Requests for amendment

Initiated by A Quest For Knowledge (talk) at 20:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 18

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested[1]
• Removal of topic ban

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

I'd like to request the removal of my topic-ban given to me at WP:ARBCC. The main reason is I am not the same editor I was back then. Mainly, I no longer get that involved in content disputes that don't concern me. (In fact, I rarely get too involved in content disputes on topics that do interest me.) At the time I stumbled into the CC topic area, I was a relative newbie and had no idea content disputes like that existed or that it had lasted years. Now, when I encounter contentious articles, I prefer to stay on the sidelines, either by avoiding the dispute or providing advice at a distance such as Shooting of Trayvon Martin[2][3] or Seamus (dog).[4]

Since the case concluded, I've maintained a clean record despite working in a number of contentious areas such as Mass killings under Communist regimes, Aquatic ape hypothesis and Astrology to name a few. (I dropped out of Astrology after Ludwigs2 was topic banned and dropped out of Mass killings under Communist regimes after the article was locked.) I either WikiGnomed and performed other minor changes, or I attempted to provide advice to other editors. The only topic space that is contentious that I do involve myself in is September 11 attacks where I'm happy to say I (along with other fine editors) were able to resolve a long-standing content dispute over how fringe theories should be covered. See here. Some other recent examples of me collaborating effectively with other editors include WP:List of self-publishing companies[5] and the new header instructions at WP:RSN.[6] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@William M. Connolley: FWIW, CC is not a topic I'm interested in and I have no plans to return to it in any substantive way. (Believe me, if I had known that a simple curiosity would turn into what it did, I never would have gotten involved.) As I said, I now prefer to offer advice as a distance. If someone posts something at one of our noticeboards or opens an RfC, I'd like the option to comment, but I don't plan on getting any more involved than that.

To your first point, I said relative newbie. Yes, I was familiar with our main content policies but completely naive in thinking I could single-handedly fix the CC topic-space. I would never try to do that now. Also, I was completely unfamiliar with all the nuances of our various policies and guidelines which you only learn with experience.

Since you brought it up, yes, I edit-warred and referred to editors in groups ("faction", "cabal", etc.) which promoted a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere. I don't agree that I was uncivil. The lone diff[7] in the finding on civility has me saying "Please don't waste our time" which IMO is not worth a finding-of-fact in an ArbCom case.

To be honest, the topic-ban is a black mark hanging over me, and I'd like a sense of closure. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by William M. Connolley

As currently formulated, I oppose this request. AQFK attempts to minimise his errors by asserting that he was a newbie then. But he wasn't. Furthermore, I can see none of what has been required of previous requests - viz, specific acknowledgement of errors and a promise not to repeat them (edit warring, incivility, promoting battleground, etc) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

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

• Comment: I have no problem with lifting this restriction. I haven't assiduously trawled through AQFK's contributions but my general impression from seeing them around is that they have moved on considerably from their earlier, um, dogmatism and developed clue. In the event that fresh problems arise, they can be handled by discretionary sanctions.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "I don't like being under a topic ban" is not a good reason for removing a topic ban. If anything, it's an argument against removing it. Better arguments include "I learned and know better now" and "I've run into a situation where this sanction is preventing me from improving the encyclopedia". Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by JN466 10:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

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

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Amendment 1

• Request lifting of Rick Ross topic ban ("Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.")

Statement by Jayen466

Since there is currently a fashion for this, I think I ought to apply myself. In the WP:ARBSCI case in 2009, almost exactly three years ago, I was placed under a topic ban "from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined". This was largely the result of concerns over my fall 2008 edit-warring at the Ross BLP with a Wikipedia admin (since desysopped, topic-banned and community-banned), and the BLP subject's personal objection to my editing his biography.

Remedy 3B of ARBSCI provides that:

• Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

The current situation is that:

• Since the arbitration case, I have reviewed at least a couple of dozen featured article candidates at FAC. I have received multiple barnstars for my FAC work, among them one from User:ChrisO in October 2009, who thanked me for my "outstanding work in organising and resolving citation issues in the Inner German border article", demonstrating our ability to work constructively together to create featured content. (He also received a barnstar from me for his quite extraordinary, and lovingly crafted article.) Closer to this topic area, I received a barnstar from User:Ohconfucius, thanking me for my help in bringing Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident to Featured Article status. For my work reviewing FACs related to German history, User:Auntieruth55 gave me a barnstar thanking me for my "incredible ability to find the minutest minutiae, and for suggestions on Cologne War, Unification of Germany, Hermann Detzner, and others."

• As for my own editing, since the ARBSCI case I have brought Scientology in Germany to GA status, and shepherded the article through a successful GA Review presided over by User:SilkTork, at the end of which the article retained its GA status.

• I have written two featured articles in other topic areas, The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman and Siege of Godesberg (the latter co-written and co-nominated with Auntieruth55).

• I have written about 25 DYKs since ARBSCI, listed on my user page; a good proportion of them about religious scholars.

• In September 2010, I was awarded an Imperial Triple Crown by User:Casliber, for my contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC.

• I am well aware of BLP policy, and indeed have successfully proposed and/or contributed a number of refinements to Wikipedia's BLP policy over the years (WP:BLPCAT, No eventualism, discouraging contributions from individuals in a significant legal or personal dispute with the subject of any article, etc.).

• I have acquired a modest reputation as a defender of BLPs against malicious editing, acknowledged by a few barnstars to that effect, and have written a number of related essays (WP:ADAM, WP:Hazing (described as "Brilliant" by Jimbo Wales, one of the founders of our project), and WP:NPSK).

• Indeed, in acknowledgment of my efforts, I recently received a barnstar from Jimbo, stating that This explanation of BLP policy is one of the best I have seen. You have it exactly right. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• I understand that given Mr Ross's feelings and anxieties about me, as someone once affiliated with a group against which he campaigned vigorously, it would be quite inappropriate for me to ever edit his BLP again.

• I have not made a single edit to his biography's talk page since the conclusion of ARBSCI, even though the talk page notice placed by Mailer Diablo at the conclusion of the case would have allowed me to do so ( "Whilst the user is not prohibited from discussing or proposing changes to the article, on this talk page, they may not edit the article itself.").

• I have no interest whatsoever in contributing to that article or its talk page at any time in the future.

• I have never been blocked for edit-warring or any other reason.

• I have never edited with any other account than this one.

• The edits that resulted in the Ross topic ban were made in 2008, and the restriction served its purpose long ago. Its only role now is for it to be brought up against me as some kind of black mark. The risk of problem recurrence in the article is nil, and I therefore ask the arbitrators to be so kind as to lift the restriction.

@Roger: I have no intention of returning to the topic area ("articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined"). Given that we submitted arbitration evidence about each other, I would not want him editing my biography, if I had one, and he is surely entitled to the same peace of mind. Regards. --JN466 08:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

What I wrote about Prioryman also applies to Jayen466; he is one the best editors we have on Wikipedia. There may have been grounds to impose some restrictions in the past, but to keep them in force given his record is not justified. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so when we impose a topic ban, we are actually making the judgement that the editor in question is so much worse than a randomly selected person from the World's population, that you need to restrict that editor.

Even if we only focus on the past problems involving Jayen466 and Prioryman in the Scientology topic area, one can also argue that because they have been exposed to these problems in the past, they have become better editors as a result of that today. Count Iblis (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

I would recommend against removing restrictions from JN, who was a principal in a veritable holy war against User:Cirt. The latter wound up being desysopped and we lost one of the best closers at AfD, while JN walked away with a "tsk tsk." Cirt's activity on this topic strikes me as being an underlying cause of this battle — a mini-POV war, if you will. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2012 (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.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements but in principle I doubt the value of retaining this ancient restriction, especially when discretionary sanctions are available to deal with any fresh issues. I note what Carrite has said but I don't think keeping rdestrictions in place on Jayen466 as a quid pro quo for his Cirt-related activity is either particularly fair or relevant. I do though have a question for Jayen466. He says "the risk of problem recurrence in the article is nil". Does that mean he has plans to return to the Ross topic but has mended his ways or that he has no intention of returning to edit there?  Roger Davies ^talk 05:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I disagree with Roger here. But, before going to formally oppose, I will await further statements. SirFozzie (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, noted thanks.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "I don't like being under a topic ban" is not a good reason for removing a topic ban. If anything, it's an argument against removing it. Better arguments include "I learned and know better now" and "I've run into a situation where this sanction is preventing me from improving the encyclopedia". In this case, both the first and second arguments are made, but my impression is that the first is the actual reason for this request. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Prioryman (talk) at 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

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

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1

• Request lifting of binding voluntary restrictions

Statement by Prioryman

Note to arbitrators: I have separated this out as a separate request for your consideration in addition to the ARBCC appeal above. The discussion there has got unduly lengthy and has confused the two cases; the two matters really need to be considered on their own merits. Please address my ARBCC appeal above, and this ARBSCI appeal below, as independent appeals.

In the WP:ARBSCI case in 2009 I agreed to a set of binding voluntary restrictions. These were that within the topic area (i) I limit my edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) I make no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) I refrain from sysop action of whatever nature. The findings against me concerned conduct as a sysop, which is no longer relevant as I no longer exercise that function, and errors in the sourcing of articles. I acknowledged error at the time and voluntarily proposed the restrictions under which I currently operate.

The case came about due to concerns about COI editing and role accounts [8]. I was not involved in those issues and was only added to the case at a very late stage. There was no suggestion at the time that I was involved in any ongoing issues; all of the findings against me related to a small number of historical edits, the most recent of which had been made a year before the case and the oldest of which went back all the way to August 2005, over four years before the case.

Remedy 3B of the case provides that:

• Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

The current situation is that:

• Since the case I have brought two articles in the topic area, Sara Northrup Hollister and Military career of L. Ron Hubbard up to GA standard. In other topic areas, I have created four more FAs, two more GAs and over 60 DYKs. My editing has been entirely uncontroversial and widely praised, earning 16 barnstars in the last 18 months alone.
• My current involvement in the ARBSCI topic area is negligible and is limited only to minor maintenance (vandalism reversion etc) of articles that I've written. My editing in the topic area in the last three years has been entirely unproblematic and has not resulted in any disputes with any other editors in the topic area.
• I inadvertently breached the restrictions with a couple of minor edits in July 2010 to articles that I did not know were covered by the topic area. This was resolved without further action in discussions by email with arbitrators on 13 and 14 August 2010.
• The issues raised in the original case are ancient history now - the most recent diffs relate to edits made five years ago, and the oldest relate to edits seven years ago. I submit that this is more than long enough for a reconsideration to be due.
• Although I have not conflicted with any editors in the topic area, the ARBSCI sanctions have been (ab)used by individuals associated with Wikipedia Review to snipe at me repeatedly and make unsubstantiated false claims about my editing. I deeply regret that although I asked at the outset of this appeal for topic-banned or interaction-banned editors to observe their restrictions on participating in this process, this has not been respected and has resulted in unnecessary controversy. As Roger Davies has rightly said, the ARBSCI sanctions are now "more trouble and more drama-provoking than they're worth".
• The BLP findings against me in this case relate to two articles: Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted in December 2007, 18 months before the ARBSCI case) and two edits to Tom Cruise made in September 2006 and December 2008. That is the entirety of it. Even going by the findings, it's 3½ years since any of my BLP edits in the topic area have been deemed faulty. At the time of the case there were no ongoing BLP issues of any sort.
• Since I created this account I have edited multiple BLPs using reliable sources with no controversy whatsoever, including those in sensitive topic areas; example include Niall Ó Donnghaile (Northern Ireland), Edward Davenport (fraudster) (crime), Viktor Bout (crime), Penny Marshall (journalist) and Maggie O'Kane (Balkans) (and note the BLP enforcements here and here). I've collaborated successfully with multiple editors, including Jimbo himself, on BLPs. Jimbo highlighted and praised my contributions to Edward Davenport (fraudster) in this comment.

I have more than demonstrated my commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and my ability to work constructively with other editors in this topic area over the last three years. I've also demonstrated an ability to edit positively on BLPs. There's no reason to believe that lifting these restrictions will cause problems - in fact that would reduce controversy as there would then be no reason for others to use them as a pretext to snipe at me - nor any reason why the existing discretionary sanctions should not be sufficient to address issues in the very unlikely event of anything arising. It also makes no sense to continue sanctions related to very old edits when there is no ongoing problem with my involvement in the topic area. I would also like the Committee to note that the restrictions that I've followed since May 2009 were voluntarily proposed and agreed to, and I request that I be given credit for this. I therefore ask for the restrictions to be lifted.

I'd like to remind editors topic-banned under ARBSCI or banned from interacting with me that they aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

I would advise against lifting the ARBSCI BLP restriction at this time. I would like to see a substantial history of even-handed, neutral editing in generic articles first. No objection to lifting the remainder of the restriction. --JN466 20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

Similar to what I wrote about Jayen466's request, the restrictions should be lifted for Prioryman also in this case. The entire BLP topic area has come under much stricter oversight than just a few years ago, and this system also works quite smoothly. And I don't think Prioryman will behave as a troublemaker in this area, given his record in the BLP area outside this particular topic area. Count Iblis (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2012 (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.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment: these sanctions should probably go now as they are open to misunderstanding/wiki-lawyering and have themselves become a source of contention. This defeats the purpose of having them. I note that discretionary sanctions are in place for the topic, which means that clearer and/or more comprehensive sanctions could be imposed if problems occur.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree strenuously with Roger and think lifting the sanctions would do more harm than good. SirFozzie (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Prioryman (talk) at 19:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedies 3.1, 3.2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1

• Request lifting of topic ban

Statement by Prioryman

Note to arbitrators: I have separated this out as a separate request for your consideration in addition to the ARBSCI appeal below. The discussion has got unduly lengthy and has confused the two cases; the two matters really need to be considered on their own merits. Please address my ARBCC appeal here, and the ARBSCI appeal below, as independent appeals.

I wish to request a lifting of the ARBCC topic ban on myself, passed 18 months ago. I don't particularly wish to return to the topic area in a major way, but I would like to be able to contribute the occasional new article (filling in red links and suchlike) and the odd bit of wikignoming on existing articles in the topic area.

I acknowledge the validity of the case findings that I had edit-warred and made incivil comments. I recognise that I responded badly to the battlefield conduct of others. In so doing I helped to reinforce the battlefield mentality that existed at the time. This was due to frustration with incredibly blatant BLP violations, persistent tendentious editing and a lack of outside intervention to deal with either problem. I don't believe such problems are likely to arise again in the foreseeable future due to a combination of the current arbitration sanctions, a stronger focus by the community on BLP enforcement, and the topic- or site-banning of the worst offenders. I've not followed the topic area at all since 2010, but the case sanctions log suggests that things are pretty quiet now.

Remedy 3.2.1 provides that "Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors."

The current situation is as follows:

• Since the case I have been extremely busy as a content contributor: I have made nearly 10,000 edits and have had three Featured Articles on the Main Page in the last six months alone, as well as contributing two Good Articles, 65 DYKs and over 270 images to Commons. The FAs, GAs and DYKs are all linked from the top of my user page.
• My contributions have been widely recognised by others, with 16 barnstars in the last 18 months. I have been described as a "model Wikipedian" for my contributions.
• I was briefly blocked in March 2012 for an inadvertent violation of the topic ban, which was logged here.
• I have been working closely with Wikimedia UK, which provided a grant to support the development of a series of articles to commemorate the Titanic centenary weekend in April. This has so far resulted in one featured article and sixteen DYKs, with the new and expanded articles attracting nearly 1 million page views over the weekend of April 14-15. I think this speaks well for my ability to work constructively with others.

In response to the specific concerns of the case (i.e. edit-warring and incivility) and a few other issues, I'd like to note the following points:

• In my approach to resolving these specific concerns, I've followed the example of Jayjg (talk · contribs) in concentrating on producing "audited content" and demonstrating that I meet the remedy's requirements. This approach resulted in restrictions on him being lifted in January 2011 (see [9]). I have so far produced 70 items of audited content which have been widely praised for their quality.
• I've acknowledged making errors in my approach to these articles and have not repeated them in other topic areas since the case.
• As a way of demonstrating that I had changed my approach, I specifically sought out a highly charged topic area area to bring an article up to FA standard - namely Battle of Vukovar - and entirely avoided conflict, dealing in a sensitive way with the complexities of the issues involved, for which I was widely complimented (and was awarded five barnstars).
• I'm not under any BLP restrictions in the ARBCC topic area, though this occasionally been incorrectly claimed by others - perhaps through confusion with the ARBSCI below where such a restriction does exist.
• The ARBCC sanctions have not resulted in conflict with other editors since the case.
• I've sought to avoid conflict and, where conflict has arisen as a result of the actions of others, to find long-term solutions. When an interaction ban relating to me was recently violated, I sought the assistance of other editors to find a permanent solution, which resulted in an agreement on a more robust enforcement mechanism and stricter terms for the ban. This was a positive outcome, definitively ending an ongoing conflict situation. More recently I've helped Youreallycan (talk · contribs) to find an acceptable way forward to resolve issues that have seen him repeatedly getting blocked (see [10]) - another positive outcome that will benefit the community going forward.

I believe this record shows that I've met the requirements of 3.2.1 several times over and that I'm more than capable of re-engaging in the topic area without further problems. In the extremely unlikely event of any future issues, there is no reason to believe that the existing discretionary sanctions in the topic area will be insufficient. I therefore request that the Arbitration Committee consider one of the following options:

• A full lifting of the topic ban (the simplest option).
• A half-way house, under which I would be permitted to contribute DYKs to the topic area for a period of six months, following which the topic ban would be lifted if there were no further problems. This would have the advantage of allowing me to demonstrate an ability to contribute constructively to the topic area in a limited capacity. As Casliber is a DYK regular, he would be in a good position to keep an eye on my DYK contributions.

I'd like to remind editors topic-banned under ARBCC or banned from interacting with me that they aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

Prioryman's editing record begs the question: Did Jimbo hire Prioryman as a professional editor? Obviously, Prioryman should not have any editing restrictions; if he isn't a good enough editor to edit somewhere, who is? Count Iblis (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Collect: The problem in general with this is that ArbCom restrictions come with a reversal of the burden of proof. So, e.g. I'm not under any ArbCom sanctions and I have to misbehave quite badly before I'll be blocked. If there are some editors who are very critical of my editing who are mnitoring me, they will hve to present a strong case in an RFC/U or ArbCom case against me.

If, on the other hand, I were operating under some ArbCom restrictions, then any hint of a violation of those restrictons by me implies guilt, unless I can prove that I'm innocent. E.g. Prioryman had to explain himself here about his editing of BLP pages. So, there was a hint that he might have violated an ArbCom restriction, and he had to explain that this was not a violation of a restriction he's under.

Then with Prioryman being monitored by quite a few editors, Prioryman cannot just sit back and wait until his critics compile some case against him, he has to proactively counter whatever they come up with as soon as something surfaces. This is extremely distracting, so one has to consider if the restrictions are necessary at all. This would be the case even if the critics were always acting in good faith, but obviously that's not always the case here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Collect & Prioryman, what I mean is that you have to defend yourself, obviously with good arguments, not in some negative way. When I was under a stupid advocacy restriction imposed by ArbCom which barred me from defending an editor here, that caused me a lot of headaches, even a long time after that restriction was lifted, see here. I ended up at AE twice after that restriction was lifted, because of misunderstandings by editors about that restriction. Count Iblis (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No relevant objections have been raised so far.

What is relevant here is whether Prioryman can edit CC pages without problems. Both in case of William's amendment request and Cla68's request, the discussions here were centered around that question. I was in favor of lifting the topic ban for both editors with some restrictions (BLP restriction for William I think, although that may have been a compromise I supported, in case of Cla68, I argued for a 1RR or 0RR restriction).

Basically, one considers the editor in question back into the topic area and discusses what problems are likely to occur based on current editing behavior or very recent editing history. Count Iblis (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

PM has been quite evident on several noticeboards, incuding a current extensive discussion at AN/I. I would humbly suggest he get down to a "no drama" level for a month or two before pursuing this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@PM -- I know that you were the "victim" and that you had nothing to do with the "drama" evinced at AN/I. Yeppers. The way for you to have avoided the drama was to not promote the drama. And as others have noted, your problems in the past were heavily imbued with "drama." Ergo - a couple of months more with a cup of tea will not harm you. to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@PM - Last I looked, you quite appeared to be actively seeking the "drama" per notceboard postings and also per your posts on ErantX's UT page. Hence my suggestion that you swear off the "drama" for a couple of months before pursuing this further. Have some tea - the "deadline" is not yet arrived. Collect (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ST My overall impression is that those who routinely complain on noticeboards as the "victim" generally do not emend their behaviour therein without being rather specifically urged to reduce such actions. ArbCom has seen a number of editors who seek "arbitration enforcement" aganst their perceived "foes" and I have seen no cases where such behaviour has been improved by simply removing sanctions thereon. Thus my suggestion that a couple of months without such drama would make me more convinced that the initial behaviours have possibly been ameliorated. Is this more clear? I would hold the same position, for what it s worth, on any "amnesty" acts where full and open discussions, not sullied by any "false consensus", led to the initial restrictions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@CI

Prioryman cannot just sit back and wait until his critics compile some case against him, he has to proactively counter whatever they come up with as soon as something surfaces

Exemplifies the drama problem. There is no need to "go on the attack" - that sort of battleground mentality is precisely one of the major problems on Wikipedia, and I am aghast anyone would say it is right to engage in battleground acts. If you feel your post should work in PM's favour, I regret to inform you that it is more likely to redound to his handicap in my opinion. Your mileage appears to differ. Collect (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note further PM's apparent love of drama at [11]. Suchh claims as

He is often absolutist in his views and appears to consistently see things in black and white.

His judgement is often faulty.

He personalises disputes to an excessive degree, regarding problems as a personal affront.

He has an excessive willingness to escalate, which we've certainly seen on this occasion.

He has an insensitive / confrontational approach to discussions, again which we've seen on this occasion.

Are used by PM as a rationale to seek a 1RR restriction and a draconian civility restriction:

If Youreallycan makes any comment that is deemed by an administrator to have been uncivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, or if Youreallycan otherwise behaves in a uncollegial manner, broadly construed, he may be blocked for up to a week.

on an editor who appears to have aroused PM's personal animus. As all of the above claims seem to suit PM fairly well, I suggest "goose sauce" should be considered here as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@PM - the issue is not whether you are pals with YRC, but whether you routinely jump to noticeboards seeking punishment for others. I note that the evidence is fairly clear on this - that you do so routinely run to the noticeboards seeking punishment for others. Cheers - you make this very clear indeed. Collect (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(noting that the comments by PM to which I herein replied have apparently been redacted, making it ddifficult for others to see precisely to what I replied and for what reasons) Collect (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

Statement by other editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I will instruct the clerks to keep a close eye on this request, as Prioryman states in his request, folks who under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request. I am neutral, leaning oppose on the request, but I'm willing to listen to comments either way before I make a formal "decision" on which way I'd go. SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Per SilkTork, I think I would need to formally oppose any lifting of the sanction at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we've used audited content as an indicator for lifting of topic bans, so a Good Article is a good notch in one's belt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Willing to consider this; if things don't go well, the existing general sanctions would probably be sufficient to address issues. Risker (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support a motion to vacate Prioryman's topic ban. AGK [•] 13:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have no particular problem with lifting either this or the other extant historical sanction, which seem to me to be more trouble and more drama-provoking than they're worth. It is not as if this editor will escape scrutiny in either area so if the event that there are fresh problems in either topic area, they can be handled perfectly well by discretionary sanctions.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: My take is that the sanctions themselves have become the issue, with the bickering switching from content to who is in breach of what. This view is confirmed by recent events. I still have no problem with lifting the existing sanctions because discretionary sanctions are in place and thus sanctions can be re-imposed if problems arise. Lifting the sanctions now will I think help everyone move on.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Under the historic sanctions from Prioryman's prior account (which he now also wants lifted) he agreed to make "no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people", but a look through recent contributions shows edits to Edward Davenport (fraudster), Zuzana Žirková and Kumar priyank. Am I right in thinking that edits to those articles would be a violation of the sanctions if the sanctions are applicable to this current account? Could Prioryman provide an explanation for those edits - and offer up any other BLP articles he has edited as I only went back through contributions as far as the Kumar priyank edit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC) My bad, I misread the sanction.[reply]

• This seems a reasonable request. Prioryman produces good contributions and acknowledges the poor conduct from the past. I am unclear regarding Collect's points - is the suggestion that Prioryman reduce general involvement in noticeboards, or is there a particular concern about the focus or tone of the involvement? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I note this, this, this and this. I'm a little uncomfortable at the amount of drama that has unfolded and I'd like to see what other Committee members feel about what has happened. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel more comfortable supporting this if there was no associated drama. I am prepared to be convinced otherwise by colleagues, though my inclination would be to decline this for now, and hear an appeal again in six months, and if Prioryman sees at that time any provocative posts that he show an ability to ignore it/rise above it, allowing others to deal with the matter if they feel it significant enough. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Iantresman (talk) at 18:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: BASC: Iantresman referring to CSN:iantresman

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Result of Appeal to BASC: "Iantresman is topic banned indefinitely from editing any articles or its associated talk pages related to fringe science and physics-related subjects, broadly defined."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Amendment 1

• Result of Appeal to BASC
• Topic ban lifted

Statement by iantresman

On 18 September 2011, the Ban Appeal Subcommitte unblocked me under the condition that a topic ban continues. Now that six months have passed, I would be grateful if this was re-assessed. Please take the following into consideration:

• During the past six months, I've created over a dozen well-sourced new articles, over 70 new images (plus over 50 images on Commons), and made over 6,000 edits
• I had previously edited a number of articles (within the current topic ban), which I feel are well-sourced and stood the test of time, eg. Birkeland current, Critical ionization velocity, Double layer (plasma), Heliospheric current sheet, Pinch (plasma physics), etc
• I do not support nor condone edit warring. I was once blocked for 3RR but which another editor felt was done in good faith [28] because I felt my edit was exempt per WP:LIVING (and said so at the time of the edit), but would now use WP:BLP/N.
• I also took part in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. I also do not "support", nor deliberately "push" pseudoscience or fringe science, and in the few subjects I have edited, have merely tried to describe points of view accurately, fairly and with appropriate sources.
• Nearly 5 years have passed since my Community ban, and Wikipedia is a somewhat different place with different personalities.
• I am also happy to consider (a) a Mentorship (b) restricting my input to talk pages until consensus is reached, although obviously I'd prefer unrestricted editing, and taking the usual responsibility.

____

• Response to PhilKnight. Surely if the topic ban wasn't working, it would be a convincing reason against removing the ban. Isn't good editing a positive step? Otherwise what makes a convincing reason? --Iantresman (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Skinwalker. Rupert Sheldrake is a person (involved with biology), Electrotherapy (cosmetic) is cosmetics and beauty, Supernova is astronomy, and Decimal time is a numbering system (maths?), and I was looking at Galvanism from the biological point of view, but concede that it could be taken as physics, in which case it violates my topic ban. I'll also let others decide whether nearly 6000 other edits, and my contribution as a whole, outweighs my possible misjudgement --Iantresman (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Cardamon. I think we have to be careful with subjects that are part of physics, and subjects that are of interest to physics. If we go merely by the WikiProject Physics template, then the following subjects are deemed to be physics: the whole of astronomy, rainbows, kilograms, many people (eg. the Queen guitarist, Brian May), and a picture of a soap bubble. --Iantresman (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Cardamon [2]. (1) There is no dispute that supernovae are of great interest to physics, but I continue to be a little puzzled that you consider my grammatical edit to the article, to be subversive and outweighing my other 6000 edits. (2) I don't recall any of my edits to redshift and plasma physics including inappropriate references to plasma cosmology (you should be spoilt for choice for diffs?), but I do recall, for example, making significant improvements[29] to plasma physics that together with the contribution of other editors, resulted in it achieving Good Article status. --Iantresman (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Cardamon [3]. Can my Sep 2005 edit to supernovae, be described as "POV pushing" if it is "obviously true" (who's POV)? And where is the "pushing" of an edit that remained in the article for over 2 years[30]? I think there are many valid criticisms that could have been made, rather than the pejorative "POV pushing". --Iantresman (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Skinwalker [2]. In my opinion, a physics-related subject is one that you would learn about in a physics lesson, ie. the physics-related Newton's Laws, but not the man Isaac Newton who is of interest to physicists. I acknowledge that every editor will have their own views, but I don't think that contributing personal information [31] to an article on a biochemist with a double-first-class honours from Cambridge University, was meant to be covered by the ban. --Iantresman (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to PhilKnight [2]. While I feel that the Isaac Newton article would not have be included in the topic ban, the fact is that I did not edit it. It does seem harsh to judge me on my opinion, and not just my actions here. With regard to Sheldrake, you'll also find that my only other edit to his article five years ago, added a citation and quote supporting the statement "his ideas are deemed controversial and are considered by some mainstream scientists to be pseudoscientific"[32], hardly the action of someone trying to be disingenuous, (and hardly the action of someone trying to push pseudoscience). --Iantresman (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Casliber. Excellent point. I have already been involved in some negotiation in some articles, the most notable I can think of being two issues in the article on sushi (a) RfC: Nyotaimori (b) Alleged original research, and (c) a contentious edit on the Authorship of Shakespeare. But I shall further try and seek out improving an article to GA or FA level. --Iantresman (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. Just a note to say that I have requested (23 Apr 2012) a Good Article Nomination for an article I initiated, as I felt this would provide better interaction with other editors than either (a) joining in a GA nomination that is on hold during improvement, or (b) reviewing an GA article nomination. I think that the aforementioned (to Casliber) negotiations, where there was actual disagreement, may still be better examples of editor interaction. Unfortunately work commitments have not allowed me more time to participate. --Iantresman (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to SirFozzie. I would be grateful if you could offer some criticisms which would help me improve/address my recent editing over the last 6 months. --Iantresman (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update 2. My GA nomination on Bradwall has failed, and I am addressing the criticisms, though interactions with other editors is non-existent. This would seem to be partly expected as GA nominations are supposed to be fairly stable articles, whereas interaction with other editors would be more likely in more contentious articles. --Iantresman (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to proposal. (1) I would humbly suggest that all contributions to Wikipedia are audited by other editors, not just the Good Article nomination process. My recent 6000+ edits did not generate any major incidents, and my talk page shows no problems with my conduct, and two positive comments (a cookie and a thanks) (2) I have no problem working on Good Article nominations, if only this had been mentioned in my BASC appeal decision, the Wikipedia guide to Arbitration, or indeed anywhere, then I could have saved you all a lot of time, and the need to repeat this process all over again. (3) If my topic ban was lifted, there are already guidelines and mechanisms in place to regulate my conduct and contributions. --Iantresman (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Roger Davies. Good questions. (1) I think it is worth looking at my earlier conduct in context. Nearly all the problems in the past were caused by conflict with just one editor, against whom I lodged the arbitration/Pseudoscience complaint in 2006. While this does not excuse my conduct in the past, other editors with whom I worked within my banned topic area, for example, noted in my Community Ban that "despite many disagreements I have always been able to work with him"[33] As the said editor is no longer part of the Project, I do not see the same kinds of issues arising. (2) Nothing prevents me from working outside my topic ban. Not to brag, I have a degree in chemistry, a master's in computer science, and university certificates in astronomy, cosmology and radio astronomy, so like most editors, I have my areas of interest. This extends to some "fringe science" topics too, and only wish to see them described fairly with reliable sources. When another editor "goes so far as removal of well-sourced positive comments he doesn't agree with or "knows" is wrong or the inclusion of negative material without any source or with poor sources"[34] (not my words), again I do not try and excuse my conduct, only to put them into context. (3) Yes, I have been involved in contentious editing that has reached a compromise, see for example two discussions on Sushi, here [35] and [36]. (4) Finally, I would just like to mention that (a) my addition of a source supporting Nature's editor describing Rupert Sheldrake's books as pseudo-science [37], (b) Creating the article "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience", is hardly the work of someone intent on pushing pseudoscience, and, that many of the science (and fringe science) articles I started (before 2007), have stood the test of time, and consequently have improved Wikipedia. --Iantresman (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update 3. Just a note that since my GA nomination on Bradwall failed, that I have been slowly improving the article, having increased its length from 2200 words [[38]] to 4600 words, and almost doubling the number of citable facts, today.[39]. --Iantresman (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skinwalker

Since being unblocked Iantresman has contributed to a number of articles that could be reasonably construed as "fringe science and physics-related subjects".

• Rupert Sheldrake [40]
• Electrotherapy (cosmetic) [41]
• Galvanism [42]
• Supernova [43]
• Decimal time [44]

Many of these edits have been minor spelling/formatting fixes, but some have been more extensive. I leave it to others to decide if these are actionable violations of his topic ban.

He has also commented on discussions of fringe issues on policy pages,[45][46] though it appears this is permitted by the wording of the unblocking conditions.

Update: I fail to see how an article about a parapsychologist does not fall unambiguously under a fringe science topic ban, nor am I impressed by the "What is physics?" wikilawyering. But it appears I'm being humorous and/or unreasonable. Do what you will. Skinwalker (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

The examples of "violations" are humourous in nature I trust. I see no POV presented in them, and that is why any topic ban exists in the first place. Absent anything of import, lift the dang ban. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Cardamon

Supernova does fall within the topic of physics. For those who can't tell this from its content, one clue is that its talk page says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics" with a rating of "FA-class, High-importance". It seems to have been classed as a physics article for more than 5 years. [47] Cardamon (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: Minor constructive edits to a topic one has been banned from are not always ignored. Someone once got a 3 month site-ban for a few constructive edits to an article at the edge of a topic he had been told not to edit.

@Iantresman: Supernovas have a lot to do with astrophysics. Supernovas are a source of astrophysics problems and puzzles. (For a quick clue, count how many of the references in Supernova contain the words “astrophysics" or “astrophysical".) Supernovas have been important to cosmology (often considered a part of astrophysics) by providing (sort of) "standard candles" that have been used to estimate the rate of expansion of the universe, and thus its age, and to provide evidence that this rate is increasing. Earlier, they were important to cosmology by providing a mechanism for making heavy elements, thus letting the Big Bang theory off the hook of having to explain the production of heavy elements. Supernova SN1987a seems to have produced a detectable pulse of neutrinos (electron antineutrinos); the fact that their travel time was so close to that of the light from SN1987a put limits on how massive those neutrinos can be, and provided an insight into the physics of neutrinos. In general, astronomy has considerable overlap with physics. This isn’t really the place for this particular discussion though, so I’ll stop.

@Arbs: As I recall, Iantresman's main areas of fringe POV pushing were physics – related astronomy, and plasma physics. Examples include the articles Redshift, Plasma cosmology, and Plasma (physics). The connection was his desire to make Wikipedia present the not - at - all - widely - accepted theory of “plasma cosmology” much more favorably than it does.

In editing [Supernova]], Iantresman was inside the range of articles he was told not to edit (physics), and at the edge of the range of articles in which he had POV pushed. In fact, long ago, he made a (really quite mild) POV pushing edit to Supernova. (It made a statement that was obviously true, but didn’t help the article.) Cardamon (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements. However, as an initial comment, the fact that the topic ban is working well at the moment, allowing Ian Tresman to edit in other areas, isn't as far as I'm concerned, an especially convincing reason to remove the ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to Skinwalker's diffs and Ian Tresman's replies, I'll oppose any motion to remove his topic ban. I find Ian Tresman's comments about Rupert Sheldrake to be entirely disingenuous, and the assertion that under a broadly construed physics ban he could edit the Isaac Newton article to bordering on the absurd. PhilKnight (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding Cas Liber's comment below, I would be prepared to look more favourably on another request following a GA or FA. PhilKnight (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems the original ban was in July 2007. It was a community ban for POV pushing in pseudoscience topics after having been placed on Probation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. He was unblocked after an appeal six months ago, on condition he refrained from editing fringe science and physics-related subjects, and informed he could appeal that topic ban after six months. Provided he has met the conditions, and nobody provides any evidence of wrong doing in the past six months, then I would agree to the appeal. It would be fair to warn Iantresman that if he is found once again engaging in POV pushing the community are likely to ban him, and after being twice bitten, it would be much more difficult to get unblocked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no particular issues with the article diffs listed by Skinwalker; they seem to be both encyclopedia-improving, and outside what I believe a reasonable man would conclude as the boundaries of the topic ban. Leaning towards granting the relief from the topic ban. Jclemens (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Before considering lifting this, I'd like to see Ian Tresman participate in an arena where one has to negotiate with others. An area such as this would be improving an article to GA or FA level. This would best be an article which is unambiguously and clearly not under the scope of current sanctions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not 100% sure this request is still active/ongoing, but right now, I think I would oppose any such motion to lift the topic ban at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with PhilKnight and Casliber on this one. Risker (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• @Iantresman. Just trying to focus this discussion a little as it does not seem to be best use of everyone's time to have a very similar discussion again in a few months time. Firstly, what I am not seeing is a compelling reason to lift the topic ban. So, how do you think it improve the encyclopedia within the prior area of conflict, while avoiding the problems of the past, if we were to do so? Secondly, what prevents you making valuable contributions outside the prior area of conflict? Why are you so intent on editing again within a topic which has been problematic for you in the past? Thirdly, have there been specific instances in the past six months where you have edited in contentious areas, and where your patience was tested (this amendment request apart) and you negotiated a compromise? If so, please provide diffs.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

• In which case I propose we close/archive this and give Ian Tresman a chance to produce some audited content and review at a later date. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur. AGK [•] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty much okay with this too; I'd just like to give Iantresman an opportunity to answer my just-posted questions before finally making my mind up.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  While I thank Iantresman for his comments, I am not completely persuaded that it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia to lift the restrictions just yet. So I suggest he applies again once he has the audited content that Casliber's seeks under his belt.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree as well. I think Roger's questions are excellent... but regardless of the answers, the sanctions do not appear to have support for modification absent audited content creation, so there's no pressing hurry to have them answered. We can keep this open, or we can archive this and start a new one once some audited content has been re-created--I'm not sure there's a substantive process difference between those options. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There appears to be unlikelihood on achieving consensus on lifting the restrictions, but we do have consensus on closing/postponing this request until some audited content is produced so I support this proposal in order to move the matter forward. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Mathsci (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

"Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct in respect of editors he perceives as ideological opponents."

to be amended to:

"Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and battleground conduct towards editors whom he perceives as being engaged in proxy editing"

(or any minor variant containing the phrase "proxy editing").

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Mathsci

Statement by Mathsci

This proposal is a minor change, resulting from a very late change in the emphasis of the R&I review. Tabling a request for amendment of this kind was suggested to me by the drafting arbitrator, Roger Davies. Although my intention is to stay away from matters connected with WP:ARBR&I, this rewording would prevent any possible misunderstandings concerning any possible future reports of sockpuppets (or, in circumstances which I think now would be very rare, proxy-editing). At the time the case closed, this FoF did not look likely to pass. I had already recorded my uneasiness with use of the wording "perceived ideological opponents" a while back. The new findings on proxy editing changed in a radical way the emphasis of the case and my actions or reactions under consideration in this review should probably be considered within that context. The proposed rephrasing accurately reflects what happened since December 2010 and takes into account the views expressed in the three oppose votes (I note that Newyorkbrad has not been available for comment on wikipedia for some time now).

In slightly more detail: On 6 May 2012, while I was occupied in professional matters in the USA (which continued until my return to France on 12 May 2012), the thrust of this review changed radically: new findings and remedies were added supporting a long-standing charge of proxy-editing, which Shell Kinney had suggested from long back. Aside from my evidence in this review based on on-wiki conduct in October-November 2010, on 26 November 2010 and 30 November 2010 I passed on evidence in private to Shell Kinney which unequivocally confirmed SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 as proxy-editors. With my permission, she passed that evidence on to arbcom. Having contacted Captain Occam, she later commented on this proxy-editing on wikipedia, as reported in my evidence. Almost 18 months later, following further edits in the topic area by SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2, arbcom once again examined this so-far unresolved issue. They confirmed Shell Kinney's conclusions, but this time, instead of contacting Captain Occam, they conferred directly with Ferahgo the Assassin. She supplied relevant off-wiki information. These new developments fundamentally changed the direction of this case, in line with the evidence I had presented. That in turn forcably affected the previously posted findings and remedies. As I have written to Roger Davies in private, this is a grey area. There are few precedents and my own unwillingness to let the matter drop, knowing about the unambiguous off-wiki evidence, could be taken as either a vice or a virtue. That is reflected in the modified statement above. In the end I acknowledge my persistance here. I also very much appreciate that arbitrators came round to this particularly tough decision in what were very difficult circumstances—very much untrodden ground. Their decision provides a useful precedent and hopefully also a guide for the future. Mathsci (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SightWatcher

Since this request mentions me by name, I hope it's okay that I comment.

I've just noticed I'm topic banned now, and I don't understand why. I understand what the accusation is, what lead to it, and how it might be considered questionable, but directly I fail to see how I acted improperly. The arbitrators are right that I got involved in R&I articles because of a discussion in Ferahgo's blog, but she didn't ask me to. Silktork said here [48] that there's nothing wrong with getting involved in Wikipedia because of a discussion somewhere else. I don't care about R&I anymore and haven't for several months, but as a matter of principles I believe that I shouldn't be punished if I didn't do anything wrong.

Has anyone here even considered that I didn't want my friends and family to know I was editing R&I articles? I didn't want Ferahgo to know who I was, and I picked a name she wouldn't recognize. But when Mathsci figured out my off-wiki identity, he emailed Ferahgo about it right away! I stopped editing the articles after Ferahgo got suspicious about who I was and because I couldn't deal with the stresses of dealing with such a heated argument. But for more than a year after that, Mathsci kept talking about my off-wiki identity, without any thought about how it affects her friendship with me.

It's bad enough that nobody thought I wouldn't want my friends and family to know I was involved here. But calling what I did "proxy editing" is just a terribly false accusation. Proxy editing would be if Ferahgo asked me to get involved and told me what to post. I chose to get involved, and all posts I made I did by my own choice. Mathsci it would seem can't tell the difference between proxy editing and what actually happened. I will not sit down and allow my integrity to be put under attack simply because of who I choose as my friends.-SightWatcher (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I don't think that the difference is material enough to be worth changing. You believe them to have been engaged in proxy editing? Fine. They're also editors with whom you've disagreed. The nuanced version that you prefer seems to enshrine your view of the facts in the committee's findings. The intent of "ideological opponents" was to be neutral: they don't see things your way, nor your theirs, and we're not taking sides in the finding on who is right or who is wrong, in large part because the issue isn't about the disagreement, but the conduct surrounding it. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]