Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: Digwuren

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

• I don't think that this relatively small change would affect any editors (yet)

Statement by Piotrus

There is a curious and I think unhelpful difference between the Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#General_restriction and the Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions which have replaced it. The sanction allow imposing sanctions on editors who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". The general restriction used to impose sanction for "make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith." The difference is important, as the new discretionary sanctions don't even mention personal attacks attacks and uncivility, and mention good faith in an unclear fashion later. While I think many would argue that this is covered by "expected standards of behavior", I'd nonetheless ask for a small clarification, i.e. amending the discretionary sanctions to clearly state that editors can be sanctions for (gross, repeated, etc.) violations of CIV, NPA and AGF (alternativily, we could clarify that CIV, NPA and AGF are not "expected standards of behavior" - athough I certainly hope this will not be the case). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm not really sure where the confusion is coming in. Is there really a dispute over whether conduct policies constitute expected behavior? --Vassyana (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: AndriyK

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK.

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

• User:Horlo [1]

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Horlo is a single-purpose nationalist account. This is not too unusual in eastern European matters, but Horlo is disrupting medieval history articles where he knows nothing with tendentious edits and talk page posts that do nothing but waste the time of other users who are trying to do respectable work. No exaggeration, his contributions are nothing but entering fights to push a very extreme version of Ukrainian nationalism that is at odds with the purpose of this encyclopedia:

Rus' Khaganate

Horlo is continually inserting a clean-up tag into the Featured Article Rus' Khaganate. His "argues" You cite 8 sources about East European history published by the Soviet Union! Enough said here ... Finally, you are ignoring fact: Rus does not mean Russia. Russia does not mean Rus. That is not a disagreement by me, that is fact. The article cites numerous sources that use the name interchangeably.*

• added tag as per discussion,
• please do not remove tag without improving the article
• Please read discussion - many problems are laid out there
• please see discussion
• Please see talk page and answer the questions
• Slogans do not help improve the article - PLEASE see talk
• Please either answer the questions on the talk page, or let the challenge stay

Vladimir the Great

Horlo revert wars over the name of Prince Vladimir the Great, and tries to portray use of the English name Vladimir as "Russian nationalism"perm talk page link

• m
• common name as per talk page
• as per discussion
• Please see talk page re:name
• Please see discussion

Though this is a periodic excursion for this user from his main interests in the Holodomor and the spelling of Kiev (see Talk:Kiev and Talk:Kiev/naming archives), it still causes disruption and wasted time and is clear proof that while the editor isn't interested in encyclopedia-building he is prepared to reduce the ability of others to do so.

The action I request is a motion amendment which either 1) topic-bans Horlo from medieval Rus articles (or at least from revert-warring over spelling forms) or 2) provides a remedy that will allow other administrators to place such restrictions ad hoc in future.

• NOTE: Rus and Russia are actually the same word etymologically, and although there is pressure to distinguish the two since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Horlo knows that most medieval historians writing in English don't do this (as it has been pointed out to him in the past); also, most scholarship on Kievan Rus' was written in Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and for the works likely to be cited by western historians, is as reliable as English scholarship in the same era ... to verify that check the bibliographies of recent English works like Dimnik's House of Chernigov and Janet Martin's Medieval Russia

Resp. to NYB

The AndriyK case was partly about the same behaviour, tendentious warring on the topic of Ukrainian proper names e.g. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Statement_by_party_8_.28User:Alex_Bakharev.29. No other case covers this behaviour so specifically, the EE dispute (despite its new name) being about Polish-Lithuanian and Polish-Russian disputes and involving Horlo less than the AndriyK. It's fairly common to bring newer users into older cases when they are relevant, though to me this is just a bureaucratic thing so long as the effect occurs. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Horlo

Hello, I apologize in advance for the length of this statement, but since I have suddenly found myself before the Arbitration Committee, I believe that as much information as is pertinent should come to light.

First, I am a single-purpose account. I admit that freely. I know nothing of radiation spectrometers, Namibian Soccer players, mating habits of porpoises, life cycles of Lavender, soccer rules, Klingon pain sticks, or Romanian grammar. I have contributed not at all to anything that I don't know about. I know about Ukraine, and I contribute to articles about Ukraine. I have created a few articles, often connected to Ukraine, and have asked many questions.

