Requests for amendment

Initiated by radek (talk) at 08:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 10
2. and possibly Remedies 2, 3, 4.2, 5, 7, 8, 8.2, 9.1, 17.1, 18.1, 19, 20

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

and possibly

• Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tymek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miacek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dc76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

The editors listed as "possibly" concerned above have been notified on their talk pages. Not sure if anyone else needs formal notification.

Amendment 1

• [1]
• The one year topic ban from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same does not apply to the provided list of unsourced Poland related BLP articles which may be edited for the purposes of referencing them in order to avoid deletion (and because reffing unsourced BLPs is a good thing in and of itself).

Statement by Radek

I realize that this request may end up creating some "side drama" to the "major drama" that is now ongoing with respect to the existence and potential deletion of many unreferenced BLPs. However, I am sufficiently concerned that many notable articles on people related to Poland may end up being deleted as a consequence of the current situation that I think this request for an amendment is justified.

I've responded to the eruption of the issue of unreferenced BLPs by trying to add references to some of them (for example [2] (it's crazy that this guy was an unreffed BLP), here, here, here, and here. There've been some failures to find sources as well, for example, here, here, and here) But as I was looking through the list of unreferenced BLPs to my frustration I noticed a large number of articles on Poles that could be easily referenced by someone fluent in Polish and with access to Polish sources. I include a short list, based on the first 5000 entries from this list [3] below (Note, due to the ongoing developments, the list may not be current). Obviously, the topic ban prevents me from referencing these BLPs and thus saving them from potential deletion.

Therefore I am requesting that the topic ban on Eastern European articles is lifted in regard to unreferenced Poland related BLPs.

I understand that there may be concerns about slippery slopes which may lead to the topic ban ending up being ineffectual or to possible loopholes that such a partial lifting of the topic ban may create which, ABF, would lead to WP:Game. In order to alleviate these kinds of concerns I propose that I create and submit a specific list of unreferenced BLP articles from the link above (the list I include below can be taken as a preliminary submission - as referencing works progresses it would be extended to include other BLPs) to the ArbCom, that this list be approved and that the lifting of the topic ban is specifically applied to the articles on the list. Any editing to Eastern Europe related articles that are not on the approved list would still constitute a violation of the topic ban of course.

The list of articles includes some very notable people, for example Jolanta Kwaśniewska (former first lady of Poland and a notable persona in her own right), Henryk Chmielewski (an author of one of the most popular Polish comic books of all time), and Kazik Staszewski (a very well known and popular Polish musician). It would be a very significant loss to Wikipedia, and quite a shame, if these kinds of articles ended up being deleted.

I have not consulted in this matter with any other editors who were part of the Arbitration Case (staying away from mailing lists these days) and I think it is best to let them speak for themselves. However, I anticipate that some of them would likewise like to participate in referencing Estonian, Latvian, Moldovan, Polish, Romanian, Russian or Ukrainian unreffed BLPs. Hence, I've included them as "possible" parties in this request.

Please see Amendment 2 below.

Response to Varsovian

Ummm.... no.... you were not mentioned on the mailing list. You made your appearance on Wikipedia well after the case had been opened. Right smack in the middle of it in fact. Strange that you would claim this, though of course it's perfectly possible you got your dates mixed up. At any rate, I do commend you for making the statement that "I have tried very hard not to be drawn into the very nasty debate that accompanied the case.". As irrelevant as it is to this request ... I do commend you for making it.radek (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

x2 Varsovian, believe me, I want to put the case behind me as much as anyone else. Probably more. However, the current situation with unreferenced BLPs, and their deletion is exceptional and apparently a sort of "slowly unfolding" emergency. Hence this proposal. I also don't see anything potentially controversial here among the articles - and the amendments would cover mostly just adding the new category and adding references.radek (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Statement by Varsovian

Despite the fact that I was apparently mentioned on the EEML, I have tried very hard not to be drawn into the very nasty debate that accompanied the case. After reading the bitter and damaging comments from both sides and seeing how much harm the case did to WP, my conclusion is that now the case is finally over, we need to draw a very firm line under it and walk away. Every thing that happened happened and now it is over. For that reason I am utterly opposed to any amendment for any reason to any of the outcomes of the case. Varsovian (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that should have read "I was apparently discussed by the EEML". I remember clearly a translation being posted by one of the members of the EEML of a Polish language email which mentioned me. It was during the case (towards the end of the case, I think it was when one of the members of EEML accidentally posted some email to WP when his computer malfunctioned). But regardless of that, my point still stands unchanged: this whole mess was very very nasty and now that it is finally over, we need to make sure that it says over, we should not revisit it.Varsovian (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Martintg

