Initiated by jps (talk) at 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience
2. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Current wording: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience reads "16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
• Suggested rewording: Replace the above principle with: "16) Theories which have a following but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
• Precedent: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Modified_by_motion
• Rationale: singling out "astrology" is problematic and essentially a content ruling which is beyond arbcom's remit. Problematic aspects of this finding include: 1) indicating that astrology is a "theory" which it certainly isn't in the sense of a scientific theory, 2) insinuating by negative association with a previous principle that astrology is somehow not "obvious pseudoscience" which is a highly questionable proposition. Removing the specific example corrects these problems.

Rationale for the amendment is made above. jps (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate wording of this amendment. see my comments under amendment 2 below for explanation and discussion:

Suggested rewording

16) Theories which have a following in the lay public but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. --Ludwigs2 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Current wording: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable science reads "17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."
• Suggested rewording: Replace the above principle with: "17) Theories which have a substantial following but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience may contain information to that effect."
• Precedent: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Modified_by_motion
• Rationale: singling out "psychoanalysis" as "questionable science" and declaring a class of subjects that "should not be characterized" in defiance of reliable sources which say otherwise are both problematic assertions and essentially content rulings which are beyond arbcom's remit. Problematic aspects of this finding include: 1) indicating that psychoanalysis is a "science" which it is not generally considered to be — not even a "questionable" one. It is, rather, a technique that offers a perspective on human behavior, theory of mind, and modes of dysfunction. 2) insinuating by negative association with a previous principle that psychoanalysis is somehow not "obvious pseudoscience" which is a POV that attacks the perspective of such luminaries as Richard Feynman who outlines his argument in favor of psychoanalysis being a pseudoscience in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!. Removing the specific example corrects these problems. 3) The final directive, that these kinds of proposals and ideas "generally should not be so characterized" is a vague and unhelpful directive that has caused problems with editors debating whether a topic is truly "pseudoscientific" or merely "questionable science" — a meaningless and terrible game that puts the focus on trying to read the tea leaves of arbcom decisions rather than looking at the most reliable sources and trying to decide from them what the mainstream academic understanding of a subject is. In practice, this ruling is ignored by editors at, for example, list of pseudosciences because it is so contrary to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines (example discussion). I propose that the easiest way to resolve this apparent contradiction is to amend the ruling so that it no longer makes claims to content adjudication and instead returns editorial control of pseudoscience characterization to what reliable sources say on the subject.

Rationale for the amendment is made above. jps (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a participant in the original case, but I am a regular at the fringe theory noticeboard. Personally I tend to favor examples, but if we have precedent for omitting them, so be it. I do not think the last clause should be dropped through amendment, however. In the case of psychoanalysis it seems to me that the article needs to reflect the mainstream viewpoint and express Feynman's criticism as that of a dissenter (assuming of course that this situations still obtains-- but if it didn't there wouldn't be any pressure to use this as an example). Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources that show that Feynman's critique is close to the mainstream academic understanding of psychoanalysis. I just used his critique as an example. jps (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I prefer Ludwigs2's wording I don't think I would interpret the consequences of following it so stringently as he holds. In general for a subject of some controversy there is reason to mention the controversy in the lead. In the cases in question, there is some difference, however small, between a field which has always had trouble gaining general academic acceptance and another field which once enjoyed some degree of respect but which is now falling out of favor. As it appears at this instant it seems to me that the lead for parapsychology is up front about the controversy, and those testifying against it seem more relevant as authorities. Looking at the material in psychoanalysis is a lot more problematic, not the least of which problem is the considerable space devoted to criticisms from philosophers. If we had some solid sources from psychologists saying "look, we tried this stuff, and we now think it's a bunch of hooey" it would be a lot easier to class it as old, dead pseudoscience.

There's a content issue here of exactly how similar the two cases are. My sense of what's in the articles now is that they support calling the one pseudoscientific better than they do the other, but that there's some possibility of finding better material for the latter. In the case of string theory there is a lot of doubt being expressed but surely not to the same degree; the lead of that article is up front about the dispute but does not go so far as to elevate those doubts to the level of calling the theory discredited. I feel that we have more of an issue which can be dealt with here about specifically the wording of article leads. My interpretation of the various versions is that none of them which has been proposed here would forbid any use of the word "pseudoscience" in a lead; as I see it the issue is in expressing the consensus and how disagreement relates to it. Even if the line between them is not always sharp, I think we need distinct cases where there is general agreement that a matter is pseudoscientific and where there substantial opinion which has not been accepted as consensus. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is problematic. Why should even a noted scholar like Feynman be used on wikipedia to critique an entire field of scholarship for which he has no special training or expertise? He is a physicist, not a psychologist or a specialist in the philosophy of science, so the most he's qualified to say is that psychoanalysis is not good physics (which I think we all already knew). We're not talking about UFO technology here: psychoanalysis is a valid field of research in its own right, and if it's going to be critiqued it should be done so by professionals in the relevant research area. Feynman is not even close. This is precisely the kind of thinking we do not want to encourage.

The sticking point, I think, is in the ambiguity of the phrase Theories which have a substantial following... which is used in both sections. The 'substantial following' of psychoanalysis is of a different character entirely than the 'substantial following' of astrology. Clarify that, and I think the problem resolves itself more cleanly. so, I'll offer the following as a counter-suggestion:

Suggested rewording

17) Theories which have a substantial presence in academic scholarship should not be characterized as pseudoscience, but may contain scholarly critiques which refer to them as pseudoscience.