While I use Wikipedia for many things, when I have nothing useful to contribute, I don't. However, when I ask a question, I actually would like an answer other than "You're kidding, right?" [[2]]

I started editing Wikipedia by accident, when I was looking for information for a class that I was teaching about Ukrainian history, specifically about Kyivan Rus'. I googled Kyiv, found the WP link to Kiev, and when I tried to change the name, an editor changed it back, stating "it's same ole, same ole; every month or so a new Ukrainian language nationalist comes along trying to push views against wiki policy, then go away;but people here have had the argument dozens of times"[[3]]. That surprised me, as I had been labeled a "Ukrainian nationalist" before anybody had actually given any arguments as to why a change should not be made.

Now, I am a Ukrainian nationalist, but that's not the point here. When I took the advice of a Wikipedia administrator to start an RfC to change the name of the article from Kiev to Kyiv, one very vocal editor stated:

* Oppose* Kiev is the English word for the city. Everyone knows what Kiev is, and even for those who recognize Kyiv, it still looks strange. Generally, I hate "cultural imperialism" and I'm inclined to support native forms where there is a moral argument, but here there is no moral argument which overrides Use English. There are worse etymologies than Kiev ... e.g. Gaelic and Welsh people and words are known throughout the world by English forms. Check the interwikis for Ynys Môn (Anglesey) - almost entirely English derived despite the fact that the island's language is not and never has been English (unlike Kiev and "Russian"). See then Máel Coluim mac Cináeda ... Malcolm II in all the interwikies, why? The guy has nothing to do with English! It's just what happens, and, whether "imperialistic" (as its called on at sevceral points on this page) or not, it is independent of wiki policy. At least Celtic languages are entirely separate from English, whereas standard Russian and standard Ukrainian are very similar varieties, or as one person once put it, recently conceived standardizations at two separate points on the "Eastern Slavic" dialect continuum (even though Russians and Ukrainians are now supposed to be coherently separate peoples, they still haven't, for instance, worked out who Rusyns are). Besides that, Kiev is a predominantly Russophone city in any case, and the rise of Kyiv as an English spelling is a response to the corrupt Ukrainian government's internal and international policy of Ukrainization in the attempt to give a semi-convincing national identity across its borders to what is in all fairness a fairly historically arbitrary SSR created recently as a concept and extended by gifts in the Soviet period. In reality it's a "bilingual", or more accurately, diglossic land with little pre-WWI historical precedent as a state much of whose southern territory was taken by "Eastern Slavs" (formerly everyone, including them, just called them "Russians") from Turkic peoples in recent centuries. There is no moral argument for the Kyiv spelling rather than the neutral, English Kiev. The whole controversy here is just emblematic of immature, eastern European ideologically separatistic fanaticism; never seen any Germans complain about the naming of Cologne, spelled after those imperialist standardized Frenchies, or Luxemburgers complain about Luxembourg rather than Lëtzebuerg or Luxemburg. No, you only get that when you cross the Oder in to Eastern Europe. Few English-speakers know that there is a one vowel difference between how some Russians say the name of the city and the way some Ukrainians say the name. They certainly don't know that "Kiev" is closer to the standardized "Russian" way than the standardized "Ukrainian" way until Ukrainian nationalists tell them. Hey, most English-speaking Glaswegians call their city Glez-ga, not Glasgow, and despite the fact that there's more difference between Glez-ga and Glasgow than Kyiv and Kiyev, I've never heard anyone complain about the spelling, let alone advocate that English adopt the standardized Gaelic spelling Glaschu. So not only is Kyiv not English, it shouldn't become English, and wikipedia should not be acting as an extension of the Ukrainian government's immoral and unhistorical nationalistic language policy. Kiev is the spelling everyone knows. Having said that, there is precedent for ignoring English use and slavishly following the discriminatory dictates of Ukrainian government on wikipedia. E.g. the Russian-speaking city of Kharkov, for instance, already has the less common (in English) and Ukrainianized spelling Kharkiv, but this was wrong and Kiev anyways is a much more famous city than Kharkov in the English-speaking world. The wiki article should therefore remain at this location until Kyiv or any other name does overwhelmingly predominate in actual use in the English language; and for what it's worth, the English-speaking organizations who have adopted the spelling Kyiv in print have not taught their staff to change their pronunciation, since you always here KEE-eff/Kee-EFF whether they've spelled it Kiev or Kyiv. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

During that same discussion, I was accused of Sockpuppetry, "Hello Horlo's sockpuppet with an anonymous Toronto IP. Reginmund 05:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)".

To be honest, I have been called worse by better, so I didn't really care. Unfortunately, I think that this established the relationship between Deacon of Pndapetzim and me. As much as we try to deny it, we cannot leave emotions out of Wikipedia. We're all human - that's why words like "disruption" still find their way into this case. It's very difficult to accept that we may not be correct. I think that sadly Deacon of Pndapetzim has not been able to leave that discussion.

By the way, what would lead Deacon of Pndapetzim to suspect that I am a man? Why always use "he"?

Now, with respects to my more recent edits, I believe that my statements have been misinterpreted. I have never "tried to portray use of the English name Vladimir as "Russian nationalism". (please note the incorrect use of quotation marks in "the English name Vladimir"):

First, neither Volodymyr nor Vladimir are English words. They are both translations into English.

Second, here is the actual discussion/reparte (again, I apologize for the length of the citation, but I think it is important that everything be out here, without the onus being on the ArbCom members to go and look for information):

"The sentence "Volodymyr Svyatoslavych the Great, often mistakenly spelled Vladimir" is incorrect as "Volodymyr" being a modern Ukrainian spelling is no more correct than "Vladimir" (modern Russian spelling). The old East Slavic was either "Володимеръ"(according to the Hypatian codex) or "Володимѣръ"(Vasmer). Note the different vowels in the two last syllables. The reason of this is that the root "mer" derives from the gothic "-mērs"("great") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.185.171 (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Ah, didn't notice this, thanks - that were edits by an anonymous Ukrainian nationalist (note the typical Kiev to Kyiv change). Reverted. --Illythr (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC) But did you notice that the preceding statement was by an anonymous Russian nationalist (check the whois, and this is the only contribution, even left unsigned)? Horlo (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC) "

The discussion continued: "Indeed, the IP is Russian, but how did you determine that this person is a nationalist? --Illythr (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Hello, the same way that you had determined that the previous change had been made by a Ukrainian nationalist. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) While changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" arbitrarily is a good indication of an Ukrainian nationalist at work (because the article's name is currently Kiev, despite the dogged, incessant attempts by the nationalists to rename it for six freaking years), a reversion of this is not an indication of anything, other than, perhaps, due vigilance (I failed to notice the change, for instance). --Illythr (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Excuse me? So what you're saying is that you have no arguments here. Do you have any others? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Er, what? --Illythr (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC) "while changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" arbitrarily is a good indication of a Ukrainian nationalist at work". That's what. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Ah. Well, everyone I saw going about doing this in Wikipedia articles, where the name "Kiev" is entirely noncontroversial (pre-1991) has invariably turned out to be one. Here it's even more obvious, due to the "often mistakenly spelled" thingy. Compare - "Moskva, often mistakenly spelled as Moscow, is the capital of Russia..." However, this branch of the discussion is entirely irrelevant to the article. If you find my original statement offensive, just say so and I will delete it. --Illythr (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Well, everyone I saw going and changing it back has been one, too. Horlo (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) I see. Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. --Illythr (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)"

I apologize for the long quote, but I think it is important that it is clear exactly how I call "Vladimir" Russian nationalism. Here's how: I don't.

Now, I still can't see any explanation of how I "push a very extreme version of Ukrainian nationalism that is at odds with the purpose of this encyclopedia".

This brings us back to my first edits - I am called names. I am accused of owning all kinds of puppets (meat and sock). The fact that I don't contribute about things unknown to me is mocked. Again, name calling is not important, so I ignore it.

What I actually find most disturbing in this accusation is words placed in my mouth, such as in the reply to NewYorkBrad, "Horlo knows that most medieval historians writing in English don't do this" Excuse me? Pardon? How does Horlo know this?

Why is this case before the Arbitration Committee?

This is a pattern of behaviour that I have come to expect from some editors. If one is to be judged by one's enemies,: [[4]]

I can honestly say: I have never done anything in bad faith; I have never gone against consensus when it has been shown that consensus is against me; I have always questioned everything.

Unfortunately, it seems that one editor has a problem enough with my edits to take them to the highest court in Wikipedia. This statement, is an example: "Horlo revert wars" while on a talk page the same editor states "The editor is rude sometimes, but not enough that he'd get blocked for it, and doesn't spend enough time on wiki to edit-war over 3RR regularly." [[5]] If I don't even spend enough time on wiki, why am I being discussed here?