??? I don't recall Varsovian ever being discussed on the EEML, unless he is a sock of someone we did discuss. I do note that he only joined on September 28, 2009, after the EEML case was opened. BTW, I did a quick check (I'm on vacation so I didn't really spend too much time on this) in the Baltic topic space and there are also quite a few unreferenced BLPs. If the Committee are of a mind to amend the remedy, perhaps it could be made more generic to cover the other sub-topic areas within EE.--Martin (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 2

• [4]
• The one year topic ban from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same does not apply to the creation of "Category:Poland related unreferenced BLPs", to the tagging of relevant articles with this category, or to the announcement of the category's existence at WikiProject Poland.

Statement by Radek

In order to get some help with referencing some of these articles I would like to create a Category for Poland related unreferenced BLPs. Doing so right now would of course be a violation of my topic ban. Since creating such a category would hopefully greatly aid in the efforts of providing these articles with references, I am requesting that the topic ban be lifted from the specific act of creating such a category. For this to be a meaningful act, the category has to be inserted into the appropriate articles. So I'm also asking for the topic ban not to apply to the insertion of the category into unreferenced Polish BLPs as well.

Furthermore, in order to get as much help with this task as possible I am requesting that I would be allowed to make an announcement about this category, the related articles and the general issues involved at WikiProject Poland. That way, other editors, who were not part of the arbitration case can get involved as well. If need be, this announcement can be approved by one of the arbs before it is posted.

Again, while this initiative is my own only, it is possible that other users currently under topic ban may wish to create similar categories with the same intent of referencing Eastern European BLPs.

Preliminary list of Poland related unsrouced BLPs that would be excluded from the topic ban for purposes of referencing

Please note: if anyone thinks that a particular unreferenced BLP article on this list is "too controversial" for some reason, it can be removed.

Andrzej Zulawski (famous Polish film director)

Andrzej Biegalski

Kazik Staszewski (very notable musician, widely known in Poland)

Edmund Wnuk-Lipinski (notable Polish academic/author)

Józef Borzyszkowski

Jan Wyrowinski

Jan Olszewski (major Polish politician)

Zdzislaw Chmielewski

Justine Pasek (Panamanian but Polish-Ukrainian born)

Janusz Onyszkiewicz (famous dissident, politician)

Jacek Saryusz-Wolski

José Szapocznik (Polish-Cuban)

Ryszard Gryglewski

Anna Czekanowska-Kuklinska

Jolanta Kwasniewska (wife of former Polish president and notable in her own right)

Longin Pastusiak (very notable Polish politician)

Henryk Chmielewski (comics) (ugh! My favorite comic book artist from my childhood!)

Lech Trzeciakowski

Wladyslaw Markiewicz

Andrzej Jerzy Lech

Zbigniew Kabata (this guy might drop out of the "living" part of BLP pretty soon)

Jerzy Lukaszewski

Franciszek Jamroz(obviously notable. not in a good way)

Jaroslav Kurzweil (Czech not Polish. I include him because I am somewhat familiar with him)

Monika Olejnik (very well known Polish TV personality)

Kasia Stankiewicz (very well known Polish pop singer)

Statement by other editor (2)

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• My inclination would be to grant a narrow exemption of some kind, possibly with a proviso that any apparently good faith complaint about POV edits would re-trigger the ban for the article in question. Awaiting others' comments. Steve Smith (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by —Ryūlóng (竜龙) at 08:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 1: Ryulong desysopped

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Ryulong desysopped
• Adminship reinstated

Statement by Ryulong

For the past eight months I have been working on the encyclopedia portion of the project almost exclusively, working on articles, contributing to the manuals of style that I most often encounter, and trying not to cause a scale of the problems that I had encountered with administrative tools. Other than removal of rollback rights after a dispute with Mythdon prior to his ban from the project (I cannot find where the discussion that resulted in this took place) and a couple of 3RR blocks (#1, [[#2) that were placed hours after the edit wars died (and were later lifted) I have done nothing that requires administrative action to prevent me from doing anything.

With the Twinkle rollback I have used the function to give reasons along with the rollback less than the vandalism tagging one (I have used it and then realized the edits were not meant to deliberately cause damage, but these are rare) and the undo button more to leave comments as to why I am reverting edits.

I will admit that my communications with Powergate92 (talk · contribs) have been getting strained, but I doubt that the issues will escalate to what occurred between myself and Mythdon (talk · contribs).

When I have the administrative tools back, I will use them for what they were intended: maintaining the project, dealing with speedy deletions, blocking vandalizing users, helping settle disputes that show up on ANI and the related boards, etc. I will not use administrative rollback in my primary topic area unless it is blatant vandalism (as a few long term problem users have been cropping up lately within it). I will not threaten to block as a scare tactic. I will convene with other administrators before I perform what may be controversial actions.

If it is requested, I will agree to a form of some period where I am watched to make sure I do not fall back on the methods I used in the past and I expect to be placed under scrutiny once more. I mean the best for this project and I would like to help out once more with the extra buttons available.

To Jtrainor

For one thing, RFA has changed a good deal since I was given the extra buttons 3 years ago. Second, this option has always been available for me to use per the motion in question.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Jtrainor

Is there some reason you can't use RfA? Jtrainor (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• In keeping with my position that correctly de-sysopped users about whom there is no relevant non-public information should use RFA if they wish to regain adminship, I do not support this request. However, my views on this do not seem to be shared by most of ArbCom, so a motion to amend is certainly a possibility. Steve Smith (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe this is a case where an RfA would be most appropriate. The motion indicates several problems that led to removal of the tools and the community should have a chance to weigh in on whether or not to return them. Shell ^babelfish 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) at 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Speed of light arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 4.2 "Brews ohare topic banned"

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [5] (diff of notification of this thread on Brews ohare's talk page)

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews ohare topic banned
• I, A. di M., hereby request that the following sentence be added to the end of the remedy: "The topic ban is temporarily suspended until the ongoing Featured Article Candidate discussion regarding Speed of light is closed."

Statement by A. di M.

Brews ohare is the author of three of the pictures currently on the article Speed of light. None of these pictures are directly related with the debates which led to the arbitration case, which dealt with the implications of defining the metre in terms of the speed of light in vacuum. On the FAC nomination of the article, initiated by me, constructive criticism has been expressed about the pictures; such criticism is also totally unrelated to the definition of the metre. While Brews ohare is still technically allowed to improve the pictures (as they are hosted on Commons) he is not allowed to participate in discussions about them, as that might be construed as transgressing his topic ban. I do not think that this is helpful, so I propose that Brews ohare is temporarily lifted from his topic ban until the FAC closes. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steve Smith

It could, but that should be worded in a sufficiently clear way: Brews ohare said he's "not interested in a month of squabbles over sanctions", and I think that discussions about whether the wording did or did not allow a comment of his on that page wouldn't be helpful, either. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

In order for this amendment to be effectuated I (or another admin, or the committee) will have to suspend or lift the supplemental ban that I placed on Brews ohare previously. (Its in the case log) I have some ideas on how to word the amendment that I haven't committed to words yet, as I am still deciding whether or not to support this request.

I failed to timestamp the above. Whoops. Anyway, after considerable discussion on Brews ohare's talk page, I've decided that on balance, Brews ohare is a potential asset, and further has earned his shot at loosening restrictions. I intend to lift my supplemental ban after brief discussion at AE, and I support the motion below that will allow Brews ohare to participate in the FAC process to discuss the relevant images. I further recommend an excemption for editing the relevant images. --Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get a move on! I know Amendments always get shuffled to the bottom of the pile, but this one is fairly simple to at least indicate which way you're leaning.--Tznkai (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Finell

It would be helpful to the project if Brews' physics topic ban were modified to permit him to participate in discussion of graphics that he created, and that are used in the Speed of light article, during that article's current FAC. It is not necessary that his topic ban be temporarily lifted, only that it be amended for this specific purpose. Recently Brews has been peacefully and productively editing math articles and his behavior has not been problematical in any way, so far as I am aware.—Finell 00:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

