This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tiptoety (talk | contribs) at 15:33, 3 July 2009 (→Motions: Enact motion). 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 for resysopping: User:Coffee

Original ArbCom motion (August 2008)

user:Coffee and user:PeterSymonds, having resigned their administrator status while under scrutiny when their accounts were compromised, may regain their status either through the usual RFA process, or by application to ArbCom, at each editor's own discretion (link).

Comment

By email, Coffee has requested reinstatement of his administrator privileges in accordance with the Arbitration Committee's previous motion.  Roger Davies 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion

That Coffee be resysopped.

Comments and discussion

Brief statements may be made here that directly address the proposal.

Statement by Xeno

PeterSymond's re-RFA nearly broached WP:200 and had less than 8% opposition. While I don't know if the community feels the same way about these two, clearly we were willing to forgive the temporary lapse in judgment on Peter's part, I would hazard a guess the same is true here. –xeno 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jennavecia

The shared offense between Peter and Chet is that they both gave out their passwords to someone else. As Xeno noted, PeterSymonds was clearly forgiven by the community, and I see no reason why Chet would not receive the same forgiveness. He was 16 at the time and made a mistake. He's now 17 and has just completed Basic Military Training for the United States Air Force. Those in the Arbitration Committee are aware of the things Chet has been through during the past year, and I think most would agree that there is reason to believe that the above has lead to a forced increase in maturity. For those reasons, I urge the committee to return Chet his admin bit. لennavecia 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

@Cool Hand Luke: "Limping" isn't really what I'd use to label an RFA that passed at ~85%. I mean, would you say your own RFA "limped into passing" at ~84% with 16-3-1? I believe we should be considering his admin actions, rather than basing anything off of his RFA. If there are any questionable uses of the bit or other instances of admin abuse, by all means, point them out. لennavecia 20:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the original announcement made by Arbitrator Deskana on AN/I wherein he stated (emphasis mine):

All parties made a full admission of fact, and both Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have already voluntarily resigned their adminships. Given the information above, it is clear Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have retired "under a cloud", and as such, should only have their administrator access granted again via application to the Arbitration Committee.

Statement by AGK

Roger writes, "I am interested in learning the view of the community". I think that could be best accomplished by a Request for adminship. Coffee should find a nominator or two and file one. AGK 18:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A remark, partly in response to John: As it seems that there are factors affecting this application that are not suitable for public discussion, I will refrain from filing further suggestions that an RfA be filed. With respect to the motion itself, I am minded to say that the most appropriate outcome would be to resysop Coffee. Coffee has acquired a great deal of sense since the Steve Crossin incident in 2008, and I am minded to say that restoring his sysop tools would be beneficial to the project. His conduct during the incident, the immediate aftermath, and the months that followed was certainly admirable. With Peter resysopped and Steve unbanned, resysopping Coffee would have the added benefit (or perhaps novelty) of conclusively resolving this matter—which, sadly, we observe quite rarely on this project. AGK 00:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MZMcBride

The original decision to remove Peter's and Chet's rights was flawed. That said, I agree with AGK above. Chet has been absent from the project for quite some time (understandably). However, Chet was never a particularly controversial figure and I don't believe that, in a month or two, he would have any issue re-passing RFA. I, of course, say this as someone who is a fair bit more controversial and may face RFA again myself at some point down the road. For whatever that's worth. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Blacketer

MZMcBride is mistaken; Coffee resigned his adminship voluntarily, although it is probable that the committee in August 2008 would have removed them anyway had he not done so. However his was far more a momentary mistake than even Peter Symonds' actions were and Peter is now once again an exemplary admin. Personally I would urge the committee to consider restoring Coffee's admin status itself; I would certainly strongly support him in an RFA. The one thing that I would say to Coffee is that he might want to try editing for up to a month until he is up to speed with things again before doing anything other than routine admin actions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Peter and Chet both made a serious mistake which they are unlikely to ever repeat. Have had extensive conversations with all three parties, principally because before the password issue arose I had collaborated on content with Steve toward his triple crown drive. Both Peter and Chet have learned from the mistake. Would support Coffee in whatever venue he chose to pursue resysopping. Durova 21:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Per SoWhy, there is no reason that Peter's decision to seek resysopping from the community should be construed as a precedent to deny a venue that was specifically offered to Coffee when he resigned his bit. When the Committee makes a commitment to consider resysopping by direct application, the Committee binds itself to honor that commitment by considering the request on its own merits without reference to tangential factors. Durova 18:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Maxim

I participate in the arbitration process exceedingly rarely, yet I feel compelled to comment here. As Sam says above, Chet's mistake was far less grave than Peter's was—Chet was quite uncomfortable with this arrangement, and his account, though compromised, was not actually used for more than a protection (according to Steve's statement on AN at the time the incident was announced there), unlike what happened with Peter (numerous actions), and in Peter's case, his mistake was resoundingly forgiven by the Community. Coupled with Jennavecia's points—she obviously knows Chet reasonably quite well—there is a clear case here for an automatic resysoping or allowing Chet to request resysoping to a bureaucrat, bypassing RfA, at his will. Maxim_(talk) 21:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by FT2

(Breaking a wikibreak to comment) I remember thinking at the time this happened, that Coffee had shown a maturity and behavior of a high standard in facing and recognizing his mistake, and I formed the impression his regret was very genuine and he was mentally "kicking himself" in a very real way for the lapse. I think the trust by the community meant a lot to him and it struck me that was what he felt the most - that he had let others down who trusted him, more than the personal loss.

I could be mistaken and it's in part reading between the lines (I'm on wikibreak and won't be looking back at my notes at the time of that case) but my thought at the time was that of the three users in the case, Coffee greatly merited a chance (based on his part in the case and attitudes after it) to have his adminship regranted. His sincerity and regret came across as very real in his communications even at the time. It was a lapse, and I suspect he may have learned from it. At worst, "from memory" moral support. Less concerned whether this is via Arbcom amendment or RFA however. I would hope the two would coincide.

(Will defer however to others who know his conduct since the case better, or want to correct me on any of these impressions - I'm going back to impressions and thoughts from last fall, and I haven't had any knowledge of Coffee's conduct, actions or statements since.)

FT2  21:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy

One might rightfully think that Coffee should go through RFA just the same way Peter did to regain the tools and that the community will regrant the tools if they indeed have forgiven him. But I think it might not be needed in this case. The Committee has ruled that both editors may choose whether they want to apply to the Committee or to re-RFA and Coffee chose to apply here. As such, he just did what ArbCom has allowed him to do and the Committee can or at least should not reject the request just because Peter went for RFA. Instead, ArbCom should ignore Peter's actions and just decide the simple question whether they think Coffee has learned from that mistake and whether he will make such mistakes again. If they think he did learn from it, adminship should be restored by the Committee. Regards SoWhy 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Balloonman

I know that there are several members of the current ArbCOM group who are opposed to temporary desysoppings, but I am personally in favor of them. I think it should be easier to move into adminship and out of it... and then back into it. Under the current system, the bit is too hard to remove and people generally fight to keep it because once it is gone it is gone. I am not overly familiar with Coffee's history, but I trust the people who are speaking up. I also think that anything we can do to make it easier to move in and out of adminship is a plus. Thus, I support restoring the bit... although, I would echo some comments above that Coffee may want to take it slow while regaining his wikifeet.---Balloonman 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Cool Hand Luke below: I appreciate your wanting to have Coffee undergo an RfA, but the committee's basis for making that a requirement was relinquished in August. The original ruling was that Coffee had two options that were up to him. He has chosen this option. As that option was afforded to him by the committee, then the committee needs to consider it. Changing the rules now would be unfair.---Balloonman 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Steve Crossin

I'll keep what I want to say to a bare minimum. Three editors made mistakes in this incident in August, but I was the major offender and instigator. The community, for the most part, has forgiven me, so I don't see a reason why the community hasn't forgiven Chet. I agree with what AGK has said above, re-sysopping Chet would close this horrible mess. I wouldn't want Chet to have to go through RFA again because of me. The transgression was mine, and he shouldn't have to pay for it. I would urge the committee to reinstate Chet's adminship. Sincerely, Steve Crossin 21:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment: I am interested in learning the view of the community.  Roger Davies 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm strongly leaning toward returning User:Coffee's tools given the particular circumstances. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• User should pass an RFA. PeterSymonds is a different user, and both users should be treated equally. I note that Coffee's original RFA limped into passing 29-5-5, while Peter's sailed through 100-0-1. It's possible that the severe lapse of judgment shown by this episode in combination with other issues would make the community uneasy about restoring administrative access. The best way to gauge this is through an actual RFA. I would seek community input in that forum rather than the small subset of editors at RFAR. Oppose automatic resysop. Cool Hand Luke 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • We aren't doing an automatic re-sysopping him. We are inviting Community comment about returning the tools to him. I'm disappointed that the focus of the discussion by several people is about process. If RFA's are a discussion not a vote, I see no reason that a discussion can't be held here. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a motion to return his bit. I believe that we correctly gave the wider community an opportunity to weigh in with PeterSymonds, and I do not support a motion to bypass this step. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, I didn't explain what I was thinking here. It was argued that PeterSymonds passed his restoral RFA handsomely so that the community had forgiven him for the incident. My only point here is that he passed by a remarkable margin to begin with, so that we should not assume that his restoral says anything about how a hypothetical Coffee RFA would turn out. I doubt that it would pass, in fact. But I now see that this is irrelevant; Coffee is not asking for us to bypass an RFA and imitate its results—he's taking the path that PeterSymonds did not, so none of the RFAs seem particularly relevant. I still can't bring myself to support because I think this was a truly shocking lapse in judgment, but I hope that he productively resumes administrative work. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• In view of all the circumstances, not all of which are suited for discussion on-wiki, I would grant this application. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• I am strongly of the opinion that the committee should resysop Coffee, so I am most interested in hearing reasons why he would be unsuitable as a sysop. John Vandenberg 23:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Quite simply, community consensus is achieved by a Request for Adminship. Either we resysop him or we don't. I am in two minds about this and agree with Brad in that there are ameliorating factors not really suitable for discussion on-wiki. My own feeling is that as we are (hopefully) pushing a more fluid boundary between adminship and non-adminship, then returning the tools and acknowledging that if problems recur there will be a review (like all admins) is feasible. I am not sure the community is at that stage yet. If we lead by example, then I (marginally) support a resysop, but am not averse to an RFA - which in many ways would be more conclusive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Motions

As there are presently 14 active arbitrators, a majority is 8.

Motion One

Motion enacted - Tiptoety 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Coffee's administrator privileges are restored, effective immediately. He is reminded to abide by all policies and guidelines governing the conduct of administrators.

Support:

1. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice. Kirill  14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
3. — Coren  14:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. If there was anyone giving a reason for us to think twice about giving them back I would wait for more comments or sent this to RFA. But just as I suspected, the Community has moved on, and his temporary lapse in judgment is not a concern any longer. No other reason for not granting the return of the tools have been given, so I support us resysopping him. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
5. John Vandenberg 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
8. He's applied to us, as the old motion suggests, and it looks like we have accepted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
9. bainer (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
10. --Vassyana (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Reasoning similar to SoWhy's convinces me not to hotly oppose this. I don't think that PeterSymonds' RFA is a useful reference point; no conclusion can be drawn from it except that a broad cross-section supported giving the bit to PeterSymonds. This should be decided on the merits of this user, who has not edited since September. Don't let it close too fast. Contra FloNight, RFAR regulars are not the Community. Cool Hand Luke 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC) revised 07:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion Two

Motion mooted - Tiptoety 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee declines to act on Coffee's request for restoration of administrator privileges, but reaffirms that Coffee is welcome to submit a new request for adminship at any time.

Support:

1. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Cool Hand Luke 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice (but moot now anyway). I do think RfA is makes for a less ambiguous method of community approval but for several reasons am happy to do it as per motion 1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This is the status quo; I see no need to pass an explicit motion merely to restate it. Kirill  14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Disagree since I support us giving them back. And he could do it anyway if we said no, so the reaffirmation is not needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
3. John Vandenberg 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Kirill.  Roger Davies 15:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Kirill. Risker (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (4)

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

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

Statement by Colonies Chris

Firstly, I acknowledge my lack of wisdom in becoming embroiled (along with many others) in a battle with one specific editor (User:Tennis expert. I accept entirely that however troublesome the editor, this was the wrong way to handle the dispute, and I apologise for my actions. However, it is a long way from this one incident to the unjustifiable FoF that I "extensively edit warred"; I have not been involved in any dispute except in this specific incident. And the restriction placed on me is entirely unnecessary - I have been a gnoming editor for more than four years, with over 70,000 edits. I have no record of conflict before this occasion nor subsequently, nor with any other editor.

Secondly, in the course of this case, my edits were three times brought to admins' attention as possible breaches of the mass delinking injunction. Twice an admin agreed, once an admin disagreed that I was in violation, despite all the edits being of the same nature - delinking in the course of other gnoming edits. The original statement by Arb John Vandenberg, and recent clarifications by other Arbs, must surely have established that my actions were definitely not in violation of the injunction. I have asked for specific clarification on the case's talk page, but none has been forthcoming. I have to conclude that the Arbs are staying silent because they are neither willing to endorse these blocks nor to admit they were inappropriate. (And I'd like to point out that none of these delinkings have proved controversial - not a single one of them has been relinked or even questioned).

Thirdly, I want to endorse Kotniski's comments below about User:HJensen and User:John, two valuable editors who were only ever on the outermost periphery of this dispute and who have been driven away by their unjust treatment in this case. Their cases should be reviewed immediately to remedy the injustice done to them. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana

First of all, waving around terms of abuse like 'tag-team edit warring' is not helpful or relevant – that phrase describes a situation when a group of editors gang up to push their POV on a controversial topic (such as Scientology or Ireland, for example). This is not that sort of case. The community's view on date links has been clearly expressed in multiple RFCs. It's not a POV issue.

Secondly, the community has repeatedly expressed the view that the vast majority of date links are valueless and the current unlinking RFC looks to be heading for an overwhelming vote of support for automated delinking, without human oversight of the type Vassyana deems so important. The community understands that (a) most date links were made as a side effect of date autoformatting, not as a deliberate decision to create a link, and (b) there is no obvious way for any editor, human or bot, to tell whether an earlier editor linked a particular date for a non-autoformatting reason, so arguing about the value of human oversight is pretty pointless. It is quite wrong of you to misrepresent those observations as a wanton disregard for the value of human oversight.

Reply to Vassyana (2)

Please provide diffs for your assertion that I expressed a position "dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests". Colonies Chris (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana (3)

I am astounded and baffled that these diffs are being claimed as evidence of a position "dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests". As I've already pointed out, most date links were made without human oversight, as a part of routinely linking dates for autoformatting, or by imitation, and no-one has suggested any means to distinguish them from links made with deliberate intention. Stating this is not dismissing the value of human oversight, it's a simple recognition that we can't read the minds of previous editors (there is almost never any discussion about such links on the article's talk page). And the growing community support for the proposed bot to unlink all autoformatted dates confirms that the community shares this view. Do you propose to sanction on the same grounds all the people who !vote 'Support' for the bot? And it's ridiculous to characterise my annoyance at Tennis expert's continual gaming the system to maintain his iron grip over the tennis articles (751 reverts, remember, claiming a 'local consensus' that was supported by no other editor and actively opposed by several regular tennis editors) as 'dismissive of concerns'. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg / Newyorkbrad

John Vandenberg has clearly looked very closely at edit histories to discover eight articles where I made one unlinking edit seven months ago. I find it interesting that while claiming these edits as evidence of "extensive edit warring", he has somehow overlooked the five relinkings made in that period by User:Lumos3 to Karl Popper, the seven relinkings made by the same user to Andrea Villarreal, the five relinking edits he made to Rudolf Steiner, the six relinkings to Gabriel Fauré, the four relinkings to William Cobbett, the five relinkings to Angéle de la Barthe, the seven relinkings to Josephine Kablick and the three relinkings to Carol Gould; and he also fails to mention the non-date-related improvements that I made to most of those articles. John Vandenberg has been very keen to chase down and punish everyone who has done any delinking, condemning and driving away valuable editors such as User:HJensen and User:John, but serial relinkers escape his censure even when they're right under his nose. This doesn't look like evenhanded justice to me.

And finally, I'll reiterate the point that sanctions are supposed to be for the protection of Misplaced Pages, not a punishment. Does any Arb really believe that if I were unrestrained I would be out there edit warring all over the place? I agree with Coren that the restriction is not onerous, but neither is it necessary. The whole issue is about to be put to bed by a bot (to the clearly expressed relief of many of the !voters in the RFC), and once again I'll point out that I have no record of any conflict whatever on any other subject. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg (2)

You noted the existence of Lumos3's seven reverts to Karl Popper here on 11 May. It is not credible that you 'did not have time' to add that user to the case. This was and is clearly a one-sided witch hunt against unlinkers on your part. It was Lumos3's judgment that some of the links were useful. It was my judgment, and the judgment of many other editors, that none were. You have decided that that judgment is not acceptable because it doesn't conform to your prejudices. Your statement above that 'it is incredibly difficult to find cases of edit warring by the delinkers' betrays that - clearly you have only been looking for cases of edit warring by delinkers and not by re-linkers. (And please note, the summaries of the unlinking edits, as you have yourself stated only two paragraphs above, also mentioned the MoS, with which all unlinking edits were in conformance.) Colonies Chris (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg (3)

Your claim that the unlinkings were not discussed is false. There was a lengthy discussion with User:Lumos3 on his talk page here. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg (4)

I suggest you reread that discussion yourself. It started off couched in general MoS terms, and then moved on to discussing specific dates in that article. Here are three clips illustrating: the start of the discussion, in general terms: a later specific question (which was only answered in general terms): and another later intervention pointing that out.

