Requests for amendment

Initiated by Tijfo098 (talk) at 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. "Deprecation by ScienceApologist" 11a) Using strong negative language, ScienceApologist has deprecated a number of persons and their theories "well-known woo-woos", The Electric Universe (book) "discredited" "Completely unauthorative, argumentative"
2. "Discretionary sanctions" 12) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Tijfo098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Maunus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

[1] (Maunus notfied)

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions
• I'd like the wording to be modified to include not only statements that some branch/discipline is pseudoscience, but more explicitly include equivalently derogatory labeling such as "cult".

Statement by Tijfo098

It seems trendy to now bash on scientific theories and disciplines using language not directly covered by the pseudoscience arbitration case, but which have effectively the same meaning or worse. 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

To SirFozzie: because it's not clear (to me) that a WP:AE request would be considered in scope. The Electric Universe (book) is deleted now, so I have no idea what that was about, but I suspect it was a more wp:fringe topic than evolutionary psychology. On the other hand it's clear that many anthropologists (Maunus identifies himself as being one) do not hold EP in much esteem. For instance Thomas Hylland Eriksen writes in his book What is Anthropology? that "Most anthropologists are unenthusiastic about evolutionary psychology." (p. 138); and then describes some "academic turf wars". Is this sufficient to put the matter in scope of the Pseudoscience case? 21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For instance, Mathsci below writes that it doesn't fall withing that scope, so a clarification seems useful. I'm merely seeking a clarification for future events like this, not seeking to have anyone sanctioned in this particular incident, which appears resolved already. 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Another, kinder(?) commentary of User:AndyTheGrump is comparing EP with homeopathy, again without providing a source [2]. The current Wikipedia article on Homeopathy identifies it as pseudoscience and quackery. Does this type of "pseudoscience by comparison" declaration fall under the remit of the Pseudoscience case? Tijfo098 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since some here make allusions to my motivation, my only recollection having participated in that article is responding to a RfC where I was in agreement with Maunus that sourced and attributed criticism of EP should be included, even if it sounded extreme. 01:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Maunus

I am not going to defend my use of the word "cult" which was clearly uncivil and uncalled for regardless of whether it is included in any sanctions, and for which I have already apologized.[3] I would like to note that this happened after a protracted dispute in which I have been repeatedly labelled as an "anti-EP'er" a "marxist" and a "cultural determinist" by the user to whom the comment was directed in spite of having made expicit statements that I am neither of those. It does not seem fair to me to single out my example of incivilty for an ArbCom remedy when other editors on the page have been repeatedly breaching WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. I apologize for my uncivil language, and accept any sanction that might be deemed justifiable as long as the transgression is seen in its proper context of prolonged incivilty by Memills (talk · contribs). ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I do not consider Evolutionary Psychology to be a pseudoscience or a cult. I consider the particular editor to be unable to understand that there are different perspectives on the discipline and that not everyone who disagrees with some of EP's conclusions do so out of spite or for political motives. This obviously does not extend to all EP practitioners. It is correct that many of EP's critics have been anthropologists, but many have also been philosophers or psychologists from other subdisciplines. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leadwind has repeatedly referred to anthropology as being the carrier of "Marxist ideology" does this mean that his statements fall under the scope of Eastern Europe arbitration?·Maunus·ƛ· 01:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by completely uninvolved Mathsci

This request seems absurd and WP:POINTY. It is related to a current thread on WP:ANI on Evolutionary psychology (EP) in which both named parties are participating. It is an unnecessary escalation of something that has been clarified by Maunus there (e.g. [4] where Maunus also makes an apology). This is forum-shopping gone wild. Although EP is regarded by some as controversial, it does not fall within the realm of pseudoscience (as far as I am aware). Mathsci (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tijfo098 has explained some of his motives for tabling this amendment here. Mathsci (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy had its own case and rulings Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm a bit confused. They may be using alternative language, but why wouldn't what your suggesting fall under: that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. I would think accusing other editors of being members of a cult would fall under the above? SirFozzie (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I have reviewed this request and don't see a need for an amendment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by olive (talk) at 07:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

[5]

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Ban review which only affects Littleolive oil

Amendment 1

Review of topic ban [6]. I was directed to this page by Shell Kinney. I'm pretty much in the dark as to how to file this per the format of this template, but Shell assured me this was the place to do it. Please move anything around that is out of place and if I need to add of fix anything please let me know. Thanks.

