Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 12:59, 10 January 2010 (→Arbitrator views and discussion: stmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:59, 10 January 2010 by Rlevse (talk | contribs) (→Arbitrator views and discussion: stmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
] none none 1 January 2010
] Motion none 1 January 2010
] none none 31 December 2009
Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (2)

Initiated by The Four Deuces (talk) at 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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


Statement by The Four Deuces

Are Mass killings under Communist regimes, Communist terrorism, Putinism, Eastern Bloc emigration and defection and similar articles included in the topic ban for articles about Eastern Europe? Mass Killings under Communist regimes was originally called Communist genocide and part of the findings of the arbitration was that Martintg had canvassed other members of the list concerning the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide. The article includes mass killings by the Soviet Union including in Ukraine. Martintg says that this article is excluded. However I made a request to Martintg and received no response. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

MKUCR begins "The Mass killings under Communist regimes have occurred in the Soviet Union..." (my emphasis) which is a clear reference to Eastern Europe. The first historical example is the Soviet Union and there is a section about famine in the Ukraine. Communist terrorism is described as a "term... used... to describe... repression... in the Soviet Union (my emphasis). The Four Deuces (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, could you please strike out your comment concerning the "purpose of the complaint". (It is not even a complaint, it is a request for clarification.) You should realize that "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process". In this article canvassing occurred and note that Vecrumba, Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, Jacurek, Hillock65 and Piotrus have all participated in editing, discussion and/or voting in AfDs on this subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles about Eastern European emigres and their organizations

Are these articles included under the topic ban? One article, Lia Looveer is about an individual who was a director of several organizations, like the joint Baltic Committee, that lobbied local governments concerning political relations with the former Soviet Union. Vecrumba has commented on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Martintg

Offliner already asked, see User_talk:Coren#EE_topic_bans, and The Four Deuces is aware of this query. Mass killings under communist regimes has significantly changed since Communist genocide and now is an international topic of general scope that also includes subsections on China, North Korea and Cambodia, as well as a general discussion on communist ideology as a factor. I've attempted to adhere to the spirit and letter of the EE topic ban and have kept well away from any EE sub-topic within this article. On a practical level I would like to expand the section on Ethiopia (having found an interesting book that does a comparative study of the mass killings of both the Cambodian and Ethiopian regimes), in addition to North Korea and other non-EE sub topics. I had previously sought guidance on the case page, with a number of arbitrators offering advice, for example FayssalF stating "What is understood is that editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones", but I have asked Coren for additional clarification and he replied that it is okay to edit non-EE subtopics within Mass killings under communist regimes here, as long as I am careful, as I intend to be. As far as the other article examples mentioned by TFD:

--Martin (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Steve

Perhaps Steve wasn't aware that Coren was the one who originally drafted these topic bans, so I am some what astonished that he would disagree with Coren's own interpretation of what he himself drafted. Despite the fact that Coren is expressing his own opinion, I would have thought that he would know his own mind when he drafted these topic bans, and thus his interpretation of the remedies he himself drafted after spending several months hearing this case would carry some weight. Why does Steve finds "it is regrettable that this question has been so extensively discussed elsewhere"; it was extensively discussed on the EEML case Proposed Decision talk page, was that not the appropriate forum?

I must say that Fifelfoo's argument, that many other portions of the Mass killings under Communist regimes article can be linked to eastern Europe, stating "One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics" is some what disingenuous. Fifelfoo and his colleges have long been arguing precisely the opposite position in various AfDs, boards and on the article talk: that article violates WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK because there is no linkage or relationship between the various communist regimes discussed in the article, hence their inclusion together amounts to synthesis. I know some people adapt their arguments according to the forum audience, but this 180 degree reversal of position in order to convince the committee to broaden the topic ban against adding material to Cambodian, North Korean or Ethiopian sub sections seems unreasonable.

The problem with broadening these topic bans to include topics like Communist terrorism, is where now do you draw the line. It turns an easily interpreted boundary into a fuzzy line which is open to interpretation. That currently about a third of Communist terrorism is devoted to EE is more a function of WP:BIAS than anything else, the remainder is unrelated to EE and in need of expansion which would greatly increase the proportion of non EE content within the article. Is Pacific War now off limits because the Soviet Union was a part of that war for the last 3 weeks of WW2? Is it now the mere existence of 20, 15, 10 or 5% of EE content within an article that puts it off limits? --Martin (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Fifelfoo

If you believe there is no central theory linking the various regimes together and thus the article is a synthesized coatrack, how is it possible that you "find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage"? Either you can argue the article is a coatrack and hence the subsections can be alienated from each other, or you can argue that the subsections are related and cannot be alienated from each other (hence it is not a coatrack) and thus I should be banned from editing those subsections. But you cannot have it both ways. --Martin (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that you are already on record as believing the article to be synthesis, I can only imagine the kind of mental gymnastics involved in maintaining that belief in the numerous forums and boards where you promoted the article's deletion while coming here to state "I find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage". --Martin (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Commodore Sloat

There was no "locus of dispute" determined in final decision. The closest thing being this, which stated in part that certain members of the mailing list perceived those editing from the Russian nationalist viewpoint as opponents. There was nothing in regard to "ideological agenda" or "anti-communist agenda" as Commodore Sloat falsely claims. Nor was Communist terrorism ever discussed on the maillist, its AfD occurred in 2008, well before the maillist was even created. It is sad that those who hold pro-communist viewpoints attempt to exploit reductio ad EEML arguments in order to expand these EE topic bans to all those they perceive as their anti-communist opponents just because one former EEML member (myself) has an interest in communist related topics. --Martin (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo

This is an important clarification. One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics. (but I do await seeing the theorisation in the Ethiopian-Cambodian study you mentioned) Another is that article content has barely changed since canvassed AFDs despite title change. A third is that article process which impacts on EE subtopics is stewed, and any involvement with process will be involvement in EE process (for example the theory only versus subtopics argument). Similarly participating in an AFD would be impacting on the EE components. Moreover I find it a curious argument that subportions of an article could be separated out. So please make a clear determination.