Finally, the thing that angers me most is the assumption by the accuser that "while the editor isn't interested in encyclopedia-building he is prepared to reduce the ability of others to do so." Why does Deacon of Pndapetzim presume to say that I am not interested in encyclopedia-building? Have I not started articles? Have I not improved articles? Is not questioning the very foundation of objective study? Is the fact that Deacon of Pndapetzim is a medieval doctoral student and may have pre-concieved notions (that I challenged) about Rus', Ukraine, and Kyiv enough to bring a case here?

I submit that the "clear proof" offeded by Deacon of Pndapetzim against me isn't so "clear" at all. I question, I question repeatedly. If there are no satisfactory answers, I continue to question. We should be concerned with seeking answers, rather than stopping people from questioning.

Unfortunately I cannot see anything in this Arbitration Request besides vindictiveness. "it still causes disruption and wasted time".

Finally, a WP administrator made changes on the Volodymyr the Great page which were an agreeable compromise, but were undone by Deacon of Pndapetzim [[6]]. Perhaps it is not I who is not "interested in encyclopedia-building"

I apologize once again for the length of the reply. But sometimes it takes a while to say what you need to say.

Thank you, Horlo (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm afraid I'm a bit lost here. Is Horlo a new username for one of the parties to the AndriyK case? If not, I don't see how any remedy against Horlo could be reached by amending our decision in that case, which was decided two years before Horlo started editing (and long before any of the present arbitrators joined the committee, and before several of the current arbitrators including me even started editing). Wouldn't the appropriate course here be a request for discretionary sanctions under the Eastern European disputes decision or a related decision, if applicable and if the appropriate warnings have been given, or alternatively an ANI posting or an earlier stage in DR? I'm not sure how direct intervention by this Committee at this stage would be the best course, through an amendment of the four-year-old case or otherwise. Clarification would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll comment further after we have Horlo's statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with NYB's comments. Additionally, I see no reason that a topic ban cannot be community imposed, whether by an individual administrator (subject to normal review) or by way of community discussion. --Vassyana (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names

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

• MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ? Named parties?

Statement by MickMacNee

• A dispute is ongoing about the proper venue for conducting discussion of the issues raised in this case. In particular, admin SarekOfVulcan blocked Domer48 for actions on the Republic of Ireland article talk page and the article itself. Discussion is on their talk pages, and at ANI here (stale). Request the committee ammends the case to explicitly confine discussion of the issues pertinent to the case, to the nominated discussion venue, namely WP:IECOLL. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Second this request. Part of Domer's argument for not being blocked was that ArbCom never said the individual article talkpages couldn't be used to discuss changing the name/focus of the individual articles. If the ArbCom could make it clear whether or not their intent was to move all discussion concerning page names/focuses into the location specified pursuant to remedy 2, that would be most useful. I think that confining discussion is the right thing to do, because we don't need half the articles working one way and half another.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Domer48: Changing an article whose history clearly indicates that it is about the Irish State so that it is instead about the term "Republic of Ireland" as it refers to that state is a move by almost anyone's definition here. It's most certainly not a "discussion about content". Does the ArbCom need to explicitly spell out something this obvious?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BigDunc

This shows that Sarek was telling factual inaccuracies, this is what Domer had asked to be shown and Sarek claimed was already in place when he blocked Domer. Sarek also claimed on ANI that it was in place it appears he/she was mistaken. BigDunc^Talk 19:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also for the record I oppose this what we need is a kick start to get it up and running again. And maybe the Domer debacle has done that. BigDunc^Talk 22:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the poll started by Deacon we deal with Facts not force of numbers. BigDunc^Talk 07:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rockpocket

I also urge ArbCom to be be explicit in their instructions for how this dispute should (and should not) be resolved. Sadly there are efforts to subvert the current process by forum shopping, with the apparent aim if creating a false consensus. That has been supported by claims that ArbCom did not explicitly put in place a structure for resolution and that ArbCom did not explicitly prohibit discussions from individual article talk pages. These claims are technically accurate, but clearly not in the spirit of the remedies ArbCom did pass. This could be resolved with a simple amendment stating the discussion should take place at a single centralized forum. Rockpocket 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

