Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:06, 6 September 2011 editKirill Lokshin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users75,365 edits →Motion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012 edit undoRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits dpuble redir 
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>
= {{-}}{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment|Requests for amendment|]}} =
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Header}}

== Request to amend prior case: Race and intelligence ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 18:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Race and intelligence}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# ]
# ]

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Captain Occam}} (initiator)
* {{userlinks|Ferahgo the Assassin}}
* {{userlinks|Mathsci}}<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
*
*
===Amendment 1===
* ] is banned from interacting with ] and ]; ] and ] are banned from interacting with ].

==== Statement by Captain Occam ====
This request has been a long time coming, but I think at this point I shouldn’t put it off for any longer. Since March or April 2010, ] has been in a bitter interpersonal conflict with me and ], who is also covered by my topic ban from the R&I case because she shares an IP address with me. This conflict was one of the things that led to the R&I arbitration case, and some of the diffs in Mathsci’s finding of fact from that case are examples of the first few months of this conflict. Mathsci and I were both topic banned in that case, but our conflict continued after that at various talk pages and noticeboards.

I began looking for a way to end this conflict in December. My first attempt at this was , where I told Mathsci that I was willing to leave him alone from that point forward, and asked him if he was willing to return the favor. Mathsci was not willing to answer this question, but around Christmas I began making a conscious effort to avoid him in hope that it would be enough to solve the problem. Mathsci continued pursuing me even after that point. There isn’t space for me to include every example of this, but I’ll include the single largest example (which was in February) as well as some of the more recent examples from this summer.

*In February, Mathsci followed me to a discussion in Jimbo Wales’ user talk that had nothing to do with him, and initiated an argument with me there. As a consequence of this argument, he then attempted to get me site-banned via an arbitration amendment ].

*Here a few of the times this summer when Mathsci has brought up me and/or Ferahgo in discussions that had nothing to do with us: By this point (July 2011) I had been trying to avoid Mathsci for the past seven months. The first and second diff are both examples of another problem, which is Mathsci claiming that every somewhat new editor who disagrees with him on R&I articles must be my sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Here is one more recent example of that:

*While Mathsci was pursuing this conflict, he was twice told by arbitrators to stop it. The first time he was told this was by Roger Davies , in response to his attempt to get me site-banned in February. The second time was in April, in ] with Risker, where Risker commented on Mathsci’s continued involvement in R&I disputes general. Mathsci’s responses to Risker in that discussion make it clear that he wasn’t willing to listen to her either.

*On June 30th 2011, when I began discussing the possibility of appealing my topic ban with Newyorkbrad, Mathsci sent me an e-mail saying that if I attempt this he’s going to demand that it not be lifted unless I agree to never edit race articles again. Jclemens has seen the contents of this e-mail. What’s significant here is that Mathsci was still paying attention to this and wanting to involve himself after I’d been trying to avoid him for over six months, as well as the guarantee that this was going to continue in the future.

Starting around a month ago, I gave up on my hope that Mathsci would forget about me if I tried to avoid him, and began trying to deal with this issue via AE and requesting help from admins. That also wasn’t successful, and it may have actually made the problem worse by giving him something specific to react to. One example of his reaction was started on August 9th, in which Mathsci rehashed his previous several months’ worth of grievances against me. Most recently, on August 31st, I offered him the same deal I had offered in December: that I would promise to leave him alone if he could promise the same to me and Ferahgo.
Mathsci rejected this offer also.

I think this interminable conflict is detrimental both to the community and to me, and at this stage I think an arbitration amendment might be the only remaining option to resolve it. Mathsci has rejected both of my offers that we agree to leave each other alone (the one in December and the one on August 31st), he’s ignored the advice of two arbitrators (Roger Davies and Risker) that he stop pursuing this conflict, and he’s continued to follow me and bring me up even when I tried to avoid him for seven months. What I care about most is being left alone by Mathsci, but I’m requesting a mutual ban because if I can be certain that he will leave me and Ferahgo alone, I don’t think I’ll have any reason to interact with him after that. If ArbCom decides that a one-sided ban that only affects Mathsci is more appropriate, I would appreciate that also. In that case, I promise to leave Mathsci alone as long as he abides by that restriction. --] (]) 18:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

===== Comment on Mathsci’s statement =====

This really is a maddeningly effective tactic. Almost every sentence of Mathsci’s statement contains some sort of misrepresentation, but each example of this would require around a paragraph from me to explain what’s wrong with it, and I’m already worried about whether arbitrators will have the patience to read everything that’s being posted here. I have two choices: I can either leave Mathsci’s post unaddressed, which gives the impression that I have nothing to say in response, or I can try to go through it point-by-point, which will probably double the amount of text in this request and also be replied to with a second wall of text. What makes this tactic so effective is that it can be used in literally any situation, regardless of what Mathsci’s behavior has been like or whether anything he’s saying is correct. Is there a proper way to deal with this, or is it just part of how Misplaced Pages works that an editor who’s good at doing this can use it to get their way in any dispute?

I’m going to bring up just one of Mathsci’s claims here, so arbitrators can understand what this tactic involves. The example I’m going to use is Mathsci’s claim that his involvement in R&I articles is limited to looking for sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Until Miradre was topic banned from these articles, Mathsci was among of the most heavily involved in content disputes with him, such as this: This content dispute was on the article about the ], a controversial organization that often funds research about race and intelligence, and people who conduct research about race and intelligence are sometimes criticized for accepting grants from the Pioneer Fund. The Pioneer Fund article mentions both of these things specifically. I don’t see how after being involved in this content dispute (and several others) with Miradre in the R&I topic area, Mathsci can really believe what he’s saying about the limited extent of his involvement there.

As I said, that’s just one example, and pointing out the falsehood in this single sentence from Mathsci required a paragraph. Doing this for any other single sentence in his post would probably require an additional paragraph. Can arbitrators give me any advice on how to handle situations like this? --] (]) 23:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

===== Response to Slrubenstein and Maunus =====

Since you’re more or less asking me a question here, I hope it’s okay for me to provide an answer. As I said in my initial statement, trying to ignore Mathsci is what I did from the beginning of January until the end of July. However, there are two reasons why this hasn’t been enough to stop the conflict.

The first reason is that during this period of seven months, most of Mathsci’s comments involving me haven’t been directed at me directly; they’ve rather been bringing up his grievances about me in discussions with other editors. (I gave some examples of this in my initial post.) By now, there might be a number of editors whose only knowledge about me comes from what they’ve heard about me from Mathsci, and I don’t approve of that. His comments are even more difficult to ignore when they’re for the purpose of trying to get me blocked or banned, as in his amendment thread from February. Another example that was that he started about me in May. Mathsci didn’t notify me about this SPI, so I had no opportunity to offer a statement there before it was closed.

Secondly, having to put up with this makes participating in Misplaced Pages an immensely unpleasant experience. I think having to watch it is also unpleasant for other editors, and I could provide some examples of other editors having complained about this. There were a few times between January and July when I wondered whether I would be better off just leaving Misplaced Pages entirely, and the biggest reason I didn’t was because I was in the middle of writing the ] article, and didn’t want to leave it half-finished. I think experiences like these are one of the main reasons why Misplaced Pages’s number of active editors has gradually shrunk since 2007.

I don’t mind you asking me this, but I think you’re aware that you aren’t really uninvolved here, since you were one of the participants in the original dispute between me and Mathsci on R&I articles before the arbitration case. I would like to hear more opinions about this from uninvolved editors. --] (]) 16:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

===== Additional comments =====

I didn’t notice until after posting this request that in the request below involving Russavia, it’s being pointed out how an interaction ban can sometimes cause more drama rather than less. Before now I hadn’t been aware of that danger. If ArbCom decides that Mathsci and I shouldn’t be given an interaction ban for this reason, I guess I’ll understand that. However, in that case I would like ArbCom to '''please give me some advice about how to deal with the situations that Ferahgo and I have described''', particularly the situations in which Mathsci is accusing us of policy violations and/or trying to get us sanctioned.

I would especially like to know how I should handle what Mathsci has promised he’s going to do whenever I attempt to my topic ban from the R&I case. In his e-mail to me on June 30th, when Mathsci told me that he’s going to demand that my topic ban not be lifted unless I promise to stay away from race articles, one reason he gave for demanding this is because I have been “supporting” Mikemikev. I have no idea what it means for me to be “supporting” a sockpuppeteer, and if Mathsci makes this same argument (along with several paragraphs of similar claims) when I try to appeal my topic ban, I’m going to have no idea how I’m supposed to respond. Coren (and anyone else): do you think that when Mathsci is making arguments like this about me, it’s safe for me to ignore them without having to worry about them influencing anyone’s decisions? --] (]) 01:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@Coren: does my topic ban allow me to open a dispute resolution thread (such as an RFC/U) about Mathsci’s behavior towards us? It’s important to bear in mind that a large portion of the behavior that Ferahgo and I find objectionable from him is directly related to the R&I topic area, such as bringing us up in unrelated discussions about these articles and blaming us for other editors’ behavior there. The of my topic ban states, “] and ] are indefinitely banned from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Misplaced Pages, including user talk pages. This includes RFC/Us about other editors where the behavior of that user on R&I is one of the major topics. These two editors should not participate in noticeboard discussions where the main topic is an article that is under R&I or the behavior of an editor who is closely associated with R&I.” The way this situation currently seems is that Mathsci can act with total impunity towards us, because regardless of what he does, he knows that our topic bans will always prevent us from seeking dispute resolution about it. If the proper response to this situation is to take it to dispute resolution, and our topic bans specifically disallow that, this doesn’t seem like an acceptable situation. --] (]) 14:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

==== Statement by Mathsci ====
This request is frivolous and disruptive. It is wrongly framed since there are no active ArbCom sanctions in effect on me: all sanctions were formally lifted by a motion initiated by ArbCom in mid-December. (My self-imposed voluntary restrictions are still in effect, but do not extend to project pages; I committed myself to initiating cases on ] only in exceptional circumstances.) The restrictions placed by ArbCom on Captain Occam have been extended since they were put in place.

At the moment I am not going to enter into any detail about the recent AE request concerning Miradre, the subsequent request for clarification and the AE appeal by Miradre against the one-month block which has just been declined by NuclearWarfare after comments by several uninvolved administrators (two ipsocks of Mikemikev, later blocked, aided Miradre in making responses!). The various AE requests and clarifications concerning Miradre, only one of which I initiated, have involved multiple editors almost all of whom have found fault with Miradre's general method of editing and use of sources. The request for an amendment in the middle of an AE appeal where Captain Occam might himself have been sanctioned seems like very odd timing: it is reminiscent of Captain Occam's disruptive activities in mid-December in multiple venues on wikipedia, when arbitrators were voting to lift my topic ban.

Yesterday I sent a letter to ArbCom which I will reproduce here:
{{collapse top|email to arbcom sent prior to this request}}
''Dear arbitrators,''<br/><br/>
''Captain Occam continues to misuse ArbCom pages to post requests out-of-the-blue for sanctions to be imposed on me. This seems to be a pattern of harrassment. When I made a report at ] on Miradre, where his name was not mentioned, he used that as his first attempt to intervene and request sanctions on me. I no longer edit in the area of R&I but keep a lookout for sockpuppets and meatpuppets, because there has been a lot of anomolous editing since ARBR&I was closed, particularly by Mikemikev, but also by two identified meatpuppets of Captain Occam and Ferahgo-the-Assassin.''<br/><br/>
''When I requested clarification about Captain Occam's involvement in the report on Miradre, he used that request for clarification to launch yet another attack on me. On Jclemens talk page he inidicated that he wished to have sanctions imposed on me, without producing any diffs to support his argument. Since EdJohnston already answered the question concerning Captain Occam's involvement at AE, I withdrew the request for clarification, which was then archived by Xeno. Many editors commented at the AE request re Miradre, which remained open for a long period.''<br/><br/>
''Captain Occam then saw that I had recently been involved in a totally unrelated discussion on COIN, where Atama had advised me to be careful what I wrote (a BLP that was almost certainly autobiographical). Captain Occam on his own admission then decided that Atama was not well-disposed to me and requested that he close the AE request on Miradre. Atama duly blocked Mirardre for a month for violating a topic ban, the very opposite of what Captain Occam expected. That closure has been upheld by at least two regular administrators handling AE.''<br/><br/>
''Miradre then made an appeal against the block from his talk page. Captain Occam used that as a third opportunity to launch an attack on me, demanding sanctions. I replied, suggesting that his topic ban should probably be extended to all AE requests concerning ARBR&I. He then lobbied NuclearWarfare to impose sanctions on me on NW's user talk page:''<br/><br/>
<br/><br/>
''NW declined his request and Captain Occam concluded the discussion by writing that he would seek sanctions on me directly from ArbCom. He later lobbied Jclemens yet again on his talk page.''<br/><br/>
''It appears to me that Captain Occam is intervening in processes in which he has no direct involvement solely to give the artificial impression of an ongoing dispute with me. Unless his meatpuppets choose to interact with me (principally <redacted> = SightWatcher, a personal friend of Ferahgo who started editing as soon as her ban was imposed), I would have no reason to mention Captain Occam. It is Captain Occam's responsibility that he has chosen to influence edits through meatpuppetry and quite outside my control.''<br/><br/>
''All other interactions have also been one-sided, including most recently Captain Occam's disruptive postings described above. In addition in January Captain Occam wrote a letter to the Economist which he described in detail on Jimbo Wales talk page. Only part of the letter was published; they refused to publish a section which referred indirectly to me, where it was claimed that my editing had frightened a particular editor from wikipedia. In addition on FurAffinity two joke accounts, Mathsci and Muntuwandi, were created by friends of Ferahgo with pages containing crude sexual and racist comments, in which Ferahgo partipated. Finally in December 2010 Captain Occam made unfounded allegations about cronyism with Roger Davies.'' <br/><br/>
''I cannot see any merit in Captain Occam suggesting an amendment of any kind. What seems to be quite likely is that his topic will be extended by uninvolved administrators to preclude any participation in AE requests concerning ARBR&I.''<br/><br/>
''As I have said before, I am not against Captain Occam's topic ban being lifted, but I would suggest that even if it is formally lifted, he voluntarily withdraw indefinitely from editing all matters connected with race and intelligence.''
{{collapse bottom}}