Regarding the need for clarification of extent, Martintg is currently participating in broad article process at MKUCR, and the discussion of who to solicit on the topic of the appropriateness of an AFD is ongoing. The issue is pertinent and current and needs resolution. 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "at least two failed AfDs," there were three, and they were No Consensus rather than keep which doesn't seem quite like a failure of the AFD process. Regarding the EE content of MKUCR, 2 1/3 units are clear EE, 3 1/6 units are clear non EE, 1/2 unit is mixed, 3 units are refs lede and toc (units being a screen length in front of me). Of the body content, the article is about half EE, or, of the entire article about a third is EE.
To Martintg, "Fifelfoo… long been arguing precisely the opposite position in various AfDs". Actually, I have systematically argued that the article should be supported out of sources which theorise all the events listed as linked by a cause inhering in their communist nature: a general theory. A general theory will thus necessarily cover Asia, Africa, Europe (including EE), South America, etc. An RSed general theory would remove the COATRACK and SYNTH (as long as not-covered events were deleted). This has been a consistent and fixed position of mine, that the article must exist on the basis of an RS that theorises communist mass killings as linked and as caused by a common feature of communism. I'm not particularly interested in a broad or narrow restriction, but a definitive one; but I do find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage. 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If its a COATRACK and alienable, the article shouldn't exist at all, as it would be OR. If it isn't a COATRACK then it must have a general theory to over come SYNTH/OR, and thus its sections are inalienable. I don't want to push the article at AFD (yet again) until the article is in the best possible state it can be in (I measure this time in months), which means searching for a general theory to justify its existence (and believing that the article had a cause to exist as persuaded to do so), which is precisely what I have been doing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Time to put down such use of ArbCom, ANI etc. See with same complainants clarificants. same complainants clarificants. And the multiple quick-order AfDs on the article. Tznkai said "Also, I may start censuring people for throwing around EEML like Colonial Americans used to use the word "witch"--Tznkai (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)" The purpose of this complaint clarification is to remove editors with whom the complainants clarificants have a content dispute on any basis that they can find - including by going to every notice-board and process available. Use of ArbCom in order to have it get involved in content disputes is verging on abuse. Six bites at the apple should have been sufficient, no? Collect (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Struck out a word objected to by The Four Deuces. Collect (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
To igny: I am totally uninvolved in the EEML arbitration. Clearly if I make a comment here, I am "involved" if that is your criterion. is my major edit in the article, which, I submit, is quite non-controversial. I made zero substantive edits to the article, so I find your claim of me being clearly "involved" regarding EEML to be rather unimportant. Collect (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I am commenting only because Four Deuces solicited my presence. Dialog would be better served without observations contending collusion: "In this article canvassing occurred and note that Vecrumba, Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, Jacurek, Hillock65 and Piotrus have all participated in editing, discussion and/or voting in AfDs on this subject" which propagates the meme that the editors named were impotent to find the article on their own or express their own opinion. I stated clearly what I thought "Communist genocide", the article, should encompass at the start of the brouhaha.
  The Cold War meme is that the Soviet Union was behind the spread of all Communism (capital "C"). The reality is that more than one despot perverted communism (small "c") to their self-serving purpose. Where the article in question here and others are concerned, it's up to the editors currently topic banned to show good judgement. It's also up to their editorial opposition to similarly show good judgement.
  Lastly, to request clarification for hypothetical edits which have not occurred ultimately only invites continued rhetoric. As for myself, I am looking forward to putting my sources regarding Russia to good use outside the area of conflict. I suggest closing this and opening a request for clarification if and when required based on an actual edit (and not open a request for enforcement, which is more often than not an act of bad faith assuming bad faith, i.e., guilty until proven innocent).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A better mechanism might be for ArbCom to review editor contributions periodically, say monthly, rather than editors generating a potentially endless stream of requests for clarification or enforcement. Or contending Aspic is an area of geopolitical strife.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I regret my perception of Nsk92's below that seems to paint the EE conflict as exacerbated by the editors sanctioned as the result of the EEML procedings. Rather than dwell on possibilities of bad faith actions (gaming et al.), I suggest the periodic review to insure keeping heat out of the system in 2010.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Nsk92

I think it would indeed be useful for the Arbcom to explicitly clarify the scope of the topic bans in this case, given how much poking around the edges has already occurred and in order to prevent matters from getting out of hand. In my personal view, the topic bans in this case should be interpreted as broadly as possible, to cover any articles and project-space pages that are in a significant way related to Eastern Europe (and not just pages/articles on EE subjects as such). Thus articles like Communist terrorism and Bering Strait ought to be covered by this topic ban, even though only parts of them deal with EE-related matters. Moreover, again to avoid confusion and to prevent gaming attempts, it should be made clear that if the topic ban applies to a page, it applies to the entire page and not just to sections of it that are EE-related. Basically the informal test should be something like: if you even need to ask, then the page is covered by the topic ban. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of the underlying topic bans, which is to prevent the spread of the kind of POV pushing and WP:BATTLE activities on EE-related subjects that led to the underlying arbcom case in the first place. Also, it should be made explicitly clear that the topic bans cover EE-related discussions at user talk pages. For example, non-sanctioned users should not be trying to engage the users under the topic bans, at the user talk pages of the latter, in EE-subject related discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Biruitorul

Of course, Nsk92's statement (just like the bans themselves) sort of ignores what was actually happening. POV-pushing and WP:BATTLE activities were not happening at Bering Strait, or at Bărcăneşti, Ialomiţa, or at The Good Soldier Švejk, or at Mikhail Lermontov, or at Valdis Zatlers, or at Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Varna. Nor are they ever likely to. Trouble was generally confined to Alexander Litvinenko, Nashi (youth movement), Anti-Estonian sentiment, Vladimir Putin, Putinism, Human rights in Russia, Anna Politkovskaya, 2008 South Ossetia war, Mass killings under Communist regimes, Russian apartment bombings and at most a couple of dozen other hotspots. The current topic bans are both punitive and damaging, and do nothing to address the underlying issue. The Committee was offered a constructive solution: find mediators to work with both "sides" to minimise conflict at those articles by referencing them thoroughly with high-quality sources. Instead it chose to decimate a slew of productive contributors who generally behave well, while neither addressing the wrongdoing by the other "side" nor proposing steps to defuse conflict at that group of articles. Personally, I believe the Committee would be wise to revisit the bans and retrieve the baby it has discarded with a few cups of bathwater. - Biruitorul 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Igny

This group of editors as well as the related case were called the EEML only because most of them (not all) came from the Eastern Europe, not because they edited the EE related articles exclusively. Some of them were placed under the EE topic ban with a wrong premise that most of the conflicts in which they participated originated from Eastern Europe, and that is also only partially true. Rather than restrict these editors from contentious areas (such as ideological information wars or wars over propaganda issues) the ArbCom chose to ban editing of obscure EE related topics (which are not all problematic as pointed out by many). Moreover, only parts of the article directly related to EE are covered by the ban, not the article in general.

Hence a question. If only part of the article is related to Eastern Europe, are the restricted editors allowed to participate in AfD process (say, due to irreparable POV issues of the article in general and the EE related part in particular) of these articles?

And, Collect, you are not uninvolved with regard to disputes over Mass killings under Communist regimes. (Igny (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Statement by Radek

I was not going to get involved in this but in light of Steve and Fritzpoll's comments below I find it necessary to make a reply.

Ok, let's get things straight here:

  • NOBODY here thinks that Putinism does not fall under the ArbCom topic bans. The ArbCom doesn't think so, those under the topic bans don't think so, Four Deuces doesn't think so. It's covered, everyone knows this. Likewise, Eastern Bloc emigration and defection pretty much falls under the topic bans, for the most part. Except that NOBODY, AFAIK, has any interest in editing that article anyway (article history - can anyone find any one related to arb case in it?). So why is it being brought up here? Why are we even discussing the obvious cases that everyone agrees on (as Steve points out)? Why is Putinism - an obvious case - being brought up here for that matter? And what makes those two articles different from the other two; Mass Killings and Communism Terrorism?
  • Basically Four Deuces includes these two articles along with Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism simply to create an association between articles which are obviously clear cut cases of falling under the topic ban with those which aren't. It's a cheap manipulative trick, mixing in one with the other, in the hope that it can be sold as a wholesale package. And judging from Fritzpoll's comment, it's working (hence this reply).
  • Furthermore. What else makes "Putnism" and "Eastern Bloc emigration" different from "Mass Killings" and "Communist Terrorism"? Well, the first two - the clear cut cases - are NOT being considered as candidates for deletion and no one is interested in deleting them. But, the other two - the ones that don't have much to do with Eastern Europe - are. In fact, if you check the talk page for "Mass Killings", this whole "request for clarification" arose after somebody there said " - and it is important to note that this "request" was made after the question was already answered by the arbcom here, here and here. Of course the answer provided wasn't the one that Four Deuces and Co. wanted, so now we are presented with this instance of Forum shopping. Stick with what the arb com already said - no need to start of the New Year with ArbCom schizophrenia.
  • After a bit of discussion the relevant parties realized even without any EEML members (ex or otherwise) voting, they probably STILL would not suceeed in deleting the article (if they tried that would have made it the fourth AfD nomination in five months!). This isn't surprising since there've been at least two failed AfDs which saw no or very limited participation from anybody on the mailing list.
  • So csloat came up with the bright idea (Mass killings talk page, again) to try and delete the article Communist terrorism instead. You know, when at first you don't suceed, try to game the system and try somewhere else. As such, this is just an attempt at putting one's (or actually, several) thumbs on the scales before the AfD can commence (and hopefully that AfD can be flown under the radar so that nobody except the right people show up). Yes, this is disruptive and bad faithed which is why I'm being frank about what's going on here.

Bottom line:

  1. Yes, Putinism and the Eastern Bloc emigration articles are covered by the topic bans. But no one ever thought otherwise.
  2. No, Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism are not covered by the topic bans, as already stated by Coren and articulated by Flo Night and others. Yes, the topic bans are "broadly construed" but obviously there are limits to what "broad" means in this instance, otherwise these would've been site blocks not topic bans. In particular, "broad" does not mean "theyz banned from MAH articlz!"
  3. Yes, this is a bad faithed "request for clarification" as a) this question has already been asked and answered, b) it seeks to misrepresent the situation by mixing obvious cases with wrong cases in an attempt to 'sneak by' the ArbCom some articles with a view towards POV pushing on them and c) it aims to manipulate the consensus by anticipating the AfD process and through a pre-emptive exclusion of those who are expected to disagree.

As such (while personally I wouldn't mind seeing some slaps on the wrists to those involved in orchestrating this little charade) the proper course of action here is to AfD-ban the two articles in question (rather than those involved in orchestrating this little charade). Mass Killings should be put on a 6 month AfD restriction - seriously that many failed AfDs in such a short period of time sets some kind of a record, and the repeated re-listing of it at AfD is VERY disruptive to any improvement work that is attempted at the article (as even some "opponents" of the article, like Igny or Paul Sieber, recognize). So let the article breath. In similar vein, Communist terrorism should likewise be restricted from being AfDed in the same way that an edit warrior is still censured for edit warring when they move from one related article to another in order to avoid violating 3RR while carrying on the fight.

Bit of clarity here, please.

radek (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Steve

Oy, Steve, I realize that it is very difficult to get someone to change their mind, especially once they set out their original position in writing, in the full view of the public. So please keep in mind that no less an authority than John Maynard Keynes has said that changin' ones mind is often the right thing to do .

Unfortunately I get the sense that you're relying on users' statements here rather than looking at the actual articles themselves. Communist_terrorism has hardly anything in it about Eastern Europe aside from a mention of the Soviet Union in the lede (which statement should probably be removed anyway - and of course a statement about the Soviet Union can be inserted into almost any article. Those Soviets, they got around you know). The article is instead about organizations in Peru, Columbia, Malaysia, Phillipines, Greece (not EE), Basque region, United States, Germany, Nepal, and India. Not Eastern Europe. Yes, there is a section about general "Marxism" and "Leninism" but please see FayssalF's clarifications on the arb com pages where he answers to a similar question with "No. We are talking about a global ideology.". And anyway, I think everyone under the topic ban has a pretty clear idea that if a section has anything to do with Soviets or something similar it's off limits.

Likewise, the mass killings article is to a good extent about Cambodia and China. Yes, there is a good chunk about Soviet Union, but again, it's not a problem for anyone to avoid that section, to continue participating in talk page discussions as to the viability of the article as whole - in particular since most of the ongoing controversy is centered around Valentino's work which has nothing to do with Eastern Europe.

For myself, I'm staying away from that article just for the sake of my own sanity. But these kinds of cheap tricks that are being tried here are pretty noxious.radek (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See also: Framing effect.radek (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for the clarifications. I still disagree but I appreciate you taking the time to carefully consider the question.radek (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to csloat

My belief that you are not acting in good faith is simply the result of your (voluntary) participation in the ArbCom case. There's nothing incredible about this, given the comments and the attacks you made during the case. It is reasonable and in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines to assume good faith in regard to editors one hasn't encountered much before. It is unreasonable and in fact not required by Misplaced Pages guidelines to continue assuming something which has been demonstrated to be false by a user and his actions.

