Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

Statements from uninvolved editors at case opening

The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Statement by Rootology

I'd only be barely called involved in this (if that, my comments on ANI the past day aside) but I loiter often on the main Obama talk page. Urge acceptance to look at the behavior of all the people involved (NOT just the named parties), and to ask that some real teeth be put into the probations here for the articles. Note this has received odious media coverage/trolling from far-right websites like WorldNetDaily. Before anyone says "RFC", the Arbs included, just look at the history Steve conveniently laid out here. Any RFC on this would be the same discussion(s) all over again, super-amplified through the stench-amplifying power of a User RFC, and just leave people even more embittered. A full RFAR will at least let everyone air their disputes mutually, with an end in the end that will allow the rest of the project to not let this spill over the edges into everything else daily from BLPN to AN to AE to ANI to $RANDOM_PAGE. For the Cliff's Notes version of the disputes (you need a scorecard for all of it) read this link here and then just peruse all of that ANI page for the word "Obama". That section is textbook; any forward progress goes instantly off the rails with crazed political bickering by long-standing editors. If this drags on, the community will not be able to deal with it unless someone totally melts down and goes nuclear. rootology (C)(T) 06:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to FayssalF I urge the scope to be the overall editing/behavior of all named parties, **NOT** limited to one subject area. Treat it as a behavioral RFAR. rootology (C)(T) 16:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to Cool Hand Luke Yeah, that makes sense. Specifically, though, I think/meant it would be a bad idea to exclude or limit examination of any of the people involved here to just their Obama-related work. Actions, motives, reasons as a whole of all their edits need to be looked at. Someone may be a bastard on one topic area(s) but a saint on everything else they do, or vice versa. Limiting the boundaries of the RFAR to one or the other would be a bad idea. For example, if we limited this to just Obama, to pick Steve as a case study, if he were the Best Editor Ever outside of Obama topics, he is just as fair play to get a full topic/discussion ban of Obama stuff. But, examining his other actions, such as his work on Jesus and Hebrew as SLR indicates, or even this demand that other editors be contrite (!!!!) all play a part in understanding if someone is here for the right or wrong reasons, and what to do with them. rootology (C)(T) 21:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by bystander roux

Wikipedia should have no place for POV pushing. Get rid of it now, and take a hard line against those who try. Accept the case, evaluate whether POV has been pushed, and act accordingly.

Statement by Uninvolved User Slrubenstein

One sign of WP:DE is disruptive editing across a variety of articles. This is the case with Stevertigo. If you sample any fifty edits, you will discover many minor edits, but at least as many edits that involve changes of content. Stevertigo will regularly claim these to be minor edits, because he claims he is changing the wording to increase clarity. Whether the new wording is clearer is debatable, but not the real issue. The real issue is that his wording actually changes the meaning. Now, if Stevertigo had researched the topic and discussed his edits with other people working on the page, this might not be a problem. But he never begins on the talk page, asking people why the current wording is as is, or what others think of a change in wording - he just makes his edits (perhaps the sign of a POV-pusher). What concerns me most is that he refuses to do any research! Imagine - at an encyclopedi, doing no research! The result is a consistent pattern of violating WP:NOR.

On the few occassions that he pretends to do research, well I am sorry but the results can only be called disingenuously misleading. The perfect example is this]. The Hebrew word Ehud has no relation to the Hebrew word Yehudi. No scholar claims that it does. Stevertigo proposes an entirely bogus etymology, with links, and a lot of flibbledy-flabbeldy jargon that to an uninformed eye would make Stevertigo a qualified linguist. One would have to know the basics of linguistics and Hebrew to know that this is pure make-believet, that the claims he makes about Hebrew are make-believe, that the claims he makes about language are make-believe. He made his claim, and on the talk page I called it bullshit and kept calling it that until he backed down. I didn't bully him - I just called him out, repeatedly demanding that he provide a source that actually supported his claim. I made it clear that just because he throws together random links and then says it supports his reconstruction of the meaning of a name, does not make it so (at best, it violates SYNTH - and his bogus etymologies are very good examples of why SYNTH is and should be prohibited, as he was combining different sources to make claims no linguist or scholar of Hebrew supports). But this makes him very dangerous, because anyone who has not studied Hebrew and linguistics at the university level would be deceived into thinking he has done encyclopedic research, and he would get away with it.

Another good example of his POV-warrioring was at the Antisemitism article, where he added a passage saying that antisemitism is also an epithet (meaning, to accuse someone of being antisemitic is a bad thing). Well, of course people cas use words anyway they wish, but this is not part of the scholarly understanding of antisemitism. Once again, Stevertigo has a POV to push, and will not do any research to support it. here he asserts that he will take his case all the way to ArbCom. I just stepped in and told him to stop his antics and provide a source. Did he take it to ArbCom? No. It never even went to an RfC or mediation. And yes I admit calling another editor a bullshitter sounds kind of rude. So why didn't he take it to ArbCom? Why not an RfC? Well ...... I think it was because he really was POV-warrioring, and he had done no research, and he will do no research, and confronted by someone who calls him on it, all he could do was back down.

These are two examples where Tigo eventually backed off because I made sure every other editor knew he was just violating NOR in order to push his own POV. He could have taken me to ArbCom fro personal attacks except you know what, maybe it is not a personal attack if it is true. Maybe it is not a personal attack when the person in question is violating NOR in order to push his own POV through a serious of disruptive edits. If we ever went through any dispute resolution we would end up ... here. We would have provided evidence. You would have given me a reprimand for incivility, perhaps, but you surely would have ended up banning Stevertigo for disruptive editing. But I did not have the time to take it to ArbCom, especially when my issue with Tigo was really a content dispute (always linked to violating NOR). And he, well, he said he would take it all the way to ArbCom, but in fact he just let the whole thing drop.

That makes his MO clear: He may never use a curse word, but he is the bully - going on and on and on with silly, unverifiable or unsourced edits believing that no one will call him on it, or using bluster ("I will take this all the way to ArbCom!") to try to scare away common-sense editors.

If you look at his pattern of edits you will see that he is constantly putting his own POV in through many small edits to countless articles, the classic sign of a POV editor. And he violates NOR left and right. If you ask me, I can go over the very detailed conflict at the Jesus article ... at one point both of us violated 3RR and after the cool-down period he essentially gave up the fight, but for several days he kept insisting on adding Original Research against consensus. If it will help you make a decision, let me know and I will explain in greater detail.

Or you can just do this: if you ever see a case where he seems to have done research, just let me know. I bet an hour or two consulting real sources will show very quickly that his research is bogus, either entirely fabricated or a misuse of sources. This editor only does damage to Wikipedia. He only creates a mess that will mislead readers until someone picks up on it and cleans up. What is needed is not a topic ban but a general ban for disruptive editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jtrainor

Hopefully Arbcom will also examine the behaviour of Sceptre in this case. Jtrainor (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Ali'i

User:Bobblehead has it basically right. Obama articles = clusterfuck. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by JustGettingItRight

I am concerned by Sceptre's abusive behavior (including creating a redirect for Criticism of Barack Obama with the edit summary "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist" [1]). I feel one or two editors (though definitely not the entire list of people cited above) have "baited" Steve. These editors seem to be averse to any negative information about the President and seem to interpret NPOV and a sympathetic point of view, but only in regards to Barack Obama. The mainstream media, not only domestic but global, is watching how Wikipedia handles the encyclopedic treatment of President Obama Fox News Telegraph (UK). Fox News even linked to the Obama FAQ on the talk page. Thus, while ordinarily I think the ArbCom should not take this case, hearing this matter may be beneficial for the project considering the high visibility of the articles in question. I would also like to note, as an aside, that none of these guys seem to have gotten into an edit war on the main Barack Obama page. This observation may not be germane, and may possibly be refuted, but I think it's interesting to note. I hope the ArbCom reiterates the standards for quality expected for articles and also speaks about WP:NPOV and WP:V and how these policies and any other relevant policies relate to this dispute. I would also like to note that Steve has said he is a strong Obama supporter, so I don't think he is motivated by politics. Rather, I think he is motivated by perceived systemic bias. Perhaps the ArbCom can address the issue of systemic bias and the most appropriate way to handle it. JustGettingItRight (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by ChildofMidnight

The level of POV pushing on the Barack Obama article and the actions taken against anyone who has tried to better balance the article according to our guidelines is extremely troubling. The vitriolic attacks leveled against anyone who dares modify the article and the extensive soap boxing on the article talk page need to be remedied. This is the worst case of WP:OWN and POV pushing I have come across on Wikipedia and it shouldn't be allowed to continue. Durova's experience trying to include a featured picture is telling. A look through the article's history is also telling. One can easily compare versions where notable details are included, and then scrubbed out. This has been an embarassment to Wikipedia and I hope the Arbcom committee takes on this matter and puts a stop to editors attempting to impose their personal bias on our encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored like this and depends on collaboration from editors with various viewpoints working together to build the best encyclopedia possible. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Although it may be a voice in the wilderness to state this, abolutely none of the claimed 'previous steps in dispute resolution' is actually dispute resolution. Formal dispute resolution at Wikipedia comes in the following varieties:

• Wikiquette alerts
• Third opinion
• Request for comment (content)
• Request for comment (user)
• Mediation cabal
• Mediation committee
• Arbitration

Normally, except in urgent matters such as wheel wars, at least two forms of dispute resolution should precede each arbitration request. Although this is generally accepted as the spirit of our standards, it is not spelled out clearly enough in arbitration policy and--far too often--gets ignored at actual RFAR. This results in serious drains on volunteer time: even when a case does not open, a significant portion of the Committee has to muster and read through various posts to reach the decision to reject it.

As a matter of proper procedure, I repeat previous urgings to the clerks to remove all non-DR claims of DR from arbitration requests. Leaving up improper material confuses the community about what is dispute resolution and what isn't, and ultimately wastes more of everyone's time. With a new year and a new Committee who wishes to implement reform, serious reform may become impossible unless basic stopgaps are implemented to ensure the ability to prioritize sensibly. Durova^Charge! 23:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Noroton

Include Wikidemon in this case. He has been in the thick of the problems at Obama-related articles for about a year (although I have to admit, I'm unfamiliar with his role since last October), and he's imported his Obama obsession into article talk page discussions where Obama need never have been mentioned. At Weatherman (organization), he obstructed a 3:1 consensus-approved passage on terrorism language (see this discussion, and after the matter went through an RfC, he obstructed even a 2:3 consensus at RfC to again prevent factual, fair information from going into the Weatherman article.

His entire reason for doing all of this: He stated, explicitly and repeatedly, that he didn't want Bill Ayers or Bernardine Dohrn, two of the top leaders of Weatherman (a very hierarchical organization) to be called (former) terrorists because if they were, opponents of Obama would get an edge in criticizing Obama within Wikipedia. (A sampling of some of his statments on this: [2] [3] [4] [5]) Decisions on article content are supposed to be made according to what is reflected in the most reliable sources on that subject, a point made repeatedly to Wikidemon, and a point Wikidemon repeatedly ignored. This is the essence of POV-pushing. His aggressive POV-pushing, completely contrary to Wikipedia policy and goals, is what drove me over the edge last October, resulting in me getting myself blocked twice. I don't blame him for my getting blocked. That's my own doing. I blame him for tempting me into it by his own bad behavior. I became enraged in large part because I had to waste so many dozens of hours piling up source after source after source in an honest effort to present a fair description of Weatherman, Ayers and Dohrn, only to see him block all my efforts because he [6] and Grz11 decided they wouldn't accept the consensus. I played fair and followed the rules and got screwed. If it happened to you, how mad would you be? A complaint was made at AN/I and it was ignored. You know, I could accept it if I couldn't convince a consensus of editors that my view of what should be in these articles was correct. I wouldn't like it, but I could accept it if I'd lost according to the rules. But I lost because Wikidemon was obstinate and AN/I wouldn't enforce the rules. If you let him slip out of this, you let one of the most damaging Wikipedia POV pushers keep damaging this encyclopedia. For that matter, you should be able to decide whether or not the Weatherman/Terrorism RfC reached consensus or not. Feel free to include me as an involved party if you include Wikidemon, but include Wikidemon. -- Noroton (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikidemon's "Point of order" Compare what he says with the facts he provides to back up those statements. In particular, look for evidence of where I am supposed to have said I would harass him. See if anything I said diverges from simply taking him through dispute resolution, such as RfC or Arbcom. Actually, I was so upset for so long about what Wikidemon did that I decided it would give me too much anguish to even go through dispute resolution, so I had no contact with Wikidemon until this week, when I saw what he was doing at BLP/N and criticized him there. Oh, and I think I mentioned him briefly in a statement I left beneath his on Jimbo's talk page a day or two before that. That's the extent of my "harassment" of Wikidemon over the past five months. I'm such a monster to poor Wikidemon. Sometimes I even shock myself with my wickedness. One other reason we haven't interacted is that I've sworn off dealing with political controversies, because Wikipedia's loose consensus-building free-for-all allows too much of the kind of crap that this case is about, and that isn't what I'm interested in. -- Noroton (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• By all means let's include siecer in this RFAR. Let's not miss this opportunity. siecer took a comment I made in my unblock request, in which I (1) spoke heatedly -- as editors are wont to do in unblock requests and as is traditionally (among admins who keep their heads) discounted even for WP:CIV, and yet (2) pledged to pursue dispute resolution in proper forums with Wikidemon and not violate any WP policies or guidelines in letter or spirit. Look at it yourself. [7] And what siecer did with that comment was twist it like a pretzel into some kind of "threat" to Wikidemon, with siecer making a threat to block me both on my talk page [8] and at AN/I. And in that talk page statement he had the unmitigated gall to tell me I was acting in "bad faith", violating WP:AGF. As if I didn't have a history of suffering Wikidemon's abuses. Siecer stated at AN/I This type of continued @#$^ is simply unacceptable, and to declare your stalking and harassment intentions in an unblock request is simply unexcuseable. My response: An angry ultimatum from a blustering admin over week-old unblock request really should be accompanied by proof with a quote that I intend to stalk or harass. So provide it, Seicer. Are you going to block me for pursuing dispute resolution at an RfC or ArbCom? Is that what you call "stalking"? Because that's the only "pursuing" of Wikidemon I ever said I would do. It's creepy when administrators lose touch with reality so much that I can state the exact opposite of what they allege I stated, then reply to them at AN/I and point this out, and they can't then admit they're wrong. In replying to siecer I went so far as to say he had actually eclipsed Wikidemon as having acted worst in the situation. He then withdrew, but not before repeating his lie that I said I intended to stalk and harass Wikidemon. A horrible accusation for which he had no proof whatsoever.. His final statement, made after I clearly and unequivocally denied his false charge was: He's already made it clear that he intends to use this account to stalk and harass other users, and to use all means possible to do so -- including abusing various processes that we have here at Wikipedia. I think this admin has quite a problem with his temper, which would explain the "@#$^" in the statement quoted above and would explain his blindness in grasping what it was I was talking about in the unblock request. Relying on your emotions (particularly anger) rather than your brain is a troublesome quality in an administrator, one that Arbcom may want to look at. -- Noroton (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Grz11 mentions my comments, suggesting they have nothing to do with this. It's certainly in his best interest for Arbcom not to consider my complaints: Grz11 is implicated in some of it in a minor way, and he's been an ally of Wikidemon. Wikipedia's best interests differ from Grz11's. -- Noroton (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC) ---- One other point about Grz11's objection that the time gap means that my complaints are totally divorced from the other complaints here. It should be obvious that (1) they involve some of the same editors (certainly Wikidemon and Grz11), (2) on some of the same pages (Stevertigo, above, mentions the Obama-Ayers controversy page), (3) engaging in some of the same conduct (both Stevertigo [here] and I [elsewhere] have complained about the abusive way in which participants in a content dispute have squelched discussion by closing discussions off with boxes). Just because abuse has extended for so long that it drove off one complainant well before another complainant arrived to experience the same abuse and similar doesn't discount the complaints of ealier abuse, it reinforces those complaints by indicating the problem is more entrenched. -- Noroton (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist

For the first time, I'm perplexed as to whether I'm involved or not, though I'm tempted to say uninvolved seeing I haven't really edited the Obama pages as such. However, I suppose I should note, for the sake of completeness (though I expect the Committee is already aware), I did get probation implemented after smacking a lot of heads - this took a long, long, LONG TIME (because it started off with weeding out horrible editing of a handful of editors; nearly all editors I pointed at ended up indef blocked, but not immediately).

Old arbitrators would be correct in thinking that the terms I made were very unusual compared to a typical probation. I felt it necessary to craft it like that (completely deliberate) - but I'm pleased not just at the success of this remedy, but the way administrators have gone about using it. The purpose was twofold; 1 avoiding arbitration at that point, and 2 so when the remedy was unsuccessful, future arbitrations would not just be less time-consuming, but confined in its scope with regards to Obama-related pages - ArbCom now know that administrators have patrolled and done all that they can, so it's pointless trying to pass the buck back to the community. Whichever editors the Committee weed out are the ones that either slipped under the radar, or have failed to get a consensus in sanctions - factional problem editing, unfortunately, can prevent a consensus forming where it's needed most. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum: although I said it's less time-consuming, it has the potential of taking longer than other cases, particularly when reviewing evidence - and I note that there will be a need to dwell outside of submitted evidence to get anywhere on some occasions. For that reason, I join Nyb in urging priority attention. I also missed one other bit in my comment; all (or nearly all) of the remedies in this case will (need to obviously) be individual editor remedies - I urge severity, as there is no other way, when such a level of disruption was coordinated to run right around this carefully crafted community remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Seicer

I follow with Ncmvocalist, in not knowing if I am involved in this discussion or not. I have given notice, as an uninvolved administrator, to several editors per Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation, for infractions ranging from edit warring to POV-pushing. I do see that the Article Probation implementation being an issue, because as the affected user list expands and as involved editors begin to dole out warnings and notices to the statements reflected on the Probation page, it can have the effect of removing neutrality from the Probation warning/notice process. In an effort to be neutral, I would like ArbCom to examine the methodology that administrators should take in the application of the Article Probation notices and warnings, and if editors should restrict their privilege in interacting with the Probation due to issues ranging from enforcement to potential bias. seicer | talk | contribs 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Brothejr

I am not sure if I am an involved party and don't have much to add to this other then, most of what we've been seeing on the majority of the Obama articles has been in large, resultant of a heated election and the current political environment. We've had many editors from simple IP's to long standing editors who have attempted to push into the article unfounded OR and Syntheses that would have violated a variety of policies included NPOV, BLP, OR, etc. Most of my actions have been mainly of patrolling the articles and reverting vandalism and POV edits along with many other non-Obama pages I watch. I have recently become more involved in the talk page in trying to deal with the multitude of editors coming out of the woodwork after the WND article. I have never had an agenda and I have never been against adding controversies and criticisms when they are well founded and well sourced.

Also to note: the small edit war Bobblehead had noted earlier was of a misunderstanding between me and Durova [9]. Brothejr (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Kauffner

The Obama articles are preposterously one-sided hagiography. Nothing at all about Bill Ayers, and nothing about him voting "present." Jeremiah Wright is just a guy who made "controversial statements" and Rezko is just a guy whose wife sold Obama a plot of land -- no explanation of why the unreasonable media criticized Obama for either of these things. The president's half-brother busted for marijuana possession in Kenya[10] -- information repeatedly removed from the relevant article. Obama got a lot mileage out his "I am my brother's keeper" line and his bestselling book is all about family, but his actual brother is somehow non-notable. Yes, I have tried to fix some of these issues myself and gone to AN/I as a result.[11] Kauffner (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Grundle2600

Whoa! I did nothing wrong. The Political positions of Barack Obama article said that Obama promised to stop the DEA raids on medical marijuana. I posted evidence that Obama did not keep his promise. If the article cites Obama's promise, then for balance, the article should also cite that Obama did not keep his promise. As for the Public image of Barack Obama article, since the article already cited conservative support of Obama, I added that he also had communist support too. On my talk page, Scjessey has falsely accused me of making "poorly-sourced" entries, of doing "original research," of "inserting unpublished information," and of putting my "personal analysis" into articles. Scjessey keeps making one false accusation after another. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Did he say when he would do so? Did he put a date on it? If not, then he hasn't broken anything; he's merely not taken action yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

These blocks and bans are nothing other than censorship. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

All I ever did was add well sourced material to articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Request for clarification - Obama articles

The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Note: per terms of arbitration remedy, I request that a clerk notify the parties involved

Statement by Wikidemon

Is it is permissible under Obama articles remedy 11.1 (and by extension 11) for editors restricted from interacting with each other to (a) unilaterally criticize each other, or (b) participate in meta-matters related to the others' edits?

My understanding is no. I supported the remedies in question on the hope and assumption they would put an end to accusations of bad faith made against me for months on end concerning my work on Obama-related articles, an issue close to the core of the case. I follow that by not mentioning them by name or deed, and by avoiding if I can any page or procedure where they are active. I make a reluctant exception here, because I have been accused of bad faith, trolling, and stalking[12][13][14][15] four times in the last day. This troubles me, and I wish it would stop. I am therefore asking a clarification on whether these accusations are prohibited, or whether I should just try to ignore them. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Note - I am not seeking any enforcement or action at this time. The rules are not currently explicit. So just a clarification. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

As someone who might well end up enforcing the ArbCom remedies in this case, I would also like a clarification on this point. Right now Wikidemon and Scjessey are restricted from interacting with ChildofMidnight, and the latter is restricted from interacting with the former two. In my view, this formulation should extend to commenting about one another, at least in a negative manner, even though that was not at all explicitly part of the decision. For example, saying "and other terrible editors like _________" on ANI or elsewhere would be considered unacceptable in this view. Simply saying, "I'm restricted from interacting with _________ so I can't comment on that user's comment" would of course be perfectly fine. It's disparaging comments that are the problem, as those do little more than rehash an old dispute (and in the case of Scjessey and ChildofMidnight, they would arguably be problematic in terms of their topic bans).

As such this (already linked by Wikidemon) categorizing Wikidemon as a "troll and stalker" would clearly be unacceptable. Actually it's unacceptable period in my view, but arguably more so given the remedies from the Obama case.

A quick clarification on this from the Arbs would be useful. I'll post notes on Scjessey and ChildofMidnight's talk pages about this if they have not already been informed, since I think those are the only other parties that would be directly affected by whatever the Arbs decide here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick followup to point out that while I don't think ChildofMidnight's recent statements are at all acceptable, I also don't at all think he should be sanctioned for them. I'm just interested in determining how we deal with similar incidents going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To Casliber or any other Arb, thanks for looking into these issues and posting notes like this on the talk pages of several editors. But those were a bit vague and I'm still unclear as to how to proceed in terms of enforcing the ArbCom decision. If Wikidemon posts a negative, "inflammatory" comment about ChildofMidnight (or vice-versa), should/could the offending editor be blocked per remedies 11 and 11.1 of the Obama case? I think that's what you are saying but I want to be clear, and I want to make sure that the affected editors are clear on this as well. Also you left a note for BaseballBugs who was not formally sanctioned and that somewhat confuses the issue. I think the original question relates solely to ChildofMidnight, Wikidemon, and Scjessey in the context of the ArbCom case and is expressed succinctly by Thatcher below. I just want to make sure we come away from this completely clear on the answer to that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely reject the entire substance of ChildofMidnight's comment about my work as an admin. I have done some probation enforcement work on Obama articles in the past, including warning C of M about certain behaviors (for which he was sanctioned by ArbCom, not incidentally). I am not, and never have been, in any dispute with him about content, and warning him in the past does not constitute a dispute. The idea that I have "been very aggressive about stating [my] politics and coming after editors who disagree with [me]" is something C of M obviously believes, but is not remotely borne out by the facts, and I am not beholden to his subjective and erroneous impressions. I of course "think we should abide by NPOV and include multiple perspectives" on the Obama articles and elsewhere and have argued for that repeatedly, as C of M should know if he's read any of my numerous comments on various talk pages.

Working as an admin in a controversial area is not necessarily a lot of fun (I've warned editors on the "other side" from C of M and taken heat from them too), but I'm not going to be forced away from helping to maintain the Obama articles and enforcing the recent ArbCom case simply because C of M does not like the fact that I've warned him in the past (note that I've never even blocked him, and have engaged in seemingly endless conversations with him on my talk page about policy matters - see here for one example - even after he came there hurling accusations at me). If he thinks I'm that bad of an admin, my recall process is here (though C of M might have to get someone else to start the RfC on me given how my process works), and he knows where the board to complain about admin behavior is. I've been watching the Obama articles for awhile (originally beginning before C of M ever edited here) and think I've been fairly helpful. I don't think there's anything that precludes me from enforcing remedies in this case on any party, though I'm sure there are other folks willing to do that as well. I won't reply to further comments from C of M, though I will note he has mentioned my user name ten or so times in the last couple of days in various place, always in a highly negative fashion, while at no point supplying so much as one diff to back up his assertions. His comment about me below is just the most recent example of that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

I assumed that the "interaction restriction" meant that I should do everything possible (within reason) to avoid interaction and conflict with ChildofMidnight (CoM). For example, I have avoided editing any article or talk page where I have encountered CoM within its recent edit history (last 50 edits). I have also avoided contact/interaction with editors who seem to inhabit CoM's "sphere of influence" - partly on the assumption that there could be a sort of conflict-by-proxy problem. I plan to avoid any "meta matters" in which CoM is participating, whether or not my username is mentioned. This may seem excessively cautious, but I wish to prove to the community that I am doing my best to "turn the page" on past problems and contribute to the project productively. Wikipedia is more than large enough to accommodate us both. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

This issue comes about because numerous editors have come after me on my talk page and on various other boards. This behavior is similar to that I experienced in the past and tried to bring to the attention of Arbcom as a pattern of abuse targeting editors who hold minority viewpoints and dare to try to have them fairly represented in article content in accordance with our neutral point of view WP:NPOV policy. I hope this committee will be helpful in putting a stop to this kind of abuse and harassment as it's extraordinarily damaging to Wikipedia's editing environment and integrity.

---

Wikidemon's harassment of me including 13 posts on my talkpage in one four hour period is well documented and was entered into evidence in the Arbcom proceeding. Wikidemon's abuse of the ANI process to harass and intimidate editors is also well documented. He's taken me to ANI 5 times, each time inappropriately over a content dispute. Wikidemon has stated that he uses ANI to settle content disputes. Wikidemon refactors other user's statements on article talk pages, user talk pages, and ANI discussion. He has a whole section on his talk page related to me where he's refactored my comments into their own section. He is a disruptive editor, the only editor to refuse mediation on the Rashid Khalidi article where I was trying to help with a 3rd Opinion, and he frequently targets editors whose point of view he doesn't share for abuse and he attempts to get them blocked and banned. This harassment and smearing shouldn't be allowed to go on here.

Since Arbcom's misguided ruling, others have followed his example and been emboldened (as I predicted) by Arbcom's shameful and embarassing misjudgment (including Wizardman's misrepresentations of my polite requests to Wikidemon to focus on article content and to discuss issues over content on article content pages, which Wizardman called "templating"). There was also Wizardman's distortion of my good faith copy-edit on an article talk page as some kind of malicious refactoring. Apparently some diffs were needed to ban me, and I guess that was the best he could come up with.

Given this grotesque miscarriage carried out by this committee and signed onto by the individuals that comprise it, I have little faith in any of your judgment or fairness. Your actions have simply encouraged the abuse and harassment carried out by these individuals. They continue to go after editors with whom they disagree. Another editor who has created numerous articles on political subjects has been harassed and taken to ANI again and again by these characters. They target and harass anyone who has the audacity to try and add content that doesn't toe the line on accolades for Obama and whose politics they disagree with. They've thrown out the idea of collaborating in favor of undermining our core NPOV policy and preventing multiple perspectives from being included in articles. These outrageous behaviors should come as no surprise to this committee since its ruling has tolerated and encouraged these actions. I participated in the Arbcom, after a request from Wizardman to do so, because I had hoped that at least a stop to the worst incivility could be implemented. I had no idea that this committee would endorse the abusive behaviors carried out by these individuals and that this committee would encourage them by going after the editors already targeted and at the receiving end of these disgusting behaviors.

Baseball Bugs has posted on my talk page 7 or so times since your ruling along with other posts by Phgustaff, none of them related to article building. I removed several and asked Baseball Bugs to stop, but he continued to harass me. He's been asked to stop before by admin GTBacchus, but why would he stop? This committee has given its tacit endorsement to that kind of behavior on talk pages and to using ANI reports to go after editors, and so it has continued. If the first one doesn't work maybe the 3rd or the 5th or the 7th will. Shame on this committee and Wizardman in particular for failing to grasp the problem, for failing to address the harassment and abuse of editors through frivolous ANI reports and other methods, and for endorsing this type of censorship and bullying by punishing those affected by it. This abuse shouldn't be acceptable here. That this committee has stood by and not only allowed it to go on, but punished those at the receiving end of it, is disgusting. I'm here to write articles and build an encyclopedia collegially. Not to be harassed by POV pushers like Wikidemon, Tarc, Allstarecho, Bigtimepeace, and others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

<The comment below was a reply in a threaded discussion that was moved here by a clerk. I've collapsed it because it's only tangentially, at best, related to this proceeding>

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't really know what Connely's abusive block has to do with this proceeding. An editor accused me of stalking them after a single copy-edit to their article I came across on new page patrol. This has been well documented. They templated and made nasty comments to me on my talk page and I told them their behavior "made them look like a jerk". They made an ANI report where numerous editors pointed out their abusive behavior, false accusations, and article ownership issues. (Of course the POV pushers used it as an opportunity to make statement against me and call for me to be blocked). Despite the consensus in the discussion, an inebriated (self-admitted) Connely stepped in and blocked me without any discussion or consensus indicating that was appropriate, and he refused to fix his mistake despite numerous requests from other editors (going to sleep shortly after his drunken block which he wasn't even able to implement appropriately without help). While Connely's behavior is also abusive and disgusting, it doesn't have much to do with the campaign of harassment carried out by Wikidemon, Allstarecho, BIgtimepeace, Baseball Bugs, and others against any editor they perceive as being convservative politically. It's just another example of the admin abuse that will most certainly be used against me in the future, just as the block over my 4 edits over 48 hours, with discussion on the article talk page inbetween, formulated the core of Arbcom's "evidence" against me in the latest Arbcom proceeding. If there's no solid evidence against someone they just make it up and find an incompetent admin to unilaterally block, and then use the block as proof that I'm a "problem editor", ignoring my actual edit history and the facts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• The idea that Bigtimepeace thinks he's an appropriate person to enforce these arbcom remedies is SHOCKING. He is absolutely not neutral and certainly not uninvolved. He's been very aggressive about stating his politics and coming after editors who disagree with him in thinking we should abide by NPOV and include multiple perspectives in our political coverage. I absolutely 100% reject the idea that he should even consider using his tools in relation to this matter, and he should absolutely refrain from using his tools in regards to Obama related subjects where he's made his personal point of view and his desire to enforce it very clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• • -I was going to post this note on Bigtimepeace's talk page. But I didn't feel comfortable doing that, so I am posting it here instead.-

Hi BTP. I hope you don't mind my commenting here. I read your response to my arbnote. You made a very impressive defense of yourself, going on offense and making various accusations and insinuations against me. I rarely go diff digging, an activity I liken to dumpster diving, so I'm not going to be much help in providing you diffs of our many disputes, but your talk page history should suffice. I'm prohibited/ censored/ blocked/ banned from working on those articles anyway, but I want to make it clear that our disputes over those articles are absolutely content related and that your argument that I'm making stuff up is simply wrong. The idea that we haven't been involved in confrontations and disputes over content and article editing issues is simply not true.