*Shell Kinney has indicated that the email correspondence between me and her about SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 can be made available to other arbitrators. My understanding was that it was discussed by arbcom already in December 2010. ] (]) 12:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

====Statement by ]====
I won't comment directly on the proposed ammendment, except that I have never seen any situation involving the parties where CIV, AGF, and of course editing content according to our core content policies and 3RR, have not been sufficient to ensure the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. I certainly have seen worse conflicts among users.

Frankly, I do not understand why Captain Occam and others cannot do what I have done in similar situations, where I have simply chosen never to respond to a particular editor. All Captain Occam has to do is ignore MathSci, and he can achieve his aim without any ArbCom intervention. No offense, but I think ArbCom should never get involved in a situation where there are other remedies.

But I do want to stress that whatever ArbCom does it should not use this ammendment as a means to limit MathSci's edits to science and social science -related articles (including "history of..." articles). MathSci is one of our best editors, in his ability to research a topic and provide neutral accounts of the significant views on topics from reliable sources. I cannot imagine anyone making a case that MathSci should be banned from editing on any topic, and we cannot let this proposal become a back-door means to have that effect. ] | ] 11:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

====Statement by ]====
I was involved in the banning of Captain Occam, but then I stopped participating in R&I discussions. I have followed the topic only because WP:AE and the other arbitration pages are in my watchlist.

Generally, Captain Occam's participation seems limited to a) throwing all sort of obstacles in the way of banning tendentious editors that share his POV, b) trying to get Mathsci removed from the topic.

Mathsci is the most effective editor in getting said tendentious editors identified and dealt with. Removing him from the topic would just give freeway to said tendentious editors.

Since those tendentious editors share Captain Occam's POV, he is simply continuing his involvement in the area he was topic-banned from. I don't recall why Captain Occam was allowed to comment in R&I related arbitration requests, but the net effect has been quite negative. --] (]) 20:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

====Statement by Ferahgo====

Since I would obviously be affected by the outcome of this, I should start by saying that I, too, would really appreciate this proposed interaction ban. Over the past few months Mathsci has made it seem like he's following me around the internet, spying on me off-Wiki, and researching my friends. This comment here, about a friend who's never participated in Misplaced Pages at all , is extremely creepy to me. It appears that he has researched all of my friends even though I haven't participated in the topic area since sometime last year. There are other examples of him obviously trying to look up stuff about me off-Wiki also. Mathsci was asked months ago by Arbcom to leave this topic area alone, yet he can't seem to bring himself to do it.

His attitude towards his conflict with Occam seems to be another example of the same thing. He says he wants him and Occam to leave each other alone, but he still can't resist emailing Occam (and me), reporting him at SPI, etc. Roger Davies advised him in February that if an editor's conduct is egregious enough, it will be brought up by less involved editors. But I think he just can't stop himself, even though he knows that not interacting with Occam would be what's best for everyone and what ArbCom wants. An interaction ban would give Mathsci what he seems to know would be best, but doesn't have the willpower to actually do. More importantly, after the amount of off-Wiki research that Mathsci has apparently conducted about me, an interaction ban would make ''me'' feel safer and more at-ease editing on Misplaced Pages. -] (]) 00:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: My statement has been refactored for accuracy at Roger Davies' request.

====Statement by Maunus====
I am involved. I don't see the point of this request, what is it exactly that an interaction ban would achive that would not be achieved by Occam simply ignoring Mathsci as Slrubenstein and Coren suggests? I think it is reasonable to consider that Mathsci has been targeted for rather nasty off-wiki harrassment as a result of his ivolvement in the dispute, among them being labeled as a "Jewish Misplaced Pages editor" on Stormfront.org, and being the butt of malicious jokes on encyclopedia dramatica. On the other hand, what kind of interaction is it that he has engaged in with Occam? He posted a reply on Jimbo's page when Occam had first mentioned the dispute in which mathsci was involved in his letter to the economist, and then tried to appeal to Jimbo (with a suggestion to turn wikipedia's into a dictatorship in order to better protect the rights of minority editors...). I certainly don't see any evidence that would suggest that an interaction ban for Mathsci should be required. While there is probably no precedent for havign a unilateral interaction ban, I guess Occam could have one if he wants it, that way we might at least avoid more waste of arbitrators time. ]·] 00:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

=== Further discussion ===
:''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.''
==== Statement by yet another editor ====
==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
*Ok, parties, you've each had your say. Now I, for one, would like to see input from other community members, administrators, and arbitrators familiar with the situation. ] (]) 23:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
**Allow me to be more clear: I'd like to see input from others, and no additional back-and-forth between the parties. ] (]) 01:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
*I can't envision a scenario where it would be productive to enact this particular ban suggestion given the context and history here. If you don't want to interact with each other, then ''don't''. I'd rather not provide a club to beat each other up with. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
**The short of it, Captain, is that interaction bans are used only as a very last resort in cases where two editors have been sniping at each other without cause for a long time. In this case, all it would end up doing is give you both yet another rule to brandish to claim the other violated it. If you're alleging specific misbehaviour from Mathsci, then bring it to normal dispute resolution with evidence; otherwise it just looks like you're looking for a new weapon to bring to the fray. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 13:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
**You're right, I had forgotten this specific limitation. I think the best solution in this case might be for the committee to give leave to proceed with an RFC/U if you show reasonable cause; I'll ask the rest of the committee to take a look at this discussion to chime in and we'll see where we go from there. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 14:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
*I have recently become convinced that a committee-imposed interaction ban would be healthy for all parties involved. We've had enough spy vs. spy nonsense. ] '']'' 23:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
**I agree that Shell did not refer to Mathsci as a "spy." Upon further reflection, I'm not sure if an interaction restriction quite captures what I see to be the problem. On-wiki interaction is not what bothers me.<br />Perhaps we should make clear that that R&I sanctions are imposed for continuing prior problematic behavior. I perceive too much focus on Amazon accounts and message boards, and not enough evidence of continuing the BATTLE. By focusing the inquiry on-site in this manner, uninvolved users could report future flare ups. I suspect that other users may need to be topic banned, but I wish Mathsci would take a step back. ] '']'' 12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
* I'm also fed up with the spy vs spy stuff (as CHL so aptly puts it) along with the inordinate length of the relevant postings. I invite proposals to cover both issues. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
**@Ferahgo: please refactor your statement. Either quote what I said verbatim (here's the ) or remove your wildly inaccurate paraphrase altogether. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
----

== Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 18:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Russavia-Biophys}} and {{RFARlinks|Eastern European mailing list}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# Russavia-Biophys Remedy 6.3.1: ]
# Eastern European mailing list Remedy 4.3.11A: ] (as modified by motion)

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{admin|EdJohnston}} (initiator)
* {{userlinks|Russavia}}
* {{userlinks|Tammsalu}} (formerly ])

; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
*
*
===Amendment 1===
*''The remedies of the ] and ] cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between ] and ]. The editors are reminded to use the utmost diplomacy on any articles which they choose to discuss with each other or to edit in common.''
==== Statement by EdJohnston ====
I propose lifting the interaction ban between Russavia and Tammsalu. They are both high volume editors and their usual editing interests may cause them to run into each other on a wide variety of Eastern European topics. There has been prior discussion at ], ], ] and ]. The EEML interaction bans have been been a recent subject of discussion at Arbitration Enforcement due to the filing of ] and ]. ] has ] that interaction bans don't work so well for people with 'narrowly intertwined content editing interests.' They are more suited for 'people who are locked in purely inter-personal conflict'. If lifting this particular ban works, it might be extended to other EEML editors in the future. If lifting the ban leads to poor results, it is understood that some of the topic bans previously imposed or the interaction ban itself might be restored through discretionary sanctions or by the Committee. ] (]) 18:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

==== Statement by Tammsalu ====
I concur. These Arbcom cases happened up to two years ago now and we have since moved on. There is an inflexion point when interaction bans become increasingly a hindrance to productive content discussion, and we have arrived at that point. Given the trust and good faith EdJohnston has invested in drafting this amendment, I'm sure he will come down on either party like the proverbial ton of bricks should our behaviour disappoint him in the future. --] (]) 21:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

==== Statement by Russavia ====
The interaction bans do have a net negative effect on editors, if work on content is the number one priority. I edit heavily in all areas relating to Russia, but first and foremost in areas relating to the foreign relations of Russia, and on articles on how it interacts with and how it is seen by the outside world. This is quite a diverse area, and one which it is recognised by other uninvolved editors I do have a positive effect on. , or ] from ]. From time to time, this diverse editing brings me to articles which aren't within my core editing interests, but I am brought to them all the same due to my interests first and foremost. The interaction bans, therefore, can have a negative effect as it can prevent article development, as has been seen.

As per Carcaroth's comments at ], I am focussed on content, and am willing to collaborate with all editors who are sick of the battleground in the EE area. I'm more than happy to support this amendment, though I would like to be sure that the amendment only allows interaction about the content and not comments about the editor. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

===== Response to comments by 2 arbs =====

<BIG></BIG>

It is the interaction ban which has caused everyone, including the uninvolved, to focus on winning debates like those. I want to get back to content, and discussing content. Consider my contributions even whilst these issues are ongoing; I continue to work on content, both on WP and on Commons.

I won't comment on the allegations raised by Radeksz/Volunteer Marek here, but there are a few useful elements to be found in there. For the most part, please refer to my statement above, where I have supplied a link to an uninvolved editor who believes that I am obviously a positive influence on articles relating to the ]hip, and also supply information relating to myself and ].

I agree that these interaction bans aren't working well while we continue to work in overlapping topical areas. Refining or removing select interaction bans, such as is being requested here, are a way to look forward (for the optimistic among us) or the last vestige of hope (for the pessimistic among us). It was never the intent of Arbcom to use interaction bans as a way to stop editors from working on content; the intent was to get editors to stop commenting on other editors. Only by way of having editors refocussing on content, instead of concentrating on the editors themselves, can editors in this general topic area who want to look forward are able to.

Additionally, for example, from , it is an offence for me to comment on arbitration matters relating to EEML members, and hence the reverse is true as well. Rather than asking me what I think of an editor's statements, given ] and ], perhaps the committee should indeed consider whether an editor's insinuations about my editing and my motives is appropriate. I don't think Tammsalu would be too pleased about Marek's, Vecrumba's and Piotrus' continued interjections into subjects which do not constitute legitimate dispute resolution for them (all are under interaction bans with myself), given that Tammsalu and I are trying to negotiate a way to move forward collaboratively in this area, and concentrate on content.

I have taken Carcaroth's words in for many, many months now (refer to ]), and I believe that Tammsalu is committed to also focussing on content, rather than editorial motives and other petty rubbish, so this is the most pertinent thing that the committee should be looking at; who wants to look forward, and who wants to stay engaged in a battleground. I have been in the former for a long time. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

==== Statement by your username Volunteer Marek ====

I have been peripherally involved in this latest bruhaha, mostly as a commentator and a observer who is also under an interaction ban with Russavia, hence, as an editor who is affected by how these interaction bans are interpreted. I have not been involved however in any of the specific edits or reverts that provoked these AE requests.

It's been somewhat frustrating to get people to listen here but my sense of it is that the situation was/is getting dangerously close to a replay of the battlegrounds that raged in 2008/2009. Why? Obviously I have a personal opinion on the subject but I think Sander captures it quite well here and he's much better than I am at avoiding strong language. To summarize the situation in my own words though, here's what happened:

*Two months or so ago, Russavia began making edits to a number of articles which generally have not been of interest to him, but which are of interest to editors he has an interaction ban with - i.e. mostly articles concerning the Baltics.
*A few of these edits constituted outright violations of the interaction bans and as a result he got a well deserved block for violating his interaction ban .
*Despite this, about a month ago (around the time of Shell Kinney's resignation from AC) he accelerated this practice and this led to the current spate of AE requests and counter-requests.
*The AE requests and counter-requests got bogged down in a discussion of what does or does not constitute a violation of the interaction ban, as well as the standard mutual accusations of "personal attacks" (honestly, not much more than criticisms of another editor's editing practice - it's not like anyone's momma was called any names or nothing).
*Still, the wishy-washy nature of how these interaction ban violations were dealt with only inflamed the situation. They invited reciprocal AE requests in kind and allowed for more gamin of the interaction bans.

Throughout this episode, Russavia's defense has been that the provocative edits he has made (on articles created, or heavily edited by the people he's supposed to avoid) are "content edits", hence exempt from the interaction ban. Well... ok, if you're gonna go by the letter of the law rather than the intent, which is to separate these warring parties. You can mess with another editor by explicitly criticizing them in procedural discussions such as AN/I or AE (which the interaction ban clearly prohibits), or, if you really don't like them, you can mess with them by fucking with their articles and just trying to make their life difficult on Misplaced Pages (the basic example here is of Russavia nominating Martin's article for AfD, or of slapping up Baltic-related articles with nasty POV, etc. tags). Russavia basically has been busy gaming the latter loophole.

