Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Eastern Europe	none	none	8 July 2012
Amendment request: Civility enforcement	none	(orig. case)	4 July 2012
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: WP:ARBMAC — expand / clarify existing Balkans sanctions to cover Cyprus|Clarification request: WP:ARBMAC — expand / clarify existing Balkans sanctions to cover Cyprus]]	none	none	3 July 2012
Amendment request: Eastern European mailing list	none	(orig. case)	27 June 2012
Clarification request: Date delinking	none	none	23 June 2012
Clarification request: Annotation of case pages for sanctioned users who have changed username	none	none	23 June 2012
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan|Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan]]	none	(orig. case)	7 July 2012

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Clarification request: Eastern Europe

Initiated by Nug (talk) at 20:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

• Nug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Nug

Are Admins required to place the notice of discretionary sanction on IPs, particularly static IPs, and add them to WP:ARBEE#List_of_editors_placed_on_notice? In two recent 3RN cases[1][2], User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked both User:Jaan (and FPoS did not take into account there was no diff warning Jaan, unlike admin Kuru did in a subsequent case[3]) and User:16.120.84.244 for breaching the 3RR rule. He subsequently noticed Jaan[4] and added him to the log[5], but did not do the same for the static IP. I asked him why[6], but seems to be ignoring my question[7]. It seems other admins treat IPs equally, for example User_talk:184.36.234.102, but apparently not FPaS. Could the Committee give direction on this. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

FPaS states: "I didn't feel like it, because the IP editor was new to the area and I wasn't yet seeing a consistent pattern of problems." seems somewhat disturbing. Jaan had a clean block log and four GAs (while nowhere near as many as some of the Wiki-superstars is still pretty good in the Baltic topic area), so what "consistent pattern of problems" did FPaS observe in Jaan? I don't recall Jaan ever being involved in revert wars previously. Did he observe Jaan was from Estonia from his user page and concluded "Yep, from Estonia, therefore a problem", then added an Arb notice for good measure? --Nug (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

[Annoyed grunt] by Fut.Perf.

This is about nothing. I gave two users a standard (and therefore unlogged) 3RR block. I gave one of them a standard (and properly logged) arb warning at the same time. This is not about formalities of logging stuff, nor about how to treat IPs. It's simply about the fact that Nug, POV ally of the editor I warned, is unhappy I didn't warn the other guy too. Well, so what? I didn't feel like it, because the IP editor was new to the area and I wasn't yet seeing a consistent pattern of problems. But I warned him now, because he resumed edit-warring in the same way immediately after coming back from the block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• As it says on the tin, "All sanctions imposed under the provisions of a particular arbitration case are to be logged in the appropriate section of the case page".  Roger Davies ^talk 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• The existence of discretionary sanctions doesn't change the ability of admins to hand out standard, garden-variety edit-warring blocks. Of course, whether a block is filed as an AE block or not does change whether the restrictions on removing an AE block come into play. But there is nothing in the rules that requires a block that could be filed as an AE one be so filed. But, if an IP is going to be sanctioned under AE, the paperwork must be done, just as if it was an account that is blocked. Also, as far as I'm concerned, the templated notification is basically an individual "heads up" regarding the different conditions some articles operate under, and not some form of indictment of wrong-doing. Courcelles 00:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• An admin may elect to use AE sanctions or community sanctions according to their judgement of the circumstances, so Fut.Perf.'s explanation seems reasonable. Where Fut.Perf may have erred, was in not responding to a legitimate query as to his actions as admins are accountable for their actions: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." However, as it was the same day as posting the question that this clarification was opened, it's possible that Nug may have been a little impatient, and a second request to Fut.Perf. would have been more in keeping with the collegiate environment we attempt to create. There is no obligation on any user to answer queries in any particular order, and it is not uncommon for people to work upwards on their talkpage rather than downwards, or even to miss a query if a second one came in quickly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• I pretty much agree with Courcelles and SilkTork. In any event, this seems moot now, as the static IP has been warned as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Civility enforcement

Initiated by Nobody Ent at 12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Civility enforcement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 4

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Nobody Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

[8]

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Malleus_Fatuorum_and_discussions_related_to_adminship
• Request addition of While contributing to any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship, Malleus Fatorum will limit his comments to the current candidate under discussion.

Statement by Nobody Ent

Since being topic banned from the Rfa talk page MF has periodically used the comments sections to aggressively engage other commenters; the most current example has resulted in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Malleus_Fatuorum; A civil request to correct an edit of another editors signature [9] escalated unnecessarily [10]. Additional examples of comments not related to the candidate [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]Nobody Ent 8:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom previously found ...his comments are derisive and belittling. The volume and consistency of his participation has affected the quality of discourse on the page.

The signature incident and reaction following were ridiculous. Fram should have simply fixed the signature glitch when they saw it, and Malleus should have looked at the diff provided and fixed it when it was pointed out. The resultant ANI thread turned out to be vehement, emotional, and unproductive. This suggests the situation described by Risker last December -- simply too divisive to continue as is -- remains essentially unchanged.

As a remedy to its prior finding, the committee topic banned Malleus from WT:RFA while explicitly " explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's."

Had the signature glitch occurred in the context of reasonable discussion, it most likely would have been dealt with appropriately. In fact, it occurred in the context of not of discussion of the merits of Ryan Vesey as a potential administrator, but rather following a demeaning statement regarding another editor Actually what's clear is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and are incapable of independent thought. To reduce the likelihood of future disruption, I'm suggesting the committee logically extend its current restriction of Malleus from the WT:RFA space to the WP:RFA space; specifically, that he limit he comments to the merits of the candidate rather than characterizations of the other participants in the discussion. Such characterizations:

• have no bearing on appropriateness of granting the candidate the sysop bit
• add to the verbiage a closing bureaucrat must evaluate while adding no value
• have a moderate probability of initiating an off-topic, divisive side discussions.

I further suggest wording to the effect of Unnecessary comments in RFA discussions belittling Malleus Fatuorum may be removed by any administrator to minimize the probability of ongoing baiting.

All this is excessive nannyism and should not be necessary but evidence suggests that something is. Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. is supposed to be a core Wikipedia policy. Nobody Ent 10:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sphilbrick

The discussion of the WP:FRINGE guideline was germane to a question asked of the candidate. While ascertaining whether the questioner (as opposed to the candidate) fully understood the policy is a slight veer off-topic, it is far less off-topic than discussions in almost every other RfA. Plus it was interesting. A kerfuffle arose which had nothing to do with whether MF was discussing the candidate or someone else. If the Committee wants to rule that no one can ever engage in off-topic discussions, I have a tide I'd like them to order rolled back. If the committee entertains the notion that a specific editor should have the unique prohibition of staying narrowly on-topic, I think we need a far better argument than noting that a technical glitch turned into some harsh words elsewhere.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Worm That Turned

I was one of the editors who offered evidence for this sanction in the first place. Since it has been enacted, I have found that it is not fit for purpose. Specifically, it can be used to silence Malleus Fatuorum by moving discussions on a vote to the talk page - so long discussions sometimes remain on the RfA. The focus should be at WT:RfA specifically, which is where (in my opinion) the disruption occurred, not the subpages. I should also note that no uninvolved administrator has yet topic banned Malleus from a specific RfA (to the best of my knowledge). I would propose shortening the remedy to

Malleus Fatuorum is indefinitely topic banned from Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship.

I do not see the rest of the remedy as useful. Worm^TT(talk) 15:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed at what this has turned into since I made my initial comment. Whilst I still stand by my comments, I do not approve of this request turning into what it's turned into. Yet another little drama fest, over nothing, with intense labelling by both sides. I'm seeing the merits of Volunteer Mark's Alpha or Omega options - though I'd suggest that administrators deserve blocks just as much as non-admins in Omega. Worm^TT(talk) 15:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Br'er Rabbit

As said on ANI, this was a case of Mally being baited by Fram.

• "I wanted to draw your attention to it and wait for your reaction. It turns out to be quite telling."^here

This is conduct incompatible with being an administrator. It erodes the desired respect of the admin corp we would, in theory, desire the general editor population to have. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Equazcion

I wanted to comment on this diff, that User:Br'er Rabbit brought above. I've had to fix a lot of edit conflict messes from other editors, as they generally result in text getting inserted into the header of a page. I've never seen anything end up erroneously within another person's comment. I accept Malleus' eventual explanation that this was indeed a technical error, but I don't think there was reason to assume anything either way when Fram contacted Malleus. My first thought on seeing an edit like Malleus' would have indeed been to see how the editor would explain it when confronted. Fram presented the matter without any accusatory demeanor, but simply asked that the edit be corrected. There was no baiting. Malleus nevertheless chose not to explain anything until the matter was brought to ANI, and instead responded with stonewalling and insults until then. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:37, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to reply to all the present and inevitable comments that start with "I'm not excusing his behavior, but...": Yes, you are excusing it, in all the ways that matter.

Fram had what I think was a poor choice of words in his second comment, when he said the insertion looked intentional. His first notice to Malleus showed that he wasn't passing judgment, but Malleus' reply pushed Fram in the wrong direction. Indeed, nobody's perfect, but the majority of imperfect interactions don't generally escalate the way they do with Malleus, because his interactions in these cases are far more than imperfect.

The reaction from many is to repeatedly claim that this is just some drama that should be dropped. "I'm not excusing him, he reacted badly, but... [this won't get anywhere] [it's just drama] [everyone's making a big deal about this] [time to move on] [etc]" -- This is indeed excusing him. You're blaming everyone else for calling attention to his repeated pattern of poor behavior, no matter how many times he displays it.

What's worse than the mere words that Malleus produces is the fact that he takes advantage of everyone else's restraint. Most of us don't want discussions to descend into insults, because we've learned that it rarely gets anything accomplished -- not to mention, we consider ourselves bound by the Wikipedia rules that Malleus nevertheless eschews. This gives Malleus extra impunity as he exploits the situation. It's kind of like a superpower -- he can do something everyone else can't or won't do. Malleus will either stop a discussion dead or bring out attacks from others, and both outcomes tend to help him -- he either gets the last word or successfully brings out the other guy's immaturity, making him look bad. Once Malleus starts making comments that have no substance other than calling people "twats", "aresholes", etc, those are the only two options.

There was a Family Guy episode where some high school students were standing around trying to think of something to do. One suggested, "Hey, want to go push the janitor, knowing he can't legally push us back?" Enter Malleus, our very own high school student, who gets to push us around whilst exploiting the fact that we can't push back -- and if we do, all the better for him.

So before we yet again say "I don't excuse him, but [insert comment that excuses him]," let's think. A little more than usual this time. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:54, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Parrot of Doom: I'll make you a deal: If consensus is that that comment of mine you linked to is indeed on the level of Malleus' behavior, I'll gun for an indefinite block for both Malleus and myself. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:12, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: If mirroring sanctions on another person from the other side should somehow make enacting them on Malleus easier, I hereby volunteer. I'd take a three-month ban, so long as Malleus gets it too. I'll gladly give up three months of my wiki-life to give three months of reprieve to the rest of Wikipedia from Malleus' vitriol. Yeah yeah, content creation, but I actually think maintaining the right environment is more important than retaining one good content creator. The former has the potential to retain more content creators and general positive contributions. Or you can ban us both from all corners of RfA, though admittedly I tend to stay away from there on my own already. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:54, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

PS. No part of this is a joke. I'd do it. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:56, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Ched: If it could be said that every time Malleus calls someone a twat it's because someone else prodded him into it, then this has happened enough times that we can say Malleus is far too easily prodded. It takes two to tango. Being prodded, if it has happened (and I'm definitely not saying it has), is not an excuse for the type of behavior Malleus exhibits. I get prodded all the time, as do others, and none of us react that way. We're under the impression that we're expected to control ourselves and not fly off the handle whenever an excuse comes along. Either we're all mistaken and are actually welcome to act like children when someone presents the opportunity, or we're not and Malleus needs a clear and broad edict to shape up or suffer a lasting consequence. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:02, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Pesky: Calling the other side the "out-to-get-Malleus brigade," in same post where you say you're sick of polarizing name-calling from us such as "fan club," etc, is pretty vexing. And in response to this exchange:

"Somebody pokes the bear with a stick, the bear growls at them, and they go running and crying 'Mommy, the nasty bear growled at me - shoot the bear, Mommy!' -- Boing! said Zebedee"

"Where's that 'vicious dog' comic strip again? Pesky"

I find these dismissive characterizations just as "uncivil" as the "names" you point out. A characterization doesn't have to be in the form of a name in order to have the same exact mocking effect you describe in your statement. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:18, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Parrot of Doom

@Equazcion: "Most of us don't want discussions to descend into insults, because we've learned that it rarely gets anything accomplished -- not to mention, we consider ourselves bound by the Wikipedia rules that Malleus nevertheless eschews." - it's a shame isn't it, that you can't follow your own sagely advice. Parrot of Doom 21:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1

Malleus either actually needs to understand civility, or he needs further restrictions. As someone who regularly uses bad language (when appropriate) I find it increasingly difficult to understand why Malleus' behaviour hasn't started to improve to a level where we don't have to have an ANI thread about him every five minutes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets also be clear that the diffs recently presented on ANI ([17] [18]) aren't exactly borderline incivility. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@RexxS, even if we assume that Fram could have improved his handling of the situation (which I think is fair) that doesn't excuse the totally over the top rudeness towards User:IRWolfie- - and that rudeness was at a much more serious level that the minor inappropriateness of Fram's comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@RexxS's reply, I agree with you, and I agree with you that we do an extremely poor job of solving disputes productively.

With regards to our poor handling of disputes in general there does seem to be a tendency in cases (if Arbcom want some examples I'll email them, I'd like to avoid adding to the drama by naming names) like this for the supporters of the individual in question to try and pretend that there is no issue at all that is worthy discussion.

That makes it extremely difficult for anyone to agree any sanctions for popular users beyond an indefinite block, as even though they probably only make up 20% of the community, given (obviously) everyone else isn't in lockstep about appropriate sanctions it is difficult to propose anything serious and gain a consensus.

Some additional nuance and subtlety from those people would be extremely helpful - it is the sort of thing we expect already with regards to WP:NPOV too and that approach is much more likely to actually avoid the indefinite block that as fans of Malleus' work they clearly want to avoid.

In this case some level of private mentoring from someone Malleus respects to tell him to drop it, and/or a one month block to see if Malleus really does value contributing to the project and/or a ban from RFA might well work to allow Malleus to continue to be highly productive in other areas while ignoring those parts of the project where he has the most problems.

Lets not pretend that unless there is a substantial change in behaviour that unfortunately Malleus will eventually get an indefinite ban from the project. It might not be this month, or even this year, but it will happen as it has to others in the past. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

This was all precipitated by Malleus's argument with IRWolfie, specifically this response which not only suggested that IRWolfie should re-read the Earth article, but also managed to insert "In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth" in the middle of IRWolfie's sig in the previous comment. Now nobody is going to convince anybody that that is anything other than a glitch. In fact, reading on, Malleus clearly didn't even realise it had happened. It just isn't the sort of thing Malleus does. At that point I have no idea why on earth common sense didn't prevail and somebody simply didn't remove the sentence from the middle of IRWolfie's sig.

Even if we allow that Malleus needed to know it had happened, surely the way to approach it would be to ask him on his talk page why – or if he knew that – he had inserted a sentence in the middle of IRWolfie's sig? Once somebody goes to his page and takes this approach, with an assumption of the editing being "intentional", we know that common sense has been ditched again, and this is a trawling expedition expecting Malleus to respond sharply. Congratulations, he did. Why does anybody waste their time on moah dramah like this? Sometimes I despair for this project. --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@Eraserhead1

Yes, Malleus was rude. I wasn't trying to excuse anything. But I was saddened by seeing the escalation from retort to confrontation to ANI to RfAr Amendment.

[on reflection] Why does the community act like a huge Petri dish and grow disputes like cultures, when we could all damp down the growth like penicillin instead? Step away; forget about the slight; buy somebody a beer - Stella Artois for Malleus. We could really do so much better. --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as an outside view: It's because everyone takes their work here as a personal goal or achievement. Having that questioned tends to bring out the territorial animal in all of us. Combined with the semi-anonymous nature of editing, people tend to let that out more often than they would offline. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 06:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-

Here is the sequence of events for the current incident: I am an FTN regular and so I wished to determine how familiar with fringe guidelines the candidate was (I like to consider I am relatively familiar with them as I look at them and the related WP:NPOV often). The candidate answered the question, (whilst noting that he was not very familiar with them) and I was not entirely satisfied with the answer and I provided my reasoning whilst voting neutral. A simple two comment discussion between me and malleus about whether his answer was right or wrong resulted in this comment out of the blue: [19]. When I pointed out the example I gave was is in WP:UNDUE I got this hostile reply: [20]. This reply also changed my signature, presumably by accident and I fixed my signature here [21], and then went to his talk page to leave a comment on being WP:UNCIVIL, I noticed a thread related to my sig and commented there instead noting I had fixed it User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Editing_someone_else.27s_comment. After noting his incivility, I had this directed at me: "Just remind me, why should I give a fuck about what you think about anything?" directed at me so I posted to ANI (the notification of which resulted in [22]). As I noted at ANI, changing my sig by accident isn't the issue here, it's the insults etc [23].

To my knowledge I have not interacted with this editor before this incident: [24]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee. It is not the same as poking a bear, At a normal discussion about policy & guidelines at Requests for adminship (related to an answer given by the nominee), Malleus disagreed with my interpretation, which then resulted in this [25] and this [26], with no provocation. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

@Rexxs: "Why does the community act like a huge Petri dish and grow disputes like cultures" - Because when faced with entrenched viewpoints, the community is left paralyzed, and disputes go unresolved as a result. There is no other path left but escalation. And that, alas, is the problem we have with Malleus. I won't say whether today is that day, but Arbcom is ultimately going to have to make a choice between two significantly opposed camps. The first is that Malleus' editing contributions are enough to justify overlooking his behavioural problems. The second is that his behavioural problems represent a net negative to the project that outweighs his positive editing. We can quantify Malleus' productivity as an editor, but the damage he does through his behaviour is very subjective. That is why the community can't resolve the problem he represents, and that is why it will fall to Arbcom. I would suggest that the fact that more than one editor in the ANI thread has brought up the argument that "blocking is ineffective, so why bother?" is a good indication that the damage his attitude does has surpassed the good his editing does. No editor is irreplaceable, and it is well past time for Malleus' immunity to be ended. He needs to be told to either adjust his behaviour to match expectations, or he needs to be told to leave. Resolute 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy

I've seen MF being highly uncivil for years. I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints. I might not be the most unbiased person here (certainly not the most biased either), but MF has a very serious problem of not respecting other editors, not respecting policy he disagrees with, and acting like a bully to try to get his way. His recent personal attacks on any editor who tried to talk to him about errors he made are unacceptable, but also just his standard operating procedure here. It has to stop.(*See below.)

Someone asked what can be done about it because nothing so far has worked. The answer is simple, and the one Wikipedia has successfully used for years: increasingly lengthy blocks as the behavior continues. Some people have argued that doesn't help anything, but I would offer myself up as an example of it having worked. I tried looking for a list of my blocks by length and date but couldn't figure it out, be the short version is this: When admins could start doubling the length of my blocks, I pitched a fit, I complained about it being unfair, but, you know, after a while I had to choose whether I wanted to start acting more in line with what the community wanted so I could continue to edit here or whether I was willing to stick to my guns and get forced out. And while I'm probably always going to be a bit terse with people who aren't following policy, I'm making the effort, which is something MF cannot say. More importantly, I've not been blocked again for I don't even know how long, and any complaints have been the standard boomerang back on the person complaining situations.

Furthermore, this is what I was expected to follow, and what other editors who found themselves in similar situations had to follow, so I really do not think it's fair that MF has been allowed to not be held to the same standards.

If someone knows how to look up my block stats and wants to post them below my comments in this section as proof, and add any relevant observations, please feel free. Enforcement works, as long as it is done so consistently and fairly. DreamGuy (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to the comment below and the post to my talk page asking for evidence of MF's long-running activities ignoring WP:NPOV policy and its WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE offshoots, I honestly thought this part had been done to death and was very well known from prior discussions. In fact, IRWolfie's evidence above, which is the primary reason we're all talking about MF again and I would have thought people would be familiar with, referred to it directly. The whole point of that interaction was the MF made a claim about how NPOV works here that directly contradicted what WP:UNDUE actually says, and when IRW called him on it he became personally abusive. This is certainly not new behavior -- not by any stretch of the imagination. If you want diffs beyond that, they can certainly be provided. DreamGuy (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently striking the whole of the offending paragraph for two reasons: First, because it ought not to stay solely on the basis of the one diff currently here, which taken on its own could just as easily be the result of ignorance of a fundamental policy he was arguing about instead of purposefully trying to distort that policy. (I do wish someone would come up with a tool for rapid sorting of entire contribution histories organized by keyword groupings, because the long way of trying to churn through everything is mind-numbing.) Second, because it's veering off topic anyway, and some people are using this as a distraction. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

And I can't very well strike the original mention and keep later ones... DreamGuy (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

Like so many processes here, the act of "seeking justice" is more disruptive than the act itself by a full factor or more. Being someone who has been on the receiving end of Malleus's disapproval at least twice (including my own RFA) I do seem to notice a double standard here. Malleus can be blunt, and frankly foul mouthed, so can other editors who would normally be warned instead of threatened to be blocked. We can talk of histories, but at some level each instance has to stand on its own. The problem is that his reputation preceeds him and is highly overstated. When he decides to vent and be rude enough to warrant a warning, everything seems to explode into a fury of activity focused on getting him blocked. This puts Malleus on the defensive, which doesn't bring out the best of him either, and the whole event spirals further down hill and pretty soon the "discussion" is more disruptive than anything he had done to begin with. It makes it impossible for any admin to take action or for him to get a fair review, and it ends up in a dogpile at ANI or here. It is the circumstance and not solely him that brings us to that point.

It is no secret that Malleus feels slighted by the system here, and there may be some merit to his claims as we are constantly reviewing and changing at Wikipedia, and there is always room for improvement, and for whatever reason, a crowd always follows. To be blunt, Malleus can be a pain in the ass at times, but he is worthwhile editor who may use crude language on talk pages but has done nothing but good in articles. It is difficult to get an objective action when he does something trout-worthy because there are so many eyes on his every move. We should be exceedingly careful when taking action to insure it isn't punitive. We should lead by example by being as neutal, civil and understanding as we are asking him and every other community member to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

@Dennis Brown: The difficulty with your The problem is that his reputation preceeds him and is highly overstated is that the reputation in question is only one side of a coin. Malleus is a net positive who has an excellent reputation if only certain people would look at the big picture. It seems to me that this really is a case of entrenched camps and, of course, those who have a negative opinion about anything tend to shout louder, not merely here on WP. I too have been called to ANI for incivility etc - on more than one occasion - and I too share the "call a spade a spade" attitude to which Malleus resorts. I suspect that the only real difference is that he has a higher profile than me. Oh, and he has a better command of the nuances of the English language than perhaps not merely myself but most of us.

I was scared shitless when Malleus stepped in to do the GA review of Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer) and, guess what, that was because I had seen so much about that negative reputation but never really had any dealings with the man. He was brilliant then, has been since and, yes, he is a real person with real feelings. I am not going to divulge personal stuff here but this man is incredibly considerate and really does empathise and hold dear his own life experiences. (I have met him once, but we barely spoke on that occasion because everyone else wanted a chat with him!). He is not some sort of "my way or the high way" automaton. While the language can be colourful, if I was subjected to the sort of ganging-up that often follows some minor disagreement or misunderstanding then I too would be telling people to piss off etc. Dammit, I must have a dozen or more quite big disagreements here every week..

What is most needed here is for the "regulars" in the umpteen debates for and against him to back off. Which is why I said nothing in the ANI thread that led to this report. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Franamax

Heh, just refreshed this preliminary to putting my thoughts together. Hi Risker! :) May take a while, but on the way... Franamax (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I feel the one comment made to Wolfe was a typical case of someone getting a bit too frustrated when engaging in a discussion. The rest appears to just be people poking at Malleus with a stick to see how he will react, which is never a good idea. While the initial parties to the dispute may have done this out of ignorance, several who came in later clearly knew with whom they were dealing and, as such, should have known better than to provoke him with comments about his maturity. As it regards the suggested amendment, I see no cause for expanding the restriction. It already clearly provides for banning Malleus from an RFA where he is found to be engaging in the discussion in a disruptive manner and that remedy could have been appropriately acted on in this case. Unless Ent can provide a substantive reason for why the current remedy is insufficient I see no cause for implementing this suggestion. The appropriate place for raising further issues concerning this dispute would seem to be AE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ravenswing

Quite aside from the hypocrisy of Wikipedia's double standard in immunizing experienced editors from behavior that'd get anon IPs indef blocked a hundred times over, what is the point of WP:CIVIL if it is not enforced? I am not only sick and tired of MF and his ilk running roughshod over civility, I'm sick and tired of the hypocrisy of their supporters, who seem to have chosen sides more along the lines of "I like the guy so anyone asking him to follow Wikipedia rules is a HATER" than for any other consideration. That the very same people often are quite ready to jump on others for incivility, real or imagined, at places like ANI is doubly ironic. Either enforce WP:CIVIL or demote it to an essay, but don't for an instance fancy that it's a net gain to keep a hothead like MF on board, because we lose productive editors who either want no part of such antics, or want no part of a encyclopedia that falsely claims to have civility rules.

That being said, I'm militantly disinterested in the notion that he was "baited" and thus "had" to respond in kind. Quite aside that our rules forbid any such retaliation, quite aside that you'd think someone with such a long block log would have the basic foresight to make a particular effort to keep his nose clean, do some of you truly think that Wikipedia is a children's playground, in which it's de rigeur to respond to playground taunts in kind? Me, I'd rather believe that we are adults, who can be expected to behave in an adult fashion.

Finally, as far as PhilKnight's comments below are concerned, oh please. RfA is a "discussion," not a "vote?" Since when? Would Phil care to share with us the number of nominees who hit 75% and failed to be promoted, as well as the number of nominees who fell below 70% and gained the mop anyway? (If he doesn't, I'll be happy to do so.) This is entirely a headcount, and about as rigid as any Wikipedia has. Ravenswing 04:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum

I'm not sure how these AE thingies work, but presumably I'm meant to reply here rather on each individual statement? I only have a few things to say anyway:

• I have a problem with editors like Nobody Ent, who store up innocuous diffs like this one to boost what at first sight looks like a long list of crimes. The real crime is that kind of dishonest misrepresentation.

• I note DreamGuy's claim: "I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints." That is simply an outright and blatant lie, and the fact it is allowed to go unchallenged really does demonstrate the corruption at the heart of this civility enforcement charade. But even if it were true, what would that have to do with this request for an extension to my sanction, as opposed to yet another "let's kick Malleus while he's down" episode?

• Jclemens claims that I have "a reluctance or incapacity to deal politely with users with whom he disagrees", yet anyone paying attention would see that I respond to people in exactly the same way they respond to me. If you want me to be civil to you, then don't try patronising me or taking the piss. If you do, then I'll give it right back to you, and no amount of ArbCom muscle will ever change that.

• And one final point that may have escaped some viewers; the context for Nobody Ent's crusade to have me banned from something, anything, is an RfA in which I have supported the candidate. In what way could that be described as being "disruptive"? I'm not aware that the candidate has complained, so why has Nobody Ent mounted his hobby horse?

• I missed the question that Jclemens asked below, "Malleus: even if you don't perceive a problem, acknowledge that others do, and help us craft a workable solution to address those perceived problems that you can live with", but I think I ought to do him the courtesy of answering it. I certainly do acknowledge that some see a problem that I don't, but I think that's because they're looking in the wrong direction, at the wrong things. As far as a "workable solution" goes, I'd suggest an automatic block for any editor starting an ANI topic like the one that resulted in this waste of space. Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• One more thing; why is this request for clarification being allowed to degenerate into yet another "we need to get rid of Malleus" fest, as exemplified by the contributions of Resolute and DreamGuy for instance? What we need to get rid of is vindictive editors like them. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• One more more thing, re Cracker92. Isn't it amazing how someone with only 45 edits manages to find their way here to post yet another character assassination in what is nominally supposed to be a request for clarification, not yet another show trial? Aren't these proceedings supposed to be clerked? Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• @Scottywong. I suggest that you take your own advice and look a little more closely at both my and your own contributions to individual RfAs. Looking at yours,[27] I see doozies like this: "Yes, god forbid an RfA candidate answers a question honestly. What was he thinking?"[28], and "Neutral badgering appears to be the newest cutting-edge genre of drama generation"[29] and "Don't mind him, he always does this ... Perhaps his username is more apt than I originally thought".[30]. A little self-awareness might go a long way. Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

It would have been nice if anyone had dropped me a note that I was being discussed here, but oh well.

I did not bait Malleus Fatuorum in any way, I saw that Malleus Fatuorum had changed someone else's comment (willfully or not), and wanted to draw their attention to it and see their reaction. If their reaction had been "oops, edit conflict" or "weird, no idea how that happened", then we all could have moved along. Instead, I got a very defensive reply. I considered that very telling, and said as much. No idea what was supposed to be "defensive" about that comment, but Malleus Fatuorum did all he could to make the situation worse. Looking at his other contributions from the same day, this turned out to be the standard modus operandi. The only thing I would handle differently the next time is that I would have blocked him for his severe personal attacks (against others, not against me). And now I'm off to ANI to see what was said in that discussion since the time I stopped editing yesterday... Fram (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(by the way, the automated edit summary for this page starts incorrectly: "/* {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment}} */"

Reply to Carcharoth; while your explanation probably makes sense, your solution doesn't. While it may be that he only highlighted it, there is just as much chance that he intended to include that bit of text in his reply. Removing the error robs him from that possibility (or at leaast makes it a lot harder to be aware that part of his reply ended in the wrong place). Of course, if he would have actually checked the diff I posted instead of going all defensive and needlessly escalating things, much could have been prevented, but he was so sure that he would never do such a thing knowingly that he failed to consider the possibility that he might have made an error, instead of the system (edit conflict handling) screwing things up: "it certainly didn't come from me." But he has plainly said that he never even looked at the diff ("I was accused of altering someone's signature, something I would never do, so I didn't even look at the diff."), and so didn't notice that he indeed altered someone else's signature, that it wasn't an edit conflict, and that his hostile reactions were totally unnecessary and unwarranted (but still moderate compared to many other comments he made that day). Fram (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Ched: "he knew full well what he was doing, and the It turns out to be quite telling. comment was a direct and pointed bait of something that Malleus has said before." I'm not quite following you here. I noticed an edit from Malleus Fatuorum that seemed to be at first glance deliberate (it clearly wasn't an edit conflict). I notified him of what happened in a neutral manner though, to give him a chance to check, explain, correct, whatever. Instead, he reacts extremely dismissive and defensive, without even looking at the diff I presented. I considered that response to be quite telling of his approach, not the response of someone who had made a simple error but the response of someone who either has something to hide or otherwise has no interest at all in collaorating with others in a normal, neutral fashion. I don't see what was baiting about this. He had every chance to defuse this thing from the start, e.g. by checking what is said instead of shooting from the hip. He choose not to.

Please explain what "something that Malleus had said before" you had in mind though, as I haven't got a clue what you are implying with this. As far as I know, I hadn't directly interacted with him, I wasn't involved in some of the other disputes he was having, so I don't see what you are hinting at here. What had he said before? Fram (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to 28bytes: I didn't order, I asked. An order is what Malleus Fatuorum gave in his reply. If it would have been a simple straightforward edit conflict, I would have undone it myself, but it wasn't. I thought that much at least was clear by now. And I don't believe that the reactions one gets from one editor can be automatically extrapolated to all other editors. Fram (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Isn't it obvious what happened here? Look at the relevant version of the RFA in question and scroll right down to the bottom (that text stuck in the signature makes no sense). Malleus's response that added that text included the line: "I suggest that you re-read the Earth article, which does link to flat Earth theories". It should come as no surprise that the bit of text that ended up in IRWolfie's signature is a direct copy and paste from the Earth article of the sentence that includes this link (the text is present in this version). Surely what happened here (as User:Br'er Rabbit said above somewhere) is that Malleus had copied the text intending to quote it, or had highlighted it in some way while reading the article and noticing that the article linked to flat Earth theories, and some inadvertent keypress ended up pasting the text? I've done that in e-mails where the cursor ended up somewhere strange and I've been typing and not noticed I was putting text in the wrong place. There is also a common keypress that pastes recently copied text, which I've hit accidentally in the past. What is depressing is how things spiralled out of control from there. All that was needed was to remove the inadvertent text inclusion, and not even notify anyone, it was so obvious it was not intentional. Whether arbitrators want to spend time working out why things went downhill after that is up to them. The original filer of the request may (or may not) have a case to be made about the other diffs presented, but that is mostly being ignored, it seems, in favour of the current drama. Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Side topic

Carcharoth: "Ctrl V" is the key stroke for paste on Firefox and IE. Malleus began a sentence in that post with capital B. "Shift B" is adjacent to "Ctrl V" on my keyboard. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC) There is another keystroke I'm thinking of, one I hit by accident a lot, but can rarely work out what it is as by the time I look down, my fingers have moved on... Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

One further point. Reading a couple of the comments here and on user talk pages, there does seem to be something of a generational and cultural conflict here. By that, I mean that some of the animosity seems to arise from attitudes of contempt that are openly expressed (towards those that contribute less content and those who are younger). Some of this seems to be motivated by a desire to 'reform' the community and prompt a change in attitudes, but there is fine line between that and fomenting conflict and battleground attitudes. It is better to write about such things in essays and consider how to gather support for changes that could help. Just sounding off about things in various locations in the middle of random discussions doesn't actually achieve anything. A prime example (and I apologise to Malleus for bringing it up here, but it needs to be said) is this. What exasperates me is the idea that any teenager (or the more impressionable of the early 20s university student demographic) reading that will be anything other than annoyed by that. You don't change attitudes in teenagers by railing at them. You just have to let them grow out of it. Ched in his statement below seems to be asking ArbCom to take the role of parents to teenage children, which is something that is completely unmanageable. Going back to what Malleus said on his user talk page, the image of someone on the internet telling 'kids' on Wikipedia to fuck off is laughable. It's like a red rag to a bull. You just have to learn how to handle yourself on Wikipedia, rather than trying to adapt Wikipedia to suit you (see the George Bernard Shaw quote Malleus provided in that diff). Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

All of you, find something better to do. VolunteerMarek 08:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh screw it, I'll tell you what I really think.

As the guardians of The Wikipedia the ArbCom faces a trilemma. There's really only three possible ways out of this recurring nightmare. Ok, it's actually only a good ol' fashioned dilemma, since two of the options are simply mirror images of each other, but I always like describing a situation as a "trilemma" since that makes it sound a bit more sophisticated. So anyway, here's your options:

The mirror image options, call them Options Alpha and Omega involve slapping the people who do this hard enough so that it doesn't happen again, at least for awhile. The only difference is whom the mighty hand of the ArbCom decides to "admonish". If you choose to follow this path turn to page 68... wait no, if you choose to follow this path then in all honesty the best thing you can do is just flip a freakin' coin and then commence with the smackin'.

Option Alphas - get it over with and indef ban Malleus from The Wikipedia. There'll be gnashing of teeth, complaints about how Courcelles is the new Enver Hoxa (I'm being careful here to avoid violating Goodwin's Law), complaints to Jimbo, people ripping their clothes off in public and wailing like banshees about how The Wikipedia is now ruined for all eternity. But if you just put that little "Do not unblock without permission from ArbCom" (often used on many a less famous user) in the block summary then, after three months or so everyone on this site will be like "Malleus who?". The Wikipedia has short memory and given our current retention rate, as well as all them valiant efforts from Sue Gardner at recruiting new editors, at that point we'll probably have 90% new editors anyway.

Option Omega - go the other way, desysop the fuck (as in desysop them very very strongly) out of all the damn admins who keep bringing this nonsense up, as well as slap all the lesser peeps with a three month site ban. Wait, that's actually milktoasty. No, desysop every admin that has commented on this page so far, on whichever side, and three month site ban any of the lesser peeps.

In the first category this would mean desysopping (like fuck) User:Worm That Turned, User:Sphilbrick, User:Resolute, User:Nikkimaria (you don't get off easy just cuz you're replying to others' statements rather than posting one of your own. Revolutionary justice!), User:Dennis Brown, User:Franamax and User:Fram (I would appreciate it if any of the admins that have commented above would politely get in the appropriate de-sysopping que).

Additionally you would need to three month site ban User:Equazcion, User:Eraserhead1, User:HandThatFeeds, User:IRWolfie-, User:DreamGuy, User:The Devil's Advocate, User:Ravenswing, User:Br'er Rabbit as well as of course... well, myself since I'm in the process of being just as guilty as everyone else, and of course User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Nobody Ent.

That kind of knocking of noggins' together should make it clear to everyone that creating this idiotic drama, on whichever side is just not worth. Of course if you think that this is too much of a purge you could just flip that coin (I know you guys have one, only way to explain past ArbCom decisions) again and desysop, say, 3 out of the 7 administrators, and three month ban 5 out of the 11 non-administrators above.

What would happen then? Well, his three month ban aside, Malleus would probably do a little jig and there'd be some talk on some talk pages about how Malleus fought the law and won or something, but the law is unjust anyway. But in, hell, not even three months, with anyone scared to try and get him blocked again, Malleus would either a) get bored and go back to content editing which is why The Wikipedia keeps him around in the first place, b) get bored and fade away from "the project" like many before him or c) keep talking to himself and his closest buddies in some corner of The Wikipedia that everyone else can safely ignore. Wait - in regard to outcome c)... why isn't this already happening?

Ok, those are the two mirror options but sometimes, having observed an ArbCom case or two I have a feeling neither is going to happen. So you can go with the other corner of the trilemma, the Option ü-lambda (yes, I am aware those two letters are not even in the same alphabet but I'm complicated like that), which stands for "Option Uber-Lame" for those of you who dislike diacritics or something.

Option Ü-Lambda involves the outcome that always occurs but being so brutally honest about what it involves so that the appeal of engaging in this drama is significantly decreased. Basically it means saying to everyone: "You know how the saying says that history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as a farce" (I think I got that wrong but whatevers). Well, what happens if it keeps repeating itself again after it's already been repeated as a farce? History, tragedy, farce... what happens after that? The stupid idiocy we're in that's what. "Farce" is far too noble of a word to describe it with.

So just say it. "We are not going to do crap to anybody because taking an actual stance on this insanely stupid controversy would endanger our chances in the next ArbCom election or might otherwise piss off too many people. Hence we will follow the usual way of The Wikipedia and make pronouncements and pontificate but otherwise do nothing. Thank you for playing, see you next time, but please try, just try to realize how pathetic all of this is". If the ArbCom can just take a leading messianic role in admitting it's ineffectualness and patheticness in the circumstances of this case, perhaps others will too, and sincere heartfelt chest beating mea culpas will result. And the sound of a thousand fists beating against a thousand guilty chest will drown out the wolf cries of the githyanki and usher in a new scarlet dawn of a new millen .... ah sorry, getting lost there. Basically, maybe it will be enough to make at least some of the people involved - Malleus and his friends, his enemies, random passerbys and the ArbCom itself, and hey, me too - stop and think "Wow! I'm being a petty idiotic shit here".

VolunteerMarek 09:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

So I'm looking through the diffs provided by the complainant above expecting to see cunt and fuck-bombs left and right, but instead see stuff like "Fix it yourself" and "I'm actually rather staggered that 25% of the currently active admins can even string two sentences together, never mind take an article through FAC", "You are either joking or innumerate", etc...

My first thought was, "what does innumerate mean?", followed by a trip to Webster, and then a second thought of "we're here for this?" This is milquetoast even by drag-Malleus-to-Arb/ANI standards. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

Here we go again--the predictable ArbCom follow-up to an equally predictable ANI thread. Something goes wrong, Malleus Fatuorum says something wrong, next thing you know we're calling for his head. I read things like "[editor X is] sick and tired of MF and his ilk running roughshod over civility" and can only think "whatever". The generalization is unwarranted, and that MF's supporters are hypocrites is really a personal attack which will no doubt be overlooked. (If I, for instance, were such a hypocrite, it could be proven by my blocking non-MF editors for similar infractions--I challenge anyone to find such examples; the same goes, I have no doubt, for admins like John.) Whatever MF has said in this minor issue is within accepted limits, at least in my book, and if actions can speak louder than words I invite anyone to hear what's being said by starting these repetitive ANI threads: if anything's disruptive it's those escalations. As for this particular request: I do not consider this to have been filed in good faith, with the intent of improving the project or as a desperate attempt to try and resolve the situation, as it was phrased on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cracker92

It's always someone else's fault when it comes to Malleus isn't it? He always gets away with blaming his immature inability to control himself on the other person / the system / the cabal. Nobody else gets away with this when it comes to 'civility enforcement'. At this point, his special treatment is so blatant you're just rubbing everyone else's nose in it now. I'm a wikiholic with many thousands of edits behind me - but I contribute here inspite of the daily examples of unfairness like this - the stats show that plenty of other experienced contributors who aren't as dumb as me and have voted with their keyboards, finding something else to give their time to. It's time arbitrators found an effective way to deal with Malleus. If that means changing policy so that everyone else has the freedom he does, then make it so. If that means banning him and putting a marker down to his enablers, make it so. But for the love of God, do something, before you kill the project through sheer inertia, depriving it of the very people who are needed to continue it. Cracker92 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary distraction closed by clerk.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note that the above editor is not using the account that he's made "thousands" of edits with. He either needs to give full disclosure of his own history, or erase his comments here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Note that this editor is not a bunny rabbit either. Nor has he disclosed his previous account that I can see from his fun factory of a user page. We all know that genuine new users don't create their user page first, then master subpages with their second edit, then start rvv'ing all over the place. You demand has no basis in policy, so I'll be taking option #3 - ignore it. Cracker92 (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC) As you already know, but not everyone here might, your situation is being discussed at WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC) We're not supposed to thread comments here, are we? How about sectioning off this procedural comment? (oops) - Wikidemon (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Well, what should be done is to erase this entire section, as the editor is totally out of line to be hiding behind a redlink while complaining about someone else's behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Well, let's all see the 'red links can't complain about blue links' policy please, before we give your demands any time. Cracker92 (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Writegeist

Armageddon Sikkahim!, the new production from The Wikiville Amateur Dramatic Society (WADS) now showing at the Arbcom Theatre, revisits the real-life vicissitudes of small-town writer Patrick O'Dingaugh whose habitual outspokenness brings him into conflict with the town's Civility Police and members of the local Community Church of Pollyanna. His past conviction for blunt speaking while editing an encyclopedia formed the basis for the tragicomic Beastly! Beastly! Beastly!, staged by WADS earlier this year to mixed reviews. In Armageddon Sikkahim! a connected but even more trivial incident is inflated into another screechingly silly melodrama in which O'Dingaugh is exposed as Satan, the townspeople flee, and the town dies. Rumored next in the O'Dingaugh series: O'Dingaugh Ate My Baby! Writegeist (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

@PhilKnight, Newyorkbrad, et al: not acting on the requested modification preserves the status quo of no response to Malleus Fatuorum's latest incivilities. Discussion has been shut down three times on AN/I, twice[31][32] by an administrator hostile to civility enforcement who accuses those asking for civility of disruption and acting in bad faith[33][34][35]), and finally by a nonadmin[36] because there will be no administrative response now that Arbcom is handling it.

Is Arbcom handling it?? What guidance does Arbcom have for the administrators and community when this happens again? Nothing? Malleus does not acknowledge that he should stop, and will surely call some other editor an asshole, worthless clown, waste of space, or idiot in the future. May he be blocked summarily? Only with consensus? May the block be overturned? Admins presumably had the discretion to block Malleus at the time to prevent disruption, but that's stale now. A block would have met opposition, likely a wider dispute, possibly wheel warring as in the past. We've reached a bizarre state where the very discussion of civility is summarily shut down, with participants accused of bad faith and threatened or chastised by partisan administrators who are supposed to be helping. Is the aggrieved editor tendentious and deserving a block for complaining? I urge Arbcom to say something, if only that this level of civility does not merit action (and why). Forget this particular modification proposal and how it was brought. What happens next time? Should the sanction be modified, or enforced at all?

