Revision as of 18:31, 18 January 2010

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for amendment

Use this section: To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems. To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly) How to file a request (please use this format!): Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page. Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests. Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification. This is not a page for discussion. It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment: The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header), The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision, The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words. Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Falun Gong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation (remedy 1)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• No other specific editor.

Amendment 1

I ask that remedy 1, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, be vacated and replaced by a standard discretionary sanctions remedy, such as e.g. WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions.

Statement by Sandstein

Remedy 1 provides for "article probation" for all articles in the area of conflict. But article probation, as specified at WP:GS#Types of sanctions ("Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages") only allows article or topic bans. However, in some situations, administrators may wish to impose less drastic measures. For instance, in the open enforcement request at WP:AE#Simonm223, I think that a revert restriction would be more appropriate, at least initially, than a topic ban. Although one might assume that, a maiore ad minus, the authority to impose a strong sanction such as a topic ban implies the authority to impose lesser sanctions, it is preferable (for the avoidance of doubt and wikilawyering) that such authority be expressly provided for.

I make this request as an administrator active in WP:AE (again since January 1, having confidence in the new ArbCom), and have no involvement in the original case or in any other disputes concerning Falun Gong.  Sandstein  22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana

I have reviewed the editorial history of this topic area in some depth. Fulfilling this request would be immensely helpful to the editors trying to help resolve the disputes. This will be encouraging to administrators already trying to make headway in the area. It will also encourage more administrators to intervene, especially those who may have been ambivalent about the more limited enforcement options. This will also be beneficial to editors in the area, with the conditions and sanctions better tailored to the situation. The resulting improvements and normalization of the editing environment will allow dispute resolution efforts a great deal more traction and success. The long-running and intractable nature of the overall dispute in the topic area should justify the expanded measures. Vassyana (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

Discrectionary sanctions would be good, to fine tune sanctions. (I think that this request was raised for the wrong reasons, but that's a different topic)

Statement By Simonm223

Quite frankly I shouldn't even be given a revert restriction for protecting the neutrality of the FLG articles from blatant efforts to insert a strong POV. Notwithstanding that this is still a good idea. Simonm223 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by HappyInGeneral

No matter what the outcome may be, will you in the end have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts? As I see it this is the only way to ensure to improve Misplaced Pages. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The latest example (food for thought):

• Here is the section to discuss point by point 14 changes Talk:Falun_Gong#Changes_and_discussion_for_them comment added at 15:29, 14 January 2010. In these changes Asdf put some effort, 14 diffs, and if any of those would be objectionable it could be pointed out, it can be clearly pointed out.
• However, even though request for discussion was clearly expressed on the talk page, and in the edit summaries there where 3 reverts , , and no discussion about the actual changes.

In my understanding Misplaced Pages is a collaborative encyclopedia where we should evaluate the merit of the edits, not blindly push forward or defend a certain view. And that is why I would like to know if you consider to have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I cross posted the above here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (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.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse. I wish to remain uninvolved as an arbitrator, because I have been involved in the past as an outside editor/informal mediator and wish to engage the area on that basis. I will make a brief statement as a regular editor. Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• This seems reasonable and uncontroversial; I'll make the appropriate motions. Kirill  14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Motions

1) Imposition of discretionary sanctions

The Falun Gong decision is modified as follows:

(a) The article probation clause (remedy #1) is rescinded.

(b) Standard discretionary sanctions (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) are authorized for "Falun Gong" and all closely related articles.

This modification does not affect any actions previously taken under the article probation clause; these actions shall remain in force.

Support

1. As proposed. Kirill  14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Steve Smith (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Mailer Diablo approves this motion 21:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Per Sandstein's rationale above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Shell 01:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Sandstein's rationale fits here. Folks working at AE and to follow up these things need all the support the Committee can give them. SirFozzie (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
9. KnightLago (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Request to amend prior case: Speed of light

Initiated by ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) at 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Speed of light arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 4.2 "Brews ohare topic banned"

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• (diff of notification of this thread on Brews ohare's talk page)

Amendment 1

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews ohare topic banned
• I, A. di M., hereby request that the following sentence be added to the end of the remedy: "The topic ban is temporarily suspended until the ongoing Featured Article Candidate discussion regarding Speed of light is closed."

Statement by A. di M.