I have an interaction ban with Russavia. I don't want anything to do with him and I would also very much appreciate it if he, per his ban, stayed far away from me as well. But it is this last aspect which really concerns me here. Russavia seems to think that he has found a loophole in how interaction bans work which allows him to renew and carry out the battlegrounds of two years ago, while still pretending to observe the interaction ban. In this particular episode he has very much been the '''harasser''' not the '''harasee''' - none of the editors on the "opposite side" went and tried to edit articles or topics that Russavia primarily spends his time with (aviation, embassies, etc.). Hell, none of them even touched RUSSIA related articles. I don't know, maybe he's trying to get some kind of payback for perceived slights from two years ago, but honestly, that's not just not very helpful. '''I just want to make sure that this doesn't spill over further.'''

Bottom-line is that I actually think this proposal is ill-advised. These editors are under an interaction ban for a reason. A good reason to remove the interaction ban would be if there was evidence that they have managed to '''forgive and forget''' each other's trespasses and are now ready to work collaborative together. But '''just the opposite is the case!!!!!!''' - they (mostly Russavia, with undue language from Vecrumba as a response) are trying to renew the battles of old. Their support for this amendment (on both sides) appears to be motivated by the fact that the interaction ban stands in the way of them "going at it again" and they're just itching for some old fashion Wiki war.

What - and please, show me something specific - have any of the parties involved done to '''deserve''' the relaxation of the ban? Where is the evidence of collaboration? Of cooperation? Where has one of them said something nice to another? The only argument seems to be that the interaction bans are "old" (yes, but still useful) and that they impinge upon content creation (bullshit, for the most part, when not pursuing personal grudges these editors edit completely different topics). They basically want to go at it again and thus the thrust of this request.

My sense of it is that the topic area of Eastern Europe over the last two years has become a lot more friendly and cooperative, editing-wise. One piece of evidence for this is that we've managed to avoid a "Eastern Europe" related ArbCom case for the past two years, whereas before 2009 they were essentially perennial. And I do strongly believe that the interaction bans played a significant role in improving the atmosphere here. Now editors can focus on content creation, useful gnomish tasks, vandal clean up etc. rather than wasting their time on useless distractions like AE, AN/I or AbrCom cases (be honest, your job's at its best when there's the least to do). Let's not go back to where it was before.

So:
# Decline the proposed amendment as stated (or else I'll be here in a few months saying "I told you so")
# Clarify the nature of the interaction bans in precise terms or...
# ... convert the interaction bans into topics bans (which are much less easier to game) which will accomplish the same thing. This would involve topic-banning Russavia (and friends) from topics which they do not usually edit but which they occasionally stray into just to kick up some trouble - Baltics, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus. And banning Martin and Vecrumba from topics which they do not usually edit but which they might (hypothetically) go into just to mess with Russavia - aviation, diplomatic relations, Russian space program. If you'd like these topic bans could be "narrowly construed".
# Impose a general injunction on ALL editors involved in the EEML and the Russavia-Biophys case from filing AE requests on each other for a period of at least six months. AE is supposed to be for enforcing ArbCom decisions not making a mockery of them. People are expected to act like adults. If they engage in this "he pushed me first!" "no he pushed me first!" "I pushed him but he's not supposed to report it because of the interaction ban!" crap then just take that playground away from them.

Ay, it's a mess I know. As I wrote this I started to loose hope that this area remains relatively calm. Too many loopholes... Put your finger in the hole in the levee please. Not put a bigger hole in it.] (]) 07:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems I'm a minority in my opinion here. Anyway, I've played my Cassandra role, so I don't really have anything else to say.] (]) 03:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

==== Statement by Piotrus ====
First, if my comment here violates my interaction ban with Russavia, please let me know and I'll self-revert. My understanding of an interaction ban was, until recently, that editors under it are not allowed to comment on one another. I tried to get a clarification ], but if the discussion produced one, I am still not seeing it, instead it raised some questions about the scope of the i-bans that I have not thought of before, and my last comment and question there have not seen any reply for two days (and either way, it was mostly me and VM speaking to one another, without much input from the admins). In either case, I am not going to comment on Russavia, but on interaction bans in particular.

As I stated three days ago (again, no response was given), I think that the interaction bans can and perhaps even should stay, but that they should be clearly limited to discussing others, not to editing content. As I explained in ], the problem is not (never was) content disputes. Those were never a significant problem in the EE area; sure there was an occasional revert war or canvassed vote stacking or such, but the primary problem was that editors who were unable to win content disputes (lacking reliable sources, etc.) started a campaign of harassment. As VM notes, this continued through several arbcoms, which in vain tried to address content issues, till interaction bans finally narrowed down on the real problem by putting an end to certain editors being able to comment on others. As a proof of that, note that despite all topic bans and such having expired, there are no more any revert wars or disputed votes in the EE area; all that remains is the occasional (and now, growing) attempts to "get the other editor" through some arcane violations of wiki rules (the rules, in this case, being the imprecisely worded interaction bans).

Thus, some potential loopholes have been found and are apparently being tested. This is worrying; I for one have no desire to return to the stressful period of few years ago, and the recent rise of AE activity and related discussions, like this one, is giving me a bad ] feeling.

Again, as VM notes, I see no indication that certain editors have learned to ]; in fact I see indications of a contrary mentality (the proverbial grudge being unburied, and the sound of an old axe being regrind).

At the same time, the murkiness of interaction ban is doubly worrying. Consider , where an editor under an i-ban with me has added a template to an article I've created and significantly expanded. Now, I don't believe that it was in bad faith, and I wouldn't necessarily even remove it, but I'd like to comment on it on article's talk - yet this raises some potential red flags. Should editors under i-bans be be expected to check history of all articles we edit to see if an editor under an i-ban has edited it? As somebody who sometimes edits dozens or even hudrends different articles per day, I think this would be ridiculous. At the same time, if the answer is no, this creates a loophole that can be easily gamed - according to some interpretations of an i-ban, I cannot revert or even discuss this template, because it was added by an editor whom I am supposed to "not see" on Misplaced Pages. I can see this spiraling as we template one another older articles, add controversial categories or adjectives, or make edits to articles that we think would be interesting to the other party, to try to bait them into making edits to them, or just wait for it, and report it to AE... a near perfect ground for ], scary, scary, scary. And totally unnecessary, as I said, in the past, editing the content and discussing it was never an issue, what was, was when some gave up on that and started discussing others, in an attempt to chase them off Misplaced Pages. This cannot, should not be allowed to repeat itself.

As such, I'd strongly urge the ArbCom to clarify or amend the interaction bans so that they permit editing of content and discussing it, including interaction with editors under i-ban, with the very, very strict note that those editors are not allowed to discuss one another other, because they most apparently have not learned how to say anything about one another that isn't a more or less clearly veiled personal attack (criticism). In other words, I believe than an editor who has a mutual i-ban with me should be allowed to edit the same articles I do (and vice versa), up to an including tagging and AfD them, provided I have the right, just like every other editor, to revert them and discuss their edits (but not themselves!) on talk (i.e. saying "the template added to the article is/isn't fine because policy blah blah" would be ok, but saying "because editor X who added it is biased and evil" would not be allowed, and treated like a reportable i-ban violation). An exception could be added allowing the editors to say ''nice'' things on one another (this is the era of WikiLove promotion, after all, and perhaps enough sugar talk will sooth the old wounds, eventually). You could also see this as forcing a very strict and scary interpretation of PA/AGF and such with regards to editors under an i-ban, to ensure they never, ever comment on one another again - but without the need to worry about what they do in the mainspace (if they start edit warring, well, 3RR or AE should be able to handle it).

VM raises the idea of topic bans; my problem with that is that they would prevent potential good content creation. At the very least, editors should not be banned from areas they have never edited, or have edited rarely, but uncontroversially, just because the other party to the i-ban "staked their claim first". Only areas in which their edits have contributed to battleground creation should be considered. Perhaps, few editors should be banned from nominating Estonian articles for AfD. Anyway, please think more scalpel, less nuclear sanctions. We have a pretty decent mid-level sanctions - the i-bans - already; they just need clarification.

So in the end, I hope that you'll allow the content creators to work in peace, without having to worry about a battleground atmosphere that can arise when otherwise good editors give in and start commenting on (attacking, harassing, stalking, whatever) others. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 18:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

==== Statement by other editor (2) ====
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

==== Statement by uninvolved Collect ====

Am I alone in finding the number of "issues" involving Russavia ''et al'' to be, if anything, increasing? I would suggest that ''all'' of the involved editors be instructed to finally drop the "but he was in the EEML" arguement from any noticeboard, that they be instructed to be ''exceedingly'' cordial in all posts which impact any other editors, and that they be individually and corporately barred from making noticeboard postings seeking enforcement actions against each other, or participation in any such actions in which they are not specifically and directly involved. This, as one may note, is effectively a ban on any interactions other than polite ones specifically aimed at improving articles. Cheers. ] (]) 19:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

==== Statement by Vecrumba ====

To Volunteer Marek's point,
* we have Russavia's provocative AFD already discussed (and over which Russavia has filed an AE request against me labeling my objective expression of disappointment a personal attack)
* in the midst of these various proceedings we have
** , the article and Russavia
** a lengthy diatribe invoking charges of "black propaganda" regarding Putin's infamous "dead donkey ears" comment on the territorial dispute with Latvia, charging "hoax"&mdash;while technically not incorrect (the citation of two items to the one source was in error and the original site is no longer available), the "dead donkey's ears" comment was certainly no hoax and the constructive action would have been to correct, not delete; see
*** only after my pointing out no hoax, Russavia did a partial restoration but leaving out Putin's colorful statement as potentially confusing to readers
**** only after my pointing out that the manner of delivery of a message is as significant as the message, he indicated no objections to restoring the quote if covered in a suitable source (he objected to Forbes, which put a rather Mafia-esque spin on the ears)
***** that said, no blood was shed (anticipating my point on rules of engagement below)
** and now we have widely cited in WWII related articles on Misplaced Pages, regardless of its "self-published" nature (it ''is'' fully annotated regarding original sources), and promise to delete content unless new sources are found; it is coincidence that the article in question paints a sorry picture of the Soviet attempt to wipe out the last bit of Latvia not occupied by the Red Army, where Stalin threw in division after division to their slaughter&mdash;whereas Soviet historiography regarding the Courland Pocket pretty much states it was insignificant and was bypassed, the German divisions there being hemmed in. Given widespread use of the source elsewhere, the appropriate action would be to involved outside editors at the appropriate forum discussing reliable sources. I expect, however, the citations will be re-populated over the coming weeks.
To the more general point of disruption escalating in the topic area, we now have Vlad Fedorov, who once exclaimed that my ignorance in international law was legendary, returning to WP after nine months of inactivity to file an AE in the topic area he is otherwise banned from. You can .
<p>But, back the topic at hand, we are presented with the contention that Russavia, who is a prolific (creating content) editor elsewhere, in the realm of Baltic topics inimical to the Soviet legacy, can only manage to be prolific at deleting content when insuring the quality of content intersecting the Baltic-Soviet/Russian relationship and is forced to rely on editors who should be banned for months, if not permanently (myself, I'll spare the diffs) to come up with links to the Russian President's web-available archive. (And perhaps it is only myself that finds this particularly ironic, given Russavia's fluency in Russian and my abject lack of same.) This is an odd form of cooperative editing in the Baltic et al. arena, but if it is deemed to be constructive and in no way provocative on Russavia's part after due consideration of his editorial choices and timing, then I am certainly glad to abide by the rules of editorial engagement being established here. As I've indicated, I've never had any issue debating Russavia, Nanobear, Vlad Fedorov, or any other editor on sources.
<p>I concur that the only way forward is to have a means for editors who create content co-exist and co-contribute. Artificial barriers lead only to unintended consequences. Interaction bans have shown themselves to be tools for conflict, not conflict resolution. They only work (my experience) where one or the other editor/side completely disengages from any participation in the area of conflict. Where there is conflict, I do suggest that <u>''self-moderation''</u> in discussing deletion of content first, as opposed to deleting content and posting "I deleted X..." would go a long way toward an empirical show of good faith as opposed to professing to pursue particular behaviors. ]<small> ►]</small> 19:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

====Comment by Biophys====
It would be strange to lift any sanction for people who did not obey this very sanction and who were blocked for violating this sanction (as was obviously the case here). It is also questionable to lift any sanctions for people who are in a state of active conflict. A reward for bad behavior? If you want to reward ''good'' behavior and act constructively, you can safely lift interaction ban between Russavia and Piotrus. ] (]) 01:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
*At first glance this request seems reasonable, but let's allow a couple of days for additional statements, including from Russavia. ] (]) 02:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
**Russavia's endorsement is noted, but so are Volunteer Marek's points. I will want to look into this whole area more closely, which will have to wait until after the holiday weekend. ] (]) 13:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
*I, too, would like to see a satisfactory reply from Russavia to what Volunteer Marek has asserted. ] (]) 19:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
----

== Request to amend prior case: Date delinking ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] ] '''at''' 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
; Case affected : '']''

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#]
#]

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Ohconfucius}} (initiator)

===Amendment 1===
* Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
*:]: "Ohconfucius is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions."
*: ] "Ohconfucius is limited to using only the account 'Ohconfucius' to edit. He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group."
* Details of desired modification: Termination of both the above clauses.

==== Statement by Ohconfucius ====
This week marks the second anniversary of the conclusion of the case, and six months since the remedies imposed on me were last amended. In the six months since the amendment, there have not been any issues arising from date linking, nor any drama involving same, with or without me. Although one might say that the remedies no longer have practical effect, I am seeking to having all remaining restrictions lifted. Call it housekeeping if you will. --] ] 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

;Response to Xeno
*I have stated above that I consider this purely housekeeping. These days, there is no disagreement that can be cited on issue of whether or not to link dates. The issue is closed as far as MOSNUM is concerned, and I do not foresee having anything more to add to the discussion there. --] ] 09:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

;Response to Jclemens
* The date-linking issue is dead. It is universally accepted that dates ought not to be linked. Terminating the two remaining remedies imposed upon me would technically allow me to operate alternative accounts from now on. I would state that I have no intention of doing so for the time being. --] ] 09:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
*The Dates case has taught me a lot, and I can assure you that I don't take the issues of automated editing lightly. While the community has endorsed the termination of date-autoformatting, and much more selective use of date-fragment linking, these aspects are a minor part of my editing. I can only reiterate that my interaction with editors, particularly those who query my edits, is now strong and I make a positive effort every day to improve on it. --<small>] ]</small> 04:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
;Response to Carcharoth
* Carcharoth and I been in a dialogue since the closure of the case, and I seriously take on board what he says. I also have little desire to see a re-run of the date-delinking case, and would certainly consider having more centralised (as opposed to local) discussions. A separate account for script edits will be considered once that option becomes available to me. Although I am now allowed to use the MOSNUM Bot account, I do not currently do so as the nature of semi-automated editing is quite different from bot actions. It's certainly a good suggestion to slow down: I do often take breaks by rotating the various types of work I undertake within WP, and will continue to do so.<p>I would however, address particular comments of Carcharoth that could be misconstrued. First, there exists, IMHO, a healthy tension at the many MoS and TITLE talk pages; far better that issues be worked through in those more 'exposed' places, than at isolated article talk pages where revert-wars are much more likely. I believe it's all too easy to dwell on the negative &ndash; the tensions among editors playing out on its talk pages &ndash; and overlook the stability of the MoS over the past few years. The exchange of views and tensions are natural and healthy (so long as they remain civil), and I would genuinely welcome a wider participation in the formulation of style guidelines. The ensuing rules must be clear and consistent. Truth is that even animated discussions fail to get consensus for change; it is hard to find evidence that style and running bots/scripts are part of a connected agenda by anyone there. Things just do not work this cart-before-horse way: "''...develops a consensus about a particular aspect of style that is amenable to being worked on with a script or bot''". Third, style guides, like pillars and policies, are indeed a belief system on a wiki if they are to have an effect or function; but they take their place in the hierarchy.<p>My personal "belief" is always within the context of the WP environment. My statement is, no more and no less, part of my effort to communicate with those who may have questions on what I do &ndash; many editors state on their userpages what they do and the rationale behind it in very similar terms. I regret the ''fait accompli'' apparently communicated. I stated: "''However, the time and my skill-set is not yet ripe''" &ndash; this was not quoted. I accept that I don't have more rights over other editors; my "weight" is because of what I do and how I do it. I try to be responsive and to queries and suggestions, and I believe that my talk page comments reflect this care. As to the 'project' of tagging articles for dmy and mdy dates, I am one user. There are some who use my scripts or variants thereof; there are others who tag independently; I do not know who these all are. As to my 'bot', perhaps I should have also linked to my failed bot application as a reference point. --] ] 07:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
*Failed bot request is ]. --<small>] ]</small> 04:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
*Pursuant to the second comment, I have simplified my own project page; I am in the process of upgrading the scope and status of ]. --<small>] ]</small> 05:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
;Response to Risker
* I regret some of my actions which might have given the impression that I have shown "tendentiousness on the topic of dates". I realise automated editing carries responsbiilities beyond that of normal editing. I do try hard to be responsive to the advice of other editors, and to avoid being drawn into destructive adversarial spirals. As can be seen from the exchanges on my talk page, I act immediately to correct mistakes when these are pointed out to me. I will take steps to improve my diplomacy, and my editing skills, whether manual or semi-automated; I will exercise greater care in selecting articles to process and adjusting the script from time to time. --] ] 03:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

====Statement by Gimmetoo====
Ohconfucius is still actively making controversial date-related edits. A well-attended ] found no consensus to remove yyyy-mm-dd formatted dates from WP, in particular from the references. Ohconfucious nevertheless has been using a script which routinely removes that format from the references, in violation of ], even when an article is already consistently using one format or a style is clearly present. (A few recent examples: .) Ohconfucius has been asked to stop many times; these scripted edits are producing a . This behaviour has led to ANI threads , and that I know of. (I started the last one.) Ohconfucious is editing against consensus expressed in the RfC and the current MOSDATE guideline. If anything is to be amended in the past decision, it should be to clearly apply it to date formats so that this behaviour can be addressed at WP:AE. ] (]) 01:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

==== Statement by Carcharoth ====
I've been looking into some of the background to this, and I think Ohconfucius should have been clearer about what his plans are. I went and looked at his talk page and some of the script-editing relating to date format has already resulted in the following queries made (, , , ). Some of those problems were easily fixed, by the looks of it (but surely should have been detected in test runs before live editing?), while others look harder to avoid (date formats in image titles has come up twice already). Please read Ohconfucius's talk page to get a feel for how such problems are addressed.<p> My concern here, though, is what Ohconfucius said , which is worth reading in full. The parts I want to quote here are:
*''"Since starting to use scripts to automate the process, I always had the intention in the back of my mind to create a bot that crawls its way systematically through all wikipedia articles using categories. I created the templates as markers of the passage of the script (and ultimately the intended bot), making the updating schedule possible."''
*''"So far, over ] have been tagged by the script for dmy dates, and nearly ] articles tagged for mdy dates. You may find more details of my project at ]."''
The points to note are the ambition to bring all Misplaced Pages articles into line with this part of the Manual of Style (this could be construed as an attempt at a ''fait accompli''), and the stated intention to develop this into something that can be done by a bot (my view is that this should be done on separate accounts, hence the restriction on the main account being used like a bot should remain). I think Ohconfucius should have stated here his intention to develop a bot for this and linked to his 'project' page to make clearer what his plans are.<p> I should disclose that I have disagreed with Ohconfucius in the past on the issue of script-editing, and have recently been discussing the issue of the Manual of Style, and the way it or those editing to bring articles into line with the MoS, can sometimes lead to friction (see ]). What I said there was that I am concerned that some see the MoS as a 'belief system' (see ], which starts out with a 'Mission statement' that says ''"I believe in Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style''"). My other concern is that mass editing with scripts and bots, especially where the MoS is concerned, can destabilise things across Misplaced Pages as a critical mass of editors previously unaware of the issue of the day get drawn into arguing about it when they see various bot or script edits on their watchlist.<p> The general development of MoS disputes (only some issues seem to develop into disputes for some reason) seems to go like this:
*(1) Discussion among a relatively small group of editors at a Manual of Style page develops a consensus about a particular aspect of style that is amenable to being worked on with a script or bot. The number of editors participating in any such discussion is nearly always far smaller than the number of editors that eventually see such edits being made.
*(2) Someone writes a script or bot and (sometimes with other editors helping) proceeds to audit (or re-audit if this is a change from a previous change) all Misplaced Pages articles to make any changes necessary.
*(3) Sometimes resistance, mistakes, or misunderstandings result and further discussion ensues.
*(4) If the resulting discussions go poorly, an escalating dispute can result, with more and more editors drawn in due to the wide number of pages affected.
If the restrictions are lifted, my advice would be for Ohconfucius to take things very slowly, as any mass editing leading to another Misplaced Pages-wide dispute like the date-delinking case would not be a good outcome. I would suggest a separate account at the very least, more centralised discussions, and work done systematically by a team rather than single editors using scripts. ] (]) 00:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
:A couple more suggestions (not strictly related to the amendment request, but I'll put them here anyway). Would it not be better for MOS-related projects such as this to be in some Misplaced Pages namespace page, rather than personal projects run from the userspace of an editor, with an unknown number of other editors taking up and using scripts maintained by such editors? I had wanted to comment on the discussion page attached to Ohconfucius's 'project' page, but it just redirected to his user talk page. An example of a MOS-related userspace page that ''does'' have an attached discussion page is ] and another one is ] (those are more essays than projects, and relate more to the philosophy behind scripts to reduce ] rather than anything to do with date formats). There are various other userspace MOS-related pages knocking around, but my point here is that the boundaries between personal projects and essays and Misplaced Pages-wide MOS scripts, bots and projects seems to be easily blurred. About the failed bot request, I vaguely remember that but had forgotten it. I'm sure the arbitrators can find that if they need to do so, or you could provide the link. ] (]) 13:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

==== Statement by other editor ====
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

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

==== Clerk notes ====
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
*Awaiting further statements. –]] 15:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
**'''Question for Ohconfucius:''' Do you anticipate returning to participating in editing ''"style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions"'', or is this strictly a matter of housekeeping? –]] 14:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
***Based upon Ohconfucius' response to my/Jclemens' question, I agree with F&F below that a lifting of restrictions (with the standard expectations & retention of jurisdiction) does not seem unreasonable at this late stage. –]] 03:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
****Striking my comment pending further review, as I've just been pointed to a ] that I won't have time to look at until later. –]] 03:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
*****Still reviewing, but unstruck - I do note that the ] is about date formatting, a slightly-different (but closely-related) bird. –]] 02:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
*The last time we lifted sanctions on an editor sanctioned under this case, I regretted it, because the future behavior in the area was problematic. Would you care to explain to the committee how your case might be different? ] (]) 15:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
* Waiting for more statements if any, but my first thoughts are that lifting it wouldn't be that big a deal (of course, if there was a revert to previous behavior, we could quickly reapply) ] (]) 15:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
*I'd support a removal of restrictions given that they can be swiftly reapplied if it is necessary, as Fozzie points out. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
*Unlike some of my colleagues, I see the date modifications that OhConfucius is currently doing as essentially the same behaviour for which he was sanctioned in the past, and think that this should be going in the opposite direction. ] (]) 03:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

=====Motion=====
Remedies 16 and 18 (as amended) of the ] case are terminated, effective immediately. Ohconfucius is reminded that this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, and that he is expected to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines, especially those concerning the editing and discussion of policies and guidelines, and the use of alternate accounts.

''For this motion, there are 15 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive and 1 who is recused, so 8 support votes are a majority.''

;Support
:: Proposed. Seems to be reasonable housekeeping, and can be brought back if any issues reoccur. Copyedits welcome. –]] 13:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Indent support. I initially proposed this prior to their being any views critical of the requested amendment. I may reinstate this, but I want to take another look at it and (given renewed activity in voting), would like to see if any of the other arbitrators active on this motion have further insight. –]] 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
:# <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 15:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
:# Per the arbitrator comments on the request. ] (]) 16:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
:#: Leaving this vote here for now, but I'd appreciate Ohconfucius's responding to the concern raised below by Risker. The Clerks should please not close this motion for a couple of days (even if it is passing numerically) until we can receive and evaluate Ohconfucius's response. ] (]) 20:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:# I think that the restriction has served its purpose and is, indeed, no longer required. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
:#:This vote stands, but I would like to remind Ohconfucius that the ] requires that the task he proposes to do be done with a separate, approved bot account &ndash; if at all. ''Please'' make extra-double-crispy sure that you have ''broad'' consensus before doing mass changes, and be ready to backpedal if you encounter resistance. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 13:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
:# ] '']'' 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 18:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 21:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
:#: <s>] (] '''·''' ]) 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)</s> I forgot I recused on this one. ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:# I can only echo Coren's views. ] (]) 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:# ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 19:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

;Oppose
:# Per my comments above: I see this current bot-editing by OhConfucius as being nearly identical to the behaviour for which he was initially sanctioned (i.e., using bot editing to impose his own preference, regardless of the wording of the MOS guideline). ] (]) 03:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:#: I suppose remedy 18 could have relevance to this (if he started using an alternate, non-bot account, to change date formats - note that we already removed the restriction from his using automation ), but how does remedy 16 apply to his activities as regards date ''formatting''? (i.e. not date delinking?) –]] 18:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:#:: Please see my request to Ohconfucius in the support section above. ] (]) 20:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:#::It is my opinion that Ohconfucius has returned to the behaviour that led to finding #26 in the case, and which in turn led to other sanctions. This tendentiousness on the topic of dates is precisely what led to the ''Date delinking'' case, although Ohconfucius was not alone in his tendentiousness. I don't want to see a repeat of this behaviour (after having read the entirety of the previous case, which was half as long as ''War and Peace''), do not want to see another case on this topic area, and lifting a sanction related to this case when the editor appears to be returning to the initially problematic behaviours does not seem indicated. ] (]) 22:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:# While I wasn't going to oppose if I was the only one with concerns here, I echo Risker's rationale. ] (]) 19:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:# I'm with Risker here. With apologies to the bot-runners among us, I feel it almost needs a higher standard among those who want to use scripts, bots etc, because they can do enormous amounts of problematic edits, and frequently seem not to realise what the problem is. ] (]) 00:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
:#:If there are issues concerning Onconfucius and mass edits related to date ''formats'' (and there may well be), I would prefer to see those concerns brought directly rather than trying to address it in what is now a fairly historical case. –]] 00:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
:#::I disagree. His response seems to be "the community has now endorsed what I was sanctioned for doing before, so I should be free to do it now without restriction"--or at least take that sort of a tone. That is ''precisely'' the sort of editor we don't want running bots. Bot-runners and AWB users should be biased towards ''implementing'' consensus rather than ''modifying'' it. The vast majority of bot operators cause no problems whatsoever, but those who do have demonstrated a disproportionate effect on the harmony of the community. ] (]) 19:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
:# As per what Jclemens said right above. - ] 11:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
:# per Jclemens. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 16:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

;Abstain
:#

;Comments
:*

----

Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012

Redirect to: