This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coren (talk | contribs) at 03:07, 17 August 2009 (→Arbitrator views and discussion: no reason to amend). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Six month topic ban to User:Olaf Stephanos from Falun Gong and related articles.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Colipon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• John Carter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Vassyana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (mediator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Olaf_Stephanos
• Removal of topic ban.

Statement by Olaf Stephanos

I hold the view that the evidence presented in this arbitration enforcement case does not warrant such a sanction.

I agree that my tongue has been too sharp in some discussions; I have occasionally breached WP:CIVILITY by writing what I thought were seen as humorous remarks and stand corrected. I now understand that Misplaced Pages is not the forum for witty satire; my sincere apologies to all concerned parties, especially User:Colipon. I promise to treat others with more respect in the future and abstain from quirky metaphors.

However, in my opinion, a six month topic ban without a single warning of inappropriate behaviour does not seem fair. Also, I disagree with User:Shell Kinney's allegation that I would not know how to "write for the enemy". I feel my case has not been evaluated in the proper context – the extremely complex and long-lasting content disputes surrounding the development of these articles, the scars left by the ultra-hostile environment that lead to the previous arbitration case, the behaviour of other involved editors, and the signs of progress that are now unfolding, thanks to fresh outside input. As seen on the related talk pages, I have been very much favourable towards the recent mediation case, and have tried my best to develop these articles together with formerly uninvolved editors. I would also like the ArbCom to evaluate my recent edit history.

I feel that User:John Carter's opinions were decisive in imposing the ban. Contrary to what he says here, I do not believe that I have a severe conflict of interest in editing these articles; I am not a member of any related organisation, and can get no financial or other benefit whatsoever by taking part. I am merely interested in truthful, transparent coverage of a highly challenging subject, and I have always endorsed the use of peer-reviewed academic sources. See a comment regarding another editor on the CoI noticeboard: I also do not recognise myself from his characterisation of "being opposed to content which I belive wikipedia content guidelines demand". In my discussions I have frequently raised questions about reliable sources and due weight, and I have never opposed to taking matters to community noticeboards. Furthermore, no diffs were produced as evidence of such an attitude.

My honest belief is that the diffs presented in this arbitration enforcement case were essentially dealing with legitimate content disputes, not "POV pushing". Even if a brief glance may lead to a different impression, several of them had been approved on the community noticeboards. I hope that the ArbCom will be able to examine the evidence point-by-point, juxtaposed with my own statement. Also, I would ask for a contextual review of the "sound bites" that have been brought forth as examples of my incivil comments to evaluate whether they were mostly proactive or reactive.

As a final note, I'd like to say that I was involved in some discussions (such as this one) whose outcome depends on my ability to continue the work. I am almost certain that editors who have taken an opposing position in these discussions may support the ban, because they would no longer have to deal with such hard-to-refute arguments. Even if my style on the talk page has been regrettably harsh in some cases, I feel that my contributions to the content-related discussions have been largely beneficial. By toning down my speech and reflecting on my weaknesses, I believe that I have all the skills to play a significant positive role in this workgroup.

---

P.S. Despite explicit requests , User:John Carter has failed to produce evidence to back up his allegations that I have violated the content policies. I have never tried to "stifle criticism of Falun Gong in the content" merely on the basis that it is critical. I have been very clear on this. For example, see this thread where I disagree with Dilip Rajeev's edit: " I consider it counterproductive and unprofessional. By Misplaced Pages standards, Encyclopaedia Britannica is a valid source. The same policies and guidelines must apply to everyone. Your reasoning could be used against any material "our" party tries to introduce, and then it will only lead to endless edit warring (you should know) and anomie. Furthermore, the article will not appear credible to any third-party observers if everything "critical" is deliberately removed. If we assume that nearly every subject has a "majority view" and a "significant minority view", and that they're two different things, what would you call the "significant minority view" on Falun Gong and how should we include it in the articles? Even if you feel something shouldn't be in the lead, you should not entirely remove it but perhaps replace it in another section, as long as it's reliably sourced and verifiable."

I find his reference to Jennifer Zeng's suffering extremely insolent and disparaging towards me as a rational subject, as well as towards the experiences of Zeng in the hands of her torturers. Even though he just recently used "Bestiality is good" as a "humorous" example of something that would be placed in the criticism article if it were found in Falun Gong's teachings , I would never have expected to see the persecution exploited as an argument in this amendment case. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I have requested User:HappyInGeneral to strike out some of my comments on the talk page by this explanation. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum 2: Just to give you one more example. I have been 100% consistent with my views regarding "critical" sources: "Now we're talking. Let's incorporate that stuff. Can you offer some quotes, so that we can find start discussing their placement? We probably need to redesign the structure of these articles as well. As long as the sources are alright, the most serious obstacle has been removed, and I will be more than happy to cooperate with you. It's about time to move from discussion to actual work. I don't stand in opposition to critical voices per se, as long as the material complies with the Misplaced Pages standards. When I talked about transparency, I meant it. A rational reader will be able to come to his or her own conclusions, as long as the articles conform to WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

It is hard to convey to anyone just how bizarre the above comments strike me. Olaf seems to have been one of the primary parties to the arbitration which placed the article on probation, as per here, and yet he tries to convey that somehow he wasn't aware of the sanctions. Any reasonable person would, I think, understood that he was notified of the sanctions then. It is also true that at least one editor has indicated on the article talk page that Olaf's recent egregious violations of even the most basic etiquette as per here are to my eyes sufficient to conclude that what in fact happened was that Olaf forgot the sanctions might apply to him as well. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that Olaf probably thinks of himself as being "witty" and "sarcastic". I remember when I was a college kid too, and I thought much the same thing about myself. The terms "arrogant", "abrasive", "abusive", "condescending", "egomaniacal", "insulting" and "completely unacceptable" were the terms other people used. In my case, "gutter humor" was included as well, and I think some similar phrase probably applies to Olaf as well. I am not myself saying that I necessarily agree with the length of the topic ban, and think that if Olaf displays over the next several months behavior without these concerns in the remainder of the wiki there is a very real chance that the length may be shortened. And if someone wants to begin enforcement proceedings regarding others, they are free to do so, but that would still be a different matter. While Olaf may have some grounds to see that the ban might be excessive, I'm not sure the circumstances he puts forward are cause to amend the ruling. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A few comments. Personally, I think HappyInGeneral's comments about how all editors involved should be giving a warning is a good one, but that the existing sanctions template on the top of the page already serves as such a warning. Regarding my contention that Olaf may have a conflict of interests regarding this subject, I have read in the Booklist review of Jennifer Zeng's book Witnessing History, which I have not yet added to the article in question, how she had to "come to terms" with the "painful conclusion" that, by signing a document saying she would no longer practice the tenets of Falun Gong, which was required for her to be able to flee the country, she had violated a central tenet of Falun Gong regarding "compromising with evil". Olaf has more than once proudly indicated that he too is a practicioner of Falun Gong, and thus, presumably, supposed to adhere to the same tenet. His actions and comments have certainly fairly regularly been of an totally uncompromising type. The viewpoint of the Chinese government, for instance, is I think clearly that of a significant minority, and thus deserves reasonable coverage, although he has I believe repeatedly objected to such information and indicated that adding such information would only serve or enhance the position of the Chinese government, when in fact it would, I believe, be what policy and guidelines demand of us. It could also be said that by trying to stifle criticism of Falun Gong in the content Olaf is himself guilty of "attempting to use Misplaced Pages for ideological struggle and advocacy", which is one of the reasons for banning other parties in the extant arbitration ruling. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have expectedf to see Olaf indulge in the same sort of personal insults and attacks on this page as he has regularly done elsewhere, and can honestly imagine few better reasons to sustain the existing ruling than continuation to indulge in such clearly inappropriate behavior. Regarding his objection to what I at the time saw as being a clearly obvious, if lame, attempt at humor, he may have a point, but would suggest he pay more attention to his own failings in that regard first. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have I regret to say had no luck finding the link to the discussion, given the remarkable number of edits Olaf has had in recent days, so I am obliged to withdraw the statment until and unless I find it. Having said that, I also wish to state that I find Asdfg12345's misrepresentation of my earlier comment attempting to establish that any practicioner of Falun Gong would be obliged to adhere to what has been said to be a fundamental tenet of the faith in the way he did c0mpletely and utterly uncalled for and indicative of either very poor reading skills or some sort of willful intention to misrepresent the statement of others, either of which would be a very bad reflection on his character or ability as an editor. John Carter (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is merely a comment regarding some information I have recently discovered. I've only been involved at all with this topic for a few weeks. Olaf, who says on his user page that he has completed a masters degree and that he's been an editor here for over four years, could possibly be expected to in that time have consulted Stephen Jones' The Encyclopedia of Religion regarding Falun Gong, considering that I myself have found to be included in the reference section of every reasonably sized public or private library I have been to, and even online at the Gale Research website. It is, basically, the most highly regarded recent reference book on the subject of religion in general. This book contains a number of pieces of information which some might consider critical of Falun Gong, and it seems to me from his edit history that he has in general opposed addition of such information. It is possible that he never consulted this generally highly credited source, of course. It is also possible, at least potentially, that he did, but for whatever reason chose to not indicate as much, and, if he did know of it, and continued to oppose the inclusion of information he knew to be included in what is among the most reliable sources on the subject extant, I think that might speak very poorly of him indeed, were it the case. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Olaf has subsequently commented to me that he himself had not consulted this source, and I have no reason to doubt his word in this matter. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Colipon

