Revision as of 03:21, 2 August 2009

• 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).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

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

Request to amend prior case: Privatemusings

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1

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

Statement by Septentrionalis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Will Beback

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

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

Statement by RexxS

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

Response to Will Beback

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

Statement by User:Privatemusings

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

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

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

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

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
• Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

• Recused MBisanz 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse, Privatemusings (under what was then an alternate account) edited alongside me at WP:NPA and related proposed policies. I am considering making a statement in this case. Risker (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• The use of alternate accounts, while tolerated in certain circumstances, is generally not viewed in a good light by the community. The recent events are a clear indication of that. The use of alternate accounts (whichever name you use) in discussion or procedure, which depends on a clear consensus, is uniformly destructive. I see no reason to amend. — Coren  21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• I was not an arbitrator when the Privatemusings case was decided in November 2007 (in fact, only one member of the 2007 committee remains an arbitrator). However, I opined on the proposed decision talkpage at that time that the sentence being questioned in this request for amendment was, indeed, an interpolation into the alternate accounts policy rather than a reiteration of it. (See, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision#Principle 3 concerning sockpuppet policy.) In the ensuing discussion, it was suggest that this was simply an interpretation or exposition of the then-existing policy. ¶ Whether "only primary accounts may be used on policy and arbitration pages" is a desirable policy is debatable: on the one hand, we do not need rampant socking and game-playing on these (or any other) pages, and posting to these pages from primary accounts helps others discount a given user's input to the extent that might be warranted by knowledge of that user's own agenda or history; on the other hand, I can readily imagine situations heavy with "wikipolitics" in which a good-faith user would want to participate other than under his or her primary username. In my view, discussion on this issue can proceed on the relevant policy page, rather than seeking to amend this decision some twenty months after the fact. ¶ I would also note, with some dismay that it seems necessary to do so, that the obvious point of the sentence in question was to avoid concealment of the identity of a person commenting on these pages. Some of the instances mentioned above obviously do not, in any fashion, implicate that concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Just a comment related to Privatemusing choice of words. Please avoid calling people with names that don't belong to them (re the chap). That's all for the moment! -- FayssalF - 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for lifting of EK3 restrictions

Statement by Everyking

In January 2009, I appealed to the ArbCom to lift all the remaining sanctions applied to me as a result of the EK3 case in November 2005. The ArbCom declined to do so, although it agreed to some easing of the severity of the restrictions. More than six months have passed since then, and nothing has occurred with regard to the case; I have not been blocked or warned in any way. The sanctions serve no purpose and exist in relation to a dispute that has been dead for several years, and I once again request that the ArbCom release me from them. Everyking (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why Brad says he wants to maintain my sanctions for reasons he won't state publicly. If he thinks I should be under a perpetual restriction, I'd like to know why. There is nothing pertaining to any of this that I wouldn't want to be discussed openly on-wiki, and I feel like the ArbCom's decision-making on this issue is being based on things that I'm not even aware of, which is unfair. Everyking (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to Roger: you guys voted to lift all the non-Phil restrictions in January, including the appeal limitation. Everyking (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Coren: if this is "an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past", why do you want to keep me under this restriction? It seems inexplicable to say that the restriction serves no purpose while also maintaining that it should remain in place. Everyking (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the comments saying that the restriction is only in effect because I have appealed it numerous times are very puzzling. Some of you seem to be saying that you want to keep me under restriction purely out of spite, because you are annoyed by my appeals. That's like telling a prisoner that the authorities had planned to release him, but since he had the nerve to ask for his release, they've decided to keep him behind bars. I don't understand how such an attitude has any relationship to justice or the resolution of the issue—clearly it's unreasonable to hold someone's own appeals against them, as if they were doing something wrong in seeking redress when they felt they had been wrongfully punished. Everyking (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Brad: if your objection is based on "the substance of the matter", I'd like to know what that substance is. I don't understand your unwillingness to disclose your reasoning. Shouldn't a person be allowed to know why they are being punished? Everyking (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other editor (1)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I am not quickly locating an archive of our most recent discussion in which most of the restrictions on Everyking were lifted; could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a link to that discussion, and could a Clerk please make sure it is archived properly. My recollection, though, is that the only restriction that remains in effect is that against Everyking's interacting with Phil Sandifer. Is that correct? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Paul August has been kind enough to point me to the motion we adopted earlier this year. (It probably should still be archived more prominently.) This confirms that the restriction against Everyking's interacting with Phil Sandifer ("Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner"), a ruling that is to be construed reasonably, is the only remaining restriction on Everyking that is still in effect, even though the request above repeatedly uses the plural. I am not inclined to lift this sole remaining restriction, for reasons that I do not believe it would be in anyone's interest (including Everyking's) to go into again on-wiki. No inference of any current misconduct by Everyking should be read into that position. If this matter is to be pursued further, Phil Sandifer must be advised of this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • By way of clarification of at least my vote, my position that we properly lifted all other restrictions but that there is reason to retain this one, is based on the substance of the matter and not merely on consideration of the timing or repetition of the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse on this request to ease Everyking's concerns that past arbitrators unfairly influenced past decisions about him. Hopefully, the recusal will make it easier for him to accept the decision one way or the other. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• I see no reason to amend this. If Everyking has no intention of interacting with Phil Sandifer, then the restriction has a net effect of absolutely zero. If the objective is to gain permission to resume interacting with Phil, then that permission will not be forthcoming (nor is it likely that it ever will).