I am absolutely earnest in noting that you need to put down your admin tools and stop behaving aggressively towards editors who you are in conflict with over content issues. I realize you may think you're being fair, neutral and impartial, but as you've indicated previously and is clear from your editing and behavior, you have a personal political view that's very much to one side of the political spectrum. I encourage you to recognize this and to exercise the appropriate restraint and judgment that is warranted. At many RfAs I've seen they ask whether there is a subject the nom is passionate about. It seems that you are unable to recognize your own biases and perspectives and how they are influencing your work here. I've always felt you are welcome, of course, to contribute on those articles, but I again encourage you to exercise self-restraint and to recognize that you are not neutral or impartial with respect to these subjects.

I'm here to build an encyclopedia and to collaborate with those of differing and like views to include appropriate content. I'm not here to wikilawyer with people and to play games. I'm focused on content building and article improvements. I enjoy the range of viewpoints and working out compromises to include them fairly. I apologize if there's anything in this comment that you find offensive or that you think is an attack of any sort. While I have some serious concerns over some of your actions, you generally seem to be well meaning, so I wanted to try to broach the subject with you directly. Believe it or not I think you're a fine fellow and I'd be happy to collaborate with you on any subject. That being said, there is serious issue with your approach and tool use in relation to subjects where your fairness and integrity is clouded by your political beliefs. Please remove this comment if you find it objectionable in any way. Again, I apologize if I've said anything that you think is improper or inappropriate, that is not my intention. Cheers. Take care. Enjoy your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Unitanode

I'll keep this brief. Having looked at the issue, I can understand how CoM's editing patterns cause some issues at Obama articles. However, his detractors are not without fault. I particularly note the block that William M. Connelly Connolley levied for "incivility." Not only was this block non-preventative, it was also -- apparently -- levied while WMC was inebriated. I would highly recommend that as this clarification is offered, it also be made clear that poking CoM isn't recommended either. There are certain editors whose presence at his talkpage apparently annoys CoM greatly. How difficult would it be to effect something of a "topic ban" on commenting about CoM that would effect some of these editors? Uninvolved eyes are needed badly on this situation, and there are some whose eyes are most certainly not uninvolved at this point. Unitanode 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for misspelling your name. I was attempting to do so from memory, and I made a mistake. I'm not sure what that has to do with my basic point, though, nor why you found it an egregious enough error to post about within my statement. Unitanode 22:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley

If spelling "Connolley" is too difficult for you I recommend sticking to "WMC", which most people can cope with William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I didn't make a statement, just a minor comment. This was quietly "statementified" later [16] by someone else. I think it would be better if people make a clearly visible mark when they do such things William M. Connolley (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

The issue before the committee is very simple. ChildofMidnight is enjoined from interacting with Wikidemon. Is he allowed to badmouth Wikidemon to third parties? I think the answer is pretty obvious. Thatcher 02:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

What we got here is... failure to communicate...er, no, that's not it...what we have here is a party to ArbCom (Child ofMidnight) who continues to act out the part of the aggrieved victim of an almighty cabal of evil doom out to get him. This has been going on since the first signs that the committee decision was not going to turn out as he expected to. From the pithy "Travesty in motion..." at the top of his talk page to the insults of other party members as "POV pushers" at every opportunity...article talk pages, user talk pages, AN/I, AfD. It isn't just potshots at Wikidemon (not belittling that, though), it is been a week-long, nose-thumbing tirade at anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with CoM that he is the wounded party in all this. I haven't really even been interacting with him at all through any of this; like others, I'm just siting here watching a downward spiral.

Re Caspian Blue, please do not misrepresent the case findings, which was that BB and myself were "reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations", which was for getting overly snarky with others in contentious talk page discussions. It had nothing to do with ChildofMidnight directly. Obviously we've taken opposing POVs in the subject area, but our interaction never rose to a level of acrimony as with the other two, and there wasn't even an evidence section or a FoF for it. This hasn't stopped CoM from name-dropping me at every opportunity to strike against the perceived cabal, but that's his problem.

BTW, only posting with a slight hangover this morning, all is good!

Re, again, I am not "mocking" CoM or anyone else. Your frequent falsehoods are getting to be about as troublesome as his raging personal attacks are. There are no cabals, other than in your own overactive imagination.

Sigh. Perhaps ChildofMidnight has sufficiently calmed down for the moment, but as long as others like Caspian are going to be allowed to egg him on, fan the "everyone's out to get you" flames, and misrepresent what others are doing here, I doubt we've seen the end of this. Don't think there's anything left to say at this point.

Statement by Caspian blue

More clarification on the "CoM vs Wikidemon and CoM vs SJ remedies" is certainly necessary for the next time. The current remedy is vague in text. I do not fully understand CoM's drama making (yes, he did) in the recent incident, but it is obvious that Tarc, Baseball Bug and other editors in past disputes should "disengaged" from contacting with CoM for their unsolved feuds in the Obama case. They are in part responsible for "throwing gasoline to the flame". I do think that CoM should've taken a break to regain his cool, but Tarc and Baseball bug were admonished/warned for their incivility by the committee, so I think the amendment on that warning should be also intensified. Once Baseball Bug ceases to contact with CoM, then his buddies would find other thing to care.Caspian blue 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, yes, you're warned for "your incivility by the ArbCom", period. True, you're one of flocks coming, mocking CoM and enjoying the whole dramas in these days and of the Obama cabal together with CoM. (does not matter what your political view is in the cabal in my view - US politic drama is not my interest). You're no position to say like the above.

To Bigtimepeace, I consider you a fine admin, but you may be the second last person to "enforce the ArbCom remedy" to CoM because even if you were never in "content disputes" with him, you were in "disputes with him" for whatever reason. If CoM violates the ArbCom sanction, clerks, arbitrators or other assigned admins would carry the enforcement to CoM.--Caspian blue 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, Tarc's another "falsehood" and inappropriate accusations. ArbCom certainly did not catch your behavior in depth. See your own statement filled with inappropriateness. You said you only made one appearance with regard to CoM's ANI report. (falsehood indeed given these appearances to recent 3 ANI reports) [17][18][19][20][21]--Caspian blue 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, Tarc even visited my talk page continuing another "bogus" accusations and attacking me with this "falsefood" again.[22]--Caspian blue 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is really tiresome. As long as Tarc is continuing his usual way of speaking[23], ArbCom which officially warned him for his "incivility" could reconsider about Tarc, as well as clarifying the original remedy on Wikidemon/Sj/CoM. Tarc browbeaten me that Unfortunately for you, no one else is buying it. Tarc, trust me, you're wrong on that given that originally there was no remedy on Wikidemon vs CoM. So if you want to convince the ArbCom enough to consider a new remedy on you as fanning the situation, I do not mind. However for your own sake, please "disengage" from CoM and your improper behavior. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BaseballBugs

(Reply to Bigtimepeace moved by clerk) Regardless of any apparent vagueness of the original ArbCom statement to me, in response to Casliber's request I have pledged to disengage from and about CoM. The original issue I have with CoM, which goes back to March 8/9, is clearly not fixable, so it's best to just leave it be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind me. I am impervious to personal attacks. But how long is the community going to let him get away with this kind of soapboxing [24] that's a gross insult to the integrity of everyone else on wikipedia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PhGustaf

I agree that disengagement is a good idea. CoM has developed a bunker attitude in the last few days; best to let him or her cower in it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate my suggestion that everybody go home and forget about it. Remember the Peter O'Toole line: "We have won a rock in the middle of a wasteland on the shore of a poison sea." There's no better result possible here. PhGustaf (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

While I have the feeling that CofM is very much agitated with recent events, in regards to ArbCom restrictions and sanctions that he feels that is unfair, lashing out at other respected and/or established editors and administrators at ANI is leaving a black mark on what may have been an otherwise credible case. I think the issue before the committee is simple, per what Thatcher noted. CofM should not be interacting with Wikidemon, period. The same should apply back for Wikidemon towards CofM to cover the bases, and any breach of this or continued disruption that does not abide by the bounds of dispute resolution should be intersected with an approperiate sanction. seicer | talk | contribs 04:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Allstarecho

I'm only posting a statement because, once again, CoM has felt the need to name me in his delusional escapades on the Wiki. I'll just simply repost here what I posted at User talk:Casliber#A question for you to Casliber:

• Somewhat related.. regarding this reply to you by CoM, I will challenge you to find any harassment by me towards CoM. I've about had it with him plastering the same accusation with my name everywhere he touches on WP. I've also had it with his usual pattern of attack/run/blame everyone else for "picking on me". I can not believe that this is being allowed to continue.
• I'm certainly not disagreeing with your assessment of William. There are issues that need to be addressed. But his issues doesn't excuse CoM's issues - not to mention, it isn't William running around slandering me everytime I turn around - it's CoM.

Now granted, about a month, maybe almost 2 now, ago CoM and I had issues regarding his well-known-now attempts at whitewashing/POV editing of certain articles. Since then? I've pretty much avoided him. Hell, I didn't even participate in the whole Arbcom case even though I certainly had more than enough diffs to shut him down completely - something I had prepared previously for an Rfcu I was planning on opening about him but never did. Let me say this clearly: Continued attacks against me - and others - needs to cease immediately, whether by block or ban and I'm almost to the point of demanding the latter. Now I'm sure I'll be followed here by him bringing up my own Wiki-sins - as he made sure to do yesterday - but I'll just say those aren't the issue here. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 13:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comments while I can see how and why CoM will be feeling frustrated at the moment, repeatedly firing up old disputes isn't helpful at all. I'll have to look a bit more before thinking about actions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Update: I have been out and about and musing on this. I think we can safely describe the situation as continuing to be highly volatile with several editors (whether justifiably or unjustifiably) feeling very aggrieved, unhappy or angry. Thus any further (even mildly) negative ad hominem comments or niggly/baiting/whatever that occur could be at best described as disruptive and a significant block would be in order. I will now notify the antagonists. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Update 2: Okay, I have posted a calm note to CoM, Wikidemon and Baseball Bugs. Let's see if we can just wind down the tension a bit without the need for sanctions just yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Other people are handling the grit, so I'll make it simple (responding to the question as phrased by Thatcher and Wikidemon): No. It is not acceptable. --Vassyana (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Casliber's comments, and concur with Vassyana. Risker (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. Complaining about people who you had disputes with a couple months ago just hurts your case, justified or not. Those accusations are part of why I put this remedy in; to avoid them. Wizardman 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Request to amend prior case: Obama articles

The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Case affected

Obama articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Findings 7 through 15
2. Remedies 4, 5, 10, 10.2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Username2 (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
• Username3 (repeat above for all parties)

Amendment 1

• See below. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre

The recent passing of remedies in the Obama articles case presents a worrying outlook on how Wikipedia policies and guidelines are enforced, and of the current Committee. There are really several points that need to be made, so forgive me for overstepping the five-hundred word limit:

• BLP enforcement: the Arbitration Committee has, in past cases (most notably and controversially, Footnoted quotes), held that BLP enforcement should be encouraged and thus editors should be given wide leeway in enforcement. However, the remedies passed make no recognition of BLP enforcement although the findings of fact implied that it was needed. This is related to the following point...
• Sanctions: the sanctions do not reflect prevention of any problem at all. Were this a case where BLP enforcement was considered, the sanctions would be vastly different, if not one-sided. I have a gut feeling that these sanctions may have been motivated by an effort to avoid the appearance of a "liberal bias". Furthermore, the findings of fact, especially mine, were criticised: the word "fuck" does not an attack make (I refer the ArbCom to George Carlin's infamous routine about the word), and the diffs regarding my reversion of Stevertigo outside of the Obama articles was intended to combat disruption (indeed, one of the two diffs provided shows me reverting an action that the ArbCom mentioned in the previous finding of fact!). This leaves only the edit war. Which I admit, I did get confrontational on that FAQ. However, the remedy for an edit war in aid of BLP enforcement should not be a twelve-month 1RR/week sanction. It should be a simple admin protection. Other remedies for both sides vastly exaggerate the problems in the FoFs, which themselves vastly exaggerate the actions described therein.
• Restrictiveness: the remedies passed are too restrictive on the parties of the case they are applied too. Again, I'll use myself as an example: as one of the Doctor Who WikiProject's more prolific editors, I find myself editing related articles a lot. And these are verifiably popular articles; the articles Eleventh Doctor and Matt Smith (actor) were in the top two spots of {{Popular articles}} for several hours of 3 January 2009, so, understandably, there's a push-and-shove effort in trying to maintain article quality. In fact, it's not strange for an editor to revert more than three times in 24 hours after an episode airs, but such behaviour isn't met with blocks as it's not edit-warring in the spirit of 3RR. Luckily, this has not affected my editing too much; normally, the end of June comprises the Doctor Who season finale, but this year is a "rest year" for the show and as such all that is happening wrt Doctor Who this summer is the currently airing Torchwood serial Children of Earth, but, come winter, given what we know is going to happen then, it will be an uphill struggle to maintain article quality and normalcy and will need as many hands as possible. Even if I don't take an active role in combatting the inevitable disruption, the ruling would effectively lead me unable to edit the articles properly until several weeks after the episodes air, affecting the usually high turnover rate in article writing (which, for articles about fiction, is a Good Thing). So these sanctions do not prevent disruption; quite the opposite, they make it easier!
• And finally, communication: the case really highlights the lack of communication between the arbitration committee and other users. Wizardman left only two days between posting on the workshop and on the proposed decision page, and most of us didn't notice until the latter occurred. Even so, the Committee made no visible effort in reading the workshop, the talk pages, or otherwise listening to users, despite the fact there was a considerable opinion by both sides that the proposed decisions were flawed. This is a problem that, while only peripherally relevant to my argument, needs to be countered for the sake of the community.

So, what am I proposing, exactly? Basically, I am requesting:

• A complete re-examination of the findings of fact and removal of any material which exaggerates or mis-characterises an editor's actions (hence why I've listed all nine editors for which findings were passed, although some may need not be edited).
• The vacation of any sanctions applied to myself and Scjessey, and the editing of Stevertigo's sanction so that it applies only to Obama articles, not a project-wide restriction (because Steve's really not a bad guy).

Thank you, Sceptre ^(talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassanya

You misunderstand my comments to indicate an "willingness to edit war". Edit warring is born from a dispute where a set of editors continually reverting each other where there is a legitimate content dispute. With regard to the Doctor Who articles, this is not the case. The WikiProject has formulated a policy-compliant manual of style and uses that and related policies to maintain article quality. Think: breaking the letter of the 3RR after an episode air is almost never "punished"—except in the case of disputes about non-free images—because it is not edit warring in the strictest sense. There was also no legitimate content dispute regarding the existence—or lack thereof—of a criticism article; as it has been shown, the vast majority of people complaining were single-purpose accounts. Reversions of BLP violating material, which was commonplace in March when the case was open, are explicitly not edit warring as it's not a legitimate content dispute. And reversions of, for example, Stevertigo on WP:IAR or WP:DRV was not edit warring. Why? Again, there was no legitimate content dispute. No person would seriously suggest, for example, that IAR be marked a historical policy, at least without a solid rationale, which Steve lacked by miles. Additionally, the reversion of disruption must never be considered edit-warring, as it sends a negative message to editors that they can gain more from trolling than doing actual work. RickK quit in June 2005 because good editors were given less respect and assitance than those who wanted to disrupt, and it's saddening that four years on, it appears to continue.

Regarding your comment about communication, I fail to see how your description of the process matches up with what actually happened. Of course, in theory, what you say is correct. But I feel there was a lack of communication in practice. On the PD talk page, only one arbitrator of the seventeen we have, John Vandeberg, took an active job in answering most of the questions, and even then little appeared to be done. An example is my objections to remedy #5, which got no reply from an arbitrator on that talk page, despite three weeks elapsing between the question being asked and the closure of the case.

And finally, I must disagree with your comment about the sanctions. As the evidence shows, while not limited the Obama pages, all of the edit warring given derives from the Obama dispute. If there was no Obama dispute, Steve would not have edit-warred on, say, DRV or IAR. It's more that tempers were a bit heated then because of the dispute. Hence why I suggested the restriction on Steve be only on Obama articles; other than the Obama articles, he has not shown a history of continual edit warring (based on the WP:EW-backed description above, rather than the erroneous "reverting is automatically edit-warring" belief, although he was desysopped in 2005 for edit-warring). And it can be shown with most editors for which findings were passed, they have no history of continual edit warring outside the Obama dispute before or after. I was going to suggest a similar change in the restriction for Grundle2600, but his recent topic ban indicates that he does have an edit-warring problem. This appears to be an exaggeration on ArbCom's part, extrapolating a small, limited-time dispute as evidence of a massive behavioural problem and passing according remedies. At the very most, all the arbitration committee needed to do with the editors in this case was to give them an admonishment for misbehaving and warn them not to do it again. If the ArbCom wanted to pass a 1RR/week restriction that didn't look foolish, or at the least, strange, to an outside observer, they should've shown in the findings of fact that there was a sustained problem, with several more diffs (as plenty were offered in evidence). But the findings of fact indicate that, in reality, there is not, and thus the sanctions do no work in preventing disruption of Wikipedia and instead serve to punish editors for a minor offense that would've, under any other circumstances, resulted in just a 24-to-48 hour block or a protection. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Second reply to Vassanya

EW, like other policies, requires application of common sense on top of the letter of the policy. While there are only a few exceptions listed in the letter of the 3RR policy, it does not mean they are the only exceptions. Admins often overlook breaches of the letter of the 3RR if a) the spirit has not been broken (i.e., no harm has come to the wiki or the wiki process), or b) there is no "tangoing". Whether reverts in aid of article maintainance is a violation of the spirit of EW is debatable; while arbitration cases and edit warring reports have indicated that it is, the content assessment process generally takes the view that it is not; or, at the very least, it is not sufficient enough to warrant opposition to a page's asssessment as GA/FA for being unstable. The whole article maintainance argument is peripheral to the main argument, in that, at least in my case, there is only one edit war shown, and any other reverts were performed in aid of combatting disruption to the project. If we are at a stage that reverting disruption is considered edit warring, it presents a very bleak outlook of the Wikipedia community, and it would be unfitting for an arbitrator to hold this belief too. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Wizardman

My accusation of bias is only a "gut feeling", and it's a known fact intuition is a double-edged blade. However, the rulings do imply a new bias in ArbCom, or at the very least, a departure from the pro-BLP-enforcement bias from the ArbComs of old. I don't know if it's a conscious decision, or unintentional from a desire to purge the cause or experimentation. As an aside, it's obvious the new ArbCom have been more deliberative and experimental, as opposed to last year's pro-active and brisk ArbCom. The problem is, both are problematic. By the end of May, I had pretty much forgotten about the case. I was talking to a clerk about COM's statement below, which dovetailed into a discussion about the case and how problems such as this could be prevented, or at least minimised. One idea that we discussed was having laymen serve as advisors and/or safety valves: i.e., if a ruling appears too weird or strict or lenient to them, they could give a nudge and say "this doesn't look right". Perhaps it could be a subject for discussion on arbcom-l... but I digress. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re the motions: I'd be willing to settle with the current proposal, with possible re-examination in fall/winter, though I would prefer to see mine and Scjessey's completely vacated. I'm a bit wary of editing restrictions 9.2 and 13, though, as Grundle and CoM haven't shown any cessation of disruption, to the point that Grundle was topic banned. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

I respect the wisdom, hard work, and decisions of the committee, even if I don't fully agree with some parts of the outcome. They say that a good decision leaves everyone a little unsatisfied, so that's probably what's happening here. I'm pretty sure that every finding of fact and every sanction was thought through and made deliberately, so there's no mistake to correct. The case took a lot of time and effort, and the arguments among parties grew unpleasant at times. The outcome includes a couple of no-interaction orders among the parties, which I think have done some good in terms of calming tensions and getting people back to productive work. I don't think those are up for discussion, but opening the case again nevertheless brings us all back to the same page, and brings some potential for renewed friction. The Obama articles have been very quiet since the case was decided, and for the past couple of months overall. So all in all I just don't think it's worth re-opening that proverbial can of worms.

Although I don't want to re-argue the case, I do see the merits of Sceptre's point. A few of the editors on whom revert restrictions were placed have never shown editing problems outside of politics articles, so in their case the restriction would seem to be overbroad. However, in theory that shouldn't be much of a burden because we should all be at 1RR all the time... The arbitration findings deal mostly with the behavior of a small subset of the editors over a short span, four months ago now, and largely gloss over the larger issue of article probation. There seems to be no movement to convene the Obama article probation working group contemplated in the decision, much less to review the workings of probation or suggest improvements. But again, the articles have been stable and calm, so if I may be permitted one more cliche: "If it isn't broke, don't fix it".

Statement by Grundle2600

I agree with the part that says, "the remedies passed are too restrictive on the parties of the case they are applied too." All I have ever done here at wikipedia is add well sourced information to articles. This punishment makes wikipedia worse, not better. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

I would agree that more consideration and leniency should have been given to those who were working to combat the incessant wave of single-purpose account, obvious/egregious POV-driven editors and the like. The reputation and representation of of public figures here and the WP:BLP policy that governs their treatment should be of the highest consideration, and those that work to uphold that singularly-important policy should be given a bit of support during what amounted to an off-Wiki orchestrated and fabricated attack. Civility is important as well, and admonishments were properly handed out there, but the findings of fact that those working to uphold BLP policy were edit warring should be toned down or stricken. Scjessey has noted that the restriction outside of Obama-related articles would impair his ability to edit in other areas, and I feel that that is a sound argument.

I am not so sure about others, however. ChildofMidnight has tested the edges of the topic ban twice now, once a mild reminder as it may have been unclear if AfDs were within the scope, and the second one like would've earned a block in the opinion of that admin, if a formal WP:AE report had been filed.

Grundle2600's restrictions from the committee were lesser than some of the others, but since then has earned a topic ban for 3 months for "clearly problematic editing issues, and [his] general approach".

Response to ChildofMidnight

Honestly, as long as you're going to continue with both attacks against me and the anti-cabal missives, i.e. "misleading statements and trumped up evidence presented to Wizardman", you're only going to put yourself in a worse light. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassanaya

At the very least, I would say that the 1RR in non-Obama related areas should be lifted. IMO the spillovers, i.e. WP:IAR were unfortunate, but were not severe enough to warrant such a heavy restriction. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

Thoughts on the process

I found the arbitration process to be a disappointing experience. I had expected that there would be a healthy dialogue between arbitrators and named parties that would lead to a resolution, and I was surprised by the lack of communication that took place. I had assumed that the arbitration committee would focus on trying to create a productive editing environment in the Obama-related articles by offering advice and guidance. I had imagined it would examine the conditions that created the difficult environment and make suggestions about revising and enforcing related policies. I thought the committee would investigate the effectiveness of article probation and offer opinion about how it could be improved. In particular, I expected specific commentary and rulings on BLP-related issues and agenda-driven editing. Instead, the committee appeared to focus solely on meting out punitive measures that seemed to take into account what was happening, but not why it was happening.

Almost all of the disruption surrounding these articles stemmed from agenda-driven editing, and this problem was not addressed by the committee. It is a huge problem on Wikipedia, particularly on articles related to politics or religion, and it isn't going to go away with the imposition of a few topic bans and editing restrictions. ArbCom will continue to face cases such as these as long as this matter remains unaddressed.

Thoughts on the sanctions

The 6-month topic ban I was given had no effect on me, as I had already withdrawn from editing Obama-related articles 3 weeks before it was imposed. The restriction on interaction with User:ChildofMidnight has proved somewhat awkward, because I have to keep checking the history of an article I am about to edit to make sure I am not treading on any metaphorical toes - not really a big deal, but aggravating.

I have found the "one revert per page per week" sanction to be extremely restrictive. It does not impede my ability to make minor edits across a large number of articles, but it makes it largely impossible for me to focus my attention on any articles in particular. Reversions are a necessary part of the editing process, and 99 times out of a 100 they are uncontroversial reversions that could not be described as "edit warring" (in spirit, at least). I believe the scope of this restriction was over-broad and based on a mischaracterization of my editing contributions, and it left me with a strong impression that some members of the arbitration committee may have based their decisions on what parties said happened, rather than what actually happened.

Note about Wizardman's motion to redefine the scope of editing restrictions

I'd like to comment about Wizardman's proposal to limit the scope of the edit restriction to just Obama-related articles. Although it would make it much easier for me to be a productive editor in other articles, such a change would make the restriction only come into effect once my 6-month topic ban expired. I'm perfectly okay with that, but it does seem like a peculiar situation.

Let me take off my defendant's hat and try to think like an arbitrator for a second. It would seem that the topic ban has been an effective punitive measure with the happy side effect of instantly diffusing the hostile editing environment in the Obama-related articles. I think that measure should definitely remain. The editing restriction, however, has been a purely punitive measure with no obvious benefit to Wikipedia. I would think a better solution would be a "suspended sentence" with some form of probationary period. Editors who have learned from their mistakes would be able to remain fully productive, but those who "violate" their probation could have the full, Wikipedia-wide restriction applied.

Statement by ChildofMidnight

I support a lessening of the sanctions on the good faith content contributors and article builders who were and are subject to the well documented harassment, personal attacks, and POV pushing from the self-appointed "patrollers" and "protectors".

• Baseball Bugs and PHGustaff have repeatedly come trolling on my talk page since the Arbcom decision harassing me incessantly by posting numerous unwelcome and unhelpful comments that have nothing to do with article building or the discussion of article content.
• Tarc continues his incivility and attacks on article talk pages, refusing to focus on content and pushing his personal POV in violation of our core neutral point of view policy. He's continued to threaten editors and to try to delete content he personally disagrees with.
• As Wikidemon points out, the articles have been stable and as the good faith contributors who have created many articles and added a lot of content on these subjects have been banned and blocked. Improvements won't be made until the ill-considered bans are revoked.

The enforcement and encouragement of bias and censorship by this committee, based on misleading statements and trumped up evidence presented to Wizardman even after his mistakes were pointed out to him need to be corrected. The encyclopedia is severely damaged and its integrity has been violated by the actions of this committee. I welcome a review of the sanctions on the good faith contributors who have worked diligently on improving Wikipedia's coverage and who have demonstrated a willingness to collaborate across a broad range of article subjects.

Their efforts have been stymied long enough by this ill-considered decision and moronic remedies. Obviously I'm not talking about Sceptre, who has made no effort to clean up his history of abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Baseball Bugs

I stopped interacting with CoM on July 8th, and he's presenting the above as if I were still interacting with him. He also failed to inform me that he's taken my name in vain here. That is typical behavior on his part. He accuses others of POV-pushing on Obama, when in fact it is he that is the POV-pusher. His early complaint about the Obama articles was that "there's not enough criticism".[25][26][27] Hardly the complaint of someone with a neutral point of view. He threw the gauntlet down to me on the night of March 8/9 with this offensive, insulting essay [28] wherein his biases became all too clear, as he took the side of a brigade of POV-pushers from WND. Any alleged "harassment" of him by me is because I won't let him forget about his obnoxious behavior on that March night - from which he has not backed off one iota, of course. He wants the sanctions lifted for one reason only, and that is so that he can resume his tendentious, POV-pushing editing on the Obama articles. I strongly urge the committee to keep all sanctions in place as originally prescribed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I should add that his complaints about "patrollers", i.e. editors who watch pages to try to keep them the way they should be under wikipedia standards, aligns with his ordering me to stop watching his page (which I have done) - he wants to be able to edit however he feels like, pushing his anti-Obama biases, without anyone watching him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In looking through his history, it seems CoM was taking verbal shots at anyone who disagreed with him, including Mr. Wales [29] which is why it was around that time (March) that a topic ban on CoM re:Obama was first being discussed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that it was PhGustaf who tipped me off about CoM's backstabbing here, otherwise I would not have known about it. CoM has made it clear that I am not worthy of CoMmunicating with him, but apparently that goes both directions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WRONG - Sceptre did indeed inform me of this page. I responded that I wanted nothing more to do with the subject, or with CoM in particular. However, tonight I was alerted to the fact that I was being maligned by CoM, so I thought I should come here after all and see what this is about. I say again: The original topic-ban should stay in place - or at least certainly it should for CoM, as he has not changed his tune at all since March, and will continue to be a tendentious editor on the Obama topics. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So this makes twice now, at least, that CoM has thrown down the gauntlet to me. The first was in March. If not for that nonsense, he would likely not have come to my attention. And now this. He wants me to leave him alone, yet he continues to dredge my name up. I would not have come here tonight except for his backstabbing. I want nothing more to do with that guy, who I consider to be a disgrace to wikipedia. Yet he keeps trying to drag me back into the argument. I'll make him a deal: If he never mentions my name again, then I'll never mention his name again. Even when the inevitable vote to ban him from wikipedia comes, which he is slowly working towards, I will refrain from voting on the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PhGustaf

It concerns me that Grundle's and CoM's statements suggest that neither has considered, even for a moment, that the pickles they're in are in any manner their fault. I suppose that in this sense the sanctions have failed. It seems very likely that they'll both go back to their old ways immediately once the sanctions lapse, and it would be wise for the arbitrators to let them know that they will be on short leashes indeed. PhGustaf (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. CoM, next time you malign me in a venue where I'm not otherwise involved, please mention it on my talk page. PhGustaf (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh again. I checked, and I've made only a half dozen edits to CoM's talk page ever. We once had a very pleasant chat about clams. I hardly consider that "trolling" or "harassing". Till now, CoM has never suggested I was unwelcome on the page. PhGustaf (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

Clerk notes

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

This can be put into effect now too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Wikidemon's comment is fairly persuasive. In addition, I do not see an convincing rationale to revisit this decision, even in the absence of Wikidemon's observations. Addressing Sceptre's points: Regarding BLP enforcement, the edit warring was by no means limited to BLP enforcement and implications to the contrary are blatantly misleading. Regarding sanctions, I reiterate that point. Also, edit warring (as a whole in the case) took place across six namespaces. Warnings, article probation, and other extant measures failed to sufficiently modify and/or restrict the problematic behavior, thus the sanctions do indeed serve a preventative purpose. Regarding restrictiveness, I do not find the argument raised convincing. On the contrary, the willingness to edit war is deeply concerning and reinforces my perception that the restriction is needed. Tying back to the BLP enforcement point raised, the 1RR restrictions still permit exceptions (as per normal policy) for clear cut vandalism and BLP violations. Regarding communication, I can understand the concern that it may have moved too quickly from the workshop to the proposed decision page. That said, the concerns raised are not overwhelming, convincing, nor entirely accurate. The proposed decision and voting lasted over three weeks, providing plenty of time for feedback and comments. Arbitrators did respond to posts on the PD talk page. I know that I and a number of other arbitrators were aware of the PD talk page and workshop comments, taking them into consideration. Additionally, I do not agree with the characterization of the comments' breadth and substance. All that said, the editor histories and conduct issues presented in the case seem to support the sanctions issued. For example, it is suggested that Stevertigo's restriction be more limited, but his edit warring was not limited to the scope requested. --Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• In reply to Sceptre, it seems from my perspective that you are essentially arguing more against policy than with ArbCom's decision (which is based on policy). WP:3RR leave very few exceptions to the general rule and even goes so far as to note that even acting under those exceptions could still be considered edit warring. If you wish to see other exceptions granted, or wish to document exceptions commonly granted by the community, a broadly advertised discussion at WT:EW is the appropriate route. I will not endorse exceptions that are contained neither within the letter nor spirit of the policy as currently written and presented, especially when multiple arbitration cases and numerous edit-warring reports have rejected the rationale that enforcing style and presentation standards is not subject to the edit warring rule. --Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• In response to Tarc, in the context of presuming sanctions are warranted and necessary, what alternative sanctions that are better targeted would you recommend? Please bear in mind that while the dispute centered around the Obama articles that it was exported to other areas of the wiki and that much of the edit warring bore little to no relation to BLP enforcement. --Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• In my votes on the proposed decision, my opinion was that several of the adopted remedies were too harsh, and so I agree that there is a case to be made for modifying some of them. But given that on many of the paragraphs I was the sole dissenter, I suppose I am not the one that the editors seeking an amendment need to persuade. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think the argument for the complete 1RR restrictions being too harsh is a valid one to at least look into. Yes, my proposed remedies were very harsh, and given the climate that's what was needed. If lightening this will keep the obama articles from falling into the old patterns and help out the affected editors, then it's a possiblity. Granted, saying I'm encouraging bias and censorship when I did the best I could with a very hard case given the feelings of the editors does not help one's case at all. Wizardman 00:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Per Vassyana. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Noting here my inactivity on the original case, expressed as an abstain on the motion below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion

There are currently 13 active arbitrators, making 7 a majority.

1) The remedies 4, 5, 9.2, 10.2, and 13 are rewritten as follows: (User) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, User is subject to an editing restriction for one year. User is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should User exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support

1. In retrospect, the remedy was awfully harsh, so I'll lower it for those that received it. Wizardman 16:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
2. As I understand it, the change being made here is to apply the 1RR restrictions on the specified editors only to reverts on Obama-related articles, as opposed to all articles as currently stated. Given that I opposed these remedies as overbroad insofar as they were not limited to Obama-related articles to begin with, I support the motion. The editors affected are Stevertigo, Sceptre, ChildofMidnight, Scjessey, and Grundle2600. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   Note that as I read it, this motion does not alter the topic-bans against those editors who were topic-banned, as those were contained in separate paragraphs of the decision, not mentioned in the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

3. I'm not impressed by arguments that anyone needs to be able to revert casually even in less disputed areas, but the objective of the remedy was to stop the warring on those articles specifically and I see no great harm in focusing the remedy there. I should remind everyone touched by this restriction, however, that bringing the behavior that led to this case to other venues after this has been modified would be viewed very dimly indeed. — Coren ^(talk) 13:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Okay, per preceding. I am prepared to reduce the scope to Obama-related articles. Like Coren, though, further infractions would be viewed with past history in mind. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Casliber and Coren.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
6. While I was inactive in the initial case, I have since read it through. I concur that the 1-RR restrictions beyond the initial articles is too restrictive and interferes with normal editing processes, particularly on pages where a small number of editors are active. Risker (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I feel the spread of the dispute among six namespaces justifies the broader restriction, but I will not impede this amendment if my fellow arbs feel it is appropriate. --Vassyana (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
2. I'm not convinced that modifying the editing restriction for all the named users is for the best. But if we are not going to do individual motions then I don't want to stand in the way of some users getting their restrictions altered. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Abstain. I was inactive on this case, so I will defer to those of my colleagues who were active on this case and know the background here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Request for clarification: Obama articles (2)

The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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

Statement by Bigtimepeace

The issue here is a straightforward one which can be corrected quite quickly. The committee recently altered several of their remedies in the Obama case such that 1RR restrictions on several editors applied not to all articles but rather only to Obama-related articles. The problem is that two editors, ChildofMidnight and Scjessey, are also under a topic ban for these articles. The revised remedies now seem to conflict with that as worded. For example remedy 9.2 says that "ChildofMidnight is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles" for one year, except that for the next few months C of M is not supposed to be editing Obama articles at all. This was apparently cause for confusion as discussed on ChildofMidnight's talk page here.

ChildofMidnight now understands that the topic ban is still in effect, but it would probably be better if the language were clarified, or if an Arb simply made a statement here about how to interpret the remedies in question. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fayssal, I'm sorry but I find it highly illogical that the 1 year, 1RR restriction begins after the topic ban has ended. I don't think that can be true. For one thing, as Scjessey pointed out, the proposed decision specifically said "To run concurrently" (or at least that's what Wizardman said). There's no sign in the final decision that that had changed.

Additionally, we need to bear in mind that the original 1RR restriction (for Scjessey, ChildofMidnight, Sceptre, Grundle2600, and Stevertigo) was for all articles. Three of those editors were not hit with a topic ban, and obviously their restriction began immediately (indeed the whole reason that the original remedies were superseded was that one of the editors complained that the restriction was too harsh, so clearly it was in effect at that time and the committee treated it as such when it superseded the restriction with a narrower alternative). As far as I know there was no comment anywhere from the Arbs that the 1RR restrictions for Scjessey and ChildofMidnight were different, or that they were beginning in 6 months (again, that would have been bizarre, as the 1RR was not just for Obama articles, but rather for everything—why would it have not started right away and run alongside the topic ban?).

Additionally, despite what you are saying now, clearly all those in question believed they were under a 1RR restriction and I think myself and all other admins familiar with the case believed that as well. So they've already been abiding by that, but now you seem to be saying they have not even started serving their time (so to speak). That's a problem.

Finally, the whole point of switching from 1RR for everything to 1RR for Obama only was, I assume, to relax the original sanctions. While this has happened for the three editors who were not topic banned (they are not 1RR limited in non-Obama topics), your suggestion that the 1RR restriction does not go into effect for Scjessey and ChildofMidnight for 6 months has the effect of strengthening their sanctions. The original remedies clearly sanctioned them for a year, but now they have a year and a half of sanctions, which strikes me as rather excessive.

So I'm wondering if Fayssal maybe just got it wrong here. Regardless, the situation is in far more need of clarification than I thought. The committee needs to be much more clear about where we stand, and at this point that may actually require a further amending of the remedies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

As I seem to have been the only one who was confused, I don't think a clarification is needed. I'm straightened out now. Frankly, I hadn't realized Scjessey and I were the only ones topic banned and had, indeed, read the new remedy as allowing me to edit Obama articles as long as I limited myself to 1 revert a week and discussed any reverts (an proposal that seems pretty reasonable). That would be a more appropriate remedy, but I see that the other "remedy" is still in place, and I'm sure that any requests for modification would need to be filed in a different venue and queue. Anyway, I don't see any need for action or clarification. If the committee believes a 6 month ban serves a purpose aside from benefitting the censors and POV pushers camped out on those articles and the harassing stalkers who continue to use any sanction against me at every possible opportunity, then that's their priviledge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Fayssal's reading of the sanctions. 18 months? But whatever. The various policy violations engaged in by arbcom, their punitive punishments, and their lack of willingness to work collaboratively with editors to solve problems speaks for itself. I have noticed some improvement in response times which is nice. We waited months to get the monstrosity of a verdict you rendered in this case, and of course it's done nothing but perpetuate and aid the continued animosity, hostility, and abuse dished out on the Obama articles. But you guys are the captains of this ship, so who am I to yell ICEBEEEEERG!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The day there'd be no ANI reports and all what comes with regarding a conflict then I'd be able to accept an appeal to reduce the restrictions' period. We do that all the time. From the part of ArbCom, that only necessitates a round of discussions and a motion being drafted. From the part of the concerned parties, that needs dedication; more work. The periods are less relevant ChildofMidnight. Everything can be amended. Now, it is up to the parties to show ArbCom some progress. It is up to you to avoid the iceberg, we are not captains... you are the captains as we have just given you the ship and asked you to give it back to us without any damage. The sooner, the better. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That is utter bullshit and shows you have not the slightest understanding of the nature of how POV pushers, stalkers, and harassment works on Wikipedia. The day arbcom assists good faith content contributors like Giano, Malleus, Badagnani, myself and others, instead of aiding and abetting those who abuse the noticeboards to disrupt our work, will be a true triumph for Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Mythdon

It's indeed very clear that the topic ban on ChildOfMidnight is still in place. The topic ban, from my calculations, lasts until approximately December 21, 2009.

I really actually have no involvement in this honestly, and have not reviewed the evidence of this case, and do not edit Obama articles, but without regard to that, anyone reading the remedy will know that the topic ban is still in place.

While it's clear that the topic ban is still in effect, my assumption is that the 1RR restriction on ChildOfMidnight with respect to the Obama articles takes effect once the topic ban ends. Is this true? If so, it would make sense to reword the restriction to that effect. The same clarification should also be done for Scjessy's 1RR restriction, and if it's the same case with Scjessy, a rewording will be needed for that 1RR too. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Question (on unrelated issue) by Wikidemon

May we please have a clarification of the new remedy duration as well? The original 1RR per week restrictions were one year from the date they were issued, June 21 2009. The modifications also mention a period of 1 year, but are dated August 2, 2009.[30] I would assume the intent was not to reset the end dates, i.e. the new remedy applies until June 21, 2010, not August 2, 2010. To avoid conclusion it may help to make that clear. I mentioned this to User:MBisanz as clerk[31] but have not heard back. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Per FayssalF, below, the 1 year 1RR periods run successively rather than concurrently with the 6 year topic bans, a possibility I had overlooked. If that is indeed the intent, maybe it is best to add some text like "...after the conclusion of the foregoing sanction". - Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

I am a little confused. It was my understanding that the sanctions were to run concurrently (as indicated in the proposed decision that was written by Wizardman). I do not recall anyone suggesting that these sanctions were to run successively. If this is indeed the case, it seems an extraordinarily harsh measure (even with the recent amendment). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The set of the articles in question belongs to the BLP area and we all know how that specific area is sensitive. That said, —and for now— you can still consider my view as that of an individual arbitrator; we are still waiting for the views of my colleagues. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

Checking in from Margaritaville even tho I was trying to avoid teh internets. Ah well. Anyways, I'd thought this all was pretty crystal-clear, as several users were given 2 prohibitions;

1) a 6-month ban from Obama-related topics and talk pages

2) a 1RR/page/week project-wide.

Number 2 was rescinded on appeal for all, leaving only #1. This is now the 4th time that one, ChildofMidnight, has violated Prohibition #1. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Allstarecho

Whatever is decided here, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee should be updated to reflect such. This would help with any confusion.

Comment by Ncmvocalist

Why not review at a more appropriate time - specifically, 6 months after the topic ban has expired? Whether there is a need, or not, for the extra 6 months of 1RR to continue in the area of conflict, can be clarified at that time (when it's more relevant). I don't understand why there is a sense of urgency to know now, when it's possible that it (or a harsher or a less restrictive sanction) potentially may be re-imposed closer to that time anyway. Alternatively, closer to that time, there might not be a need for it. On the ever-growing list of things-to-do for ArbCom, this probably is one of the simplest ones to answer: no action until 5 months after topic ban has expired. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• If merging remedy 9 and 9.2 together (also 10 and 10.2) would help then I'd not have a problem. Whatever is the case, ChildofMidnight and Scjessey are both topic banned from all Obama-related articles for 6 months. After the 6 months are expired then both users are restricted to not revert more than 1 revert per week for a whole year. Both restrictions cover 18 months. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Per the rest of my colleagues. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• To answer the question on the dates, they're not reset, so they still started at the end of the case. On this one, I doubled checked and actually wrote it as meaning to be concurrent, i.e. topic ban and 1rr 6 months (in case the former was lifted), then 1rr the next six months. I will defer to my fellow arbs on how they interpreted this restriction though. Wizardman 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• While I did not actively participate in this case, I have since reviewed it in detail. It is the usual practice that remedies run concurrently, not serially, unless specified in the remedy itself. I concur with Wizardman's interpretation. Risker (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that the time period would be concurrent, with the 1rr happening for 6 more months after the topic ban ends. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree with Fayssal, agree with others. Such restrictions, unless specifically stated otherwise, run concurrently, not sequentially. Carcharoth (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree with Wizardman, Risker, FloNight, and Carcharoth. However, I would remind all parties that we have the ability to lengthen or increase the sanctions if the parties' continued conduct were to warrant it. I hope this will not become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Request for clarification: Obama articles (3)

The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

• Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Wikidemon

Questions presented

My first request went something like this:

Q1: May editors restricted from interacting with each other (a) unilaterally criticize each other, or (b) participate in meta-matters related to the others' edits?
A1: No. (see here)

There now seems to be some confusion among Arbcom members, administrators, and non-admin editors alike,[32] on the scope of the "no" answer here, and I have a further concern regarding the stay-away order. I'm therefore asking some follow-up questions:

Q2: May editors topic banned from Obama-related articles:

• file[33] or participate in meta-space discussions of Obama-related content[34] or events[35]?
• participate in an AFD regarding Obama-related articles?[36][37]?
• edit list articles about Obama?[38]

Q3: May editors under restriction "not to interact with each other":

• accuse a group of several editors, including the editor with whom they are not supposed to interact, of bad faith?[39][40]
• dispute the good faith of a meta-space participation of an editor with whom they are not supposed to interact? (see above)

A: ?

Process notes

1. I am wondering whether this should have been brought up as a request for amendment on the one hand, or a request for enforcement on the other? Instead of focusing on what the voting majority of arbitrators may or may not have intended at the time (the answer to which may well be "they were not thinking the same thing" as it is with the sanction durations, below), can we please concentrate on what the topic ban limits should be, and how to best maintain a productive editing environment on Wikipedia? The post-decision Obama-related incident among the parties to the case that gave rise to this question was clearly not a good thing. The question here should be: do we want to make clear that it is a violation of sanctions, or do we want to make clear that it is beyond the scope of the sanctions and instead a matter for the community to handle?
2. Speaking of community matters, I note that a new no-contact order has been enacted between Baseball Bugs and ChildofMidnight,[41] not without some disagreement, and with terms that differ from the two no-contact orders issued in the Arbcom case. That would be the second instance - I believe Grundle2600 is also under some community sanctions that exceed his Arbcom sanctions. As a party to the current incident I believe I am within the bounds of my own restrictions to comment on the wisdom and process of these stay-away orders even though the discussion is occuring at AN/I rather than here. If anyone has any qualms about that please let me know directly and I'll bring the discussion here instead - or if you want to ban the parties from commenting over their own situations I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good idea. Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Background

collapsing but still there in case anyone wants to read
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is growing a little stale and I don't want to burden the page with so much evidence, so collapsed - Wikidemon (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The first clarification arose over my dismay with accusations by ChildofMidnight on AN/I and his own talk page that I was acting in bad faith, trolling, stalking, and maintaining bias on the Obama talk pages. [42][43][44][45] As the first on the ever-growing list of content editors, passers by, administrators, arbitrators, and Wikipedia founders ChildofMidnight has attacked as vandals and trolls for getting in his way, I seem to be a favorite target for these kinds of made-up claims as to my intentions, frame of mind, and editing history. The difference now is that I was far away from ChildofMidnight, and the two of us were supposedly under a stay-away order. ChildofMidnight's attacking me when I wasn't around was problematic because I couldn't respond to defend myself given our mutual editing restriction, I couldn't file a notice board complaint or request assistance or advice from an administrator (something I assumed would be a sanction violation on my part because it would necessarily engage ChildofMidnight), and I could not afford to let the accusations lie. When it became clear that the accusations would not stop even after I stepped well clear of ChildofMidnight, I asked in this forum for a clarification on whether they were okay. The clear answer in so many words was "no". One administrator commented here that "any further (even mildly) negative ad hominem comments or niggly/baiting/whatever that occur could be at best described as disruptive and a significant block would be in order." A few hours ago, a stream of such comments did occur. ChildofMidnight jumped into an AN/I subsection I had started to accuse me and two other editors of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NPOV violations, being among "abusive and disruptive editors who will come after you stalking and hounding you until you're blocked if you don't tow the line".[46] "mob rule", censorship, stalking, harassment, intimidation, abuse, and being "abusive trolls".[47] That was before I filed this request and the wider drama surrounding ChildofMidnight's ensuing block; far more creative and vitriolic streams of abuse were hurled at me and a dozen others (I believe he has called one administrator a worm now, another an obscene embarrassment, and a third, "cancerous") after I sought help here. What happened is that several hours before, William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor with ongoing editing problems on the Obama articles,[48] filed an AN/I report over "mob and ownership tactics of the band of Obama article protecters" at Public image of Barack Obama,[49] and eventually requesting blocks and bans, after failing in his attempt to edit war into that article March's presidential taunt of the month[50] that Obama is the "teleprompter president". As the first of three editors who reverted this proposal[51] he was clearly referring to me. I offered some evidence and suggested a straightforward least-drama resolution to clear up the matter.[52] Another editor put my comments in a new subsection.[53] This kind of routine disruption is nothing that the Obama editors cannot handle if left to their own, and basically just requires everyone to chill out. Unfortunately, we were not left to our own. In his first direct encounter with me since our stay-away order, ChildofMidnight jumped into my new AN/I subsection to accuse us three editors (plus perhaps another editor or two who had joined the AN/I conversation by then) of abuse, disruption, stalking, being trolls, and other nasties.[54] [55] This caused one editor to declare they were quitting the topic, and inflamed a bunch of others, including Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another party to the Arbcom case, against whom ChildofMidnight then filed another AN/I report.[56] In disrupting the Obama-related AN/I report, ChildofMidnight was not only shielding another editor's bad behavior in an Obama article through groundless accusations of bad faith, he was also furthering a content position on what the article should say.[57] As with the earlier incident, the combination of ChildofMidnight's unprovoked personal attacks, and the ambiguity in the editing restrictions, left me no viable option other than to seek clarification here. Like Scjessey and a number of administrators, I interpret the Arbcom remedies broadly: not interacting with ChildofMidnight means not commenting about him behind his back, not insulting a group of three editors that includes him, not going to a discussion he starts to argue against his position, and so on - not saying, or reacting, or doing, or having anything to do with him. Similarly, I assumed that Arbcom's topic ban meant what it said, that ChildofMidnight was supposed to entirely avoid editing on the topic of Barack Obama broadly construed, whether it was content, the upkeep of the pages, links, deletions, categories, templates, administrative actions to protect the pages, etc. ChildofMidnight's appearance in a sub-thread I started, arguing against my content and process position, and accusing me of being in bad faith, left me in an untenable situation. He had disrupted my discussion. I could not respond in any way, not even to say that my position was correct, because I did not want to violate the stay-away order myself. It's analogous to two people subject to a mutual restraining order who find themselves sitting next to each other on the bus. If you value your peace of mind you simply leave, whoever got there first - you don't get into an argument about which one of you has the right to the seat. Here at Arbcom we can discuss the seating arrangements on the bus. But over at AN/I, when ChildofMidnight jumped into the next seat to argue I was part of a pro-Obama mob I had to back far away. Fearful of violating my own editing restriction if I reacted at all, I hatted my own contribution and quit the thread.[58] Variants of these and other close calls have been occurring regularly for the past month. By some counts ChildofMidnight has violated the Arbcom sanctions six or eight times now, each time with a new twist. Now he refers throughout the encyclopedia to the whole group of editors that includes me, not just me, of being censors, trolls, POV-pushers, etc. with respect to Obama articles (he has done this lately throughout the encyclopedia) without referring to me by name. As before I was very careful in my initial filing to be neutral, minimize my references to ChildofMidnight, and not to seek any remedy, just an impartial clarification as to what the boundaries are. As before, my filing a careful report has resulted in a fresh volley of insults. I have rewritten my initial report here to be much more specific in discussing ChildofMidnight's behavior, but the block was not my doing. I am after some clear, effective rules going forward.

More possible violations

hatted by WD to avoid being too long
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the past few minutes, ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been: advocating on the talk page of William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to log a recent but now lifted WP:3RR block against Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the article probation sanctions page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions.[59] accusing administrator Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) of one-sidedness[60] accusing Protonk of favoring Baseball Bugs[61] (regarding a comment about Baseball Bugs Protonk made here), despite a general sanction that he is not supposed to comment on Baseball Bugs.[62] demanding that Protonk recuse himself from Obama-related matters[63] referring to Obama article editors as stalking and harassing him, the Obama article as being "scrubbed" by "POV pushers", article ownership, enforcing admins as "incompetent"[64] rehashing a past dispute with Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[65] (referring to this) referring to my edits as "a pattern of harassment"[66] (refers to these edits)[67][68] If you're following any of this, William S Saturn is the editor whose edit warring to add some disparaging teleprompter material to an Obama article triggered this latest incident, when ChildofMidnight stepped in to the AN/I report WSS filed to accuse me and other editors of abuse, disruption, stalking, trolling, etc (see above). The problem here is that ChildofMidnight is inciting clearly disruptive Obama edits by DSS, while also obstructing the work of admins and nonadmin editors to deal with that kind of trouble on the Obama articles. If you look at the evidence in the case, the very same behavior, and identical accusations, were much of the objection raised over ChildofMidnight's edits in the first place.

Discussion

If warranted I will expand an argument below that: (1) the existing Arbcom sanctions are ambiguous as to whether meta-pages are covered in the Obama topic bans and editing restrictions; (2) the edit warring, name-calling, accusations, etc., necessitating the sanctions, and harm to the project sought to be avoided were identical in article space, talk space, AfDs, ANI reports, templates, and user pages; (3) one cannot realistically prevent disruption to article and talk pages without preventing disruption to the meta-pages that exist to maintain order on those pages - if you disrupt AN/I as a forum for resolving problems in an article, you disrupt the article; (4) in this particular incident and in others in which I was not involved following the end of the case, ChildofMidnight's content disruption and personal attacks were the exact sort of behavior that merited the arbcom sanctions in the first place; and (5) given that a key reason mentioned explicitly by the arbitrators in enacting sanctions was that the conflict had spread to five or six project spaces, the intent of at least some arbitrators was that the sanctions should apply to those spaces. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

hatted by WD to avoid being too long
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If anyone really wants to solve this instead of wasting hundreds more hours of people's time in pointless process (which would add to a total in thousands), we need to recognize a few things. First, despite its title the matter here is not Obama articles or article probation. It is the behavior of several editors who happened to be at the same time and place during a 2-day period when Wikipedia was under politically motivated external attack. The attack subsided quickly, the articles maintained a stability, and there has never been a showing that these articles need the special (yet excruciatingly slow, bureaucratic, and frankly, ineffectual) type of attention Arbcom can provide. There is no problem addressed here that could not have been solved far more simply by a willing administrator. Second, once we acknowledge this as a simple behavior issue, there is and always has been only one editor here who has misbehaved to any significant degree. Can we stop this pretense and get real for a moment? If you look at the edit history of every editor involved in this latest incident, can you in all sincerity say that there is any systemic problem here? It is bizarre and dysfunctional to even be discussing the question of whether this peculiar institution we Wikipedians call a "topic ban" applies to one particular page or another, when it's so obvious we have someone acting out and causing trouble, who needs to stop acting out and causing trouble. But if we must, on the technical question of whether the wording of the existing topic ban includes all Obama-related pages, or just article and talk space, the simple answer is that it is textually ambiguous. "You must avoid doing X in Y, including Z" does not by itself establish whether Y and Z is an inclusive or exclusive condition, or whether you must actually be present in Y to be doing X. It is a fair call to say that ChildofMidnight should not be sanctioned for violating the ban in places where it is ambiguous, but now that we are here as a clarification rather than an enforcement, arbitrators may resolve the ambiguity in whatever way they feel most accomplishes the goals of the project. Whether covered by the ban or not, X was a bad thing to do, and falls on the heels of dozens of other bad things that were done. Can we please get this editor to stop doing X? He has been allowed to do X for nine months now to 30+ different editors and many important articles. It is hurting the project and wasting all our time. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

This is outrageous. More harassment from an editor whose behavior was so atrocious and inappropriate they had to be banned from further contact with me. I haven't made a single content edit to an Obama article. Stalkers, including the one above, have pursued my contributions to any article they can argue is somehow Obama related. It's a joke. This is a continuation of their campaign of smears and half-truths against me. If I'm not allowed to speak plainly about this editor's behavior and activities then they shouldn't be able to file reports like this. This is absolutely disruptive. This editor has worked long and hard to have me banned and blocked (and I'm not the only one. Diffs available upon request).

It's enough already that Arbcom rewarded their harassment, stalking, and abuse. Put a stop to this. They are not allowed to interact with me PERIOD. I can't be expected not to comment on them if they are allowed to continue to stalk me in this way. Obama articles are Obama articles. I have let the disputes go on periferally related articles and walked away to avoid drama, but Obama comments on lots of issues and topics and the stalking of me and accusations against me need to end. If there's a concern that my editing is controversial or on an Obama article there are plenty of people who can let me know without this kind of smearing attack. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DIFF OF A SUBSTANTIAL CONTENT CHANGE I'VE MADE TO OBAMA CONTENT and I haven't made a single comment on an Obama article talk page.

That this editor is allowed to continue editing the Obama articles despite their behavior and stalking and harassment of NUMEROUS editors is an outrage. That they are also allowed to continue their abusive behavior against me is shocking.

This team effort to abuse editors who challenge their censorship and violations of our core NPOV policy cannot be allowed to continue. The policy states: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable source. These abusive and disruptive editors simply drag their opponents again and again and again through the mud on various boards. Without their activities we could all be contributing constructively to article content.

Arbcom should be disgusted with itself for rendering a decision that encourages this pattern of abusive behavior. As I stated in the Obama arbitration, failing to take action against those making personal attacks and harassing good faith contributors will only encourage the problem to grow. That's exactly what we've seen. More editors have been chased off the articles and off Wikipedia because of this disgusting abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I will concede that I should not have added an article link to the list article page. It was a helpful edit and it's not content related or controversial, but it violated my topic ban. I think I didn't finish it (I was targeting it to the appropriate section) because I realized it was a no-no, but I don't really remember. I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time, but I shouldn't have made the edit at all. It was a mistake on my part and I apologize for it. I edit lots of articles so sometimes I may slip up. If someone wants to revert my change, go for it.

1RR on Obama articles would solve all this. I couldn't "edit war" and wouldn't have to keep dealing with this relentless stalking and harassment from these crazed POV pushers trying to find things to attack me with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I don't follow why this was brought here or what the confusion is. For question 2, the first answer was already given by Wizardman. Such editors may participate in meta discussions and AFD debates purely and simply because it's not a complete topic ban on all pages - it's limited to articles and their talk pages. However, they may not edit a list article that is related to Obama articles - that's, strictly speaking, a violation of the restriction. The diff supplied for ChildOfMidnight's topic ban violation which resulted in the block earlier today is accordingly incorrect.

As for the 3rd question on the comments made by CoM; I'm not aware of any restriction between the interactions of ChildOfMidnight and Unitanode. So there's no violation of some ArbCom restriction in those diffs, unless I'm missing something. However, they certainly have a quality that falls under general misconduct which can result in blocks and other sanctions of their own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC) modified slightly. 08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

With respect to Q2, I just assumed it was better to stay away from any Wikipedia document that involved Obama, except in processes such as these. It may be a broader interpretation than necessary, but it avoids confusion and it isn't exactly a hardship, is it? Wikipedia is a huge project, and the Obama-related articles can manage just fine without me for 6 months.

In the case of Q3, it doesn't really apply to me. I've had no contact with ChildofMidnight, apart from occasionally commenting on the same AfDs, RfAs, etc. I intentionally avoid articles where CoM participates. I'm well aware of CoM's continuous stream of accusations against other editors (particularly the use of terms such as "POV pushers"), including in these ArbCom-related discussions, but I prefer to just ignore them. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Guilt by association problem

This is partly a response to Wikidemon's "proposed motion". In the original case, proposed amendments and clarifications, discussions about me (and the sanctions placed upon me) have always been "lumped together" with ChildofMidnight. Except in the obvious case of the interaction sanction, I formally request that matters concerning me are treated completely independently from those concerning ChildofMidnight. Our editing histories, both prior and post the ArbCom case, could not be more different. Since the resolution of the case, our Wikipedia activity has been markedly different. I do not wish to be constantly associated with ChildofMidnight, because I am concerned that my efforts to be a better Wikipedian are being tarnished by what I view as guilt-by-association (both in the original ArbCom case, and the subsequent amendments and clarifications). This is not an unreasonable request, and I ask all parties (involved or otherwise) to give this matter due consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I think it's necessary for one or the other of Wikidemon's first two motions (or something like them) to be passed. The scope of the topic ban needs to be better defined, but I think that's completely up to the committee. As I previously mentioned to Wizardman, I had been interpreting the ban as something to be construed widely, akin to Wikidemon's first proposed motion. The question of how to think about the scope first came up in late June, and I was basing my thinking at the time on these comments from Arbs in a then-active request for clarification (the discussion had been linked to by another admin and it seemed very germane to the Obama topic bans). Reviewing those comments may or may not be useful as Arbs consider this matter.

I may well have been operating under a false impression of the scope of the topic bans and that's basically fine/partially my bad (though no one was blocked by me for violating a "broadly construed" topic ban), so long as it can be clarified here one way or another. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Jtrainor

I urge the Arbcom to stomp all over this complaint fast and furiously, with big, wooden clogs that have cleats strapped to them. CoM is absolutely correct that there are people that have been following him around Wikipedia and attempting to both provoke him and wikilawyer his restrictions to cover as wide an area as possible. Jtrainor (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by CIreland

I have previously applied the remedies in this case to prevent ChildOfMidnight from discussing Obama-related matters in project space (in particular, in deletion discussions). I did so on the basis of this recent Request for Clarification in which the arbitration committee explained that topic-bans which prohibited both discussion and article editing applied to all namespaces. CIreland (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed motions

1. The text of remedies no. 9 and 10 are amended as follows:

   [user] is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages. The ban is to be construed widely, to include Obama-related subjects within articles and associated talk pages whether or not the articles themselves are primarily about Obama, and pages in all namespaces (other than proceedings before Arbcom) pertaining to such articles.

2. (alternate) The text of remedies no. 9 and 10 are amended as follows:

   (9 and 10): [user] is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages. The ban is to be construed narrowly, to include only articles and associated talk pages primarily about Obama, and not pages in other namespaces.