This proposed amendment is not reasonable on any grounds. This plea is but another attempt to "outwit" the system. The WP:COI concern is very real. Despite what this user may otherwise claim, his edits and presence on this encyclopedia appear to only serve one purpose - to present Falun Gong in a positive light and to supress any criticism of the movement. Linking to a few superficial diffs of supposed "constructive edits" do not stand up against the vast array of evidence that suggest a very apparent pro-Falun Gong agenda (which has already been presented on WP:AE and do not need to be reiterated).

In addition, his disruptions on the article talk pages have been pervasive and on-going, and there were many warnings from the mediator, myself, and other uninvolved editors, which he now suddenly claims doesn't exist, using the pretext that "there was no warning" to justify his case. This is absurd. He claims to know a plethora of Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies yet somehow when this applies to himself, he is suddenly ignorant. Colipon+(Talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely interesting, if ineffective way to go about what is by nature an arbitration amendments case. First, Olaf apolgizes. Then he characterizes the case as "unfair". Then two other editors come onto the page and flood it with text supposedly "defending" Olaf, but in reality just making more ad hominem attacks. Except this time, attacks on me was not enough, so they have now extended these attacks to several other good faith editors, non-involved editors, labelling us as a collective ("cabal"), and even John Carter, who came to the discussion only as an observer on invitation, is now being targeted.

It is regrettable that such charges can be laid upon so many users in such a short space of time, especially when in the course of this discussion, noticeable improvements are happening with all Falun Gong articles - with very direct input from a wide range of participants. I once again ask the users that are levying these personal attacks to stop, in the interest of focusing on the topic at hand, in the interest of our arbitrators, and dedicate more energy into the articles' contents, which should be priority. Colipon+(Talk) 21:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the amount of negative and inflammatory commentary on these pages actually call for a longer, more serious ban, not a lifting of the current one. Olaf's intellectual maneuvering has now placed John Carter at the heart of this amendment case, even though it was I who filed for it, and another user that carried it out. Notice how he subtly shifts the burden of proof for "content violations" to John Carter, a good faith editor who a mere week ago was not involved in these articles at all. In a case like this the burden of proof is firstly on myself, and then on Olaf, and in a case of amendments, it should be placed on the arbitrator who placed the ban. How John Carter suddenly becomes the centre of focus is quite evidently another game being played by Olaf to crawl through some logical wormhole. This is a grossly misleading characterization of the entire situation. Colipon+(Talk) 02:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to caution the arbitrators looking over comments of "User:FalunGongDisciple". I have a feeling that this may be in fact be a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet - more attempts to play games the system. The user's sudden appearance in an arbitration enforcement case like this is extremely disconcerting. Colipon+(Talk) 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Asdfg12345

Basically he has just been making clever and cocky remarks in discussions about content--well, give a warning and tell him that if he continues to do it there will be a ban. His edits to the actual articles are not particularly problematic; this is essentially a content dispute, with disagreements as usual. Just banning outright for such a long time seems to neglect the wider context. Smarmy remarks and personal comments have been a feature of the editing experience on these pages for some time now: Olaf's case should reinforce for everyone that this has to stop, but banning him from the topic just like that is definitely going about it the wrong way. Actually looking through the diffs shows he's only guilty of being a smart-arse, and that doesn't warrant a ban. Having realised the need to change attitudes, I'm sure you'll see a very amiable and civil editor emerge.

Just an addendum, given Colipon's remarks. As my mother said to me: "When you point the finger, there are three pointing back." Can we then say that Colipon is dedicated to "present Falun Gong in a negative light and to supress any positive comment on the movement"? Can we say that Colipon has done any edits that portray Falun Gong in a positive light? I'd like to see them. What about Ohconfucius, PerEdman, Mrund? Let's see their history of edits that portray Falun Gong in a positive, rather than negative, light. Such a consideration is not even within the scope of AE, really, because these should be rulings on behaviour, not content. Olaf's disputes, anyway, have always been about reliable sourcing, not about the content itself; i.e., just because something is critical of Falun Gong is no grounds for removing it, it's about whether that source is reliable or not. Unfortunately, since some people peddle sub-par sources critical of Falun Gong, some editors have gotten confused sometimes (like with the Rick Ross sources...).