Statement by olive

Although, this ban expired yesterday, I’d respectfully like to request a review anyway. My concern at this point is with the blot on my record as an editor. Real life issues (including a wedding and a funeral) have made it difficult to focus on this until just recently, in part because this isn’t easy to discuss.

I was given a 3 month topic ban as the result of asking for a warning [7] for User:Jmh649, per the TM arbitration, [8] for removing with out prior discussion content with 5 reliable sources that were WP:MEDRS compliant, and three further reliable sources (total of 8 reliable sources). When I asked for clarification or reasons for the ban [9] since no evidence or diffs had been given, and while I’ve edited multiple TM articles; I was directed to one thread in a discussion, on one article, the TM article. For this apparently tendentious discussion I was given a 3 month topic ban. The thread Nuclear Warfare pointed me to [10] is actually two separate discussions in one thread, and not one long drawn out discussion. This is the end of the first discussion [11], and the beginning of the new discussion [12].

In the first of these discussion, issues centered around a highly contentious sentence that had been moved back into the TM article lead by Doc James. [13] (His claim by the way, that this is either a consensus version or was the conclusion of an RfC is untrue). In the second discussion, I had moved content into the article per agreement, that had included the same highly contentious sentence now back in the lead of the TM article. [14]. I didn’t think that it was appropriate to have the same sentence twice in one article, and still don’t. It’s just poor writing. I revised the sentence to be more specific to the sources than the more general, summary-style version in the lead, and also assumed this was a more accurate compromised version of the sentence that would be fine with everyone. When the discussion on all of this seemed to be going nowhere, I decided to leave the discussion, then hoped to try a mediation to see if an outside eye could help us work through the issues. [15] This is in no way the rhetoric of a tendentious editor, nor is the suggestion that we get some outside help to help us deal with this issue.

Actually there is a point where ongoing circular discussion is no longer a useful way to deal with some issues, and outside assistance is useful. This discussion started before the RfC on this same sentence months ago. There is no good reason to now not ask for help in dealing with this dispute. I'm out of the energy required to argue this further with the same arguments, and points. lets see if we can have an outside make this easier for all of us. Thanks.(olive (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Will Beback urged me to remain in this discussion, but would later support the ban based on tendentious editing. In this kind of situation I’m not sure what else an editor can do. If I’d continued to discuss I’d probably have been labeled as tendentious. So either I walk way, or walk away and ask for help. I tried to do both, but was labeled tendentious anyway. The contentious sentence itself is a separate but definitely connected issue to this ban, as it was “used” before in an earlier AE against me that despite the sanction, should any experienced editor bother to look closely at the evidence, failed to show any wrong-doing at all, let alone per the TM arbitration. I can go into that if needed. I’m also concerned about sanctions that are based on the term tendentious. When you have contentious articles, it’s very easy to use a term that relies on highly subjective judgment, and non-specific, non-concrete evidence as a kind of umbrella term under which an editor can be indescriminately sanctioned.

Ludwigs2, an uninvolved editor, after wading through multiple discussion pages on the TM article commented in the AE appeal I made [16] He has a grasp of the discussions, and in my opinion has a pretty accurate view of the situation.

Pertinent talk page discussion:[17]

@ arbs and Will Beback per Will Bebeack's statement:

• My reasons for posting this is clearly stated above. I am neither a liar nor manipulative so Will's suggested reason for my posting didn't occur to me. What I said is what I meant.

• I was encouraged to continue to deal further with the ban by these comments [18].

• I did leave out in my statement that there is a tendency to poison the well with statements like this.

"Olive has been warned amply. Some folks are what they are, and it doesn't matter how much you tell them to act differently they will stay true to form. That's admirable in some respects, but it may mean that they don't fit into a collegial project."