Brews ohare is the author of three of the pictures currently on the article Speed of light. None of these pictures are directly related with the debates which led to the arbitration case, which dealt with the implications of defining the metre in terms of the speed of light in vacuum. On the FAC nomination of the article, initiated by me, constructive criticism has been expressed about the pictures; such criticism is also totally unrelated to the definition of the metre. While Brews ohare is still technically allowed to improve the pictures (as they are hosted on Commons) he is not allowed to participate in discussions about them, as that might be construed as transgressing his topic ban. I do not think that this is helpful, so I propose that Brews ohare is temporarily lifted from his topic ban until the FAC closes. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Steve Smith

It could, but that should be worded in a sufficiently clear way: Brews ohare said he's "not interested in a month of squabbles over sanctions", and I think that discussions about whether the wording did or did not allow a comment of his on that page wouldn't be helpful, either. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

In order for this amendment to be effectuated I (or another admin, or the committee) will have to suspend or lift the supplemental ban that I placed on Brews ohare previously. (Its in the case log) I have some ideas on how to word the amendment that I haven't committed to words yet, as I am still deciding whether or not to support this request.

Statement by Finell

It would be helpful to the project if Brews' physics topic ban were modified to permit him to participate in discussion of graphics that he created, and that are used in the Speed of light article, during that article's current FAC. It is not necessary that his topic ban be temporarily lifted, only that it be amended for this specific purpose. Recently Brews has been peacefully and productively editing math articles and his behavior has not been problematical in any way, so far as I am aware.—Finell 00:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Brews Ohare's topic ban should be temporarily modified to allow him to participate in the discussions about the diagrams he made. To answer Kirill's concerns, I think the whole point of Arbcom requests is to look at each case individually, we don't argue on the basis of precedents. Finell has pointed out above that brews has been contributing in a positive way. If there is an issue with diagrams and it is found that some modifications are needed, then it could be extremely inconvenient for someone else to do that. In practice this could mean that someone else would have to make new diagrams from scratch. This has to be weighed against the potential of disruption of wikipedia given the reason of Brews topic ban (endless arguments about speed of light, domination of talk pages). I don't see this potential for disruption given what Brews has been doing recently. As I said, precedents are irrelevant. In similar cases where someone has been topic banned from some politics page which is up for FA review, you may well conclude that despite that editor having made considerable contributions, the potential for disruption is very real. Count Iblis (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

As far as I know (and I would welcome any correction if I am mistaken), there have been no problems related to Brews' edits of images on Misplaced Pages/Commons. Further, I am aware of no major problems with Brews' participation in the project for the last couple of months — and I will say that stands in contrast to (and in spite of) the overzealous and...spirited actions of some of his self-appointed defenders.

On the other hand, I must also note that (per Tznkai's comments) a broadening of Brews' original topic ban to include meta-disputes and user-conduct discussions was required in late November in order to get him back on a productive track. There was also at least one violation of his physics topic ban in late December: .

While the proposed amendment is far broader than necessary, I am inclined to say that that on balance the likelihood of disruption from a more narrowly-crafted exception is low and indeed would be beneficial to both the project and to Brews — and might form the eventual basis for future relaxation of his topic ban terms. An opening to allow Brews to participate in discussions regarding his images in the article (which are, as far as I know, uncontroversial) would probably be worthwhile. Further, allowing him to participate in (a part of) the featured article process should – hopefully – expose him to some of our most dedicated editors working to achieve some of Misplaced Pages's highest standards and goals.

That's the carrot; here's the stick. While I hope and expect such a condition shouldn't be required, I would also suggest that the amendment explicitly be revocable by a consensus at WP:AE if Brews' editing should stray into the tendentious or disruptive.

The exact wording of such a temporary amendment is up to the ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (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.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Would a narrower suspension applied only the pictures be useful? Steve Smith (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Barring any substantial objection from other editors or arbitrators, I do not see why this cannot be handled by way of a simple motion providing a specific exception for Brews to discuss his images in this specific FAC. Barring any major objections, I will propose such a motion in the near future. Vassyana (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• I am uncomfortable with waiving a topic ban purely because some of the editor's work is being discussed at FAC, as it's an arrangement we've rejected in the past, and with editors responsible for even greater volumes of work. Is there some reason why Brews's direct involvement is necessary (rather than merely convenient)? Kirill  14:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• I said when the case closed that I'd be willing to support a change to the topic ban to allow Brews Ohare to contribute images and to discuss images (narrowly construed). I would, though, prefer that Brews Ohare himself make such an appeal. I would in principle support a motion like that Vassyana intends to propose, but only if Brews Ohare indicates that they support the appeal being made here. I would even support a complete relaxation of the ban to allow any image work, not just a single FAC discussion. i.e. making an exception for all image work would make more sense than making an exception for FAC alone. Carcharoth (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: ARB9/11 (Thomas Basboll's topic ban)