I would interpret this to mean that Feynman could be used on the psychoanalysis page, but only in the body (not in the lead), and only properly contextualized as a debate about the rigor of psychoanalysis' methods. I've added a parallel revision to the other amendment request above. --Ludwigs2 19:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonably good formulation providing it says "... in current academic scholarship" as there are cases where pseudoscientific ideas have enjoyed academic favor prior to their rejection. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(please move if this is the wrong place to comment) I understand the concerns about overly weighting minority critiques, but the same rationale Ludwigs2 uses to dismiss Feynman's characterization of psychoanalysis could also be used to argue that famous critiques of parapsychology do not warrant mention in the lead of that particular article. The problem with Ludwigs2's proposed wording is, as I see it, that what constitutes a "substantial presence" in "academic scholarship" is very difficult to gauge. To wit, there are far fewer academic psychologists willing to go to bat for the scientific legitimacy of Freudian or Jungian theories than there were in the past, and the number of true psychoanalysts employed in the academy is most-assuredly steadily dropping (they're a minority in psychology departments these days, which is ruefully acknowledged by the psychoanalysts themselves). At what point do we as editors decide that the pendulum has swung enough to include the characterization of a subject as being pseudoscientific in the lead? This, I think, is NOT something that the arbitration committee should be deciding. It's something that informed editors need to decide after considering the sum total of the reliable sources on the subject. Trying to legislate this treatment from on-high is just inviting an additional conflict over the semiotics of arbcom decisions. If a hypothetical featured-article writer wants to improve our article on psychoanalysis and makes an editorial decision to deal with the academic critiques of the subject in a single sentence in the lead, why should their hands be tied by an arbitrary arbcom content ruling? jps (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't create the content ruling - that was here before I joined the project. I just think that if arbcom is going to indulge in a content ruling regardless, they ought to do it correctly.

As to why your hypothetical editor should have his hands tied... My belief on this matter is that any topic that has active, productive, ongoing work in the scholarly world is precluded from being pseudoscience by definition for the time frame it is active in the scholarly world. Each community of scholars gets to decide for itself what is and what is not 'scientific' for its field - that's the way it works in the academy - and so long as the field itself is accepted by the greater academic community, wikipedia should not be implying that it is somehow less than scientific. That does a disservice to the scientific world as a whole (where does wikipedia get off telling the scientific community that a field they currently accept as valid is actually pseudoscience?) Scientists are allowed to sneer at perceived methodological flaws of other disciplines, obviously, but wikipedia cannot present that as truth without without running afoul of a large number of academic scholars who happen to be in that other discipline. And yes, this is retroactive. Parapsychology can be considered pseudoscience now but for the brief period it was actively investigated by reputable scholars, it was science. Psychoanalysis may (probably will) eventually reach a stage where no scholars take it seriously, and anyone who practices psychoanalysis after that can safely be considered a pseudoscientist, but as of now it's still a valid area of scholarly research and deserves to be considered a science.

As I've said before, the entire range of fringe science conflicts on wikipedia boils down to two species of editors who both drastically misunderstand what science is. On one hand there are editors who are overly-enthused about improbable possibilities and think all such deserve to be called science; on the other, there are editors who seem to believe that 'science' can be defined as an abstract universal against which everything can be measured. Both approaches are wrong-headed. We shouldn't be trying to determine when something starts or stops being a science - if the status of a field is not patently obvious from the way scholars deal with the subject, then we should gracefully maintain the status quo (keeping unaccepted fields as unaccepted and established fields as established until scholarship makes things clearer). --Ludwigs2 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This sort of amendment is the sort of legal nitpicking that is not really important to the management of en.wikipedia. While singling out certain types of groups in the final decision is not the best practice, amending the decision two or so years later is also not the best practice. I think those on the committee would be better to spend the precious time they devote to committee activities to work on real disputes and problems within the community. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Please move this comment if it should be placed somewhere else.) There are real disputes regarding these rulings that are ongoing on various pages. For example, Talk:Acupuncture has active editors insisting that these arbcom rulings are relevant to discussions of categorical labeling. In the past, the fact that the committee chose to make a content ruling such as this has emboldened editors to edit war with the claim that they are carrying out arbcom's commands. jps (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think ArbCom should not revise their findings. Instead, just state that it was an understanding of the policy at the time, not a binding directive independent from established policy; direct editors to WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV rules that are binding now. Wash your hands of the content matter and be done with it. Vassyana (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't think it's possible to wash ones hands of the content matter when there's always at least one genius editor who will be using that as a basis to push their silly POV much to the frustration of everyone else. It's a select few decisions that seem to have this issue, so it's better to just remove those mentions for everyone's sanity; the effort it takes to remove the content decisions compared to the time dedicated to explaining why that is out of date and not binding is quite a bit less in the grand scheme of things. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about what I quickly drafted out below? Vassyana (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well given that Fred seem to have noticeably been absent when similar issues have arisen, I don't see what the incentive would be for him to pop up and say "yes, that's not really what I meant in the long term - cut 2006's now-obvious-and-spotted mistakes from the decision". I don't see a reason why we can't proactively deal with the issue; why wait for the genius to pop up when that's what this amendment request seems to want to avoid based on past experience? If I wasn't busy in July, I'd have advised you to deal with these at the same time as when principle 15 of the decision was being dealt with. This just becomes weird and inconsistent if you're making amendments a few months ago, but now you want to say some parts of the decision aren't binding anymore.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would you phrase such an edict, Vassyana? It needs to be incorporated into the finding so it can be referred to. jps (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something like, "X and Y from Decision Z are not binding policy. The Arbitration Committee recognizes that the community has rules in place to deal with this topic area. Editors should refer to the Neutral Point of View and Fringe Theories policies and noticeboards (NPOV, FT) for current guidance, per community norms." Probably not perfect, but I think the gist is clear. Vassyana (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I would likely have supported these changes (and a number of others) if I had been an arbitrator when the Pseudoscience case was decided in 2006, but I am not convinced that any infelicities of the wording are doing any actual harm some four years later. (I'd reconsider this conclusion if there were a showing that the wording is being thrown in people's faces as pretermitting legitimate content or categorization arguments.) Perhaps it would be sufficient if I and other arbitrators observed here that the examples given in the decision do not constitute binding rulings by the Arbitration Committee. Perhaps Fred Bauder, who wrote the decision, would care to offer his perspective on the matter. I'd also like to welcome my former colleague Vassyana, who has commented above, back to this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to concur with Vassyana. It's four years later, and the community has moved this along; we're not in the business of reworking what is now the community's guideline, and that the community is certainly at liberty to update as it feels appropriate. Risker (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the best thing here is to simply remind everyone that examples in decisions are just that: examples. They are, by definition, not exhaustive or definitive. While they might have been helpful to clarify things at the time, they are not binding. — Coren ^(talk) 16:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ (per User:Shell Kinney) at 03:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

User:Koavf/Community sanction

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
2. Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
3. Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

None outstanding, but all users who commented at AN have been notified.

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Note: these will be added after I have submitted this proposal, so that I can post a static diff of this page to the users' talks.

• diff at User talk:Fetchcomms
• diff at User talk:Swatjester
• diff at User talk:Jayron32
• diff at User talk:Ncmvocalist
• diff at User talk:EdJohnston
• diff at User talk:FayssalF
• diff at User talk:Explicit
• diff at User talk:Good Olfactory

This has a long history and you can go down the rabbit hole following this from ArbCom to AN to user talk pages and back to ArbCom (e.g.), but basically put: I have three editing restrictions noted above and I would like them lifted. My lengthier proposal and rationale from before are copied and pasted:

I am under a community sanction editing restriction with three clauses. I am:

1. Limited to editing with a single account.
2. Prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
3. Subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

While I have had further blocks (including two in the past two years), these criteria have only been invoked once and subsequently overturned through a good-faith appeal. Five prior cases involved 1RR/3RR violations, including ones that were related to Western Sahara only in the broadest possible sense (e.g List of states with limited recognition.) It is possible that I have made some other small edits to articles related to this issue (I have made many edits since then), but I have not made any substantial edits to these topics, nor has any user complained that I have (including blocking admins.)

As I stated in my request for rollback re-institution, I am a reliable editor who has not recently engaged in edit-warring and is constructive in his edits. I have used my roll-back ability (as well as Huggle and Twinkle) to fight vandalism, I have made several thousands constructive edits, I have had articles promoted to FA status through my own work and collaboration with others, and if you speak with users who have known me over the last five years, you will find that I have been an increasingly thoughtful and trusted member of the community. I have helped new users and made several proper posts to AN/I and AN/V to help the community avoid edit-warring and vandalism. I feel like I have reached a level of maturity such that this edit restriction is not necessary in practice or theory; in the three years that it has been in place, I have become a much more sober-headed and constructive editor who is trustworthy. I do have a long block history, but note that there are other editors who have longer ones but have been recognized as reliable and helpful editors who no longer have editing restrictions--including editors who began as vandals.

In regards to the three specific restrictions:

1. I have never edited with another account and I have posted all of my anonymous IP edits on my userpage. The only checkuser investigation on me was closed as inappropriate.
2. I have respected this content restriction and have avoided Western Sahara-related topics with the exception of reverting vandalism and the most tertiary topics (e.g. List of United Nations member states, where I have not edited on the topic of Western Sahara in years.)
3. This restriction could still be placed on me at any time as appropriate, but--as noted above--it has only been invoked once and then rescinded.

I look forward to these restrictions being lifted in part so that I can be recognized as a trusted editor and in part so I can begin to edit Western Sahara-related articles again (the quality of which has generally languished for several years, as I was the only active editor on this topic.) Both my ability to edit and the quality of the encyclopedia will be enhanced by the lifting of these restrictions.