To state my biases, Malleus and I don't cross paths but I have a strong civility expectation of the project. So I admire his contributions and shy from his name-calling from afar. Collegiality and support make it worth venturing from the more cordial environment at say Quora or Yelp, and fleeing the more chaotic blogs and news sites, to contribute hundreds of articles as I have. The occasional abuse I suffer and witness here make me question my commitment. NONE of these sites would condone name-calling of the sort Malleus indulges, not a one. They summarily delete abusive comments and after due warning block or ban the offending user, no drama, no hand-wringing, and no soul searching. Nor would any professionally run website accuse people of baiting, tag-teaming, or plotting for pointing out obvious violations of their abuse policy. Are we in such a la-la land where this is even a question? Even when directed at others, abuse poisons collaborative pages where we're trying to work.

ArbCom ought to weigh in because inaction in the face of trouble is probably the worst choice. When it does, I urge them to consider that the vast majority of users, those who write the articles but do not flock to the notice boards, probably value a civil place to contribute. It is after all one of our founding principles. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

As long as the Arbitration Committee condones (by lack of asserting a firm hand) this childish behavior of provoking and prodding established editors then this type of drama can be expected to continue. I'll agree that Malleus could have easily turned the tide with a "wasn't intended, feel free to fix it" rather than the {{sofixit}} approach. On the other hand; Fram is no N00b here .. he knew full well what he was doing, and the It turns out to be quite telling. comment was a direct and pointed bait of something that Malleus has said before. Br'er Rabbit and Drimes pretty much nailed the basics above here. And in a sense I agree with NY Brad in the "Not impressed" comment - except that I /AM/ impressed ... just not in a positive way. As long as the committee allows these children to run amok tormenting people who actually contribute valuable content to the project - then you'll have to be prepared to deal with this juvenile drivel from the "puling masses". If you cater to these immature editors rather than offering a firm guiding hand .. then expect to hold court to "Lord of the Flies". It's up to you folks .. I really don't care anymore. But if you're gonna sit "on high" and pass judgment, then ya damn well ought to step back and be objective. — Ched :  ?  23:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to convince people of that for years. —Jack Merridew 00:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

My sense is that Malleus's enemies are tag-teaming and baiting him in an effort to get him banned and that he hasn't quite figured out how to push back without fouling. He's such an intelligent guy, it's really not that hard. In any event, if discipline is merited it should be directed towards whomever brought this idiotic proceeding and for those who have been baiting Malleus on his talk page. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Keilana

Let's all go write articles. Malleus is damn good at it. We are here to write an encyclopedia, yes? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by LadyofShalott

Dreamguy said, "I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints." What!? I've never seen Malleus do that, nor do I think I've even seen that alleged about him before. Diffs are required for such a strong claim of wrongdoing. LadyofShalott 01:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Pesky

I'm only butting in here to pick up on the point (already noticed) about anyone who's not in the out-to-get-Malleus brigade at the far end of this (and similar) deeply polarising situations being referred to as "fan club", "enthusiast", "enabler", and all those other derogatory, demeaning, belittling [add thesaurus here] terms which are so often uncivilly slung about every time something like this rears its head again. It's both (in many cases) completely untrue, and (in most cases) pathetically polarising and moronic. Yes, moronic.

Name-calling is incivility. And it's still incivility when the names are "enthusiast", "enabler", "fan club", "supporter", or anything else along those lines. And, personally, I'm sick of being called names like this by people who either don't "know", me or hardly "know" me, every time there's a conflict. Doesn't anyone accept the possibility that there are actually some good-faith editors in here who'd really like this stuff to be approached in a mature, reasonable, flexible-minded, mediated, think-outside-the-box, constructive (as opposed to destructive) way? So, Arbs, please take note of all the unwarranted personal attacks on the motives, credibility, and personality of the intellectually mature and constructive. And take a good hard look at this kind of incivility which is undermining the strengths of what is allegedly an intellectually-mature society. It's insidious. It's pervasive. It's contemptible. And it's increasing. Pesky (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@Boing! Said Zebedee: Where's that "vicious dog" comic strip again? Pesky (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Geogre/Comic ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Scotty: if you compare MF's questionable RfA remarks, stated as a percentage of his total edits, with the same stat for many, many others who make (or have made) similar-type RfA remarks, I think you'll find it's nothing out of the ordinary. Very probably even well below average. Pesky (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Adding: Equazcion has just pointed out (very astutely, and calmly, and correctly), here and on my talk, that in labelling anyone as the "out-to-get-Malleus brigade" I fell into the exact same pattern of name-calling myself! Mea culpa. Yes, I did. My apologies, I shouldn't have done that. Pesky (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Discusssion with Fram

Fer gawd's sake! I lost count of the number of times I've accidentally put something in the wrong place a long time ago! If you check the history of this page, you'll even notice that I did it here, too. And removed it with an edit summary of "bugger; I put that in the wrong place!" Pesky (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So someone responds like I do, and someone else suggests that the person who noticed it could fix it. Yes, if I notice that someone's left a coffee-ring on a shelf, I wipe it up myself. And if someone irritates me in here, I tend to look and see if Hanlon's razor is applicable, rather than shrieking over here or at AN/I about it. But we're all different. Nuking London would annihilate the litter problem. But it's an OTT reaction, don't you think? Pesky (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That would have been a good question to ask at the time. Adding: something along the lines of "There seems to have been some kind of glitch / ec thing here: not sure how to clean it up, could you take a look please?" Pesky (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not really interested in helping someone who gets so defensive and impatient without even checking what my post was about. I wouldn't call "Fix it yourself." (with the edit summary "jeez!") a "suggestion" or an invitation for further questions. Fram (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

Somebody pokes the bear with a stick, the bear growls at them, and they go running and crying "Mommy, the nasty bear growled at me - shoot the bear, Mommy!" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by 28bytes

I have lost count of the number of times I've silently fixed somebody else's edit conflict, inadvertent misplaced text-paste or accidental rollback. That would have been a good approach to use here, instead of confronting someone on their talk page to "see how they might react." I would think that from Fram's extensive interactions with Rich Frambrough, he would know that people do not, in fact, react particularly well to being ordered to fix something.

Why anyone was motivated to start an AN/I thread over this utterly trivial argument – much less drag ArbCom into it – is a mystery to me. This can and should have been resolved entirely on the user talk pages of the editors concerned. I would love it if ArbCom were to give some guidance to that effect to the people who decided to escalate this dispute and spread it to AN/I and here. 28bytes (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Scottywong

I don't have much to say, but I feel there is a relatively widely-held opinion (with which I agree) that Malleus' contributions to anything related to RfA are usually more disruptive than not. For whatever reason, he seems to have a problem with the majority of users who have an admin bit. I think the situation would be further simplified by extending Malleus' topic ban to any page starting with either "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship" or "Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship". In my opinion, the topic ban should have been that broad from the start. A quick look at his recent RfA edits shows a consistently combative and disruptive attitude (which is somewhat normal for Malleus, but not welcome at a place as sensitive as RfA). -Scottywong| talk _ 02:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

This is a reminder to all editors that they should comment in their own sections only. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Recuse --Guerillero | My Talk 19:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements. My initial impression is that Malleus Fatuorum's conduct is problematic enough to justify the continuation of his current restriction, however, I'm disinclined to limit his involvement in the Request for Adminship process, in what after all is a discussion, as opposed to a vote. If his conduct substantially deteriorated, then I think we have to look at banning him from the entire process, but I'm not convinced we're at that juncture just yet. PhilKnight (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• The fact that Malleus has such excellent editing skills, as demonstrated by his content contributions over time, and such a reluctance or incapacity to deal politely with users with whom he disagrees, as demonstrated by his discussion contributions over time, is vexing. I do believe we tried the "can't you please just get along with others?" approach last time, and while there's nothing terribly worse than last go-round in the evidence, I don't see how things have particularly improved on Malleus' part, either. I'm open to ideas on how to "fix" the problem, and specifically from you, Malleus: even if you don't perceive a problem, acknowledge that others do, and help us craft a workable solution to address those perceived problems that you can live with. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• I want to hear from Franamax. Could a clerk please ping him? Malleus, I assume, knows about this request. Risker (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not impressed by some of the user conduct here, but I don't see how the proposed amendment would improve the situation, so I don't support action on this request. Regarding the broader situation, I suppose the takeaway is that those who cannot learn from the past are condemned to spend too-large portions of their wikilives on the arbitration pages. What I have said to Malleus Fatuorum before, and now repeat, is that I respect his view that serious editors should spend most of their wikitime on content creation, but the way in which his wordings sometimes inflame and prolong disputes has predictable effects that are inconsistent with that goal, and if for this reason alone, he should reconsider his approach. (It is well-known that Malleus Fatuorum has low regard for me, so he may not take my thoughts seriously, but that is neither here nor there.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • On my talkpage, Malleus Faturoum has disagreed with the last sentence of my comment. That being that case, I hope he will give the balance of what I have said very careful attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• I've looked back at Malleus's RfA contributions since August last year and I find that he engages in a robust manner, joining in as well as initiating discussions, and sometimes picking out points in other people's comments and responding to them. Other than this I have found no other clear instances of incivility, and no clear evidence of Malleus doing worse than other regular RfA commentators. I have seen him being accused of badgering when joining in a discussion thread or asking for clarification of someone's comment. However, RfA is a discussion process, and sometimes it is helpful to engage with others in that discussion to clarify their views - this is not badgering. While I feel it is worthwhile to offer a reminder/warning to Malleus to ensure that comments he makes anywhere on Wikipedia are not personalised in a manner that any reasonable person would read as insulting and unnecessary (such as "you have no idea what you're talking about, and are incapable of independent thought"), I don't think his general involvement in RfA is such to make a restriction. If people are concerned about the robustness and general tone of discussions on RfA, that is a matter for everyone, not just one user. I'm not in favour of this amendment, and I feel that "should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA" is sufficient, and encourage admins to carry this out and Malleus to accept that if he insults someone in an RfA he will be told to take no further part in it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm getting the impression everyone's moving on. Ultimately the main thing is that the big wheels' keep on churning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• I think Silk's points are worth taking to heart. Banning a user from a discussion process on account of their behavior does not address the root of the issue in any way; editors should be held to the same standards of conduct no matter where they are on the project. I encourage uninvolved admins to use the case remedies as necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: WP:ARBMAC — expand / clarify existing Balkans sanctions to cover Cyprus

Initiated by — Richwales at 06:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

• Richwales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Notification left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cyprus
• Notification left at Talk:Northern Cyprus
• Notification left at Talk:Balkans
• User:Taivo

Statement by Richwales

This decision currently authorizes discretionary sanctions for "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted". I am requesting a clarification, stating that Cyprus is included in the scope of this remedy. Although Cyprus is not geographically close to the Balkans, it is intimately tied (historically and culturally) to both Greece and Turkey. Thus, I propose that Cyprus-related articles naturally fall under this topic area.

Cyprus-related articles have been subjected to continual edit-warring for years from tendentious editors on both sides — including, in particular, the disruptive activities of the banned user Justice Forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his long list of socks — and I believe further options should be made available to help administrators keep these articles better under control.

I am particularly concerned that the dominance of sockpuppet investigation as the primary tool for keeping this topic area under control not only limits enforcement activities to a relatively small group of users who are experienced and confident sock hunters, but it also creates a risk (level currently unknown and possibly unknowable) that opinionated (but innocent) editors who might decide to get involved in the Cyprus topic area could be mistaken for socks and chased away from the project.

Affected articles would include Northern Cyprus, Nicosia, North Nicosia, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Makarios III, and presumably every other article in Category:Cyprus and its subcategories.

I'm not imagining that extending discretionary sanctions to this topic area will magically make all the problems go away. However, with a subject as contentious (IMO) as Kosovo, Northern Ireland, or Barack Obama's presidential eligibility, it seems to me that adding this additional level of supervision over the Cyprus topic area can't hurt and may very possibly help. — Richwales 06:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If (per Jclemens' suggestion) we were to have a wide-ranging "disputed territories" sanctions category, one additional region to which expanded sanctions could reasonably apply would be Georgia, due to ongoing editing disputes over the disputed territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If the blanket sanctions idea doesn't fly, I may consider requesting something for Georgia after we're done here. — Richwales 14:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Commenting on Future Perfect at Sunrise's comment: While the current (and probably the main ongoing) point of irritation at Northern Cyprus has indeed been the incessant disruptive socking by Justice Forever, there have been other incidents in the past — such as some low-level edit warring and lengthy talk-page arguments revolving around at least one pro-Greek editor — activity which did a lot of simmering without really coming to a full boil, but which (IMO) could easily have escalated out of control. I didn't bring this up earlier because the worst of it ended several months ago and it didn't result in any outside intervention at the time, but if ArbCom feels this additional material should be cited in order to give a larger view of the overall situation, I can supply diffs. — Richwales 07:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm appreciative of everyone's comments. Assuming (as seems likely now) that my original request is not going to get approved, what would people suggest as a next step? Requesting an arbitration case against Justice Forever would be silly, to say the least. Should someone come back requesting arbitration on the very next disruptive incident (involving someone other than Justice Forever) at Northern Cyprus, Nicosia, or any other article dealing with this general subject? Is there any proper way to suggest adoption of a "politically disputed geographic areas" sanction without a new test case? Any other ideas? — Richwales 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

While it is undeniable that Cyprus is an area for contentious claims, it is also undeniable that it is not Balkan, and extending definitions to the breaking point could mean we should add a host of such areas to that same title <g>. If ArbCom decided to, it could, by motion, add Cyprus to almost any decision, I suppose, but I question the wisdom of doing so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

The scope of Wikipedia rules, including Arbcom decisions, should be dictated not by the scope of this or that geographical concept out there, but by the necessities of Wikipedia-internal situations. Given the connectedness of conflict areas and the similarity of situations, I see no problem with treating Cyprus in the same context as Greece and Turkey, of whose overall historical conflict lines the Cyprus conflict is a mere appendix. This is no different than treating Slovak or Hungarian issues under WP:ARBEE. Geographically, both countries are not in Eastern Europe either, but in Central Europe by most definitions. But what counts for us are not these geographical delimitations, but the nature of the conflicts in question. WP:ARBEE is essentially for post-Soviet-era and post-WWII ethnic conflicts; WP:ARBMAC is essentially for post-Ottoman ethnic conflicts. As such, Cyprus falls naturally under the latter, if we want it to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment to Risker's oppose vote: I'd actually agree that an extension to Cyprus is not an immediate, high-priority necessity. The main source of disruption in this field, as far as I can see, is the perennial socking problem of a single banned user, for which standard admin procedure is of course applicable, and apart from that the disruption levels don't seem to be those of a current virulent hotspot. But just to respond to your point about "expansionist" treatment of the sanctions to areas you never reviewed, and that are not "the same" as the original one: well, that was never a problem for ARBMAC sanctions in general. What you reviewed back in that case was a small set of disputes between Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian editors. From there, the decision went straight to a discretionary sanctions regime that covered all of the Balkans. The Balkans are a big place. This rule has always been applied to dozens and dozens of unrelated disputes that you didn't review originally – from Italian-Croatian stuff via Bosnia, WWII Yugoslav partisans, Kosovo, internal Greek politics, Greek-Turkish disputes, you name it. It's been an "expansionist" ruling from the start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo

There are two reasons that I see why Cyprus should be included in the Balkans and the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions: 1) The conflicting parties in Cyprus are Greece and Turkey, which are both also involved in Balkan disputes, and 2) many of the same editors who were active in the Macedonian decision, especially from the Greek perspective, are also involved in issues surrounding Cyprus. Dealing with the same group of editors in a similar conflict area argues for inclusion in the WP:ARBMAC discretionary world. (But I hasten to note that the Greek-oriented editors actively involved at Northern Cyprus, for example, are not the source of the typical problems at that page.) --Taivo (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Screw it all by Heim

To SilkTork, Risker and all the rest saying we need an actual case before discretionary sanctions: You do realize this is exactly why editors like me would rather have our toenails pulled out than get involved in dealing with nationalist troll-infested areas? When it comes to an actual case, while the nationalists may get banned, you will also be desysopped. You guys taught me a lesson in ArbMac2: get involved in a nationalist dispute that makes it to ArbCom and you are at risk of desysopping, and I've learnt it well and not gotten involved in any more. Plenty of nationalistic areas of Wikipedia may have gone to hell because of the people you've driven away, but who gives a crap? Procedure's been followed! Yay us! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see my response in the arbitrator section below. (Temporary IAR derogation from the edit-your-own-section rule to make sure Heimstern sees this.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

NYB, I'm having a hard time thinking we even edit the same Wikipedia. I have not once seen a nationalism-related RFAr that didn't look like hell to go through. The Senkaku Islands one was reasonably nice to the admins who weren't pushing POVs, but even so, people got pushed around by the nationalist policy-abusers during the case and before, it too. And that's the real issue; it's not just having to go through the case, it's running the bloody gantlet required to get a case accepted in the first place that burns admins out and leads to the very incivility that gets their butts roasted when the case finally does come to be. As for ANI, I have not once found a consensus can arise for sanctions there on any topic not widely discussed in Anglophone countries for simple lack of interest from most people who are not the nationalists themselves or one of the rather small band of editors trying to rein them in. (Hence abortion, yes; Britian-Ireland, yes; India-Pakistan, no. There may have been one or two exceptions, but in general, we can't get sanctions without committee approval.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me give this some more thought. The general problem needs solving, for sure. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Hi Rich, I would have thought that Cyprus is already covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• I don't believe that Cyprus is part of either "the Balkans" or "Eastern Europe" as those terms are currently understood, and I don't think that we can redefine Cyprus's geographical location by fiat. That being said, I'd welcome input into what is the best way to proceed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • To HeimsteinLaufer, please note that a case does not necessarily have to be a months-long, drawn-out cataclysmic disaster area. If a case is filed with the recommendation that we authorize discretionary sanctions as the remedy, and evidence is presented that this would be helpful to the admins keeping an eye on the topic-area, then we will do it, without threats of deysopping anyone or anyone else. Alternatively, a request for community-imposed discretionary sanctions could be made on AN/ANI. In other words, I agree with you that "procedure for procedure's sake" (and driving away good editors and admins in the process) is very rotten—but this Committee running around imposing sanctions regimes in areas we haven't examined would be problematic too. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Given that we've got discretionary sanctions in place for almost every other contested geographical area in the world, maybe what we need is a blanket, worldwide list of such places? I agree with NYB that it's not really covered by either of the cited geographical categories... but the problems are probably such that similar conduct expectations and remedies should apply. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• I have no problems placing Turkey and Cyprus under the ARBMAC sanctions; Greece is already included as being on the Balkan Peninsula, and the conflicts in the area are similar if only as they present themselves through similar bad behaviour on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courcelles (talk • contribs)
• In the interests of utility, I'd be happy to include Cyprus under the same conditions rather than wait for a new case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• There may be a benefit in replacing the Balkans DS with a fresh set covering the geographical area of the former Ottoman Empire but that would need greater review than a request for clarification.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Motion to amend WP:ARBMAC

• For the purposes of enforcement action under this case, the discretionary sanctions shall apply to the Balkans, Turkey, Cyprus, and the generally unrecognized state of Northern Cyprus, all broadly construed.

Support

1. Copyedit as necessary, but essentially broad enough to put anything regarding the Cyprus dispute under this case. Courcelles 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Support, but again, just as we have "standard discretionary sanctions" for topic area, I suspect the time is right to have a list of "politically disputed geographic areas" and place all such features under a consistent set of restrictions. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
3. I'm ok with this, however it would be preferable just to say 'the island of Cyprus', which would include the British bases that are neither part of Cyprus the country or North Cyprus. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I can in no way support an expansionist view here. None of the statements made above indicate that this is the *same* dispute expanding into a new area; instead, the impression is that it is a different dispute, one which Arbcom hasn't adjudicated at any point. I'm not prepared to put the Arbitration Committee imprimatur on sanctions for disputes we've never reviewed. Disruptive editing is just that, socking is just that, and all the discretionary sanctions in the world aren't going to affect either one of them any more than normal blocking will. Risker (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
2. In part per Risker. This does seem to be a different dispute, and I reject FPaS's assertion that this is already an expansionist topic; yes, that particular case began with a somewhat localized dispute, but the finding of fact notes that the Committee at the time was taking past cases into account as well. The Balkans-wide restriction was simply a consolidation of multiple cases and not an over-reaching grab into areas that had not been reviewed. Further to that, however, if the major source of disruption centers on a single user violating existing policies, then I don't see the need to extend discretionary sanctions (which could be applied to ANY user) to this topic area. That seems to be punishing the largely innocent users who are simply trying to protect the topic area from a sockpuppeteer. I can understand the concerns of misidentifying new users as socks, however I really don't see that this would prevent that from happening. If anything, it'll only make it worse. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
3. I appreciate the WP:BOLD approach in the motion, as well as RichWales' concerns that there are problems in this topic-area, but on balance I find myself agreeing more with Risker's and Hersfold's points, at least at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
4. I'm also not prepared to either expand existing sanctions to include new geographical areas without a case or to expand the geographical bounds of the Balkans so radically that it includes Cyprus.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
5. If there are concerns which the community cannot deal with then let us have a proper case to examine the issues. If the concerns are not yet sufficient to involve the Committee then I prefer that we do not summarily or pre-emptively use Committee protection. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Per Silk and Risker. Applying the same remedies to different issues without a case seems like a good way of enflaming the issue rather than addressing it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Eastern European mailing list

Initiated by Nug (talk) at 21:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Eastern European mailing list Remedy 4.3.11A: Editors restricted (as modified by motion)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly User:Martintg)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Notified[37]

Information about amendment request

The remedy of the Eastern European mailing list case is amended to lift the interaction ban between User:Russavia and User:Nug.

Statement by Nug

EdJohnston had previously requested that the mutual topic bans between Russavia and I be lifted[38] Unfortunately after some editors objected due to their apocalyptic fear of our possible collaboration might turn the world up side down, it was declined. Given that Russavia has since been site banned for a year and indef topic banned and the chance of now interacting reduced to zero, can this restriction be now lifted? I'd like to edit articles like 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic, but I cannot remove those tags placed by Russavia almost a year ago without breaching my interaction ban. --Nug (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Clerks, I fail to see how Paul Seibert's comments have any relevance what so ever to a request to amend a redundant interaction ban, and I ask that they be removed. If Paul has issues he can air them in a more appropriate forum (along with linked evidence) where they can be discussed in full without derailing this specific amendment request. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Courcelles, Russavia is indefinitely topic banned from EE, see this, in addition to the one year site ban[39]. --Nug (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the problematic behaviour occured solely in the EE topic area, an indefinite topic ban in EE is virtually an indefinite site ban in any case. --Nug (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Link to discussion on Courcelles' talk page[40]. --Nug (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand the point of Courcelles' concern, which apparently is related to Russavia's behaviour when he returns from his site ban. Courcelles claims that Russavia's disruptive behaviour extended outside of the EE topic area, but I cannot find any evidence of this. As EdJohnston states, discretionary sanctions remains available under the existing authority of WP:ARBEE, this request is merely to enable editing of articles that Russavia is indefinitely banned from editing without breaching my Iban. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update Brad, this is an intriguing and dramatic development. As I recall Russavia had previously supported the lifting of our mutual iBans, so I hope this evidence is germane to the issue of the iBans, rather some unrelated and unsubstantiated allegations which would more likely be evidence of where his own head is at, more than anything else. Anyway, I await with interest. --Nug (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• @SilkTork, Roger Davies, The point of an interaction ban is to stop interaction between two parties, if one is indefinitely topic banned from the area of conflict there can no longer can be any interaction, and thus it is redundant. What you appear to be suggesting is that you believe the edits of a banned editor should be preserved by keeping an interaction ban in place. The reason no editor has been "moved to remove" these tags is simply because there isn't anyone who cares a cat's fart about certain obscure topics. Tags are not meant to be used as tools to further battles but to alert editors to real potential issues, but no one has responded in almost twelve months. The reason why they were placed in the first place along other tags[41] and immediately nominated for deletion[42] was more to do with the same battleground attitude that eventually got Russavia site banned for one year and topic banned indefinitely.

It is just absolutely astounding that you, both Arbitrators, would contend that there should be mutual agreement from an indefinitely topic banned editor prior lifting an interaction ban. In any case I provided evidence of such prior mutual agreement in an earlier request[43]. If Russavia has since withdrawn that agreement in some email to the Committee, then that is further evidence of his battleground mentality as there is no cause for him to withdraw such agreement. I just don't see what these implications that SilkTork alludes to other than to perpetuate conflict that Russavia and I agreed to leave behind[44] and to hold hostage some topics to the whim of someone who forfeited their right to edit that area for an indeterminate period. --Nug (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Yeah, me too. It's sort of pointless now. VolunteerMarek 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ed Johnson - I'm pretty sure that there are no remaining sanctions from the EEML case and there haven't been for awhile (btw, as an update, EE topic area is actually doing pretty well). And even the sanctions themselves were pretty mild to begin with. Some people keep dredging the case up in the standard battleground tactic of poisoning the well but honestly, that stuff's old news, there's nothing left, nobody, including AE admins, is paying much attention. The interaction bans are the last remnants of the case (well, actually, more from the R-B case) and even those, obviously, are no longer much relevant.VolunteerMarek 01:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul - Paul, when I wrote ""keep dredging the case up in the standard battleground tactic"" I actually did NOT have you in mind. Rather just some more peripheral users. Keep in mind that lots of folks from what can be described as the "anti-EEML" side managed to get themselves banned/blocked/topic banned just fine without any help from anyone on the list in the months following the case, thank you very much. I was thinking more of these guys who sometimes keep coming back as IP addresses or fresh starts or sock puppets, who pretend to be new to Wikipedia but somehow have this magical knowledge of the EEML case which they try to use win arguments and battles in which they got blocked for in the first place.

Anyway, more general point is that aside from this interaction ban there are no outstanding sanctions from the EEML case. This is a good opportunity to put it all to rest.VolunteerMarek 04:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

@Ed Johnson & Volunteer Marek. First of all, I always supported the idea to lift all remaining individual sanctions against ex-EEML members. However, this my post is mainly a responce to the Volunteer Marek's post where he mentioned some people who "keep dredging the case up in the standard battleground tactic". In connection to that, I would like to remind VM that I was among the users who had conflicts with the EEML cabal, and, I recall, someone (probably user:Viriditas) strongly advised me to read the EEML archive and present the evidences against them when the case was open, because the cabal had been contemplating some actions against me. I refused to do that, however.
I believe, the fact that I had been silent when the EEML case was open, and that I decided to return to this issue now is per se an indication that something happened during last year that forced me to express my concern now. The major EEML violation, their coordinated edits is the fact that is extremely hard to establish. As far as I understand, the community became aware of the existence of the EEML cabal purely by accident, and there is absolutely no guaranty that no similar cabals currently exist. By writing that, I do not imply that the EEML member continue to coordinate, however, it would be equally incorrect to claim that their one year long topic bans may guarantee that no coordination can exist between them. In connection to that, I believe the behaviour of EEML members must be absolutely transparent to dispel any suspicions. Concretely, I am not sure ex-EEML members have a moral right to simultaleously participate in votes or RfCs when no fresh arguments are brought by each of them (i.e., the posts such as "Support a user X", without detailed explanation of one's own position should not be allowed for them). Similarly, joining the chain of reverts where other EEML members already participate should not be allowed also. We all remember that these users massively coordinate their edits in past, we all (including the admins) have absolutely no tools to make sure such coordination does not occur currently, so we have a right at least to express our concern in a situation when such coordination cannot be ruled out. The fact that they cannot be considered as uninvolved parties when they join the action of their peers should also be clear for everyone.
In contrast, we currently have a directly opposite tendency: any mention of the EEML is treated as a "battleground tactics", many EEML members changed their usernames to protect their privacy and, simultaneously, to disassociate themselves from their past violations, and many of them continue to concurrently edit the same articles. In my opinion, the EEML pendulum is moving in the opposite direction, and now it has already passed its lowest point...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, with much respect, the conduct you describe as suspicious due to the potential for off-wiki collaboration, is suspicious without reference to off-wiki collaboration. If discussion closers are poorly closing discussions on the basis of !votes, rather than on the basis of quality and influence of independent arguments, then this is a problem with closers. If a number of editors happen to have the same reversion style, which appears to an editor to be against policy or consensus considerations, then that is already a matter for content dispute resolution. The conduct you're describing is unacceptable regardless of demonstrated past off-wiki collaboration, or the potential for off-wiki collaboration. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@ VolunteerMarek. Thank you, Marek. In actuality, I also didn't mean all EEML members in this my post. Behaviour of majority of them is almost impeccable, and they do their best to dispel any doubts about any possibility of coordinated edits. The problem is, however, that some mechanism is, nevertheless, needed to eliminate any possibility of resurrection of this story (with the same or different participants, no matter). In connection to that, I proposed some modifications to the EW policy. To my great satisfaction, one of the EEML members, whom I sincerely respect, Piotrus, supported this proposal (which, in my opinion, would eliminate any possibility of tag teaming). However, some other EEML members opposed to that, and my proposal went into oblivion. Maybe, it makes sense to return to this issue?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@MVBW. In my opinion, the idea of amnesty should come from some third party, not from the EEML members themselves. Frankly speaking, I do not support a blanket amnesty. Whereas some ex-EEML members fully learned due lessons from this story, some other members still demonstrate partisan behaviour.

Moreover, in my opinion, the right of amnesty should be earned. By earned I mean, for example, the following. You guys should come together and propose some changes to policy that would make any tag teaming, as well as other manifestations of edit warring impossible. For example, you may propose a following change to the policy: every user who joins a chain of reverts started by others is responsible for edit warring even if his personal 3RR limit has not been exceeded (a kind of "collective 3RR", we can discuss technical details elsewhere). Two years ago, I proposed this change to the policy, I was supported by one of the EELM member, Piotrus, - but two other EEML members opposed to such a change! What is the most logical explanation for that? The most obvious (although not necessarily the most correct) explanation is that you guys (of course, just some of you) still have not fully abandoned your battleground mentality. Again, if you guys will propose, and persuade, our community to make this, or similar modification of the policy that will help to prevent future edit wars - I will fully support a wholesale amnesty, and, probably, even deletion of the EEML case from the archives. However, for now - no.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

@Frankly speaking, I agree with this Vecrumba's argument. It would be more reasonable not to focus on the interaction ban between Nug and Russavia, but to fix a ridiculous situation when the interaction ban between the user A and B becomes a tool that allows one of them to seize a control over some article by making edits scattered through the whole article. Fixing of this issue will be tantamount to lifting of the Nug/Russavia interaction ban. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I have to say that this proposal makes sense to me. Russavia probably can't remove any tags himself under his own restrictions, and it makes no sense to have possibly now irrelevant tags remain in place because the person who placed them can't do so himself. I might request Nug start a discussion on the talk page before removing tags or maybe making substantial changes to an article not necessarily directly related to recent developments, under the circumstances, but I can't see how it makes any sense to allow people who have been banned from the site and a given topic to in effect continue to have a degree of control over them, through such things as dubiously placed or now irrelevant tags. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

There would be a benefit to making EEML obsolete, and the Committee could pass a motion to lift all remaining bans and restrictions from the original WP:EEML case. The understanding would be that any bans that turn out still to be necessary can be reimposed via discretionary sanctions under the existing authority of WP:ARBEE. The only nuance might be that some of Russavia's restrictions come from WP:ARBRB which is thought of as including all of the former Soviet Union. So the Committee might clarify that WP:ARBEE will allow discretionary sanctions relating to any countries of the former Soviet Union. In actuality, the only provision of EEML that hasn't expired is Remedy 11A, the one that prevents the EEML editors sanctioned by name from interacting with Russavia.

Statement by Vecrumba

To the point at hand, I support lifting of the ban. In particular, any evaluation of editor behavior needs to be from here forward, not, as as has been implied, saddle particular editors with a permanent stench. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the IBAN mechanism, I have commented elsewhere on its completely inappropriate enforcement which invites conflict. I thank Paul Siebert for his stated agreement with my position. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I move not only that the ban be lifted but that the IBAN policy be strictly interpreted. If two editors are "banned" from interacting with each other, that should not be construed as a ban on their constructively interacting on content, addressing content and not each other. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

It should be noted that the ban/block on Russavia was a strange reaction to a harmless cartoon, and therefore could be overturned at any time. Rich Farmbrough, 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements, but I'm inclined to seriously consider this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless anything new and concerning is raised in the comments, I'll propose a motion on this in a couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The delay is because the Committee received an e-mail from Russavia indicating he has some evidence we should consider. I'm allowing a little more time for him to send it to us. Note that I wouldn't take any action (or refrain from taking any action) based on such evidence without giving anyone else mentioned in it an opportunity to comment on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that there is little value in maintaining interaction bans that have been mooted by one of the parties being banned. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Well, the banned party is not banned indefinitely, so that is a mitigating concern... when that party returns to Wikipedia, will the interaction ban save strife? Courcelles 20:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • @Nug, topic bans don't really change the usefulness of interaction bans to my mind, I'm only concerned about Russavia's site ban here. Courcelles 02:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• I am also concerned about the implications of lifting an interaction ban because one party is currently blocked - that appears one-sided and simply delaying potential conflict. I would rather lift an interaction ban because BOTH parties are in a position of agreement. If the tags that Russavia placed are significantly inappropriate, then another editor would be moved to remove them. It doesn't need to be Nug. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Pretty much per SilkTork.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • @Nug. A topic ban and an interaction ban are two very different things. I'd be prepared to lift the interaction ban for both parties, but would like to hear from Russavia first.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Clarification request: Date delinking

Initiated by Gimmetoo (talk) at 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• Gimmetoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [45]

Statement by Gimmetoo

As a result of motions in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking, Ohconfucius editing of date-related material is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee, though it is unclear what provisions could be used for enforcement.

This clarification concerns two issues.

First, I and others have attempted to get User:Ohconfucius to follow WP:DATERET and stop removing YYYY-MM-DD format dates. This has been ongoing for more than a year, involving ANI [46] [47] [48] and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: [49], where the accessdates were 100% consistent in YYYY-MM-DD format, and the references used a style directly listed by WP:MOSDATE#In references as acceptable. A pattern of similar edits amounts to an attempted Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

Second, User:Ohconfucius also uses a script that sometimes removes a number of accessdates. Ohconfucius was notified of this on 8 June 2012, and made similar edits after (See User talk:Ohconfucius#More editing problems. I noticed that this same behaviour is still ongoing. [50] [51] [52]

Could the commitee clarify the arbcom enforcement of these behaviours?

Statement by Ohconfucius

• Let me fix the problems on the articles and at the source, and I will reply later. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

The principle behind DATERET (we have an acronym for that now?) was primarily focussed on dates with written months. The use of "ISO" dates has been discussed extensively, and it appears a number of otherwise sane and well-informed Wikipedians had never run across the format before, and were confused, mystified and dismayed by it. For myself this reduced my support for such dates for access date fields from firm to dubious. Nonetheless proper usability statistics should be gathered before coming to a firm conclusion on this, and in general it should be noted that OhConfucious' efforts in this sphere are reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Ohconfucius seems to have retired. I suppose this request should be suspended or dropped. I strongly disagree with Rich's statement that OhConfucious's efforts are "reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented", but WP:DEADHORSE seems to apply here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The way I'm reading the most recent motion, "this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee" is simply a reminder that the Committee retains the authority to further amend his restrictions (or current lack thereof) should we feel it is necessary to do so; or in extreme cases open a full case or review. As (by the same motion) Ohconfucius is not currently subject to any Arbitration remedies/restrictions with respect to date delinking, any concerns with regards to that behavior should likely be handled through normal community procedures, and not via Arbitration Enforcement. However, if you feel that matters are becoming problematic enough that the community is unable to adequately enforce matters, an amendment request could be posted to attempt to (further) amend his restrictions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Hersfold. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ohconfucious has not edited Wikipedia since July 3, and there is a notice on his talkpage that he is on a break. As the concern here is the functionality of his date script, and I see from his talkpage that there have been concerns with his script for some time, perhaps people who use the script could be advised that there is a script by Lightmouse - User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js - which appears to do the same thing, but doesn't appear to have reported problems. When he returns Ohconfucious could decide the value of repairing his script compared with advising users to use the alternative script. If Ohconfucious elects to repair the script, and there are further concerns he would be advised at that point to shut the script down and direct people to the alternative script; deciding to persist with a problematic script when there is a functioning alternative may be seen as unnecessarily disruptive. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• I also tentatively agree with Hersfold, but it would be useful to have a statement from Ohconfucius explaining what he is doing and why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ohconfucious, please provide a substantive response to this request at this time. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure there's anything that needs arbitrator intervention here. If he's failing to follow WP:DATERET, as was pretty clearly shown in the example above, then an uninvolved administrator should block him for disruptive editing. Clear enough? Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow me to repeat Newyorkbrad's observation: Despite continuing to edit Wikipedia, Ohconfucius has not responded substantively to the breaches of guidelines and return to previously sanctioned behavior alleged in this complaint. I will place a talk page entry noting the expectation that his next edit to Wikipedia will address this complaint here. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. AGK [•] 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• While I agree that no sanctions are active, a return to the same behaviour that led to sanctions in the past is a serious and concerning pattern. I would also like to hear from Ohconfucius on this; however, I would not rule out the reinstatement of sanctions if there has been recidivism. Risker (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'd also like to hear a response to the issues here from Ohconfusius. Could one of the clerks please remind him?  Roger Davies ^talk 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: Annotation of case pages for sanctioned users who have changed username

Initiated by Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} at 18:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Paul Siebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This request would also indirectly affect anyone who has been involved in an arbitration case with ongoing sanctions and has publicly changed usernames.

The two editors involved in the immediate discussion have been notified: [53].

Statement by Seraphimblade

Clarification is requested on the following two questions:

• May the log pages at a closed arbitration case be annotated to note that a user has changed his or her username by those who become aware of the change, or must such an annotation be performed by an Arbitrator or Clerk?
• If only Arbitrators and/or Clerks can make such an annotation to a case, what is the proper procedure for requesting such an annotation, and are objections considered?

This objection [54] led me to make this request, as it seems this is not as uncontroversial a housekeeping measure as it would seem, and I could not find any existing policy or discussion on the matter. A clarification would hence be much appreciated.

For the record, the thread at arbitration enforcement suggested such annotations to the case page, and had I evaluated consensus for such at the close, I would have found that they did have consensus among the uninvolved admins commenting. I did not make such a determination as to my knowledge it was not required. I think the clarification would still be useful in a broader sense, however. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Hersfold: I sure didn't see any trouble with it either, but MVBW seemed to pretty strenuously object, and thought it was only clerks/Arbs. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I'd missed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

I do not see why not. My renaming was already annotated [55]. The only question is this: should you only annotate users who were sanctioned, or all users indicated as parties. For example, speaking about WP:EEML, should renaming of User:Offliner be annotated? My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to sincerely thank all arbitrators for taking good care of the project and people in trouble. Speaking about the comment by JClemens, I do not think that any of these accounts (including my current account) was ever pseudonymous/anonymous after the EEML case (except Offliner) because all participants of the case were outed and the links between old and new names were logged, redirected or appear in other ways in arbitration cases. With regard to the accountability issue, yes, I agree that if a previously sanctioned editor was found in violation of something, as decided at an appropriate noticeboard, then his previous sanctions can be taken into consideration. However, if he was not found in violation of anything, then bringing his previous sanctions as an argument against him in every unrelated discussion, especially by administrators [56] [57], does not really help. My very best wishes (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking about technical issues, the account B. was moved to HN. through official channels. Later, after a request by User:Greyhood, I made myself a redirect from HN account to my current account for the sake of transparency. As Paul noted, the initial B. account can now be "usurped" by any user who is interested in the same area of science as me. Why not? This is good username. Therefore I suggest to leave account B. as it is right now. In addition, I previously provided a reverse link to HN account from my MVBW account, exactly as suggested by Paul [58]. So, I hope no one would accuse me of evading scrutiny. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

In my opinion, information about past conflicts (or alliances) between the users editing contentious and scrutinized topics should be easily available to everyone, and the linkage should be traceable not only between an old and a new names, but in the opposite direction also. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The idea to link new and old names on the relevant case pages was initially proposed by VM. His new idea seems also quite reasonable. However, that should be done in such a way that old account page will redirect to new ones similarly to what has been done to the user:Radeksz page. In contrast, a situation with the user:Biophys page is hardly acceptable, because this account has been totally deleted, and a new account user:Hodja Nasreddin was created instead. The Biophys page should be converted into a redirect to user:My very best wishes, similar to what Volunteer Marek did. In addition, since user:Biophys was deleted, a possibility exists that some new user may request to use this name.

@ Newyorkbrad. I agree that off-wiki harassment is a legitimate reason for rename. However, in my opinion, the users with problematic edit history should provide serious evidences of harassment to get a permission for name change.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Biophys. I conclude from your last post that the real reason for you user name change was outing, which was a result of the leakage of the EEML archive. Contrary to Jclemens, I believe you do have a right to take some protective measures. However, you are missing one point: whereas you have a right to defend your privacy, the good faith users working in the EE area also have a right to know whom they are dealing with. Therefore, we have two mutually exclusive tasks, which cannot be solved simultaneously. In my opinion, if you want to conceal your identity, WP:CLEANSTART option is still available for you. However, that should be a real clean start: the old accounts must be labelled as "retired" (and not deleted), and you must leave the previous area of contentions. Under your new account, you may edit biophysics, molecular biology and all other areas, but not EE related areas. However, if you do not plan to do so, the linkage between your old and new account (and vise versa) must remain totally transparent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea to allow someone to create a Biophys account. Not only that would lead to further hiding of the connection between old user Biophys and present My Very Best Wishes, that may complicate a life of the new good faith owner of the Biophys account. Indeed, as far as i know, the archives of the EEML and other story are available on Internet (outside of Wikipedia), so the new account may be confused by someone with old Biophys, which may create problems for the absolutely innocent person. In connection to that, I believe the Biophys account should be restored and converted into a redirect to MVBW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I could, in some extreme cases, such as perhaps controversial OUTing of an editor in a previous identity, see some basis for not indicating changed names there. But, honestly, only in such cases, and I imagine that there are probably already procedures in place to deal with such circumstances. If that is the case, this seems a good way to ensure that people do not try to change their names to avoid dealing with the realities of their own previous objectionable activity. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

I've been thinking about asking for something similar for awhile, but for different reasons. The major reason IMO (it certainly applies to myself, I'm guessing it applies to others) why people changed their usernames after the case was not to escape any kind of scrutiny but rather because of ongoing off-wiki harassment (I know that that kind of thing doesn't stop the dedicated harassers, but it might make it a bit harder for them or any new potential ones). This is particularly true for those users, like myself and I believe Nug, whose previous usernames were tied to their real life names.

So why not kill two birds with one stone? That is, why not go through and change all the old user names in the case pages to their current names: i.e. Radeksz-->Volunteer Marek, Miacek-->Estlandia, etc. That way people can always refer back to the case, while at the same time the old-names-tied-to-real-life-names will be gone. Everyone will be happy. Win win. VolunteerMarek 01:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens - What the hey are you talking about? What "extraordinary efforts"? ??? VolunteerMarek 20:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw, if time and effort are a concern then... well, this is a collaborative project, so I can go through myself and change all the old names to all the new names, at least for myself. Just like working on articles.VolunteerMarek 16:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

As long as it applies to all users. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens, if that is your attitude (I believe the proper action for a user who has 1) been sanctioned by the community or the commitee, and 2) has been harassed sufficiently unpleasantly that he or she cannot function on Wikipedia if their prior identity is known is to leave.) then you leave me no choice but to appeal and overturn EEML in its entirety. Your statement sanctions off-Wiki harassment to drive editors away from Wikipedia. I am utterly gobsmacked. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale

Depending on the size of involved case, you could have a really large list to track or very little.