Please note that you share roughly the same position in regards to these two articles, and possibly other issues, with editors such as Igny, Fifelfoo and Paul Siebert, and I have no problem assuming good faith on their part - they have never given me a reason to believe otherwise. You have. So it's not your POV that causes me to assume bad faith on your part, but the way you have acted in promotion of this POV.

The article on Communist Terrorism was never discussed on the list, AFAIK. There was no "EEML disruption" on it. I had no idea that you voted to AfD in 2008, despite the fact that it is very well sourced, but that doesn't surprise me. MKUCR, back when it was Communist Genocide, was mentioned (in fact people disagreed on it) but it's been such a lightning rod and such a highly visible article that pretty much anyone who's voted on its AfDs or took part in discussion on it did so of their own volition and would have done so regardless.

And there's no "ideological agenda" here - either by me or by people who were on the list - except to ensure that reliable sources are used, fringe theories and authors are treated as such and that folks who actually DO HAVE an ideological agenda don't go around trying to sneak through article deletions based solely on IDON'TLIKEIT grounds.radek (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Csloat, I am not violating the AGF guideline (not policy). The guideline simply doesn't state what you think it states. In particular the guideline is clear about the fact that "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." I think your actions and comments in the past definitely fall within this provision (without which, this'd be a really dumb policy as it's impossible to require people to assume something that they know not to be true).

And what makes this "controversial" is that previous statements by some of the ArbCom members indicated that these articles would not be covered by the topic ban - hence, this being an instance of forum shopping.radek (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

The restriction was clearly formulated as anything about Eastern Europe. Any sections about Eastern Europe in articles like "Mass killings" are obviously covered. Any sections about China (or whatever is not Eastern Europe) are not covered, obviously. If you said: "anything related to Eastern Europe", then one could not contribute even in articles about Jack London because he was the most popular American writer in the Soviet Union.Biophys (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Since you are talking about Communist terrorism, here is the diff between my last edit and the current version. Obviously, a lot of materials about terrorism by the communist states and organizations have been removed, even though they were sourced to books by notable historians. Is it better now? That is what you are going to achieve with sanctions. And you will not even notice anything in many other articles because you do not edit Russian history.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Although I agree that all specific articles mentioned by Steve fall under the topic ban restriction (and some of them are garbage), an arbitrary interpretation of the sanctions allows blocking the editors for almost anything. If that is what you want, then fine.Biophys (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Commodore Sloat

Umm, this is weird. I am only commenting here because I have been named by Radek (talk · contribs) in a most inappropriate way. He says "So csloat came up with the bright idea (Mass killings talk page, again) to try and delete the article Communist terrorism instead. You know, when at first you don't suceed, try to game the system and try somewhere else." This is an example of the incredible amount of bad faith assumptions that EEML members continue to bring to Misplaced Pages discussions. I am not a party to most of the discussions that the EEML people were found to have disrupted; the discussions on communist terrorism and mass killings under Communist regimes, and their surrounding AfD debates, were the exception. However what I saw on the arbcom list was truly appalling. The fact that they appear to continue wikilawyering even after sanctions from arbcom is alarming. In any case, I did not "come up with the bright idea" of AfDing Communist terrorism in order to "game the system." I originally voted to AfD communist terrorism back in 2008, and I pointed out that this article raised the same issues. Radek surely knows this as the point was obvious in my comments; his blatant distortion of my comments here is troubling.

The biggest problem with this discussion is that people are focused on clarifying the topic area "eastern europe" without reference to the history of these articles. The question shouldn't be "is 'eastern europe' covered geographically by articles about 'communist terrorism'?" but rather, "does this article fall within the rubric of articles that the EEML has chosen to disrupt?" In this case, both articles should clearly be covered by the ruling because both articles not only fall within the ideological agenda these editors single-mindedly pursued in violation of Misplaced Pages rules, but in fact these were articles they actually did collaborate to disrupt in a demonstrable way, at least during the AfD process. csloat (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