Brews Ohare's topic ban should be temporarily modified to allow him to participate in the discussions about the diagrams he made. To answer Kirill's concerns, I think the whole point of Arbcom requests is to look at each case individually, we don't argue on the basis of precedents. Finell has pointed out above that brews has been contributing in a positive way. If there is an issue with diagrams and it is found that some modifications are needed, then it could be extremely inconvenient for someone else to do that. In practice this could mean that someone else would have to make new diagrams from scratch. This has to be weighed against the potential of disruption of wikipedia given the reason of Brews topic ban (endless arguments about speed of light, domination of talk pages). I don't see this potential for disruption given what Brews has been doing recently. As I said, precedents are irrelevant. In similar cases where someone has been topic banned from some politics page which is up for FA review, you may well conclude that despite that editor having made considerable contributions, the potential for disruption is very real. Count Iblis (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

As far as I know (and I would welcome any correction if I am mistaken), there have been no problems related to Brews' edits of images on Wikipedia/Commons. Further, I am aware of no major problems with Brews' participation in the project for the last couple of months — and I will say that stands in contrast to (and in spite of) the overzealous and...spirited actions of some of his self-appointed defenders.

On the other hand, I must also note that (per Tznkai's comments) a broadening of Brews' original topic ban to include meta-disputes and user-conduct discussions was required in late November in order to get him back on a productive track. There was also at least one violation of his physics topic ban in late December: [6].

While the proposed amendment is far broader than necessary, I am inclined to say that that on balance the likelihood of disruption from a more narrowly-crafted exception is low and indeed would be beneficial to both the project and to Brews — and might form the eventual basis for future relaxation of his topic ban terms. An opening to allow Brews to participate in discussions regarding his images in the article (which are, as far as I know, uncontroversial) would probably be worthwhile. Further, allowing him to participate in (a part of) the featured article process should – hopefully – expose him to some of our most dedicated editors working to achieve some of Wikipedia's highest standards and goals.

That's the carrot; here's the stick. While I hope and expect such a condition shouldn't be required, I would also suggest that the amendment explicitly be revocable by a consensus at WP:AE if Brews' editing should stray into the tendentious or disruptive.

The exact wording of such a temporary amendment is up to the ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Would a narrower suspension applied only the pictures be useful? Steve Smith (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Barring any substantial objection from other editors or arbitrators, I do not see why this cannot be handled by way of a simple motion providing a specific exception for Brews to discuss his images in this specific FAC. Barring any major objections, I will propose such a motion in the near future. Vassyana (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am uncomfortable with waiving a topic ban purely because some of the editor's work is being discussed at FAC, as it's an arrangement we've rejected in the past, and with editors responsible for even greater volumes of work. Is there some reason why Brews's direct involvement is necessary (rather than merely convenient)? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I said when the case closed that I'd be willing to support a change to the topic ban to allow Brews Ohare to contribute images and to discuss images (narrowly construed). I would, though, prefer that Brews Ohare himself make such an appeal. I would in principle support a motion like that Vassyana intends to propose, but only if Brews Ohare indicates that they support the appeal being made here. I would even support a complete relaxation of the ban to allow any image work, not just a single FAC discussion. i.e. making an exception for all image work would make more sense than making an exception for FAC alone. Carcharoth (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: It seems to me that unless he's allowed to edit the images in response to criticism/suggestions at FAC, we're tying one arm behind his back. Are we going to allow him to edit the images as needed? SirFozzie (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally I would agree with Kirill here - banned means banned, and I'm very reluctant to give any sort of exception simply due to a one-time thing. However, based on the statements above, I'm willing to assume good faith in this instance, although Brews should be aware that he will be held to a tight leash during this exception. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

1) Exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to participate in the featured article candidacy discussion for "Speed of light" for the sole purpose of discussing the images used in the article. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy #4.2).

Support

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Steve Smith (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mailer Diablo approves this motion. - 06:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Risker (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Shell ^babelfish 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Reluctantly per comments above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

2) Second exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to edit images used in the "Speed of light" article to address issues regarding the images that arise in connection the article's featured article candidacy. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy #4.2).—Finell 18:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC) (per comment by SirFozzie above)[reply]

Support

1. Risker (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Shell ^babelfish 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Reluctantly per comments above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain