Requests for amendment

Initiated by NW (Talk) at 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Betacommand 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Arbitration Motion affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Provisional suspension of community ban: Betacommand

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Restriction #1 of the unban requirements: "[Betacommand] may edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Δ

Amendment 1

• That restriction #1 is amended to allow Betacommand/Δ to run bots approved by the Bot Approvals Group.

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Δbot and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Relaxing or rescinding of community-imposed restrictions on User:Betacommand / Δ has allowed Δ to run a bot for the purposes of clerking WP:SPI. I ask that the Arbitration Committee loosen the restrictions on Δ to allow him to do just that. NW (Talk) 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Verbal

I strongly oppose this amendment. This user has repeatedly abused the communities trust in the past, including the abuse of sockpuppets, abusive use of bots and automated edits, and abuse directed at other editors. That is why these restrictions were applied. To lift them so that he can run bots on sockpuppet investigation pages is just ridiculous. His resistance at against having his new name and previous name linked shows that he wants to avoid scrutiny of his actions by the community at large, and has put the smallest possible link on his page after being forced. This amendment should not be allowed. Verbal chat 16:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by N419BH

As the person who requested closure of the thread on WP:AN, let me specify that the community consensus appears to be in favor of allowing a SPI clerking bot only. Other bots could be considered in the future. N419BH 17:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Rocksanddirt

I am uneasy with this. the User in question has shown strong disregard for boundries imposed by the community through whatever means (approved bot tasks, civility to other users, etc.). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xeno

With respect to User:Cool Hand Luke's concern [1] that this would "open the door to any and all scripts BAG might approve": yes - from the committee's standpoint it would [though any subsequent tasks would need to be conducted with Δbot]; but as only a very specific exception to the community-imposed restrictions has been created, BAG will need to seek community support in a similar manner prior to approving any subsequent filings. I believe the reason that Kirill has drafted this amendment widely was so that in case the community does endorse additional tasks, a new amendment would not be required. –xeno^talk 16:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@CHL: The exception is as follows - "Notwithstanding prior community-imposed restrictions, Δ (talk · contribs) is permitted to operate an approved bot for the sole express purpose of clerking WP:SPI and its related pages. The source code of this bot shall be made available to the Bot Approvals Group and any administrator or trusted user who requests it." There doesn't seem to be any room for creative interpretation there, and BAG will not approve any BRFA outside this scope unless the community creates a new exception or relaxes the restrictions they have placed. –xeno^talk 13:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@CHL: I'm not advocating any particular position here: if the committee would prefer to simply open a targeted exception like the community did, that would just mean that any potential future BRFA would have to be vetted by both the community and the committee before BAG would approve it. If that's desirable, then perhaps an alternative motion should be proffered. –xeno^talk 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@CHL: Fair enough (though I still do not think any BAG member would approve a bot outside the scope of the exception without first seeking community approval for another exception. If that needs to be codified in the motion here, by all means...). –xeno^talk 18:52, 29 July 2010 (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).

• Recuse. NW (Talk) 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• If the community and BAG agree that this bot is a good idea, then I don't see any need for us to stand in the way. I'll make the appropriate motions below. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

1) The Arbitration Committee provisions for the unbanning of Betacommand are amended as follows: Betacommand (talk · contribs), now editing as Δ (talk · contribs), is authorized to operate a single secondary account, Δbot (talk · contribs), to carry out certain automated tasks as authorized by the Bot Approvals Group.

There being 11 arbitrators, not counting two who are inactive and one who is recused, the majority required is 6. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Making it formal. SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Shell ^babelfish 11:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger Davies ^talk 12:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Risker (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Second choice. Risker (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Per Verbal, Rocksandirt, and this incident which shows BC hasn't changed at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. I can't support this. Given user's history to bend the rules, I would prefer not to open the door to any and all scripts BAG might approve. I can only support if Deltabot is specifically limited to the task of SPI clerking, which N419BH not unreasonably found "consensus" for on AN. Additional tasks should be forbidden until BAG and (importantly) the "community" lend their support. Consider this a one account and one task trial run. Cool Hand Luke 15:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Xeno: I agree with your read that the community restrictions were narrowly excepted for this one task, but I don't think this is enough assurance that Delta will not wikilawyer his way into additional bot tasks. User has a long history of bending rules, and has done so quite recently in his rights transfer/rename request (see Randy's link above). At minimum, I would want a restatement that the community ban has only been lifted for this one specific task and that further tasks must go to AN as well as BAG. Cool Hand Luke 16:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Xeno: this is the same user who has violated (and been aided in violating) all manner of restrictions. I see absolutely no purpose in not making our intent crystal clear, and you have offered no argument against such clarity. If what you are saying is true, some explicit language on this point is at worst redundant. Cool Hand Luke 17:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Xeno: I'm not advocating a position on that either. It may or may not be sensible to require that further bots are rubber-stamped by ArbCom. I just want it unambiguously written here that he must have approval from both BAG and AN. This proposal, which only mentions the former, is unacceptable to me given the extensive history of bending rules and asking mother when turned down by father. Cool Hand Luke 18:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. On reflexion, I'd prefer a gradual step-by-step return to full bot operation and would therefore support initially bot use directly related to SPI clerking only, with further requests per CHL as and when. This approach worked well enough for this user's return to editing.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Alternative posted below.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Recuse

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative motion

For this motion, there are 13 active Arbitrators (minus 1 who are recused), so 7 votes are a majority.

• Enacted at 07:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

1.1) The Arbitration Committee provisions for the unbanning of Betacommand are amended as follows: Betacommand (talk · contribs), now editing as Δ (talk · contribs), is authorized to operate a single secondary account, Δbot (talk · contribs), only to perform automated tasks directly related to the clerking of sockpuppet investigations only as specified and authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. Any other use of the bot, broadly interpreted, must be specifically authorized in advance by BAG and endorsed by ArbCom.

Support

1. More restrictive alternative to existing motion.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think it is best to ease back into things in this area. KnightLago (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I consider this a trial run. I would likely rubber-stamp future requests if and only if community input remains supportive, and I imagine we will eventually discard this requirement altogether. One step at a time though. Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. 2nd choice SirFozzie (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice. Risker (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice. Shell ^babelfish 02:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice; I'm not entirely comfortable with the use of a procedural restriction on usernames to enforce a broader sanction. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Given this incident was only two weeks ago and is yet another in BC's long record of wikilawyering and going to mom to get what he couldn't get from dad, and as CHL says, has violated (and been aided in violating) all manner of restrictions, BC is not ready for relaxed restrictions. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Recuse

1. Carcharoth (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK at 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 11A)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dc76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miacek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
• Radeksz (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) (initiator)

At alternate case, but proposed as impacted:

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Biruitorul
• Dc76
• Digwuren
• jacurek
• Martintg
• Miacek
• Piotrus
• Radeksz
• Tymek
• Russavia

Amendment 1

• [Remedy 11A) Editors restricted]

1. Request to limit term of interaction bans.
   • This is a request to limit the interaction ban 11A) to be minimally co-terminus with remaining remedies in effect.
   • This is a request to limit an associated reciprocal interaction ban at another case [2] to be minimally co-terminus with EEML remedy 11A)
   • This is a request (additional) to lift the interaction ban to which an editor is subject once all other remedies to which the editor is subject under the EEML case are satisfied (expire) or are lifted.
2. This is a request to modify the interaction ban to promote positive community interaction within the confines of any other remedies in effect.
   • As pertains to this case.
   • As pertains to an associated reciprocal interaction ban at another case [3]

Stated as a single amendment because request is for Remedy 11A) to be reworded to address outstanding and inter-related concerns. One inclusive proposal is provided.

Amendment 1, revised/consolidated

Regarding the reciprocal interaction bans, EEML <-> Russavia, all editors so sanctioned may nevertheless comment positively on other editors in the third person. Any individual EEML editor and Russavia may appeal jointly to lift their interpersonal interactivity ban should they both desire to do so, committing to uphold Wikipedia's standards of conduct. The bans on unnecessary commentary and interaction otherwise remain in effect.

Per feedback below on clarity and comments I have received here and elsewhere. I believe this would build a bridge toward a more collegial environment. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

Over a week has passed and this contribution by Russavia has not garnered a response. I commend Russavia for their positive comments regarding Miacek; nevertheless, statements such as (my emphasis):

• "although I am under a ban from commenting on EEML members, I don't really care"
• "I was disappointed, and somewhat disgusted, that Miacek was part of that group, considering the amount of harrassment I was put under by the group"
• "rather than the propaganda pushing that the EEML partook in"
• "you [Miacek] were never part of the harrassment against myself"

are both combative and an inappropriate re-litigation of EEML. I interpret Russavia's comments and the lack of any reprimand as proof that the current interaction ban structure is not working.

Accordingly, I am proposing changes to interaction bans currently in effect in order to facilitate uniform enforcement while also promoting positive community conduct.

• I believe #1 above is self-explanatory. In particular, the interaction bans (at EEML and Russavia's reciprocal subsequent) expiring also addresses problems regarding their interpretation and potential restrictions on the activities of editors even after all other remedies are satisfied. As currently worded, the interaction ban can be strictly interpreted as allowing only for necessary disputes, banning other interaction on any article, talk page, or user talk page; that is, once my topic ban expires, I can't edit any article requiring interaction with Russavia, which is equivalent to a topic ban covering any article Russavia chooses to edit. Hopefully unintended, as discussing article content would be a necessary action, but, again, a possible interpretation as there is no differentiating positive and not so positive interaction and no specific mention of what is, in fact, allowed outside the conflict venue.

• I believe #2 reflects both feedback I received when (nevertheless, still) blocked for supporting lifting Russavia's ban as well as the lack of action regarding Russavia's (positive) comments regarding the lifting of Miacek's ban. If relationships among editors are to improve, there should be a venue for that before resumption of full activity in the field of prior conflict. Specifically I am proposing the following as the amended remedy (per #1 and #2):

11A) The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on accusing or unnecessarily interacting with confronting Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. Positive and constructive interactions which do not violate other remedies in effect are exempt and encouraged. This remedy expires for all editors sanctioned under EEML at the satisfaction (expiration) of all other EEML remedies with explicit terms of duration. This remedy expires for specific editors if all other EEML remedies with explicit terms of duration regarding said editor have been satisfied or lifted.

• Responding to Martintg, I suggest the interaction ban stay in place until all term remedies expire. That could be two years (based on Digwuren's ban and then topic ban. It can always be shortened. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I trust this proposed amendment is viewed as moving us forward. If so, the updated wording needs to be applied to amend Russavia's interaction ban as well.

Lastly, I have not reported the offending portion of Russavia's violation of their interaction ban because I hoped we were done with EEML.

@Shell, I'm not here to re-litigate EEML or to be the keeper or policeman of anyone who has cast my on-Wiki activities as being less than honorable. Old Latvian saying from my now dear and departed mother, when you stomp on shit it only spreads and stinks. I see Russavia has reported themselves at enforcement. That is either noble or cynical, but any block will (IMHO) increase their sense of martyrdom at my hands rather than engender any improvement in attitude. I'm the one suffering a topic ban for a year for (as I explained at the proceedings) participating in a consensus-related discussion at worst three times that I had not already found and contributed (and I would have found them); and the finding that I canvassed was a grossly bad-faith interpretation of my absconded personal correspondence. I've accepted the punishment despite that nothing I said mattered. I should have asked for the IP logs to exonerate myself instead of thinking ArbCom would accept my explanation of bulk-reading my Email. Water under the bridge. That's how WP works. Time to move on.