This dispute is still running because the method ArbCom set up for resolving this was ineffective and collapsed, and contrary to the emerging norm of ArbCom practice in such areas, the hot-heads of the dispute didn't get topic banned and are continuing to ensure everything's as tendentious, partisan and heated as ever. No consensus will be built here by discussion. I pointed this out before, now I have been proven correct. What has to be done now is the process I recommended two months ago, per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Moderator_action_..._next_step and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Building on what we have done so far and getting to a conclusion, a process that got the support of the most respectable editors participating. A decisive result would be produced, and though its results wouldn't please everyone, it would have a legitimacy lacking now. I propose the poll be moderated by Coren, who I propose because I think he is the arbitrator best cut out to deal with it and the likely nonsense. An arb is a preferential appointment because his authority is most likely to be respected, so I think one should be the nominal head even if he has deputies doing most of the actual work. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal page

I've opened a proposal page at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Community poll. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

Personally, I'd like to see all the Arbitrators get together & decide via simple majority vote on a ruling for these articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HighKing

The current process does not take into consideration the lack of incentive by some editors to allow a process (that will result in changes they don't agree with) to proceed. So they simply delay the process, slow it down, stick heels in, and are happy with a stagnant process. And you'd be surprised at how few editors it takes to achieve this. The current process and method requires a number of changes. Another point is that in general, weight of numbers also appears to sway arguments much more than the quality of the arguments and discussions, so having a senior arbitrator (or more than one) involved in order to actually make decisions and give directions is required. This should be (mutually, whatever) agreed up front, that the decisions of the arbitrator (committee, whatever) is respected, done in good faith, neutral, and most importantly accepted and final. I would add that we have also seen a recent flare-up in a very similar and possibly closely related "British Isles" edit-warring, disagreements and discussions. While a decision here does not effect a decision on "British Isles" as they can be decided seperately, I believe the community only has bandwidth to manage one dispute of this nature. I would suggest that ArbCom rules that all "British Isles" related article changes and renaming is banned until after the current process is decided, but with an undertaking that the issues outlined within the WP:BISLES taskforce will be worked on immediately after this one (I'm sure the lessons learned here will be valuable and speed up the WP:BISLES process). --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mooretwin

It becomes clearer with every dispute, every edit war, that the only solution to this is a comprehensive one, covering not merely the names of the articles, but a protocol for names within the texts of other articles, and for descriptive-names of articles (e.g. Politics of the Republic of Ireland, or Culture of Ireland).

There's been a compromise proposal on the table since December of last year, which was sadly ignored by Arbcom who put in place the recently-closed futile "statementing" process instead. It needs a bit more work to pin down detail (which is essential in order to avoid edit wars on the hundreds of articles across Wikipedia which refer to Ireland or the Republic), but the essence is there. Mooretwin (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sarah777

Utterly and totally oppose this. I oppose any attempt to stifle discussion of what is, put simply, the imposition of British POV in opposition to WP:NPOV . "Forum shopping"? There are so many articles where the network of British-Wiki political imposition impinges on Ireland-related articles that this proposal is an abusers charter. We will have biased (or uninformed) Admins blocking and banning right, left and centre. The SarekOfVulcan block has surely illustrated the dangers? The refusal of the Wiki Admin Community to recognise (or maybe to acknowledge) that what we have here is the imposition of Nationalist POV by simple numerical supremacy is the elephant in the room. What is proposed is yet another stratagem to silence Irish editors who refuse to accept the imposition of British pov under the guise of "consensus". Look no further than the calls (above) for votes to enforce majotitarianism rather than WP:NPOV. Which is a very different concept. As Mooretwin (who is generally on the opposite political pole to me on British/Irish issues) points out, there are compromises acceptable to reasonable editors on both sides, but Wiki appears unable to contemplate any change in the status quo. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Snowded

Oppose it is however essential that someone takes a grip on the process, finding a solution to this has been stalled by a mediation process that never started and mediators who resigned. --Snowded ^TALK 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ClemMcGann

I concur with Sarah's statement, above. There are editors who wish to impose, what is, an imperialist agenda. Yet they seem oblivious to their errors. Their numbers give them confidence. This is a matter of regret. To compound the injury, it now appears that freely discussing these mistakes is some form of a thought-crime which can have an editor silenced. I tend not to get involved in these arguments. They are so wasteful. But, I feel that I must protest the actions of Sarek. With regret ClemMcGann (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Proposal Page.

I see that the Deacon has since opened a poll. Why? We know that there are more British editors. It would seem that mob rule will prevail. ClemMcGann (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bastun

Concur with Deacon of Pndapetzim above. The process outlined in the original Arbcom Remedy 1 and Remedy 2 has, unfortunately, failed to get anywhere. Some progress was made, but we've been stymied by a lack of leadership from the moderators and, frankly, an unwillingness to give an inch from both sides, to the extent that factual statements (with a link to the relevant legislation), such as "The description of the state is defined in law as "the Republic of Ireland", by Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which says in full: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."" are opposed by some users.

I believe it is now up to Arbcom to take control and either impose a solution, or at least for a subcommittee of Arbcom members to take over the reigns at WP:IECOLL.

I would also like to point out that Sarah777 does not speak for or represent all (or many) Irish editors or Irish people generally, and some of her comments above seem to fly in the face of an already-imposed Arbcom remedy. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by (currently uninvolved editor) Scolaire

First, an observation: looking at this discussion for the first time in six months I am astonished to discover that it has not moved on as much as an inch in that time! The identical arguments are still being recycled on a daily, sometimes an hourly, basis. How many cycles is that since August last year? Each side continues to believe that it has the overwhelming community support as against a handful of wreckers on the other side. What I see, as a (now) outsider, is overwhelming community boredom with the whole issue, and a handful of emotional editors intent on continuing their trench warfare, almost for its own sake. I wouldn't mind so much if it was even a good old-fashioned British/Irish, North/South or Nationalist/Unionist ding-dong, but it's not - it's a totally home-made war between two rainbow coalitions that doesn't reflect any equivalent debate in the real world!

Second, a question: as I understand it, the proposal here is for discussion of the issues to be confined to IECOLL, but Deacon of Pndapetzim has responded by opening a new community poll page; what has the one to do with the other? Does the creation of yet another new page not encourage decentralisation rather than the reverse?

Based on the above, and on the assumption that the question on the table is still about confining the cyclical homemade civil war to the designated area, I support the request. Scolaire (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by (original Arbitration requester) Evertype

Support if and only if ArbCom takes this seriously and actually does something. And that includes having a poll that actually gives all of the options, and allowing people to rank their preferences. This is not unlike the Proportional Representation we enjoy. There may be more than one option that I can support, and of several options I may prefer one configuration over another. I have seen arbitrator Masem propose a poll with only two options. I oppose this. Just above we see Deacon offering a new page; I requested that he add another option there but my proposal was dismissed because it "makes no sense" by which Deacon means he didn't agree with it. And we see just above Mooretwin pointing to his "compromise proposal"; note that I opposed that except as part of a more comprehensive solution. Such a solution cannot be devised by a simple majority binary poll. We need to recognize that a complex topic needs a complex poll. Like Scoláire above I am disillusioned by this process. So while appreciative of Sarah777's and Snowded's comments above, I think support is the appropriate suggestion. BY THE WAY I would like the Arbitrators to specifically address my request for a complex poll which offers a range of solutions and permits ranked preferences. -- Evertype·✆ 08:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by (naming project moderator) Masem

I would have to agree that attempts to purposely move the discussion from the naming project talk pages or its subpages to any other pages, is trying to undermine the process. It's one thing for a new editor to come in asking about the name (at which point a causal pointed to the naming project can be provided), but to try to change the naming issues at the article level and bypass the project does seem to be against the spirit of which the original ArbCom goals of the project were set up for. There are a lot of potentially disruptive personalities involved here, and that attempts to subvert the process by any means should not be considered kindly by ArbCom, the moderators, or the project. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Domer48

Oppose: The suggestion by MickMacNee who opened this discussion was to amend the case to explicitly confine discussion of the “issues pertinent to the case,” to the nominated discussion venue, namely WP:IECOLL. However the motion as it is presented is to confine this to “Discussions relating to the “naming of Ireland” articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.” This creates ambiguity, because Editors and Admin’s could interpret this motion to mean all subjects including article “content” being excluded from the Article talk page. This is evidenced already by one Admin removing all talk page discussions [7], [8], and suggesting they were already acting under an ArbCom directive, [9],[10], [11], [12], [13], a view endorsed by another Admin despite the fact that the discussions related to Article content and not the naming issue. Therefore, should this motion be passed all discussions including content issue as mentioned above would be prohibited. I don't think this is ArbCom's intension or wish. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