  If Everyking is simply hoping for a declaration that he is "an editor in good standing", then I am glad to reiterate it; that remaining restriction in now way reduces any standing he may have in the community. In fact, it would be an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past were it not for the fact that Everyking himself persistently raises it at regular intervals. — Coren  17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  • No, I meant that this would be an old and forgotten issue if it wasn't being raised at regular intervals. — Coren  14:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with my colleagues. I also note that Everyking may appeal the restriction annually and July 2009 is well short of the next review date, January 2010.  Roger Davies 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• No Why so soon after the last one? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry, I am lost, what other sanctions are you referring to (i.e. non-phil one(s))? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'll repeat what I said last time:

  "...suggest some thought is given to when and how any future appeals on this remaining sanction should be heard (i.e. to prevent excessive and repeat filings of appeals over the coming year). One other thought has just occurred to me. Despite this remedy remaining in place, would a motion saying that Everyking is a Wikipedian in "good standing" be possible or make any sense? The protection that Phil desires would still be in place, while Everyking would get his wish to be considered "in good standing"." - Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  We didn't in the end explicitly restrict Everyking to appealing once a year, but we should have done. There are certain editors who appeal their restrictions again and again and again. In the end, they do their own cause far more damage by that, than any of the original actions could have done. Suggest a motion be proposed to set the date of the next appeal at January 2010, and once per year after that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Pretty much reiterating what others have said, the only reason anyone might be holding you to this issue is because you keep bringing it up over and over. I'm also not convinced that if this restriction were appealed, it would be the end of it. Is this appeal really just to remove this restriction and this being the end? Wizardman 21:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for amendment: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence

This page has been deleted for a year, despte Arbcom promisin to deal with it, and undelete it.

You have been promising to deal with the minor issues raised of someone having changed his name from a non-identifying nickname to another non-identifying nickname, and a page that dealt with him being sanctioned or something under the first nickname having been linked.

Since the arbcom recently saw fit to out me to my real name in their amendment to the Matthew Hoffman case, one would think that this minor issue could be dealt with soon, particularly as a different user, Dana Ullman, who was blocked for a year, has recently returned, and the documentation of all the massive problems he caused last time is going to be important in stopping him quickly should he do so again. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's a lie. One person linked to my real name - which everyone knows now, since Arbcom revealed it, so there's no point responding. I linked to - I don't know what it was - but a RfC or sockpiuppet report or something under what the person had said was just a nick he was changing because he preferred the other one, and had no reason to think that the old nick was either identifying or meaningful. Please get your facts straight before making accusations. Furthermore, they do not go back to the start, because most of them were oversighted, and, secondly, the user in question only suddenly claimed that linking to problems he had been involved with before was outing after he had gotten blocked for it, which rather makes one think he was just trying to get people in trouble. Furthermnore, the previous request for clarification said it would be undeleted eventually. If that's not the case anymore, ten the situation isn't the same at all, and the arbcom has repeatedly lied when they assured everyone it would be dealt with. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Bainer, please stop making an accusation of bad faith on my part which you cannot back, and which I cannot even defend myself from because the page in question, showing the harmlessness of the link that accidentally outed the user in question, is deleted by the Arbcom. This is a partticularly egregious accusation, because you are well aware that the truth of the matter can only be seen by oversighters. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

NYB: Several of the users in question are back, including DanaUllman. Should problems arise, I would much rather be able to point to the evidence I spent hundreds of hours preparing to show his abuse of sources and so on, rather than have to collect all the evidence over again, particularly as the ban was passed without any mention of the evidence that caused it to be passed. Unless Arbcom thinks "DanaUllman has engaged in advocacy of homeopathy on Misplaced Pages." - the only finding of fact about him - is sufficient without the dozens of pages of evidence that led to that decision. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To all the arbitrators: I have asked several times that Mr. Bain withdraw his false accusation. As much of the evidence is oversighted, I would appreciate it being made very clear that this was not (or, at least, since you're not me, that there's no evidence that this was) "Tit-for-tat" or intentional outing on my part, while the other side was edit warring to reveal my name shortly after the Matthew Hoffman case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, after being e-mailed the text, I dealt with the issue in two minutes, following the suggestion of Newyorkbrad, which was also that of FloNight and a few others, as I recall, in the past. Delete it if you want, but you've been talking about doing that for 11 months now, and it's ridiculous that you spent that long complaining about how difficult it was, when it took all of two minutes to do. Now, if you'll deal with Stephen Bain's accusation we can all go home. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Scientizzle