3. The text of remedies no. 11 and 11.1 are amended as follows:

   [user1] and [user2] are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. For purposes of this remedy, negative comments about edits or behavior of the other, or procedural opposition to the other, in any namespace, whether by name, reference, or as a member of a small group of editors, (other than proceedings before Arbcom) shall be considered interaction. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

- Proposed by Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Question by Mythdon

Does the motion reset the clock of ChildOfMidnight's topic ban? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No. That's what the "timed to run from the date the case closed" bit is for. Still six months, just a widening of the range of the restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you! ChildOfMidnight could most certainly use this clarification, while I have no use for it, as it doesn't affect me, but, again, thank you. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 19:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment: As written, I interpreted the ban to be just the articles and article talk pages. Granted, you still have to be courteous if discussing it on the project space, that's just common sense. I'll defer to how the other arbs interpreted these remedies, and if they would like to make a motion modifying them. Wizardman 21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with Scjessy here: "With respect to Q2, I just assumed it was better to stay away from any Wikipedia document that involved Obama, except in processes such as these. It may be a broader interpretation than necessary, but it avoids confusion and it isn't exactly a hardship, is it? Wikipedia is a huge project, and the Obama-related articles can manage just fine without me for 6 months." I would urge CoM to do the same and find other things to do for 6 months. If he continues to get involved in Obama-related discussions, bringing more heat than light, such a broad interpretation of his ban may need to be formally passed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Have proposed a motion below to address the continuing conduct problems resulting from this case. The other clarification request from Wikidemon (about "editors under restriction not to interact with each other") may require a separate motion, but no arbitrators have addressed this yet, so awaiting further comments and discussions on that. Carcharoth (talk)
• I'd interpret a broader interpretation. If we need to enshrine as a motion maybe we'd better do that now. Tinkering around the edges with ongoing conflict is not a good thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Motions

Motion 1

There are 11 active arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed):

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.

Support:

1. Proposed. Noting that Scjessey is voluntarily holding to this extended level of restriction ("the Obama-related articles can manage just fine without me for 6 months"), and as the only other editor fully topic-banned in this case, I suggest Scjessey holds to that voluntary level of additional self-restriction. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes. Moving a dispute elsewhere is not an appropriate response to a sanction. — Coren ^(talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Concur with Carcharoth's additional comments. Risker (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse

1. Wizardman 16:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Request for clarification: Obama articles (4)

The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

• tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChildofMidnight&diff=prev&oldid=315112492)
• Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikidemon&diff=prev&oldid=315112529)

Statement by your Tznkai

Following this thread, on AE, it was pointed out that the mutual restriction remedy does not clearly mention administrator notice board and arbitration enforcement reports.

11.1) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

This seems to be an unintentional oversight, as reporting on eachother is at the very least, against the spirit of do not interact bans, and a bad idea besides. As noted by the committee before (See this motion) administrators are expected to use reasonable discretion and to make public interpretations, while the arbitration committee should make formal clarifications. Pursuant to that, I have posted my own interpretation that I will operate under.

So long as sufficient warning is given, ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon are not to report, or reply to reports about the other user. Such actions are considered "replies" as described in the Obama article remedies.

I ask that the committee confirm, reverse, or modify my actions as needed.--Tznkai (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural request by Wikdiemon

Can we please hold off on this? I've asked Tznkai to withdraw it for now[69] until we know where the discussion is taking place, because the exact same issue is under consideration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Who may speak before Arbcom seems to be an issue for arbitrators to decide, and they are already discussing it there.[70] Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Post-archival note - just realised I asked for this to be archived when no-one had commented on it (though some comments on the matter had been made elsewhere). Apologies for that. If either of the editors above want to reactivate this clarification request, please feel free to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Request to amend prior case: Obama articles (2)

The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Case affected

Obama articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 13) Grundle2600 admonished and restricted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Jayron32 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [71]

Amendment 1

• Grundle2600 admonished and restricted request to expand restricted actions to include "all types of tendentious editing including, but not limited to, WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, WP:COATRACK violations, etc. etc."

Statement by Jayron32

Grundle is under an admonishment and editing restriction of 1RR/week for his part in perpetuating tendendious edit wars at Obama-related articles. At Presidency of Barack Obama, he added a statement to the article which other editors challenged in good faith: see [72] for chronology of edits. He made his edit at 22:43, October 12 and was subsequently reverted. His immediate response was to tag the article with an Advertisement tag, which seems a blatant violation of WP:POINT, and given his history with problems of this nature, such violations should not go unattended to. The current ArbCom sanctions only deal explicitly with reverting, but does not cover such eggregious point-making attempts explicitly. Asking for clarification/ammendement to the case to make explicit that such actions are not particularly good. --Jayron32 03:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Ncmvocalist below, thank you for doing more legwork to dig up the now-expired community sanctions. I was unaware of that. I should note that Grundle2600 has, to my experience, been civil and courteous in talk page discussions, but the sort of passive-aggressive pointmaking behavior of deliberately misapplying a maintenance tag to make a WP:POINT about his personal opinion over an article seems disruptive beyond the pale. Normally, I would have merely warned him, or perhaps gone to ANI about this, but given his long history of problems at political articles, and the existing ArbCom sanction, both he AND the community are well aware of the prior problems he has had in this area, and he should be expected to know better. I do want to clarify that I don't necessarily seek a block right now over this singular incident, but rather to close a loophole in the ArbCom sanctions which, while preventing reverting, do not seem to cover this sort of tendentious, pointy disruption. I just think we need to broaden the sanctions to make sure that he cannot continue to be disruptive in other ways besides reverting. --Jayron32 13:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to several comments below, general tones, rather than specific editors. Let me make it clear that, in general, I am not asking that Grundle2600 be restricted from editing these articles, even editing them boldly, or engaging in civil talk page discussions regarding his edits. I fully support his doing so. We need alternate viewpoints and different voices at all articles at Wikipedia, including the Obama articles, and I have no problem in general with Grundle2600 over his content editing or his talk page discussions. What I am finding a big problem is the sort of pointy disruption where, when he doesn't get his way right away, he starts to drop clearly inappropriate tags on articles. I could even, possibly, maybe, a little bit excuse the use of a {{POV}} tag if he genuinely felt that the article only presented general praise of Obama (overt praise being distinctly different from lack of criticism), but the use of a tag like {{advertisement}} is a grossly disruptive act, and should not happen again. He should make bold edits. He should discuss these when they are contested, and provide relevent sources to back his position in civil discussion on talk pages, but he should NOT be encouraged to use tags as an act of rebellion against an article when he doesn't get his way. --Jayron32 20:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Grundle2600. You've been here 2 1/2 years. To claim that you "didn't know" what the advertisement tag said or how to check what it said before you posted it, or anything like that, is plainly dishonest. Either a) you knew exactly what it said, and you pu it in the article anyways as an act of willful defiance or b) you added it without knowing what it said, and without caring what it said. You cannot claim naivitee on this one, given how long you have been here. You'd have been much better off saying nothing than claiming such an act was some sort of honest mistake. That statement alone appears disingenuous on the face. --Jayron32 02:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Responses to concerns by arbitrators

A clarification or amendment by ArbCom would be most helpful in avoiding the endless "disrupt-receive warning-wait till everyone forgets-disrupt again" cycle which inevitably befalls these situations. What inevitably happens is that if an admin were to block someone like Grundle for a disruption like this, they would get unblocked as "having not been warned" or something like that. All I was asking for from ArbCom is clarification that disruption of the nature noted is explicitly blockable on the first occurance. I am not asking that Grundle2600 be topic banned or otherwise restricted from Obama articles, ONLY that Grundle2600 is expressly forbidden from disrupting the articles when he doesn't get his way. --Jayron32 05:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I was doing a bit of maintenance work on WP:RESTRICT and discovered that Grundle2600 was under a community topic ban (per this discussion) from articles related to US politics and politicians, from 25 June 2009 until 25 September 2009 (but the restriction explicitly allowed him to make suggestions and participate in discussion on talk pages provided he is civil and respectful to others.) Although Grundle2600 seemed to comply with this restriction for the duration specified, the moment it expired, he returned to editing those articles. I picked a handful of edits that were occurring on the articles he returned to - make of it what you will:

• 25 September 2009: [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]
• 26 Sept 2009: [78] [79]
• 26 & 27 Sept 2009: [80] [81] [82] [83]
• 5 October 2009: [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]
• 12 October 2009: [89] [90] [91] [92]
• 13 October 2009: [93] [94]

Note: there may be other edits (good or bad) that I did not pick up on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Jayron32 above, I can see what you're saying, and my opinion is no different to yours on whether a block is necessary over this incident (particularly at this late point). I also recall Grundle's edits (raised by Tarc below) to check how many minutes were left on his restriction which concerned me at the time; I considered it may resolve itself with time - obviously, it hasn't. Though I'd support attempts to close loopholes, I'm unconvinced that it will, on its own, resolve the underlying issues in this case; I don't think there will be a reform in his conduct as he doesn't seem to understand the issues with the edits above, let alone this particular incident. In such circumstances, something more may be needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In line with the comments below, I've taken it to ANI so that the community can attempt to impose further sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban reimposed indefinitely; ban also extended to any pages relating to US politics or politicians. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk request - Can you provide diffs/links to the imposition of this topic ban please? Manning (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

See [95] & [96]; seems it is no longer on the page after this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - what you gave me was enough to track down the archived version. Manning (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Grundle2600

After I added well sourced, relevant information to the article, people kept erasing the parts that were critical of Obama.

Without the criticsm, the article was POV, and looked like an advertisement, which is why I added the tags.

On this section of the article's talk page, I said:

"Saying "nope" is not a legitimate reason to remove large amounts of relevant, well sourced material."

"The person, PhGustaf, who made this edit, which removed a substanial amount of material, commented by saying "nope" and nothing else. The material that they removed had been discussed extensively on the talk page and talk page archive before it was added. Saying "nope" is not a legitimate reason to remove relevant, well sourced material."

"Removing large amounts of well sourced, relevant material that is critical of the subject makes the article POV and also makes it look like an advertisement. I have added the POV and advertisement tags to the article."

"NPOV states: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.""

"Why is it OK for the article to mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not OK for it to mention his actions in favor of offshore drilling?"

"How can anyone say that including his actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV?"

"There was consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. Also please explain why you think citing one of those things without simultaneously citing the other does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student? If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars?"

Thus, I did a very throrough job of explaining how the article was POV and looked like an advertisement. I also discussed these things in several other sections of the talk page, some of which are now in the talk page archives.

To anyone who thinks I should be punished for my actions, please answer the following question: How can anyone say that including his actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."?

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood what the Advertisement tag was for. I won't make that mistake again.

There is nothing wrong with me making posts on my own talk page to make absolutely sure that I did not edit political articles before my topic ban expired.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the people who want me to be punished have answered my questions in this arbitration discussion. Likewise, none of the people who want my additions to the article to be removed have answered my questions on the article's talk page. Without the things that I added, the article violates NPOV. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Grsz, my comments on the talk page that you pointed out are perfectly appropriate, and not in violation of any rules. The people who keep erasing the content from the article are the ones in violation of the rules, because NPOV states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." There was consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. Also please explain why you think citing one of those things without simultaneously citing the other does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student? If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

Note - I'm a party to the original case but more or less uninvolved in this particular editing dispute

I've watched this without becoming involved other than to wish Grundle2600 well and remove a couple tags I thought he was too hasty to place on an article[97] (leading to a polite discussion between us). Just a quick impression here. I know some editors are frustrated with Grundle2600's ongoing participation, in the form of suggestions and now edits to add material they consider biased and where they see sourcing / synthesis problems. Although not always ideal, Grundle's proposals and their rejection look to be a series of content disputes no worse than what goes on every day and gets handled through normal process. It is here again only because there was a prior Arbcom case. But for that this is a routine matter well within the ability of the community to deal with. I don't think we would have an Arbcom case in the first place if this were the worst things got. What I'm trying to say is that this strikes me as under the radar. I don't really have any objective way to prove that or any diffs, just a hunch that we can all work constructively with Grundle2600 if we want, which should be the preference rather than giving up. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by 4wajzkd02

See this edit and this discussion. I would like this editor to succeed in appropriately having his point of view added to the encyclopedia, but he is not listening and making WP:POINTs instead of consenus-driven contributions. I support the amendment proposed, but am concerned that it may not be enough to prevent this editor from gaming the system. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc.

In addition, if you look at the editor's contributions since this Amendment request, you'll see that the behavior of concern noted here continues unabated, even after the editor's statement (which strains credulity in that he asserts a position regarding WP:NPOV that, after all this time and all these interventions, is not supported by the facts).

Finally, if you look at Talk:2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize#Obama_sends_another_13.2C000_troops_to_Afghanistan_less_than_one_week_after_Nobel_Peace_Prize_win, he admits to adding a new section despite knowing that "it didn't need its own section - it's just that I didn't know where else to put it" and "the information itself is relevant, because of the incredible irony involved". I cannot believe that the editor fails to understand that both of these positions are incorrect behavior.

Thus, I've stricken my support for this amendment, and instead call for an indefinite ban from all Obama-related articles, broadly defined, in all namespaces. I hope then that the editor can find other areas in WP in which to contribute (and does not end up with a political topic ban, broadly defined). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Referring again to Talk:2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize#Obama_sends_another_13.2C000_troops_to_Afghanistan_less_than_one_week_after_Nobel_Peace_Prize_win, either this editor knows what he is doing is wrong (and thus is being disingenuous and purposefully disruptive), or does not understand despite being told/warned/blocked/sanctioned/guided/warned-again/etc (and is being unintentionally disruptive, but disruptive nonetheless and, so far, incapable of learning). I don't see a middle ground. How will being "mentored" help him change his ways? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PhGustaf

I would agree with Grundle that "nope" is a rude edit summary. But, this has been going on for too long. Grundle is consistently polite and pleasant on talk pages, but consistently reposts the same old stuff rejected repeatedly by consensus. His three-month hiatus didn't work. User:wikidemon has been extraordinarily supportive of Grundle. If they both agree, perhaps a mentorship is in order. PhGustaf (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc that Grundle has worked the doe-eyed naif role too long. PhGustaf (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that any new or refreshed restrictions apply to talk pages too. There's no utility in recycling the same cheap shots over and over. PhGustaf (talk)

Statement by Tarc

Honestly, I think the time has come to drop the hammer here. Compared to serial disruptors such as ChildofMidnight, sure, Grundle looks unassuming, but looking at the overall approach of these two to Obama/political-related articles is like watching a case of good-cop-bad-cop. That Grundle is taking the honey approach rather than the vinegar shouldn't mean that his transgressions should be dealt with more leniently than others.

We have the recent editing linked to here. We have the long, long, long talk page histories at Talk:Gerald Walpin, Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, and Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama, where he picked up the same exact arguments left off months ago before the topic ban. Christ, he was making test edits to his talk page to measure to the minute when the topic ban would expire!

Enough is enough. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Grsz11

I don't even know what to describe it as, but this chain ([98], [99], [100], [101]) is inappropriate. He then re-added all the contentious material previously removed and discussed. Grundle refuses to get the point. There is a mechanism that can deal with this besides constantly coming to ARBCOM, but I am unsure why nobody with the tools will act. Grsz¹¹ 23:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

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

Further discussion

Clerk notes

• Subject has been put under a community topic ban. (link to debate). The consensus-approved wording was "Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks." Manning (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment - I've never seen anyone do this and this before. Thanks to Tarc for pointing that out. I will wait for further statements from my fellow arbitrators, and an explanation from Grundle, but counting down the minutes until a topic ban expires shows completely the wrong attitude. I've also reviewed the edits provided by Ncmvocalist, and I see Grundle reigniting old battles. Also, this is not good conduct. I would support a motion to extend the restrictions in some way, while also noting the statement by Wikidemon. Carcharoth (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Appears to have been resolved by community topic ban. As far as I'm concerned, nothing further needed from ArbCom here, though this request should still be archived to the case talk page for the record, and possibly the community ban noted on the main case page as well, for future reference. Carcharoth (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• I am entirely unclear why this is at ArbCom's doorstep. Previous ongoing problems with the editor were handled by a community ban previously and the topic area is under probation. I do not see why these community tools would be insufficient to address this situation. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• In response to Jayron's request for clarification: An editor that has been repeatedly warned about a particular sort of conduct need not receive fresh warnings for every new instance. This is trebly true for an editor that was previously subjected to serious sanctions for such behavior (such as a community ban). The purpose of providing a warning is to give an editor a fair opportunity to become aware concerns, understand them, and adjust their behavior accordingly (in accord with the spirit of WP:BITE and WP:AGF). It should not be used as a wikilawyering weapon when the editor has received plenty of such guidance. Vassyana (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• If the community wants to re-start the topic ban then go for it. Or are we being asked to implement one? Wizardman 15:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Request to amend prior case: Obama articles (3)

Initiated by Sceptre ^(talk) at 01:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Obama articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Finding 8
2. Remedy 4, 5, 10.2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Username2 (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
• Username3 (repeat above for all parties)

Amendment 1

• Obama articles finding 8
• Remove the assertions that I "engaged in edit summary attacks".