It doesn't appear as though the named parties have been notified; doing that now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Guliolopez was notified on ga.wiki as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse - I did too much arbitration enforcement in this area last fall. Risker (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. As this has been spawned from these edits by Domer48, my view is that those edits were contrary to the spirit of remedy 3 "No moves pending discussion". If there are further occurrences of disruption of the status quo prior to a binding resolution, the issue should be brought to the committee, in order that a topic ban to be considered.
  Also, a third moderator has not been appointed (see Wikipedia:AC/N#Ireland_collaboration). Anyone interested should contact the committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Commment. It appears that project moderators were not notified of this request. I have left courtesy notices on their talk pages. I will wait on voting on the topic ban motion, or proposing any alternative motions, until they have a chance to comment. --Vassyana (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Motions

For this request, there are 14 active arbitrators, minus 1 who is recused, so 7 is a majority.

Forum for discussion

Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Support

1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Ok. Least problematic way forward compared to other options. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Wizardman 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
9. — Coren ^(talk) 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recused

1. Risker (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion enacted - Tiptoety ^talk 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Moderation

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.

Support

1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. I need to think about whether the ban should be done by the moderator, or if the moderator should ask for a second opinion from someone else in order to keep themselves from getting too mixed up in the side issue of addressing user conduct problems. I'm leaning toward, allowing them to ban people but not having them do the enforcement. Instead any warning and blocks to enforce it would be best done by another admin. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

   I would prefer that someone engaged in the process decides who is disrupting the effort, and remove them early before there is any major user conduct issues. Blocks would be better done by uninvolved admins, but that is beyond the scope of this motion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

   We need to consider the way that the ban will be enforced. At AE? By the mods? Since some the users involved in the issue have a long track record of reporting each other in various venues and then loads of users pile in to comment, I think we need to anticipate that that people will be reported as needing a ban and we need to have a plan in place to do it and enforce it. Otherwise, the ban discussion and enforcement will be a distraction rather than the hoped for remedy. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Recused

1. Risker (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion enacted - Tiptoety ^talk 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Tango

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango.

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

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

Statement by Tango

I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Since the reorganisation of RFAR there doesn't seem to be an explicit place for appeals. It has been just over a year since I was desysopped and, now that everything has calmed down (and I've finished my exams!), I would like the ArbCom to take another look at the case. My main grounds for appeal is this principle. The rule doesn't exist (hence the need for a link to MeatBall, there being no Wikipedia page to link to). It's not an "unwritten rule" that everyone knows, as evidenced by a arbitrator voting against it on the grounds that it doesn't exist. Therefore the principle is fundamentally flawed and any decision based on it is likewise flawed. For that reason, I request that the result of the case be overturned and, if anyone wants to, a new case be started so the matter can be considered de novo (I am happy for the desysopping to remain in force pending the result of a new case, if one is started). Thank you. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To MBisanz: I wouldn't generally consider the person that wrote it to be "involved or directly affected" (at least any more that anyone else on the committee at the time), but I'll go an notify him now, since you've asked. --Tango (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have no objection to Newyorkbrad's participation in this appeal. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To Kirill: "An administrator is expected..." is a statement of policy, either written or unwritten, there is no other reasonable interpretation of that wording. An unwritten rule can only exist if everyone knows about it, that's the nature of unwritten rules, so one arb not knowing about it is enough to invalidate it. If I just wanted the mop back I would go to RFA, I'm here to clear my name. --Tango (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