I reviewed the deleted page and I think I found the "outing" done by SH to which Stephen Bain refers. If this deleted revision relates to the general basis of Bain's claims, I think the reasons presented for keeping the page deleted are proverbially overstated. The user in question changed his or her name with a public request at Misplaced Pages:Changing username, the previous name is readily apparent in the current ID's usertalk archives, and the third most recent edit in the current userpage history tab is labeled "moved User:X to User:Y: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "X" to "Y"). I can't find a WP:RTV request by the user in question, so are we to assume the "arbcom/otrs email" cited in the deleted revision was a de facto RTV? If so, it was so poorly done as to make the prior ID of this user astonishingly easy to determine and there are a number of pages that should be deleted. If not, why is a set of public information being used to keep the evidence page deleted? Am I missing something more? — Scientizzle 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested solution by MastCell

I understand that the GFDL issues are prohibitive here. The main concern on SH's part - the reason for this request - is that some parties sanctioned in the case are once again active. Should these parties repeat some of their earlier problematic behavior, it might be useful to have a record of evidence which was compiled for the previous case.

I would suggest that I, or another admin, simply email a copy of the deleted page to SH. The page doesn't need to be restored on-wiki, and an emailed, offline copy would be sufficient in terms of preserving relevant diffs and evidence should further action become necessary. I don't see that emailing the page to SH violates anyone's privacy, since he is already well aware of the account in question's identity, and as Scientizzle points out, the rename was carried out in such a way that it's not exactly hard to put 2 + 2 together if anyone cares.

I will say upfront that I'm not really familiar with the extent of privacy issues in this case. Given that, and the fact that Oversight is involved, I will not proceed with this suggestion or email anything to anyone unless I hear from the Committee that they think this approach is reasonable and respects the privacy of those concerned. MastCell  17:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I should probably note, since SH has posted an emailed copy of the evidence page, that I have not emailed him. I did not consider the discussion by the Arbs below sufficient go-ahead. No opinion on whether or not it should be posted, but I thought I'd make clear that I did not email it. MastCell  22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested solution by Enric Naval

Ahem, I know that someone said that it was a lot of work, but could some nice arb or admin go to the deleted history of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence and delete the offending paragraphs revisions? It's not just Shoemaker's problem here, it's also that User:DanaUllman's ban has expired and people is commenting at an ANI thread bout his return without the possibility of pointing them to the evidence page so they can see what were the alleged problems.

Also, an oversighter please confirm that the other user (whoever he is) has oversighted edits outing Shoemaker, and please link to the deleted revisions so we people will not say that they don't exist.

Also, please solve this before Shoemaker hurts himself.

Also, consider telling bainer to not open the topic anymore. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: (in reference to Carcharoth's comment) Well, let's make an author list then. Anyways, editors could only edit under their own section so it's trivial to identify what part they wrote. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• I've retitled this from Request to finally do what you've been promising to do for an entire year: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence (which is a little too long). AGK 21:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Nothing has changed since the prior request for clarification. Two users - one of whom was yourself, Shoemaker's Holiday - were engaged in outing each other on the evidence page, going back to some of the earliest revisions. As MBisanz said in his comment during the last request, even putting GFDL issues aside, it's not feasible to reconstruct a coherent version of the page. There are only two findings of fact in the case, neither of which suffer egregiously from the evidence page being deleted (the statements, along with article talk pages, largely cover it), so there is no benefit to be gained substantial enough to justify expending many hours of volunteer time on such a task. --bainer (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Generally, arbitration pages are at most courtesy-blanked rather than deleted, but if there is a need for deletion of this page, I don't see how the deletion is causing any specific ongoing harm, so I would urge the requesting party to be more specific if he wishes to pursue this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • MastCell's suggestion might be one possible solution here; another is that any administrators who might need to address issues for the returned editors can simply be pointed to the page and check the deleted revisions (I know that is not perfect, as non-admins couldn't access it, but it still seems reasonable to me so far). I will add, though, that if someone wanted to restore a redacted current version, I don't see any GFDL concern, because all the posts on an evidence page are labelled with the proposer's name anyway, so that's not an issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Noting here that of the current 14 arbitrators, 10 were not arbitrators in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday, when you file amendment requests to old cases, and comment on the promises or actions of past ArbComs, please bear that in mind. My view is that the evidence should be available, if some way can be found to remove what needs to be removed. Like Newyorkbrad, I don't see the GFDL concern as prohibitive. Constructing an author list is possible in this case, and this is in any case an internal page, not intended for publication. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse. Risker (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy "Ryulong admonished"
2. Enforcement "Ryulong and users' identity seeking"

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• (Ryulong)

Amendment 1

• "Ryulong admonished" (term A)
• From the current wording: "(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from seeking Mythdon's identity off-wiki, identifying personal information of Misplaced Pages users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt to seek Mythdon's identity off wiki or in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;"
• Modifying to "(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from identifying personal information of Misplaced Pages users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;""

Amendment 2

• "Ryulong and users' identity seeking"
• That this enforcement be terminated.