response to responders

Unbelievable. I would think that users who have been sanctioned by ArbCom would make it a point to follow Misplaced Pages policies to a T rather than continue to flout their abuse of those policies. Both Radek and Martintg blatantly violate WP:AGF, with Radek even stating boldly (and without any rationale) that he will always and only assume BAD faith when dealing with me. He claims this assumption started when the EEML case started, but anyone familiar with the evidence (e.g. 20090821-0105) can see clearly that is a blatantly false statement. Martintg absurdly calls me "pro-Communist" when I have said nothing of the sort. If you want to pigeonhole me for my participation on these particular articles, my stance would be "anti-synthesis violations" or, simply, "pro-Misplaced Pages." I have never claimed to be "pro-communist" and only an absolute refusal to read my actual arguments would lead to such a conclusion. Both martin and radek are likewise distorting my claim above about the Communist terrorism article. The fact is that I participated in AfD in 2008 on this article because it was a hotbed of WP:SYN violations and WP:FRINGE theories elevated to the status of fact. The vote was indecisive primarily because of significant collaboration by members of the EEML, whether or not it was actually discussed on list (we don't know, since the archive doesn't go back that far). But we do know that the Communist genocide article suffered the same fate from many of the same players, and that there was a "call to arms" published and discussed on the EEML list (see 20090806-526 for example) on the communist genocide AfD; there was a similar call to arms on related articles on nuclear terrorism where at the time there was a discussion of some other WP:SYN violations created by another EEML member. (see 20090817-1427). This was all spelled out by multiple commenters on the evidence page of the arbcom case. I also think these guys misunderstand my point completely -- nobody is calling for further sanctions here; the point is just that the sanctions we do have should be interpreted broadly as Arbcom explicitly called for, and that articles where the EEML members have shown themselves likely to engage in objectionable off-wiki coordination should definitely be covered by the sanctions. I don't see how this is even a controversial point here. csloat (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting more statements, and noting that two of the parties listed are currently serving bans. I would ask them to e-mail ArbCom, but a period of disengagement from Misplaced Pages may be better, and they can bring themselves up-to-date on how the topic bans work out in practice when their bans expire and other conditions associated with their bans are met. Of the other parties listed, five have yet to comment, as of the time of writing this comment. Carcharoth (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Recuse due to prior involvement. Shell 11:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It is my view that a wide construction of the ban's scope, as prescribed in the remedies, would include all of the articles mentioned (and especially Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection—I cannot fathom an argument that those are not related to Eastern Europe). The purpose of prescribing a broad construction of the ban in the first place is to avoid situations like this. Steve Smith (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Acknowledging Radek's comments, and affirming that the inclusion of Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection in the request did not affect my views on Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism. Both of those articles, as Fifelfoo notes, have substantial chunks devoted to Eastern Europe, and many other portions of both articles can be linked to eastern Europe as being in some ways offshoots of the cold war (though Vecrumba's point that Communist highjinks != USSR is well taken). There is a case to be made that the articles (or at least significant enough portions of them) are not eastern Europe-related. But there is also a case that they are eastern Europe-related, and in light of the "broadly construed" portion of the remedy, I find the latter case more persuasive. While I thank Radek for providing the link to Coren's earlier answer of this question (I was not hitherto aware of it, having somehow missed Martin's link), that answer was provided on the talk page of an individual arbitrator, and all I can say is that I disagree with Coren's answer there. As for the proposed "AFD-bans", those are outside of the scope of a request for clarification, and I don't see the need for ArbCom intervention on those subjects for the moment. Steve Smith (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
      • A few scattered points in response to Radek: first, I can assure you that if you watch all arbitration pages, you will see me change my mind at least once before the end of February; I'm very unreluctant to do so. Second, I don't see how you can say that Communist terrorism has little Russia-related content: the single largest section deals almost entirely with Russian communists. Third, I acknowledge that both articles have substantial chunks unrelated (at least on the surface) to eastern Europe, but a broadly construed topic ban means that the editors subject to it should not be poking around the edges of the topic, which editing non-eastern Europe sections of an article having substantial eastern Europe content qualifies. Fourth, it is regrettable that this question has been so extensively discussed elsewhere, because that's created confusion. This page is where we clarify things. Fifth, the topic-banned editors appear to have been operating in good faith; we're not talking about sanctioning them, we're just talking about clarifying the ban's scope so parties know what will be considered sanctionable in the future. Fifth, after a review of the articles' histories and related discussions, I am as suspicious as you are about the inclusion of Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection. If they were included in an attempt to affect arbitrators' perceptions on the other two articles—and it looks very much as though they were—The Four Deuces is advised to knock it off. Steve Smith (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I broadly agree with Steve - these articles clearly fall within the broad scope specified within the case. In general, my advice would be that if you feel an article is pushing the limits of the ban definition, then it is probably included in the scope of that ban. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I should note that this is exactly what I meant by "they hover close", and that Steve Smith is correct that my own opinion is exactly that: my own opinion of the interpretation of the remedy and not a statement from the committee. Fritzpoll's advice seems sound: play it safe by staying away if there is a genuine question. — Coren  15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Broadly concur with Steve Smith and Fritzpoll. Vassyana (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The best way to handle topic bans is to think "Will anyone credibly think, no matter how mistaken, that editing this article will fall under the topic restriction?" And if the answer is not an immediate, unequivocal "No".. don't do it SirFozzie (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Steve. KnightLago (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree as well. These are unquestionably covered by the topic ban. Hersfold 03:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Aye, agree with Steve here. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur with Steve Smith and Fritzpoll. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Initiated by Abd (talk) at 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Statement by Abd

This restriction, prohibited me from "participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s)." This remedy was taken from a proposal by Thatcher, and was based on a claim that I frequently intervened in disputes, but without any finding or examples showing that my interventions had been nonconstructive. I did not notice this proposal during the case, it appeared at the end, and I'd stopped reading the Workshop page by that time. I never responded to it. The principle would seem to chill neutral intervention, when that's exactly what is missing, too often, and I'd been successful with such interventions, the community eventually confirming my positions in many cases, and a number of sitting arbitrators know this to be true. In any case, without examples of disruptive interventions, I don't know what behavior, specifically, is being prevented.

The immediate occasion is this statement on the case page. I was definitely involved with the situation under the Climate Change request. My view is that this led William M. Connolley to take an opportunity to ban me, which explains his otherwise puzzling behavior as being based on a grudge. I presented evidence, expanded at , on WMC's wheel-warring at Global warming as part of the subject case. When I'd worked on Global warming, I encountered the very problems that led to the current request, and can provide diffs if needed.

Therefore I considered myself already involved in the substance, hence mentor approval was not needed, even though I was not a formally named party yet. I was surprised, then, to see this objection from Mathsci appear on my Talk. As I have knowledge in depth of the underlying situation, I believed it my obligation to testify, in any case, so I declined to comply. Apparently seeing the discussion, MastCell then filed an Arbitration enforcement request, and a request to a clerk to remove my comment. Mathsci commented extensively,, adding confusion (incorrect about the history, apparently assuming I'd misrepresented it), and continuing after the post had been removed and it was moot.

Then WMC made a gratuitous accusation on AN. When I briefly replied to it, he threatened me with being blocked for the reply, and he removed the reply himself, which is old WMC behavior, matching that during the case.

Mathsci did consent to the closure of the Arbitration Enforcement request, after both MastCell and I agreed on that, but the request was re-opened by WMC, based on the AN incident. This is cute: troll for comment by attacking an editor, then assert the reply as a ban violation. I've noticed WMC's behavior go downhill since his desysopping.

The sanction is being used in an attempt to prevent me from participation where I am already involved, either historically or through a current accusation, and it is being used as a cover to harass me. If the my original statement had been disruptive, in itself, it could have been removed by a clerk with no fuss, likewise any editor believing it to be a ban violation could have removed it without all this mess. I thought I'd send the statement directly to ArbComm by email, a minimally disruptive approach; however, the removal of my comment from AN by WMC and his reopening the AE case made me realize that more was required.

I intend a request to lift the ban, but not yet, and sound policy is to honor ArbComm decisions, even where I may disagree strongly. The mentorship proposal, which seems to have been assumed in the ban, did not pass. Editors may voluntarily take on mentorship, and without a mentorship requirement, and specifically that ArbComm approve a mentor, I would seem to be free to choose any editor willing to accept me. GoRight is, in fact, an experienced editor, one who has survived serious attempts to ban him, and he did offer to mentor me. I did not ask him in advance to approve the comment because I did not consider it violated the restriction; however, post-facto, seeing the edit and the flap, he approved it. But the substance here is not mentor/no mentor, rather what should be behind all our decisions is not compliance with technicalities, but the purpose of all of it, the project. If my statement was disruptive, in itself, aside from the ban, I should have been warned or blocked for that, but, instead, the only objection was purely technical. Wikilawyering, in a word, to avoid the presentation of evidence.

ArbComm may decide to approve a mentor, resolving the ambiguity here. I know that arbitrators are aware of a highly experienced and presumably acceptable editor who agreed to mentor me during the case. Perhaps they will allow this mentorship. GoRight was only offering his support ad-interim. I have not asked permission to file this request, since I'm clearly an "originating party" here.

I appreciate clarification, as well, of the intention behind the restriction, with guidance as to how to honor it where I believe I am, in substance, a party to a dispute, even if not formally named. I put a great deal of effort into the Global warming situation, and AN reports don't formally name disputants. If I am working with editor A on an article, and editor B appears and attacks editor A, and B goes to AN/I, and I have knowledge of the situation, am I prohibited from commenting because editor B did not mention me? Or suppose he does mention me, as WMC mentioned me on AN?

Please look, as well, at the tendentious behavior of other editors around this, most particularly William M. Connolley, and Mathsci's pursuit of an old vendetta, not related to the case in question. I have no significant complaint about MastCell but included him because he may wish to comment. --Abd (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  • LessHeard vanU: Thanks. The remaining clarification needed would address situations where I have a pre-existing involvement with an issue, where I am not an uninvolved passer-by "meddling." Later, I'll ask to address the problem of where I'm neutral, uninvolved, but have evidence to present that might be overlooked. I can present it off-wiki, but wouldn't it be better to present it directly? Maybe not!
  • Mathsci leads with a claim that I've misrepresented various users, but I noticed little variance between my sketchier account, above, and his more detailed account, below, except he adds some mind-reading and speculation as fact. I did discuss mentorship with GoRight before, but did not consult with him before filing the comment in the climate change RfAr, so "pre-decided arrangement" would be an overstatement. Mathsci correctly reports Ryan's comment, which puzzled me, is Ryan in charge of RfAr? I thought the arbitrators were. The only mention of "vendetta" is here, just above. It means that Mathsci has an axe to grind and is grinding it. As to "cabal," what I called the "cabal" in my case was roughly the same set of editors now accused of ownership of the global warming articles. The two cases are closely connected, which could easily be shown. "Cabal" and "vendetta" are not related. Vendetta is personal. Why was that relatively brief statement in the Climate Change RfAr worth all this email to an arbitrator, administrator, an AE request, etc.? I'd say it's obvious. Vendetta.
  • Short Brigade Harvester Boris: Yes.
  • Durova, as usual, hits the nail on the head.
  • MastCell's comment is disappointing. I had no intention to test the limits, I was surprised at all this fuss. Sure, I might have interpreted the ban more tightly, but I have difficulty keeping something in mind that I don't understand, and I don't understand the ban, why it was placed, so I discounted it, thinking that ArbComm couldn't possibly have wanted me to refrain from making a comment where I was so involved.
  • General comment about mentor. I have asked Fritzpoll to be my mentor. He had suggested it previously, and I had accepted, but there may now be complications. I'll let Fritzpoll explain it if he considers it prudent. I did not, however, consult Fritzpoll, not imagining that consulting a mentor for the subject statement was necessary. In effect, with my statement, I consulted ArbComm, it was hardly a hidden action! --Abd (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

In that Abd is disallowed by Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Abd editing restriction (existing disputes) from commenting in areas where he is not an originating source of the dispute, without consultation with a mentor, I consider ArbCom may be inclined to consider either extending Abd's parole to instances where either WMC (or Mathsci) unilaterally invoke Abd or the original dispute in unrelated matters, or require WMC (and Mathsci) to refrain from invoking either Abd or the dispute in unrelated matters. It seems to me that the latter would be preferable, in that it might mean less requests for clarification. (Per Abd I am including Mathsci as a party to the original decision, and not commenting on their actions subsequently).

I should note that my response to WMC's comments at AN alluded to WP:NPA and that WMC's later response to me appeared to disregard that they had not earlier commented upon the content User:GoRight's proposal or that I had neither - that I commented to caution WMC for poor faith commentary. It may be outside of the ArbComs remit, but I am concerned that WMC's behaviour is becoming erratic and suggest they may benefit from being required to withdraw further from interactions with Abd. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

Abd has as usual misrepresented various users. His account of the recent disruptive actions of GoRight and himself does not bear much relation to actual events. Here is my understanding of what happened (New Year's Eve commitments in California do not permit any further detail at this stage, diffs can be provided later if necessary - I've written this in haste without a word count):

  • Abd added a statement to the present RfAr of Tedder.
  • I advised him on his talk page that, since he had not been involved in editing global warming articles in 2009, this probably contravened the editing restrictions placed on him by ArbCom in September following his 3 month ban and that he might consider voluntarily removing the statement himself. I later explained that ArbCom had not recommended a mentor (2 separate proposals were not carried) and that the mention of "mentor" in the editing restrictions was an oversight.
  • I contacted MastCell by email.
  • I contacted NYB by email.
  • Abd and GoRight, in what apparently was a prearranged decision, claimed that ArbCom had imposed the fllowing editing restriction: that Abd had to find a mentor and this mentor could waive any ArbCom editing restriction at his discretion. Apparently GoRight was to be the interim mentor of Abd's choice.
  • MastCell, without having read my email, but having seen my post to Abd and his reply on Abd's talk page, raised the problem of Abd's RfAr statement at WP:AE.
  • MastCell also posted at the Clerks Noticeboard and I posted at Ryan's talk page.
  • Ryan removed Abd's RfAr statement.
  • Rlevse and Coren explained that Abd could not be involved in a possible future ArbCom case on Climate Change.
  • MastCell clarified the editing restriction to Abd.
  • GoRight posted a motion on the RfAr requesting Abd to be included as a party claiming that he was actively involved in WP articles on climate change becuase of his involvement in GoRight's own RfC in 2008.
  • I posted a query about this on the clerk's noticeboard.
  • Ryan explained that Abd could not participate in the RfAr or a future ArbCom case, regardless of GoRight's proposed motion.
  • A few hours later, Abd requested on Tedder's talk page to be included by him as a party.
  • Abd and GoRight started writing posts, presenting Abd as a victim, with extraordinary statements about a vendetta (his new phoney word that presumably replaces cabal).
  • Abd opened this request.

All discussions have taken place on Abd's talk page, Tedder's talk page, the clerk's notice board and WP:AE.

Abd could have asked for clarification in a straightforward and discreet way, by email to any arbitrator. When I initially suggested this on his talk page, his reply was, "I'm not going to bother an arbitrator with this, their time is precious." Instead he has entered into a WP:BATTLEGROUND spirit, wikilawyering in an unreasonable way about his editing restrictions, even when two arbitrators, one clerk and one senior administrator had given the same unnuanced interpretation of these restrictions. I do not understand his use of the word "vendetta", just as I did not understand his use of the word "cabal". That GoRight is unsuitable as a mentor is not really something which seems open to debate, despite all of Abd's arguments to the contrary.