   My hope was to open just a small window for positive communications. That would have allowed Russavia to say something nice about Miacek without feeling the need to editorialize on his interaction ban leading to editorializing regarding his (unsubstantiated) victimology in what (IMHO) was an inevitable chain reaction. Reporting Russavia would just be treating him the way he has treated me. I had no desire to take that route. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following on to feedback at my talk... I think there are two categories of communication to consider, first where one can comment positively on an editor in the third person, the second which involves personal interaction. I think it is worthwhile to promote the former so that when it does come time for the latter—and that can be by mutual consent if otherwise under restriction—that can stand a better chance of moving past prior conflicts. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:59, 22 July 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.}

• Comment. While there may or may not be some merit in tweaking the wording, lifting the interaction bans concurrently with any relaxation of any topic ban is too early. I'm happy with the current interaction bans as they stand, as it helps to settle things down and provide clear air. --Martin (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. How do you feel about the first part, that is, allowing for positive interaction if not otherwise restricted by topic ban? As for lifting, I would accept a statement which indicates the term of the interaction ban will be reviewed at a given point. I'd still like clarification whether normal interaction on content at an article (once there is no topic ban in effect) is explicitly permitted. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The interaction ban ought to be lifted on a case by case basis. If two people want to let bygones be bygones and collaborate such as here, then that's perfectly okay, the interaction ban should be relaxed in that specific instance. In such cases a joint declaration from the two parties of their desire to work together should be sufficient to lift the interaction ban in that specific instance and the case log be appropriately annotated. If the wording of the remedy was tweeked to allow such a fast track method of appeal, that's okay with me. --Martin (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• IMO lifting the interaction ban would be premature, although I would certainly support clarification that it is inapplicable whenever there is mutual consent to interaction, as is apparently the case with Miacek. Nobody is going to enforce the ban in such cases anyway. Nevertheless although I am under a ban from commenting on EEML members, I don't really care, I was disappointed, and somewhat disgusted, that Miacek was part of that group, considering the amount of harrassment I was put under by the group, rather than the propaganda pushing that the EEML partook in and the like are inappropriate for a good reason, and should remain so. Colchicum (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a ridiculous WP:Drama. Russavia tells that he is not going to abide his interaction ban, just a week after coming back from his block for violating the ban [4]. Vecrumba reacts by filing this amendment. Russavia posts an AE statement [5], then tells he did it by mistake instead of his userspace [6]. People, that's disruptive. If anything, it proves that interaction bans were a good decision and must be strictly enforced. Biophys (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Vecrumba. "Breaking ice" is easy. As soon as your topic ban expire or lifted, go to the subjects that Russavia edits [7] and edit them in the way he likes. Debate the improvement of content and agree with him. Then, your request to amend the interaction ban would be very much reasonable.Biophys (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I had two choices. One was to report Russavia as if I'm their policeman, the way they reported me for violating my ban at "Aspic" for example. The other was to find a way to move on as plenty of admins took notice of Russavia's comments, after all, Miacek's appeal was granted, and did absolutely nothing. Since the administrative system is broken, it's up to editors to find ways to break the ice to put past conflicts behind us as the administrative folk aren't going to be of much assistance, IMHO. If this results in drama, things are worse than I thought because it means that after serving more than half my ban, I can't look forward to anything having improved when I return to EE topics. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • p.s. I always took pride that in all my years of experience I had managed to never do an ANI or AE except twice, once to ask that Irpen receive some advice (explicitly stating I wasn't looking for a ban or block) and once at Russavia's meltdown at Soviet Story. I don't intend to stoop to the endless sniping being fed by the endless well of WP bad faith. The day I think WP can't be improved, that we can't all be better, I'm leaving. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 2

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

Statement by your username (2)

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

Statement by other editor (2)

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 07:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm recused on part of this, but as an aside, if you see a violation like that please report it rather than waiting for someone to notice and do something. With hundreds of different restrictions in place and the sheer volume of edits to Arb related pages, it's always possible something will get missed. Shell ^babelfish 11:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to too vague and confusing. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Lightmouse (talk) at 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedies

• 7.1): "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."

• 8): "Lightmouse is limited to using only the account 'Lightmouse' to edit."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

• Jarry1250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [8] (diff of notification of this thread on Jarry1250's talk page)

Amendment 1

• 7.1) amended to: "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia, except that he is permitted to do so in the field of ‘units of measure’ on a three-month trial basis, under the supervision of User:Jarry1250."

• 8) amended to "Lightmouse is limited to using only the account 'Lightmouse' to edit, except that during the three-month trial he is permitted to use the account 'Lightbot' to edit only in the field of units of measure, under the supervision of User:Jarry1250, in accordance with the relevant section of the BAG approval.¹"

Statement by Lightmouse

I've been a Wikipedian for more than six years, and have played a key role in ensuring that metric and non-metric units are provided in the clearest and most conventional ways for our international readers. I was early in recognising the value of automation for janitorial work in such a large, global project, and taught myself automation skills. I believe I have significantly benefited Wikipedia. Many editors have used and continue to use my scripts; some have been inspired to create their own.

I edited first as Bobblewik (talk · contribs), then as Editore99 (talk · contribs), then (from 2007) as Lightmouse (talk · contribs). The name changes were due to forgotten passwords. I created two bot accounts: Bobblebot (talk · contribs) (unused) and Lightbot (talk · contribs).

I became a key player in encouraging a more discerning approach to internal linking, particularly dates and times. In the early days this resulted in a number of blocks. I probably didn't respond in the right way to sysops who blocked me, finding it easy to think of them as "involved". I believe I’ve learned from this. I’ve always been polite to users who have questioned my edits.

Finding the adversarial atmosphere of the case difficult to cope with, I ultimately declined to defend myself. I now regret my failure to participate properly, which I realise is frowned upon. I was strongly criticised during the case over a bot application to BAG in which I failed to declare previous usernames, and blocks thereunder. I realise this lack of transparency on my part made me look untrustworthy. My wikifriends have convinced me not to state that I didn’t appreciate the significance of this lack of disclosure because it would not be credible to the Committee. I can only apologise for my actions and for any other perceived indiscretions, and state that I have learned from these situations.

Since my return after the 12-month ban I have resumed manual janitorial work. I would like the chance to show good faith in the use of my skills in automation for the benefit of the project. Therefore, I am applying for an amendment to two of the three current remedies so that I might return in an open, narrowly defined way to automated editing. A sysop member of the BAG, Jarry1250 (talk · contribs), has agreed to supervise my contributions during a trial period. Lightmouse (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editors

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

Wikipedia benefits from experienced automation experts such as Lightmouse. When I first became aware of Lightmouse, I found that he was always acutely sensitive to feedback from upset editors after a bot produced unexpected and undesirable results. He quickly (typically in a matter of hours) would tweak the code to make the bot properly deal with whatever novel situations arose. Much of the to-do with Lightmouse’s involvement with date-related bot activities arose from his moving forward when he believed a clear community consensus existed on date linking. In the end, the consensus he believed existed at that time proved to be well founded and is the current consensus today—and our guidelines reflect that consensus. Since the date-related conflict was rather unique (a particularly contentious issue with impassioned editors on both sides), there is no reason to think that Lightmouse can’t be trusted to go back to doing what he did before he got swept up in the date-jihad maelstrom: make and run sophisticated bots that improve Wikipedia far more consistently and faster than humans can. Greg L (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found Lightmouse proactive, reactive, and curteous at all times. Lightmouse has been a great inspiration to me, not only because he demonstrated to me that he cares deeply about the project, but also because he understands the potential benefits of automation for this project, which is filled with quirky inconsistencies due to the inherent collaborative nature that lend themselves well to standardisation and automated maintenance. I missed his presence from the project, and have been motivated thus to take up scripting myself - of course, I cannot fill the huge gap left by Lightmouse. His remorse appears sincere and heartfelt; his gradual return to automation, under the parameters laid out appears to be well thought out, and seems to me to correctly balance the safeguards which the project may reasonably expect with the right of editors to engage in automation. I heartily support this appeal. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too have always found Lightmouse helpful and unfailingly courteous, and always willing to act promptly to fix any problems (which were few) in his scripts and bot. I believe that WP has benefited greatly from his involvement and will continue to do so if he's allowed to use his skills to the full. I heartily support this request. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the statements by Users Greg L, Ohconfucius, and Colonies Chris. I would like to say that my own experience strongly supports what they say. Tony (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much more I can add to the above, except to say that I wholeheartedly agree.  HWV258.  09:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say anything else about Lightmouse without repeating what those above me have already said, so I won't. I urge the ArbCom to give Lightmouse a second chance, as they have with other parties to the date delinking case. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have, to the best of my knowledge, never interacted with Lightmouse before this present appeal - that is to say, I have no prior axes to grind, only good faith. Okay. So now I think about it, it seems the best plan is thus (and I shall post this suggestion to Lightmouse's talk momentarily): 1) Lightmouse submits a new (date/unit) BRFA; 2 or 3) The BRFA is endorsed by Arbcom - they amend prior remedies to allow its passage; 3 or 2) The BRFA passes (or fails) the standard process, which will include a short trial. 4) Instead of being free to continue as he pleases, Lightmouse will remain under trial conditions for three months. Put simply, he will be on best behaviour and expected to be a top operator in responding to comments and complaints; he will be expected to, and I will, check a sample of his own edits at regular intervals; admins and others will be more heavy-handed in stopping the bot from continuing. That is my recommendation at least. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. The BRFA will be called 'Lightbot 4'. It will be a copy of the units of measure section of Lightbot 3. It will not contain any reference to dates. Thus the text will be:

"I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing units of measure in a variety of forms.

• A 'unit of measure' is any sequence of characters that relates to measurement of things. This includes but is not limited to units defined by the BIPM SI, the US NIST or any other weights and measures organisation or none at all. This includes but is not limited to time, length, area, volume, mass, speed, power.
• Edits may add or modify metric or non-metric units.
• Edits may modify the format.
• Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve units.
• Edits may add, remove or modify links to units."

If I need to start the BRFA now, just let me know. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA started, as directed by Kirill. See BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Lightbot_4. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to pick up on one point made above, add a general point about bots such as this, and point out one illuminating exchange that occurred elsewhere.

• (1) Ohconfucius talks above about "...the potential benefits of automation for this project, which is filled with quirky inconsistencies due to the inherent collaborative nature that lend themselves well to standardisation and automated maintenance". In my opinion, this strikes to the heart of the conflicts that arise between those who would like to see the guidelines presented in the Manual of Style implemented and enforced across the entirety of Wikipedia with the use of bots, and those who think that such an approach will create more drama and conflict than it is worth (as individual editors and groups of editors object to bots sweeping through and making changes that at times seem arcane to those who have not followed the discussions at the Manual of Style). The fundamental divide is between those who want to see order and consistency brought to pages across the whole of Wikipedia, and those who think an organic process is better and less disruptive. I would have thought a wider debate on precisely when automation on this sort of scale is needed (and when it is not needed) would be a good idea, and would be a good idea for any process that has the potential to affect every page on the whole of Wikipedia.
• (2) In my experience with bots such as this, a common problem is that they try to do too much and over-reach. Even the best bot operator in the world will get overwhelmed if they try to run a bot that makes thousands of similar but slightly different changes, that many people won't understand. Such bots need to be split into smaller tasks and those who frequent the Manual of Style pages and support such bots should have the patience to wait for a series of smaller tasks to be run, rather than everything being done in one go.
• (3) There are still levels of aggression, incivility and battling to be seen with those who support this and similar proposals. The first two editors above (Greg L and Ohconfucius) who showed enthusiastic support for Lightmouse were also the first two editors from this request to turn up at the bot request (where a discussion was already in progress), where they promptly escalated matters with these edits: [9], [10], [11] (note the reference to gatekeepers, enemas, and the gratuitous insertion of a link to an image depicting a 'gatekeeper'). Tony1 was quick to intervene and restrain them with this advice, and Dabomb87 moved the comments to the talk page, but I would suggest arbitrators consider what happened there and whether any form of restrictions are needed to prevent a similar dynamic arising again where a familiar group of users turn up to use inflammatory language to defend Lightmouse, his bot, or his proposals.