Statement by Mythdon

I am requesting an amendment to "Ryulong admonished" and the enforcement "Ryulong and users' identity seeking".

Taking a good look at the findings and evidence, there is no finding or evidence that Ryulong was seeking any users identity. Finding "Ryulong discussing the identity of Mythdon" makes no mention of identity seeking, but mentions identity discussion, if anything.

I think it is totally unjust to make a remedy on something that isn't found to had been going on—Trying to solve what is not happening. This is one of those cases. Was there a finding or any actual evidence that Ryulong sought any user personal information? No. Sam Blacketer voted against this enforcement for exactly that reason. Therefore, I request that we terminate this enforcement, and modify the admonishment to only direct Ryulong to refrain from doing what he was found to do. Note that this is not based on my personal preferences, but based on what is necessary for the cases judgment. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Casliber

Well, I am pursuing this because there is no finding of fact or evidence that Ryulong was actually seeking my identity. Arbitration remedies are to ensure that problems don't recur, not to ensure a problem never starts. It is not whether I give him permission to seek my identity, but whether the arbitration remedies serve a purpose. These do not obviously serve any purpose other than, if anything, prevent problems that have never occurred. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg

What I am suggesting is not to make the remedy unenforceable, but to make the remedy fair to the evidence and findings of fact. There is no evidence that Ryulong was identity seeking, which is exactly why I am here. I also have a question, one which should be at Requests for Clarification. Will Ryulong be banned if he violates "identifying personal information of Misplaced Pages users, and from disclosing that information to others"? I'm curious, because you make it sound so. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 3

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
• Details of desired modification

Statement by Ryulong

In response to Carcharoth, sure why not. I didn't like this restriction or whatever because it was based on the one-off instance when Mythdon was going out of his way to contact me on other websites and I merely relayed the information to another user, which was blown out of proportion by another edit that I did not make.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

• Recused - Hersfold 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Recused - Tiptoety 03:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• On reading this, I am open to this. As the underlying meaning isn't changed, but the wording is made more neutral (?) Can I ask why you are pursuing this Mythdon? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, given that the functional result of the wording is actually the same, but the explicit mention of Ryulong is removed, I am open to this one. I'll see what the others think but I think we can run with this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Like Casliber, I'm uncertain as to what the point of all this is. It should be Ryulong filing this kind of request for amendment, not Mythdon. It seems very strange for Mythdon to be filing this request. I am not minded to grant this request unless Ryulong asks for it himself. Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Decline as written. The requested amendment alters a remedy that still refers to an enforcement that is proposed to be terminated. The result would be a remedy that is unenforcible. Like Casliber and Carcharoth I am open to an improved wording along these lines, but this amendment isnt it. John Vandenberg 22:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Recused, as I was for the original case. Risker (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per John. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1

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

Statement by Greg L

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by RexxS

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

Statement by Dabomb87

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

Statement by Tony1

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

Statement by Kotniski

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

Arbitrator discussion

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

Request to amend prior case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (5)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1

• That my editing restriction be replaced by an admonishment

Statement by John

• Basically the editing restriction on me was punitive, unnecessary, and far too harsh given the extremely minor degree of "edit-warring" demonstrated. I take particular offense at being subject to the same restriction as Tennis expert (talk · contribs) (see here), when the nature of our respective involvements and our editing histories and block logs are so very different. Newyorkbrad was the only arbitrator to oppose the sanctions, though three others abstained. It is not clear to me that those arbitrators who voted against me before I had the chance to defend myself, actually read the evidence I subsequently presented. Verdict before evidence seems an egregious breach of natural justice.

• Many editors and admins who I respect have come out, both on and off wiki, and stated that they find my restriction to be over-harsh, which is why I am minded to make this request. I received an email today from yet another editor who I have had no previous dealings with asking if I planned to appeal. Without wishing to be over-dramatic, let me be clear that I have no interest in contributing to improving articles, when doing so would expose me to the very real risk of a block. I'm proud of never having been blocked and wish to be able to edit without this unwarranted and unnecessary threat hanging over me.