Statement by Sceptre

Carry-over from the previous amendment request: I do not believe that the word "fuck", used in exasperation, automatically makes a statement an attack. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 2

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
• Early expiration of mine, Stevertigo's, and Scjessey's edit restrictions.

Statement by Sceptre

The intention of arbitration committee remedies, as I understand it, is to prevent further disruption. While the remedies passed back in June were needed at the time, I don't believe they are needed now, at least for me, Steve, and Scjessey. The restrictions, I believe, have served their purpose of persuading; at least myself and Scjessey, and probably Steve (as evidenced by this discussion) have turned to a less confrontational, more collegial and discussion-based method of dispute resolution. Unfortunately, I do not believe the same can be said for ChildOfMidnight or Grundle2600; COM is the subject of a current RFC and Grundle was community banned from politics articles several months ago. Per the principle of assuming good faith, I respectfully request the committee expire our remedies early, approximately five and a half months before their natural expiration. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Re ChildOfMidnight: your diffs paint me as an Internet liberal troll, which is not that all. I don't hate all conservatives; I just hold a massive disdain for the types that deny reality as I think their politically motivated editing—which verges on defamation—has no place on Wikipedia. The same goes for a hardline communist editor whose politically motivations compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia; see Anonimu for an example where I did entirely that. Oh, and personally? I honestly think Obama is a better-tempered version of Bush. He's certainly not the Liberal Messiah people think he is. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I find it funny that you think I'm persecuting you, and produce a diff where I support allowing you to edit! Sceptre ^(talk) 04:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Bigtimepeace: There isn't any "battleground mentality" in this request. Stevertigo was on the opposing side to me during the dispute nine months ago. I'm opposing lifting COM's sanction because of the current RFC, and Grundle's because of his recent topic ban. If this did not happen to Grundle or COM, I would have added them to this request too. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I second Scjessey's request to withdraw this amendment. Again, I feel the restriction was passed unfairly, but allowing COM to soapbox is just not on. I'll be taking this to AE, however, as I believe this constitutes a violation of COM's restriction (Remedy 11). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

My restriction is one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles. I was given this restriction because of two specific instances of edit warring (one of which was only 2 reverts, and I was unblocked by another administrator). I have found this to be somewhat restrictive insofar as it forces me to check my contribs before every reversion I make in this topic, but not really a huge deal. In this particular topic, I engage in a lot of talk page discussion, but not much article editing. It would certainly be convenient to have the restriction lifted, but I'm not going to make any special effort to petition for that. I'd be happy to adhere to the spirit of the restriction voluntarily, if that helps, because it would save me from having to monitor my own contribs quite so religiously. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to be withdrawn from this Amendment

Although I felt the editing restriction I am subject was unjustly applied to me, it has not been too burdensome to deal with (as I stated above). I did not ask to be a party to this Amendment (I was notified only after the request was made), and given the fact that this process has been abused by another editor as an excuse to attack me, I think it would be better off not having anything to do with it. I am not sure if this is procedurally-appropriate, but I would like to formally request withdrawal from this proposed Amendment, reserving the right to appeal my restriction at a later date if I feel the need. If ArbCom agrees with my request, I give my permission for my entire block of statements to be struck out or deleted as seen fit. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to statement by ChildofMidnight

I do not see this as a violation of my interaction restriction with ChildofMidnight because Wikipedia must surely allow me the right to defend myself against that editor's misrepresentations. I see no point in referring to CoM implicitly, as he has attempted to do about me. Let me address each of CoM's points in turn:

• diff, diff - These diffs refer to a conversation I had with an administrator in which I was seeking advice for how to handle specific concerns about the interaction restriction. This Request for Amendment is exactly the sort of situation for which I sought advice, after earlier asking an ArbCom member about it and not getting anywhere.
• diff - A moment of despondency after being hounded out of an AfD by a group of editors who frequently collaborate with ChildofMidnight because I had the audacity to !vote for deletion of an article that turned out to be one he created.
• diff - A claim of edit warring was made against me that the reviewing administrator disagreed with. Also of note was the involvement of Caspian blue (talk · contribs), a frequent collaborator of CoM, who came out of nowhere to try to get me sanctioned.
• CoM makes reference to a thread on my talk page concerning an editing sanction that applies to him, and claims it is "clearly being left up to be pointy in violation of user page rules". This is a complete fantasy. I assume CoM is referring to this thread, created by an ArbCom clerk. An examination of my talk page will reveal I have left up every warning and/or sanction I have ever received, including everything relating to the ArbCom case posted by clerks. The amended remedy to CoM's topic ban was not applied to me because I had offered to voluntarily follow the same restriction (which I did).
• CoM's statement then rambles on with vague and unsupported claims of bias, POV-pushing, etc. I don't see any point in trying to defend myself against nebulous misrepresentations. I have noted CoM's penchant for this sort of thing in endless WP:ANI threads so I am sure ArbCom will see this for what it is.

And so that pattern of misrepresentations about me from ChildofMidnight continues. In my opinion, this tactic of his is the reason I was sanctioned in the Obama-related ArbCom case in the first place, but what's done is done. I am not seeking a relaxation of my editing restriction (although one would be welcome), so I can only assume CoM's pointy statement attacks me purely for his personal satisfaction. Hopefully, someone will have the good sense to refer to CoM's misrepresentations in this Request for Amendment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to statement by Bigtimepeace

Bigtimepeace refers to "some concerns about edit warring" with respect to me. Any accusations of edit warring have been found to be without merit, and I have received no sanctions or warnings. I think it is important this is made clear. I would also like to point out that the 1RR restriction applied to me (and CoM, for that matter) was as a result of this block that was applied after only 2 reversions. Both CoM and I have long agreed that we were both treated unfairly by both the blocking admin, and by ArbCom, with respect to this specific matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

The inherent problems with this report include:

1. Sceptre's failure to inform me or the other editor he disparages in his summary of this discussion.
2. Sceptre using a request to amend his restrictions (arguing he's no longer confrontational) to be confrontational in taking unnecessary pot shots at editors he disagrees with

His recent editing history also shows that he is as much or more of a problem than he was in the past.

1. Refers to other editors as "idiots" in a cursing edit summary [102]
2. Uses unnecessarily inflammatory "bullshit" in edit summary [103]
3. Continues to use very partisan and soap boxy edit summaries to attack and disparage political parties and viewpoints he disgrees with [104]. He's used the "conservatard" epithet in a past edit summary.
4. Discusses his desire to ban an editor with inflammatory language: "I'm the only one who has the balls to post on ANI to get him banned. Really, we all want him gone. But sometimes I think that it would take a dead body before people stopped brown-nosing him. And maybe not even then. I'm not saying that he'd do that, but, honestly, the noses are so far into the rectal cavity it's unbelievable. Sceptre (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
5. He also makes the comment "...we're more insistent on sycophantically brown-nosing our precious little Designated Dissenter and letting him go off on his little harassment and trolling spree..." in the same thread.
6. Removes a thread with unnecessarily provocative edit summary "troll thread" [105]
7. Pursues editors he disagrees with (often in inflammatory misrepresentations intended to smear) to try to ban and block them [106] and [107].
8. Disrupts ANI discussion with disruptive off-topic soap boxing [108] and [109]
9. Disrupts article talk pages that are on probation because of past disruptions using inflammatory and potentially offensive diatribes [110] "In other news, an amputee has recalled that losing his legs "stings a little bit". Sceptre ^(talk) 05:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)"
10. Sceptre's confronational approach and seeking out of disagreements has also occured at the RfC instituted by Bigtimepeace in collusion with editors who are not supposed to be commenting to or about me (see section below this one) [111], [112].

• The other party to this request under an editing restriction that is supposed to prevent either of us from commenting to or about each other. This was imposed at my request to stop a long term pattern of stalking and harassment, but has been violated repeatedly in comments made about me, my editing, my "friends" etc. etc. even after I posted repeated notifications on pages where the violations took place (such as Bigtimepeace's talk page where editors restricted from commenting to or about me have been colluding with that admin to come after me).

The persistent Arbcom restriction violations include:

1. [113]
2. [114]
3. [115]
4. There was also aggressive and relentless involvment by that editor to have an article I created deleted (the only AfD as far as I can tell that he was involved in discussing around that time). [116]
5. There was also a recent incident of edit warring (five in a row) that wasn't followed up on by Tony Sideways because the page was protected. [117] (compare this to the core justification for my Obama restriction which was a trumped up allegation that 4 edits over two days on a page that I had left off editing while working on other articles was "edit warring". This came after the 7th or 8th abusive ANI report made against me trying to have me blocked.)
6. There is also an entire thread on this editor's talk page about an editing sanction imposed on me many months ago that is clearly being left up to be pointy in violation of user page rules (not to mention the Arbcom restrictions).

• There are MANY MANY other diffs of improper and abusive behavior that I am willing to make available to Arbcom upon request, but in order to comply with the editing restrictions in good faith I'm not going to post additional diffs here except those directly relevant to my being on the direct receiving end of continued abuse and violations related to the Obama article and other political subjects nasty and intolerant places to edit. Many good faith editors have been chased off and the time is long overdue for Arbcom to start addressing these problems.
• Please keep in mind that I believe in and adhere to transparency, so I will not able to e-mail them via back channels the way other editors do. I would have made requests for enforcement, but they are time consuming and have been used in the past to go after me, so I'd be satisfied if there are no more violations going forward.
• I'd like to focus on article work and I hope that this Arbcom will take seriously the need to address POV pushing, stalking, abusive behavior, collusion, and other means to use Wikipedia for propaganda purposes.
• It should be noted, for example, that Bigtimepeace refused to address the Arbcom violations and continues to come after me and other editors who he disgrees with politically. He and RD232 should be advised to stop abusing their admin tools on in order to push their POV on political subjects where they are passionately involved.
• I also believe that checkusers should be sweeping the Obama editing pages to prevent socking by editors there. I have strong suspicions that there is aggressive and organized collusion, sock puppeting, and meat puppeting by some of those heavily involved in patrolling those pages against perspectives they disagree with, no matter how notable.
• Imposing the long overdue civility restrictions many of us requested previously would be a good start. It should be noted that I took part in the Obama Arbcon at Wizardman's request and highlighted the problems on the article and article talk pages in the hopes that we could get some means of enforcement. Instead of that we've seen encouragement and a worsening of the improper behaviors, aggressive ownership issues, soap boxing and other disruptions on those pages.Obliging this request would be a BIG step in the wrong direction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I'll comment here since I was mentioned repeatedly above and have a familiarity with the background. My advice to the Arbs would be to not act in any fashion on this request for amendment. Like ChildofMidnight, I don't think Sceptre's recent behavior remotely warrants a loosening of current ArbCom restrictions. That editor seems to have adopted a battleground take on the Obama articles (this edit to a current RfC, referenced by C of M, was just ridiculous) and as such it seems highly inadvisable to relax revert restrictions (incidentally, gratuitously referencing two editors who Sceptre thinks should keep their restrictions in his request here also demonstrates this battleground mentality). I think the revert restrictions are fine for Scjessey and Stevertigo as well (the former does not seem to mind them that much and apparently there have been some concerns about edit warring (addendum: though these do seem to be minor and relate to one incident, also as far as I know it's not an issue on the Obama pages), and I can't speak to the behavior or feelings of the latter) and need not be repealed early. Edit warring is particularly problematic on Obama-related articles, and I just don't see a convincing argument for removing any of the restrictions at this time.

I'll also speak to ChildofMidnight's complaints which pertain in some fashion to me or my talk page. First I would point out that this is obviously not the place to discuss those issues, but Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight certainly is as I was one of the certifiers of the RfC and can therefore be put under scrutiny there (ChildofMidnight has not yet participated in the RfC, which has garnered a lot of comment). C of M's reference to "the RfC instituted by Bigtimepeace in collusion with editors who are not supposed to be commenting to or about me" is utter fantasy. Essentially all of the evidence for the RfC was provided only by me, and the editors to whom C of M is referring (as far as I know Scjessey, Wikidemon, and BaseballBugs are the only three editors in mutual interaction bans with ChildofMidnight) had absolutely no input whatsoever into the RfC either on or off-wiki.

The "Arbcom restriction violations" on my talk page to which C of M refers took place in this thread which originated nearly a month ago, but still had some comments a couple of weeks back. C of M commented about it at the time and I told him I did not think these were violations (while acknowledging that others might disagree), at which point he could have obviously pursued the matter elsewhere and did not. Basically two editors and I were discussing how interaction would work once certain Obama topic bans were lifted, and this was an issue I eventually discussed with Carcharoth and ChildofMidnight. In the course of discussion on my talk page references were made to ChildofMidnight by editors who cannot interact with him (definitely too directly in the end), however this was in the context of genuinely trying to figure out how several editors restricted from interacting would handle editing on the same articles. The question was put to an Arb by me and sort of left hanging at that time, and any sort of "Arb enforcement" over the conversation struck me as an eminently bad idea. I invite the Arbs to look over the thread linked above and if they feel I was remiss to allow that conversation to occur on my talk page then by all means put the blame squarely in my lap. It's a bit of a Catch-22 when it comes to editors with interaction restrictions trying to clarify those restrictions, and that's what I was trying to navigate when someone showed up on my talk page.

At any rate all of this is tangential to the matter at hand and not something ChildofMidnight should have brought to this limited request. If he wants to take me to task with specific diffs of my misbehavior (as I've invited him to do on countless occasions) he knows where his RfC is, and if he takes issue with Sceptre he can start a user conduct RfC on that editor. For problems with editors with whom he is restricted from interacting per an ArbCom decision, he should probably just e-mail the committee (or perhaps a neutral admin) directly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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 Tarc

Both ChildofMidnight's and Grundle2600's behavior has been atrocious since the ArbCom restrictions...the former must be dragged to AN/I on a regular basis...ironically, for behavior in AN/I...and has a current RfC/U filed against him, which he has so far declined to particulate in, while the latter has had to be indef'ed first from Obama articles, then politics, and now politically-oritented BLPs.

But going by the sentiments expressed below in the Judea and Samaria case, there doesn't seem to be a need to request that these two be excluded from the amendment request, as arbcom does not honor blanket amnesties anyways. You can make your own request for amendments without having to worry that it must be applied across the board. Tarc (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• From what I can see, the RFC for ChildofMidnight (CoM) is a currently active stage in dispute resolution that needs to be left to work through to its conclusion. I see Sceptre's point that CoM maybe shouldn't have commented here, but some of the diffs he quotes are concerning - the language used by Sceptre does not look acceptable at first glance. On the actual request itself, I see no reason to lift any of the restrictions early, and would suggest both Sceptre and CoM disengage from this request and not engage in any back-and-forth between themselves, but restrict themselves to waiting and responding to points raised by arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see any convincing evidence that these restrictions should be lifted at this time; there still appear to be issues with a battleground mentality. I would also suggest that ChildofMidnight seriously consider the concerns currently being raised at the RFC. Shell ^babelfish 13:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with Shell in all respects. Steve Smith (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Shell - I think more time is needed Fritzpoll (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with Shell Kinney. Noting that Scjessey has asked to be removed from this request. Vassyana (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

---