As I stated at the AN thread, I don't see any major issue with lifting the restrictions. Not sure what else I have to say; I was never involved in the original sanctions. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@NW, I'm not a clerk but I think I updated the template. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my opinion has not changed just like Fetchcoms. At the same AN thread above, I noted that I saw no problem with lifting restrictions 1 & 2. Restriction 3 needs to remain in place for some time while he his allowed to edit in the problematic area. While Koavf has remained in good standing when editing outside of the Western Sahara/Morocco area, we have no evidence one way or another how things will go once he starts to edit in that area. I think that keeping restriction 3 in place, for say at least another 6 months or so, will allow us to see if things go well. If they do, then we can recind that restriction as well. So my opinion is that ArbCom should look at recinding restrictions 1 & 2, and leave 3 in place for six months as a sort of "trial period" for editing the Western Sahara related articles. --Jayron32 03:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I...tried to updated Template:ArbComOpenTasks, but I couldn't figure out how to do so. Could another clerk take a gander at it? NW (Talk) 16:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the absence of any commentary to the contrary, a week after this has been filed, I am hard pressed to think of a reason to deny this request, and would likely support lifting it. Risker (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Gigs (talk) at 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

• Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Supplemental motion regarding User Lightmouse

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 7.1) Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia.
2. 8) Lightmouse is limited to using only the account "Lightmouse" to edit.
3. Supplemental motion: "Nonwithstanding remedies #7.1 and #8, Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [1]

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Supplemental motion regarding User Lightmouse
• At this point I do not trust Lightmouse to use automated tools and take complaints seriously, and think that his sanction should be extended to an indefinite ban on all automated and semi-automated editing.

Lightmouse has engaged in high speed semi-automated editing without BAG approval in apparent violation of the previous sanctions, such as: [2] [3] [4] [5], as a small sample. These edits drew several complaints as to their accuracy and appropriateness, including feedback from myself of a general nature, before I realized that Lightmouse was under ArbCom sanctions. This is documented at: User_talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2010/October.

There are several currently pending BRFAs:

1. Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightbot_7
2. Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightbot_6
3. Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightmouse
4. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5

Note that the sanctions limit Lightmouse to a single BAG approved task, so it is unclear to me what action BAG should take regarding these BRFAs. Rlevse approached Lightmouse asking for an explanation of the apparent violation, but now that he is gone, I'm not sure if anyone is following up on this. I am asking for an official response from ArbCom in order to bring clarity and closure to this, regardless of whether my amendment is accepted.

My involvement in this is limited to relatively brief conversations last month on WT:MOSNUM and on Lightmouse's talk page urging him to take complaints about his semi-automatic editing much more seriously. Gigs (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Gigs

To clarify, the sort of dismissive behavior that I observed on WT:MOSNUM and Lightmouse's talk page is what prompted my concerns. (i.e. [6] [7] [8]) This is exactly the same sort of behavior that lead to the sanction in the first place. Editing rates peaking at 5-8 edits per minute on systematically selected alphabetized articles surely does not fall under "manual editing". The editing stopped 2 weeks ago only because Rlevse approached Lightmouse and asked for an explanation of the apparent violation. Gigs (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC) may have been mistaken about causality 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Lightmouse has just opened up two additional BRFAs for Lightbot.

• Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightbot_8
• Wikipedia:BRFA#Lightbot_9