• If this appeal is unsuccessful it is unlikely that I would continue to throw shit around the place; it is more likely I would just leave, and take away a very poor impression of our community's dispute resolution process. Even if I do leave, I still believe that my service to the project entitles me to a fair hearing, and a proper explanation of just why these restrictions are deemed necessary. To minimally restore my faith in this current Arbcom, if this appeal is unsuccessful I request to see proper rationales from those opposing it. Obviously I would prefer to return without any restriction as there are several articles I would dearly love to improve. I hope I am not asking too much. Thanks for your consideration.
• (See User:John/ArbcomAppeal for a longer treatment.) --John (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

Strong support for this request. I have worked with John a long time and have nothing but the deepest respect for him. The finding and sanction were misguided and far out of proportion to any actual harm caused the project by John's wikiGnoming. He showed at the time of the case that the allegations were unwarranted, and I sincerely believe he intended no harm whatever. Unlike some of the editors sanctioned in this case, John is the sort of editor we want more of, not less of. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Septentrionalis/PMAnderson/(??) - You say "That editors should not willfully distort other usernames"... I'm not sure I understand the relevance of that request by you to the request here before us to vacate the unjust sanction on John. However, I must ask, what exactly do you mean by that request? What is your username or desired appelation? I confess I have no clear idea of the latter. You sign as "Septentrionalis PMAnderson" ... is your desired appelation "Pmanderson"? "Septentrionalis"? Something else? How is one to know? I think you should consider having your username be what you want people to call you, and then sign using that username, or else not take any umbrage if people don't call you exactly as you like. My username is "Lar" (long A, short for Larry) but people call me "Lars" a fair bit. Rather than getting upset I just point out my desired username is singular, not plural, and they should be glad there's but one of me about, and everyone has a smile and that's that. No worries. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

NYB had asked for time to allow others to comment (until Monday, was my read)... It's now (early) Thursday. Has everyone commented that NYB expected? Is there more to be done before arbs can vote on the motion presented? I'd like to see this not peter out without a resolution, or drag on for weeks or months while we wait for someone to make some contribution or another... I've had that happen and it's no fun at all. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Either Pmanderson or Septentrionalis will do; wiki-friends have nicknames. But "Mandy" or "Manderson" are intentional pinpricks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying that, helps indeed! (I leave it to a clerk to decide if that response needs to be moved to Pmanderson's section, it is less disjointed here but... the forms must be obeyed :) ) ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

I strongly support this application for vacation of the remedy imposed on this user. John made a few reasonable edits which fell into a broad category that was much later determined to be controversial. The edits did not violate any policy and none of them were recent, and as Lar says above, appear relatively harmless. Additionally, an investigation of John's broader contributions reveals a high-calibre, dedicated editor with solid content contributions - we are not talking about a disruptive editor or one who needs to be contained or curtailed here. The edits he made are similar to several hundred I made at around the same time using a script (also in good faith, and not one of them challenged or reverted) following the MOS change, and yet myself and others who edited in the same area and even commented and voted on the issue were never mentioned in the case - I am unsure why John was even identified. John has also identified issues of due process/natural justice with regards to his late addition to the case and that voting commenced before he could present a defence.

The "preventative, not punitive" mantra of actions on Wiki should firmly apply here - this sanction prevents no disruption at all, restricts John from editing in the forums where he is of best use to the project and has been very useful over a long period of time, and has simply had a chilling effect for good-faith contributors in what it communicates: if they do anything at all, ArbCom could come back 6 months or a year later, rewrite the rules (which is perfectly OK in and of itself - they needed to be rewritten) and unfairly restrict the user for no better reason than that somebody names them on an evidence page and provides a few diffs out-of-context. Of all the sanctions imposed in the case, this one (identical to that given to editors in the same case who had aggressively edit-warred for months, attacked fellow contributors and wantonly obstructed community processes) genuinely shocked a rather large number of admins and editors.

I urge ArbCom to reconsider this penalty. Orderinchaos 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Rlevse - While I don't wish to undermine any measure to relieve the sanctions on John, is there any serious suggestion that he has edit-warred, or deserves admonishment as against any number of people (eg Lumos3, and *many* others) who failed to be mentioned at all in the case? Orderinchaos 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Added note: I also believe that both the HJensen and Kotniski cases raised earlier, both of which were somewhat left hanging and now have both been archived without conclusion, should be considered in a similar vein - although their cases were slightly different as unlike John they were actual disputants rather than Wikignomes caught in the crossfire, they were not significant disputants and any alleged behaviour stopped well before it became problematic, and sanctions on these two users serve no clear preventative purpose and impede them in assisting the project productively. Orderinchaos 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sarah

I was shocked to see John added to this case, so I spent many hours reading through this case and the related diffs, evidence etc and I find the findings and remedies against him alarming and I urge, as strongly as I possibly can, the committee to reconsider their decision in respect to this user. I have known John and worked with him since before either of us became administrators and he is a user for whom I have an immense amount of personal and editorial respect. I believe John made all edits in good faith and with the best of intentions and not as a participant in any kind of ideological dispute or edit war and I find the evidence of "edit warring" unconvincing at best and insufficient to even justify his inclusion in this case over many other people who have made similar edits in the past. Let's be honest, those edits would not be sufficient to justify a charge of "edit warring" against an editor on the noticeboards or anywhere else on the project. While I'm sure this decision was written carefully and with the best of intentions, the reality is it is punitive, unnecessary and profoundly unfair and overly harsh, and this is the case above all others that has turned me into a fierce critic of this committee. It also happens to be a case that could easily be brought against many of us, and I'd wager a lot more than just one administrator or arbitrator would be vulnerable to a retrospective cherry-picking of their edits months, years after the fact in an evolving culture. This is why this decision is so alarming and it leaves a chilling effect as editors have good reason to fear edits made in good faith may be censured retrospectively months, possibly even years later and bring them into disrepute in the eyes of the committee. As an established editor and administrator who has never previously been blocked, cautioned, reprimanded, or sanctioned, John deserves to be treated better and not to be branded as an "arbcom restricted user" because of some strangely overly broad casting of fishing nets. This isn't protective or preventative in any constructive sense; it's damaging the project as we lose an experienced, intelligent, educated and well-meaning editor and administrator. As others have said, John is the kind of editor we need more of around here, not the kind we want to drive away. I urge the committee to rescind all findings and remedies against John and allow him to return to us as an unrestricted user in good standing. Sarah 04:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dabomb87

I largely echo the comments above. Like most people, I was surprised when I saw John included in the list of "victims". Compared to the "evidence" collected for the original parties of the case, the evidence for John is sparse and very suspect. That he should receive the same degree of punishment (because that's what it is) as me is a travesty. According to our blocking policy, blocks should only be used when the editor's disruptive behavior is "persistent", or "lesser measures are inadequate". I see no evidence that John was persistently disruptive or that lesser measures, such as an admonishment, would have not sufficed. Compared to the original parties, John's participation in the date linking discussions was much less, and he was probably not aware that the issue was so controversial and had spawned so much ill will and disruptive editing. An admonishment would do much to remind him to make sure his edits follow consensus (and it could be argued that they did, although it was hotly disputed at the time). Instead, the Committee assumed that he had made like the others and was disruptive, slapping him with a 12-month restriction. Now, the Committee may not think that the restriction is much, but when WikiGnoming and copy-editing (I dabble in both), it is quite absurd to not be able to correct others' good faith edits (superior word choice, sentence structure, MOS issues that have clear consensus). The Committee has the power to do as they wish, and should know that the chance of retaining an excellent editor and administrator is at hand. I will remind them that while good users are not indispensable, they are certainly not inexhaustible. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

A kindly reminder from a recused clerk that if an arb is even considering an amendment, it is best to post the motion as soon as they think of it. Many of the these threads go stale because the arbs keep saying they want to do something, but no one ever posts a motion, or by the time they post a motion all of the other arbs have read the thread and don't come back to vote. Just a suggestion to NYB that you get a motion on the ground as soon as you know what general thing you are contemplating as a change. MBisanz 15:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HWV258

Agree that the restrictions are unduly unfair towards John. A handful of reverts and no history should not have landed John with the same restrictions as applied to someone such as Tennis Expert who made over 750 reverts and had a related block at the time. I believe that even admonishment is over-the-top in this case.  HWV258  01:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

My own transgressions should not disallow me from making yet another impassioned (yet reasoned) plea on behalf of John, who as seen from the statements already posted, is a dedicated editor with an unblemished record. There are elements in this case where justice has not been done, and/or has not been seen to be done. John's case is perhaps one of the most obvious travesties of justice (I would mention en passant that I believe the admonition of TheRamblingMan would also fall into that category). We all agree this has been a long and complicated case, and even Jayvdb admits the inquisitional work was incomplete (reference to the edit warring by Lumos3 which was not even mentioned in the judgement). Based on that, and on my own observations, other instances of reverts or deliberate re-linking of dates also escaped detection. I am not saying that Lumos and others should have been hauled in and sanctioned, but rather that Arbcom should have remained focussed, instead of trying to be exhaustive.

The restrictions placed on John are out of proportion to others whose disruptive behaviour was manifestly deliberate and of a scale several orders of magnitude beyond those of John. I feel that any accusations that he had not acted in good faith (and edit warred) were rather tenuous. His handful of alleged tag-team edit-warring, if applied to ordinary everyday situations, are completely within the realms of reasonable editing behaviour, and yet he is suffering because of some arbitrary decision to include him after he was found, completely by accident (per Jayvdb), to have delinked a few articles more than once. The remedy does nothing to prevent future disruption, yet gives further opportunity for wikilawyering by editors who may be in dispute with John, for whatever reason. It would place him at a great risk of blocking although there is nothing in his dealing with others which would suggest he has disruptive or tendentious editing traits. Most importantly, as John stated above, he was not given adequate time to defend himself - the late motion to impose remedies on him left him little time to prepare his defence before Arbs voted. The decision against John should be quashed, and John's name cleared. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. HJensen's appeal deserves to be considered favourably too. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

Now that the heat of the case has dissipated, I believe sufficient time has elapsed to review the sanction placed on John. I would ask arbitrators to judge whether the sanction is commensurate with the offence. Please consider in particular the comments linked here. I stand by my view that, through his wikignoming, he was caught up in a dispute that he was never part of. His only offence was to revisit a very small number of articles and perform the same cleaning-up that had been blindly reverted. He has accepted that, and has apologised for it. I can understand the ArbCom's desire to modify behaviour, but in this case, I do not agree that the sanction against John is helpful: the stress of this case will have surely made its point already, and a continuing sanction does nothing but embitter a valued, productive editor and admin. I can also understand ArbCom's intention to reduce the tension over date-delinking, by placing preventive restrictions on the parties: my view is that John was not a party, but a victim of the collateral damage this conflict caused, and sanctions on him in no way further that intention. I urge arbitrators to now reconsider the value of this sanction, and to vacate the restriction placed upon John. --RexxS (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to PMAnderson

I believe you are mistaken. In each of those three articles, prior to OhC's edits there was a mixture of dmy and mdy. He did not change the entire format wholescale as the dmy dates there were untouched. I agree he has almost certainly chosen the wrong format to regularise to, and you are entitled to point that out. If, on the other hand, you are complaining about editors who are amending articles with a mixture of dmy and mdy to a single format, then please make that clear. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Greg L

What ArbCom did here with John isn’t just. He was never once blocked with even a three-hour warning block for incivility towards other editors involved in date-linking debate. He wasn’t once blocked for edit-warring or sock puppetry or any malfeasance during the course of that debate.

It is not right that ArbCom later goes in and uses a far more critical litmus test for determining who is good editor and who is a bad editor that “Misplaced Pages needs protection from” than was ever required of editors during the debate. Such ArbCom actions have a chilling effect, is harmful to the mood of the community, and lessens respect for Misplaced Pages’s institutions. ArbCom’s actions are seen as tantamount to the “nanny squad” going to a construction site where a high-rise is being built and saying “oh my goodness, that construction worker over there said ‘damned’ on two occasions while trying to get a beam to fit into place.”

If administrators didn’t once step in to protect Misplaced Pages from bad-ol’ John, then perhaps Jimbo, ArbCom, and the Bureaucrats need to huddle and think about how to modify the behavior of administrators so they start enforcing the standard of conduct ArbCom thinks is befitting Misplaced Pages. It is simply not right that there be two standards: what passes for months or years with administrators, and what ArbCom thinks is right using their 50-power retrospectoscope when reviewing months-old, cherry-picked “evidence” slung about by one’s adversaries. This is no way for any organization to run. Greg L (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Colonies Chris

Of the many bad outcomes from the whole date delinking case, this was the worst. It simply looks as though ArbCom were determined to punish everyone however distantly involved in the dispute, without bothering to make any discrimination. ArbCom has a choice here - they can embitter and drive away valuable editors with years of conflict-free work behind them, or they can regain some respect by addressing this appeal sympathetically (and also HJensen's, whose appeal appears to be languishing in limbo). Colonies Chris (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis (PMAnderson)

I have no personal comment on this proposal. I do recall some discussion on this matter suggesting that John was more involved in this quarrel than he now admits, but I cannot find it.

• If WP:ARBDATE is going to be amended, I would suggest the narrow wording: the restricted editors are not to discuss the linking of dates or (perhaps, as another wording) the formatting of dates. As Ohconfucius' persistent question makes clear, the broader and vaguer language may not make this decision easier to enforce.

(Would some Arbitrator please comment on his question, asked here and, originally, here: were these restrictions ever intended to apply to the Naming Conventions?)

I would also appreciate consideration of the following limitations:

• That editors should not willfully distort other usernames, as in this edit (I say willful to exclude typoes, which this is not). Ohconfucius and GregL have picked up this minor obnoxiousness from Tony, who seems to have reformed.
• A restriction on changing format in dates between "July 17, 2009" and "17 July 2009". This is most of what some editors have been doing in article space; it was the only merit of date autoformatting that it squelched this sort of thing, which is as silly as the yogurt/yoghurt war. MOS expressly disapproves such changes between permitted formats (with a narrow and reasonable exception for strong national ties; Gordon Brown should be formatted in the present British system, and Barack Obama in the American).

I have listed three undesirable edits below, from a large collection; I have reverted a couple others, which seemed to me unusually bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich of Russia (1856–1929)
• Nicholas Alexandrovich, Tsarevich of Russia
• Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia

• You dramatically referred to one of my edits as 'date warring'. On such an occasion, I am not afraid of repeating myself: I would point out that my primary mission with those particular edits of mine, as has been for some months now, has been the alignment of dates within articles.

  Someone has drawn my attention to the fact that I may have chosen the wrong date format to unify to. I would say that the choice of format was inadvertent, as I did not bother checking the earliest version. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  • That's because it is; you changed the entire format wholesale from one style to another. See the jguk case for ArbCom's opinion of this practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the process of finding this link, I find that WP:MOS is (again? still? does it matter?) protected for revert-warring, although it was unprotected when ARBDATE closed. Now that the Macedonia disaster has been dealt with, it is the worst snake-pit on Misplaced Pages. ArbCom may wish to consider much the same remedy: empower a few uninvolved admins to ask of each provision "Is there any consensus for this? Does it in any way serve the encyclopedia?", which would include "Is this what English actually does?" I have doubted for some time that most of MOS would pass either test, but let neutral admins find out.

The most impressive piece of evidence for this is this curious comment, in which one editor shows that he supports one style of punctuation in order to get back at the liberal arts professors who downgraded him for using the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How do any of these points relate to John's request for relief? If you wish the general case amended, open your own proposal under its own heading to do it. Orderinchaos 05:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the first sentence does; there was discussion of John's deeper involvement, even if I don't care enough to find it. I have extended to other suggestions because NYBrad suggested that I make such points on this page, rather than his talkpage; NYBrad is considering a proposal for sweeping revisions, which would also relieve John, but should have community input; and the last thing the arbitration pages need is another locus for discussion of the date-delinking case (Ohconfucius's unnumbered one makes how many (six, I think?) already, and his went unobserved for days). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the impression (although NYB is free to correct me) that re "sweeping revisions" he meant with regards to the individual remedies on a number of users. That would be fair, given some of the users were not terribly culpable (or in John's case, really culpable at all). One can leave the principles unchanged while varying the specific findings of fact and remedies; any change to the principles or on generally applicable FoFs or remedies would need to be considered on its own merits, hence my suggestion of opening a new heading to address it. Orderinchaos 16:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He asked for ideas. The second paragraph here, which I will make a bullet-point, would seem a reasonable restriction for several editors (including Ohconfucius and myself). If he doesn't want a broader proposal, that's up to him; I will consider whether to make it myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that PMA continues to edit the Naming convention guidelines in recent days: 1, 2, 3, 4, and pending clarification evident from Arbcom, I would ask him to desist. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Earle Martin

The arbitrary and vindictive nature of some of the punishments handed out by the members of the Arbcom in this case (with the notable exception of Newyorkbrad) have greatly reduced my respect for them as an institution. The treatment of John is a case in point. In this case, I can only concur with every single statement made above. -- Earle 15:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

What Earle said.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

I couldn't believe it when I saw that ruling. The ruling was arbitrary. Essentially the message is that if anyone performs a couple of edits with one theme, then maybe a few years and a score or so thousands edits down the line if a related theme gets heard by ArbCom and your edits are spotted, you can have your name blackened and your editing restricted. How much sense does that message make? ArbCom is here to solve intractable disputes, not to seize on any opportunity presenting itself to tarnish the reputation and editing ability of good users. How exactly does this ruling help solve an intractable dispute? The ruling in question has done ArbCom's credibility a lot of damage btw, you should use this appeal as an opportunity to fix your mistake. I hope you do, though honestly I'm not that optimistic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1

Per RexxS. Tony (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Heimstern

OK, it's well past "the beginning of next week", as it was at the time NYB wrote that. Could we have some, like, votes? Like, enough to settle this matter? I don't see why in the week since this motion has been open we've had only three arbs get around to voting. There appears to me to be strong community opposition to the restrictions on John, and yet the committee as a whole is dragging its feet and giving neither yea nor nay. This is exactly the sort of thing that causes negativity toward the committee in the community. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Clerk notes

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

• Recused MBisanz 12:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Passes, please put motion into effect, archive, notify, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting further statements. However, at present I believe that our decision was much too harsh with respect to this user, and my preliminary view is that I would grant the application. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Would any other editors with comments please submit them within 48 hours (i.e. by Friday evening UTC), after which I will decide whether to offer a motion. The motion, if offered, may or may not apply more broadly than to this individual appellant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • By way of update, I've received a request to wait until early next week before proposing anything, as someone who wants to contribute to the discussion has limited availability until then. I will accede to that request, and therefore, anyone with comments should try to provide them by then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Concur, motion below. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Noting that I'm aware of this thread and the motion but awaiting further comments per Newyorkbrad's explanation. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Noting here my recusal in the motion below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1

The ruling restricting User:John, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#John_restricted, is vacated and replaced with "John (talk · contribs) is admonished for edit-warring to remove the linking of dates."

There are 12 active arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

Support

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Fair enough (the 12 month restriction was overkill) Wizardman 16:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. I had planned to comment further and possibly to offer additional motions, but have spent more time than I expected tonight on other items on this page, so that will follow tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

   This motion is carried. I will offer an additional motion over the weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

4. I'm not convinced that the original restriction was that harsh, but there is a good argument of lightening it. — Coren  22:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Coren. As written, I will accept this as an substitute. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 23:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. Carrying over here my recuse from the original case, so as not to affect the voting (merely saying nothing would count as an oppose). Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
2. As much of the appeal is directed against myself. John Vandenberg 16:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)