I hope that some of the problems that occurred with this sort of approach in the past can be avoided here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, I agree Greg's and Ohconfucius's comments were a bit over-the-top and reminiscent of the old toxic MOSNUM discussions, but I think further restrictions, given that this was a one-time incident quickly contained, would be a bit much. Of course, if that occurs again, I couldn't blame you (or rather, the non-recused ArbCom members) for pursuing additional action. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. My intentions didn’t come through as I had intended and I must apologize for my post, now located here. When I wrote that, I perceived that Lightmouse was the recipient of unnecessary third-degree by Anomie. But, apparently that is a legitimate role of Anomie’s so I shouldn’t have criticized him for being out of line. I am truly sorry for that. As for my “gratuitous” image when I linked to “gatekeeper” I had intended that to be a bit of humor to defuse the seriousness of the matter. Seeing Carcharoth’s reaction, I clearly failed at that too, and just made things even more serious. For that too, I apologize. Greg L (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What Greg said. I apologise. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say this request encourages me. The best summary of the situation is this comment from Anomie: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4 is a vague request (it took a while even to get specifics out of Lightmouse) for a general-purpose bot which can do anything Lightmouse fancies on a wide array of topics, some of which aren't even units.

The assertion above that Lightmouse is particularly competent at automation seems rather doubtful; he admits he cannot write a bot which will count how often it has edited a page or queue changes; he is unwilling or unable to produce a bot which will write edit summaries reflecting what it actually does; and I see no reason to believe that this bot (if overriden by a human editor), will not come back and revert war.

Anomie also remarks, correctly, that the request for approval is backed by Lightmouse's fanclub at MOSNUM; so - aside for Jarry (I hope he realizes what he is getting into) - is this request for amendment. This is the same group and the same situation as the date-delinking case; a small group of editors would very much like to make sweeping changes of format for which they have no consensus beyond themselves - so they want a bot to do whatever changes to units they decide they want. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, date-delinking was born out of a desire to improve WP. Date-delinking received enormous community support (via the various RfCs), and the end result of delinking was the removal of almost all linked dates (and date fragments) on millions of pages—something that has received little negative feedback. The hard-working and dedicated efforts of the "fanclub" [sic] should be commended as the results are a simpler and easy-to-use WP for all viewers and editors.  HWV258.  21:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly; all these disruptive initiatives have been produced by a desire to improve Wikipedia. The reason for the ArbCom decision was the absence of any consideration that others might not feel the same about what does improve it; this proposal that Lightmouse/Bobblewick, of all people, should have a general purpose bot to impose his whims shows that nothing has changed, and the children of Robespierre still wish to improve us, whatever we may want. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting you, PMA: …children of Robespierre still wish to improve us. Robespierre is the architect of the Reign of Terror and was executed in a coup d'etat. The issue here is the technical merits of the bot. Calling others “children of Robespierre” was designed to provoke. I know that; you know that. Moreover, both “bot to impose his whims” and “[who] still wish to improve us” are failures to assume good faith and are arguably personal attacks. Please behave yourself if you are going to weigh in here. Greg L (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are failures to observe good faith. It was a bad idea to give the Jacobins a guillotine; I'm not sure giving these doctrinaires a bot is a good idea either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 19 July 2010 (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

• Recuse, as I presented evidence in this case. Steve Smith (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse as I recused in the original case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Have now made a statement above. 01:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Lightmouse, I am willing to give you another chance to engage in automation work, provided that it is done under appropriate supervision from BAG to ensure that we don't fall back into any repeats of your past conflicts. Having said that, the Lightbot 3 BAG approval request included a number of functions that are not relevant to what you seem to be proposing, or that would be inappropriate in the current circumstances. I would like to see a current statement from BAG indicating specifically which functions you will be performing during this trial, and how they will monitor the results, before we move forward. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lightmouse/Jarry, please go ahead and move the request through BRFA; once it's verified and approved by BAG, we can pass the necessary motions on our end to allow you to actually implement it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally I agree with Kirill; I'd like to make sure we've got the details down before going any further here. Shell ^babelfish 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Kirill. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Kirill; I'd like to see the BAG reviews before implementation but, if all looks good, then it will be a straightforward matter. Risker (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed as well. I'm not opposed to allowing a BAG reviewed automated process. — Coren ^(talk) 13:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As long as it's reviewed by the appropriate people and the details made clear, I have no problem with it. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, broadly per Kirill.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Martin (talk) at 20:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 7

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• N/A

Amendment 1

• [12]
• This is a request to amend EEML Remedy 7 to end the topic ban that applies to Martintg and allow him to edit articles related to Eastern Europe.

Statement by Martintg

In the previous six months I've taken stock, while taking a break to pursue some postgrad study. During that time I've reflected on what went wrong. I joined the maillist primarily as a convenient way to socially network with a bunch of people I've come to know through contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately this convenience led members of the list, myself included, into behaviour that crossed the line. This was due to a kind of mob mentality and a sense of hubris that developed along with it. This I regret.

Since December I created some articles on German politicians and political organisations and had sourced a small number of Estonian biographies without any issues (many were not notable so I hadn't bothered with those) after I requested and was granted a relaxation to my topic ban[13].

I had been working on a range of arts and literature topics for Wikiproject Estonia, and had filled in many significant gaps such as Culture of Estonia, along with a lot of related articles on literary figures (for example August Sang, Villem Grünthal-Ridala, Johannes Aavik), movements (e.g. Arbujad, Young Estonia and Siuru) and institutions like Art Museum of Estonia and Estonian Literary Museum. (A more comprehensive list is on my user page). There is still a lot to do, as you can see by the red links in Template:Culture_of_Estonia. Despite my continuing studies I expect to devote a little more of my time than in the past few months, as I do enjoy contributing my free time to Wikipedia, I would like to continue to expand this area.

PS Carcharoth expressed his concern in another request below at the slew of EEML-related appeals at around the same time. The timing of my submission here was based upon the completion of my exams, I was always going to submit a further amendment request at this time. That there happens to be a slew of requests from other people I hope has no bearing on this request.

Response to Igny's comments

Shortly after being granted permission to source a number of BLPs, I had an opportunity to undertake some study. Unfortunately about a month later, Igny involved me in an SPI case, however somebody kindly informed me of this via email. I can't recall having really interacted with him that much prior to the EEML case, so it was somewhat surprising that he would go after me like that.

Russavia also became involved in this SPI case too, as he did in a number of other AE cases launching complaints against Radeksz, Biruitorul and Biophys. Consequently the Russavia-Biophys ArbCom case was opened. I took that opportunity to request an interaction ban for Russavia. I believe I conducted myself correctly in that case and Shell even appreciated my decorum [14]. Igny ended up getting blocked for 31 hours[15] for misconduct on the case workshop.

Igny states I wasted everyone's time in that ArbCom case. It is true that I did waste a bit of time, it could have been spent more productively on my studies, but I think given the outcome it was well worth the effort. It's not a nice experience to be informed by email that some are still on the warpath. The way I see it, the bulk of the problems really boil down to personality clashes, some people are just implacably opposed to each other no matter what. Sad, but it's a fact of life. Probably in such cases interaction bans are the way to go when editors can't voluntarily refrain from finding fault and battling with others.

I'm perplexed at Igny's comments here, given that he hasn't made that many recent edits himself either. We all operate under different constraints. After completing the semester I found time from family and friends to source those BLPs that I had committed to sourcing. Wikipedia is a free project, which also means that anyone can devote as little or as much time as they can. I believe I'm a competent editor with an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I've had a long time to re-think things during my self imposed "site ban", and I do "get it" now. I just want to get on and derive some enjoyment from contributing to topics that interest me while allowing others to do the same, without this battleground BS. 2009 was an adventure I do not want to repeat. --Martin (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further response to Igny's comments

I am some what mystified by Igny's claims of "our personal clashes in the past", as I can't recall a single instance where we might of clashed personally, apart from the recent SPI[16] Igny launched against me while I was away, let alone interacted to any significant degree on any particular article. I just scanned the EEML archive and Igny isn't mentioned at all, so he didn't appear on the list's radar. Perhaps he may have been somewhat radicalised by the EEML case itself, and may have adopted other people's past battles as his own. I hope that is not the case, since from what I have seen of Igny in the past, he seems to be quite a reasonable person with which I could work with.

As to Igny's question whether a topic ban is designed to demonstrate if an "editor's problematic behavior occurs again when he returns to the EE disputes", note that I had edited German related topics in January and February with no problems, and I think I amply demostrated decorum in my response to an EE dispute not of my making thrust upon me by Igny in the form of the SPI in March and again in the follow-up Russavia-Biophy case (and note that I didn't involve Igny in my proposals presented in the case workshop). So the risk of problematic behaviour has been demonstrated to be nil. --Martin (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Biophy's comments

Notwithstanding the fact that Biophys may well be risking a violation of his topic ban by commenting here, my involvement in the Russavia-Biophys case was related to Russavia's behaviour in the SPI case[17], revealing personal information even when asked to stop, for which there was a FoF[18] and an Admonishment[19] and a Restriction[20]. It is true that I spent a bit too much time at the end of the case arguing for more equitable topic bans for the parties with Shell, as that end part did impact my study time a bit, and I probably ended up just annoying Shell too (sorry Shell). In that sense it was a distraction, but in terms of seeking an reciprocal interaction ban (which remains in force regardless of whether or not my topic ban is relaxed) was necessary and unavoidable under the circumstances. --Martin (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no battleground here. People are free to express their views or concerns on this page. I welcome this as it gives me an opportunity to respond as necessary to allay any legitimate concern. --Martin (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to The Four Deuce's comments

I've virtually never interacted with TFD in the past, the first time being when I voted "Keep" at this AfD [21] which resulted in "No Concensus". I did canvas that on the EEML and that was wrong, no bones about it. After the EEML ArbCom case began there a two more AfDs [22][23] where only two or three EEML members independently voted and these resulted in "No Concensus", despite the closing admin being made aware of the existance of the EEML case and its membership. Finally a 4th AfD[24] was initiated this year where absolutely no one from the EEML voted, yet it resulted in a "Keep". While it was clearly wrong to canvass the first AfD, non-involvement in the 4th actually resulted in an outcome I would have wanted anyway. Go figure.

And yet TFD appears to be continuing to invoke the EEML bogey man in that article, recently claiming "When the article was listed for deletion, they decided off-wiki to rename the article", when in fact the original move discussion had no EEML involvement and predated the AfD, in fact the very first AfD comment confirms that. I don't know why The Four Deuces is singling me out in particular and WP:Poking me with untrue stuff.

TFD's statement has in my view many misleading points, so I'll address them line by line:

• "Martintg's defence is basically that he fell into the wrong crowd and he is sorry."

No, I didn't say that at all. There is nothing wrong with the individuals, but unfortunately a mob mentality developed and led some of us of otherwise good standing (I had a clear block log prior to joining the EEML) to cross the line, which I regret.

• "However, Martintg does not mention any actions he took that he regrets, any articles that he and his colleagues edited and now wish to repair or any editor he offended he now wishes to apologize to."

Sure, the canvassing was wrong, I accept that, but I stand by the substance of all my edits (but in some cases not the form, i.e. the occasional edit warring). I not sure why I need to apologise to TFD though, I've not known TFD prior to the EEML case.

• "This group shared a minority political point of view and damaged the neutrality of numerous articles and continued to collaborate off-wiki even after the case was presented against them."

This is an incredible blanket statement. TFD has no idea what my politics are, or that of other members, and I ended collaboration with the list at beginning of the case. The political viewpoints are as diverse as can be expected by the differing backgrounds and locations of the group members. For example, in my estimation, the majority of the group is for gun control and against Arizona's immigration laws.

• "They do not accept that Wikipedia articles should be neutral and tied up the time of numerous editors. While it may be that they will no longer coordinate their efforts, their approach as individuals is damaging to neutrality."

Again this is a nonsense blanket statement. I've always striven for neutrality, as you can see from the many articles I've created.

• "It is irritating that as I and other editors were arguing with Martintg and his colleagues and they were presenting arguments against us that off-wiki there were agreeing that our arguments made sense and trying to develop a new approach."

This is an absolutely, flat out untrue.

• "Surely editors like this drive away most of the editors we want to attract, people who have the ability to write articles and those who remain are tied up in silly disputes."

I don't know who TFD is referring to here, but I don't think I should become the whipping boy of all that he thinks is wrong with Wikipedia.

• "Dispute resolution, reporting editors for 3RR, writing Wikiquette and ANI reports are extemely time-consuming and allowing editors like Martintg will only discourage capable editors who are discouraged by the processes to counter editors like Martintg."

Again I don't know who TFD is referring too here, my record shows that I have a relatively clean record in this regard, apart from a block for a 3RR violation that was applied 20 hours after I had undone my 4th revert, and a mis-applied block for alleged OUTING that never ocurred. In fact the Committee previously scrutinized my record and found no substantive policy violation [25]

I don't understand what TFD seeks to gain in continuing to flog the EEML dead horse, even insinuating there is some kind of far-right anti-Semitic agenda at play[26] (not the first time either, having to redact similar comment previously [27]), which I find somewhat offensive. I do wonder why I have become the whipping boy of people like TFD who I have never crossed paths with in the past. Nor is it likely that I will interact with him in the future as our interests are divergent. At least Piotrus has the benefit of real opponents with real history of interaction and real issues which can be worked on. But as far as I'm concerned, the EEML horse is truly dead and buried. --Martin (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Rlevse

Could you provide some guidance as to the reasons for your opposition, given:

1. my previous relaxation [28] had caused no problem
2. my previously un-problematic record (clean block log prior to joining the EEML and this affirmation of my previously good standing), indicating there is no issue of recidivism
3. no violations of any WP:EEML sanctions (unlike Biruitorul and Radeksz, both who have had their topic bans lifted)
4. my expression of regret at the trouble caused by EEML membership and undertaking to put all that behind me
5. your explicit support for the relaxation of the topic ban for Radeksz[29] despite the strong concerns expressed by several editors who have a long history of interaction with him.

I just want to use my time to contribute something useful to the topics I've indicated above, all I ask is that I be treated fairly. --Martin (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Petri Krohn's comments

What can I say in response to a guy who claims I am the "chief battle axe" "promoting a fringe nationalistic agenda" that "has taken the form of a global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th century", while associating himself[30] in his statement to a radical political organisation operating in Finland then accusing me of attempting to "distort Wikipedia to fit his political agenda". Hmmmm. I don't have any political agenda, I've never have been a member of any political group, let alone one with a published manifesto. Nor have I ever agitated at protest events or even have a blog, let alone write letters to editors. I'm just a regular Joe who enjoys editing Wikipedia in my spare time, attempting to reflect reliable sources with due weight to the best of my abilities. I would suggest that Petri Krohn removes his huge political plank from his eye before complaining about the speck he perceives in my eye.

What is even more spooky is his accusation that "this has extended to multiple forums on the Internet outside Wikipedia" and that "evidence sent to me were new instances of this campaign". Okay, should I be getting scared now that this individual appears to be stalking me outside Wikipedia gathering non-existent "evidence" of this "global ideological war"? Petri Krohn threatens to start an ArbCom case against me should this motion pass, he is free to do so if he wishes.

Petri Krohn has also appended what seems essentially to be a polemic written by someone "who wishes to remain anonymous" presented as evidence. Who ever this anonymous person is, perhaps it is Petri Krohn himself, I will never the less address the main points:

• All the diffs cited in point 2 in relation to the article Denial of the Holodomor are from 2008. Edit warring in that article was investigated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. I don't think it appropriate to re-litigate something from 2008. In any case I've not edited that article since September 2008.
• Regarding point 3, whether a topic ban extends to commenting on a particular editor when there is no interaction ban in place is a grey area that certain admins have taken a position on. I note that Biophys has commented upon myself despite his topic ban here in this amendment request without consequence. However, when advised by such admins to desist in particular cases I have complied.

Petri Krohn admits that his involvement here was a result of being canvassed offline by someone unknown, stating "However, someone, who wishes to remain anonymous, contacted me, and – knowing the strong feelings I have privately expressed about the issue at hand – implied that I am a pussy if I do not express my strongest objection to this motion". So evidently there is an element of off-wiki co-ordination going on here. (Perhaps TFD was also canvassed off-wiki to comment here, that would explain his involvement given no real history between us, who knows). It is a pity that Petri has chosen to resume this troubled path of confrontation, apparently driven by what he perceives as his "global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th century", but I'm simply not going to buy into it.

Why should some one like Petri Krohn, apparently an activist with a clear and documented political agenda, be allowed to smear me and sour my editing experience because he imagines me to be his political enemy solely because I happen to have an interest in Baltic topics? --Martin (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I'm intrigued by Krohn's reference to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in his statement. I checked out that article and found and fixed some issues. But I don't see the relevance here, unless Petri Krohn is attempting to insinuate something that editors were warned not to do in a previous ArbCom case[31]. --Martin (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vecrumba's comments

Well sure, if the Committee wants to impose some kind of conditionality, that's fine with me. ArbCom wouldn't even need to be watching that closely, as it's been demonstrated here that there are more than enough eyes to scrutinise my behaviour, even by those wiki-warriors who believe there is a global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th century^TM. Note that I did complete BLP sourcing after a previous relaxation[32] without any issue or drama, so it would be disappointing if the Committee where to now apply the brakes and not relax the topic ban further in some way. I could have just as easily waited out the remainder of my topic ban and return to editing later, I've got plenty of other things to do in the mean time. However the fact that I am requesting an early return should be viewed as a positive development as it indicates that I have acknowledged the issues of the past and have undertaken to more forward. --Martin (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Igny