I would like to suggest that the log/action section be accessible to anyone that can currently utilize that section, and information about renamed users be listed under a separate heading. However, as for the actual findings/Remedies/etc, let ArbCom/AC Clerk handle changing/notarizing those parts. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I see no reason why such a routine notification couldn't be made by anyone. Unless I'm missing something? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I suppose the confusion could come from the fact that the vast majority of the page is considered to be restricted to Arbitrators and Clerks - however, for the purposes of clarity, I think a general exception can be made for editors who wish to add a note such as "(since renamed to {{userlinks|Newusername}})" to the list of involved parties at the top of the main case page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • To answer MVBW's question, I would say all parties regardless of whether they were sanctioned or not. Obviously, though, non-sanctioned users are not bound by the requirement stated by AGK below. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• In my view, final decisions ought to be updated to reflect changes in username of users who are (or previously were) subject to sanctions; this would include expired sanctions. In the case of outstanding sanctions, this committee should probably do the updating: we must be notified by any editor who wants to rename their account while under arbitration sanctions. In the case of amended or vacated sanctions, an optimal method of having the decision updated would be to ask a clerk to do so—though I would take a dim view of this becoming a tool for editors to embarrass or humiliate their 'opponents'. Obviously, very old cases are retained largely for the purpose of reference and should probably not be disturbed. AGK [•] 20:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• The log section is not restricted to just Arbs, Clerks and AE admins. All users are able to add appropriate and relevant information there, such as notifications. I think if there is an issue with what someone has posted there, the Clerks would be able to deal with it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• I certainly don't have a problem with AE admins making annotations such as this. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Updating should be performed as appropriate, but I share Volunteer Marek's concern about being sensitive to situations where usernames have been changed because of harassment situations, and there are probably some instances where the time and effort of doing the updating wouldn't be worth it (e.g. in cases from years ago where there have been no further problems). Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Contra Newyorkbrad, I believe the proper action for a user who has 1) been sanctioned by the community or the commitee, and 2) has been harassed sufficiently unpleasantly that he or she cannot function on Wikipedia if their prior identity is known is to leave. There is no right to edit Wikipedia, and we should take no extraordinary efforts to allow protected editing by previously sanctioned users. The community's interest in ensuring that previously-sanctioned editors are subject to appropriate future scrutiny takes precedence over the individual's right to edit pseudonymously in a manner unconnected to previous pseudonymous access. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @ Vecrumba, no, it simply refuses to grant 'special rights' to previously sanctioned users just because they claim to have been harassed. My stance is that this committee's past actions that failed to clearly proactively track and identify previously sanctioned (to include failed RfAs and community noticeboard discussions, not just ArbCom sanctions) users to this community have done 1) no particular good to the users in questions, two of whose identities have been found out in recent months despite such efforts, and 2) have eroded the trust in the committee's impartiality an willingness to serve as the community's watchdog in such cases. I do not sanction the off-wiki harassment of anyone, so that booting previously sanctioned users out of Wikipedia entirely is the best option for both the integrity of the encyclopedia and the protection of the real person behind the account. There is no right to edit Wikipedia, so there can be no right to edit Wikipedia harassment-free: freedom from harassment is easily achieved by the editor in question leaving Wikipedia, should they desire to avoid potential harassment. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'd prefer any such modifications be handled via requests to the clerks, to provide some scrutiny first, as on occasion this could be contentious.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Initiated by Magog the Ogre (talk) at 20:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

• Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• JCAla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TopGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vibhijain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Smsarmad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [59]
• [60]
• [61]
• [62]
• [63]
• [64]

Information about amendment request

• Requested amendment: Standard discretionary sanctions may be placed on any editor by an uninvolved administrator, including revert limitations, civility parole, and outright topic ban. the wording from WP:ARBPIA is a good one: " uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."

Statement by Magog the Ogre

ArbCom previously denied [65] a request to hear a new case . At the time, I opined that I thought this issue would remain unresolved, and it has. Since that time, numerous discussions, blocks, and threads on ANI have occurred, and yet the only difference between now and then is that both TopGun and Darkness Shines have received a 1RR probation.

It is my opinion the editor Darkness Shines is an unrepentant POV-pusher who sees the world through the lens of "us" vs. "them", an opinion echoed by other editors at ANI threads and other editors not involved in this dispute (cf. Talk:British Pakistanis). JCAla has been just as bad, but has not edited as much in the past several months. TopGun faces POV-pushing issues himself, as does Mar4d.

As you can see from the links below, this has been a huge drain on community time, and I respectfully ask Arbcom to amend the remedy of the case to allow the sanctions. All previous attempts at fixing the issue have failed, and the only reason RFC's have not been tried is that everyone knows they would fail. To not allow an amendment would leave the community once again to try to implement a fix, something which it has failed at before (cf. with the interaction ban, which was eventually lifted as ineffective).

The following has a link to the discussions that have occurred just revolving around a few different users, all attempts to get the parties in line with proper conduct (the noticeboard links are just the ones that have occurred since ArbCom's rejection of the case 6 months ago; there are more in the archive, if an arbcom member wishes to look at the link I provided above of the previous decline):

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Top Gun & Darkness Shines
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#Personal attacks, canvassing, editwar by IP sock
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive740#Block review and admin issuing 1RR
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive741#Clarification required on interaction ban
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive741#Another question about this IBAN
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive750#IBAN violation
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#User:JCAla, source falsification and tendentious editing
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#Iban violation
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Appeal
• Darkness Shines block log and unblock request block 1 (expired), unblock request block 2 (expired), 3 unblock requests block 3, one unblock request block 4 (withdrawn), 2 unblock requests block 5 (last one accepted), 3 unblock requests block 6, 5 unblock requests block 7 (last one accepted), 1-34 unblock 8 (all denied) - note, these are all just in the past 6 months.
• TopGun block log (I don't have the patience to go through all the unblock requests on this one too, but I assure you they are manifold; they can be provided upon request; otherwise, Arbcom is encouraged to look through the talk history here)

PS. I am willing to remove myself from any action related to any one or more of the above parties regarding enforcement if ArbCom, the community, or any non-involved party whatsoever thinks this is important. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

PPS. FPaS is entirely correct about filibustering: the common tactic I've seen in use is textbook WP:SOUP, and it has been marvelously successful at confusing ANI and pushing blocks ever further away. Also, I forgot to mention there is rampant sockpuppetry in the area (User:Nangparbat and User:Lagoo sab). Finally, you will note below the traveling circus of POV-pushers that FPaS speaks of which all find no fault in editors on their own side. But you decide for yourselves if this editor (DS), which everyone below maintains if a bastion of neutrality, is a POV-pusher: his requests for unblock are mostly denied, he's been blocked by other admins on several occasions, he would have been blocked by other admins at some points if I hadn't stepped in, (Personal attack removed), and he makes wildly POV-pushy edits like this one (which I'll note he still maintains was a completely legitimate and neutral edit). His and JCAla's tactic of claiming that I am biased (which is ludicrous, seeing as I give not a single fuck about the parties in this dispute; JCAla in his diffs below cherry picked the two admins who didn't support my block versus the ~9 who did.) and trying to leverage that into claiming I'm too involved to block has been employed against other admins (e.g., User:TParis), in an attempt to chase off anyone who looks closely enough into the area to recognize their WP:BATTLEGROUND agenda. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

Yes, please, do something. The situation is out of control [66] [67][68]. Last time I suggested imposing discretionary sanctions on a community basis, the ANI folks couldn't agree on anything. Admins have been curiously reluctant to use their tools in a decisive fashion – people in this field can collect seven or eight blocks in a row for disruptive editing within a few months, but admins will still not escalate the block lengths beyond a week or two, when it's pretty obvious that indef would be the only rational response [69][70]. The topic area is poisoned by the presence of a small number of determined, incorrigible agenda editors, whose constants fights with each other have led a larger number of associates/allies/enablers into joining the "travelling circus", conforming their own editing to that same "us-versus-them" mold defined by their ringleaders' obsessions. The ringleaders need to be taken out. Don't ask us to take them to RFC/U first – an RFC/U works only on the optimistic assumption that a person might be prepared to listen. These guys have known their editing is offensive for ages; if they haven't begun listening yet, what reasons have we for hoping they ever will? Don't ask us to wait for mediation between them – that's a colossal waste of time, serving only to pamper their egos and train them to become even better filibusterers. We are dealing with a number of people here who are deeply, fundamentally unwilling to accept or even to conceive of "neutrality" as a desirable goal to strive for.

Do something. No matter what: take a full case, or decide per amendment motion. Ban the central figures yourselves, or just impose disc-sancs. But do something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and before it gets forgotten, please make sure to include also Afghanistan in the scope of this; the disruption there is intimately related. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vibhijain

I have to disagree with Magog the Ogre's statement. I don't think that DarknessShines is a "unrepentant POV-pusher". Magog has blocked him many times, and this one specially raises concerns. So does this. As of TopGun, he shows serious neutrality concerns. Along with attacking editors on the basis of their nationality, he has a history of making highly controversial and questionable edits and reverts, citing WP:BRD; and when someone reverts him, he harasses him crying hounding. The sad point is that he also gets support for his false accusations. The main purpose of TopGun, while editing Wikipedia, is evidently to push Pakistani POV, and he is also supported by other editors. This, and even this, shows some signs of blockshopping. Another point which I noticed, is that this case case came when DS was all set to open a case against MTO. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

On accusations of hounding

• Anti-Pakistan sentiment Through Interwiki links (Template:Kashmir separatist movement > Pro-Pakistan sentiment > Anti-Pakistan sentiment)
• I Protest through Template:Kashmir separatist movement
• Kashmir Solidarity Day through Template:Kashmir separatist movement
• State-sponsored terrorism Through Interwiki links (2008 Mumbai attacks > Pakistan and state terrorism > State-sponsored terrorism)
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 29#Template:Jammu and Kashmir freedom movement It on almost every Kashmir related article; its obvious to catch my eyes.
• Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War I reached there through DarknessShines' user page, and watchlisted it.
• Talk:Operation Dwarka TopGun's talk page is on my watchlist, and since being a controversial article in a bad state, I preferred to comment there.

Now I hope that no one other will put such allegations, and still if he/she wants, then I will be more happy to solve out those too. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to TopGun's accusations

A user puts tons of sources in the favour of keeping an article, despite the fact that they have no mention of the topic, and when a user does nothing rather than blindly accusing me of hounding, I think I am supposed to term those comments as baseless. Also watching someone' talk page is completely allowed, and its not my headache if you are involved in every dispute of this topic's articles. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by JCAla

1. The editors in the mentioned content area are currently engaged in a mediation process. An arbitration process for these issues is currently not warranted because it would be a parallel process disrupting mediation efforts. There is no urgent dispute which would cause disruption going on currently. Editors are discussing content disputes on talk pages.
2. This arbitration request was initiated by Magog the Ogre not because of any urgent need with regards to a specific content issue (as mentioned above, mediation is already proceeding as a means of dispute resolution). Instead this request was made because Magog the Ogre's administrative competence has been questioned just yesterday by Darkness Shines.[71] This was, according to Magog himself, the "that's it" that compelled him to open this arbitration request.[72]
3. Both administrators asking for sanctions, Magog the Ogre and Future Perfect at Sunrise, are involved editors/administrators in the topic area. Uninvolved administrators have said that Magog the Ogre appears to be involved and to lack neutrality.[73][74] Magog bears bad feelings towards one part of the editors which makes him take unbalanced actions. Future Perfect at Sunrise is himself involved as an editor in a content dispute.[75]
4. Conclusion from me: An arbitration process for the content area is currently not warranted as a mediation is in full process. During the mediation period any wrong behavior can be dealt with by uninvolved administrators according to normal policy and procedure as agreed on at ANI just a short time ago. If the mediation fails, arbitration can still be requested. On Magog, he keeps refusing to accept that he is neither considered neutral nor uninvolved by several editors and administrators. Starting arbitration to get an editor who has criticized oneself off wikipedia is yet another sign. There are plenty of uninvolved administrators who have successfully acted in the content area, which do not lack the appearance of being neutral. Please accept this. JCAla (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TopGun

• Since back in around November since I edited the Taliban article, the two editors who disputed my edits there (DarknessShines and JCAla) now have a dispute with me in all the articles I edit after they followed me there one after another. I reported DS's admitted and unrepentant stalking/hounding [76] which resulted in an IBAN, after the administrators failed to enforce the IBAN (through which the stalking continued with vios only being on DS's part), the IBAN was removed on the pretext that admins would act on normal vios to make decision making easy for them. Yet many many requests to deal with the situation of the editors have been rejected with the excuse that it is difficult to gauge hounding/stalking even after I've presented with hard evidence of diffs [77]. Another editor Vibhijain has started hounding me soon after his interaction with DS and who did not back off after a civil warning ([78] [79] [80] [81] [82]) and is not being dealt with the very same way [83]. This has gone a step further [84] [85] and the editor continues to unambiguously follow me around to revert my edits or oppose me. The same was the case with DBigXray who now tries not to appear following me around but games my 1RR restriction when ever he can with edit summaries about some thing completely different [86]. As noted in his SPI he has also been suspected of meat and sock puppetry and only got away with it because I was reporting him and had content/conduct disputes with him. This user also pretended to be an administrator clearly lying [87]. Based on this and the subsequent administrative failure I very strongly oppose discretionary sanctions as admins have already shown that they've been extremely poor in enforcing sanctions with the filibustering that goes around in this specific dispute and support that either arbcom takes the fully case or asks admins to make swift blocks when provided with hard evidence of diffs and patterns of diffs. Also agree with Fut perfect that the Afghanistan topic is very much in the range of this dispute. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to DBigXray's statement

• The editor never assumes good faith on part of any editors opposing his views and calls any allegations on him with diffs as "baseless" some thing that Vibhijain does too now. Whenever warned civilly for editwar aor any other matter he instead chooses to point out my blocklog in reply to the warnings which actually contains many reverted blocks.
• The "Blockshopping" as being called here are actually formal reports to administrators as it was explicitly said at ANI that me and Darkness shines should better stay off that page after I reported an IBAN vio with diffs and it was turned into a thread for topic bans instead of acting out on the actual vios. The point being about the further sanctions instead of enforcing the previous ones. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Vibhijain's statement

• So we have a second user who agrees he stalks (atleast) my talkpage and follows my disputes. All other incidents also still categorize in hounding as they have short time difference and all oppose my edits. Just more reasons to take a case rather than hand over the power of handing out sanctions to the administrators who couldn't enforce them before either. It is quite funny to find the allegations of POV pushing on me when I am trying to get an NPOV or a combination of all POVs in balance while these editors simply want to remove any views they don't like and state Indian POV as neutral. Something to do with WP:MPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to TheSpecialUser's statement

• Last I checked, opposing something against the majority was not a reason to believe the editor had bad faith and neither is the wikipedia a majoritarianism. I discussed the edit more than any of the users who commented there and actually found agreement with atleast 2 users who initial opposed my edit at Talk:Pakistan Zindabad#Controversial Usage. Also funny that none of my blocks were because of incivility. Such false accusations make me doubt TSU's intervention here in the first place. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Darkness Shines

Regarding blocks

1. His first block was for edit warring which was completely unfounded in policy.[88] I had but one revert on that article[89], and it has been my first revert in four days.
2. His second block was also a violation of policy, wherein he accuse me of hounding[90] I explained that I had gotten to the article in question via an RFC which had been posted on a user talk page[91] He ignored this and allowed the block to run it's course.
3. His third block was again entirely wrong. [92] Accuses me of edit warring and stalking. I explained how I had gotten to the article in question via internal links and it was obvious an article on a non existent word would be deleted[93]. There had been no stalking nor edit warring on my part at all.
4. The fact the Magog so blithely calls me a bigot in his statement above shows he has not an ounce of neutrality towards me whatsoever, such a blatant personal attack is proof of his attitude towards me. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

On accusations of hounding

1. [94][95][96]. Edit wars uncited content into an article.
2. [97] Reverets in unsourced content.
3. Other states of India:- Citation needed. Various editors arguing with TG over his edit warring uncited content into an article.
4. When pointed out on his talk page his habit of reverting unsourced content into articles[98] he says "Blah"[99]
5. [100] Reverts out reliably sourced content. He did not like it.
6. [101] Files an AN3 report, even though 3R was never broken by myself.
7. [102] Misrepresentation of sources
8. [103]Battlefield mentality, talks of "sides"
9. Inter-Services Intelligence was locked for two weeks due to TG edit warring, his first action upon the article being unlocked, He reverts again. I endeavor to use only the best of sources, all are from academic publishing houses.
10. Taliban we have the same issue again, TG reverts out[104] huge amounts of content, all of which is sourced to academic publishers. He quite simply reverts out content which he thinks sheds a poor light on Pakistan.