Abd has broken the terms of his editing restrictions twice (on RfAr and again by posting on WP:AN). His actions have been disruptive. He has attempted to deflect attention from himself by engaging in a smear campaign against his critics. In my case he is attacking an editor in good standing who has no involvement at all in any climate change matters on WP.

  • Ambiguity in editing restriction Since the two separate votes on mentorship did not pass, was the mention of a mentor in the editing restriction an oversight in the redrafting of the final decision?
  • Desired outcome of clarification Please could the terms of Abd's editing restrictions be clarified by ArbCom so that any future repetition of this disruption and intensified wikilawyering over multiple wikipedia pages can be avoided.

NYB indicated to me in an email response that he hoped that MastCell's WP:AE request would clarify matters without ArbCom involvement. Before Abd's surprise public request here, I assumed that things had been clarified to everybody's satisfaction. I apologize that further time has to be spent on what should have been an entirely straightforward matter. Thanks in advance and Happy New Year to all! Mathsci (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

LHVU has given a slightly muddle-headed statement. I am not in dispute with Abd, any more than MastCell is. Both of us have been involved in pointing out Abd's contravention of his editing restrictions. Abd has just come off a three month ArbCom ban and so far has shown no sign of returning to normal editing patterns, quite the contrary. As far as I am aware, I am a good faith editor in good standing. LHVU should not repeat Abd's innuendos without checking facts for himself. Abd's account and interpretation are not accurate. His misleading use of the word "vendetta" could not be supported by one diff. Just like the nonsense he wrote about a "cabal". Mathsci (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I had planned to request clarification and then saw the present request.

There are some loose ends from the Abd-WMC case that need to be tied up. In particular, Remedies 3.2 and 3.6 refer to a mentor but the decision gives no details on how the mentor is to be chosen. It would be helpful if the Committee could provide such details; for example, whether the choice of mentor is solely at Abd’s discretion or if the Committee views itself as having a role in the choice and terms of the mentorship. Abd is of course free to choose whomever he likes as an informal mentor but the question here is the choice of a formal mentor in light of the Remedies. Abd recently has chosen a mentor and the mentor has stated that he is "as official as any mentor is required to be". This mentor has assumed the capacity to authorize Abd's actions as required in Remedy 3.2. Clarification of the Committee's intent with regard to mentorship in this case would help forestall drama.

Statement by Durova

Mentorship is not a panacea. It has its place within Misplaced Pages and stands its best chance of success when it happens informally. For nearly five years Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee let mentorships occur informally. For slightly over one year ArbCom has taken a more active role in mentorship, using attractive buzzwords such as "structured" and "empowered" that have caused resounding failures. I know of no instance where mentorship has succeeded as a formal arbitration remedy: formal ArbCom interference tends to turn the mentor into a political football and shifts the focus from long range improvement to the equivalent of a traffic cop.

To the new arbitrators: I used to mentor five people. One of them reformed after a long string of edit warring blocks to become a sysop on this site and four other WMF sites. He has become an OTRS volunteer and he serves on the Arbitration Committee of another wiki. Another became a featured content contributor and hasn't been blocked since 2008. There have been other successes. Yet my objections to the 2009 Committee's direction were so strong that I ceased accepting new mentorships and resigned from existing ones.

The most objectionable practice of the 2009 ArbCom was phantom mentorship: writing mentorship into arbitration remedies where no actual volunteer agreed to fill the role. Abd was one of the people caught in that bind. This request for clarification offers a golden opportunity to correct that problem by rewriting the remedy to return mentorship where it functions best: in the background. Durova 03:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: MastCell's statement, his cynicism is a case in point for why mentorship becomes so difficult as an element of arbitration decisions. When a mentorship occurs informally the focus is on its results: does behavior actually improve? Some editors choose mentors well and others choose badly. That shakes itself out. The one essential element that can't be forced is mutual trust. My suggestion is to wish Abd well with his new mentor because that appears to be the only mentor available to him, and either remove mentorship from the formal remedy or rename it, because what it appears the decision was seeking was not a mentor but a screener to preapprove specific kinds of posts. The latter might be a good idea but it isn't mentorship. Durova 04:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

Abd is testing the boundaries of his editing restriction, as he has with every previous editing restriction under which he's been placed. It's what he does. I can't for the life of me understand how this particular restriction is in any way ambiguous, but here we are.

It would be nice if WMC and others would never mention Abd again. It would be even nicer if Abd would just stay out of disputes where he isn't the originating party, which is after all what the sanction insists he do. No amount of tortured logic can make Abd into an "originating party" in the current Arbitration request, because he isn't one. This seems like a case where clear boundaries have been set, and are being tested. Ball's in your court.

I find it hard to characterize GoRight's sudden self-appointment as Abd's "mentor" in any but extremely cynical terms, but then I think it was a pretty cynical undertaking in the first place, and sort of makes a mockery of the idea of mentorship. If the language about mentorship from the previous decision could be tidied up, and GoRight's "mentorship" addressed, that would probably help. MastCell  03:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GoRight

Any references I made to it having been discussed that I might fill the role of Abd's mentor were references to the discussions that took place during the original Arbcom case. Abd and I had no pre-arranged agreement related to his comment in the climate change request. Indeed, if we had such an agreement it would have made more sense to formalize a mentorship agreement BEFORE he made that comment, not after. So MathSci's implication of impropriety in this respect rings hollow as far as I can tell. In any event I dispute that any such impropriety or prior agreement regarding Abd's comment at Arbcom took place.

I have always made it clear that I was only assuming the role on an interim basis until more formal arrangements were made. This was necessitated by the current climate change request submitted by Tedder so that Abd could participate in a case where he has gained invaluable insights based on his review of the parties involved in my RfC which, unsurprisingly, are essentially the same parties in that case. --GoRight (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion

Given that the language allowing mentor approval is being removed and we are already gathered together, I would ask the Arbiters to consider adding language to the sanction which allows an existing party in a case to specifically request Abd's assistance. In my RfC his assistance was invaluable given his thorough and fastidious attention to detail as well as his clear understanding of Misplaced Pages policy. New or inexperienced users would benefit greatly from such assistance. I further request that it not be considered a violation of his sanctions to place a single neutrally worded offer of assistance on someone's talk page. --GoRight (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

  1. This motion seems to be the correct way to proceed. Cheers to the committee.
  2. The mentorship thing in the remedy was just a leftover that should have been removed in the final draft.
  3. I don't think that GoRight is an appropiate general mentor for Abd for learning how to edit better, but that's a different topic that should be treated separate. What is on-topic here is the mentorship regarding the Arbcom remedy, and GoRight is absolutely unsuited for deciding when Abd can skip that restriction.
  4. I have refrained from citing Abd as an example (for example, in the ban discussion of an editor that made very long comments with OR, where I was tempted to compare Abd with this editor), and I have refrained from citing Abd as an example of anything. This was in order to avoid giving Abd any excuse to start a long off-topic tirade about how he was unjustly treated by Arbcomm/Cabal/WMC/etc. WMC, Matschi, whoever feels the temptation to refer to Abd, please learn to do the same thing and never mention Abd in topics that are not directly about him.

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Issues with Abd were identified in two arbitration cases. In both cases the principal issue identified was a strong tendency to beat dead horses. GoRight has much the same problem and is already mired in long-running disputes on climate change, which brings a near-inevitability of interaction with WMC as an expert in the field; GoRight also has long-running dispurtes with WMC. Bottom line: GoRight is not an appropriate mentor; if anything the two of them are likely to reinforce each other's worst traits and both end up banned. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This is largely our fault for not adjusting the implementation notes and final wording. Motion below to correct the oversight, which should clarify the matter. Vassyana (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I am naturally recusing from this matter due my proposed mentorship of Abd prior to my becoming an Arb. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Response to GoRight - I would not support such an amendment, as it provides Abd a "back door" into discussions that he has no business being in as soon as any editor says "what does Abd think?". The original restriction was clear enough, and yet we're here being asked to clarify what it meant; I believe given this, such a back door would be frequently used, rendering the restriction null. Hersfold 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion

Remedy 3.2 "Abd editing restriction (existing disputes)" is revised to read:

"Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls."

Support
  1. No mentorship remedy passed, mooting the mentor(s) clause. The inoperative clause is removed. When a remedy is of an undetermined duration, it is normal practice to explicitly define the duration as "indefinite". Also, please note that this is somewhat broader and complete than the standing restriction. Vassyana (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. With trivial copy-edit (added "pages" after "any formal or informal dispute resolution").  Roger Davies 11:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support closing this loophole. SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support, while noting that this does not restrict Abd from forming an informal mentorship arrangement with whoever may be suitable, but any informal mentorship should be openly disclosed. Also noting here that there is nothing stopping any editor from seeking mentorship for themselves, even those that consider themselves experienced Wikipedians that don't need mentorship. Being mentored is not always (and often isn't) an admission of failings, but more a recognition of a need and potential to improve. Anyone reading this and thinking it doesn't apply to them should think again - this applies to everyone who may lack experience in a particular area, or who may lack the ability to comport themselves with civility and collegiality. Working with someone who has more experience can help any editor. Carcharoth (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support. Fixes overlooked hanging chad; as Carcharoth mentions, this certainly doesn't prohibit Abd from working with a mentor or any other actions he may wish to use to improve his editing and interactions while at Misplaced Pages. Shell 11:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support. KnightLago (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  8. Mailer Diablo approves this amendment. - 13:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  9. Sorry for late vote. Hersfold 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Recused from all matters Abd. Steve Smith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. As Steve Fritzpoll (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion
Clerk notes

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

Initiated by Biruitorul at 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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


Statement by Biruitorul

Do the topic bans handed out here cover obvious vandalism? To give one example: three days ago, this guy, with four edits, vandalized four articles (vaunted BLPs no less). Vandalism has lain uncorrected in three of those. I, with 63,031 edits, over 99.8% of which have been constructive and positive contributions to the project (indeed, one of those articles was written by me), can do nothing about it. And I'm also the only one who seems to care. Doesn't the Committee find this state of affairs a bit odd? - Biruitorul 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Martintg

Carcharoth laments "There has to be a way to get others to revert vandalism like this", well there isn't. Most of EE is obscure to the majority of Wikipedians and they simply don't care to the point that sneaky vandalism goes undetected. There is only a small number who do care enough, but you topic banned most of them, the majority with 99.9% good contributions. And if something as simple as vandalism goes unattended, then certainly something more complex like content creation and expansion will be even more so neglected for 12 months while these editors serve out their topic bans. A 12 month ban on participating in AfDs or move discussions given the FoF on canvassing and a 12 month 0RR restriction to cover the co-ordinated edit warring would have been sufficient. The current broad topic bans are both punitive and damaging to the project, there were no FoF in regard to inappropriate content creation or vandalism. --Martin (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Most editing policies and restrictions inherently include an exception for obvious vandalism, blatant BLP violations, and clear cut copyright violations. I would be surprised and disappointed if edit warring rules, editing restrictions, or other boundaries resulted in sanctions for reverting such edits. Vassyana (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I recall an earlier clarification on a different case that seemed to contradict what Vassyana is saying, but I can't recall whether it applied to topic bans or site bans. Generally, keeping articles watchlisted that you have previously created and edited in a topic area you are later banned from can be a problem, especially if the articles are obscure. But here they weren't obscure. I fear this is more a case of people believing the edit summary ("name corection") made by the IP editor - most normal vandalism would have been reverted, and hence the problem would not arise. If you are the first to notice, you should correct vandalism on BLPs, but fundamentally, the Misplaced Pages system cannot work if such watchlisting relies on one editor only. There has to be a way to get others to revert vandalism like this, allowing topic bans to operate effectively. Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Martin, if you can gather evidence that the broadness of the topic bans is having a deleterious effect on content, please do so, but that will require more than one or two examples. What would then happen would depend on what exactly the effect of the topic bans has been. Maybe ask for a three- or six-month review at some point, and present your evidence then? If clear vandalism and BLP edits are building up without reversion, revert them and come back sooner, but give some time for others to do the reversions. Maybe what is needed here is for topic-banned users to provide lists of articles for others to watchlist? Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Will not be commenting due to prior involvement with case. Shell 11:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Vassyana is correct, those are standard exceptions unless otherwise stated, but be smart about, save yourself the potential trouble and report to the appropriate forum. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur with Rlevse in all respects. Steve Smith (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Also agree with Rlevse. KnightLago (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Rlevse sums it up nicely. SirFozzie (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Aye, as what Rlevse said. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the above, just use caution. If it could reasonably be seen as a constructive edit, ask about it on a noticeboard. Hersfold 03:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)