I can not recommend the lift of the ban for Martin based on his recent WP activity. In the recent 100 edits he just wasted everyone's time when participating in Russavia-Biophys EEML-related ArbCom case, and after some break just when EEML case was due for review and just when others filed for an amendment Martin rushed with several BLP fixes for EE related persons as if it was simply done to satisfy the previous amendment and justify a new one. (Igny (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Update: I understand I could be too harsh in my statement and quite possibly our personal clashes in the past contributed to this. But in any case a "site-wide self-imposed ban" is not the right way to deal with topic bans. Topic bans were placed in part to reduce battleground mentality in controversial areas and productive work elsewhere was needed to demonstrate how an editor in question copes with withdrawal from the battleground. Just going into self-imposed exile for the length of the topic ban (regardless of the real life constraints) does poor job answering the question whether editor's problematic behavior occurs again when he returns to the EE disputes. I still think that Martin's lift of the ban is premature at the moment. Also tu quoque was not the right counter-argument to my point above.(Igny (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Re NYB and SirFozzie, I understand that you are willing to put your trust in that Martintg will not return to the "previous behavior". Could you clarify by showing examples of particular behavior that might warrant reinstatement of the ban? (Igny (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Biophys

I support lifting the ban for Martin because he was productive and created sixty six new pages. Whatever problems he might have in the past, six months was a long time, and Martin was never a major player anywhere. I am really surprised why the anonymous e-mailer does not want him to have another chance (after looking at the text of evidence she/he sent to Petri, I have an impression that the author was not Russavia or Offliner). Obviously, there is a reason, but I do not get it. Biophys (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

I object to lifting this remedy. Considerable time was spent on the EEML case and its members, rather than accepting the facts presented, wasted months of time of arbitrators and witnesses and were very offensive to them. Martintg's defence is basically that he fell into the wrong crowd and he is sorry. However, Martintg does not mention any actions he took that he regrets, any articles that he and his colleagues edited and now wish to repair or any editor he offended he now wishes to apologize to. This group shared a minority political point of view and damaged the neutrality of numerous articles and continued to collaborate off-wiki even after the case was presented against them. They do not accept that Wikipedia articles should be neutral and tied up the time of numerous editors. While it may be that they will no longer coordinate their efforts, their approach as individuals is damaging to neutrality. It is irritating that as I and other editors were arguing with Martintg and his colleagues and they were presenting arguments against us that off-wiki there were agreeing that our arguments made sense and trying to develop a new approach. Surely editors like this drive away most of the editors we want to attract, people who have the ability to write articles and those who remain are tied up in silly disputes. Dispute resolution, reporting editors for 3RR, writing Wikiquette and ANI reports are extemely time-consuming and allowing editors like Martintg will only discourage capable editors who are discouraged by the processes to counter editors like Martintg. TFD (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petri Krohn

I loathe getting in any way involved in the Wikipedia arbitration process and have thus far been able to avoid any involvement – so much so, that I have not even written a word to my defense in the now infamous WP:DIGWUREN case. However, someone, who wishes to remain anonymous, contacted me, and – knowing the strong feelings I have privately expressed about the issue at hand – implied that I am a pussy if I do not express my strongest objection to this motion. He also sent me evidence (see appendix) he had prepared in response to Martin's latest comments.

Martin's actions on the Internet, on and off Wikipedia, show that his only interest on the web is promoting a fringe nationalistic agenda, or in Wikipedia terms, he is a single purpose account. Since our paths first crossed sometime in early 2007 the underlying dispute has taken the form of a global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th century. I believe in some ways the early editing disputes and the formulation of opposing positions on Wikipedia talk pages have later influenced the positions some of the main players in this battle have taken. I may be as much involved in this ideological battle as Marting is. However I have not used Wikipedia article space as a platform to promote my fringe ideas. I will rather let the Historical Truth Commission and the Simon Wiesenthal Center speak for me.

From this POVish point of expertise I can testify that Marting is the chief battle axe of the opposing side. He is not the benign Wikignome he now pretends to be. Anything he touches will turn into distortion of facts or into a political battlefield. His presence on Wikipedia, in the contested subjects, is venom to the key principle of neutral point-of-view. So far he has shown no interest in editing outside his chosen battlefield, for example in his field of professional expertise.

For several years now Martin has been waging a politically motivated attack campaign against me, that is my Wikipedia account and the real life me. This has extended to multiple forums on the Internet outside Wikipedia. In the evidence sent to me were new instances of this campaign, unknown to me previously. If this proposed motion were to pass, I feel that I will finally have to start an arbitration case against Marting on this issue.

I have no objections to Martin using his freedom of speech to promote his ideas on the Internet. However, I cannot see why – having broken the key principles of Wikipedia – he should again be given a license to distort Wikipedia to fit his political agenda. -- Petri Krohn (talk)

Statement by Vecrumba

To TheFourDeuces' gross misrepresentations, suppositions, and personal attacks, I invite him to provide evidence where anything I (or other EEML members) have represented on Wikipedia is other than a fair and accurate representation of reputable sources—and representing majority scholarly opinion on the Baltics and Eastern Europe. I regret that more than half a year has passed since imposition of the topic ban and TFD is not alone in continuing to demonstrate offensive bad faith in re-litigating EEML with unfounded charges.

I believe Martintg is ready to return to productive editing. If his behavior is less than exemplary, ArbCom will be watching. Perhaps a review at three months to "re-up" the lifting of his topic ban for the rest of the original term if impartial, uninvolved editors have a genuine concern. Martintg has nothing to fear from objective scrutiny. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:27, 24 July 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

• Recused on EEML. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused  Roger Davies ^talk 12:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will think on this more. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As with some of the other editors who were sanctioned in this decision, I would be agreeable to at least some curtailment or narrowing of the remedy—partly based on the feeling that the breadth of the remedy may have been wider than necessary to begin with, and in any event due to the lapse of time. Of course, if the remedy is lifted or narrowed, there would be a strong expectation that the problematic behaviors addressed in the original decision must not recur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at this, I'd be willing to let this go, with the caveat that there's not much wiggle room here, and that a return to previous behaviors will mean it's near-immediate reinstatement. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---