By the logic you are using, it is forbidden for any admin to take more than one piece of action over a given issue since, after the first, they are involved. My only involvement was that I gave the warning which MONGO made clear he intended to ignore. The principle in the case is far broader than existing policy - it says that it is never acceptable to block when you were the target, even when you being the target is incidental to the case and does not constitute an involvement. --Tango (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To Kirill: One persons lack of knowledge of an unwritten rule does invalidate it. The whole concept of unwritten rules makes no sense if they aren't universally known. --Tango (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To Casliber: No, I do not have any remorse. I stand by my actions for the reasons stated at the time. If an administrator is not allowed to do the right thing for the project, I have no interest in being one. --Tango (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• The specific provision in question was drafted by ex-arb User:UninvitedCompany, Tango could you notify him of this request per the standard procedures? Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• When this case was originally brought, I recused myself because the underlying dispute involved a block based on user conduct relating to articles concerning the events of September 11, 2001, a topic area on which I do not arbitrate for reasons previously discussed on this page. At the time, some editors privately advised me that they my recusal in this case was unnecessarily conservative. In any event, I consider that the issues raised by the present request/appeal are quite remote from the underlying September 11 disputes. Accordingly, unless an objection is raised within 48 hours, I will participate in the consideration and disposition of this appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Seeing no objection, I'll comment on the merits of the appeal below (after the other comments already here, since I've read and considered them). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• There is no requirement that all principles in an arbitration decision be found in project policy, written or otherwise (compare, for example, this); they are simply statements of principle that the Committee considers to be valid. As such, asserting that the text of the principle is not found in policy is not grounds for an appeal even if true. (Nor, for that matter, does the opinion of a single arbitrator that a rule does not exist outweight the opinions of nine others who assert that it does.) If you wish to ask for your adminship to be restored (on the basis of good behavior in the interim, for example), I'm happy to entertain that appeal; but I see no reason why the original decision could in any way be considered invalid. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Tango: well, I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken if you believe that one individual's ignorance of a rule somehow invalidates it. (If you really want to argue policy, incidentally, then consider that blocking for attacks against oneself is implicitly prohibited by the policy that an administrator may not use their tools "to [their] advantage... or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist" (WP:ADMIN); that linking the title of a finding to an external document does not in any way invalidate the text of the finding itself; and that the section titles used in arbitration decisions are, in any case, present for convenience only, with only the text of each adopted provision constituting a substantive statement from the Committee). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Disclosure: I provided evidence in this case as a non-involved party. I had originally commented here, but on consideration believe it would be better for me to recuse. Risker (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• The case still would appear coherent and rational in the absence of the principle. Regardless, it seems basic to assert that when the admin is a directly involved party that they shouldn't be the one pushing the block button. If a rule is needed to spell out the principle: Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse of administrative tools takes care to try and broadly communicate that the tools should not be used when an administrator is biased or involved in a situation or likely to appear as such. --Vassyana (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• The principle in question is nothing more than an application, to a particular situation, of the general principle that an administrator should not use their tools in situations in which they are involved. Note also that the MONGO block was only one of several poor blocks that were considered in the case. --bainer (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with my colleagues that this is merely an example-specific articulation of longstanding policy that admins may not use the tools when they are involved.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Interpretation of policy and of its applicability to specific situations is the Committee's raison d'être; the case principles are the fundamental reasoning followed by the arbitrators during deliberation, and there is rarely a 1:1 correspondence with policies. Finding guidance outside of Wikipedia for concepts which are applicable is not incompatible with this. — Coren ^(talk) 13:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agreeing with the comments of the other arbitrators. The basis for a return of tools needs to be because of the desire to obtain the tools again after a history of good work on Wikipedia and the reassurance that you have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy about the use of admin tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• I understand Tango's concern about the principle from his case that he cites, and think it may have a bit more merit than some of my colleagues have suggested. As I have mentioned in another pending case, there is tension between the cited principle in RfAr/Tango, which states that an administrator should not block a user for personal attacks on the administrator himself or herself, and the principle set forth in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Combatting harassment, which provides that "[a]ny user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves." I reconcile these principles through the understanding that an administrator may block a user who has subjected the administrator to indisputable bad-faith harassment, but not one who has simply made uncivil remarks that may have gone a bit too far. This is an example of the general rule that "administrators may not use their administrator status or tools to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved", and the question on which we have had some internal disagreement as to whether this principle should be expressed with any nuances or exceptions. Having said all of that, though, I agree with my colleagues that the cited principle played only a small role in the decision that was reached; this is not a situation in which pulling out a single thread, even if a majority were inclined to do so, would unravel the entire skein of the decision. Therefore, I agree that if Tango wishes to regain adminship, he should proceed as outlined in the decision, such as by submitting a request to the committee giving us a basis for concluding that the issues that led to the termination of his prior adminship will not recur. I note that there has been a substantial change in the committee's membership since his case was decided, so any such appeal would be decided by largely fresh sets of eyes. Alternatively, if he prefers, Tango can submit a new RfA at any time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• I am concerned that you (Tango) do not voice anything in the above request that indicates any remorse or desire to conduct yourself in a different way. This then does not give me any faith that you will not act the same way if confronted with the same or similar circumstances if they should arise in the future. On brief review, I don't think my opinion is going to differ markedly from the judgement made at the time. Thus, you can either turn to RfA or submit a request as Brad outlines above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse due to being a clerk on the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with what my fellow arbs have said above, particularly Casliber. Wizardman 03:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

---