Hey Lumos3, I noticed that you've been date linking years on articles. This form of linking is strongly discouraged, per WP:OVERLINK#Dates, as is the old 1 January 2000 style links, per MOS:UNLINKDATES. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you specifically say how the articles at 17 April and at 1622 enhance the reader's understanding of Richard Hawkins? Can you provide evidence that this is the case, or is it just your own opinion? Failing that, per WP:CONTEXT, these should not be linked. This benefits Misplaced Pages by focusing the reader's attention on links which actually go somewhere useful, as described in the guideline I already linked you to. If you are unable to properly answer the questions above, I think you should undo your edit, unless of course you were doing it just to make a WP:POINT, which I'm sure isn't true. --John (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John. Lumos3, your recent edit summaries are saying "Misplaced Pages's policy is to link significant dates. Birth and death in a biography are significant". That is not what WP's policy says at all. It says: "Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic". If knowing what other events also happened in the year or on the date the subject was born or died is necessary to deepen readers' understanding of the subject, then those events should be, and usually are, discussed in the article itself. Those who are interested merely in "On This Day"-type information can get it independently. This is the only rationale you've provided for linking vital dates, and it does not demonstrate a deeper understanding of the topic. I suggest you need to refrain from re-linking dates that have been de-linked, unless, in any particular case, you can find a better reason than the "On This Day" argument. Such an argument would apply only to the subject at hand, and not as a blanket argument to link all vital dates in all articles. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And please note also that the initial objection to Lumos3's relinkings did not originate from any of the delinkers who have been in the dock in the current case, and the objection was supported by a second editor unconnected to that group. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

I am going to recuse on these date delinking amendment requests, however I do want to make sure that appeals don't ignore the evidence provided on the FoF, such as Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Karl_Popper, where Colonies Chris enters an existing edit-war that has nothing to do with Tennis expert.

There were eight sequential edits like that. Here is another one of those eight in context.

John Vandenberg 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

fwiw, it is incredibly difficult to find cases of edit warring by the delinkers, because they used the very helpful "script-assisted date/terms audit; see mosnum, wp:overlink" when reverting. Every time I go looking for more edit-warring, I find more.

Of course it would be helpful if the parties actually mentioned the edit-wars they were involved in. Nobody bothered to mention Lumos3 in the evidence, or workshop. Doing that would have resulting in their own edit warring being more visible. As a result, I included the edit wars with Lumos3 to demonstrate that there was tag-teaming edit warring between the main parties involved in this case, outside of the tennis articles.

I have since found more evidence that Lumos3 did edit-war extensively, and I do wish I had time to add that user as a party.

However it should be noted that Lumos3 was not relinking everything, or doing blind reverts. Lumos3 considered some dates to be significant, and linked those, and cited the MOS in the edit summary. John Vandenberg 00:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Kotniski, you appear to be attacking the messenger. I was just trying to do my job well, and sure didn't enjoy it, nor was I seeking any outcome. I spent the time investigating this case in order to understand the problem, as it developed, because the picture that was being given by both parties was extremely unhelpful in doing that. Accurate findings of fact that would otherwise be missed are now on the record as a summary of what caused this mess, and hopefully prevent it happening in other similar style debates. The remedies flow from those findings. I did not support many of the stronger remedies, so you have the wrong guy to label as the person seeking to "punish" anyone. p.s. we have project pages that describe tag-team edit warring. John Vandenberg 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris, my evidence (started on May 8, after the draft PD was posted on April 30) was added in order to add more background to the tennis wars. After the draft was posted, there were many unfounded allegations that I had a COI and should recuse, to the tune of 1 million dollars by Tony1, which significantly affected my ability to follow up all interesting edits and investigate everyone. Here are two of the times that Tony1 put the case on hold on specious grounds and without being forthcoming about the evidence he allegedly had, or obtaining a second opinion before making a scene about it: 1, 2.

I primarily investigated people who were already parties, and predominately those involved in the tennis wars. While doing that, I found a two or three non-tennis skirmishes. which were examples of tag team edit warring. The one you were involved in was Karl Popper.

In that dispute, Luoms3 partially reverted, relinking only dates which he believed were compliant with the MOS at that time, because he considered them to be significant. You might consider them insignificant, and remove them, but you did not discuss them, and didnt even use the edit summary to indicate your position. WP:BRD didn't happen here. Instead we see someone else arrive and delink them again, with the same bland edit summary. 10 times this happens on Karl Popper. And this happened time after time on the articles where someone believed a date was significant enough to be linked. If you and others had entered into discussions about the significance of the relinked dates, you probably would have won hearts and minds. Edit warring doesn't win hearts and minds; it does not build consensus for a change of the status quo.

Also note that I added user:G-Man as a party at the same time I added user:John, due to the Clement Attlee situation which I added into evidence. I did look into that users contributions, and in light of this perhaps you could revise your "one-sided witch hunt against unlinkers" claim.

I didn't add Lumos3 as a party, as I didnt see significant involvement at the time, because I didn't look into that users contributions. Since that time, John asked me to dig deeper into his involvement, and so it is from his contributions that I became more aware of the involvement of Lumos3. And now looking at your appeal, and by reviewing your contributions, I see Lumos3 again.

There were also date delinkers whose contributions I didn't have time to look into.

The parties who were delinking dates have been the people appealing, and requesting a deeper investigation into their involvement in this dispute. I am explaining that looking for skirmishes in the date delinkers contributions it is made incredibly difficult due to the edit summary "script-assisted date/terms audit; see mosnum, wp:overlink" being used when it should actually be "revert". These reverts are difficult to find because they are in among the thousands of other edits which were not reverts, but also had the same summary. Where the date linkers were involved in disputes, their edit summary makes it very clear that they are reverting, so I have not had the same difficulty. Hence I am complaining about the delinkers edit summaries and not the linkers edit summaries - this doesn't support your theory that I have only been looking at the contributions of one side of the dispute. John Vandenberg 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris, that discussion is mentioned in the evidence section Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Karl_Popper. It is a general discussion, among all the other general discussions being had at that time, such as the RFCs. Please read the general discussion you point to. There is no discussion about the specific links you were edit-warring to remove, citing MOS - no attempt to find a consensus or compromise. This was a reasonably gray area in the MOS at the time, and the RFCs were trying to help clarify that gray area. And yet while those discussions were occurring, you and others were edit warring to enforce the most strict reading of the MOS, and that uncompromising approach is what brought this mess to Arbcom.