As I pointed out to Magog I began to look into TG's edits after the fiasco at the Taliban article per WP:HOUND Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. Magog ignored all the above infractions of policy by TG and focused on my actions for reasons known only to himself. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Salvio giuliano

Well, to tell the truth, I'm not sure discretionary sanctions will be particularly helpful in this case due to the peculiarities of the topic area. First of all, it has been plagued by constant blockshopping, with users complaining about their opponents' edits on the talk pages of many different admins — disclosure: I have received several requests to examine somebody else's edits —. This is the area where an interaction ban between two editors had to be lifted because it was creating more drama than it was preventing, after all. Furthermore, only very few sysops have acted in an administrative capacity and, on top of that, some, though not all, have not always appeared neutral when brandishing their mops — disclosure: and in a couple of circumstances, I have commented to that effect on the blockee's talk page —. This does not mean they were not neutral, merely that they did not appear to be. Besides, owing to the incredible litigiousness of all editors involved, the sanctions imposed have not always received the appropriate level of review by the community. Actually, the reaction on ANI has been either aww, jeez, not this **** again or a chorus of let's ban them all and be done with them. Moreover, the editors involved in this topic area are very few (fewer than ten). I realise that the ongoing disruption needs to be stopped; however, as I have already said, I'm not sure the imposition of discretionary sanctions is the best way forward. That said, if the Committee were to consider them unavoidable, I'd like to urge you to consider not imposing the standard set of discretionary sanctions, but to shape them in a way that takes into account the peculiarities of the topic area (particularly the litigiousness, lack of appearance of neutrality and blockshopping). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by DBigXray

• I was not a party to this case as the nominator Magog had only mentioned 5 names[105] as involved users and TopGun has wrongly dragged me here by adding 2 more names[106] to make this a soup and distract the case. This also comes after I was recently threatened by topGun for commenting at ANI. I hope the arbcom members will note this and remove the extra names as attempts to distract, noting that I have never been blocked or accused by any editor other than TopGun (who because of a few content disputes likes to take my name everywhere)

1. User:TopGun (previously edited as User:Hassanhn5) keeps pushing Pakistani POV in Wiki articles (and can be clearly seen in his edits) using unsourced or poorly sourced (blogs, SPS) contents and is often met by resistance from other editors. In past I had disputes when he tried to disrupt (insert POV and remove sourced content) in india related articles under my watchlist. To get me out of his way he had desperately tried all attempts of getting me blocked by all possible means and failed in all of them.
2. Its not easy for a such edits to go un noticed on wikipedia. And whenever the other editors complain of his behavior he prefers calling them Sockpuppets [107] and [108] . TopGun has made failed attempts to get me blocked by falsely accusing me for Sockpuppetry [109] [110]. Inspite of the fact that I was cleared and the case was closed, he keeps wrongly accusing me for his imaginary socks.
3. TopGun has tried block shopping against me by canvassing on talk pages of admins and editors [111][112], [113],[114](many more..) and called me a vandal and presented a content dispute at AIV for a quick block on me[115]

On accusations by TopGun

1. TopGun makes controversial edits on articles and whenever the page watchers revert him he accuses everyone else (with whom TopGun has content disputes) of hounding. this observation has also been supported by Magog himself [116]. In past [117] also TopGun tried to get me blocked my making a concocted report at ANI hoping that he might get me banned by incorrectly accusing me of "hounding", for editing my watchlisted articles and failed.
2. In response to an 11 month old diff presented by TopGun above on accusing me of posing as admin where I was trying to warn a proven Vandal about Vandalism is yet another ill-intentioned attempt to show me in a bad light. I was new to wikipedia and was trying to discourage [118] a vandal only account from vandalizing wikipedia. later on I learnt that there are templates to warn them so started using them[119]. The very next day that account was blocked indefinitely for being a Vandalism only account. But the Arbcom members must also note that TopGun brings this incident with carefully worded phrases [120] every time he makes a complaint against me and here as well.
3. The diff of the revert [121] pointed by TopGun above was done by me in accordance with the talk page discussion here[122], when other editors had pointed source misrepresentation by TopGun.

• Unlike TopGun who follows WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and has a block log filled with edit warring and disruptive editing, I have never been blocked neither have I been warned for any issue.

• It is to be noted that TopGun makes regular visits [123] to Magog's page for block shopping[124] instead of taking the issue to the ANI as his attempts of block shopping have a much higher success rate at Magog's page than at Admin notice boards.[125]

• It must be duly pointed out that block shopping at admin's talk pages need to end and if there is a genuine concern then it should be posted at appropriate noticeboards where "uninvolved" admins can take proper actions (or boomerang if appropriate). I am in complete agreement with Salvio's comment above. --DBigXray 07:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

As it is evident by the diffs provided by the many editors here, this is more of a user conduct issue which could have been handled in a better way by uninvolved admins. The block shopping and subsequent blocks by involved admins have brought this here. It will not be appropriate to put up Discretionary sanctions to block any of the editors in this topic area, just by the wrong doings of individual users above. The action by Arbcom if any should be taken on the erring users and not the topic area as a whole.--DBigXray 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TheSpecialUser

I completely disagree when MTO calls DS an "unrepentant POV-pusher who sees the world through the lens of "us" vs. "them"". DS's edits may look controversial but none of them are disputing neutrality or using unreliable sources. As far as his reverts for TGs edits are concerned, TG's edits were controversial and subject to eventual talks or RFCs at talk pages or user talk pages. MTO being an admin has made few uncivil kind of personal attacks to DS ([126]). Especially this didn't look appropriate at all as the editor wasn't even warned or asked for clarification prior to the block. This isn't my main point at this statement. I will have to say that it is actually TopGun and at times Mar4d who have pushed POV and they seem to remove addition of any content that sheds a poor light on Pakistan. They have also been adding data which is not so in favor of Indian authorities at Jammu & Kashmir or related issues negatively. The best example of this "biased behavior" can be found at [127] where TG and M4 introduced links (I Protest, Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and Media curbs and usage of social networking sites in Kashmir) which have no connection whatsoever to separatist movement. These links don't even have any content related to the movement and still get a place in the template. Another example is Pakistan Zindabad where TG removes data which is completely sourced with WP:RS and the incident is notable enough to have a mention but still it was removed just because it was proving a bad point for his country, I was totally shocked by such biased behavior (Pakistan Zindabad incident lead to a Talk:Pakistan_Zindabad#Controversial_Usage RFC where editors are in clear support of inclusion). This is nothing but clear POV pushing. He also accused Vibhijain of HOUNDING which was not a case there. HOUNDING says that edits that are intended to dispute or badger the editor in a wrong way is HOUNDING but addition of material and other fixes in good faith are not HOUNDING. Since long TG has accused people of HOUNDING and still does as he doesn't seem to understand what WP:HOUND is. Since long TopGun has followed such behavior and has faced many blocks due to incivility or personal attacks (hostile editing against Darkness Shines, improper calling of "sock") or breaking IBAN or Disruptive editing. He has since long continued to make this site WP:BATTLEGROUND and one of the instances can be found here. This dispute doesn't look like it is going to end. I believe that a ban from Indo-Pak related articles will be the best possible solution to this continued conflict.  — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 05:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Anir1uph

I have been an active Wikipedia editor for the past 6 months. I edit many articles, and that includes articles about my country, India. I have observed the process of edits, reverts and ANI proceedings from the sidelines for some time. I am here as an editor whose willingness to edit, add content and removed vandalism/violations from these articles has been diminished. This is because of two reasons:

1. Fear of swift administrator intervention, due to a complaint against me by an opposing party. I am here to devote my time on Wikipedia's article space. Being caught up in ANIs, with a possibility of being handed out blanket bans is terrifying to me. I would not like to be dragged into an official mess for cases that ideally require more discussions on the talk pages.
2. Distractions caused to regular editing, by users who hold opposite views but are reluctant to discuss them, and are willing to enforce them using tactics like talk page intimidation (as illustrated in the examples linked in the previous sections).

In my opinion,

1. Placing blanket sanctions on the topic area will not be very effective as it won't solve the root of the problem, which, in my opinion is a user conduct issue here.
2. Administrators on Wikipedia are like administrators anywhere. In all progressive democracies, there is a time-bound change of guard, of elected politicians and behind the scene bureaucrats. This i believe is done to ensure that an administrator appointed to a particular 'region' does not become all-powerful and start to 'intimidate' his/her subjects. Similarly, when an administrator on wikipedia remains associated with a disputed subject for a long time, any action by him/her that might even appear to be biased causes further agitation among opposing users. The problem is made worse by the fact that other/uninvolved Wikipedia administrators do not like to intervene on seeing an admin already 'handling business'. A vicious cycle is formed, which might discourage other editors from contributing to such articles/topics.

I would urge the ArbCom to ponder over these issues.

Thanking you all,

Anir1uph (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Strike Eagle

I completely disagree with Magog the Ogre's description of Darkness Shines as a unrepentant POV-pusher.Darkness Shines has been doing great service to neutralize the POV pushing that plagues many(most) of the Indo-Pakistani articles.Magog the Ogre was always involved in the dispute when he repeatedly blocked Darkness Shines.There was obviously some kind of blockshopping due to which Darkness Shines was indiscriminately blocked many times.MTO ridiculously accuses DS of Anti-Pakistani editing while he supports TG and Mar4d who openly push anti-india propoganda.

User:TopGun has always been trying in extreme magnitudes to push Pakistani POV in any article he finds.[128].TopGun has been Templaring and warning regular and established editors as they stand against his pov pushing.[129] [130] [131].He regularly(and baselessly) accuses DBigXray and Vibhijain(sysop elsewhere) for hounding [132].TopGun has a good history of edit-warring due to which he was blocked quite a good number of times and was even stripped off his rollback privelages.It's ridiculous to see him accuse another established editor for edit-warring and hounding.

Mar4d's follows a different pattern of POV pushing where he pushes his point silently so that no one notices his edits.He doesn't appear on other user talk pages as frequently as TG but his effect on articles is quite high too.

I hereby request the ArbCom to take necessary action against TopGun and Mar4d-Discrete Sanctions or Ban.Darkness Shines and JCAla, who have been working for NPOV in the conflicted articles must be freed of the charges.Vibhijain and DBigXray who were dragged into the dispute by TG have no major role in it and hence I think must be removed from the list. Sincerely, TheStrikeΣagle 13:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

On Accusations of POV Pushing by Mar4d

The only major POV dispute I have ever been involved was a userbox I created.Mar4d nominated it for deletion saying that it was not in use and unnecessary.Who is he to decide what is necessary here? Unfortunately(for Mar4d) the MfD was closed as keep with no delete !vote other than Mar4d's.perhaps his friends were off-wiki that time .It is clear that Mar4d accuses other users for POV pushing while he himself does it all the time.Hope this clears the accusation. Regards TheStrikeΣagle 13:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Smsarmad

I don't know why my name was added here as none of the statements given up till now state my name. As I edit in this topic area so I will like to share my observation: that whenever an editor persistently pushes his/her POV in a topic area giving an impression that he/she is working on some agenda here at Wikipedia, the editors contributing to the same topic area how much neutral they may be but a time will come that they will be forced to push the opposite POV instead of coming to neutral ground. The problems in this topic area are so difficult to handle that most of the admins avoid using their tools in this area or even try to understand what the actual problem is and what is its cause? I have been viewing Darkness Shines’s (DS) edits in the Pakistan topic area, for the last 7 months. Per my observation he is continuously pushing his POV and disrupting any good effort put by most of the other editors working in this topic. I have raised this issue previously many times (some other editors also did this). Some of his edits that don’t need much explanation describing his POV: [133], [134], [135], [136],

Not to mention his uncivil behavior, creation of article to piss other editors, hounding other editors, as they are separate and lengthy chapters.

On calling an admin involved I will just say that DS calls anyone involved/not neutral admin whoever supported Bwilkins idea of blocking him for six months,in the last discussion at ANI so that includes: Bwilkins,The Bushranger, Dennis Brown, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Magog. Though till now he has called only Bwilkins, Magog and Future Perfect as involved, with this argument but I don’t see it far that all the other admins who supported his block will be accused of being involved whenever they take some action against him. So I think an editor should not be given the right to call an admin being biased/involved just because he/she blocked or supported/upheld a block of that editor previously. It will set a bad precedence leading to problems for the administrators dealing with disruptive editors.

There is much more happening in this topic area that most of the outside editors are possibly not aware of, like creation of retaliatory articles, hounding, teaming up, defending an editor or his/her actions whenever an action is (or going to be) taken by an admin, accusing any admin who takes action of being involved/biased, accusing editors (including admins) of being friend of the other editor, giving barnstars to each other with inflammatory comments against other editors soon after a discussion is concluded, etc. All this is now increasing with more editors following the path of others who did this successfully and have become a role model. Also the frequency of these kind of disruptive activities is increasing. Actually this is one of the reasons that my contributions are declining too as I avoid these disputes as much as I can. That is why I think Arbitration Committee should take a thorough look into this (that unfortunately most of the admins avoid), that I guess is possible if a full arbitration case is taken. Apparently it looks like that discretionary sanctions will solve the problems in this topic area but it will not be plugging (only) the right hole, instead it is like plugging all the holes, that will have collateral damage to some extent as issues which arise in this topic area are so complex sometimes that it is difficult for an admin to act without thoroughly checking the lengthy history of the events, so sometimes they avoid using the (sysop) tools. So my only concern about giving admins the powers of discretionary sanctions is why ArbCom is leaving this case once again for the admins, majority of whom are probably reluctant to act in this topic. Besides I would like to mention about the more visible display of Battleground mentality .i.e. the addition of my name to the involved/affectee list that apparently looks like an "us vs them" approach. --SMS ^Talk 22:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Seems a good idea - a preliminary circuit breaker on pages with ongoing troubled history which can be installed with a minimum of effort for (hopefully) some settling of behaviour. I'm inclined to post a motion as requested but will wait for some more input. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Agree that enabling discretionary sanctions for this topic area seems like a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Concur, and am fairly surprised it hasn't been done already, given the level of disruption that goes on in this area. Courcelles 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed, and I think a motion is probably the best way forward. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Perhaps this remedy, adopted in 2007 (before my time on the Committee) in a case involving India-related articles, could be viewed as a primitive phrasing of discretionary sanctions? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---