Olaf hasn't disrupted the talk pages any more than others. What are termed here "disruptions" are the regular course of discussion/argumentation about the subject matter and sources. His remarks are no more disruptive than Colipon's. This is basically a clash of viewpoints that has been taken to AE, there is no real evidence of editing that violates wikipedia content guidelines. ScienceApologist has gotten away with far worse remarks about other editors. A lot of the complaint about Olaf just used words like "arrogant", "cocky", etc., which are well and true, but shouldn't affect the ruling. Olaf has basically just played the same games as the others, except he's played them quite well. Tell everyone to stop and things can move on; we'll get a civil atmosphere with no personal remarks, and strict, dead-pan content discussions; when there are disagreements they go to community noticeboards, and there will be no more of this nonsense. 2cents --Asdfg12345 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Colipon is far from neutral on this subject. He is a declared sympathizer with Samuel Luo who has refused to retract his words, and has exhibited decidedly anti-Falun Gong sentiments during discussion, even when he has disagreed with the Communist Party viewpoint. His complaints about the current state of the pages always refer to their apparently positive representation of Falun Gong, and not to whether they are based on reliable sources. The only difference is that Olaf has always strictly referred to content policies and guidelines, while Colipon has felt that strict enforcement of such rules is just a real hassle and impediment to his agenda. Like this line: "After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary." -- great, reference to and argumentation from policy becomes wikilawyering, and instead let's just ban the pro-FLG guys. This whole AE case is obviously about eliminating a perceived opponent. Can whoever looks at this case please confirm they have checked Colipon's 20 points against Olaf's 20 points, and can they confirm any fault other than smart-alec remarks? --Asdfg12345 21:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I hope those who investigate this will note the fact that, as Dilip points out, the only findings of substance in the diffs provided by Colipon relate to uncivil talk page remarks, and not to editing. Contributions are to be judged by the policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS etc.; Olaf's contributions meet these requirements. If there were a claim that Olaf's contributions violated NPOV, since they clearly do not violate RS, that would have to be proven out. Presumably we are not saying that one particular editor cannot add sources which express a particular viewpoint, given they meet V and RS. If that is the basis on which Olaf is to be sanctioned (as in, because he has added sources which, for example, argue that the anti-cult movement has been a "lackey" to the Chinese Communist Party's campaign against Falun Gong, or which talk about the persecution suffered by Falun Gong adherents in China), expect a lot more AE cases. Would it mean that every editor has to make one "positive edit" for every "negative edit"? Will we have someone assessing whether edits are advocating one or another point of view, then tally them up? Most edits don't fit neatly into these categories, and a range of opinions and views should be respected.

The examples than Shell Kinney shows of Olaf's remarks fail to take into account the context in which they were made. For example, they were supposed to be "funny," there was a silly picture hyperlinked, and the word "your" was struck out; so the remark became "Ideological struggle blah blah blah" rather than "your ideological struggle blah blah blah" -- whatever the case, they're stupid remarks, but it's still important not to misrepresent them. Again, they are only talk page remarks, and I've seen far, far worse on wikipedia without a ban. The real issue here are the contributions, and I have not yet seen evidence of this user violating wikipedia's content guidelines. Everyone has a point of view on this subject, and their editing will reflect that, whether they like it or not; that's not a crime. The key is that people play by the rules and treat each other with respect. Any investigator of this case should be far more concerned with the recent blankings of sourced content on Falun Gong, despite protests and reversions.

Re John Carter's recent remarks, where is the evidence of the claim that this editor has opposed appropriate placement of material from the Chinese Communist Party? Apart from that, the spurious connection between Olaf's beliefs and the Zeng book are simply ridiculous.--Asdfg12345 20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: sorry for leaving such long notes!! That's embarrasing...--Asdfg12345 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PerEdman

A very strange counter-case. Olaf Stephanos is obviously aware of his own behavior and that it has taken place in a probationary article. If he wants to show others how well he has learned from these realized mistakes, he has plenty of time to do so in articles on all other subjects than the one on which he has hitherto failed. The Falun Gong pages are indeed showing signs of improvement, which is another reason why Olaf Stephanos, considering his past behavior, should not be allowed to be active on those pages at this time. PerEdman (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

Because Olaf has added a final note to his statement since my statement, I add that the discussion he uses as an example above reflects badly on us both.. That discussion needs resolution, but I do not believe it will benefit from Olaf Stephanos' presence. PerEdman (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to statement by Olaf Stephanos

The behavior exhibited on this page is in line with the behavior that lead to the Arbitration Request. The articles are improving with freer discussions and boldness, so please do not repeal this ban. / PerEdman 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to statement by FalunGongDisciple

I would urge admins to ignore this brand-new user for now. Something decidedly fishy is going on and I don't know who thinks there is anything to gain by doing it. / PerEdman 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PerEdman, please ignore this new user, his edits are not constructive under any standard. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

The sanction was clearly not focussed on the content, but on some rather toxic behaviour of Olav. Already, I am happy that the sanction seems to have brought Olav down a peg or two from this very arrogant comment, and elicited an unprecedented outpouring of contrition (albeit measured), above. The sanction may look like a 6 month block for a WP:SPA, but it's only a topic ban which covers about a dozen articles, so I think it is acceptable and appropriate bearing in mind there are nearly 3 million articles now on en:WP; Olav could gain immensely from working unrelated articles and with a wider pool of editors. I look forward to working with him when the topic ban is lifted in six months. It goes without saying that we will expect a high standard of behaviour from him then. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to comment on this edit here by Olav. I see great significance therein, as he qualifies his absence of conflict of interest, effectively owning up to a potential lack of objectivity. Of course, he is also correct in saying he is not a member of any related organisation even if he was a practitioner - we are frequently reminded that the concept of membership is inapplicable to Falun Gong. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would add that I am displeased at how some of the comments in this amendment appear another unacceptable character assassination of Colipon. Some comments now include bitter attacks on myself (without mentioning me by name), and all those newcomers who do not align themselves with the Falun Gong; there are also assorted red herrings to deflect the blame for the toxic behaviour of Olav. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

(Perm link to AE report)

On reviewing the report at WP:AE, I felt that the diffs given showed a pattern of strong POV pushing and incivil talk page commentary that created a hostile environment. As Olaf Stephanos was a party to the arbitration case, I didn't believe further warning was necessary in this case.

Samples:

• The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose
• I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil. If you weren't peacocking around with phrases like "neutral-minded editors calling on the pro-FLG side to adhere to NPOV", there would be no need to point out your double standards. Why don't you start playing your cards openly?.
• "Guys, guys, here's a handkerchief to wipe your foaming mouths...
• In my eyes you have come across as one raging anti-FLG bull.
• regarding your comment about what I "insist", perhaps you'd better check your eyesight

However, I have no objections to ArbCom modifying or removing the ban as they see fit if they feel there's a better way to handle the situation. Shell 09:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HappyInGeneral

Olaf has had a significant role in the discussions, and he has been taking part actively, with substantiated arguments, based on policies that drive value into Misplaced Pages. Given that several editors have engaged in breaches of WP:Civility, not just one. if we single out one participant the problem remains with an empowerment to those who issued the AE. In order to restore WP:Civility I think that the best practical approach is to issue warnings to all parties that engage in WP:NPA, followed by a topic ban if this does not help. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dilip Rajeev

While I certainly agree that Olaf needs to tone-down his commenting style, pay attention to his conduct on talk, put things across in a manner more appropriate for discussion on an encyclopaedia article, and refrain from resorting to his "carnivalesque" style of commenting, I am of the opinion the contributions he has made to these articles should also be taken into consideration.

I'd request the arbitration committee to give due weight to the fact that Olaf's contributions to these articles themselves have, it may be verified from his contrib history, always been well sourced, well-written and adhering to wikipedia policies.

Among the 20 arguments presented by Colipon in making the case against Olaf - the only ones with any basis are those pertinent to talk page comments( this may be verified by considering the context of the edits, the sourcing of material added by the user, etc. ). Olaf makes this apparent in his response to these allegations. Further,on the talk page, other editors, including User:Colipon, have been equally, if not more, acerbic- calling for bans on all editors not agreeing with his POV, labeling legitimate changes "blatantly POV" , etc. These attacks are harder to see through - as they do not involve blatantly acerbic language on the surface - but baselessly accuse and attack editors to promote a personal agenda.