Will please provide diffs of my "ample warnings", and evidence for how I don't fit into a collegial (civil) environment. This statement presents an unfair, untrue picture of my editing and editing record.

*Per disruption: Will's statement was completely expected since he's used this kind of illogical, spurious statement before. Remove any "side" from a contentious discussion and you don't have any more discussion. Will you made a statement alleging disruption. Where are the diffs and context? And I'll remind you that discussion in a contentious area, is not disruption just because editors oppose your position especially when that editor has suggested numerous times that we get outside help. I also attempted to leave the discussion when it was going nowhere, but you pushed me to remain in the discussion, and while I did leave the discussion, you then support a ban for tendentious editing.

• I hope the arbs will look beyond Will's statement.

@arbs. Please give me a chance to respond later today. Sir Fozzie, that appeal was closed while two uninvolved editors had questioned the ban and while AGk specifically asked the case not be closed. This isn't the first time a case was closed before I could respond or someone else could respond to support me.

Will that's not what I said. Stop mischaracterizing me. I was in a discussion with you and Doc James. I left, and so yes with the content as you wanted it, and an editor removed things were quiet. I made a general statement, an analogy about discussion. You've made some nasty serious allegations here without evidence, and with the obvious intent of discrediting me.... again. Where are the diffs. Everyone here has seen the thread on the so called tendentious editing on the TM article, if they've read the evidence, so you don't need to go there, but show me the diffs on the multiple TM articles I've edited that show disruption. Since I know you can't because I'm neither disruptive nor uncivil as you say, you can put a lid on your mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, and you can start now.

@Jclemens: You probably have no idea what the comment you just made meant to me. Its reasonable and kind and gives me hope that I can continue to edit even in the face of what I've had to deal with. And you're right no one believes the kind of thing I 'd have to say, and the proof against the allegations against me would take a small book to rebut them, and after multiple situations like this one I'm pretty exhausted and am not sure I can continue to edit on Wikipedia. I do have concerns that other editors will be dealt with as I have been. Maybe that's something I can help with. Thank you for your thoughtfulness.

Question: I guess what is being said is once you are banned that's it, it doesn't matter if the ban and its appeal weren't appropriate or fair. How then does an editor make sure they get a fair hearing in the first place? How does a single, non admin editor who has not established supportive networks of like minded editors stand a chance if and when they are getting in the way of some editor and hisor her agenda. Warnings per the arbitration don't really exist. I'm not sure the arbs themselves agree on what is a warning. An arb for example, suggested that the TM arbitration itself is a warning, nothing else is needed. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of a warning which is to warn an editor they are moving into dangerous territory at least as perceived dangerous territory, when they aren't aware of it. What does one do when the same admins shows up as Future Perfect did on every AE or AE appeal, and in the first case sanctioned and closed the case before I could even defend myself. He is usually backed up by Cirt. Sandstein closed down the AE appeal when two editors indicated they thought the ban may not have been fair and where interested in reopening the case. What arbitration has to realize is that Wikipedia as it functions now favours certain kinds of situations, if an editor doesn't fit, they are doomed. This might be an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but it is not yet an encyclopedia where anyone can expect to be treated fairly. I would like to see a place where an editor can go to ask that a neutral, knowledgeable editor with the time and patience to watch a case, be asked to oversee AE and appeals if an editor requests it. I know that just those neutral eyes watching would thwart a lot of the goings on. At any rate I won't take this further based on Jclement's comments, unless something changes, and I thank all of the arbs for taking the time to look at this case.

Final comment to the arbs:

I've agreed, and think its best to move on per Jclemen's comments, but I wanted to make something very clear. The appeal was closed while two uninvolved editors, one an admin, were asking that the case be left open pending some serious questions about the legitimacy of the ban. The admin., AGK later suggested reopening the case. Since I wasn't sure what to do next, I asked an arbitrator, Chase Me Calvary, for assistance. He must have been called away because he didn't respond after the initial two responses, and when I asked again for help Shell kindly jumped right in to help. By this time 4-5 weeks had passed. Real Life kicked in, and finally, in the last two weeks, I had the choice to help two friends one who was dying, rather than deal with this appeal. I'm always happy to apologize if I've dome something that is a concern, but I didn't here, and that was starting to come to light. I don't buy conspiracy theories generally, but I've been dragged to AE too often on trumped up charges to not begin to ask questions. Anyway as I said, I am thankful to the arbs for their responses here and Jclemens has given me something to go forward on.

To Shell: "Complained extensively" I appealed this ban once and I then brought it here. The ban was a concern to other uninvolved editors who looked at it. Your comment is completely inexplicable. How is it that an editor who has concerns about a ban is then in the wrong. This situation is so convoluted as to be almost impossible to look at in depth and I don't expect that anyone had the time or inclination to do so, but please extend enough good faith to assume I might have a side to this story that is legitimate rather than imply out of hand there are problems with my behaviour. The implication is as well that once again I'm being judged with out a single diff. Shell you comment is unfair, and you are wrong in your judgement of me as well.

• You said: " Complained about this ban extensively" I brought appeals on this ban to an AE appeal, and then here.

• Per email to arbitration: I asked Arbitration on two ocassions where I should post following the appeal since an admin had suggested re opening my appeal, and since Sanstein in closing the appeal, prematurely it seemed, had said I should deal with ArbCom. This was confusing so I emailed Chase Me Ladies, one of the arbs listed in handling ban appeals. I was told by Chase Me Ladies he would get back to me. I can show you those emails. He didn't get back to me. After three weeks and noting on his talk page that said he could at anytime be called away, I emailed arbitration again asking for advice. You responded and told me to appeal here.

• Diff 1 [19] I asked Courcelles for diffs to support accusations against me when non were given.

• 2 and 3 [20][21] link to the same comment. I was banned for tendentious editing with no evidence given. I was asking for diffs. Complaining?

• [22] This did not concern my ban. This was a request for a neutral admin, in a request for an AE warning, for an editor who had a history of unilateral editing and had removed with out discussion, in direct violation of the TM arbitration, content for and based on 8, reliable, Wikipedia-compliant sources.

• The last three diffs are from the appeal to this ban. I made multiple comments in defense of my position. You could have linked many, many more comments made in this appeal by me and other editors. Should I have opened an appeal and not presented evidence?

• Shell. In your comment you are telling me I should not ask the arbitrators for help. I should not appeal a ban, or if I do, I shouldn't post any defenses of my position. I should not go the the ANI board to ask for help, asking if a neutral admin will comment. If I am banned with out diffs or evidence, I shouldn't ask for diffs or evidence. Is that what I'm supposed to be 'getting'? Its unfair of you make the kind of accusations you have, with the diffs you presented, and out of context of an editor's history, and its unfair to conflate legitimate avenues of appeal and discussion with behaviour that is sanctionable.

Statement by Will Beback

I'm not sure exactly what is being proposed here. I was just thinking to myself how peaceful the Transcendental Meditation-related articles have been recently. The result of this remedy has been a welcome break from tendentious prolonged editing disputes on these topics. The temporary ban was within the scope of discretionary sanctions and the AE, and did its job of preventing unhelpful disruption. Littleolive oil seems to be suggesting that the remedy should be nullified after the fact so as not to be used as a factor in future enforcement discussions, if any. If so, I disagree.   Will Beback  talk  08:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC) edited 20:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant diffs were provided during the AE. It's incorrect to say that an entire side in the TM matter was removed. The other editors in the topic have continued to work together in the meantime.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor Thryduulf (re: Littleolive oil)

While I have not investigated whether the topic ban was appropriate or not, nor whether the actions or inactions of people at AE were correct or not, I don't see the value to anyone in this request. I simply recommend that you move on, keep your nose clean and it wont be an issue again. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ludwigs2

I did look into this topic ban. There was no meaningful grounds for it and no real explanation of it given, either at the time it was given or during its original appeal. Yet another case of AE railroading... I suggest this topic ban be revoked after the fact, if only to keep it from being raised speciously to indicate a pattern of behavior in some future attempt to ban Olive. --Ludwigs2 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• It seems to me like it's a bit of a "barn door after the horses have already left" situation, reviewing a topic ban which has already expired, and I see no evidence that this raises to the level of egregiousness required for the Committee to step in after an appeal to AE was unsuccessful... SirFozzie (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I pretty much agree with SirFozzie here. Risker (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The unfortunate facts are that a "blot" on the Internet in general, and Wikipedia in particular, simply can't be erased. Even if there was a finding that the topic ban was inappropriate, there's a nonzero set of folks who would notice the ban but never read that far to see that it'd been amended. Speaking as someone who drew an RFC/U that I believed was an excessive reaction to the facts of the case, I can say from experience that the best way forward is to conduct yourself as if the topic ban was unnecessary in the first place--the Wikipedians who matter will respect you for your current collegial encyclopedia-building behavior, such as it is, rather than digging into your past. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Jclemens sums up what I would have said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the comments by SirFozzie and Jclemens. PhilKnight (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty much agree with what's been said here. I'd also note that you complained about this ban extensively and asked for its review more than once; the fact that it was never lifted should be a hint that there was something about your behavior that didn't meet the best standards. Shell ^babelfish 08:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • {copied from my talk)You've made the same arguments (you were wronged, people are uninformed and misrepresenting things): January on the AE board[23] and on your talk page[24], [25], and on ANI [26], [27] February on the AE board[28], [29], [30] and finally emails to ArbCom on two separate occasions. We may disagree on whether or not this is "extensively", but to me, it's a pattern of not getting it that seems to still be going on. Shell ^babelfish 22:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'm not saying any of that. The only thing I've said is that you've aired your side of the story multiple times and that your other reports about behavior in the topic area sound remarkably similar. I think it's unlikely that in all of these cases no one really understood you or the situation - I'm concerned that you've got a blind spot here and I hope you take Jclemens advice. Shell ^babelfish 02:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with all that has been said above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by YMB29 (talk) at 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy #8 - YMB29 topic banned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• YMB29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• YMB29 is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. [31]
• End the topic ban.

Statement by YMB29

It has been almost a year and I stayed away from editing. Can the topic ban end now?

About editing outside the topic

I did not edit outside the topic because I only edited on the topic before and I did not know until recently that admins look at that.

If editing outside the topic is so important then why was not this made clear when the case was decided? I understood the ban as a restriction that would be lifted if I don't violate it and stay out of trouble. -YMB29 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Newyorkbrad

Thanks for your objective reaction. You were also the only arbitrator who understood my situation and suggested a less severe ban. [32] [33]

As for what I would do differently, I guess I won't get into edit warring even if a user does nothing but that. If I again encounter a user who does not want to discuss and compromise, I will keep trying to get an admin or other users to help, even if that will take long and be frustrating.

If you want me to gradually return to editing on the topic, maybe I could for now be limited to a few edits per week and/or no reverts of others? -YMB29 (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin

I guess thank you for providing diffs of me trying to make the wording in articles more neutral and accurate ("reinterpreting" is better than misinterpreting), adding sourced information (don't know where you got that I don't give new sources...), and requesting sources for statements. If you want diffs of me significantly expanding articles here are some examples: [34] [35] (forgot to login but that was me)

If anything problems with you discouraged me from getting more involved in editing Wikipedia and making more of such edits. -YMB29 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Risker

Why are you so concerned? It is not like I did anything terrible. Again, one of the arbitrators did not even think that I deserved such a long ban. [36] I am in this situation because of a conflict with one user who is still topic banned (and who is trying to keep me topic banned now). With others I have always been able to resolve disputes. -YMB29 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Russavia

I am aware of what that user is trying to do but just felt I had to respond to some accusations since the arbitrators might look at that. As for editing the topic you suggested, I think it is too late now for this amendment, if only I knew about editing outside the topic ban requirement before... -YMB29 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shell

When I asked you in late February about me having to edit outside the topic you did not give a clear answer and did not answer me about opening this request. [37] So after some time I decided to try making a request. -YMB29 (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor Thryduulf

I've never been involved with this case or topic area, but it seems to me that the spirit of the resolution was that YMB29 should stay away from this troublesome topic area for a significant period of time, which he has done. I see what all the arbitrators are saying, but I think Newyorkbrad has got the right attitude here, and YMB29's response to his statement is along the same lines I was thinking. So, as a way forward I would like to propose the following:

• YBM29 is permitted to a maximum of 20 edits per week with no more than 10 edits per week to any one page.
• All of these limits shall apply only to non-talk pages that fall within the scope of the original topic ban
• These limits are to be seen as maximums not an entitlement or target
• YMB29 is encouraged to contribute constructively in one or more topic areas that are clearly unrelated to those covered by the topic ban
• YMB29 works with 2-3 volunteer mentors, approved by YMB29 and the Arbitration Committee, who will assess his contributions across all topics and namespaces
• If and when YMB29's mentors are happy with his contributions they will, in discussion with YMB29, gradually relax the above editing limits, subject to the following
  • The first relaxation shall be no sooner than 1 month after the enactment of this amendment, but this is not an automatic entitlement
  • There shall be a minimum of 2 weeks between each relaxing of editing restrictions, but this is not an automatic entitlement
  • The mentors may introduce tighter restrictions, including talk page restrictions, at any point they feel necessary
  • The mentors may not widen the scope of the topics covered without the consent of the Arbitration Committee
  • Each change in editing restrictions shall have a specified commencement time
  • When considering altering restrictions, the mentors shall take into account the expressed opinions of involved and uninvolved editors but shall not be bound by them unless there is a very clear consensus.
  • The mentors may not remove all restrictions without the consent of the Arbitration Committee
  • All changes to the restrictions shall be logged at an appropriate page or section of this arbitration case (to be specified)
• After a minimum of three months or at any time thereafter YMB29, with the agreement of his mentors, may apply to the Arbitration Committee for a complete release from the restrictions. Any rejected request may set a minimum time before another application will be considered.
• If YMB29 exceeds any of the limits applicable at the time the provisions of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Enforcement shall apply
• If YMB29 stops cooperating with his mentors they may request the Arbitration Committee reimpose the original complete topic ban.
• If at any time YBM29 and his mentors agree that this agreement is not working, they may jointly request a change in moderators and/or another amendment.
• If after one year this agreement is still in force and YMB29 has not been completely released from editing restrictions, the Arbitration Committee shall review whether it should continue or be replaced with something else.

I don't expect this to be perfect, so I anticipate changes (e.g. not everything may be necessary, and/or I may have missed something). The essence is that YMB29 agrees to an editing restrictions and to work with mentors to gradually ease the restrictions.

I have deliberately not mentioned a narrowing of the topic ban (e.g. if YMB29 is seen to be doing fine on some aspects of the topic but not others) as I don't know whether this should be within the powers of the moderators or should only be done by application to the arbitration committee.

I unfortunately do not have the time to volunteer to be one of the mentors. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hodja Nasreddin

Yes, the purpose of indefinite sanctions issued in many recent cases was to make sure that editors can improve. This is different from issuing a ban for a fixed period of time. Nevertheless, I believe that any editor with a good record of content contributions must be given second chance, as I said about another participant of this case [38]. I would encourage YMB29 to provide five to ten best diffs showing how he creates or significantly expands any articles during last three years (I could not find anything). That would be an important argument in his favor. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since he is not responding, I can simply provide all most recent contributions by YMB29 that were not edit warring, requests to sanction other editors, or minor edits: [39],[40], [41], [42] [43]. Note that he never gives any new sources, but only "re-interprets" sources already in the articles. That is what he did in other articles as well. To put it in a certain perspective, I must tell that Vlad_fedorov ( another participant of this case) significantly expanded at least four pages several years ago. For example, this text was a good faith contribution by Vlad, and I only moved it from another page. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@YMB29. Thank you for providing two your best diffs. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Russavia. I commented as the only person who closely interacted with YMB29 in the past. All others (User:Isarig, User:Kostan1, User:Altenmann and User:Boris Novikov) are currently inactive. I neither support nor object this request. I only suggested to look at his editing record, which I thought was a perfectly legitimate suggestion. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Commenting on the policy debate. This is an important debate because such sanctions were given in many recent cases including "Climate change". I think it was a perfectly legitimate idea to follow real life justice model: giving certain time to the violators, but allowing them to return earlier if they show good behavior. At the same time, I do believe that your recent decisions include one problematic approach. Here it is: giving an indefinite time to first-time violators who made a significant contribution to the project based on their editing record (I am talking about many recent cases; "first-time" means they did not receive previously any official sanctions by Arbcom). That is something you might wish to reconsider. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Russavia

YMB29, may I make a suggestion. The fact that an editor has chosen to covertly attack your presence on WP right here at this request should be ignored by yourself. The whole point of the attack being made as it was is to try and provoke you into a response which you should not be making.

As it is, your request will likely be approved (as it is as this point in time) perhaps with a 1RR restriction for a year. This is something which if implemented on yourself should also be placed on other editors when they come to have their requests looked at.

Having said that, why don't you use this opportunity, right now to go and expand some articles on Russia pre-1917? Your topic ban never stopped you from editing pre-1917 Russian articles, did you know that? Why not use this opportunity to show that you can do what some arbs are doubting you are capable of? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

This is a question about enforcement of Motions 1 and 1.1 at AE. The admins at AE would need guidance on how to handle any possible future complaints. The decision that YMB29 is requesting an amendment to is WP:ARBRB, which does not provide any discretionary sanctions. So if YMB29 does not follow the expected standards after the lifting of his topic ban, it is not clear what to do. Motions 1 and 1.1 defer to 'related decisions' for enforcement. Can we assume that the related decisions would be WP:DIGWUREN? It is not at first sight obvious that WP:DIGWUREN#Locus of dispute covers the entire Soviet Union, which is what YMB29 was specifically banned from under WP:ARBRB. This is not necessarily a problem if the Committee thinks that DIGWUREN is sufficient to handle anything likely to go wrong in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Oh what the hell, give him a chance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

I agree with Volunteer Marek. There's been enough witch hunting and bad blood. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Without seeing editing outside the topic to give us a baseline to have trust that previous editing issues would not reoccur, I think it's a rather difficult path to have to be trod here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noting that Shell advised you in February that it would be "difficult to determine if you've resolved the problems that led to the topic ban" without edits outside the topic area. –xeno^talk 20:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess my instinctive reaction to the request isn't quite as negative as my colleagues'. If an editor had been totally banned from the project altogether in one of our decisions, he would have been allowed back in a year, so it's hard to say that an editor who received a lesser sanction than that shouldn't be allowed another chance to contribute in what is obviously his primary area of interest. That being said, it is certainly more difficult for us to conclude that the problems with the requester's prior editing will not recur if he's allowed back, so I would invite more input from the requester about what he would do differently this time around, and perhaps suggestions about restrictions that could be imposed to allow a more gradual return to editing instead of lifting the topic-ban altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless something new comes to light, I will propose a motion in the next couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have proposed motions below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to allow this request, given that 6 months was the minimum, and now almost a year has passed. Given the previous concerns included edit warring, I think we should stipulate a 1RR/day restriction for 12 months. PhilKnight (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I share the earliest respondents' concerns, but I support Phil's middle ground of 1RR for 12 months in lieu of the existing topic ban, along with a quick return to the topic ban if civility or non-edit warring problems resurface. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• While I can understand the positions of some of my colleagues about returns to editing, the fact that you have made no attempt at all to participate in the project for the past year does not bode particularly well for your ability to return to editing in this contentious topic area. I am willing to consider a 1-RR restriction, or even an editing throttle; however, I'm not really persuaded that your editing philosophy has changed over the past year, and I am concerned that you will find yourself indefinitely topic-banned fairly quickly. Risker (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per three previous - 1RR caveat for 12 months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per above, 1RR/12 months.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• While the lack of outside-scope edits is a bit bothersome, I think the 1RR restriction proposed above serves as a good measure to pair with lifting the ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Motion 1

Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of six months. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.

Since there are 14 active arbitrators, a majority is 8.

Support:

1. Proposed, per discussion above. I think that six months is an adequate duration for the 1RR limitation, given the availability of discretionary sanctions governing this topic-area if necessary, both before and after the six months expire. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per discussion above. PhilKnight (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. This seems reasonable. I do not understand any rationale that would make all such topic bans permanent; a conditional return seems preferable, and six months is more than enough time. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Cannot support, YMB29 has not shown that he can edit in a collegial manner that would give me confidence that he would edit within Wikipedia's norms and procedures. SirFozzie (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. Provisional oppose. I'm reluctant to start a new motion on this with so few voting so far, but if this were a 1RR/12 months, I'd happily support. Perhaps NYB would consider this as a copy-edit?

   I cannot accept this as a copyedit because I think the terms of my motion are fair, per my comments above; however, I am proposing 1.1 as an alternate to expedite deciding this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. The whole point of moving from topic bans of arbitrary length to those that require evidence of changed behavior was to remove the guesswork and keep from trying to decide who was "worse"; since we have no information to go on, I'm not comfortable going back to guessing. It's also telling that despite talking with me about this in late February, YMB29 made no effort to resolve this concern, or in fact, edit at all - inability to respond to and act on feedback does not bode well for heavily disputed areas where an editor has already shown issues. Shell ^babelfish 08:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Coren ^(talk) 15:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Shell Kinney. Risker (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Lacking detailed background in the case, and really not having time to get up to speed, I'm going to defer to the arbs who are familiar with the matter. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. As per Jclemens, I don't have the background knowledge of this one to make a judgement. If any motion reaches the point at which one vote will be decisive, I'll make the effort to fit in the time to understand the background here, but otherwise this is better decided by those people familiar with the original incident. – iridescent 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion rejected. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 1.1

Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of one year. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.

Support:

1. Proposed as alternative per above. For me, second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice. PhilKnight (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. My concern here is that this editor is in effect a single purpose account, focussed almost exclusively on the area of conflict, and with a history of disruption. I would not support such an editor returning unhindered purely on the basis of time served but in this instance the restrictions are probably tight enough should problems develop.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Substantially, per Roger Davies. — Coren ^(talk) 15:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Equal to #1. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per rationale above. SirFozzie (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Same problem. Shell ^babelfish 08:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Per my abstention in 1. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. If he manages to go a year without being removed from the topic area again, then he is probably good to go; however, I remain concerned that an editor who shows no interest in any other area of the project, and has demonstrated sanctionable behaviour in the past, gives us little to go on when it comes to longterm predictability of good behaviour. Risker (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per my comments above. – iridescent 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion approved. (With three abstentions, the majority is 6.) Clerk to archive and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 2

An editor who is indefinitely topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing in a topic area under an Arbitration Committee decision may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. In considering such a request, the Committee will give significant weight to, among other factors, whether the editor in question has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.

Since there are 14 active arbitrators, a majority is 8.

Support:

1. YMB29 has suggested above that he was not aware that the Committee would take his editing in other topic-areas into account in deciding whether to terminate his topic-ban in his core area of interest. In several recent decisions, we have expressly stated this in connection with topic-bans we have imposed on other editors, and I think it would be worthwhile to make it a general policy going forward. The words "among other factors" are important because, while a good editing record in other areas is helpful when we evaluate a request for amendment, I do not wish to suggest that it an inflexible or mandatory requirement (as our action in this case shows). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Shell made him aware in February, (which was not followed up on) and I do think it should be mandatory that they show that they can edit in a collegial fashion before a topic ban is removed. SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yes, with a copy-edit (adding "or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise") as indicated. Please revert if you don't agree and I'll set it up as an alternative motion,  Roger Davies ^talk 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   No objection to the copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk)

7. I greatly prefer this option to guessing whether or not a problem is resolved. We decide cases based on evidence and require evidence for AE sanctions and most case amendments; I can't see any logical reason that removing sanctions should be a protected class of amendment exempt from showing evidence. Shell ^babelfish 08:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, with the copyedits. — Coren ^(talk) 15:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Risker (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per my abstention above. The fact that this case is here in the first place implies that it's somehow atypical, so a motion regarding standard custom & practice is potentially misleading, but again I defer to those with knowledge of the background to this particular case. – iridescent 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion approved. Clerk to archive and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---