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 06:18, 24 September 2011 editRussavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits →Statement by Russavia: add my request to the committee← 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: 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)
:@Jclemens: Note that Russavia has left you a response in his section, to the complaint by VM that you wanted an answer to. When I proposed this amendment, I perceived it as a sink-or-swim offer to Russavia and Tammsalu to show that they could interact diplomatically if they were allowed to. If they fail, it is easy to reapply sanctions at ]. If they succeed, then we get some more good content without much trouble. The whole reason for bringing this to Arbcom is the technicality that the interaction ban is from Arbcom itself, so it can't be undone at AE. Please think of this as a low-risk issue, unless there is a pent-up desire within Arbcom to revisit Eastern Europe. I agree that people who have behaved badly in the past in EE are continuing to behave badly. Russavia continues to be the center of more drama than his role warrants. Since Arbcom faced that decision before, and chose to allow major content contributors who were the occasion of turmoil to continue nonetheless. I thought that bridge had been crossed already. Arbcom had a full-length case in which to consider the issue as recently as ]. That case was closed in May 2010. The decision in ] was to place some interaction bans on Russavia but no topic bans. There is a certain amount of bad behavior in Eastern Europe that we can't do much about, unless we are willing to issue long-term topic bans to some the people who add most of the content. I will note that Vecrumba is not among the major content contributors, so his role is not so clear. This request is not about Vecrumba, however. Thank you, ] (]) 18:18, 15 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)

*I see that so many others have commented here, and raise some issues of the general effectiveness of iBans which should be addressed. However Russavia and I have agreed to bury the hatchet and focus on content, we have communicated offline and there are some topics of mutual interest we want to discuss online, but this interaction ban just gets in the way. While the wider issue of these iBans should eventually be addressed in time, I don't think it should impact or delay particular cases were more jaw jaw, and less war war, is mutually desired. --] (]) 16:24, 10 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)

; Note to Committee

It is disappointing that this amendment request has not yet received the attention it deserves. Having said that, ] have discussed the interaction ban, and we have both agreed, given that the "dragging of feet" by the Committee is only hindering our ability to work on articles which are of mutual interest, that we agree to interact with one another so long as content is the focus. Interactions between ourselves are already taking place on ], and although there is a difference of opinion on some things, the interactions are mutual, and are constructive; not unwanted and destructive. Interaction bans were never meant to stop collaborative editing, and this an example of such. Tammsalu and I, jointly, would like to ask that the Committee attend to this amendment as soon as possible, possibly they can peruse our recent interactions to see if our joint request is not without merit, and that the interaction ban as it stands now is "technically" hurting our ability to act collaboratively, something we have both agreed to do. Cheers, --] <sup>]</sup> 14:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

; Response in relation to EdJohnston

Under construction

; Response in relation to Volunteer Marek

Under construction

; Response in relation to Piotrus

Under construction

; Response in relation to Vecrumba

Under construction

; Response in relation to Biophys

Under construction

; Harrassment during this amendment request in relation to dealing with conflict of interest editors

Under construction

; Request to the Committee

There are quite a few issues here which need to be dealt with here. I will be collating some diffs and the like for your review, and will post something here in the next couple of days. I trust that committee will give me the time to respond, because it is obvious that you want to look at the entire area, rather than just Tammsalu and myself being willing to try and move forward in this area. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:18, 24 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 involved 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)

I suggest the interactions between Russavia and Off2riorob concerning "libel tourism" and related topics at the Berzovsky article are again showing a rather ill-suited combat mode on Russavia's part. , , (with its content of '' Of course, now, I expect for you all to rush over like good little battlegrounders, and remove it from that article, and then use the same argument of it not being in that article. lol.'' showing quite clearly the combat mode being used there. I suggest that the result be less than favourable to such a mode on Russavia's part. Cheers. ] (]) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


Russavia is making multipe noticeboard posts, accusations of 3RR violations etc. with such ''colorful'' edit summaries in some edits as ''FUCK OFF'', which may be an indication of a need for "vacation by motion" on the part of the committee. Cheers. ] (]) 22:17, 22 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)
:On the other hand, if both sides want their interaction ban be lifted and promise to behave, there is nothing wrong to try and see if it helps - agree with EdJohnston. ] (]) 16:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

::I also agree with Colchicum below, except that Russavia is now engaged in a conflict with at least three other people ,,, . The conflict is related to Russian politics and has nothing to do with Baltic Republics.] (]) 20:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

====Comment by Colchicum====
There is no harm in letting Russavia and Tammsalu interact, if they both wish so. I very much agree with the concerns voiced by Volunteer Marek, however. There are other people under mutual interaction bans with Russavia, editing in the same topic area as Tammsalu, who are less than enthusiastic about the possibility to interact with the former. So, I'd say, lift that particular ban with the understanding that the other interaction bans are still in place and testing their limits (and edits by Russavia to articles concerning the Baltics may be construed as such) will not be tolerated anymore. Perhaps lift the interaction ban in exchange for topic bans for Russavia from Latvia, Estonia and Poland and for the other party from aviation and Russian embassies/foreign relations, with the exception of Latvian, Estonian and Polish aviation and Russo-Latvian/Estonian/Polish relations, narrowly construed, as a testing ground for both parties to improve communication, for the beginning? ] (]) 10:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

====Statement by marginally involved Novickas====

I strongly support this amendment. It looks to me like a small but promising step forward. How could two editors agreeing to discuss only content be wrong? The earlier Miacek-Russavia bilateral relations amendment is working out, is it not? Volunteer Marek seems to think Tammsalu and Russavia will get into interpersonal conflicts again and that this will be a burden on the system – to forestall that possibility, can you add a clause to the effect that a single complaint from either party in this regard, made at any administrator’s talk page, is grounds for revoking the amendment, without any more ado? VM asks for evidence that they’ve said something nice about each other; that’s asking too much, committing to content-only discussion is enough. The broader issues raised by VM about the scope and effectiveness of interaction/topic bans are IMO best discussed in a wider venue. This is just about two editors and their particular interaction ban. They seem be in agreement about it, judging from their recent discussions at Tammsalu's talk page . ] (]) 15:02, 23 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)
**We've had less input here than I expected, as it happens. Volunteer Marek's points have a certain amount of merit overall, but I think that lifting this particular interaction ban is probably safe if both users are agreeing to it. Perhaps lift it for a trial period (three months?) and evaluate then? ] (]) 00:46, 16 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)
* The allegations made by Volunteer Marek are of great concern; and, given Russavia's refusal to comment on them, I'm forced to conclude that he does not intend to dispute their veracity. In these circumstances, I fail to see why we should reward what appears to have been a successful attempt to game the terms of the interaction bans by lifting them; if anything, we should be tightening the terms to explicitly prohibit the use of such underhanded tactics. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
*@Russavia: my colleagues above indicated (some weeks ago, and yesterday) that they would like to see your response to the statement by Volunteer Marek, so your of feet-dragging on the part of the committee rings a little hollow. –]] 15:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012

Redirect to: