Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 57

This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130

Request to amend prior case: Climate change (November 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Scjessey (talk) at 15:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Case affected: Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

none

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

n/a

Amendment 1

That the voluntary editing restriction be lifted.

Statement by Scjessey

Per this comment and this discussion, I have completed a voluntary editing restriction in the topic of climate change for well over a year, and per advice given by Roger Davies here, I would like to request that the binding voluntary restriction be lifted. I have no specific goal in mind, but I would like to the opportunity to contribute to the topic again. Since voluntarily withdrawing from the topic, I have been variously employed at patrolling recent changes (including checking new pages and removing vandalism), editing in topics of interest and volunteering at WP:MEDCAB. I am not currently under any active sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to this comment by Collect, I would like to point out that I was not subjected to any sanctions - my restriction was voluntary. In stark contrast to most of the editors involved in the ArbCom case, my involvement in the topic of climate change concerned only a single article (Climatic Research Unit email controversy) and no BLPs. Accordingly, it would make more sense for my proposed amendment to be treated independently by ArbCom, rather than lumping it in with any amendment involving sanctioned editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
@Collect - That's all well and good, but your proposal suggests certain bans and restrictions (such as on BLPs) that I'm not currently subject to; therefore, imposing them upon me would actually be adding, rather than removing restrictions. For this reason, it is not unreasonable for me to expect my amendment to be handled independently of any that may concern other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@Collect - No, it is not "spot on". You propose converting a voluntary restriction covering the scope of the topic ban into actual sanctions covering specific things like BLPs. How would you justify imposing these sanctions upon me after a voluntary 14-month absence from the topic, concerning BLPs I've never edited? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@Collect - You are missing the point entirely. Right now, I am not on the list of people under active sanction, but your proposal would put me on that list. So I ask again, wow would you justify imposing these sanctions upon me after a voluntary 14-month absence from the topic, concerning BLPs I've never edited? To be honest, I expected this amendment to be a formality. I did not imagine for a second I had to fend off calls for me to be sanctioned. Do you think I deserve to be sanctioned? If you do not, please excuse yourself from this amendment proceeding. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad - In contrast to most of the other editors who became entangled in the Arbcom case on climate change, my activity didn't really go beyond the article on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I know very little about climate change and I didn't frequent articles in the topic. I first went to the CRU article after reading about the hacking incident that took place at the University of East Anglia. Being English, I was interested in how the hacking incident was being covered in the British media at the time. I was dismayed to see that the article discussing the incident was being exploited by a group of editors who seemed convinced that some grand conspiracy by climate scientists to deceive the world had been uncovered. I'm not going to re-litigate everything that followed, but at the time I felt that Wikipedia was being used and I didn't like it. With hordes of skeptics/meatpuppets/sockpuppets attacking the project, my defensive stance evolved into a combative stance.

My behavior seemed perfectly reasonable to me at the time, but looking back on it I can see that I achieved absolutely nothing but unnecessary conflict. I've been volunteering at MedCab since then and it has been instructive to observe these sorts of fires from the uninvolved position and then try to help involved editors extinguish the flames. I still edit articles that interest me, but I've tried to avoid those that are generally controversial; however, I continue to edit at controversial articles like atheism, pseudoscience and Barack Obama without getting into conflict. To be honest, I didn't really understand the "binding" part of my voluntary restriction (which seems to make the "voluntary" part redundant), so I think my application for this amendment demonstrates my willingness to tread carefully moving forward. There's no reason to think that any editing I would do in the topic of climate change would be any different from editing I have done (or are doing) elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

As the entire area seems to be relatively calm, and with the WMC precedent, perhaps the time has come to make each and every person addressed by the original sanctions now be bound by a "zero tolerance" rule, enforceable by any administrator, for any battleground behaviour, including any use of tags and substantive reverts, singly or by multiple editors, with a new specific ban on any of them yet delving into any BLPs, or articles reasonably falling under WP:BLP, related to Climate Change? Collect (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@SCJ - I recognize that your restriction was voluntary, though, IIRC, you were a potential candidate to get a less than voluntary restriction. My suggestion is not based, however, on such fine legal points, but on what I consider a desirable method for ArbCom to handle the additional requests likely to ensue, and was aimed only at giving my own personal suggestion as to how the committee might reasonably and expeditiously deal with such potential requests. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)\

@SCJ Alas - looking at 16.1 does not appear to coincide exactly with your recollection. Positing the BLPs related to CC as a subset of the entire topic would certainly imply that such were included in your status (16.1) Scjessey has proposed a permanent binding voluntary restriction that he makes no edits within the scope of the topic ban, with the exception, as part of Recent Changes patrolling, of making routine cleanup-style edits and reverting cases of obvious vandalism. Scjessey is instructed to abide by these restrictions. seems to be rather all-encompassing, and a mandatory version of the voluntary restrictions). Thus my suggestion appears to me to be "spot on" in this discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@SCJ - ok - a "permananent binding voluntary restriction" covering all of Climate Change had absolutely no force when it comes to BLPs which are in that area. I think I understand your position. It is wrong, though. Any normal reading would find the CC BLPs to be a subset of CC articles and not totally outside the area of the binding restriction. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@WMC As I was not actually remotely an active editor on the CC articles, and I only became "involved" as a result of some statistical studies I made, I am rather at a loss to explain your post. I have made many posts in many areas of WP, and even on different areas other than enWiki, I fear I do not understand any reason why I ought not continue posting in such varied areas as I see fit. The purpose here was to suggest a simple solution to what I fear might otherwise become a long series of requests which could be dealt with by a single motion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley

I am in favour of Scjessey's request. I am opposed to Collect's idea. I am opposed to a blanket amnesty at this point.

It really isn't clear to me why Collect feels the need to offer his wisdom on all the ARBCC stuff and to argue his points so strenuously.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Since the huge climate change arbitration of 2010 things have become very peaceful in the topic. I'm pleased to see that some of the editors covered by injunctions and sanctions under the case have acted well since then and are gradually being allowed to contribute again. The old "wild west" atmosphere of constant conflict has gone so, provided the general sanctions remain in operation, I encourage the arbitration committee to consider requests to edit again generously in the light of the improved circumstances and much improved editing conditions. --TS 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

I would back the request of Scjessey and agree with the statements by William M. Connolley and Tony Sidaway. Collect's proposals do not seem to be realistic; for the time being requests like this should probably be handled on a case-by-case basis. Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2011 (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.}

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

Awaiting further statements. I would welcome Scjessey's thoughts on what went wrong in the past and how, if this request is granted, things would be different going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Scjessey's response to my question is helpful. I anticipate supporting the motion that Risker suggests she will propose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to consider lifting this restriction; if nobody else does it sooner, I will probably offer a motion over the weekend. Risker (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Motion proposed, below. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Motion

The editing restriction described in remedy 16.1 ("Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction") of the Climate change decision is terminated, effective on the passage of this motion.

For this motion, there are 15 non-recused Arbitrators, so 8 is a majority.

Support

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Suggested copyedit (just for consistency with similar motions): "lifted" --> "terminated, effective immediately." Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Support; with or without the (desirable) copyedit. — Coren ^(talk) 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
SirFozzie (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Have copy edited to "..is terminated, effective on the passage of this motion." Colleagues may revert my copy edit if they feel it is appropriate. Risker (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Roger Davies ^talk 09:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:EEML (November 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} at 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Piotrus

I am seeking clarification of Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted ("The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.").

Let me state, clearly, that I have no desire to interact with Russavia, and that to my knowledge, he has not commented on me. This is, in fact, not about Russavia at all, but about the interpretation of the interaction ban (if I was to put it simply, how close can I get to a discussion in which Russavia is involved?).

Here's the short sequence of events that lead to me posting this clarification requests:

Biophys posts an AE request on Russavia; I have no interest in it, have not read it then or even now;
VM comments in that thread; I have no interest in it but as he is a fellow editor I respect for his essays and thoughts on wikipedia, I read his post there. Of further note for my eventual involvement is the part where VM notes that he found an article edited by Russavia by following edits of other editors;
discussion grows and brings an increasingly large peanut gallery; I still have no interest in joining it, nor do I read most other comments, beyond admin's;
FSP makes a comment on the futility of interaction bans in general, suggesting that admins should not enforce them. That makes me concerned, as I credit them with lessening the amount of hostility directed at me since they were put in place. Next, FSP comments that VM "went there [to the article edited by Russavia] after him [Russavia]". At that point I decide to post a comment, stating that as a party to the bans, I've found them helpful, if in need of some clarification; I also point out to FSP that VM has already explained how he became involved in this issue. I also noted that if any admin considers my comment in this thread to be a violation of an i-ban, to let me know that and I'll remove it. Please note that I have not commented on Russavia, only on the i-bans in general, and on VM comment in particular;
almost at the same time I posted my comment, SarekOfVulcan blocks both Russavia and VM for a week. I expressed my disagreement with his action on his talk page in User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#Unfair_treatment, pointing out to my comment and suggestion for i-ban clarification, and suggesting reducing blocks, in particular for VM who I believe has been involved in much lesser violation of the ban. I also note on SoV's talk page (User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#AE_thread), again, that if any admin believes my involvement there is in violation of the i-ban, to let me know and I'll remove my posts. (Having been blocked once by a trigger happy admin who misunderstood a topic ban, and unblocked through AE appeal, I prefer to be very careful with regards to such restrictions, and ask for clarifications, rather than an unblock);
approaching the end of this story, an admin (FSP) did post to my talk page, suggesting that my involvement in that thread was a violation of an i-ban (I also note that he has not responded to either of my two comments directed at him w/ regards to his posts in that case). In any case, I have self-reverted my three relevant posts (one to AE and two to SoV page), in a show of good faith (when in doubt, self-revert and ask for a review).

So now I am asking for a review and clarification. I do not believe I have breached the i-ban: I am not concerned with Russavia, I am not commenting on him; at AE I was simply commenting on i-bans in general (an issue of interest to me since I am under one), and later, on SoV's page, commenting on a block of VM (with whom I have no i-ban, of course). VM's ban was related to Russavia, but that is of no concern to me, I am concerned that an editor (VM) was treated unfairly, and I believe I have the right to express my opinion on this (he was not treated unfairly by Russavia, so I am not commenting on any action of his). After all, we have freedom of speech on Wikipedia, and I believe we are allowed to comment on anything that is not explicitly prohibited (I am explicitly prohibited from commenting on Russavia, but not on VM's block, whatever its circumstances are). To put this in a wider perspective, I believe that if editors A and B are under i-ban, and editor A becomes involved in something - like designing a policy, or is part of an arbitration, or an enforcement that results in a policy change, or block or such, editor B has the right to participate in the discussion (policy discussion, etc.) and/or comment on the outcome (a policy change, or a block of editor C, with whom B have no i-ban), as long as he does not comment on editor A or interact with him directly. Or am I wrong?

I'd appreciate Committee's thoughts, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie and Colchicum: I am puzzled what kind of clear topic ban would be an improvement here. Who would you topic ban and from what? Now, I am not following the edits of most i-banned editors, so for all I know some of them may have main space topics they clash on.

@Everyone: I am also afraid that this request for clarifications is being hijacked to discuss other issues than I asked for. In the example given above, which did not involve me editing any mainspace article, how on earth would any t-ban help? I'd kindly request that those who want to discuss changing the nature of i-bans in general make their requests somewhere else, and clearly indicate which editors' i-bans need revision. This clarification request, with regards to me, seeks to answer a simple question I posed above (was my commenting on i-bans and VM block a violation of interaction ban with R. or not?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@Everyone: I would assume that Russavia is allowed to comment in this forum and in this request in particular. I do, however, repeat my earlier question (still unanswered), taking this new development into account: if he is allowed to comment here (Which I am fine with), why was I (according to FSP) not allowed to comment at AE (in a request NOT started by Russavia, and where I DID NOT comment on him, only on another user, and on i-bans in general)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

@Everyone: As my initial question has not been answered, and this request was hijacked (in AGF-meaning of this word) to discuss another issue, I do indent to repost this request when it is archived (which I expect will happen soon, as no arbitrator has commented on this in the past 20 days). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

I think that interaction bans are important and usually work, unless some people do not follow their editing restrictions (not sure why FPS was so skeptical [1]). Please note that I do not have interaction ban with Russavia, or at least this is my understanding. It was clear that Russavia did not obey his interaction bans almost a month ago, but that only involved him reverting my edits in the area where he is a good contributor. Therefore, I simply left him the article in question [2] and did not report anything at the moment. However, he later started doing the same with other contributors and in other areas. I asked him to stop, but he refused, which forced me to bring this matter for administrative review (diff by Piotrus above). Of course I could ignore Russavia and others, but that would only make their conflicts worse. There was no one else to do it, because administrators apparently decided to ignore Russavia, exactly as FPS suggested (diff above). That brought me a lot of trouble. I tried to explain [3]. We later had a discussion with Greyhood about this [4].

So, with regard to question by Piotrus, I believe he did not violate the letter and even the spirit of his restriction, because the instruction tells exactly this: "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other", and that is what he did. By the same token, two mutually i-banned editors can easily edit the same article, as long as they do not conflict. Actually, they are only required to conduct the ordinary non-controversial editing. Editor A makes an addition to article X. Then B comes to add or modify, but not revert something. Two i-banned editors can easily collaborate in the same article without even talking (if they really want collaboration!). But if one of them jumps to revert a legitimate edit of another, this is a reason for immediate sanction. And it does not matter who of them edited this article first, who knows this subject better, or who contributed most to this article. Really, I do not see anything complicated in i-bans.

As about question by SirFozzie, I think we should not introduce t-bans only because some editors do not obey their i-bans. Violations happen all the time. That's why we have AE. Instead, the existing i-bans must be strictly enforced, as clearly explained in the instructions. In fact, I asked already at AE for i-enforcement, and thanks to AE administrators, it has been properly enforced so far. If the problems continue, then topic bans are in order, but that should be decided at AE using the existing discretionary sanctions. On the other hand, if Arbcom wants to intervene here (which I am not sure), then the proposal to submit an amendment with t-bans may have some merit. Biophys (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Main question to be clarified here is as follows: should the mutually banned editors A and B be allowed editing the same page as long as they do not interact with one another, or they should not? If they are not allowed to edit the same page, then version by NW would be a good approximation. Otherwise, I agree with improvement by Collect, except that his last phrase ("No editor under any interaction ban...") seems redundant. Biophys (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Colchicum

Enough is enough. I am about to request an amendment which would replace i-bans with topic bans. FPS now thinks (somewhat inconsistently, to the point that it is beginning to look like he is taking sides here, but whatever) that i-bans are not enforceable. Very well, topic bans would be. Colchicum (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

This is how I envision interaction bans to work:

Imagine there are two editors, editor A and editor B. They have been mutually interaction banned from each other. If A edits Foo, a page B has not edited before, then B is expected to make no more than insignificant changes to Foo. If B wishes to make substantial changes to Foo, they should first clear their decision with an administrator. They should also not revert A's edits or engage in talk page discussion. At the first hint of conflict, B is expected to leave.
Now we have editor C. Editor C has been interaction banned from editor A, but A has not been interaction banned from C. Editor C is expected to follow all of the same rules as B above. In addition, if C is editing Bar, a page A has not edited before, and A comes along and makes substantial changes to Bar, C should cease editing Bar. If they feel that A's edits were made for the purpose of harassment, they should informally speak with an administrator and ask them to speak with A. Modifications to the ban can be made, as appropriate, by that administrator.

That's not an ideal, in my opinion, but is it at least an adequate understanding of how things should work in cases where the two editors' edits overlap? NW (Talk) 21:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

Interpreted strictly, interaction bans appear to be a far greater problem than they are a solution. By the time one gets to "6 degrees of Interaction Bans", one could conceivably be unable to post on any noticeboard or talk page at all.

Therefore, why not reduce what it means to what we actually wish to prevent:

No person restricted from 'interacting' with a specific other editor shall make any post directly to any such editor, or referring to any such editor by name except where required by Wikipedia procedures. No person under such a ban shall make any edits clearly affecting specific edits made by the other editor, whether on articles or on any other Wikipedia page, including, but not limited to, redacting or refactoring of any such edits. No editor under any interaction ban shall post to 'any' other editor requesting that the second editor undertake any action which the first person is barred from doing.

Thus reducing the absurd situations the committee has seen in the past regarding the multiple-ban-combinations which do, indeed, occur. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nug (aka Martin Tammsalu)

Since the previous AE cases, and a subsequent amendment request and some emails, I had hoped that Russavia and I had come to some kind of understanding to focus on content. However in this latest AE case (which I have not involved myself in) brought against Russavia, his very first response was to attempt to implicate me as possible "collateral damage" by pointing to an edit I made[5], which unfortunately was a breach of the spirit of the understanding I thought we had. I have since removed that edit[6]. In that light I should note that Russavia appears to be continuing the same behaviour as before, following edits of his perceived opponents in articles for which he has not any real interest and making contentious edits like placing tags. In the Occupation of the Baltic states he tags my edit[7] as dubious[8], how am I suppose to respond? In Courland Pocket, an article Russiavia has never edited before[9] he removes a reference[10]. I also note that Russavia continues to breach his iBan by continuing to comment upon Volunteer Marek[11] despite for being currently blocked for breaching his iBan. Just recently he unilaterally moved an article of interest to me[12], but I cannot respond due to this iBan. I don't go tagging, moving and AfDing aviation articles he has worked on, so I don't know why he feels he must persist with this. Clearly this iBan is not working. Can the Committee please clarify and/or ammend this into something workable for all. --Nug (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Greyhood

This post by Russavia outlines two problems:

Interaction bans, if in place, should be mutual. If user A is placed on interaction ban with user B, than user B should be placed on interaction ban with user A as well. Otherwise this does not work. It allows one editor, for example, to comment the other's actions, prompting some kind of response, or even to post on the talk page of the other, which collides an interaction ban with a need of a common courtesy of an answer.
Off-wiki activities of the editors with known identity, when they comment on the editors with whom they have interaction bans, at least when such comments are obviously provocative, should be considered breaching the interaction ban. GreyHood ^Talk 21:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To make my position clear, I do not exactly like the idea of interaction bans in principle and I'd prefer to see the involved editors able to interact in a normal way without any prohibitions. But if such a measure is taken, it should be mutual, or not taken at all. GreyHood ^Talk 14:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Some editors here are talking about more loose interaction prohibitions, allowing editors to talk which is other if they follow certain rules. This very well might work, but still if both editors are placed on the same level of restrictions. And of course, an editor A should have a right to request editor B not to post on A's talk page at all, if A doesn't find interaction possible or desirable. GreyHood ^Talk 20:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek. I do not quite understand why have you brought this recent issue here. In the case of that particular discussion I've taken your side and not Russavia's. Still I should note that for some reason the opposite opinion has a very high support by other people including many aviation articles editors. Russavia didn't started the merge proposal, he avoided direct interaction with you, the topic is his typical area of interest and expertise where he is free to voice his opinion. So what's the problem? GreyHood ^Talk 22:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

My preference for what an "interaction ban" means is clear and unambiguous:

One does not contact the other i-banned editor on their talk page (I won't keep repeating i-banned)
One does not mention or discuss the other editor in any manner on any talk page, their own, the other editor's, or an admin's or ArbCom member's or refer to them in any administrative proceeding unless as part of an action instituted by another editor specifically regarding the other editor (NB, dredging up the past, re #3 following, is prohibited)
One does not mention or discuss past administrative procedures, actions, etc. regarding the other editor in any manner on any talk page, their own, the other editor's, or an admin's or ArbCom members or at proceedings except as noted at #2; the editor does not have to be specifically mentioned, group mention is sufficient for violation of the ban
One does not file AE enforcement requests, notifications, et al. regarding the other editor; if someone's conduct is egregious, there are plenty of other editors to report inappropriate conduct
One may request arbitration clarification in the event of questions
One may interact on articles, article talk, project pages, etc. with the other editor, providing:
1. Discussion focuses on content (one may address @editor on talk without violating the i-ban)
2. Discussion avoids comments regarding editors' past conduct, perceived POV, "teams," "tag-teams," "sides," "XYZ-puppets," et al. (that violates #2 above)
3. Reverts are discouraged, but not prohibited; prohibition encourages predatory edits; 1RR enforced INCLUDING the precipitating edit; that is: (a) editor A makes (predatory) edit, (b) editor B reverts edit = one revert [restored status quo](c) editor A reverts back to their edit = 1RR violation. Similarly, (a) editor A makes (predatory) edit, (b) editor B reverts edit = one revert (c) editor (not i-banned) C reverts back to editor A's edit (d) editor B reverts editor C = 1RR violation; however, if editor C is also under an i-ban with editor A, their original revert counts as a 1RR violation.
Uncivil conduct including disparaging commentary regarding the subject matter or editors at a topic where the "other" editor is also involved violates the i-ban regardless, immaterial as to whether or not directed at the other editor or an identified group they may be considered part of.
Interaction bans are bilateral and do not ascribe guilt to either party, meaning, they do not get to be cited as evidence of wrongdoing in other proceedings except as directly pertains to a violation of said i-ban.
Editors (i-banned pairs) may jointly petition for the lifting of a mutual i-ban after sufficient evidence of collegial interaction.

Anything else continues to allow waging content control via administrative actions and creates article ownership for whoever gets there first.

Lastly, a single central repository who is i-banned with whom is essential as it's too easy for editors or admins or ArbCom to lose track, causing needless recriminations and drama. Quite frankly, I'm not clear who<->who is i-banned at this point with regard to the community of editors active in Eastern Europe, Soviet legacy, and contemporary Russia geopolitics articles.

An i-ban is put in place, ostensibly, to promote a more collegial atmosphere. Clearly, as currently interpreted, something else is being produced. An i-ban should NOT be used to prevent collegial interaction regarding WP content between two otherwise i-banned editors. If we're going to learn to play together, the opportunity must be presented. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie, your analysis of effective topic ban => topic ban easier to enforce is a gross accusation of bad faith on the part of i-banned editors and ups the ante/reward for editors to provoke other editors into poor conduct to get them out of the way (i.e., no more i-bans, go directly to topic ban). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

- The comments below have been sent to arbcom via email and have also been placed on my user talk page**

In relation to where I am to post anything onwiki, can someone please advise me where this should be done?

Also, I would like to request the committee to consider that there are 3 distinct issues that need dealing with and/or clarifying here. As such, I would like the committee to deal with one at a time, and in doing so forbid the usual peanut galleries from both sides from commenting.

Issue #1 -- following of my edits by Biophys, his using of a one-way interaction ban as a weapon to lock me out of articles I am clearly editing at the time, and his following my edits in the obvious hope of finding something he can report me for. Only Biophys needs to comment in relation to this -- no other editor has anything of any use to add in relation to this, due to their uninvolvement. There is still an open request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia in which FPaS is looking at the placing of discretionary sanctions on Biophys forbidding him from interacting with myself. Whilst I thank FPaS, is this still able to be dealt with at the AE level? Or would the Committee prefer to do it?

Issue #2 -- following of my edits by Volunteer Marek, his claiming that he wants me to stay away from him, yet outright reverting of any of my edits, his overly combative attitude (not only directed towards myself, but other editors as well), and successful claim of ignorance of what interaction bans entail, and other information at User_talk:Russavia#Bitchipedia - no-one else can add anything in relation to any of this due to uninvolvement, except perhaps with the exception of Miacek (now Estlandia), who I know has been attacked continually by Marek (as per the links on my talk page)

Issue #3 -- interaction bans between myself and Martintg aka Tammsalu aka Nug, and to a lesser extent Vecrumba. No-one else has anything of use in relation to this.

I am requesting the above because editors who are not involved directly in the issues above have unfortunately resorted to misrepresentation of issues, either possibly due to their not being involved, and in a couple of cases, due to long-stated desires that I should not be dealt with on a collaborative basis and trying to get me sanctioned for things that are based on pure hogwash. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 02:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Well, the latest reincarnation of this ongoing problem is here [13].

On November 4th, Piotrus comments that someone should create an article on Tadeusz Wrona (aviator)
Later that day I created the article.
The next day, Russavia, fresh off his block for interaction ban violations, shows up and suggests that the Tadeusz Wrona article should be AfDed. He explicitly acknowledges that he cannot do this himself because he is under an interaction ban, so instead he's here asking for someone else to do it for him. His precise words: I was about to take it to AfD, but luckily I checked the history as it was created by an editor with whom I am currently banned from interacting with, and them with me....Would another editor like to instigate the merge discussion in relation to the Wrona article?.
So basically, he is canvassing others to carry out edits which if he performed them would violate the ban. This is a straight up instance of WP:GAME.

Subsequently Russavia takes part in the ongoing discussion, for the most part avoiding any direct interactions with me or Piotrus.

However, today in the discussion I noted that Wrona has been awarded a top level Polish state decoration. Russavia replies immediately below trying to argue that that is somehow not enough for notability. The problem is that he also presents some incorrect statistics and information. And I can't even respond to his interaction ban violation by saying "no, that's wrong, here are the real numbers" because that *might* be an interaction violation by myself.

I don't see why Russavia feels it necessary to continuously insert himself into disputes which already involve people he has interaction bans with. I don't see how any of these kinds of edits are conducive to resolving these perpetual conflicts. I don't see how they even contribute much to the discussion (best case scenario, he says something that someone else - who is not under any interaction bans - is going to say anyway). Volunteer Marek 20:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Greyhood, You know, if this was just a one off thing than you'd be right and I wouldn't even bring it up. But the fact that this is part of a continuing pattern which does not appear to be abating is where the trouble is. Volunteer Marek 00:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Generally, interaction bans mean that one should take every opportunity to NOT seek out areas where you would likely interact with the other side. This area is contentious enough that it could already be considered a topic ban as there's not many areas that one or the other is not involved in, and once one side of the interaction ban is involved in a topic/discussion, the other is defacto not to get involved. Would it best to formalize this and remove all chance of these interactions by placing topic bans? I'm waiting for more statements, however, before proposing anything and am just musing out loud here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- This has become stale, and I think we can archive this with no action taken. SirFozzie (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that some clarification is needed here. I have not personally interpreted an interaction ban between A and B as prohibiting A and B from editing the same article that is within their common area of interest (unless the decision expressly provides for that), though I would interpret it as meaning that they should refrain from edit-warring with each other. So we may want to do some clarifying here. I would also like to suggest (as a general matter, not a finding in a particular instance) that where it appears a user may have made an edit that violated a sanction, but he or she apparently acted in the good-faith, reasonable belief that the sanction did not apply to that edit, then a warning rather than a block will usually be the more proportionate response (at least the first time it happens). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Recused on main EEML case, Roger Davies ^talk 06:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Much like Brad above, I agree that in general an interaction ban does not preclude editors editing the same article. That said, reverting each other would be, and given that editing a more controversial article is likely to to require discussion on the talk page to settle on consensus, editing those can turn out to be immensely delicate as well and probably best avoided.
As with all sanctions around topics (or, in this case, editors), some judgement and reasonableness is presumed from all parties. Avoid seeking out potential interaction and conflict, but don't go out of your way to find some where none can be reasonably said to exist simply because two edits occurred in proximity. — Coren ^(talk) 16:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Arbcom-unblocked editors (November 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
MuZemike‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (previously involved in dealing with TLAM)
EdJohnston‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as above)
Sandstein‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as above)
HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as above)
Hersfold‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as above)

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Under what circumstances may an individual administrator block an editor previously unblocked by arbcom?

In particular, if an account X is first blocked as a sockpuppet, then unblocked by arbcom, and then new evidence of sockpuppetry is alleged, what action, if any, should be taken by an individual administrator? Can the admin take action on the request alone, or must the matter be referred to the committee? If individual admin block is permitted, how is the admin supposed to weigh the evidence? What weight should be accorded to the previous unblock by the committee? Is there any way for the admin to ascertain the evidence considered by the committee in reaching the decision to unblock? If not (because committee deliberations are private) how is the admin supposed to reach an informed decision?

See this comment of mine at an AE thread for the case that motivated this request, although this request is not limited to the particular editor. T. Canens (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

As I said at the AE, and I will say again here. Let's "try again"[14][15], because as it stands now, we are dealing with an obvious sockpuppet, and the inability for anyone to give a straight answer is allowing this sockpuppet to "take the piss" out of the community?[16][17]

What we have a case of here is the Arbcom overstepping its bounds by totally disregarding behavioural evidence, and the knowledge of editors and admins who have dealt with these sockpuppets in the past. There is not a single admin out there who has dealt with Marknutley sockpuppets that does not believe that TLAM is not a sock of Nutley. This is based on behavioural evidence and obvious editing traits. I provided one such trait to the Committee, and it stuck out like dogs balls when I saw it, and the more one delves into the evidence, the more and more WP:DUCK evolves that it is quite obvious this is a sockpuppet. And I am told by the Committee "we are not convinced".

As I said in the AE, we have the opportunity to right a major wrong here...and it is a wrong, given that this sockpuppets disruptive behaviour has somewhat led to a long-term editor in good-standing being topic banned for 6 months, whilst the obvious sockpuppet gets a 3 month topic ban...go figure. So without blame and without shame, the following needs to be very clearly answered for the community.

Who made the decision to unleash this sockpuppet on the community? Those Arbs who reached this decision need to explain to the Community a few things, such as: Upon what basis was this decision reached? Why was this done in secret, and why was the community not involved in this process? Given that it is the community that has dealt with this disruptive user in the past, and there is not a single admin who has even so much as considered unblocking this sockpuppet. Did those who looked at this appeal totally disregard behavioural evidence, and concentrated only on technical evidence? Such as IP addresses? One can easily change their IP and ISP, but behaviour is much harder to change.

Is the Committee willing to turn this issue back over to the community to deal with? And without further involvement from the committee? The fact that there are many admins who are of the opinion that this is a sockpuppet, and yet none will do anything about it, for fear of the Committee, is quite daunting. No-one should be fearful of the Committee, it is the Committee that should be fearful of us. There has to come a time when someone will stand up, say straight that the Committee has ballsed up, ballsed up in good faith, but ballsed up all the same, and correct the mistake that has been made. This is even moreso needed as the Committee itself doesn't seem to know what to do, so it will likely be up to an admin out there with some spine to make a relatively easy decision of right over wrong. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note. I have 2 laptops and 2 desktop PCs. I have Bigpond broadband, Optus mobile broadband and 3 mobile broadband, in addition to Optus internet on my mobile. I also have Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7. I also use a combination of Firefox and Chrome - and versions can differ according to which system I am using at the time. If I wanted to, I could easily sockpuppet and not be caught on technical evidence. But my behavioural traits and editing preferences would soon give me away. Would anyone like to challenge me to this? I'll be more than happy to give it a go in order to prove a point to whoever unblocked this sockpuppet. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In actual fact, there is no need to challenge me to do anything, one can merely CU me, and they will see that I already currently edit from a range of PCs, and a range of ISPs, and with different browsers. So I will withdraw the WP:BEANS comment, and let other comments stand on their merits. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a great saying...If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. I see a lot of attempts at the latter from Arbs below, but baffled I am not. Questions have been asked of the committee, and they need to be answered.

When I corresponded with the Committee I was told that further evidence of sockpuppeting can be taken back to, and dealt with by, the community. However, the Committee would appreciate a heads-up. I see the heads-up only a courtesy, nothing more.

But now we have Arbs saying that the community needs to defer back to the Committee on sockpuppeting. So what is it to be guys? Dazzle me, but don't make me put in a WP:RM to have this moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Bafflication. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 11:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To John vandenberg... You mentioned that several arbiters looked over the evidence and they came to the conclusion that these two are not the same user. In the interests of openness, would the arbiters who reviewed the evidence and came to such a decision care to identify themselves? That is the #1 request. The #2 request is that these arbiters post here and explain to the community, why in the face of overwhelming evidence and suspicion from literally dozens of editors and admins, were these concerns and evidence ignored? Because as it appears to me, the committee only unblocked them because of different IP? The unblocking has lead to the case where the sockpuppet has been allowed to take the piss [18][19] out of the community, and more horribly, admins at AE have allowed the sockpuppet to participate in mediation on one of the most contentious articles on WP --- even though they are clearly topic banned. Under no circumstances should a disruptive sockpuppet be allowed to engage in anything on WP, much less in decision making on contentious articles. Unfortunately, up until now, there still has not yet been a straight answer.

Additionally, I do have to say that the response that is below totally contradicts what I was told by the committee on email. On email I was clearly told that any evidence could be taken back to the community, with the committee being given a heads up. Now it is being said that any evidence needs to be given to the Committee for them to decide? Why the contradiction? Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In regards to this from Mathsci, this clarification is not moot, as there is nothing stopping TLAM from unretiring once this discussion is disposed of as being moot, and starting to edit again. Of course, there is the possibility that Marknutley's latest incarnation really has retired, which only leads on to wonder what form the next sockpuppet will take. This clarification is still relevant, as much as the day it was posted. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

I think such cases are easy to handle. If there is any new evidence of sockpuppetry, anyone can submit an SPI case (based only on this new evidence), and checkuser can make a judgement, after consultations with Arbcom members if appropriate. Let's not renegotiate decisions by Arbcom, whatever they might be. Remember, that was a general policy question by TC, not a quest to sanction an editor. Biophys (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba

Per Biophys. Neither is there need for invective or disparaging remarks. Over time, I have had occasion to communicate with both editors regarding the case precipitating this clarification request and personally have no indication to believe they are the same person. Is there some reason for rushing to obvious guilt? As for the interaction by other editors here with both, clearly, I am at the low end of resorting to threats of enforcement, requests for enforcement, etc. while other editors on both sides of the aisle are less inclined to deal with what they consider POV pushing by debate only. To observe that on any day any editor may raise the hackles of multiples of others would be a statement of the obvious.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The conversation here is degenerating. If there is no incontrovertible evidence of MN/TLAM sockpuppetry we are done. Anything else is speculation which pretty much looks to be along party lines (regardless that it may also all be in good faith, certainly mine is, based on my interactions) and therefore irrelevant. The ravenous appetite exhibited here to convict editors based on allegations of "smells like, at least to me" evidence is appalling and revolting. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I would also note that IP address geo-location can be notoriously unreliable. Witchita, Kansas, is, for example, a popular destination. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Alas, the ArbCom election is now also being taken over by Victorian novels lobbying for a response based on personal representations of circumstances. Can we please wrap all of these up? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement The Last Angry Man

Why was I not informed of this? Of course if at first you don`t succeed let`s try again Of course I already pointed out how I am taking the piss Quick now, lets block all these sockpuppets. Regarding Mathsci`s other behavioral evidence mentioned on the AE page, "@" being used in response to other editors. Steven Zhang also uses it. As does Transporter Man, and Paul Siebert has also used it. The usage of @ in responding to other editors is not quite so rare as Mathsci believes but is no doubt being hailed as the second coming in the "evidence" currently being e-mailed all over by Russavia. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"One can easily change their IP and ISP" Yes one can, but of course it would be rather strange to have two IP`s two providers and two computers at the same time? [20] Nutley blocked four days after I began to edit. First checkuser in the words of T. Canens is an an experienced SPI clerk found no connection, the second SPI was a farce with the checkuser basing likely on the fact that Nutley used chrome as do I. He got it wrong as have those here. I fully realize what I write here will not natter a damn to those wishing to see me gone, but at least the truth will have been told. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Observation by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I took only a very quick look at TLAM's edits, but it was enough to convince me that if this is not Marknutley then TLAM should be sanctioned for impersonating another editor (thinking WP:POINT here). He has Marknutley's verbal and stylistic idiosyncrasies locked solid. I have no idea what the arbs may know (or think they know) that would argue against re-blocking, but I hope they are keeping in mind that it is trivially easy to sockpuppet so as to avoid providing technical evidence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Regardless of the meta-issues, I'm hoping that we can have ArbCom comment on this specific case. So far, we have had one checkuser (Hersfold), three administrators/SPI clerks (HelloAnnyong, T. Canens, myself), and one ex-admin (and likely more, haven't really gone looking) call this an obvious DUCK case that needs no further investigation. That's a bit too many experienced editors to simply dismiss I think. NW (Talk) 04:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tammsalu -> Nug

This issue arose after User:Igny attempted to have TLAM indefinitely topic banned on WP:AE ostensibly for incivility[21]. When it seemed apparent that Igny himself was going to be hit by WP:BOOMERANG due to his own battleground behaviour, accusations of socking was then levelled at TLAM. Now it appears that particular people, who as the Committee will recall from a prior amendment request claimed wanted to focus on content rather than editors, are pushing hard to have TLAM site banned. I have to wonder why Igny and his friends are pushing so hard for this banning, while appears that TLAM may have a low tolerance for certain Russian nationalist POVs, I don't understand why some would take that so personally. I see no new evidence of disruption by TLAM warranting a ban, in fact he was about to participate in content mediation[22], which I think we can all agree is more desirable than attempting to get editors banned in order to win content disputes. Now I do not know the full circumstances behind TLAM's unblock by the sub-Committee, but I do know that Mark Nutley was a real identity who )was smeared during a proxy farm investigation where his identity was odiously linked with certain external sites. Now I see no evidence that TLAM is Mark Nutley, but those that claim there is a link may well be WP:OUTING him for all we may know. Given that ArbCom have permitted former socks to return after a period of time, given that no evidence has been presented linking TLAM with Mark Nutley and given there is no new evidence presented suggesting TLAM has been disruptive, I do not see any need for the Committee entertain the need to reblock TLAM. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To those claiming TLAM is Mark Nutley based upon nothing more that shared topics, I would point out that Mark was extensively involved in climate change topics while TLAM is not. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On the recent comments

In regard to the recent comments from Paul Siebert and others, what's the point? Attempting to ban a content opponent on some wiki-lawyered technicality, I thought the EEML only practiced this kind of thing? Looking at TLAM contributions since he was unblocked, I see no ongoing disruption, in fact he recently was awarded a barnstar[23] and has been productively expanding this encyclopaedia since this clarification request[24]. I see no point in continuing on whipping this dead horse, so perhaps this should now be archived now. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by the Four Deuces

I was involved in all the SPIs relating to mark nutley. In each case, mark nutley, Tentontunic and TLAM were blocked only on their second SPI. mark nutley made great attempts to disguise his identity, for example by using open proxies. In fairness, no one claimed that the people using these open proxies throughout the internet were mark nutley, instead examples were provided in order to demonstate that the IPs were open proxies. Both mark nutley and TLAM are from Wiltshire, and mark nutley edited from a range of locations across the south of England. Given all this, it would be hard to disprove that these accounts were related. TFD (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Collect - that is my point: "it would be hard to disprove that these accounts were related". TFD (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Sander Saeda - your reference to people who opposed mark nutley's edits as "pro-communist" is a personal attack that you should withdraw. TFD (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

SPI does not require "proof of innocence" and actions undertaken by ArbCom regarding an SPI result can only be undone by ArbCom. The reasonable presumption is that the committee, in fact, have information which can not be just divulged in open posts - that is why they do not give such information out. There is, however, a history at SPI of various editors making iterated claims there in the hope that eventually an admin will say "well - maybe" and perform the block. Using a "well the accusation was made several times therefore it must be true" fails any course in logic ever given <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@TFD - the "south of England" covers a lot of people. @PS - that one has numerous content disputes with people does not mean they are socks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@TC, TLAM has apparently been successfully hounded including by such posts as [25], [26], [27]. [28], [29], [30], [31] some of which might well appear to be mean-spirited comments from a person who has not actually done appreciable editing in the areas where TLAM edited, and whose astonishing interest in him I can not explain. I regard hounding-by-ad-hoc-committee to be possibly improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

@Mathsci - I am acting on behalf of no one and nothing except my belief that SPI should not be abused, and that claims of socking should be made there and not used as a means of hounding anyone at all. This was also true, if you recall, at the CC case where I pointed out the large number of accusations found to be without proof for Scibaby, which ArbCom specifically noted. Cheers. And hope no one decides that you are worthy of four or five repeated SPI investigations. Genug est genug. Collect (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

@Mathsci glad you emended your comments. As I noted, I have no dog in the hunt, no horse in the race etc. All I do is be a stickler for the fact that accusations are far cheaper than proof, and the treatment of TLAM has not been a model for anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Add [32] to the list of posts by a person who does not even have a real connection to this

Someone wails that Nutley was "hounded". Come on.

Considering the iterated attacks on me by that editor over an extended period, including attacks here, I rather think it is he who has been "wailing." The hounding is real and apparent - just as others apparently hounded Mathsci in the past, I understand. That does not make it right. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

@PM - Um -- why would a fishing expedition labelling all IPs who are "only 70 miles away" (providing an area of perhaps 15,000 sq. mil in England, roughly 1/3 of that entire country) from MN be anything more than a fishing expedition considering that CU specifically does not make such connections? The comment again trying to assert TLAM is a sock is invalid, again. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC) @PM Amazing -- so why did you mention TLAM at all then? Seems to me that the disclaimer was there specifically to indicate that a connection might exist - there is no other logical reason for your comment, especially with all the TLAM stuff being bandied prior. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

Frankly speaking, since a probability to find more than one anti-Communist person in vicinities of Wiltshire is definitely far from zero, I initially didn't believe TLAM is a sock of MarkNutley/Tentontunic. However, some recent events forced me to change my opinion: the more TLAM is editing, the more his behaviour is resembling that of Tentontunic.

MarkNutley accuses me in formal violation of 1RR on Mass killings under Communist regimes [33]. This accusation was purely formal (there was one intervening, but totally unrelated edit made by a third user), and although that eventually lead to my only block, the blocking admin (EdJohnson) conceded later that this 1RR violation fell into the "gray zone".
Tentontunic accuses me in formal violation of 1RR on the Communist terrorism article and requested to self-revert [34], although this violation was also purely technical.
TLAM accuses me in 1RR violation on the same article [35]. Again, the accusation was based on the totally artificial ground (my second edit was not a revert, the only intervening edit between my edits was made by the AnomieBOT, and the users Anonimu and Noetica edited other sections of the article [36])

Both articles are the areas of MN/Tentontunic and TLAM's interests, and in all three cases I see quite similar tactics. I face such tactic very infrequently when I deal with other users.
Another example is a story with anti-colonial and anti-authoritarian insurgencies in Indochina.

I had serious dispute with Tentontunic over the labelling of these movements (e.g. Viet cong[37]) as terrorists in the Communist terrorism article. My arguments were based on the fact that, although some sources, mostly British and American official sources did describe them as terrorists, much more sources describe them otherwise, and the mother WP articles do not use the terms "terrorism" as a primary term for their description.
The same dispute has started recently with TLAM ([38], see the bottom of the section), so I see the same arguments and have to re-iterate the arguments I already used in the dispute with Tentontunic).

The more I am interacting with TLAM, the more I am having a deja vu feeling. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
PS It is probably necessary to mention that most users who left the comments in support of TLAM were defending Tentontunic against false accusations in being a sock.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
PPS I have to agree with Russavia that the usage of different computers is hardly an evidence of anything. I myself use different computers when I edit from home (Windows XP and Linux Fedora), and different browsers; sometimes I use a VPN connection through my university server; I use my university computers in different parts of the campus, each of which has different browsers and different Windows or Linux based operation systems. I also know that I am not the sole person who edit Wikipedia from the computers of my university campus. In this situation, the hardware based evidences would have a little weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On the last Russavia's post

Although the post is somewhat emotional, I see some rational points there. The ArbCom made some decision based on some evidences that were not available for wider WP community. In that situation, it is hard to speak about any new evidences, because we simply do not know what the old evidences were. In my opinion, the ArbCom should clearly explain what kind of evodences have been taken into account by them, and which of them appeared to be decisive. We do not need to know any details, but we have a right to know if that was the CU data, which appeared to be more convincing than the behavioural evidences, or that was some private information that convincingly demonstrated that TLAM was not a sockpuppet.
In other words, we have a right to know if TLAM is a suspected sockpuppet, which has been unblocked simply because the evidences of sockpuppetry appeared to be insufficient, or that the ArbCom had been provided with some convincing private evidences that TLAM and Mark Nutley are different persons despite the obvious similarities in their editorial styles.
I believe, a direct answer on that question violates noone's privacy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

@Nug

Obviously, the attempt to present the issue as someone's attempt to ban TLAM for ideological reasons is not acceptable. Moreover, it is based on absolutely faulty logics. Martin argues that TLAM and Mark Nutley are two different persons, and that even if that is not the case (i.e. if TLAM is a MN's sock), we do not need to block him, because he behaves well. However, these are two quite separate arguments. If TLAM and Mark Nutley are two different persons and ArbCom has unequivocal evidences of that, we have a right to know about that (I mean we have to be aware of the very fact of the existence of those evidences). However, if no such evidences exists, and TLAM is a well behaving MN's suspected sock, I am not sure that any references to his good behaviour can work: in this case MN is supposed to ask for unblock on behalf of himself.
In addition, I would like to point Martin's attention at the fact that the reference to "some wiki-lawyered technicality" is insulting and offensive, and, therefore, should be immediately retracted (with apologies). The reference to EEML is also redundant, especially taking into account someone's own history. I strongly suggest Martin to use less inflammatory terminology.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement Sander Säde

I haven't had all that much interaction with Mark Nutley or TLAM, but I've presumed them to be the same person. I figured the ArbCom subcommittee decided to give MN one more chance, esp. after the nasty slights and witch-hunt by pro-communist editors, which most definitely could cause real-life issues to someone using his real name on Wikipedia. I don't think administrators or non-involved arbitrators should do or decide anything hasty here. --Sander Säde 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hersfold

I'm not totally sure of the background behind this other than I've blocked this guy in the past (and tbh have little interest looking into the backstory), but my opinion on ArbCom involvement in blocks has always been that ArbCom (read: Ban Appeals Subcommittee) is the court of last appeal on Wikipedia - if they review your block and refuse to unblock you, you're out of options and effectively banned for life (that is, until the next ArbCom elections). If they accept your appeal, however, you are free to go and there is no-one (save Jimbo acting as Founder) with the authority to override their ruling in that particular case. To do so would in effect be double jeopardy - the former blockee has been "acquitted" (or at least released from jail as time served) and can't be tried again for the same case. Should other facts arise, however, and it turns out that the blockee is violating policy again, then they can be blocked as appropriate for those violations. Should that happen, I would also assume that ArbCom would be less forgiving when the appeals came up to them again. A successful ArbCom appeal should not be interpreted as a blanket pardon for all crimes past, present, and future - if you cross the line again, you can expect to be blocked again with little chance of appeal. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Zhang

Personally I would appreciate some clarification on the reason for the unblock in the first place. As I've filed an amendment request to TLAM's topic ban, one thing I am not clear on, is that has there been more alleged sockpuppetry by TLAM since his block was lifted by ArbCom (i.e. a new user) or whether it's more evidence that TLAM is the sockmaster that was originally suspected. If the latter, I assume that this should be sent to arbcom-l as opposed to on-wiki again. I would like to know some details on the reasons the block was lifted, whether they received an agreement that TLAM wouldn't sock anymore, or whether it was that ArbCom found TLAM innocent of said socking. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Prioryman

I've interacted with TLAM on Talk:Edward Davenport (fraudster) and thought there was something familiar-looking about his comments. Looking at his contributions, as someone who had extensive interactions with Mark Nutley before his ban, I'm in no doubt whatsoever that the two are the same individual - his language and editing style are very distinctive. WP:DUCK applies in spades. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note that The Last Angry Man has withdrawn his "retirement" notice and is editing again, so this issue is now no longer moot. Prioryman (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are two items left unfinished. SZ went to a great deal of trouble to allow my participation in the Holodomor mediation, I feel I owe it to him to complete the process. Carry on with your sockpuppetry case. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In relation to Marknutley (but not concerning the TLAM account), please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley for some new developments. Prioryman (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

@Collect: problems with reading comprehension? I already said above this did not concern the TLAM account. Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

It is unclear why Collect (talk · contribs) appears to be acting in support of The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs). The details of this specific case seem moot now [39] (a wikipedia retirement posting).Mathsci (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is complicated. A.K.Nole / Echigo mole socks have left retirement notices asserting their innocence or casting blame shortly before being indefinitely blocked by checkusers. The last one was Tryphaena (talk · contribs) about two weeks ago. An example of a retirement message prior to being indefinitely blocked by checkuser can be found here. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The return to editing of The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs) has not been properly explained. Mathsci (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion is not permitted on this page - please could a clerk or TLAM move this to his own section?
You feel I ought to explain my actions to you? I already explained why in the section above to Prioryman The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

I dont think there is an easy answer for this one. The successful ban appeals are sometimes announced with wording that gives an administrator a clear picture, and other times they are not. Also, the situation after the unblock may be different than at the time of the unblock. For example, the arbitration committee may have been monitoring the unblocked user, and may have received new information after the unblock. The simplest solution is for an admin to notify arbcom (via arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) of an ongoing discussion if they feel that the user should be reblocked, and arbitrators should comment onwiki if they believe the reblock would be inappropriate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Some people have asked for specifics regarding our decision on TLAM. The committee did not unban Marknutley. Prior to the unban of TLAM, several arbitrators reviewed the evidence that TLAM was Marknutley, and didn't find it conclusive. That, combined with the appeal from TLAM, resulted in the committee unblocking an account who they believe is a new user. In this specific case, the community should not read our unban decision as vacating the admin decision of the original block. There was a good component of "show good faith" in our unban. We rarely unban accounts which have been linked to banned users via sockpuppet investigations. ArbCom has been sent more evidence than was publicly provided, however it is broadly similar, and within the committee there isn't a consensus to overturn the unban. However we keep hearing about more evidence that isn't being shown to us. We've said that if there is better evidence, we're happy to be overruled in this instance. Whoever has the 'complete' evidence should make a decision, or send it to us and accept our decision. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In general, I agree with John's comment, that is under those circumstances, it would be prudent to inform ArbCom of an ongoing discussion about a possible re-block. I also agree that arbitrators who took the decision to unblock should, after being notified about the discussion, comment onwiki. This particular unblock was handled by the Ban Appeal Subcommittee, so I think somebody from the subcommittee should comment in regard to the ongoing discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose, as a rough rule of thumb, it would be unwise to reblock for "more of the same" (for example, more socking) without first contacting ArbCom. This is simply because there may be some pertinant backstory or material that only came to light off-wiki. But this is unlikely to be necessary if the second block is for different activity (for example, incivility or personal attacks when the first block was for socking). Roger Davies ^talk 04:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm of two minds here. Personally, I have argued in the past that behavioral quirks (the DUCK test) need to be just as prominent as Checkuser info. However, considering the multiple reports from checkusers that these are different people, I'm hesitant to reblock here. However, I said a while back that the Buck Stops Here at ArbCom.. so on the balance of behavior versus IP, I'd have to weakly support a reblock. SirFozzie (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- This has become stale (and the base issue behind it on sending us additional information on actions we've taken, is settled), so I suggest this be archived. SirFozzie (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

On the general question, I agree with those commenting above that these situations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Onthe specific case, in the first instance I will defer to my colleagues who dealt with this at the BASC level to comment. I would also point out that unblocks by the Committee or BASC of those who have been blocked for sockpuppetry, on grounds of mistaken identity or insufficient evidence, while sometimes controversial, are relatively rare. We look at appeals on this basis with a view toward providing the independent review that blocked users are entitled to, and once in awhile we find an obvious mistake, and other times we find the evidence equivocal; but everyone should understand that the Committee winds up agreeing with the checkusers and administrators who implement these blocks significantly more often than not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that such situations need to be addressed case-by-case. As SirFozzie has pointed out here, the checkuser evidence is pretty strongly that these are two separate people. This reminds me of a previous situation where there were calls to name a user as the sock of a banned user, and Arbcom could not agree to that particular sanction because it was contradicted by private but fairly definitive evidence. What we could do was point to the fact that the behaviour may be sanctionable for other reasons, which were within the scope of the community to apply. In this case, there are other sanctions available that could be applied by arbitration enforcement administrators, completely separate to the question of sockpuppetry. The editing area in question is covered under discretionary sanctions. Many of the behaviours that would raise sockpuppetry red flags are also the kinds of behaviours for which sanctions would be appropriate irrespective of the socking issue. I support the principle of administrators using the range of tools available in the toolbox; a topic ban or other limitations may be issued, as could a block for different reasons. Risker (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to opine here that an appeal that was received and granted by ArbCom should be brought to ArbCom if new material information has been found that indicates that the appeal should not have been granted. Unrelated misbehavior or new incidents do not need this, however. — Coren ^(talk) 17:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Along with Coren, I think that unless specific mention of extenuating circumstances is given via unblock notice or notification, there's no reason for an admin to wait on reblocking for egregious behavior or sockpuppetry (not that it's not helpful to also notify ArbCom.) Information related to a reason the original unblock should not have been lifted should go to ArbCom first, and the admin should hold on a reblock. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the others have said most of what I would on the subject--I'd just like to reinforce that yes, if an ArbCom-unblocked editor gets him/herself reblocked for other behavior, we should be notified. If nothing else, ArbCom needs the feedback for process improvement purposes: something went wrong with the original unblock. Either that was a failure to inform the community of administrators of the nature of the unblock, or we failed to accurately judge the editor's likelihood to engage in appropriate conduct upon his/her return. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion (December 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 03:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Statement by Timotheus Canens

How is Remedy 1 ("IP editing prohibited") supposed to be implemented? Does that mean that all 1572 pages listed on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/List of abortion pages (which, as I understand it, includes all pages in Category:Abortion and its subcategories) should be semiprotected immediately for 3 years? T. Canens (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@Roger: Semiprotecting 1500 pages is not "hard" to implement technically: it takes, at most, half an hour to write a script that performs the protection and adds the relevant tags. I guess a better way to put the question is, did arbcom really intend that all those 1500 pages be immediately semiprotected for 3 years? T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Since various members below think that a motion would be appropriate, I'd suggest getting on with it before someone's bold and actually writes that script.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Comment: During voting, I preferred R1.1 "IP editing restricted". It didn't pass but it is significantly easier to implement. If there's any support for replacing R1.0 with R1.1 from my colleagues, I'll propose a motion here replacing the remedy. Roger Davies ^talk 05:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't want to play whack-a-mole with at least one dedicated, IP-hopping, banned user agitating things, but it seems we spent more time discussing the time length than the implementation. I would welcome suggestions on a simple, painless way to accomplish blocking the bad IP editor(s) with the least collateral impact on other IP editors. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I also hadn't frankly realized that this would affect such a large number of articles. Our options are either to (i) replace the mandatory semiprotection of all relevant articles with a remedy indicating that semiprotection should be used liberally where needed in this topic-area, or (ii) to confine the initial semiprotection to a few specified core articles (such as the ones mentioned by name in the decision) and give administrators discretion to proceed from there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Other non-public issues had come up which indicated this might be a prudent way to proceed. Given the competing remedies, I'd be happy to take a mid-way path and let admins have a very low threshold of semiprotection and to let the committee know of any problematic editing by IPs for review. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere, this is best interpreted as allowing the semiprotection of any article in the topic area rather than demanding the semiprotection off all articles now. Granted, the remedy as worded now has implication beyond the immediate intent, and I don't mind a motion to alter it accordingly. — Coren ^(talk) 16:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Like Coren, I saw this as a broad approval of liberal semiprot use instead of demanding protection, which I realize looking back was a bad reading. If necessary, a motion to tweak the wording should be sufficient. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
For the record, recused. Risker (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed motion (1)

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at their discretion, for a period not to exceed three years from the conclusion of this case. Editors in good standing who wish to edit such topics under a single additional account not linked to their identity may do so under the provisions of WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.

Support

Proposed. Minimal modification to the substance of the original remedy to allow the semiprotection rather than require it preemptively. — Coren ^(talk) 14:44, 4 December 2011
I hate the fact that we may need to play whack a mole to deal with a banned user here, but on reflection, maybe it was a step too far to mandate semi protection for so many articles. SirFozzie (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
unnecessary to specifically mention socks and concerned that by raising it specifically is a bit like Streisand Effect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

There's some advantages in version 2, such that I don't want to oppose this, but I would rather see a version that incorporates the best parts of 2, without removing the discussion of appropriate use of alternate accounts. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed motion (2)

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

There are 15 active arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, so the majority is 7.

Support

Proposed. This varies from (1) in that it:
- sets up logging for the long-term semiprotections (we probably need to keep some sort of track on this as it's for so long and potentially so widespread);
- takes out the bit inviting editors to create second accounts just for the topic (is that really necessary? and should we be encouraging it?)
- and puts a fixed date that the semiprotection runs from (the case is already closed but it may not be clear whether the three years runs from then or from the date when motions etc conclude).
Copyedits welcome, Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
CE: "at their discretion" > "at his or her discretion" otherwise we have two their's relating to different subjects. Roger Davies ^talk 16:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Over first motion. Clarity is probably best. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
First choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
second choice. SirFozzie (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Either works, with no preference. The first alternative was basically the "minimal change" version, this one is more explicit.
Also, I'm agnostic about the mention of alternate accounts, it works with or without as far as I'm concerned: this is already provided for in policy and we are just restating. — Coren ^(talk) 04:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

While the sock account bits are redundant to current policy, I would prefer to not remove them from the description of the remedy. I would not have proposed the expansive use of semi-protection without an express declaration that it is a countermeasure against disruption, not an attack on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously in the topic. I would not oppose the rest of the text here if they were retained; I just don't see them as "extra", but rather an integral part of the remedy. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys (December 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} at Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Hodja Nasreddin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) formerly (Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Hodja Nasreddin

Amendment 1

Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted
I would like the interaction ban to be reciprocated, which would prohibit Biophys from interacting with myself, and commenting on myself.

Statement by Russavia

Berezovsky

I was active on the Boris Berezovsky article.
There was an strong concern from numerous editors that Kolokol1 (talk · contribs) has a COI with the subject[40][41] and is whitewashing the article of much negative information[42][43][44][45][46][47]
In response I was accused of working for the Russian govt [48]
Kolokol was told not to make such accusations lightly[49]
More accusations followed, and COI admitted[50]
Another warning[51]
Another accusation[52]
I respond to the accusations and again raise the COI[53]
Another accusation - fellow traveller is equivalent to useful idiot[54]
Biophys enters on Kolokol1's talk page[55] and again links to these accusations from almost 3 years ago by another user. His words insinuate that i was responsible for the editor being banned -- in actuality the editor was eventually banned for abusive sockpuppetry.
Biophys has used that diff in different discussions concerning myself in the past, and it is used to insinuate that I am not an Australian Russophile, but rather KGB, FSB, MID, MVD, etc, etc. Excuse me for not supplying specific diffs where he has done this, I don't keep such records. If diffs are indeed required, I will either find them, or remove this.
Such accusations have been found in the past to be without merit
The Committee refused 3 years ago to do anything in relation to Biophys and such accusations, as he
- 1) Promised never to do it again
- 2) Stayed on the right side of the line
Use of such diffs by Biophys does not stay on the right side of the line, and only cements a particular mindset with other editors in regards to editors whom accusations are levelled against

AE request

On 25 October, I made this edit
Biophys has never edited the article before, nor has he ever used the talk page
24 hours later he posts this on the talk page
3 hours later he posts this on my talk page
Biophys then appears at Talk:Controversies_and_criticisms_of_RT#Comment; another article he has never edited before
I respond and tell him to stay away from my talk page
Biophys returns to my TP
I post this
I am advised of AE request
AE request here
I raise different issues in the request, including hounding and misrepresentations on the part of Biophys
Biophys states he made the request because no-one would - i.e. no-one else saw major problems, nor was watching
The following of others contributions was found to be unhealthy by the Committee
This echoes what I stated at WP:ARBRB; which saw me being placed with an interaction ban
FPaS considers placing a mutual ban on Biophys under other sanctions[56]
Other admins refused to even look at this problem

Statement by Biophys

This request was brought by Russavia to challenge actions by AE administrators [57].

Aeroflot (second amendment)

On September 24, I made this edit in Aeroflot. This is a legitimate edit. That was not revert of previous edits by Russavia. I tried to restore some of my previous edits in several articles, and this is one of them.
Same day Russavia reverts my edit [58] in violation of his i-ban. But I never reverted his edit back since then.
I remind Russavia that he violated his ban and ask him to self-revert [59]. He apparently refuses.
Same day Russavia invites Igny for help. His comment is clearly a violation of his i-ban [60]. Igny comes to comment at talk page of Aeroflot.
On October 13, I ask other users what they think about my edit: [61].
No one responded. Only Russavia responds [62], in a violation of his i-ban, again. He tells: "I really don't care if I am banned from interacting with you Biophys." He also refers to me as "WP:RANDY"
Same day he invites Giano for help against "WP:RANDY". His comment is a violation of his i-ban [63].
Russavia demands on AE to sanction me for my edit in Aeroflot. In response, I explained that he is very welcome to edit this article, and I am not going to interfere [64],[65].
In response to my good faith suggestion, Russavia files this Amendment request and asks to topic-ban me from editing this article.

In summary, Russavia asks to sanction me for a single legitimate edit, one that he already reverted a month ago in violation of his i-ban.

Berezovsky

Here Russavia asks to sanction me for a single comment (everything else are claims by Kolokol1 who I never knew before): a month ago I saw that Russavia and Kolokol1 accused each other of COI and asked Kolokol1 that he should not make such accusations [66]. Kolokol1 replies: "Thank you for the warning", and so on [67]. To convince Kolokol1, I told him about another Russian-speaking user who was banned soon after making similar claims. Yes, I gave him a couple of diffs with examples of questionable COI accusations from my talk page (one of them was about myself). Yes, the user I refer to was banned on ruwiki precisely for making that kind of claims, but I am using him only as an example. After having this conversation, Kolokol1 never made any improper accusations about Russavia. Neither did I. I only tried to help Kolokol1. Now I am puzzled that Russavia interprets this as harassment.

My discussion with Kolokol1 was not anything special. In a number of cases, when I saw editors in trouble (e.g. on ANI), I tried to help them by giving an advice, for example here and here, but I could provide a lot more examples.

AE request

Please see my statement in AE request. I always followed all sanctions and advice by Arbcom and believe that others should do the same. It was clear that Russavia did not obey his interaction bans almost a month ago, but that only involved him reverting my edits in the area where he is a good contributor. Therefore, I simply left him the article in question [68] and did not report anything at the moment. However, he later started doing the same with other contributors. I provided Russavia an opportunity to self-revert after his other violations prior to reporting him to AE. I thought that would be only fair, but he now considers this as an evidence of wikihounding. I tried to explain it here. Most important, that was a legitimate report about systematic violations of editing restrictions. The guilty party was decided by AE administrators.

I believe this entire story is about the refusal of Russavia to follow his i-bans. When the amendment to lift the Russavia-Martin ban was close to rejection by Arbcom, he first decided to retire, but then came back to openly violate his restrictions. As follows from his letter to Arbcom and other statements (e.g. here), he also has problems with at least seven users (including Collect, Colchicum, Off2riorob and Kolokol1), and the problems are taking place in a wide range of subjects, from Poland and Baltic republics to Russia (Berezovsky and Aeroflot). However, I have nothing to do with these problems. I only made a legitimate edit in Aeroflot more than a month ago, and I brought a legitimate request to AE.

No, I did not follow edits by Russavia to cause his distress, I did not revert a single edit by Russavia anywhere, and I did not accuse Russavia of anything except violating his i-bans. My only interest here is that everyone must follow their editing restrictions. But I am not opposed to lifting all i-bans or whatever. Yes, you probably need another remedy. You had already six AE discussions about i-ban violations by Russavia only during this year [69], [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] (and it came to the point when people simply do not want to enforce your sanctions [75]), one standing arbitration request, one standing clarification request, and already second amendment request related to this (and Russavia promised two more amendments in his letter). But that does not concern me because I am not going to be involved in any future AE/ANI/AR discussions in this area [76]. Enough is enough. Biophys (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The message

Yes, I feel myself partly responsible for the bad situation in this area. That's why I am still trying to help. What should be done to improve the situation?

Rule #1. Everyone must respect their editing restrictions.
Rule #2. Drop the stick. Do not bring old issues. Do not blame others of COI. Do not cry "EEML!" at every corner. Do not think that others are your enemies. Do not bring requests without merit just to "get even" (like this amendment, sorry).
Rule #3. Do not edit war. Do not struggle with the same people in the same articles for years. Yes, you can try to edit anything. Yes, you can discuss your edits. But if people happened to strongly disagree about something, then what can you do? Go edit something else. And if you can not peacefully edit, then do not edit.

No, this can not be done by administrators. This can only be done by us. Do I follow these rules? Do others? This is up to Arbcom. Biophys (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Responses to arbitrators

@SirFozzie. After looking at this comment, I better understand the question. (1) Yes, I agree that in general if someone systematically violated his i-ban, you probably do not have another choice but to issue him a topic ban or worse. (2) Yes, the ownership of articles and using fabricated complaints to get rid of a content opponent is unacceptable, generally speaking. In this amendment request Russavia asks to remove me from editing this article. Surprisingly, he is using his own violations of his i-ban to force me out of "his" topic area, even though I did nothing illegal. It was he who reverted my edit. But you should not topic ban Russavia from any aviation-related areas where he is a good contributor. I made just a few edits in Aeroflot during all these years, so I would rather leave this article to him, just as I said before [77]. Please note that I did not submit AE request when Russavia violated his i-ban restriction in Aeroflot [78], but only in connection with his i-ban violation with regard to Vecrumba. Why? In part because I am not so much interested in this subject, and gladly leave it to Russavia.

Consider two mutually i-banned users A and B. A reverted edit by B in an article. B reports the incident to AE. That had happened many times. Does it mean that B uses the interaction ban as "a blunt force instrument" to force A out of topic area? Now consider a situation when B has no i-ban, but asks A to self-revert and do not report him to AE after first violation. Is that something sanctionable?

What should be done with "difficult areas" in general? I think you took care about this already by creating discretionary sanctions. I think the current team of AE administrators is highly competent, and they have already i-bans, topic bans and site bans to their disposal. What else can you possibly do? Probably only this: dismiss amendments that dispute decisions by AE administrators, unless there are very obvious and serious reasons for you to intervene. But what would be a valid reason for your intervention in such cases? That could be a statement by one or several AE administrators that they can not deal with a problem or your remedy is not working. Then you have to look who was exactly the problem according to them [79]. It does not mean that an AE administrator was necessarily right. One very common situation is that user A has been engaged in systematic violations of his editing restriction. If that happens, I think it serves as a proof that you actually made a correct restriction. How this should be enforced? This is also standard: the sequence of blocks of increasing duration. No need to invent anything special.

@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs. I do not see how my discussion with Kolokol1 about his problems at ANI can be interpreted as inflaming the situation. Kolokol1 did not make any comments about Russavia since then. I do not think it would be appropriate to report Kolokol1 to AE because he was reported already to ANI and COI noticeboards. It is noteworthy that ANI discussion resulted in no action against Kolokol1. On the other hand, I probably should not talk at all with any editors who are in conflict with Russavia (like Kolokol1), because that will eventually lead to Russavia filing a complaint about me later (two months later in this case). That was wrong. I am sorry.

I do believe that Russavia is an Australian businessman, and I never said that he was not. Why did I use this diff? Just because I needed a diff where someone made a similar claim and end up site banned. Did I use this diff before? No, I do not remember using it anywhere (Russavia tells: "Biophys has used that diff in different discussions". If he can remind what discussions he is talking about, I might be able to check it myself. Please note that discussion in old arbitration case mentioned by Russavia [80] was not related in any way to Russavia whatsoever). Giving wrong diff, making a single edit in Aeroflot... These charges look so petty to me... Yes, I realize that Russavia does not like the one-sided i-ban. Then let's remove it (please see amendment 3). Yes, I mean it. If Russavia does not want to talk, I will not talk with him. If he wants to discuss something (e.g in Aeroflot), then I feel very comfortable discussing any content issues with him, although I would rather avoid him. Please note that Russavia has no problems with discussing content issues [81]. Biophys (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I regret that at this point I just see this as a cynical attempt by Russavia to expand their fiefdom of article ownership and institutionalize their ability to indulge their whims of drive-by disruption on the assumption that any mutually i-banned editor can't do or say anything subsequently once Russavia has touched an article without being slapped by Russavia with an i-ban violation enforcement request. I've already explained elsewhere how i-bans should work to promote constructive behavior, but the abject lack of interest and discussion regarding that has been, frankly, appalling. "Metrics drive behavior." As long as the status quo rewards disruptive behavior and does nothing to promote collegial behavior, the WP:MESS will continue—not just limited to the Soviet legacy et al. Really, if you're all so jaded and poisoned that all anyone considers anymore is who to WP:WHACK and for how long and have given up on how to promote collegial behavior in areas of contention, you should resign from admin/ArbCom duties. I've been suggesting for years how to promote collegial behavior, how to disarm antagonists, and apparently no one gives a damn, just rolling out the usual tired self-righteous pontifications on nationalists, SPAs, etc.

Apologies I got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

The irony is that Russavia and I have been able to interact cordially, however, any attempt to do so is currently banned and what we have is this crap instead. ...Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?

Same response on proposed amendment #2, that being an outright request for article ownership. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I do find myself having to comment further on Russavia's allegations of stalking and harassment. As I recall, Russavia was topic banned from the topic area of contention before, however his "enemies" were gracious enough to not object to Russavia's editing articles broadly in scope but outside the area of contention, allowing for his topic ban to be relaxed. That past graciousness is now repaid with drive-by content deletions (previously discussed in prior et al.) and a personal double standard where he (falsely) decries poor conduct in others which he himself has been practicing for years in the area of contention. (The classic stalking of my Aspic edit and lecturing me on behalf of ArbCom diff is available if need be.) I regret to conclude that, at least as of now, granting Russavia anything when there is no actual conduct on the part of any other editor which needs to be addressed while ignoring his obvious disruptions will only beget more of the same. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

@ SirFozzie, I can go find my recent suggestion for i-bans in one of these recent mish-moshes. Short version, i-bans should only mandate that

editors not address each other specifically; interacting on content editing it or discussing is permitted as long as the discussion is not personalized
editors not discuss the other editor anywhere, in any way, either by name or as an identifiable member of a specific group

There is no reason editors who are i-banned cannot coexist on articles. Moreover, if that interaction is prohibited, the i-ban just becomes another tool to be used to game the system to own articles in spaces where there is a limited number of editors:

get there first with a provocative POV edit; i-ban grants owenership where other i-banned editor cannot do anything about it, or
accuse good faithed reports of ban violations as being said gamesmanship, i.e., the wrongdoer blaming the messenger.

Really, the answer is not to escalate punishments, that only increases the payoff for editors who prefer to eliminate their editorial competition through antagonistic tactics.

For example, Russavia and I have managed to interact without the Earth stopping spinning. What is lacking is not tools to censure, restrict, or otherwise punish editors, what is lacking is the will to CHOOSE to believe WP is not poisoned and to CRAFT and enforce sanctions in a manner which promotes collegial behavior.

Lastly, mandatory one week blocks not subject to appeal for every use of FUCK, SHIT, etc. in addressing an editor or situation. If you want a more collegial environment, start with good manners. Psychological studies have shown that "blowing off steam" does NOT blow off steam, it only further inflames future behavior. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I was working on something completely unrelated to WP and ran across some of my advice I wrote sometime back for dealing with our offshore India services providers. It would seem to apply here (and probably to everyone):

Also, being confrontational or forceful does not produce quicker or better results. Politeness, praising positive accomplishments, and not hurrying will earn you respect and go much further.

Best, Peters PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Greyhood

Links provided by Russavia clearly indicate the following issues:

#1 Biophys using against Russavia the strange situation, when Russavia is prohibited to interact with Biophys, but Biophys is not prohibited from interaction with Russavia. From a point of view of someone who doesn't know much about EEML, the EEML-related sanctions and the previous history of Biophys-Russavia relations, such a non-balanced situation with interaction bans might look like if Russavia had done something wrong in his past interaction with Biophys and was i-banned for that, while Biophys had done nothing wrong and was not i-banned. But of course this is not the case: in fact Biophys had received a tougher sanction, having been topic-banned from the area which caused disputes with Russavia. At that moment such a solution resolved the problem, practically excluding Biophys-Russavia interaction, and the mutual interaction ban was not necessary or important then. But after some time had passed, the ban was lifted from Biophys since it was thought that he would change his editing practices for the better. Russavia's sanction was left intact, however, which led to the present situation of injustice of non-mutual interaction ban. Biophys received a non-deserved interaction advantage over Russavia, while Russavia received a non-deserved drawback.

That wouldn't be a real problem, though, if Biophys had avoided interaction with Russavia and didn't used the situation for his own editing advantages. But he came to an article such as Aeroflot, which he was previously topic-banned from, which is at the core of Russavia's editing interest and expertise, which he knew was watched by Russavia and was recently significantly edited by him. That was OK up to that point still. But Biophys restored without pre-discussing an old problematic edit discussed and removed long ago, waited until Russavia reverted it, asked of self-reverting, and insisted on reverting even after Russavia was supported by other editors. When on a different article Russavia reverted Vecrumba (another strange non-mutual topic ban, especially given Vecrumba's claim they were able to interact cordially before the ban), it was not Vecrumba, but for some reason again Biophys who reminded of the interaction ban on the talk page of the article (which seems he didn't edited before). OK, that wasn't nice, however formally Biophys had a right to do so. But then he made quite an unnecessary move looking provocative. As if to make things even less nice on purpose, Biophys posted not only to the article talk, but right onto Russavia's talk page as well, asking for-self-revert via the link. In this situation 1) if Russavia answers Biophys, whether politely or not, he violates the interaction ban again 2) if Russavia doesn't answer Biophys, Biophys has an additional argument against Russavia (that Russavia was warned about the revert). When Biophys was told not to post on Russavia's talk, he still did unnecessarily post one more time, as if to purposely enrage Russavia even more (the emotional reaction of Russavia was quite clear before that). Biophys made an AE request against Russavia and Russavia was blocked.

I understand Russavia very well: from his perspective especially, the series of actions by Biophys looked like a strategy of making provocations, gaming on undeserved non-mutual i-bans, sanctioning Russavia for their violations, and interrupting Russavia's editing of certain articles. I hope Biophys didn't really mean all that, but he should understand that his actions might be seen as provocative even by uninvolved editors, like me, and from Russavia's positions and with the background of past problems, those actions were sure to be taken for gaming the system and hounding.

#2 Biophys reproducing old insinuations against Russavia, while at the same time being sensitive about old attack material against himself. I don't find such a position exactly nice. Biophys and many other editors, including non-EEML editors, find it inappropriate to provide links to some old attack pages, but at the same time Biophys provides links containg old insinuations against Russavia to new editors. If he just would have warned against similar insinuations in present, without providing the links, that would be different. But he did it in the way as if on purpose to resurface the old attack stuff.

Thoughts on solution. Biophys seems to agree to withdraw from further direct communication with or commenting on Russavia. Basically this is very close to voluntary i-ban, and as Biophys is ready to accept that anyway and that wouldn't harm him, better make it formal admin-approved ban, so as to exclude the possibility of gaming the system in principle. Another solution, on the contrary, would be to allow Russavia freely interact with Biophys and other EEML members making them fully equal in editing, but given the level of existing mistrust between them, aggravated by the recent events, seems this is not an option. GreyHood ^Talk 20:40, 10 November 2011 (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

Wikipedia:ARBRB#Biophys_topic_banned
Biophys topic banned from all articles relating to Aeroflot, broadly construed. This would also include BLP articles such as Viktor Ivanov and Boris Berezovsky. It may be appropriate, given past history to consider topic banning Biophys from all Russian BLP articles, broadly construed. This ban to be set with no expiration, but rather to be lifted only upon onwiki appeal to the Committee.

Statement by Russavia (2)

Aeroflot

In mid-September, I began to introduce rewritten information and an expansion of Aeroflot [82]
The Boris Berezovsky article issues interrupted this (as detailed above)
As part of the discussion on the Berezovsky talk page, I posted this.
Almost immediately after that, Biophys makes this edit to the Aeroflot article.
The edit is almost identical to an edit from September 2009[83]
This information was removed from the article by other editors in 2009 due to this.
Note The information that Biophys has re-included into the article, includes reference to Aquarium (Suvorov); a fictionalised autobiography. As noted on the talk page, it is a novel.
Including negative information based upon a novel into any article is IMO forgivable only on the first occasion.
The information also includes a WP:BLP violation, in that it notes that Viktor Ivanov is in the FSB hierarchy, thereby implying that his position at Aeroflot is connected to his position in the FSB; ignoring that he is also involved in other business and is also involved in politics.
Biophys has a long history of reintroducing information into articles which has previously been removed. This case is full of such examples.
Given the short time frame between my post on the Berezovsky talk page and Biophys' return of two year removed information into the article, it is fair to assume that he did this due to my post on the BB talk page
Biophys knew I would be 1) unable to remove it or 2) discuss it -- for all intent and purpose it would be left in the article, even as I was going to continue with rewriting it.
I revert his addition
I post this on the talk page
I implore that Arbs read the entire section, as it is evident that Biophys attempted to use the interaction ban as a weapon to sideline myself from the article entirely
Biophys posts this[84] - he uses the interaction ban card to try and lock me out of conversation
This is posted on another user's talk page, asking for advice on what I should do in relation to the situation as it was at the time (e.g. accusations against myself coming from numerous editors). It was not an invite nor even a call for help on the Aeroflot article, but a request only for advice.
Another editor, aside from Igny, agreed with the removal of information.
Immediately after the appearance of User:Collect on the talk page, given his misrepresentations against myself, I had enough and retired
It was my intention to leave enwp entirely, but returned after a week/week and a half and made it clear I wouldn't be hounded from the project.

Comment by Biophys

Perhaps this needs additional response.

"Aquarium" by Suvorov (especially English edition) provides a lot of factual detail, including plan of GRU headquarters.
Info about someone being an FSB member and Aeroflot chairman is not a BLP violation. Those are simply official places of work. Yes, there is an implicit conjecture here, but this is a conjecture made in a source, not by me.
I explained to Igny already why I made an edit in Aeroflot and several other places [85]. I forgot about this information removed from Aeroflot by Vlad Fedorov, but it came to my mind after talking with Kolokol1. Russavia tells: "Biophys knew I would be unable to remove it". Yes, this is true. I absolutely did not expect that he will remove this information (as he did). I simply wanted my contributions be placed back in the article, and perhaps improved by other regular contributors. Biophys (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Amendment 3

The remedy of the Russavia-Biophys case is amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Hodja Nasreddin. The editors are reminded to use the utmost diplomacy on any articles which they choose to discuss with each other or to edit in common.

Statement by Biophys (2)

I propose lifting the interaction ban for Russavia with myself. No, I do not enjoy interactions with Russavia, and I am not looking forward editing any articles together with him. I will also stay off talk page of Russavia as he recently requested [86], unless he changes his mind. However, if we happened to edit the same article (like Aeroflot), we must be able to discuss the changes. At least, Russavia will not claim that I am using i-ban against him. I do not. Biophys (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2011 (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.}

Further discussion

Biophys was allowed to return to this topic area after an appeal. Arb comments are at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_4

Please note Biophys has again retired. As evidenced in the initial case this is often done by Biophys to escape scrutiny and sanctions. This request should be allowed to continue regardless. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 03:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed "retired" notice from my talk page and made a few edits because I do not want my retirement to be seen as "tactics". Biophys (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC) However, it does not mean that I am going to stay, especially after this battleground amendment. Do I look like someone who is happy to participate in the project? Biophys (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can all editors please advise when they are done with editing their "statements". I will be responding to some of the inaccurate assertions presented herein, and when doing so, one wants to be able to be able to respond without editors making changes. For example, Biophys admits making edits to an article that I was involved in expanding and rewriting at the time, because he knew I would be unable to remove nor even discuss it. If that is not evidence that Biophys is using the one-way interaction ban as a battleground tool to lock an expert out of an article (me being an aviation journalist for a five year period with a speciality in the Russian and ex-Soviet aerospace industry), then I don't know what is. People might not like the characterisation, but it is classic WP:RANDY. For me to respond at some time in the future, only to have this removed by an editor is going to makes things harder for the community to follow and those who are actually involved to respond to. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. Telling that addition of relevant and sourced information is an attempt to "lock an expert out of an article" sounds like WP:OWN to me. However, the complete revert of my edit and requesting the topic ban afterwards is indeed an attempt to remove another editor from the article, and the continuing WP:OWN by Russavia. Biophys (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I also object to Russavia distorting my words ("Biophys admits making edits to an article ... because he knew I would be unable to remove nor even discuss it."). No, I said that I made this edit because I wanted this contribution to be included, at least in some form [87], and I discussed this edit with other people who were not under interaction ban [88]. Biophys (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, can Biophys advise us all when he is done changing his statements; he has made that announcement once already after being requested to do so, and he has continued to change statements. It is somewhat annoying. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 08:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

David Fuchs, I will attempt to provide diffs of where that diff has been used in the past. Not sure if there is going to be an easy way to do it, without having to go back thru a multitude of postings, so if one can bear with me whilst I attempt to find them that would be appreciated. Thanks, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

David, I spent about 15 minutes looking at various contribs, and I must say that I got bored very quickly of trying to find the diff in question. I know it has been used previously (either as a direct diff or as a link to the entire discussion), as I do remember raising the issue as to why Biophys insists on simply linking to the accusations, rather than explicitly telling such editors that there is no evidence of such things. The problem in finding it is also compounded due to many people not archiving their talk pages, but rather wholesale blanking or removing posts, making it near on impossible to find, unless one is willing to trawl through thousands of contributions and diffs, and frankly I obviously have much better use of my time. So I will leave it up to the Committee whether they take me at my word on that, or whether I remove the assertion (as I said I would). Either way, the fact that diffs from years ago are still trotted out on discussions about editors (instead of on content) shows me that there is still problematic behavioural patterns there. Anyway, please advise. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Statement by Collect

An "O Cataline" moment on the arbitration pages? This is not the best place to seek bans on such wondrous bases as "he retires to avoid it" considering a recent block and [89] a request for an unblock because he was still complaining at AE, [90] with edit summary can someone deal with this shit - stay away from my talk page doesn't mean come back and post yet again - GO AWAY) which shows a possible civility concern, [91] showing a rather cargumentative nature about me daring to call myself "uninvolved" in a case where I was actually uninvolved (and where he edited my post to change it to "involved"), [92] his own one week "retiremenet" and all in a short period of time. I rather think Russavia should simply be told to stay away from routine posts to ArbCom and to let things quiet down a bit. And have a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC) By the way, he did not give me the courtesy of a note that he accuses me here of "misrepresentations. Again - simply telling him to have a cup or two of tea should work, I sincerely hope. Collect (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Colchicum

Quousque tandem abutere, Russavia, patientia nostra? The idea that the mention of Viktor Ivanov's FSB affiliation, not in the least contentious, is a BLP violation is just ridiculous. I have a hard time trying to believe that Russavia is even serious here. The rest of the request is probably of similar quality and needs very careful research and scrutiny before placing any sanctions on anybody. Well, everybody here has probably learned by now that his allegations should never be taken at their face value. Also note that per the same reasoning Russavia himself should at the very least be topic-banned from all things Baltic and Polish. Supporting evidence abounds, but I can point it out specifically if anybody doesn't know what I mean. As to the retirement tactics, Russavia himself temporarily "retired" in September, shortly after this [93], which would most certainly yield him a lengthy block otherwise. Colchicum (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "This information was removed from the article by other editors in 2009 due to this" – and there was nothing even remotely similar to a consensus in that discussion. Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs) was there instead, if you know what I mean. In fact, I see absolutely no valid reason why Biophys shouldn't have edited Aeroflot. His edits might be a bit controversial, but certainly nothing to worry about too much, and his interest in that topic predates the imposition of the interaction bans. And then Russavia effectively declares that he willfully violated his own interaction ban and expects this to be taken lightly? Hmm. The more I read this proposal the more it looks like at least one of us has lost touch with reality. Colchicum (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

My first thought is: "What actions can be taken here to resolve this contentious area?". Folks, you don't want to know what my first ANSWER to that thought is, but I think some might know, considering my thoughts on areas that generate case after case, amendment after amendment, issue after issues.

However, I have a question, and I want honest answers here. If you were in our shoes, and had no "horse in the race", what actions do you think we should be taking to resolve this topic areas? I don't want "Sanction Users X, Y and Z". No names allowed, please. I want to know if you think complete interaction bans are necessary, going back to a topic ban setup to forcibly remove users from this area, or even harsher measures? SirFozzie (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

- I am not inclined to drop any interaction bans in this request (the amount of back and forth here does not give me any confidence whatsoever that it will resolve anything), but as I said on the related clarification request, if there are issues dealing with people using interaction bans to attempt to lock others out of editing, the interaction bans can be converted to a topic ban.. SirFozzie (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Russavia, if you could dig up further examples of Bio linking to the accusations, that would be appreciated. To Biophys, I would like to know what such comments are necessary--given that they have been determined to have no merit, it really serves no purpose to bring it up. In areas like this if you feel there are violations of sanctions, going in and enflaming the issue is not an effective use of anyone's time--notifying AE or similar venue is better, as you point out--is there really no one else looking at Russavia's edits? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that Hodja Nasreddin (talk · contribs) has retired, I'd suggest that this can be archived. Obviously, if he decides to resume editing, we can take another look at the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases (December 2011)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! at 20:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Ihcoyc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [94]
Zachariel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [95]
Fifelfoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [96]
Noformation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [97]
A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [98]
Agricolae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [99]
Itsmejudith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [100]
Nuujinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [101]

Statement by Ihcoyc (Smerdis of Tlön)

An acrimonious dispute has arisen regarding the sources that are useful for expanding the articles on astrological signs, and having far reaching implications for a large number of existing articles. The discussion has taken place on a variety of locations, including Talk:Scorpio (astrology), Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard [102], Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#General_astrology_sourcing [103] These are the places I'm currently aware of now.

The dispute involves a number of rulings contained in the several cases collected at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases. Everyone involved seems to be under the impression that they are keeping these principles, although the interpretations of them vary widely. Particular passages that I personally consider relevant include:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience

Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate sources

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Basis_for_inclusion

In addition to firmly established scientific truth, Wikipedia contains many other types of information. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (from Wikipedia:Verifiability).

The WP:FRINGE#Reliable sources guideline, which by my understanding was written at least in part as a summary of these arbitration cases, may also be relevant:

Reliable sources are needed for any article in Wikipedia. They are needed in order to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently notable to merit a dedicated article about it; and for a fringe theory to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter.

Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.

…

Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular subject are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, because Wikipedia policy prohibits original research. The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources.

The dispute centers around what are appropriate sources for the content of articles on astrology, and in particular the availability and usefulness of works by astrologers describing the content of astrological beliefs, to improve and expand articles on the elements of astrology, such as the individual pages for the several zodiac signs. A related issue is whether these articles are worth expanding and improving at all.

Astrology is an immense subject. Its literature goes back 2500 years, or more if you count the Sumerian omen texts; and also extends to the present day. New astrological books and magazines appear on a regular basis. It exists on multiple levels. On the one hand, you have horoscope columns, and charts cast to find the location of stray dogs. On the other hand, these guys invented spherical trig.

The literature of astrology is rich in technical detail. Astrologers attach meanings to the several planets, orbital points such as the lunar nodes, the various signs of the zodiac, various fixed stars, the rising, setting, and positions of signs and heavenly bodies, and other elements. My opinion is that all of these details of astrological belief and practice are articles that should be written if missing, and improved by expansion if present.

The literature of Western astrology alone is so extensive at various levels of high seriousness that I believe it is possible to speak meaningfully of "mainstream astrology" as well as "fringe astrology".

Others disagree. Dominus Vobisdu, in particular, claims that all writing about astrologers for astrologers constitutes "in universe" writing. "In universe" is a phrase that comes from our guidelines for writing about fiction, where its purpose is to curb extensive plot summaries and detail about fictional narratives that are not considered to be important outside the fiction itself. Referring to astrology as fiction is in my opinion a manifestation of bias.

The underlying claim appears to be that astrology is incoherent. It is or should be impossible to write about astrology using astrological texts as sources. Because astrology is fiction, astrologers who write books about it have no expertise in astrology; there isn't a subject for them to be experts in. No astrologer is an independent source; to be independent, a source must have no relationship to astrology as a field. Since astrology is not science (I don't think anybody is claiming it is, myself), every astrologer can and does make it up anew, and without regard to prior work. Even the publishers who print astrological sources regard the subject as a joke. [104] Because of this, Wikipedia editors cannot review astrological sources, collate what they say, and rephrase it to create articles on astrological topics; this will always be original synthesis. The omission of information on astrological belief and practice does Wikipedia readers no disservice. [105]

Other editors have given even more startling opinions, such as a claim that astrological beliefs cannot be presented unless they have been scientifically demonstrated. [106]

I find no support for these positions in the precedents set by ArbCom on issues relating to fringe and pseudoscientific topics. I find no support for them in the WP:FRINGE content guideline. My opinion is that they show bias, and are an attempt to lawyer up a regime under which all that can be said about the notional content of astrology is that "True science has rejected it. This is all you need to know."

I can't go along with that. Whether you believe in astrology, or believe along with Jim Morrison that it's "a bunch of bullshit," it's a big subject with a rich literature, plenty of historical depth, and appropriate for fairly detailed coverage here. Astrological sources are in fact plentiful. The current guideline suggests that we ought to cover it in detail.

No, astrology is not science. This means that it isn't a scientific theory that requires science sources. Its methods are mediæval. Our article on pseudoscience helpfully points out that its methods and substance have not changed much for two thousand years. In subjects like this, progress and truth do not come from testing hypotheses, but by fidelity to and expanding on the auctores. Astrological claims, even pop culture claims like 'Scorpios are dark and sexy', are "true" in the same sense that " Wednesday's child is full of woe" is true. My opinion of astrology is that it's a baroque sort of two thousand year old, learned folklore.

The usual method of Wikipedia editing, of collecting, rephrasing, and reporting what the sources say remains appropriate here. This is what we always do, because this is what we must do. We can do that with astrology as elsewhere without making original synthesis. We are entitled to rely on astrological literature as a source for astrology. Publication by mainstream publishers is an indicator of reliability and significance. Publication by astrological specialists may in fact indicate higher regard on the technical details of astrology, and is in fact an indication that other astrologers find that text worthwhile.

What I would ask for is a clarification of the prior rulings from ArbCom on these sorts of topics. Specifically, I'd propose that:

Astrological writings and authors can be reliable sources for the substance of astrological belief and practice. Their reliability as sources can be determined by their reputation and influence in the astrological community.
The appropriate level of depth and detail in articles on astrological topics is determined by the number and detail of available reliable sources. These sources are not discounted by being written by astrologers for astrologers.
Articles about astrology can be written from astrological sources, collecting, rephrasing, and reporting what the sources say, without original research.

Yes, this is wordy. I'm a Gemini. You could have predicted it. (wink) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@A Quest for Knowledge: Comment. My understanding was that this venue did not necessarily relate to conduct, and I meant to accuse no one of misconduct, only call attention to an apparently intractable dispute about the meaning and application of the rulings to astrology, which I think presents unique challenges as a subject. I sought only to name and notify participants in the debate. If being named here is a black mark on your record, I will be happy to remove your name, or that of any other editor I named. Nobody is being accused of anything. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, @A Quest for Knowledge: Again, I apologize, and am not even accusing the people who disagree with me strongly of misconduct. I thought this might be productive, because the page is for "clarification", clarification is needed, and portions of the previous decisions did indeed seem to me to be rendering opinions on the appropriateness of content. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment, for @Dominus Vobisdu, @Jclemens, and generally. I may be a latecomer to this whole dispute. I had rescued (Stars in astrology) or started (Tetrabiblos) a number of articles on astrology related subjects over the past year or so, and saw that a lot of the astrology articles seemed to be lacking in content and otherwise unintelligible or deficient. My first thought was to expand them with lightly edited text from public domain astrological texts, of which there are plenty; in many other situations, this is a solid first step. This.... did not go over well. I'll agree that astrology is no longer a mainstream pursuit; once it was. There are contemporary writers who are engaged in interpreting classical astrological texts; the issue is, they're astrologers. I do strongly disagree with the claims that astrology is somehow incoherent or improvised, or that there is no internal consistency in it, so that any attempt by editors to restate its ideas is original research. There are books of instruction in astrology and its methods that seem serious-minded and have all the usual indicia of reliability. The books I have closest to hand are On the Heavenly Spheres by Avelar and Ribiero (American Federation of Astrologers, 2010, ISBN 0866906096); and DeVore's Encyclopedia of Astrology (Philosophical Library, 1947); other, more popular sources, like Derek and Julia Parker's The Compleat Astrologer (Bantam; don't have it handy) would also be a potential source. All of these works are written from a POV that assumes that astrology is worthy of study.

I'd like to grow our articles with information from astrologers that discuss, for example, the characters attributed to the sun signs, houses, and planets, and that set forth how these interpretations flow out of the qualities attributed to the bodies by astrology. But there isn't much point in trying if all that means is enrolling as a footsoldier in an endless edit war. I'm not asking that anyone be sanctioned or punished, and if that means that there's nothing ArbCom can do so be it. Rather, I was hoping for clarification of the prior rulings and the WP:FRINGE guideline, because they did seem to contain decisions on content and sourcing. And if the threat of misconduct is needed to persuade ArbCom to act, I would note that many of the anti-astrology editors seem to be affiliated with the "rational sceptic" movement, if not the actual projects, and use its dismissive jargon (e.g. "woo") to refer to astrology content. If there is misconduct here, I'd locate it in the attempt to use "rational sceptic" assumptions to invalidate the subject and its literature, which strikes me as inherently non-neutral. The bottom line is that the current climate makes improving these articles next to impossible even if I'm not complaining about any formal rule violations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I suppose it's obvious this is not going anywhere, and as such this discussion need not be prolonged. There is a wide divergence of opinion on how to interpret the prior decisions and the content guideline that came out of them, but if clarification can't be sought from ArbCom without accusations of editor misconduct, answers may have to wait until it gets to that level. I would have preferred to forestall that if possible.

I remain astonished by the idea that anyone imagines that contemporary astrology can be treated as fiction, or that its belief system cannot be explained out of its large literature from mainstream publishers. There are entire shelves of textbooks instructing in contemporary astrology whose contents are forbidden to describe. I still don't know why. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo

asked and answered at RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong, very very strong element of I don't like what I got told coming from Ihcoyc/"Smerdis of Tlön" in this request. This is forum shopping, and I'd like to see a warning applied. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this was extensively discussed at RS/N; that opinion was overwhelming, voluminous and undivided; that Ihcoyc was upset with this response from the forum for reliability consensus building; and then came to arbitration for clarification of a content issue that was already resolved by remarkably consistent community consensus is the basis for requesting a warning over IDHT and forum shopping behaviour. If you go to the community, you accept what the community says. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

~~I'm not I'm happy that I was named as someone "involved or directly affected".~~ I'm not interested in astrology and to the best of my knowledge have never edited Astrology or Scorpio (astrology) articles. As many regular editors of Wikipedia know, there's been a content dispute between various editors in astrology topic space for the past 6 months. A few months ago, I made a relatively minor number of comments at the Astrology talk page to help move forward some of the discussions between the editors of the article. In any case, I pretty much stopped following the astrology discussions after Ludwigs2 was topic banned.

My current level of participation is only that I'm a regular patroller of the Fringe Theory noticeboard, and I responded to someone else's request. (I'm number 23 on the list of its most frequent contributors[107]). I know that WP:INVOLVED only applies to admins, but I felt that my comments at the Fringe Theory noticeboard were in an uninvolved capacity. In any case, my advice on how to proceed[108] was rejected so I walked away from that thread this morning.[109]

I don't expect anything to come of this request for clarification since it's mostly about content issues, not conduct.

As I recommended earlier, I think the best path forward is for the editors of these articles to try informal mediation or formal mediation.[110] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I am against all 3 of Smerdis of Tlön's proposals. At best, an astrological source is only reliable for the opinions of its author. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön's: ArbCom doesn't rule on content issues. Instead, it only rules on conduct issues. Your proposals are basically asking ArbCom to make a content decision and they're not going to do that. IOW, you shouldn't have filed this request. And that's not a knock or criticism of you. Wikipedia's rules are vast and complicated. Most people learn them through experience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön's: No apology is necessary. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't directly involved in the dispute, only that I provided help (or at least I tried to help) resolve the disputes. Anyway, just to avoid any further tension, I'll strike through my first sentence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Dominus Vobisdu

I don't understand exactly what needs to be clarified here. Both WP:RS specifically state several times that sources that are not reliable and not independent cannot be used on WP at all, except perhaps to provide information about the author themself, and only the author, in the case of SPSs, and then only with caution.

I guess the basic question being asked is whether sources written by astrolgers that have received no serious attention or mention in independent sources outside of the "astrological community" can be used as sources for factual content on WP.

The sources that certain editors would like to use are neither reliable nor independent. They are not scholarly in any sense of the word. The various sources include:

1) Popular guides and coffee-table books written by astrologers for the astrological community. outside of which they are not considered either authoratative or reliable.

2) Astrological websites and blogs.

3) Self-published books published by vanity presses or non-existant presses.

4) Articles published in pseudoacademeic journals that claim to be "peer-reviewed" but are not.

5) Articles and books by the very few genuine academics in the field that are published WITHOUT peer review.

6) Ancient and pre-modern primary texts without reliance on modern scholarly sources for interpretation.

There are numerous problems with these sources:

1) The field of astrology is not recognized as a genuine field of study in the real scholarly community except at a single university in Wales (The Sophia Centre), which offers online degrees in "cultural astronomy and astrology".

2) Unlike other fringe fields like creationism or Intelligent Design, modern astrology has receive very little attention from serious scholars or journalists, and there is therefore a suprising paucity of high-quality and mid-quality reliable independent sources that discuss the field.

3) The sources proposed and have received next to no attention in serious independent sources, making it impossible to determine whether the claims presented should be given any weight without resorting to original research.

4) The authors of these sources have likewise received little attention in serious independent sources, making claims of expertise or authority impossible to verify without resorting to original research.

5) Unlike other fringe fields, astrology has few if any experts or authorities, or centers of authority, that are recognized by outside of the astrological community. It is also impossible to determine whether such recognition exists within the astrological community itself without resorting to original research.

6) It is impossible to determine which beliefs are widespread among modern astrologers because no independent researchers have conducted serious research comprehensive enough to base an assessment upon without resorting to original research.

7) There is no evidence that any of these sources have been subjected to editorial review or peer review or any other manner of fact checking with regards to factual content, despite occasional dubious claims that they are.

8) Many of the authors of the sources and the organizitations that publish them misrepresent themselves as genuinine scholars and scholarly societies, and their books and journals as genuinine scholarly, academic or scientific publications. The mainstream scholarly, academic and scientific communities do not recognize these claims.

9) Many of the sources produced promote a particular type of astrology, and cannot be considered representative of the astrological community as a whole, or even a significant part of it.

10) Many of the proported experts in the in the field are actually entertainers who have no demonstrated expertise or qualifications to write seriously on the subject. This is especially true for newspaper and magazine astrologers.

11) Most, if not all, of the popular books in the field are published for entertainment purposes only, making it impossible to use them as sources for factual content here on WP.

12) Much of the content that these sources are used to support is properly the domain of genuine scholarly, academic or scientific disciplines such as history, philosophy, sociology, psychology or the natural sciences, but does not meet the scholarly requirements for those disciplines.

13) The content that these sources are used to support is presented in WP's voice without in-line attribution as if it were derived from genuine scholarly, academic or scientific sources.

14) Even if the content were attributed, it would still not be suitable for inclusion because there is no way to determine its noteworthiness or how much weight it should be given without resorting to original research.

15) Some of the sources are ancient or pre-modern primary sources, and have been used without any reliance on modern scholarship for interpretation.

16) On a more worrisome note, many of the proposed sources originate from or are endorsed by the most visible astrological society, the Astrological Association of Great Britain and the closely allied Sophia Centre. This group is very "elitist" and ardently assert that they don't endorse the most popular varieties of astrology. It is impossible to determine how widespread the variety they do endorse is without resorting to original research. Furthermore, their writing are more concerned about astrology as they think it should be rather than about astrology as it really is at the present time. The core of this group is small and incestuous, so it is impossible to consdider their views as widespread within the astrological community as a whole. In fact, they seem to be considered a fringe movement not only by the mainstream scholarly community, but by most of the astrological community as well.

In short, the conflict over sourcing on astrology-related topics is a long-standing and serious problem that has been difficult to resolve with numerous RfCs and discussions on RSN and FTN. The paucity of genuine reliable independent sources severely limits what we can report on the topic of astrology, especially modern astrology. Editors wishing a fuller treatment of the subject have aggressively campained for relaxing WP sourcing policies. I strongly object to their demands, and feel that sourcing policies should be as strictly enforced on astrology-related articles as they are, or should be, on articles on other topics. What good is a fuller treatment of the topic to our readers if that treatment is based on unreliable sources. The proposals made by Smerdis of Tlon grossly violate WP policies, and must therefore be rejected. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I agree with your point about organizations being considered authors. I assumed that from the start. Yes, there has been some misconduct, but none bad enough to bother arbcom with at this point. The dispute is about how low we should go in providing sources. The "pro-astrology" editors favor no restrictions that I can see, espcially with regard to in-universe sourcing as Tlon's proposals demonstrate. They had a little field day for a while before someone blew the whistle on them. That's when I arrived and stated an RfC that brought plenty of new eyes to the article, and a second RfC when the pro-astrology editors refused to acknowledge the consensus from the first. That brought even more eyes. The end result was that 25000 kb of cruft and nonsense was deleted from the article. The "pro-astrology" editors are not happy, and still filibustering and wiki-lawyering about sourcing. I don't know what Smerdis hoped to acchieve by starting this clarification discussion. I really don't think this is the right venue, though it would be nice to have an authoratative statement on in-universe sourcing of fringe topics that is wiki-lawyer proof. But I know that that is not yours to give. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Itsmejudith

I want to see good coverage of astrology as a historic cultural tradition. There are plenty of academic sources for that, and they should be used. It is not a fringe topic. By contrast, present-day belief in astrology is a fringe topic. I'm not sure that the pro-astrology group of editors recognise that distinction. The notion that there is an unbroken continuity of astrological belief and practice from high antiquity until the present day is itself a fringe viewpoint. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Zachariel

I do believe this has now become a matter for Arbcom. I would ask the arbitrators to understand that these matters have already been referred to the RS noticeboard several times, but no one – even there – seems capable of bringing clarity to the interpretation and use of RS guidelines in relation to this topic. For some reason it has been singled out as subject to the most purist ideals of WP sourcing policies, which are taken to the most stringent extremes imaginable. It is no longer helpful to have these ongoing multiple noticeboard discussions; they are only generating more confusion and not bringing resolution.

There is another ongoing thread on the RS noticeboard, where the problems described demonstrate more clearly the level of disruption being caused and how this (I believe) is contrary to the aims of Wikipedia. That discussion shows that there are behaviour issues involved here too, so perhaps Arbcom should be taking a critical look at the conduct of some of the editors involved. Specifically myself, Itsmejudith and Dominus Vobisdu, since we regularly get locked in content disputes when I try to contribute referenced text, and meet with persistent blanking of the content without indication of specific reasons - just something like "all these references are unreliable". (There is no question of bad conduct from Ihcoyc, A Quest for Knowledge, or anyone else that has been listed as involved and requested to comment here).

Regardless of whether this endlessly frustrating style of editorial blocking constitutes misconduct, I would like to find a way to work more collaboratively, and not have to engage in a 3-day discussion every time I want to make what should be a 3-minute edit to improve the quality and information value of content already present on WP. Much of the astrology-related text is crying out for improvement, but unless we get some clear Arbcom statement that content relating to astrology may indeed by verified by reference to famous, notable, influential and popular astrological texts (without them being automatically rejected as primary, fringe, unscientific or not published by a scholarly press) then this situation will be nothing but hopeless.

Ihcoyc’s proposals look like perfectly reasonable common sense suggestions to me. If others disagree it is probably because Dominus Vobisdu has completely misrepresented the situation regarding the sources proposed and the state of astrological consensus. I would like to demonstrate that with a response to his statements, but since I need to go out for a little while I am posting this now, primarily to say that I hope this Arbcom request is not closed without attention, or without giving everyone involved a chance to comment, identify the real issues, and hopefully find the best solution. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

To explain my involvement, I have a reliable knowledge of this subject and have made a fairly broad input into the astrology-related pages; so I understand the issues that Dominus Vobisdu is referring to, and believe I can give you a more balanced picture on the sources he says the astrological editors are wanting to use.

I should also say the state of the zodiac sign pages disappoints me. I have little personal interest in them but have tried to improve them, feeling that they should be much better than they are. So I’m mainly responsible for the state of the Virgo page today – which looked like this when I started working on it. I recently initiated a WP:astrology project discussion in the hope of establishing a project group to create guidelines, and develop content for the series of pages, using that page as a model for discussion; but I’ve lost heart to take that further right now because of constant arguments over issues like this that are a total time-sink.

With regard to the types of sources Dominus says are being proposed (I have cut/copied his list):

1) Popular guides and coffee-table books written by astrologers for the astrological community. outside of which they are not considered either authoratative or reliable.

Only to demonstrate what the writers of the popular coffee-table type publications have to say on the subject.

No, these types of books are not written for the astrological community (taken to mean those who have good knowledge of the subject and practice it or are seriously involved in the study of it). They are written for the general public, are simplified accordingly, and demonstrate a type of astrological approach that the general public can readily relate to.

So, for example, on Virgo (astrology), where the key characteristics of the sun-sign personality type is defined, reference is given to Martin Seymour-Smith, author of The New Astrologer (Sidgewick and Jackson: 1981); Linda Goodman, Linda Goodman’s Love Signs (Harper Paperbacks: 1991 - don't like her myself but she's very popular and her books have sold millions); Joanna Watters Astrology for Today (Carroll & Brown 2003), etc., to demonstrate what these popular-end writers say about the commonly reported personality traits of the Sun-signs. This is given in the style of

Joanna Watters (2003) defined a keyphrase for this sign as "I serve", and summarises the Virgo reputation for over-analysing emotions by saying:"One of the Virgo lessons in life is to learn that to err is human, to forgive divine, especially when it comes to love".(ref) Martin Seymour-Smith (1981) suggested that appropriate keywords for this sign include: Discrimination, analysis, calculation, loyalty, tidiness, hypochondria, the cutting out of the useless and wasteful.(ref)

These books are readily identified because they are popular, well-known, and published by reliable, established publishers. The page also features a reference to Sasha Fenton, who is very well known, although I have argued that reference should be replaced because it goes to the Readers Digest, which is not subject-specific. So to me that is too trivial to be of any real merit.

My view on this: if the publisher is a credible one, and the astrologer well known or known to be well trained with an established reputation, these sources should be deemed reliable for what they are aiming to do. They are not authoritative, but neither is that information. This is concerned with content that might be found interesting and curious. Being told that my Chinese horoscope sign is The Tiger, with a certain degree of idle curiosity, or maybe because my school project requests it, I might want to look on the WP page for that sign and see what it is supposed to mean to be a Tiger in Chinese astrology. Disappointingly, the page doesn’t tell me anything at all about that – it used to do, but at some stage all the information regarding the traditionally reported characteristics was removed because it didn’t have any references.

2) Astrological websites and blogs.

I have not seen editors with knowledge of astrology arguing for the addition of references to a website or blog. I have only seen these types of references given by editors who are clearly hostile to the subject, and then because they lead to something that ridicules the subject. However, I have placed references to published papers and good quality articles that have been previously published in reliable sources and then reproduced on the web, giving details of both the original and online publication.

Using that Virgo (astrology) example again. The page includes reference to an article written by a well known astrologer, Deborah Houlding, whose explorations of the zodiac signs are notable as a series of features originally published in the The Mountain Astrologer. This is a leading astrological journal with an excellent reputation and high-standards of editorial control. Hence the combination of good author, good content, and previous publication in a popular and well known subject-specific journal, combine to make this a reliable source for showing what astrologers have to say about their subject IMO.

3) Self-published books published by vanity presses or non-existant presses.

The only recent example I can think of where a self-published text was proposed as a reference is detailed in the Scorpio mythology thread on the RS noticeboard. No one has presented an argument against the use of that reference within the context of its use (as explained in that thread), and I don’t believe there is a good argument that can be made against it in that context. But so often context is forgotten.

Another example: I want to substantiate content on some pages by reference to John Frawley’s works. Everyone in the astrological community knows his reputation, and very few do not have at least one of his books on their shelves. But his books - though widely available - are self-published. Is he is to be excluded without any consideration of his prominence, notability or worth?

I can see it's a problem that other editors don't know which sources are the reliable ones. This is because they don’t have the knowledge and experience of the subject that members of the Wiki:astrology project do have. It would save a lot to time is all such arguments were deferred to members of the astrology project to decide. Editors with good knowledge of the subject can recognize instantly if a text is generally considered reliable and representative within the astrological community. Recourse to the RS noticeboard could then be reserved for specific queries with the knowledge that the source is deemed to be a reliable one within the community, but for other reasons there are concerns attached to it.

4) Articles published in pseudoacademeic journals that claim to be "peer-reviewed" but are not.

There are only two peer-reviewed astro-journals I am aware of: Correlation: Journal of Research into Astrology, published bi-annually by the Astrological Association of Great Britain, and Culture and Cosmos, Journal of the History of Astrology and Cultural Astronomy, which publishes proceedings of academic conferences, etc.

Submissions for both are peer-reviewed by reputable academics with appropriate subject expertise; the former is sponsored by an astrological society while the latter is a university publication. I would say these journals gain no special weight other than to suggest that the publication involved has an established reputation for reliable knowledge of its subject and an editorial policy that is concerned with fact-checking. So long as the point being made is not one that breaks other policies (like using Correlation to counter claims made by mainstream science journals in a way that would create UNDUE weight - a point of controversy in the past) then I believe these journals are appropriate for reference. Dominus Vobidus wants them to be entirely excluded as prohibited sources, regardless of the context of their use. This is because their subject matter is astrology: a fringe subject (therefore these are 'fringe publications' which, in his eyes, must not be considered reliable sources, not even for reporting fringe).

5) Articles and books by the very few genuine academics in the field that are published WITHOUT peer review.

To prohibit this would mean a book like A History of Western Astrology by Nicholas Campion, senior lecturer in the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Wales, Lampeter, cannot be used because it wasn’t issued by a university press.

This will also rule out the prospect of adding a reference I proposed (in the RS thread given above) Gerald Hawkins' Mindsteps to the Cosmos where the relationship between mythology and zodiac symbolism is described.

I argued that Hawkins was professor and chair of the astronomy department at Boston University, a reputable author and famous for his work in the field of archaeoastronomy, so surely acceptable to verify a bit of sun-sign mythology that is so well known it is reported all over the web and in many other books similar to (and so just as useless as) this.

6) Ancient and pre-modern primary texts without reliance on modern scholarly sources for interpretation.

The example here relates to the use of astrological texts that are so famous, influential and historically significant that they remain authoritative text-books.

We are not talking about references to dusty manuscripts, but modern type translations of texts that are widely available, in hardback and paperback, and all manner of forms of modern reproduction, because they are considered essential astrological reference works and are used to establish and authorize traditional techniques.

An example is Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos. Another recently brought up for debate, is William Lilly’s 17th-century Christian Astrology, the first major astrology text to be written in English rather than Latin. Check this Google books result to get some idea of how extensively this book is used and made available.

Lilly's text is the only authoritative source of reference for the principles of horary astrology – his book is so important for that subject that the use of horary astrology was effectively abandoned until his book was brought back into mainstream circulation about 30 years ago. Since then his work has become considered the most reliable and useful source of reference for astrological principles - many astrologers can name the page references for where certain points are made without needing to have the book in front of them.

I used this source to give references for the association between astrological signs and body parts. Lilly tells us (in English - on p.97 of his book) that the sign of Sagittarius is given astrological rulership over the thighs. I am told that I cannot use this as a reference to verify existing astrological content (such as the statement that Sagittarius rules the thighs), to demonstrate that this is a reliable statement concerning astrological belief, and that some WP editor hasn't just made that up. I am told I must find a modern scholarly source which interprets the meaning of Lilly's remark and confirms the intention of what he wrote. Yet here is is, right in fornt of me: “Sagittarius: It rules the thighs” (CA., p.97). It's a textbook that modern astrologers study and which most astrologers either have or know about. There should be no question that these influential traditional astrology texts can be used for refrence of traditional astrological principles.

Sorry this is so long - may be because I'm a Tiger (alas: no way of knowing what that means) -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Fifelfoo. Reqgardless of whether arbitrators are able to clarify some issues here (I sincerely hope they can) your suggestion that Ihcoyc should receive a warning for "not liking what he got told" is illogical. Read the other editor's posts: both sides agree this matter is causing great disruption because the forum discussions have only added to the confusion. I have demonstrated this, and Dominus Vobisdu expressed it succintly in his final para of 3 Dec: "In short, the conflict over sourcing on astrology-related topics is a long-standing and serious problem that has been difficult to resolve with numerous RfCs and discussions on RSN and FTN".

Forumshopping? Itsmejudith has initiated several discussions simultaneously and this has not been helpful, but has Ihcoyc done this? This appears to be the only discussion he has initiated, and his motive was clearly to bring an end to time-wasting.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Dominus Vobisdu – your 16 point list is tiresome for being almost completely misrepresentative. I am not going to waste time on most of it, except to say that your summaries are unreliable. Eg, for 8, can you specify an author who purports to be a “genuine scholar” in contradiction to what is recognized by the scholarly academic society? I am not talking about scholars who publish in journals that make no/little impact on the mainstream scientific community, but your implication that astrological authors pretend to untrue academic qualifications.

Your 16th point “On a more worrisome note”, makes allegations against two societies with good standing, and what you say is false. This is a toning down of slanderous remarks you made on 18th Nov. against named persons in the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=461342177]. That is why I called for that thread to be closed, and have refused to contribute further while it is used to publish such false accusational remarks. There you also said this:

"the chairman of the largest astrological club in the UK, the Astrological Association, posted on the talk page a couple of months back that here organization wanted nothing to do with sun sign astrology, the most common form, and that the wikipedia article be rewritten to reflect "real" astrology, namely her own brand."

This is not true. What she said was this, and this:

"Perhaps it would be best stated that 'the practice of sun sign astrology is a very small part and recent phenomenon of the history and full body of knowledge on western astrology' and have a link through to the sun sign astrology page? Thank you for guiding me to the COI page. As you have read, I am the Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain but the views expressed here are my own and not representative of the organisation’s members."

You could have pointed to those diffs yourself. This is indicative of the extent to which you regularly present twisted, inaccurate information in alarmist terms. Being aware that you have quoted a contributing editor, you should also have given that editor some notice to create a chance for clarification. I turned a blind eye to the Fringe notice board misrepresentation but since you insist on repeating these allegations, as if there is substance behind them, they deserve to be taken seriously. Please qualify or retract your untrue remarks here and in the post that still shows in the Fringe notice-board thread. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo. The only thing that is overwhelming in the RS 'general astrology sourcing' discussion is the amount of words and lack of clarity. Opinions are certainly divided and the discussion continues. This is what happens when too many issues are presented at once. There is no sense of authority in the posts, and the matter is blighted by contributors not understanding what this is all about. This is why the astrology project should hold these discussions and make refrence to the RS thread for specific circumstances that can be understood according to their context.

I have never contributed, but will copy over my post - though I'm sure the only thing it will add now is more disinterest from a broader community who must be exasperated by all this. BTW, no one has contributed any support for the suggestion that the Babylonian myth refs were not satisfactory after I made my post to that. I believe that is because the suggestion that the refs are not satisfactory is unsupportable. If you disagree please comment there and explain your reasons why. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 03:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, John Vandenberg, that is a striking remark. Do you have a reliable, verifiable source for when astrology ceased to exist, by which you can justify your argument that it may only be discussed in historical terms? Can you point me to the WP policy which states that editors must adopt the view that astrology is no longer recognised in contemporary culture and society? Presumably some kind of policy is needed to support your comment that to suggest otherwise "is begging for a ban" -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

John Vandenberg, you are correct in saying that astrology has not ceased to exist. No one here has suggested that it be presented as a science. I am pleased to see the endorsement of the need to respect all people and their beliefs. Can you affirm that extends to astrologers and their astrological beliefs, and confirm that no editor is "begging for a ban" by reporting what these are (according to the astrological sources)? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@John Vandenberg. I'm assuming that even via the authority of your arbitrators comment box, you have not been authorised to invent the meanings for words to propose the application of policies that do not exist. Belief is categorised differently to fiction, and it is quite wrong to suggest that modern astrological works fall under the category of "fiction". I realise that you have divided the world into only "approved models of modern science" and "fiction", and left no room for philosophy, metaphysics, and pseudoscience itself, which may present some elements that science recognises yet fall outside the recognistion of mainstream science due to its incorporation of conjecture and belief. However, since you suggest a reliance on academic sources, I will happily give your point some credence if you can show that your statement "Modern astrological sources are works of fiction" is an approved categorisation, as demonstrated in reliable academic sources. If not, then what you have said should not be given with a sense of Wikipedia's authoritative standing on this issue, for it is simply your own personal opinion. That is all. -- Zac Δ ^talk!

Statement by Agricolae

My involvement in this dispute is sort of peripheral to the issue being raised here except for serving as a straw-man. I answered a specific question as to what would be a reliable source for attributing human characteristics, "dark and sexy", based on astrological signs. Contrary to what Smerdis is suggesting, I said that if one were to present this information as fact, it would need to be supported by a scientifically reliable source, but I also distinguished this from (clearly) presenting it as belief, for which the sourcing would differ (e.g. we don't present medical quackery as fact, just because the quacks believe it, but there are circumstances where as long as it is made clear this is what is being done and it is balanced with the modern medical counter-belief, we might present the beliefs of quacks if their particular flavor of quackery is notable). What I am trying to avoid are cases where Wikipedia becomes a vehicle for propagating such beliefs based on nothing but the whim of an editor citing their favorite astrologer and presenting their beliefs in-universe. There is no coherent organizing body or accepted literary canon and there is essentially no academic scholarship into the views of modern astrology, so it is problematic to treat the writings of any modern astronomer as reliably representing the consensus within their universe, let alone that of the more general community. Presented as simply individual opinions, one must wonder about what makes this particular astrologer's opinion of specific merit that it is singled out for mention. (Sagittarius (astrology) is an example of a current page that presents one astrologer's view about personality characteristics without broader context. Scorpio (astrology) is even worse, making medical claims regarding reproductive fecundity and pregnancy in violation of WP:MEDRS.) Wikipedia should not be taking the role of the newspaper astrology column in forwarding these beliefs, unbalanced by the counter view that it is all bunk. That all being said, my concerns were not specifically drawn from the cited ArbCom decisions. Agricolae (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nuujinn

My involvement with this is limited to the discussion at RSN. I do think that a review of that and other discussions might be useful, as it seems there are some strongly held opinions. Agricolae has a good point that we should not simple repeat the view of newspaper astrology columns. But I think some editors are pushing a bit hard in requiring peer reviewed academic sources for astrology in general--most of our articles do not rely on such sources. We have found some sources that appear promising, but all of this appears to me to more of a content discussion appropriate for other venues. Perhaps what is required is more general discussion about how one might determine who is and is not worthy of consideration as a reliable source for this topic. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

I don't think that issuing the clarification here is necessary. There are other places to use the principles set out in that arbitration case, namely the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). The page mentioned in this clarification request is noted as outdated. Also, while the Committee has set out principles (based on Wikipedia Policy) on what constitutes a reliable source, we're not in the habit of declaring that "This site is a reliable source" or "This site cannot be considered a reliable source" SirFozzie (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I've seen the positions the requester articulated above advanced occasionally over the years with respect to religious topics, and my personal thoughts on them is as follows:
Ultimately, NPOV means Wikipedia doesn't take a stance in Wikipedia's voice on anything. Everything ultimately gets attributed to someone, but when something is extremely common and uncontested knowledge, we drop the in-text attribution for readability's sake, and let the footnotes suffice. Thus, having an article on a particular belief system doesn't mean it's true, just "verifiable".

I have heard editors suggest that religious sources were not independent for the purposes of describing religious claims. That not only attempts to build a bridge too far, in my opinion, but it also falsely sets up Wikipedia as in the business of evaluating religious claims. We can describe any particular belief system appropriately, using both the sources within the particular new religious movement, denomination, group, etc. (per WP:SELFPUB if independence is indeed compromised), as well as mainstream reliable sources. The sad bit here is that mainstream reliable sources never seem to go into the depth and detail that sources close to the belief system do.

This does not excuse advocacy, which is itself an NPOV violation. Our job is to describe accurately (WP:V) and neutrally (WP:NPOV) things within our scope (WP:NOT) which are of general interest (WP:N). Of course, as a one sentence summary, that's a horrible oversimplification. Likewise, I haven't had time to examine the dispute in detail, so these thoughts are based on my previous experiences, rather than the specifics of this dispute. Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu, I think you're overly-narrowly interpreting the rules in your first paragraph. If an organization publishes a primary source, that primary source can be used about that organization since it is the author, under the terms of SELFPUB--that is, an author may be an individual or an organization. I've stayed out of fringe topic areas, entirely on purpose, but I confess I don't understand the sourcing dispute at all. Could someone explain to me the desired endgame here? Having read through the above statements, I'm still not sure what ArbCom has to do with this, or what either party wants of ArbCom, since no misconduct is alleged and ArbCom does not make content decisions. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with SirFozzie; this is not really a request for clarification of the earlier Arbcom decision, but a request to declare whether certain types of sources should be considered "reliable". This needs to go to the reliable sources noticeboard. Risker (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I concur that this is not a case where we can intervene. As my colleagues stated, we cannot rule on the reliability or usefulness of individual sources (nor should we); the reliable sources noticeboard is the proper venue to raise consensus on this. — Coren ^(talk) 14:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Per my colleagues. The reliable sources noticeboard is the proper venue for this. Roger Davies ^talk 15:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Writing about Astrology should be done from a historical studies viewpoint, using history studies academic output. Modern day astrology is not science, nor is it art. There is no need to use the writings of modern day astrologists; doing so is begging for a ban. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
@Zachariel, Astrology has not ceased to exist entirely, however it has ceased to be a science. There are many dates on the timeline of this transformation of Astrology from science to myth. In crude terms, astrology has been demoted from high culture to low/pop culture. Current day practitioners of astrology do so in spite of all available science contradicting their beliefs. When modern day practitioners attempt to assert that there is a grounding in science, even by inference, they are peddling pseudoscience. Those current day practitioners should be discussed from a historical & academic viewpoint, as they are believers of a science that only had currency (as a science) in ages long gone. The only exception is for current day practitioners who unambiguously treat astrology as pop culture, or clearly portray it as a religion based on faith rather than on science. As previous arbcom decisions have tried to elucidate, our terminology about modern practitioners can be firm regarding pseudoscience while still being sensitive to the need to respect all people and their beliefs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Zachariel, low/pop culture (inc. modern astrological beliefs) should be sourced to academic sources. Modern astrological sources are works of fiction, and should only be used as sources for the authors own astrological beliefs as they lack any credible peer review, so they can not represent state of the art or current science. That is all. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
In general, the Arbitration Committee's remit is user conduct, as opposed to article content, or policy. What is being asked here, to some extent, is a matter of policy, and to some extent, article content. Consequently, I agree with my colleagues that it wouldn't be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to provide a ruling. Instead, I would suggest trying the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, or starting a Request for Comment. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.