Initiated by Thomas B (talk) at 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

September 11 conspiracy theories arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Blocks, bans, and restrictions

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request.

--Thomas B (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Modification of topic ban

• Link to log of sanctions
• My request is that the indefinite topic-ban I am currently under be changed into a two-year topic ban, to expire on April 21, 2010.

Statement by Thomas Basboll

On December 8, a topic-ban against me that had been implemented under the 9/11 ArbCom ruling was suspended for a trial period of one-month. (See discussion archived here.) My original request, however, had not been to lift the ban immediately, but simply to define an end date. AE decided on a trial period which is now coming to a close. I hadn't expected to return to editing so quickly, but I've tried to do some work that might indicate what sorts of thing I'd like to do if I returned. On that basis, then, I am simply restating my original request to let the ban run out in April.--Thomas B (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Answering Roger and Shell's questions and concerns would open a very long discussion. If you really want to have that discussion we can, but my solution seems simpler and more forward looking. Acknowledging that the ban is in hindsight difficult to explain, and that my trial period has not seen gross violations of WP policy, just convert the indefinite topic ban to one that has a fixed period. Then let me return under the already tight editing restrictions that the articles are subject to. I promise to edit in the spirit of what you have seen over the last few weeks. Also, Henrik is right about my conflict with MONGO, which is actually the most worrying thing about letting me return. For my part, I am committed to settling our differences of opinion about content in a civil manner. Again, the ArbCom restrictions in this area don't really allow us to do it any other way.

But to attempt a short answer: this is a time-consuming area and I am one of the few people who has committed to working in it in a civil and (I'd insist) moderate way. In addition to my basic interest in (i.e., curiosity about) the controversy, it is precisely because I have narrowed my focus that I don't lose my patience and can remain civil in the face of the usual suggestions to include OR of various kinds. If I had to double my time commitment (as Roger seems to suggest), I'd probably get as frazzled as everyone else.--Thomas B (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

With Risker and Hersfold's comments, I think I'm getting the gist. Last time I appealed this ban I had decided to try to get it overturned, i.e., to clear my name of the charge of POV-pushing. I presented this as a condition that might get me to return to editing. I was, understandably, told that this wasn't a constructive approach, but my pride and stubbornness demanded that I try. Well, time has a mellowing effect, and I have now returned without that demand. That is, I am now proposing to return without reassessing the wisdom of the original ban. The arbitrators, however, seem to be as stubborn as I was. They will not let me return without first re-affirming that the topic-ban was justified. If they hold to that uncompromising position, which is their right, then I will not edit any more. Lift the ban or don't. If you want me to edit here (John and Henrik seem to see that there is some value to be derived from it), let me do so with a modicum of dignity, friends. This time, a modicum is all I ask.--Thomas B (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what Vassyana has in mind, but it was my understanding that Roger wanted this to be decided by the committee, not the community. That's why I brought it here. If AE, not ArbCom, lifts the ban, there is the danger that other members of the community will simply return here with the arguments you are already hearing. Carcharoth's proposal has the virtue of being unequivocal. And if I am to remain banned on that principle, then I would suggest amending the ARB9/11 ruling accordingly. That is, it could be stipulated that SPAs and new users are not allowed to edit the articles. As I said to Carcharoth, the benefit of this approach will be that one source of controversy will likely be removed. In my view, the trouble stems from the clash of newbie (or at least anonymous SPA) conspiracy theorists with vested debunkers. If the first group did not show up (or were simply topic-banned when they did on formal, quantitative grounds), neither would the second. I think this would greatly reduce frustrations among editors like Tom Harrison. I certainly think that such editors, if spared the usual drama, could produce very good articles in this area. Such an amendment would also formalize the conditions under which I might return, which there seems to be consensus about among the arbs: if I want to edit these articles I simply have to make some substantial (but uncontroversial) edits to other parts of Misplaced Pages. Once I have done so I could presumably request that the topic-ban be lifted at AE. That suggestion is not new, of course, and I have always acknowledged that I might, one day, do exactly that. But the immediate consequence of putting this restriction on my return is that WP will have to do without my contributions for the time being.--Thomas B (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This might be informative. It has been suggested that my overall effect is to "slant" the articles in the direction of conspiracy theories. Here is the article on the Collapse of the World Trade Center immediately before I made my first edit in July of 2006, after my last edit before being topic-banned in April of 2008, and at the close of the suspension of the topic ban in January of 2010. It is of course possible that it would have been even less conspiriatorial and very much better without my involvement. But I am pretty confident that my presence will not be found to have been disasterous.--Thomas B (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Henrik

I was involved in the AE process which instituted a one month trial period as an admin who happened to patrol the page at that time. During the trial period, I continued to watch this user's editing and found it unproblematic and in line with our content policies (npov, fringe, and so on). He has been unfailingly polite and communicated well.

The main cause for concern is Thomas Basboll's insistence on only editing articles very closely related to 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracy theories, despite repeated suggestions by multiple arbs, admins and users that he by broadening his scope, even slightly, would demonstrate that any concerns were unfounded. Instead he chose to stop editing when the ban was imposed.

Naturally, while being interested in only a single topic is not in itself a problem, we have bad experiences with single purpose users in problematic areas and letting an unyieldingly polite POV pusher (which his critics claim is a fair description) into his area of interest could potentially cause much unnecessary work and slant towards fringe views in one of our traditional problem areas.

I tried looking into the original reasons for the topic ban (imposed by Raul) but didn't uncover any obvious smoking guns, nor did I find obvious evidence of the type of problematic POV pushing that has been attributed to him. Perhaps I missed it, or it was too subtle to detect for someone not an expert in the subject area. The worst I found was a relatively unpleasant conflict with MONGO.

In the end, I would advocate something in between continuing a total topic ban and a complete lifting of restrictions, perhaps a longer probationary period. I don't see any reason why waiting until April would improve matters however. henrik•talk 12:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#Request_to_modify_topic_ban_(User:Thomas_Basboll)_2 is the discussion where Henrik un-topic-banned Thomas for a month. (The people who commented there should be notified of this amendment request.)

The resulting contribs are 25 content edits and 30 talk edits, all to Collapse of the World Trade Center except for one recent comment to 7 World Trade Center.

Thomas appears to be working towards pushing Collapse of the World Trade Center to GA status*, and his involvement appears beneficial. If the other editors currently involved in that article do not mind his involvement, I think the topic ban should remain suspended wrt this article at least.

However, I think the general topic ban should remain in place until Thomas has worked on articles besides these very high importance/significance articles in the 9/11 topical area. John Vandenberg 08:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

If I recall correctly, the trial suspension was my suggestion, so I should probably speak as to my thinking:

Unblock and unban discussions tend to be speculative and irritating, and its often impossible to separate the baggage from the actual predictive evidence. This seemed a good opportunity to short circuit the existing norm (a lot of declarations and haranguing between supporters and opponents) and do something more useful. A suspension, in addition to moving an editor back towards their natural state (anyone can edit) more importantly functions as a diagnostic tool - in this case a month of recent editing patterns to give good facts for decision making.

This is not to say that a month of good behavior is necessarily sufficient however, and we are best served by multiple persons from the affected topic areas giving us their own impressions and reactions. If there is not enough reason to give confidence of an absence of problems indefinitely, another, longer, trial period is the natural next step.

As a final thought, the ban appears to have been logged as a discretionary sanction - and thus is subject to discretionary review. ArbCom has been invited to decide, but it need not accept that invitation.

Statement by JzG

Why can't Thomas just leave these articles alone? We have millions of articles he could edit, and a handful where his interaction has caused massive stress. There's no evidence that his strong opinions have changed, so I think it's highly unlikely that allowing a return to unrestricted editing of these articles is going to produce anything other than the same old problems. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison

Are there diffs or evidence that, during the trial un-ban, Thomas Basboll has tried to slant the article? No, of course not. Given the arbcom's scrutiny, anyone but a raving loon would be on his best behavior, and Thomas certainly isn't a loon. But then his individual edits were almost never problematic. The problem was that over time they slanted the presentation in favor of 'controlled demolition'.

Along with the natural state in which anyone can edit, is the actual state, in which people don't want to edit, at least in that area. Because of the constant pov pushing, endless demands to assume good faith and compromise with conspiracy theorists, repetitive talk-page discussions, et cetera, I've chosen to spend my time elsewhere. I no longer follow those articles, and won't be working with Thomas Basboll, so take this for what it's worth. Tom Harrison 18:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

• The previous discussion on this matter wasn't on the case talk page where I expected to find it. I've dug back into the page histories and archived it at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Request for clarification: User:Thomas Basboll. Side-note to any arbitrators reading this, I incorrectly said (by e-mail) that Basboll filed that request, when it was Tom harrison who filed it. Could a clerk please notify all those who were involved in the previous discussion, and anyone else who needs to be notified. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Could a clerk notify members of the AE thread, if this has not been done already?--Tznkai (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment: This is little point in deferring this until April. The POV aspects can be resolved by suspending the topic ban and authorising any uninvolved administrator to reinstate it, after giving due warning. However, I also share Henrick's concerns about Thomas Basboll's exclusive focus on 9/11. Perhaps the solution here would an editing throttle, where Thomas Basboll can make one edit to 9/11 in exchange for one comparable edit in an unrelated topic. What does Mr Basboll feel about this?  Roger Davies 12:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to hear from editors you've been working with during this trial and I share Roger Davies's concern about such a narrow focus, but I do see a lot of excellent, thoughtful and non-heated talk page discuss from during the trial. I think that's a good sign. Echoing Roger, what are the chances of branching out from this topic area? In my experience, editors who are too focused on a particular subject tend to unconsciously spiral in on themselves and I'd hate to see you end up back on a topic ban. Shell 13:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Nobody is asking you to double your time commitment; we're all volunteers here. The purpose of an editing throttle of the type Roger suggests is to encourage a branching out of your editing abilities, because as noted by Shell single-purpose users do often have difficulty pulling themselves away from controversial situations and are more likely to be subject to editing sanctions. It may reduce the amount of time you're able to spend on 9/11 topics, but it's likely to be beneficial to your return. Hersfold 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to hear other comments, although I am not pleased with Thomas's refusal to step away from this area, nor his apparent refusal to understand why we're asking him to step away. This is not indicating to me that removing the topic ban will be a good thing. Hersfold 03:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I am very much disappointed in Thomas Basboll's unwillingness to step away from the same place he's haunted since first registering. Being polite isn't enough; being politely tendentious and repetitive can be as bad as being rude and tendentious. I'd like to ask editors who worked with Thomas Basboll before to review the recent edits to see if he has returned to put forward the same proposals as he had in the past, those which were considered fringe, or POV, or inappropriate for the article into which he wished to insert them. Risker (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Per Risker, I'd like to hear from other editors about the course of the trial period before making any further determinations. Vassyana (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I see no reason for ArbCom to step in here. Community review got us here and I see no reason why it cannot continue to move this matter forward. I see no indication that this is beyond the reach of reviewing administrators and the community to resolve. Vassyana (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• I apologize to Thomas Basboll and others involved for any miscommunication that may have led to this amendment request. However, this is a community imposed sanction that was undergoing community review and should continue undergoing community review. I am opposed to ArbCom short-circuiting or circumventing that process and will oppose any motions or measures as an individual arbitrator on that basis. Vassyana (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Risker and Vassyana regarding the desire to hear from, for want of a better term, "adversaries". Would also welcome comment on why this ban, imposed as an arbitration enforcement measure rather than as an ArbCom remedy, merits a request for amendment.Thomas has kindly pointed out that this latter point was blitheringly idiotic, though he was more diplomatic. Steve Smith (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As Roger has pointed out, I (and possibly other arbs) would be more sympathetic to the request if the editor actually has made broader content contributions outside of this scope. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I remain of the opinion that those focused totally or almost exclusively on a single topic should diversify their editing to come to a broader understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. This applies to both non-expert editors and experts as well (here, by experts I am referring to topics such as climate science and medical topics such as homeopathy, or science in general, where some science or medical experts feel no need to edit outside their areas of expertise). Self-taught or actual experts won't be able to be as deeply involved or authoritative on other areas, but that is a good thing, as it gives a taste of what it is like at different levels. When editors first arrive at Misplaced Pages, I think they should be allowed to be "single-purpose accounts" up to a point, but beyond that point, they need to diversify. I think Basboll reached that point long ago, and his refusal to edit in other areas is not helpful, so I would not lift the topic ban. In effect, this approach is what I would advocate for any new account that arrived at a controversial article: "this is not a good article to learn how Misplaced Pages works - you need to build up a track record elsewhere in uncontroversial areas of Misplaced Pages" (and then topic ban that new editor). Unfortunately, one type of response to new editors turning up on controversial articles and making controversial edits is to indefinitely block them as disruption accounts or "obvious" socks. I favour the "topic ban" approach as one that avoids collateral damage. When the editor has built up a track record elsewhere, they can apply to have the topic ban lifted. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse per my practice on disputes relating to the events of September 11, 2001. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Asmahan (2)

Initiated by Supreme Deliciousness at 18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Asmahan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Arab Cowboy is aware.

Amendment 1

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Remedies
• Remedy on Arab Cowboy - requesting that Arab Cowboys becomes permanently banned from Asmahan.

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Arab Cowboy has been caught using a sockpuppet. He created this puppet on the 17th november while the arbitration case was processing, 3 days after the admins posted proposed remedys that would ban the both of us from changing the nationality or ethnicity of persons: He used it during the case while choosing not to answer the remaining questions. He has used this sockpuppet to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction (look at all the edits he has done) and he has also used it at Asmahan. This shows his true intentions. It shows what kind of respect he has to wikipedia, what kind of respect he has to the arbitration case, and what he planned to do (and also did) at the Asmahan article.

I am now requesting that Arab Cowboy becomes permanently banned from editing the Asmahan article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Response to Steve Smith: The arbitror John Vandenberg said: "I've read all of the Evidence page a few times, and reviewed all of the contribs of both the main parties. I have chosen to not incorporate all of the past problems into these proposals because I think you are both new users who are learning quickly, and will be good users if you both avoid identity disputes." Arab Cowboy created his sockpuppet two days later. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Response to Vassyana: the enforcement says that a user can be blocked to one year after 5 violations of restrictions and blocks. Arab Cowboy not only violated his restriction and ban more then 5 times, but created a sockpuppet do do it with. This is a greater violation, and therefor the topic ban for 5 months is not sufficient. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Response to John Vandenberg: Arab Cowboy first attempted to deny the connection: It wasn't until after he admitted it. Arab Cowboy made posts with the Medjool account at the Asmahan talkpage without saying it was him, making it look like it was another user supporting the edits he had edit warred over with his Arab Cowboy account. See for example his reply to number 2 when he says with his Medjool account "P. 36 is not viewable online (at least I could not see it), so how could your claim be verified?", while at the workshop Arab Cowboy talked about what it "said" on page 36: and he has talked about p36 before at the talkpage 1c:... this alone shows that he was pretending to be someone else with the Medjool account. A WP:CLEANSTART attempt is "create a new one that becomes the only account you use." which is not what he did. After he created the Medjool account he simultaneously continued to use the Arab Cowboy account editing articles and making posts at talkpages with both accounts. WP:CLEANSTART also says: "This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit." Arab Cowboy had a ban on him which he violated repeatedly with the Medjool account, and he used it in the same article that the old account edited. Arab Cowboy got restricted and topic banned on the 14th december: He used the Medjool account to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction after 14th december. So how can you say "there was no problematic edits in the first place" ?? This involves more then 1 revert per page per week and changes with the respect to the ethnicity or nationality of people which he is not allowed to do. So how can you even suggest that the discretionary sanction should be lifted?

Here are some of the diffs Arab Cowboy made with his Medjool account after 14th december when he was topic banned and restricted:

Changes with respect to the ethnicity or nationality:

More then 1 revert per page per week: and --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reply to Carcharoth: Why are you even mentioning WP:CLEANSTART? If it was a WP:CLEANSTART, why did he edit articles and make posts at talkpages with both accounts at the same time?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

There is a bit more to this. I'll provide a statement as soon as I can. John Vandenberg 11:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.

Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) has admitted on their talk page that they were Medjool (talk · contribs). It was an attempt at a WP:CLEANSTART.

Medjool's edits to Talk:Asmahan were definitely not a violation of the arbcom restrictions.

Medjool's edits were not a clear violation of WP:SOCK. If anything, there is an element of "avoiding scrutiny" to the edits to Talk:Asmahan. The main problem here was that the edits to Talk:Asmahan resulted in the CLEANSTART hitting the rocks. Please read and understand those edits in order to understand why Arab Cowboy made those edits.

"Medjool" was a violation of Arbcom's motion requiring that they are informed of changes of account name by restricted users, however WP:SOCK does not mention that! Also, at the time that Medjool was created, Arab Cowboy was not a restricted user.

As such, it is a long stretch to use these edits as justification for discretionary sanctions; that wasn't their purpose, and there was no warning (because there was no problematic edits in the first place). And now that Medjool's prior account is disclosed, this discretionary sanction should be lifted.

At the SPI case, action was taken before Arab Cowboy/Medjool could reasonably respond. From start to finish, it was done in 7 hours, on new years eve. And it was only 2.5 hours from the time that SD had finished presenting the case to the time that Medjool was blocked.

Arab Cowboy has indicated that they would like to continue editing as Medjool.

I ask you all to consider the JohnWBarber case, which has similar issues wrt CLEANSTART and that user was allowed to continue editing under their new username, despite the fact that their CLEANSTART had failed.

John Vandenberg 02:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I forwarded an email to the Arbitration Committee (on what gmail says is 1 Jan 2010 13:04:56 -0500; I am assuming that is either 13:04 or 18:04 UTC) that is of relevance to this discussion. Any arbitrators looking over this request for amendment probably should look over that email first. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 17:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that John believes that my actions were not warranted under the terms of the discretionary sanctions that were voted upon in this case. However, I believe that violating the clean start policy (invoking it while you are in an active ArbCom dispute is a violation of the spirit, if not the wording, of the rule) by editing the same article you were restricted on, would count as disruptive editing, which the article probation is meant to prevent. It does not matter what the edits were, but the fact that he was trying to influence content by posting in response to SD on the talk page without revealing his old account was troubling. I believe that merited a formal topic ban at the very least. However, I would have no problem with the Arbitration Committee or a group of editors on a WP:AN or WP:AE reversing my action if they feel that it was excessive. NW (Talk) 10:57, 14 January 2010 (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.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) has topic-banned Arab Cowboy from all articles under the scope of the case until June 15. I see no reason to turn that long-term topic ban into an indefinite ban as requested; a lot can happen in five and a half months. Steve Smith (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Awaiting more statements as promised above. Can the clerks please ensure everyone who needs to be notified has been. Carcharoth (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Do we really need to tell editors at arbitration that WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply to them? Agree with Vassyana that there are problems here. Suggest that one account is selected, and that account used to negotiate an unblock with conditions (such as a lengthy topic ban), but a straight unblock is not warranted here, and any action can be taken by administrators if any are willing to take action. Carcharoth (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Awaiting further statements, but I note NuclearWarfare's actions and wonder what further action is needed from ArbCom. Vassyana (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Analysis. Upon review, this is not simply a failed clean start inhibited by innocent mistakes, but rather a clear violation of our sockpuppetry principles. There are edits regarding ethnicity and cultural identity that display a strong, clear POV. This is highly relevant since Arab Cowboy's conflicts have been over cultural identity and ethnicity. The edits to Talk:Asmahan are clearly problematic as it is a return to conflict with an editor that has had extensive conflict with Arab Cowboy. The very first talk page edit is a bad faith accusation. Using the Medjool account, he defends his own edits made as Arab Cowboy. Both are clearly over the line. The account was used at least twice to circumvent the 1RR restriction imposed on Arab Cowboy. (1, 2, 3 within 5 days. Another 1, 2, 3 within 5 days.) In total, I see an account that was used to promote a strong point of view, continue disputes under a new guise, and circumvent editing restrictions. Vassyana (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. The sock block and extended topic ban seem perfectly warranted in the above context. Contrary to concerns about excessive or punitive measures, I see the results as rather lenient given the circumstances. I do not think ArbCom needs to be involved further at this juncture. If uninvolved administrators and/or the community still feel stronger measures are needed or that this matter needs further review in some way, I am confident that it can be resolved at that level. Vassyana (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going with Vassyana's viewpoint here. WP:CLEANSTART does not allow you to come back in and have another go, which is what Arab Cowboy/Medjool did here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)