moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • per Risker. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Risker et al. Wizardman 04:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=307082843"