Do you feel that your edits were justified? If so, please cite the policy, guideline and/or discussion that underpins your justification, and please link to a version of the page at the time of your edits. John Vandenberg 21:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

I find it disturbing that JV some Arbs apparently view these sanctions as punishment rather than prevention (he will correct me if I've misunderstood, but I can see no other motive for raking over month-old edit histories in a now settled dispute). If we are going to have a penal system on WP (and I hope we're not), then we ought to have at least two basic things (which we should have anyway, for whatever system of sanctions we use): (1) clear and rational rules (e.g. what is "tag-team edit warring"? how else is consensus to be enforced unless people are allowed to revert those who ignore it?); (2) an independent second instance for appeals (which we don't have if ArbCom allows itself to be a court of first instance as it did in this case). On several occasions I've suggested how we might improve the system to prevent this kind of out-of-control mess - I seem to have been ignored. But ArbCom could be really useful if it analysed properly what went wrong and what needs fixing for the future (after all, every ArbCom case represents a failure of the system), instead of concentrating on individuals' past misjudgments and effectively making them scapegoats for the system's imperfections. --Kotniski (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To JV - OK, I withdraw any implication that you are the one seeking punishment, but I still think the analysis should have gone one step back - the problem we need to solve for the future is not that "X has edit warred", "Y has been uncivil", but that "people edit war", "people are uncivil", "admins are not effective at stopping edit warring and incivility when it happens." Why is this? Lack of information or clear rules? Perception that there is no alternative? ...? ...? Imposing sanctions on X and Y are no remedy to these problems (and might well do incidental harm to the project) - talking to X and Y and various other Zs (i.e. the thing you're always telling us to do) might lead us forward.

That's all from me on this page for at least a week - I hope my points will finally be listened to and that some good can come out of this terrible mess (and please get User:John back if you can - his treatment was way off the scale).--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana

Please read what I wrote above - you don't seem to have taken account of it in your latest statement. Firstly, the concern should be not "prior misconduct", but to prevent future disruption. Secondly, it's wrong to cite a list of exceptions to 3RR as if it were a list of exceptions to edit-warring. There is no definition as to where edit-warring begins besides 3RR - it's a question of judgement. If you haven't broken 3RR, then you quite likely haven't edit-warred (or maybe you have - but that can't possibly be an exhaustive list of exceptions, otherwise we wouldn't have 3RR but some other RR). What would be helpful would be not pointless sanctions for particular incidents months ago (even vandals don't get that treatment), but analysis, dialogue, proposals, concrete advice on how to solve this perennial and far from straightforward problem. --Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note by Nathan

A few short points.

• The idea that a decision should not be revisited because its terms are not onerous on those affected has already been discarded by the Committee, most recently in the case of Shoemaker's Holiday.

• It's been said at arbitration hundreds of times, and while it is often discarded by arbitrators, it is nonetheless true that being the subject of even a non-onerous ArbCom remedy is akin to a scarlet letter. If there are errors in those remedies, or credible allegations of such errors, arbitrators should not discard a re-examination out of hand.

• I find it strange to suggest that parties should prove prior remedies asserting poor behavior were in error by demonstrating future good behavior. The facts upon which findings and remedies were previously made are static in history; John and Colonies Chris and others aren't pleading guilty and asking for a reprieve, they are claiming that their actions never warranted remedy. Nathan 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I am not inclined to revist this, especially in light of the presentation of this request. There was significant participation in tag-team edit warring, much of which had nothing to do with Tennis expert. Additionally, discussion participation shows that Colonies Chris took a hard position with an awareness of dissent, supporting full date delinking while rejecting huamn oversight or discretion over (semi-)automated delinking tools (as an example). To blame this broader participation and rejection of common expectations for scripts and bots on a limited conflict with one editor is simply not in accord with the picture provided by the evidence. --Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Our principles on edit-warring only make exceptions for limited and obvious cases (BLP enforcement, copyvios, vandalism, banned users, etc). Even then, they encourage caution and note that even those exceptions may sometimes be seen as controversial or even as edit warring (see here). There was participation in group edit warring. A clear (and hardline) position dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests was expressed. At the time of the reverts, there were quite a number of complaints, dissent, and reasonable requests for accomodation that were not simply from small group of troublemakers (as some would like to portray). The recent bot RfC is a false comparison, as it is purposefully focused and limited. The delinking taking place previously was much broader than the purely full date/autoformatting focus of the new bot. I will note that I am glad that the community is moving towards resolution on the various aspects of date delinking, but that movement should not be misappropriated and misrepresented to excuse prior misconduct. --Vassyana (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• In brief response to Colonies Chris, a couple of examples illustrating my point: --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• In response to Kotniski, this isn't about being punitive. I am basing my responses and opinions on what I perceive as previous trends and the likelihoods going forward. You may note that I oppose a restriction on HJensen and support a restriction that does not prohibit you from discussion. In the case of this editor, I see a variety of issues that prevent me from comfortably loosening the restriction. To boil it down: I see an editor that took a strong position in a dispute, who edit-warred to advance that position and refused to acknowledge the problematic nature of the conduct despite it being clearly explained. The way he held his position, and his comments elaborating upon it, lead me to believe that the conduct is likely to repeat in the same general area. His comments and responses indicated to me that he is dismissive of feedback, both from dissenting views and from administrators (the latter reinforcing my preceding concern). Thus, I am left with a situation where I feel there is a strong possibility of further misconduct with very little possibility that he will heed feedback. I hope this better explains my view of the situation. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've already bloated this quite enough and we're starting to go around in circles, so this will likely be my last reply (barring some significant new point being raised). There's no need to mindread or evaluate intentions in reviewing the suitability of links. As a basic and relevant example, one should be able to distinguish between full date autoformatting links and Year in X links. The assertion that there is no possible way to use human discretion when examining potential overlinking, including date links, is unconvincing. The recent bot RfC is not a valid comparison, as its scope is limited, while previous delinking was much broader. Additionally, comparing orderly consensus building to edit warring with a dismissive attitude towards reasonable concerns is misguided, at best. This attitude was not limited to Tennis expert and neither was the participation in revert warring. --Vassyana (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have a preliminary view on this request (like several of the others that have been made arising from this case), but I'd like to ask Colonies Chris to respond to John Vandenberg's observation before I comment further. I think I know what his response is likely to be, but I want to be sure. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Consistent with my views on other appeals arising from this case, I think our sanction here was too broad and would vacate or modify it. I am not sure precisely how far I would go in scaling back the restriction, or whether I would lift it entirely, but will look into the matter in more detail if other arbitrators express any agreement with my position (failing which the issue is pretty much moot). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren  17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• No action needed by the Committee at this time largely do to the reasons stated by Vassyana and Coren. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior action: Everyking desysopping

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

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

Statement by Everyking

I ask the ArbCom to review its September 2006 decision to remove my adminship. Should that removal be viewed as permanent, or is it reasonable to think that adminship should be restored under certain conditions after the passage of time? On four occasions since then I have been nominated for RfA, and on the last two of those occasions I received roughly two-thirds of the vote, narrowly falling short of the generally accepted minimum; on one of those occasions (August 2008), members of the ArbCom mailing list prominently opposed my candidacy, and on the other occasion (May 2009) the nomination was seriously disrupted by a campaign against me, in which my views and actions were gravely misrepresented. I ask the ArbCom to consider all aspects of the situation to determine whether it would be appropriate to restore my adminship. Everyking (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to the arbitrators, I don't have a lot of ideas, but I would suggest that my adminship could be restored provisionally and that I could go before RfA again after a few weeks or months. Last time, for example, there were concerns that I might go around closing AfDs despite my pledge not to do so. I felt that was an unfair objection, but if I had a provisional period in which to demonstrate that I would do nothing but routine and uncontroversial work, I think people would be less likely to object based on things they suspected I might do as an administrator. Possibly someone can think of another solution that might suit the situation better. Everyking (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

John's suggestion is quite reasonable and agreeable, although I would prefer not to have an arrangement that required me to ever evaluate consensus. I don't like to evaluate consensus, I haven't done it in the past, and I don't want to do it in the future. I only want adminship to perform routine and uncontroversial maintenance tasks, such as dealing with simple vandalism. It would be useless to have me evaluate consensus during my provisional adminship as some kind of test, because I would never do so again if I passed RfA and thus the whole exercise would be pointless. Everyking (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Responding to John: I'm not capable of putting my preferred method aside—that's why I don't want to perform any closes. I could be placed in a position where the politically acceptable option and the personally acceptable option would be in conflict, so I choose to simply avoid all such matters as long as admin discretion continues to dominate Misplaced Pages decision-making. If the ArbCom wanted me to have a temporary mentor, I'd accept that, although I doubt it would be much of a relationship—I have lots of experience fighting vandalism, so there would be no point to mentoring me there, and I have no intention of getting involved in other areas. Everyking (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone privately suggested the following to me, and I think it's a good idea: the ArbCom could impose a restriction on my adminship barring me from ever closing any discussions or evaluating consensus, with the penalty that my adminship would be revoked if I did so. This would surely alleviate the concerns expressed in my last RfA—that I would get through RfA and then break my promise to never close discussions, because there'd be no way to stop me from doing so. If that concern had not been an issue in my last RfA, it would almost certainly have passed, so I think such a restriction would be politically helpful to me, either as part of a provisional adminship or as something that would be applied in the future, if I ever succeed in passing RfA. Everyking (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Risker: I want to do some anti-vandalism work with the block, semi-protect, and delete buttons. Occasionally I would move an article over a redirect if appropriate. I don't envision doing much if anything else, and certainly I would not be closing discussions, blocking established contributors, or doing anything remotely controversial. Everyking (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by hbdragon88

There is precedent for restoring of sysop tools. Carnildo was de-sysopped by the ArbCom during the Pedophilia userbox wheel war case. I do not know if he ever appealed to ArbCom, but he underwent an RFA that closed at 62%. The b'crats promoted him on the belief that the ArbCom de-sysopping was meant to be a temporary measure (although nothing in the PUWW case indicated as such) and reinstated his adminship on a probationary period (see Giano case), with ArbCom reviewing after two months. Again, I do not know what happened when two months were up, but he's still an admin, so he didn't do anything to cause the ArbCom to revoke his tools. If the ArbCom sees fit to do so it could apply the same to Everyking - two months and then RFA or review. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno

In their decision, the committee should speak to the concern that doing administrative work for any length of time often creates situations that can lead to "borderline" RFAs after an ArbCom desysopping. The waters can become muddy. I'm sure it is tough for bureaucrats to utilize their discretion and promote in situations like this. Something like Hbdragon88 or Everyking5 suggested above might help.

Comment by Mackensen

Inasmuch as any de-sysopping by Arbcom poisons the well, Everyking's failed RfAs don't amount to much. That which Arbcom summarily takes away it may summarily restore. The conditions which caused the de-sysopping are no longer operative, and repeated arbitration cases found no fault with his usage of the tools; certainly nothing which merited their removal. The strictures which Everyking suggests are reasonable and on his part generous and should be met with a similar spirit of generosity. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Balloonman

There is a difference between Everyking and Coffee above. I struggled on Everyking's last RfA before eventually supporting. That being said, Everyking has gone before the community on four separate occasions and not regained the bit. While Coffee can come before the committee and if the committee refuses to grant the bit back, can then run for RfA, I do not believe the reverse is true. The Committee should reflect the views of the community. If the committe acts incorrectly, the appeal to the committee's actions are to the community---not the other way around. In this case, while I may not agree with the way things turned out for Everyking, I think the community has clearly spoken (on 4 occassions).---Balloonman 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC) NOTE: I think Everyking is a good example of why going to the committee first is a good thing. In theory, the committee should be willing and able to weigh all the facts of the case, whereas at an RfA you are more likely to run into emotions or a partial understanding of the facts dictating the results.---Balloonman 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal While I am adamant that 14 members of ArbCOM should not override the clear consensus of 4 RfAs, I would not be opposed to a carefully worded statement from ArbCOM stating that Everyking has been a benefit to the community and been productive. That he has ArbCOM's blessing to run for adminship via RfA should he choose to do so. This will allow the community to have the ultimate say while alleviating the stigma he suffers from being under an ArbCOM ban. That being said, such wording would have to be carefully worded as not to be an endorsement of resysopping... it would have to be neutral in tone.---Balloonman 04:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements. Everyking, please provide any links that might be useful to newer arbitrators in evaluating your request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• I recused in the last request Everyking made to the Committee in an attempt to ease his worries that sitting arbitration members are campaigning to keep him from regaining his tools or otherwise make on wiki life difficult. As well, I made my views known at his last RFA. So this time, again, recuse. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Speaking generally, and not to this specific case, the 'crats understand that they can use discretion when closing RFAs and do. Up til now, probationary or restrictive adminships have not been supported by the Community. I think that any adaption of RFA and Adminship needs to be ironed out between the 'crats and the Community because ArbCom does not write policy. If there is a dispute about it later, then ArbCom could assist in settling it. But I don't think that we should skip that step. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• On principle, I believe it would be inappropriate to grant adminship to an editor by fiat absent a specific provision to do so in advance. In the face of your failed RfAs, such an action would explicitly be against community consensus and would (rightly) cause a great deal of drama and protestation at the unprecedented expansion of ArbCom powers. The principle that the community decides who gets specific tools is fundamental, and should not be dismissed because they did not give the results one hoped for.

  On the other hand, I understand your concerns that your prior RfAs may have been a poor reflection of community consensus because of external factors. I'm open to suggestions on how to better gauge the consensus of the community given the circumstances. — Coren  21:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  I would be receptive to the idea that the bureaucrats may be encouraged to have somewhat wider latitude than usual, and that they can recommend a return of the tool be subject to conditions (including a possible review at the end of a probationnary period). This being a rather innovative proposal, however, (despite the unusual precedent), some reasonable community support would nevertheless be required for the process itself. I do think this bears further discussion. — Coren  20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• For the moment, waiting in agreement Newyorkbrad's statement and Coren's closing comments. --Vassyana (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Noting that I am open to John's suggestion below. --Vassyana (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• As per Coren, I feel very uncomfortable (in essence) explicitly overturning two failed RfAs to regrant adminship. As a supporter I strongly sympathise with EK's plight, but I don't think this is the right way of addressing this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I cannot personally support the restoration of sysop rights by ArbCom after the community has twice hovered on the borderline. However, if this editor reflects on and addresses the major contentious issues (Question 5 in his last RfA, for instance), his next RfA would probably go much better.  Roger Davies 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm a crat and an arb. Wearing either or both hats, I can not in good conscience resyssop somone who has the RFA failure record of Everyking. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• A resysop on the condition that you do not close any "consensus" based decisions on your own, followed by a reconfirmation RfA, sounds like a possible way forward. If you can find another admin who will mentor you, and you both will actively undertake in performing closes on some "consensus" based decisions, then the community should be able to evaluate whether they want you to continue doing sysop duties. John Vandenberg 21:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  Everyking - I would prefer that you went out of your want to do some consensus based decisions prior to your reconfirmation RfA in order that you demonstrate that you are capable of putting your preferred method (counting) aside and use the tools in the expected manner. I can see why you wouldnt want to do this, and wont require it, but you and a mentor need to work out a mentorship plan so that we can review it. This amendment request should probably be declined at this time, and you probably should circulate your draft plan around before opening a new amendment request. John Vandenberg 11:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - on the one hand, Everyking has failed RfAs after the desysop. On the other hand, there's the possibility that some opposition will stem from being desysopped. However, while we can overturn our own desysop, I'd be reluctant in this situation, though I could look into it more. Wizardman 03:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: (Warning, this will be long.)

  Like Wizardman, I see the failed RFAs and it causes me some concern. There is no doubt, though, that an Arbitration Committee desysopping does poison the well to some extent, as Mackensen points out. I've reviewed the initial desysopping discussion on the mailing list (September 2006, if any of my colleagues wish to review it), and it's clear it was an emergency desysop that, in today's climate, would have been followed by a proper case onwiki in which Everyking would have been permitted to give evidence and explain his actions. He's done so since then, both on and off wiki, and I largely find his explanations believable.

  This particular iteration of the Arbitration Committee has been somewhat bolder in opening the door to editors with a troubled history, with an understanding that unacceptable behaviour would result on a prompt withdrawal of privileges. Everyking has outlined his areas of planned administrative work, and they specifically exclude those areas where there has been concern expressed. Most administrators confine their activities to limited areas; I am unlikely to ever edit the Mediawiki space, for example, and other admins rarely block or don't go near AfD. I'm willing to consider a resysop here, but I'd like to see Everyking be more explicit in what administrative areas he has an intention to work in, and not work in. Everyking, if you would go through the rights assigned to administrators as listed on Special:ListGroupRights and identify which you intend to use (perhaps on a userpage linked to your statement above), that would give us all a better idea of what you intend to do. Risker (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Have supported you at RFA and will do so again. I'm not keen on overturning RFAs, and I doubt I would ever vote to do this in similar circumstances. I think you'll pass next time. Cool Hand Luke 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (3)

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

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

Statement by HJensen

I do not understand my 12 month restriction. My personal description on my "role" in this case is found in this small essay. In a nutshell, it seems to me that Arbitrators gradually could see that I was not really an important player in this case. But this was too late, as sufficiently many had voted for a restriction (so the available information and voting options presented to arbitrators differed over the duratin of the voting. This in itself is somewhat disturbing. HJensen, talk 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