Another major concern I have is what Olaf points out here. An activity, which , as far as my limited understanding of Misplaced Pages policies can tell, is in blatant violation of WP:CABAL. And the activity is happening on articles placed on probation by the ArbCom. There have been very serious and problematic issues in edits by these users, in terms of content removal etc. One such very recent instance is here, a revert of a stable article to 1 year old version, on the basis of demonstratably misleading claims, in the process deleting several paragraphs of content sourced to mainstream academia, a centrally relevant image, and adding material from CCP propaganda sheets.(I consciously refrained from reverting the disruptions, to avoid a revert war, and hoping the admins will take notice.) The same user who reverted the article blanked out 20 K from the stable main-article claiming to make a "bold change", based on a comment by "Seb az86556."

I realize this is not the place to get into such discussion, but it seemed appropriate that I point out such behavior - particularly since these very users attempt to inculpate Olaf for talk page comments, while themselves demonstrating a pattern of editing, on the articles themselves, that is, to say the least, extremely disconcerting.

• Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..."
• Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?"
• Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)"
• Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you."

Clearly, the editors who started this campaign have a rather strong agenda of their own. How does a few haughty talk page comments even compare to rallying for "total war", outside of wikipedia, on articles placed on probation by the ArbCom?

Regarding the agenda held by the above editors, I consider it at least peripherally relevant that User:Colipon has identified himself as a supporter of User:Samuel_Luo and has not retracted his comments.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

The only agenda that Colipon, Ohconfucius or anybody else, has on this issue has been an honest and earnest attempt to make the FLG articles have some semblance of neutrality. Sorry, I don't want to go into an extensive discussion on the matter but, the record speaks for itself.Simonm223 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Seb az86556

One example of the progress that's been made since the imposition of the ban can be found here: New Proposed Outline Seb az86556 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana

This appears to be part of a move from away from the long-standing dysfunctional environment, which includes a failure to utilize appropriate resolution options and pervasive personal accusations in article talk. Complaints about behavior were moved away from the article talk to an enforcement venue. An uninvolved administrator with significant experience and a solid reputation concluded that the evidence supported a commensurate sanction. Regardless of individual opinions, an appropriate process and review was utilized to address the disputed conduct. While this matter is an arbitration enforcement, unless arbitrators believe Shell Kinney has seriously erred or that the process was misused/gamed unduly, they should leave the matter to the enforcing administrators and community. Reversing the proper utilization of appropriate venues would be seriously damaging to the (slow but still substantial) progress being made in the topic area. There may be conduct issues involving other editors, whether it is accurate accusations of misconduct or problematic behavior by way of spurious accusations. However, there is no need for ArbCom to address those issues at this time. Other complaints can be similarly handled by the complainants and community through discussion, a request for comments, and/or enforcement venues. Vassyana (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (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

I do no think that Olaf should be banned. He is such a great editor who fights against communist CCP agents. Letting Misplaced Pages enlighten the people on the greatness of Falun Dafa will be beneficial to all.

I think we should change the topic ban to ALL the CCP AGENTS. They are being disgusting.

Falun Gong must be shown not as a cult either. Nor should it be called a religion. It is just the ultimate spiritual practice that nothing else can compare. It has no political agenda either. Please reconsider Olaf's case based on the fact that Falun Dafa is the Great Law.--198.85.228.129 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC) --FalunGongDisciple (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Does anyone else want to make a statement? Will aim to review this tomorrow or the day after. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the delay - will aim to review this today - and will ask other arbitrators when/if they intend to comment. Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Uphold sanction. Vassyana's comments and others are noted. We are not talking about a total ban from WP, the editor has an opportunity to show they can edit in a constructive manner elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• I see no reason to alter the sanction; the behavior on display certainly does not encourage it and, as Casliber has correctly pointed out above there are millions of other articles where one can contribute constructively. Someone unable or unwilling to contribute outside a specific issue should probably give serious thought to whether they are here to build an encyclopedia, or to evangelize. — Coren  03:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Privatemusings

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 3: The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• None, but I include my own userlinks, in case they are of interest.
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Amendment 1

• Principle 3: The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.
• The word sockpuppet should be replaced by alt account. Sockpuppets are bad things; alt accounts (as this principle admits) can be good things.
• More importantly, the last sentence should be struck or recast.

Statement by Septentrionalis

The last sentence, italicized above, sets policy. It has been adopted at WP:SOCK, apparently on the basis that ArbCom said so. It is, I think, bad policy, but efforts to amend it while ArbCom's wording continues will be met with this irrelevant argument.

• It does not describe what Privatemusings did wrong; see a summary of the problem, by JzG, here. Privatemusings had an account which revealed his real world identity; he set up several alt accounts:
  • User:Purple, to do editing
  • User:Privatemusings, to discuss policy
  • and half a dozen others.

He then proceeded to discuss policy intemperately, under the assumption that at worst, Privatemusings would be blocked, and Purple would continue unscathed. He also developped most of the abusive techniques that WP:SOCK condemns.

JzG suggested the following as an acceptable solution: At this point, had Privatemusings chosen to return to his second account, which is not traceable to real world identity..., but the second account (Purple) was still an alt.

The problem here was the abusive editing, and the assumption that alt accounts would not be recognized, so Purple would escape scot-free; not the discussion of policy. If Bishzilla were to discuss policy, nobody would complain, as long as Bishonen stayed out. We are all pseudonyms; it doesn't matter which pseudonym discusses policy, but what arguments they use.

• It is not what ArbCom actually enforces. Future Perfect was roundly chastized at the late Macedonia case; but his satirical account User:Former Abbreviated Username of Future Perfect at Sunrise, although its sole function was to discuss policy, was not mentioned or condemned.

• It has led to absurd results, and will lead to more. This effort to get ArbCom to don their asbestos armor and shoot Bishzilla provokes this request. Will it be the last?

Thank you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think Brad's point about deception is fairly well taken; the incorporation into WP:SOCK does not say that, and would be a reasonable policy if it did.

Again, the User:Geogre case, like all the others, concern abuses of alt accounts. To say that that justifies banning them would be like saying that the number of cases about bad admins justifies abolishing adminship. Tempting though that sometimes is....;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

I think this is proposed amendment is a bad idea. PMAnderson doesn't present any significant example of the current prohibition has causing problems. The use of undisclosed alternate accounts is tolerated in certain circumstances, but those should be kept limited to those that demonstrably help the project. There is no reason why an editor in good standing should need to use an undisclosed alternate account to discuss or edit policies, or other internal project debates. If that were allowed, there are many problesm that could arise, even by editors who feel they are working in good faith. See the recent matter of user:Geogre for an example of that. User:Privatemusings is another. It is easy to imagine a situation in which an editor is trying to make an edit that may not be allowed by policy. If he made a change to the policy using his regular account then it would be an obvious case of gaming the system. If he uses a separate account it might not raise any concerns. Misplaced Pages operates on transparency and mutual trust. This would be a step in the wrong direction.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

RexxS is correct that the community sets policy, but it does so in various ways. One way is by through consensus on relevant discussion pages, another is by altering the written policies, and a third is by unchallenged interpretations of the ArbCom. This particular matter was discussed by the community before the ArbCom decision, and after the decision the written policy was amended. So all three components of the policy setting mechanism were involved in this.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

I comment solely on the narrow point that "the last sentence should be struck or recast". I believe that ArbCom should take care not to make pronouncements that may be characterised as "making policy". Policy on Misplaced Pages has always been created by the community reaching consensus on a particular practice. The expression of that policy may then be documented on policy pages; and subsequently may be used by ArbCom to guide their deliberations. It is completely anathematic to our principles when a small group—even one as august as ArbCom—makes a statement that is then incorporated into a policy page and subsequently imposed upon the community. Put simply, that is the wrong way round. If it were to be shown that ArbCom were reflecting an as-yet-unwritten practice (forbidding alternative accounts to debate policy), then I would retract this statement. As it is, I doubt that to be the case, and request ArbCom to reconsider the wording "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates". --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Will Beback

I will have to beg to differ. There is a difference between policy being made and policy being documented. Making of policy occurs by the cumulative actions of our community of editors and enjoys consensus by that very fact. The only exception to that is when an RfC definitively decides on a policy that is contested. Documentation of policy may indeed occur by the three methods you outline, but please understand I am not arguing semantics. You only have to review WP:ARBDATE to see the results that can arise from assuming that changes to policy pages—even those enjoying consensus there—sets policy. The standard required for setting or changing policy is high; and without a strong community consensus, either taken from clear current practice or from a conclusive RfC, you leave it open to challenge at any time. It is exactly for those reasons that I humbly caution ArbCom against making policy statements, unless it is crystal clear that such policy already has uncontested community consensus. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Privatemusings

That bit was always a bit clumsy of a rather grumpy arbcom I reckon - the real problem in my view is folk kidding themselves that they're discussing principles, when really they seem to be looking for policy guns to shoot someone with - sometimes to avoid listening. This isn't really directed at anyone posting here at the mo, mind.

I do get to take this opportunity to point out the delicious irony of the chap rather vigorously condemning me at the time, running his own 'sock' throughout, complete with chat's about policy ;-)

Oh and my first account was kind of tangentially linked to my identity (particularly through other online sites and stuff) - but I'm cool with anyone mentioning it - it's not a 'badusername' ;-) - you can even call me Peter, I won't report you! Finally, I'd like to reiterate that I continue to assert this stuff, wouldn't agree with Sep's write up above (or maybe it's Sep's write up of JzG's statement?) - and though it's rather ancient history, and no big deal any more I'd point out that not a single diff has ever been forthcoming which showed deception in terms of multiple accounts (or much else for that matter :-)

If the silly 'you can't use an alternate account in policy discussion' bit is causing trouble, strike it, otherwise Brad seems spot on, as usual. Privatemusings (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recused MBisanz 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Recused Seddσn | 01:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse, Privatemusings (under what was then an alternate account) edited alongside me at WP:NPA and related proposed policies. I am considering making a statement in this case. Risker (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• The use of alternate accounts, while tolerated in certain circumstances, is generally not viewed in a good light by the community. The recent events are a clear indication of that. The use of alternate accounts (whichever name you use) in discussion or procedure, which depends on a clear consensus, is uniformly destructive. I see no reason to amend. — Coren  21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• I was not an arbitrator when the Privatemusings case was decided in November 2007 (in fact, only one member of the 2007 committee remains an arbitrator). However, I opined on the proposed decision talkpage at that time that the sentence being questioned in this request for amendment was, indeed, an interpolation into the alternate accounts policy rather than a reiteration of it. (See, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision#Principle 3 concerning sockpuppet policy.) In the ensuing discussion, it was suggest that this was simply an interpretation or exposition of the then-existing policy. ¶ Whether "only primary accounts may be used on policy and arbitration pages" is a desirable policy is debatable: on the one hand, we do not need rampant socking and game-playing on these (or any other) pages, and posting to these pages from primary accounts helps others discount a given user's input to the extent that might be warranted by knowledge of that user's own agenda or history; on the other hand, I can readily imagine situations heavy with "wikipolitics" in which a good-faith user would want to participate other than under his or her primary username. In my view, discussion on this issue can proceed on the relevant policy page, rather than seeking to amend this decision some twenty months after the fact. ¶ I would also note, with some dismay that it seems necessary to do so, that the obvious point of the sentence in question was to avoid concealment of the identity of a person commenting on these pages. Some of the instances mentioned above obviously do not, in any fashion, implicate that concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Just a comment related to Privatemusing choice of words. Please avoid calling people with names that don't belong to them (re the chap). That's all for the moment! -- FayssalF - 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Initial point, one reason for the inclusion of this wording was to make people accountable for their comments during policy and dispute resolution discussions. If an alternative account is linked by name, disclosure on one of the user pages, or by definitive comments made by the account, then that would satisfy this concern. So several of the examples would not pertain to the particular wording. -FloNight♥♥♥ 13:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Decline Per Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse on all things related to Privatemusings. John Vandenberg 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Coren et al. Wizardman 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• My views on arbitration decisions and principles being imported into policy or guideline wording have been stated elsewhere before. Such wordings and principles should only be added following discussion at the policy or guideline talk pages, and only if it does in fact represent emerging consensus or current practice. There will be exceptions when there is immediate consensus at the talk page to make a prescriptive change, but such change should be mostly descriptive, though it should always be borne in mind that current practice is not always best practice. In this case, there needs to be a discussion at the policy talk page about what represents current and best practices in these situations. My personal view is that alternate accounts should only be used in limited circumstances, for clearly defined reasons. Most alternate accounts should be clearly identified, by their name, and/or by a template or note on their user page identifying the master account. Simply adopting the same mannerisms, or self-identifying while editing, is not enough - any editor must be able to go to the user page and find out who they are really talking to. If there is good reason for an alternate account to be undisclosed, then it is the responsibility of the operator to keep the two accounts separate, and not edit in the same areas as the main account. Even then, if the undisclosed secondary account encounters someone known to the primary account holder, that can be a problem. As far as terminology goes, the term 'sockpuppet' is used too liberally - in my view, it should be reserved for deceptive use of other accounts. A clearer distinction should be drawn between sequential accounts (retiring one account and starting a new one, but not returning to carry on a dispute started by the original account, obviously!), editing while logged out (either intentionally or otherwise), editing as an IP when blocked, and deceptively operating two or more accounts simultaneously in the same area (socking). There are different reasons behind all these, and conflating them and applying the term "socking" to all of them does more harm than good, in my opinion. Finally, for alternate accounts and arbitration cases, my view is that only primary accounts should be used on such pages. Even using obvious accounts such as "NAME-2" can be misleading, as that splits contributions between two accounts, making it harder to apply scrutiny to all edits. As far as evidence submission goes, though (as opposed to workshop proposals and case discussion pages), I think it should be permitted to be able to submit evidence anonymously. But no-one has really agreed with me on that last point yet. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1

• That my editing restrictions be replaced with a restriction to have no involvement in the mass delinking of dates nor changes to WP:MOS or WP:MOSNUM (and their associated talk pages) regarding the formatting and linking of dates for a period of four months.

Statement by Greg L

What ArbCom did here with me isn’t right. Even though there were admins aplenty on WT:MOSNUM, some of whom were hip-deep in the date delinking debate, I was never once blocked for incivility towards another involved editor in the date-delinking debate, nor was I once blocked for edit-warring, sock puppetry, deleting others’ RfCs or posts, nominating others’ pages for MfDs, or any sort of *creative disruption* or malfeasance in connection with date delinking.

It is not right that ArbCom later goes in and uses a far more critical litmus test for determining who is good editor and who is a bad editor that “Misplaced Pages needs protection from” than was ever required of editors during the debate. The debate on WT:MOSNUM has developed a direct, “gloves-off” style where admins who frequented the associated venues didn’t see a need for a block. So it seems wrong for ArbCom to later employ a 50-power retrospectoscope, review months-old, cherry-picked “evidence” slung about by one’s adversaries, and come back not with an appropriate-length first block to wake up an editor and correct his or her behavior, but to instead issue months-long and even indefinite restrictions on a broad range of issues. Such ArbCom actions have a chilling effect, is harmful to the mood of the community, and lessens respect for Misplaced Pages’s institutions.

If administrators didn’t once step in to protect Misplaced Pages from me in connection with the date de-linking debate, then perhaps Jimbo, ArbCom, and the Bureaucrats need to huddle and think about how to modify the behavior of administrators so they start enforcing the standard of conduct ArbCom thinks is befitting Misplaced Pages (or better yet: what the community thinks is befitting). It is simply not right that there be two standards: one that passes for months or years with administrators who are right there watching it all and see no reason to block an editor, and yet another that ArbCom thinks ought to be the gold standard of civility—but only after a metric ton of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Greg L (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. Having slept on the above post, I realize I should add some important points that speak to ArbCom’s thankless job and what I need to do from hereon.

  I certainly have the capacity to learn; I seldom make the same mistake twice. During the course of the date de-linking debate, I had been taken to WQA with charges of incivility. The consensus of that WQA was that the allegations were being blown out of all proportion and it was all just a “content dispute.” So nothing came of it. I am still relatively new to Misplaced Pages. Between this experience and the fact that no administrator ever felt the need to once block me for incivility regarding date linking (and there was a fair-minded administrator who shepherded WT:MOSNUM), I perceived that there was nothing wrong with my conduct on that issue.

  I can certainly see that ArbCom has an utterly thankless job of trying to keep Misplaced Pages, which is a purely collaborative writing environment, from decaying into a morass of uncivil bickering. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Osama bin Laden himself was POV‑pushing on 9/11 attacks and you gave him an indefinite ban from the article, you would be severely criticized from some quarters.

  I had gotten swept up in the wikidrama of the debate for a few months and allowed myself to assume the worst of intentions from the opponents. I promise to not allow that to happen again. Greg L (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• P.P.S. I have nothing further to say on this subject, Newyorkbrad. I want to go back to the unencumbered editing of science-related articles and contributing to science-related discussions on WT:MOSNUM. I have no stomach whatsoever for the backdoor quid pro quo politicking and back-scratching that can be at times helpful for editors in situations like this. Misplaced Pages is as much a social experience for deeply entrenched editors as it is an encyclopedia to which one can contribute. I am interested in the latter part, and hope to never get so entrenched that I can pretend to fully fathom the former. You simply have my pledge that I will be at all times civil. I am done with my editing my appeal here. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

I think that Greg will acknowledge that administrators would be wrong to block an editor with whom they are involved in conflict, so failure of those admins to block him needs to be taken in context. Nevertheless, at some point ArbCom will need to revisit the indefinite topic bans. Greg has now made a pledge not to allow himself to be caught up in drama in future, so it is pertinent to ask what sort of evidence of good behaviour, over what timeframe, might ArbCom require to rescind the indefinite topic ban? With that in mind - and considering all of the other parties who received indefinite sanctions - would the arbitrators be minded to at least reduce the breadth of some of the sanctions to areas directly related to date-delinking? If affected editors are unable to participate in a relatively normal way, it may be difficult for them to demonstrate the desired modifications to behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Motion

Brad has suggested a very reasonable amendment that should meet many of the concerns raised here, but I find it disappointing when arbitrators vote without indicating any reason. There seems be little in the "Arbitrator discussion" section that helps the reader to understand. I do appreciate that arbitrators are busy, but I would hope that the spirit of WP:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency should encourage them to be a little more forthcoming. Indeed, an understanding of the rationale behind a decision goes a long way towards avoiding repetitive requests. Again, I am grateful to Brad for indicating a timescale before further requests for amendment may be made, but I would still be interested to learn what period ought to be observed before the indefinite topic bans might be reconsidered? --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dabomb87

Like most editors, Greg deserves a second chance. He has valuable knowledge on scientific topics, on which discussions frequently arise on MOS talk pages. I will remind ArbCom that unlike other parties of the case, Greg did not engage in mainspace edit warring over date links, so the restriction on mainspace editing is a little strange. On a more practical level, I think there are two choices WRT amendments: 1) For all editors restricted from certain discussions, the scope of the restrictions is reduced to date linking/autoformatting, broadly interepreted; or 2) Greg's (also applying to other editors who are similarly restricted) topic ban is given a cut-off point, and from then on, he is put on a 0/1RR for the guidelines themselves and put on some sort of parole (not necessarily related to civility) for discussion pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1

Per RexxS and Dabomb87. Tony (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

Support what's been written above. Why are no arbs responding to this? And why has the motion below (relating to the same case, and apparently uncontroversial) still not been passed? --Kotniski (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Making a statement here partially to explain my recusal, and partly to comment (as an editor and admin, not an arbitrator) on the proposed amendments. Part of the reason for my recusal was because I have participated at Manual of Style talk pages in the past (though not extensively so), and am intending to do so again in the future (or as the need arises). The other part of the reason for my recusal was interactions with some of the parties to the case, so I want to keep my comments here as general as possible. But I will be frank here and state that part of the reason I disengaged from one of my forays into the Manual of Style pages was the reception I got. It is possible that I arrived at the wrong time, when tensions were running high, and I was just on the receiving end of a backlash. But the intensity of some of the feelings being expressed still surprised me, and I had little motivation to go back. Ever since then, I've been wondering how many other editors had the same experience that I had? I should have stated this on the case pages while it was open, but decided not to do so, as the evidence being presented and the outcome was (at first glance) adequate. However, now that it is being proposed that some of the restrictions be relaxed, I would like to ask (again, as a fellow editor and admin, not an arbitrator) that those parties who return to activity in some of these areas to please not let things get to the stage again where the environment becomes off-putting to editors (both experienced and new) who arrive at the talk pages of the Manual of Style. I might not have time to participate there, but I would hope that anyone who did would find that the atmosphere was a lot more welcoming and less acrimonious. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Further points

In addition to the above, I'd also like to ask if the arbitration committee could clarify a few points about this amendment.

• (1) Could there be a list of all the remedies and parties this proposed amendment applies to, and could they all be notified? For reference, there were 32 remedies. I think the only ones the proposal does not apply to are: the one that has already been amended (for User:John), the Arthur Rubin admonishment, the Locke Cole ban, the Kotniski reminder, the The Rambling Man admonishment, the Ohconfucius limitation to one account, the Ohconfucius automation limitation, the Lightmouse restriction to one account, the Lightmouse automation prohibition, the Lightmouse ban, the Date delinking bots remedy, and the "mass date delinking is restricted for six months" remedy. That is 12 remedies, leaving the other twenty (20) remedies that this amendment would affect, and which concern sixteen (16) users. I really do think it would be clearer what is happening here if the new and old remedies were written out side-by-side for each party (one of the remedies expires in about a month, for example).
• (2) The proposal states that "all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision" were considered. There are five such appeals (excluding this one) listed on the talk page of the case. I believe that all except one have been addressed by this proposal. Brad, can I ask if you re-considered the ban appeal made on behalf of Locke Cole and decided not to include that in this proposal?
• (3) On re-reading the decision, I noticed "Stability review 3.1) If the Manual of style has not stabilised within three months after the close of the case, the committee will open a review of the conduct of the parties engaged in this battle and hand out permanent MOS bans to any parties who have actively prevented the manual of style stabilising on a version that has broad community consensus." - are there any plans to reset the date for this assessment for stability in light of the proposed relaxation of restrictions? Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Update

• As there has been some confusion, I thought explicitly providing the new wording for each remedy that changes are being proposed for would help. I did a draft here. That is an unofficial page, not approved by any active arbitrators. I do hope, though, that it helps clear up some of the confusion. As far as I can see, Tony1's restrictions are not increasing. I do think it would be polite for a clerk to contact all 16 of the users who are affected by this proposed amendment, though two of them are currently banned. Would there be any objection if I asked a clerk to contact all the users affected by this amendment, or did so myself? Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Notifications

• Actually, I've looked into the issue of notifications of the users affected by this proposed amendment, and it is more complicated than it seems (for various reasons). I've sent an e-mail to the arbitration committee with details, as it is not my place to sort out how these notifications should be handled. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuing failure to notify

• By my count, only 5 of the 16 editors the proposed amendment would affect have commented here - the presumption being that the other 11 have not been notified (or have left Misplaced Pages or are serving a ban). Despite my requests above for notification to be given to these other editors involved, and an e-mail sent Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:20 PM (BST) to the arbitration committee, titled "Lack of notification in date delinking case", nothing further has been done on this. Given that the proposed amendment will restrict further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, and given that one of the editors involved left me a note here, to which I replied here, can I ask that the Arbitration Committee or its clerks please notify the other editors involved as a matter of urgency? It is not right to propose and vote on an amendment without notifying those who it will affect. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Notifications have been made

• Many thanks for making the suggested notifications. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis (Pmanderson)

Carcharoth said:

But I will be frank here and state that part of the reason I disengaged from one of my forays into the Manual of Style pages was the reception I got. It is possible that I arrived at the wrong time, when tensions were running high, and I was just on the receiving end of a backlash. But the intensity of some of the feelings being expressed still surprised me, and I had little motivation to go back. Ever since then, I've been wondering how many other editors had the same experience that I had?

MoS is always like that; that's why I supported, and support, civility restrictions; and why I am not planning to return for a while, even if this amendment passes. The worst offenders in this regard were not all involved in the date delinking debacle, but Tony (see my evidence in the original case), Ohconfucius (compare his behavior on the date delinking workshop page), and Greg L (see WT:MOSNUM archives) have been among the worst. To be fair, when I was asked to look at a question on WT:MOS, what I saw of Tony's behavior had markedly improved; he does not appear to have discussed his feces in the last few months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Upon consideration, this appears to be endemic at MOS; someone comes up with a protest that it does not (usefully) describe English, and this is normally met with ridicule and revert-warring. For example, it was protected for two months, after the conclusion of WP:ARBDATE, because of the persistent edit-warring over "logical" punctuation - most of the date warriors were therefore uninvolved in this one.
• One cause of this disregard is the number of people who edit it without, for example, recognizing the English subjunctive (see this edit and edit summary); but there is a clear cultural problem.
• I would therefore suggest an admin be requested to watch the MOS pages without involving himself (Carcharoth was missed during the delinking case), but empowered to impose mandatory mediation when such things occur (anybody who declines mediation could, for example, be banned from MOS and its talk pages for a month, while the rest work it out). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

On the whole, however, I support this amendment - if only because I have been asked unrelated MOS questions in the interval, and would like to be able to respond to them there. More Arbitrators voting on this (even if they must decline to amend, with reasons) would be a service. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you; please let us know if the present majority puts the amendment into effect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • From my experience with other requests, it doesn't go into effect until the motion is closed and enacted and announced at WP:AC/N and the case pages updated and the editors informed on their talk pages that their restrictions have changed (I hope that last step is still done for all motions that pass - just the initial notification is not sufficient in my view). The delay at the moment will be to allow other arbitrators time to vote. At some point, a clerk should make a note on the motion saying that it will be closed in x hours, and it will then be closed and enacted at that point. In other words, I'd advise patience for the paperwork to be done. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Question by HJensen

Thanks for the notification about this motion. As I mentioned in my own, failed, amendment case, I never understod why I should be punished at all. I will probably never receive an explanation (it didn't help as the case was archived two days after Carcharoth solicited inputs from fellow arbitrators=. Nevertheless, now the restriction moves away from something completely tautological to something very specific (still, it is a punishment which I am very unhappy to receive). A specific question occurred to me. Will an edit like this be prohibited, as it involves unlinking of dates? --HJensen, talk 07:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Which date did you delink?
• Did you revert in the process? (i.e. was it unlinked originally?)
  • If not, you should be fine, according to Carcharoth's wording (which seems clearly the effect of the amendment on you) - although if it's the change it looks like, {{cite news}} is probably better for ESPN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I now see that my example is both bad and great. Bad because seen today, the cite templates work in a way where "accessdate = 2007-04-30" does NOT result in a blue-linked date anymore. But when I made the edit it did, so by changing towards "30 April", I effectively delinked the date (here with the purpose of making the date format consistent within the article). The example, on the other hand, is great, as it shows that how one acted one year can look completely different another year, making much of the history digging conducted here of dubious use. For example, the few instances I delinked some dates, were at the particular time I did them (around September 2008) in full accordance with the prevailing Maunal of Style. But viewed in a February 2009 optic by some (well, one), they could suddenly be framed up as part of some big "tag-team edit warring scheme" leading to an ArbCom ruling. Interesting, but also quite scary. In any case, I don't think I reverted anybody in the process. (PS: Yes, the cite web versus cite news was not entirely consistent there....).--HJensen, talk 20:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a shock when people first realise that the use of transcluded templates that change later can severely invalidate what past versions of pages are showing. Maybe one day the software will be clever enough to load the version of the template (or transcluded page) that was present when the page version in question was saved, but even then there are problems. Renames, for example, of both editors and pages, can confuse things tremendously, as can fiddling with redirects. Hopefully most people checking evidence are aware of this, but it can be easily forgotten. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm responding here to be sure that HJensen will see it. Yes, I know the usual rules about threaded discussion on this page; I also know that the format of our new requests for amendment template is making it impossible to find anything (we need to fix that). ¶ HJensen, I think you are aware from the /Proposed decision page of the original case (and I believe from my comment on your amendment request as well) that I opposed both the finding and the remedy against you as unwarranted and excessive. If other arbitrators were to agree with that position, then I would be glad to move to vacate the remedy against you in toto. However, unless other arbitrators have changed their view, there is little value to my offering a motion only to have the original decision reaffirmed. ¶ My best suggestion is that you abide by the suggestion offered in the amendment proposal that further requests for amendment may be filed in a few weeks. I know that this is an imperfect resolution for you, but the fact remains that my take on the case was a minority view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your input! I appreciate your current and previous position on my case a lot. I know that yours was a minority view ex post, but as I state in my essay, I experienced the original voting process as very flawed; e.g., the Arbitrator who handled the case presented new evidence (in my favor) along the way leading to a new, "last minute", motion where I was "only" restricted for three months. Only a few saw that or even voted on it (for or against). Also, it was peculiar to experience that my request for amendment was only looked upon by four arbitrators. Forgive me for getting the impression that the majority of arbitrators just vote summarly on a case, and then never look back. --HJensen, talk 05:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sub statement by Mattisse

HJensen is a fine editor with whom I worked over a period of time, specifically on his FA Frank Zappa, a much vandalised article. At no time did I ever see him edit war, or even be impolite, and never when the circumstances were trying. It shakes my faith greatly that he was included in this remedy for a matter in which some editors did behave egregiously. I do not think he was involved in arguing about style change issues or would edit war over MOS principles. Please right this wrong. I do not think any editing restrictions are justified in his case. He has basically not edited since this ArbCon ruling. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

• Awaiting further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, to clarify for Greg L., I meant that I was awaiting further statements from other editors over the next couple of days after which I will review your appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• In case I don't visit the amendments page for a few days, and motions are posted, please could my colleagues or a clerk mark me as recused in any motions either here or at clarifications, relating to the date delinking case. Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'd like to see input from other users, especially those not involved in the dates edit wars, which went on for years. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion

There are 13 active arbitrators and 3 are recused/abstained in this decision, so a majority is 6.

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";

(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";

(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;

(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

Support:

1. Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   Annotations and clarifications:

   (a) There is no intent by this motion to increase the sanctions against Tony or any other user, and I don't believe the wording as proposed has that effect.

   (b) Carcharoth's chart appears to me to correctly summarize the intent of the motion, and I propose that we treat it as being a valid implementation of the motion as passed (if it passes) unless anyone identifies any specific discrepancies or issues within 72 hours from now.

   (c) I agree with Coren that the intent of the motion is that these editors may resume any non-date-related activities but are to do so while displaying good behavior. If it is called to our attention that any user covered by this motion is replicating the problems of the date delinking dispute in other areas, I'd be open to reinstituting the remedies against him or her. I sincerely hope that nothing like that would become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Wizardman 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
3.  Roger Davies 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Those remedies were drafted broadly to make certain that the dispute, which was long lasting and acrimonious, did not spill in other areas of style. I am not fundamentally opposed to their being focused more tightly, but I should point out that there will be very little patience towards renewed hostilities. — Coren  16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Coren. Risker (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree with Coren. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'll let the other arbs handle this. John Vandenberg 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Recuse

1. But have entered a statement above. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Recused in datedelinking case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Awaiting any modifications by Newyorkbrad prior to voting. Risker (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No further modifications anticipated to this motion at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification?

Does that mean I would no longer be "prohibited from editing policy pages related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page"? I was the only party so restricted. Tony (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this was meant to be picked up in "(or any similar wording)", once I decided to make the wording of the motion generic rather than incorporate a list of usernames. Of course, we'll see what the other arbitrators have to say about my proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To make that second sentence true, can you encourage your fellow arbs to explain the reasons for their votes (particularly any opposes, since the reasons in favour of this change have been set out ad nauseam)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A quick point for overworked arbs: a highly significant technical matter (image sizes) is under consideration at MoS talk. It is not a particularly personal or controversial debate, delightfully. Greg L is covered by the blanket topic ban on styleguide talk pages; yet he has potentiallyl valuable input. He wants to post this, but cannot, and I can hardly post it for him, lest I be guilty of the back-door breaching of a remedy:

"A default for thumbnails of 180 is too small. Also, pictures with less-than-typical aspect ratios (such as twice as wide as tall) end up being way too small. Portrait-orientation pictures tend to be too big. I often have many pictures and they tend to walk all over each other unless I stagger their placements left and right and/or force the size issue. Kilogram uses a mix of thumbnails and forced."

It is frustrating that the project can't benefit from such input, which has absolutely nothing to do with date linking; Greg has already shown (and declared) that he's intent on playing the civility game. Thus, I urge arbs to consider narrowing the ambit of the remedy in question, as embodied in NYBrad's motion, which would focus the remedy on "protecting the project". Tony (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to point out that the motion will result in an increase in the restriction on me. It is very odd that at this stage, without evidence of anything but utter compliance with the remedy that applies to me, that I should be subject to a harsher restriction in any area. Is there evidence of damage or potential damage to the project under Remedy 9.3 that ArbCom decided on for me? 9.3 did not restrict me from discussing any issue, although uniquely I was banned from editing policy and template pages related to article and editing style (as a kind of quid pro quo, I guess). That is, ArbCom decided that I should not be restricted WRT discussing date linking/unlinking. Now, it appears, I will be further restricted by not being able to discuss date linking/unlinking.

It's not that there is much discussion on that topic nowadays, but I have gone out of my way to comply with the remedy and with all policies and guidelines of WP, and a further restriction, without explanation, seems to be arbitrary and unproductive: in what way will the project be protected by banning me from such discussion from August 2009 onwards? I have raised this matter at NYB's talk page, but he is off-wiki until Friday. Tony (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• You're right, Tony. It cannot be right that everyone else's restrictions are becoming fewer and yours are becoming greater when you do not seem to have been doing ANYTHING remotely controversial. I do hope the Arbs take note of that, and modify the amendment accordingly, or perhaps better if another amendment was drafted to cover your particular case. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm misreading, but I don't see how the proposed amendment would impose any new restriction on Tony.--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But, on further reflection, it probably means that Remedy 9.3 ("Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page.") is modified to: "Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates".

In addition, I presume that if this motion passes, the parties may edit, for example, MOSNUM, MoS and WP:LINK except for the parts dealing with "the linking or unlinking of dates"—and that the modified remedy would not involve the whole of those guidelines, just because they partly cover the linking and unlinking of dates.

I would be grateful if both presumptions were confirmed or otherwise. Tony (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, my interpretations of what is being proposed are here (I agree with Kotniski that your restrictions are not increasing). That is totally unofficial, mind you, and you will need to check with Brad and the other arbs who are actually voting on this case, as to whether I'm interpreting the proposed changes correctly, or not. I did notice that you were the only party to have policy mentioned in your restriction, which I thought was a bit strange. My interpretation leaves the word policy in there, and your interpretation removes it. You might want to ask what Brad's intention was there, as there are other possible interpretations as well. I still think the best thing is for Brad to prepare his own page detailing all 20 proposed changes and to check that the wording tallies with what he intended. However, having just spent a long time preparing such a page myself, I can understand why he didn't. It is very tedious. But I do think explicitly writing out the new remedies is needed to avoid confusion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth; I guess "policy" and "template" are the quid pro quo. I await Brad's advice. Tony (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See some comments under my vote on the motion, above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe what Tony is questioning is the wording using the terms "policy" and "template" (he was the only editor so restricted). I suggest Tony file a separate clarification on this issue, either now (to avoid the pending 30 days restriction) or after those 30 days. Unless Brad or others want to clarify it now? Brad, while I'm writing down here, are you able to answer the other questions I had (numbered 2 and 3), and have you had a chance to consider the problems regarding notifications that I raised in that e-mail I sent to the arbitration committee? Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think my clarification that no broadening of restrictions is intended in any case, should be sufficient to address Tony's concern. If you don't think that it is sufficiently clear, please propose a specific modification of the motion. ¶ The motion does not address the situation of Locke Cole. I don't think there is a consensus among the arbitrators to lift his ban at this time, but if any other arbitrators think the matter should be discussed, I'd be happy to look into that request again. ¶ As for item 3, I haven't really focused on that either; perhaps Jayvdb, who wrote the decision, should start discussion on it by providing his input. And I'll look for your thread on the mailing list; as you know, I've been offline this week and am way behind on arb-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. Not your fault, as you were away. The thread is titled "Lack of notification in date delinking case", from about a day ago. Please also note what I have posted here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)