Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lord Roem (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 18 July 2012 (→‎Amendment request: Civility enforcement: request declined; discussion archived). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Eastern Europe none none 8 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

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).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  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.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

This is not a discussion. 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.

Arbitrators or 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. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. 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:

Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

Clarification request: Eastern Europe

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

Statement by other user

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Statement by other user

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

Amendment request: Eastern European mailing list

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

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
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Notified[8]

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[9] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Courcelles, Russavia is indefinitely topic banned from EE, see this, in addition to the one year site ban[10]. --Nug (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Link to discussion on Courcelles' talk page[11]. --Nug (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @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[12] and immediately nominated for deletion[13] 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[14]. 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[15] 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)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


@ 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]


@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Pretty much per SilkTork.  Roger Davies talk 09:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]

Clarification request: Date delinking

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

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

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 [17] [18] [19] and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: [20], 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. [21] [22] [23]

Could the commitee clarify the arbcom enforcement of these behaviours?

Statement by Ohconfucius

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Agree with Hersfold. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. AGK [•] 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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: [24].

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 [25] 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]

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)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I do not see why not. My renaming was already annotated [26]. 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)[reply]

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 [27] [28], does not really help. My very best wishes (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 [29]. So, I hope no one would accuse me of evading scrutiny. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@ 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by other user

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I certainly don't have a problem with AE admins making annotations such as this. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • @ 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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

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:

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
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 [36] 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):

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

Yes, please, do something. The situation is out of control [37] [38][39]. 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 [40][41]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On accusations of hounding

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]

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)[reply]

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.[42] This was, according to Magog himself, the "that's it" that compelled him to open this arbitration request.[43]
  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.[44][45] 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.[46]
  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)[reply]

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 [47] 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 [48]. Another editor Vibhijain has started hounding me soon after his interaction with DS and who did not back off after a civil warning ([49] [50] [51] [52] [53]) and is not being dealt with the very same way [54]. This has gone a step further [55] [56] 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 [57]. 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 [58]. 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]
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]
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]
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)[reply]

Statement by Darkness Shines

Regarding blocks

  1. His first block was for edit warring which was completely unfounded in policy.[59] I had but one revert on that article[60], 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[61] I explained that I had gotten to the article in question via an RFC which had been posted on a user talk page[62] He ignored this and allowed the block to run it's course.
  3. His third block was again entirely wrong. [63] 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[64]. 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)[reply]

On accusations of hounding

  1. [65][66][67]. Edit wars uncited content into an article.
  2. [68] 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[69] he says "Blah"[70]
  5. [71] Reverts out reliably sourced content. He did not like it.
  6. [72] Files an AN3 report, even though 3R was never broken by myself.
  7. [73] Misrepresentation of sources
  8. [74]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[75] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by DBigXray

  • I was not a party to this case as the nominator Magog had only mentioned 5 names[76] as involved users and TopGun has wrongly dragged me here by adding 2 more names[77] 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 [78] and [79] . TopGun has made failed attempts to get me blocked by falsely accusing me for Sockpuppetry [80] [81]. 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 [82][83], [84],[85](many more..) and called me a vandal and presented a content dispute at AIV for a quick block on me[86]
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 [87]. In past [88] 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 [89] a vandal only account from vandalizing wikipedia. later on I learnt that there are templates to warn them so started using them[90]. 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 [91] every time he makes a complaint against me and here as well.
  3. The diff of the revert [92] pointed by TopGun above was done by me in accordance with the talk page discussion here[93], 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 [94] to Magog's page for block shopping[95] 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.[96]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 ([97]). 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 [98] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[99].TopGun has been Templaring and warning regular and established editors as they stand against his pov pushing.[100] [101] [102].He regularly(and baselessly) accuses DBigXray and Vibhijain(sysop elsewhere) for hounding [103].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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [104], [105], [106], [107],

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)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=502883367"