I just wanted to say that having read the essay, my own feelings after this case are very much the same as this user's. I think ArbCom really needs to look hard at what it does, how it does it, and what effect it can have on the well-meaning editors on whom WP depends. (In fact I've just been reading up on the John case, and unless there's something I don't know about, it seems absolutely despicable that a good contributor should have been driven away from the project in this way. It makes me ashamed to have raised my own case here when I now see that others have been treated so much more appallingly.) --Kotniski (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

In finding myself diametrically opposed in opinion to this editor in a major dispute last year re use of diacritics (see my notes on Kotniski) I found this user the most reasonable and willing to discuss out of those who shared his opinion, and while we certainly made our differences rather obvious, at no stage did he engage in edit warring on the topic. The dispute was prolonged only by the behaviour of others. On looking at this case I see no real differences in his behaviour here, and tend to think the sanctions are a little excessive with regard to this user. Orderinchaos 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have previously expressed my disagreement regarding findings and sanctions for this editor. I will wait for further statements and the comments of other arbitrators before commenting further. --Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• I am in the same position as Vassyana, in that in voting on the proposed decision I opposed the finding of fact involving HJensen, and further opined that I would consider the restriction imposed upon him to be overbroad even if I agreed with the finding. I too will await further statements and arbitrator comments here before proceeding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren  17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (2)

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

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

Statement by Kotniski

I believe the "topic ban" that has been imposed on me in this case is totally out of proportion to anything I'm supposed to have done wrong. I accept I may have hit the undo button a bit too often on a few occasions, but that was mostly under provocation by extremely disruptive editors, in any case not exceptional by WP standards, and in no way characterizes my regular behaviour on "editing and style guideline" pages. The explanation given for the sanction by Kirill (diff) shows how misguided it is - there is no instability on the pages in question at the moment, at least not due to me, and absolutely no reason is given as to why the ban should be extended to talk pages, where I have always worked civilly towards finding consensus - I am currently doing so on several pages (well WT:CAT and the associated RFC at least), which efforts would be thwarted by this sanction. Since all I've done wrong is possibly to revert too much, I propose replacing the topic ban with a 1RR restriction. And I can promise not to edit anything about date links.--Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies: I know the theory, but I can't for the life of me see how it applies to me in this case. What topics are severely disrupted now (as opposed to six months ago), and what reason do you have for thinking that I am likely to disrupt them? I don't see how it serves the encyclopedia's interests to take a constructively active editor out of the decision-making process for a set of pages that mostly have nothing to do with the subject of the dispute (which is settled now anyway). To me this feels like pure retribution, and not even for anything I've actually done. --Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Coren: I can assure you that it is very onerous not to be allowed to comment on pages I've always been active and constructive on. Apart from the annoyance of the restriction itself, it is the feeling of having been unjustly criminalized, which has already apparently driven one good editor away (I hope ArbCom is working to rectify that). And yes, I believe this is a demonstrable error - the ban was extended to talk pages in spite of the absence of any problem behaviour there.--Kotniski (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Rlevse: I have been editing productively for 2(?) years; the isolated "offences" I am supposed to have committed are more than 3 months old now, so I think I've more than satisfied your conditions. I know you mean to be wise and judicial and so on, but when you say things like that to your colleagues (implying that we're not generally speaking productive editors) you cause deep offense. (K on holiday)

Comment by Orderinchaos

I am writing in support of this user's application for reduction, in the view that the purpose of the decision should be to limit or prevent future disruption, and I don't see sufficiently disruptive ongoing behaviour to warrant a heavy sanction. This case seems to have involved a few instances of poor judgement in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he was hardly a major offender in the piece.

I worked last year with this user in a rather contentious area (naming of tennis players and use of diacritics, including a very, very long RfD). Overall, the situation was rather hostile - and some of the players in this dispute were in that one too (Tennis expert, HJensen, PM Anderson etc). Kotniski came in fairly late in the piece and actually was very constructive and helpful, atrying to assist the development of consensus while making his own personal views on the subject known. I think this assisted the resolution of the case in favour of the status quo, and I was sufficiently impressed in that he probably handled the dispute better than I did. I have since observed his behaviour at a number of junctures and have found him to generally work cooperatively and in good faith with others. Orderinchaos 18:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I also wish to second Tony's concise comments below. Orderinchaos 17:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Tony1

As a party to the case, I have a conflict of interest in saying anything; I nevertheless ask for unusual leave from arbitrators to state that Kotniski, in my view, is one of the most honest, trustworthy editors I have met on WP, and has rare linguistic skills of great value to the project. I ask that the Committee consider lifting at the very least the ban on his editing of the style-guide talk pages. I believe the reversions referred to by Arbitrator Roger Davies were out of keeping with his normal demeanour. Tony (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dabomb87

I accept that the arbitrators are unwilling to lift or lessen Kotniski's topic ban due to his multiple cases of edit warring. However, may I ask what led him to receive a ban from discussions? There is no finding of fact that states he has been uncivil or disruptive in discussions, and the evidence does not shed any light either. I agree with Vassayana and Newyorkbrad that the restrictions seem to be overbroad. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Rlevse

Seeing as Kotniski's restriction is for three months, I'm not sure what waiting three months for an appeal will do here. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment: Topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. A three-month topic ban does not seem to me particularly heavy-handed and serves the encyclopedia's interests rather better than a 1RR restriction, which in many instances may be one revert too many.  Roger Davies 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Take Misplaced Pages:Linking: in November last year you edit-warred there, for which you were warned. You edit-warred again a week later, and were blocked for it. You did some more edit-warring there in March this year, making substantially the same edits as the last time. The ability to learn from past mistakes and to refrain from perpetuating disputes are two major factors the Committee will always consider in imposing remedies in a case. Based on the available evidence a relatively short topic ban such as this is apt, particularly in the context of the broader dispute. --bainer (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Despite the legitimate concerns raised by my colleagues both above and in the decision, I found the scope of the sanctions imposed against this user to be somewhat overbroad. I therefore lean toward granting all or much of this application. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the general spirit of all the comments above. While I believe the history justifies some restriction, I also agree with NYB that the restriction is overbroad. While I would not go so far as NYB, I'd gladly support a topic ban modification that permits participation in discussion. Vassyana (talk)--22:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren  17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)