Regardless of the nature of the current requests, Lightmouse disregarded sanctions while carrying out those thousands of AWB edits under the Lightmouse account. The sanctions reflected a general lack of ArbCom faith in Lightmouse to conduct semi-automated and automated operations in a non-disruptive fashion, which is why they were not constructed more narrowly. Lightmouse is effectively asking BAG to assist him in violating those sanctions by filing multiple BRFAs that would violate the sanctions if approved. This does not inspire any more faith in my eyes. Gigs (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm baffled too, but no more so than by this amendment. AFAIK, Lightbot hasn't been in operation for over a month now, BAG has been unresponsive to repeated requests for the bot. Lighmouse himself hasn't edited in two weeks, some 48 hours before Vanished 6551232 (talk · contribs) (aka Rlevse) posted his message on Lightmouse's talk page. Prior to those two weeks, I see nothing "high speed", just some 'normal' (by that, I mean manual) AWB actions at an average rate of 50 edits per hour to remove overlinked common terms (hour!, kilometer!!, minute!!!, ) and some years. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC), amended 02:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Gigs' "additional statement", I combed through Lightmouse's contributions history for the last 2,600+ entries. Therein, I noticed nothing incompatible with the editing speeds achieved for human-supervised AWB usage. I examined in excess of 50 edits, and found that rarely did each edit contain more than one or two changes, such as removing wikilinks to days of the week, years, and other common terms such as 'week', 'day', 'hour', 'second'... which I note is firmly endorsed by WP:Linking. There were occasionally more changes, which included insertion of '{{convert}}'. As for the complaints on LM's talk page... Rifleman complains here that Lightmouse has been systematically removing repeat links, implying that he should be careful not to disturb his misleading piped links notwithstanding; once again WP:Linking is firmly on Lightmouse's side. The diff used above of the post from pdfpdf clearly shows Gigs was aware of the belligerence of pdfpdf, who not only expressed his displeasure of having the {{convert}} foisted upon him in articles he had on his watchlist, calling them "non-consensus changes" (viz: "'If you think square kilometres are confusing, just remove them.' - For heavens sake! We are NOT your mother nor your housemaid nor your servant. YOU made these non-consensus changes. YOU fix them!!"), he repeatedly replaced the message despite its removal by the owner (and by me, a talk-page stalker) insisting it wasn't uncivil – I would actually call it harassment even though LM was firm but always polite with visitors to his talk page. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking somewhat as a member of the Bot Approvals Group, I firstly apologise for the slow progress of BRfA recently, there's only really been about three active BAG members approving bots over the past month. As I understand it, the previous case banned Lightmouse from making any semi- or fully-automated edits from any account. The amendment then permitted him to make some from a single account, Lightbot. The only edits explicitly approved by BAG were 50 trial edits, all of which are listed here, to be made from the Lightbot account, this was approved by Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) here. The edits linked to by Gigs clearly show Lightmouse using the AutoWikiBrowser (a semi-automated tool) on his main account. This is very clearly disallowed by the ArbCom remedies ([emphasises added] "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia", where "automation is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever", amended by "Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task"), it was made abundantly clear in the amendment that the only account which the ban from using automation was lifted on was the Lightbot account (but the edits Gigs have issue with came from the Lightmouse account). In addition to this problem with the accounts getting muddled, the edit summaries used by the bot and AWB, are in my opinion, not clear enough (for example, the Lightbot edits do not make it clear that they were approved trial edits). Besides which, this clearly was not a dry-run/userspace test - it was a live run, with changes being made to the Wikipedia namespace mainspace. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to John's message below. He appears to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. Lightmouse defended the bot edits as a trial. Unapproved bot trials may only be made in the op/bot's userspace. Often (but not in general) it is indeed preferable for trials to be made in mainspace. But only when approved by BAG at BRfA, which provides a review of these edits. As to Paragraph two of his comment, I wasn't referring to the trial approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5, I made clear that that was the only approved trial, and linked to the edits made under that approval (I made this clear because it seems ArbCom wanted an update on what BAG had actually approved). My issue was with "the edits linked to by Gigs". Lightmouse claims these edits were also a trial. However, they were unapproved; without peer review; made in the mainspace; came from the Lightmouse account (this wouldn't generally be a large issue, as they were semi-automated, however this account was banned from making any semi-automated edits by ArbCom (this ban has not been lifted - it's only had an amendment made regarding the Lightbot account). In addition, considering the kind of edits made and the number (see Anomie's link) they should have been performed on a separate account even without the ban in place (see WP:AWB#Rules of use 2)); and in a large quantity - clearly not a suitable trial). Also Anomie makes similar points to mine below, and I agree with his statement. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Kirill below: That is correct, the only edits approved by BAG were 50 trial edits under this BRfA. Per se, any other edits do not have BAG approval, including those listed ([9], [10], [11] [12]) and in-fact any semi/automated edits made from his own account, such as 4853 out of 5000 edits listed here. In addition, BAG wouldn't be able to approve these edits anyway (the AWB edits from Lightmouse's main account), as doing so would be overruling ArbCom - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it is preferable for trial runs to be made in mainspace, as was done here. [Note: mainspace, where articles reside, is not the same as "Wikipedia namespace".] Mainspace trial edits are preferable simply because they include (obviously) the full complexity of article text. Mistakes in edits in mainspace, if limited in number (as will be the case for trial runs) are easy enough to reverse. It's much better to find mistakes during a trial run, even if a few articles have errors until corrected, than to find errors when a bot goes live and is doing thousands of edits. Moreover, my review of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5 shows no indication that the trial run was supposed to be done anywhere other than mainspace - in fact, there was some discussion regarding how the fifty articles (for the trial run) would be selected in order to best test the bot. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only mainspace edits approved by BAG are the 50 trial edits for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 5, linked by Kingpin13 above. These 50 edits are not at issue; the issue is with the thousands of AWB edits made from the User:Lightmouse account and the fact that it seems impossible for Lightmouse to perform these edits without engendering controversy. I don't know whether the controversy is due to the edits, Lightmouse, or a combination of the two.

WP:Bot policy also allows for non-disruptive edits to the bot's or operator's userspace, and "limited testing of bot processes without approval, provided that test edits are very low in number and frequency, and are restricted to test pages such as the sandbox". Edits to live articles do not qualify for either of those two exceptions; if it were necessary to test on "the full complexity of article text", articles could be copied to a sandbox for editing or AWB could be run and the diffs viewed without actually saving the edits. And several thousand as a "test" is right out.

I also note that the issue of edit summaries was raised in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 4.

From what I've seen of his actions since Lightmouse's ban expired, I for one do not trust him not to repeat the same behavior that originally led to his ban. Immediately upon expiration of his ban, Lightmouse applied for the exact same approval that caused so much controversy the first time around. And it seemed every attempt to clarify and limit the request was met with an attitude of "I shouldn't have to do this", unclear or overbroad "clarifications", and language that seemed ripe for later wikilawyering. He also took up his task using AWB, despite not receiving approval as directed by ArbCom, and the claim here that Lightmouse thought he could make thousands of edits as normal work around his 50-edit trial on Lightbot 5 that was already completed a month earlier or any of his other requests that have not been approved for trial at all is patently ridiculous. Requests 6 and 7 are much more appropriate in scope, but at this point my AGF is expired. Anomie⚔ 17:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the Lightmouse account can be used with automation relating to units of measurement. Coren said the expectation was “it would cover the ‘’normal’’ work around a 'bot’ task: That includes the usual dry runs in user space, the test runs okayed by BAG, and whatever minor tweaks are generally included in a single bot request”. I’ve done tests in accordance with this. BAG has been unable to respond for weeks if not months.

If I've misunderstood the situation, I'd be grateful for more clarity.

I'd like to correct the false impression that "The editing stopped 2 weeks ago only because Rlevse approached Lightmouse and asked for an explanation ...". I was told by one editor quoted in this discussion to "get a life" and sworn at (details not pleasant), well I do have a life outside WP which took priority over WP. I stopped editing articles on 28 Oct. Rlevse wrote a note on my talk page on 30 Oct. The event didn't precede the cause.

I'd like to correct the false allegation that I was 'dismissive'. From time to time, an editor will say that I shouldn't add metric units, in circumstances that aren't documented anywhere on WP guidance. Or they want me to add a different format/unit of their choosing. I always try to be polite. But sometimes the debate becomes circular or is entirely subjective. I may invite editors to take WP style issues to the WP style talk page, or I may take it there on their behalf. That's an attempt to be helpful and inclusive. Where I say that an editor is free to remove a metric unit or change it, I'm not 'dismissive', quite the reverse. I'm trying to collaborate and add calm.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for the comment by BAG. It took two and half months to get approval for a 50 edit trial for the simple task of adding unit conversions using the Lightbot account. We've had a further delay of a month and a half waiting for comment on the trial. The trial edits were a success. The normal course for bot applications is that feedback about a first trial results in another trial. It's pleasing to see that this Arbcom case has given me the feedback that BAG would prefer a different edit summary, I'd be happy to amend that. While waiting for this bot to get approval, I've created more bot applications so that preliminaries can be dealt with now. I know that the workload for BAG and Arbcom is high, here the two entities have to collaborate on a bot application and the delays are inevitably longer. I think I'm being patient on an application that is technically quite simple and (where trialled) has been successful. I'd be grateful if BAG and Arbcom can find a way to move this application forward. Lightmouse (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few observations:

• It's all very complicated, probably even for experts.
• BAG is seriously understaffed—to the point of being dysfunctional, it seems to me. We need to concentrate on revamping it in 2011.
• As an observer, I found Anomie's contributions at one of those BAG applications by Lightmouse to be a bit negative and almost personal in its tone: I don't understand why.
• Kirril, the diff you have pointed to: I may be wrong, but it's the kind of manual edit I'd make if using automation. Is LM restricted from removing links to years and to items such as "hours" (twice), which presumably were performed manually? Tony (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Awaiting statements from Lightmouse and/or BAG; I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify whether Lightmouse has BAG approval for the edits he's making. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingpin13: If I understand your statement correctly, the edits cited by Gigs ([13] [14] [15] [16]) were not approved by BAG? Could you please confirm whether my understanding is correct? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony: I'm not pointing out the edit as being problematic in and of itself; as you say, it looks like a reasonable thing to do. However, the conditions under which Lightmouse was permitted to resume using automated tools were very clear: whatever he does with them must be approved by BAG beforehand. My concern is that this isn't taking place, and that Lightmouse is essentially using automation without any oversight whatsoever, which is exactly the scenario that led to the original restriction on his editing. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting statements and join in Kirill's request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus far, I'm not convinced that action by us is needed, but I'm still open to further input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Kirill and Brad.  Roger ^talk 08:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also not seeing that action is required at this point. Risker (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Lightmouse, now that Kingpin13 has confirmed that the edits cited by Gigs were not approved by BAG, could you please comment on why those edits do not contradict your ban? Shell ^babelfish 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's my understanding that the edits were permitted, as I mentioned in my comment above. I'm not sure if you saw that. I was worried that this wasn't clear enough so I made more than one request for clarity on the point.
  • I'd like to correct the false assertion that the current requests are "exact same approval that caused so much controversy the first time around". The big fuss and Arbcom case was about several editors removing Date links and other editors objecting. Nobody wishes to go through that again. The current BAG application relates to adding conversions to units, a popular task which would be tedious if done by hand and has had consensus throughout.
  • I've been accused of having an attitude of "I shouldn't have to do this", unclear or overbroad "clarifications". I don't have such an attitude. If the crime is failing to understand a question or failing to be understood, then all of us on this page are guilty. If Arbcom and all of us are going re-examine the 6 weeks of questioning prior to a mere 50 edit trial about converting feet and miles, then it will be a waste for all of us.
  • The debate about adding conversions isn't difficult yet has gone on for 4 months now with very little comment from BAG. I know they're busy but I'm at the back of the queue. I'm making a formal request that instead of debating it here at Arbcom, we debate it at BAG.
  • I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lightmouse, can you please explain how your edits here are related to unit conversions? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to admit that, in Lightmouse's defense, BAG has been unable or unwilling to handle his requests fairly and reasonably swiftly. This may be due to under-staffing, or understandable (if unadvisable) reluctance to handle a potentially controversial matter; but it does seem to be as though his requests were not handled normally and that his work has stalled because of it. It's not so much that his requests have been declined more than that the goalposts to them being okayed have been moved. — Coren ^(talk) 14:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be the case, though I'm not clear whether it's a problem only LM's requests are experiencing, or a more general backlog issue. In any case, I'm not sure what we can do here other than perhaps pulling together a group of bot experts to review arbitration-related automation questions separately from the normal BAG process. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to Kirill's question above, some detail in edits are manual. Furthermore, the scope is not merely 'unit conversion'. It's just simpler to say 'unit conversions' because that's easier for most people to understand and is mostly what it does. The scope (and activity) has since 2008 explicitly included removal of links to common units. The hour is a plain english term and a common unit. Can we get to an end point in days rather than adding more months of delay? Trying to help. Lightmouse (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's try and cut through this: Arbcom doesn't want to be BAG by proxy, BAG doesn't want to be Arbcom by proxy. The months are passing by and justice delayed is justice denied. It seems to me the best way out of this impasse is to have a decision at Arbcom level: I propose right here, right now, to delete "7.1) Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia.". Frustrated, but still trying to be positive. Lightmouse (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wait, I don't see anything to suggest it would be a good idea to start ignoring 7.1, especially since this whole thing was triggered by you breaking the prohibition. I think it's all the more reason to have it more actively enforced. There's no question (in my mind) over if you violated the restrictions: you very clearly did. Personally I think what needs to happen is the supplement is reverted, and we go back to how things were before. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I for one fully agree with what Kingpin13 said. Anomie⚔ 20:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may not have been clear, let me try again. Arbcom doesn't want to be BAG by proxy, BAG doesn't want to be Arbcom by proxy. The months are passing by and justice delayed is justice denied. There are lots of articles in need of gnoming edits and we're not adding value by months of occasionally-hostile debate or silence here and in BAG. It seems to me the best way out of this impasse is to have a decision at Arbcom level: I request Arbcom deletes "7.1) Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia.". Lightmouse (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmouse, if you want to make that request, you should do so as a separate amendment request, not buried here. You might want to wait a few weeks before doing so until this committee is fully staffed with the new group of arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Biophys (talk) at 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

• Remedy 3
• Remedy 4

List of users affected by this amendment

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

• Biophys topic_banned
• Biophys restricted - this is a related remedy that may be enacted after the topic ban

I would like to apologize for contributing to disruption and ask for review and direction at this point, almost six months since the beginning of my topic ban. During this time I was active, edited in allowed areas, avoided conflicts, and tried to deal with problems noted in your findings of fact [17].

What was my problem? I edited 4,000 different articles (and a lot of them are related to my Russian cultural background) and created 250 new pages. Few my edits caused anyone's objections, but I always returned back to the articles where someone reverted my edits to be engaged in prolonged disputes, edit warring and complaints. It came at no surprise that the trouble happened in a difficult area that has been already a subject of numerous sanctions.

To avoid this problem in a future I am going to leave any article to others and edit something else if a dispute can not be quickly resolved by talking and compromising. It is enough to remove an article from my watch list. I did just that during my topic ban. This helped me to make exactly zero reverts that could be interpreted as edit warring during all this time (a few “undo” are fixes of obvious vandalism problems). Here are a few examples of someone recently reverting my edits [18] [19][20],[21],[22], and I walked away from these articles. Yes, I fully realize that every editor had his reason for reverting my edits, even though I happened to disagree with them and explained why [23], [24], [25],[26]. There is nothing wrong with returning later to these articles. The entire point is to avoid creating the conflicts.

If there is something else I must do, please tell. I could not care less about ethnic and territorial disputes, but I may have a bias related to human rights issues, no matter if the victims were Russian [27], German [28] or Korean [29], except that I know Soviet subjects much better. But my edits usually describe mainstream majority views and are referenced to books by the best experts, as in the diffs above.

In summary, I only wanted to tell that I am ready to contribute positively in this area. No, I do not feel any rush to return back to difficult subjects, but I am ready to make such decisions for myself. I am asking for an amendment mostly because I feel extremely uncomfortable being a subject of indefinite sanctions [30]. I simply want to be a normal editor again. You issued a good preventative topic ban that helped me to spend my time in the project more productively. But it is no longer needed.

Offliner provides this diff. No, I did not really make such promises since they are not included in the final version of my statement [31]. Still, this is something reasonable and involves three different issues.

(1) Yes, I left EEML mailing list.

(2) With regard to edit warring, I thought it was enough to limit myself mostly to 1RR per article per day. That was a serious error of judgment, and Arbcom made it very clear to me that edit warring is totally unacceptable, no matter how frequently one does it. Hence I changed my behavior and was not involved in a single edit warring incident during last six months. But edit warring is only a symptom. The real root of the problem are serious personal conflicts, which is something very much different from debating content disagreements. The only way to avoid the conflicts in this environment is to leave an article (or a disputed part of the article) to your opponent if you can not come to an agreement. That is something I was doing during these six months and will do in the future. This is a serious commitment.

(3) I tried to help by commenting at administrative noticeboards [32] [33], [34], [35], [36][37][38][39](the most recent diffs in reverse chronological order).

The alleged battleground on my part. Unlike some others, I did not file a single official complaint about others to AE, ANI or other similar places for at least a year. Offliner brings here an episode when Colchicum made an AE request about Russavia still stalking my edits. Yes, I get excited when Jehochman, Petri and Russavia started claiming that it was me who actually violated the ban, despite to clarification by Shell. However, Offliner forget that I striked through my comment as soon as realized that it was indeed inappropriate [40], and I did not object to the non-administrative closure of the AE case by Petri Krohn [41]. I regret about commenting anything at all in this case.

Yes, I left a few comments to Vecrumba, Radek and Martintg [42] and [43] (diffs by Offliner). I reminded to Vecrumba about Russian editor who was indefinitely banned, mostly for contributing in irrelevant discussions. I am telling Radek that "winning" is not the goal, and it might be better for him to loose a dispute or two. Is that an evidence of the "battleground" by me?

1. "Gaming the system" by moving to other articles and returning back. That's my editing style. I do not like improving articles that are already in a decent condition and prefer moving through a large number of pages to fix most serious problems that can be quickly fixed. As about returning back to the same pages, yes, if this topic ban is lifted, I may return to some of ~1000 articles edited by me in this area and see if they can be improved per NPOV and RS without being engaged in edit warring. If not, I will edit something else.
2. The retirement. Yes, I feel extremely uncomfortable here for a number of reasons, and especially after receiving these sanctions. That's why I ask for amendments.
3. Not being sincere ("What difference does it make..."). Oh, no. I am sincere. I do not want to be a subject of sanctions. Not now, not ever. And I fully realize that any sanctions can be quickly reinstated under the watchful eye of users who edit in this area. Did I do anything on purpose? Yes, I made these comments in "Communist terrorism" article talk page [44][45] [46] to show that I can constructively discuss even the most controversial subjects. But this is just an extreme example. Speaking generally, there is nothing wrong with editing even such articles (if new consensus can be found, that's fine; if not, let's edit something else). Speaking practically, I would certainly avoid any articles in the state of active editorial war [47]. Biophys (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Just a few points to clarify the situation.

• This is a review of my editing during last six months, after the topic ban. I had no previous sanctions by Arbcom/AE. I have no interaction ban with Russavia, or at least this is my understanding.
• The problem was not "controversial articles" or "ethnic and territorial disputes". Edit warring had happened in a number of articles on very different subjects, some of which (like Red Banner) are not at all controversial. The problem were my attempts to restore sourced content in a number of articles, no matter what the subject. That is what I addressed in my statement above.
• Yes, I have failed with certain controversial subjects (maybe with 2% of all controversial subjects I edited). Can I handle this better? Please see diffs above when someone reverted me during last 6 months (I repeat them: [48] [49][50],[51],[52]). Each of these cases represents a controversy, and I handled all of them quite well. Of course, the best way to handle a controversy is not to be involved in it at the first place. Hence I simply moved to a different subject as soon as discussion became unproductive.

• I consider EEML case a matter of the past. I unsubscribed and do not have any email or other off-wiki communications with members of the list. Let's put it behind. Yes, I know well all EEML editors and therefore talked with them (diffs by Offliner) and commented about them, just to help them as to any other editor in trouble [53], but especially if I know this editor.

• My discussion with Piotrus ("I feel extremely uncomfortable...") Sure, this is not the issue that led to the topic ban. This is a reason for me to ask for this amendment. I am getting really tired thinking which my edit can be regarded as a topic ban violation. I can not quote any Soviet scientist (like Landau), even on the scientific matters, because that would be a violation of the ban. I can not edit politics of 20th century, because most of that may be related to the Soviet Union or post-Soviet republics. And I stopped editing old Russian history after the AE request by Colchicum about Russavia (the article about Chaadayev). This particular topic ban now creates more problems than helps. That is what I am talking about.

• My talk page ([54]). I am not talking with anyone off-wiki about my experience here. This is for a number of reasons. One of them: I do not want to scare scientists who meet today in Italy to discuss if they want to contribute to wikipedia, among other things [55]. No, I am not attending this conference. In fact, my talk page must be deleted for precisely the same reasons (please consider this an official request).Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petri, I do not have conflicts with anyone, you including. Yes, I had them in the past, but I do not have them now. Did I say that I have conflicts anywhere? Did I blame anyone of my own problems? No, I am very much ready to forgive and forget whatever had happened in the past, and I hope all others can do the same. No, It was exactly my point that the conflicts must be avoided at any cost (please see above). Biophys (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Yes, I have a human rights-related bias. No, I have no intention to waste anyone's time. Please see my statement above. I only want to return to normal editing process, which is impossible with an indefinite topic ban. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me: "You always try "to win" at any cost." Yes, perhaps that was a problem in the past. That's why I addressed this problem in my statement. Now I promise to loose any dispute as soon as discussion becomes unproductive to avoid contributing to conflicts. For example, I will leave article Boris Stomakhin to you if we still have any dispute here. If you want to describe an imprisoned journalist as a "convicted criminal ... who call to exterminate other people" (as you say) in his BLP article, then fine, this is none of my business. I thought it was my business prior to these sanctions by Arbcom. Not any more.Biophys (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First book was written by a group of internationally recognized historians and published by the Harvard University Press. What better comprehensive textbook, specifically on the subject of communist repressions in different countries, could you possibly suggest? This is probably the best. Another book, "KGB in Europe", was prepared by a Chair of the History Faculty at Cambridge University. Did you read this book? This is based on a huge number of published sources rather than Mitrokhin's archive. These books are well above the average level of wikipedia sources. How can you claim that books by the best academic experts are "published outside the academic mainstream"?

@Kirill, I do not understand why I should be held responsible for problematic actions by others. The problems will probably never go away from controversial areas. If I did something wrong during these six months, please tell what it is, and I will try to fix what I can.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, thank you very much for the explanation. Why are you not convinced? If you do not believe my promise not to be engaged in edit warring, then issue me 1RR restriction, as was initially planned. And if I am not engaged in edit warring, on which grounds someone would bring me again to Arbcom? A lot of editors with "patriotic" views edit in this area. Therefore, there is nothing I can do except creating new content on the subjects that do not cause anyone's objections. What's wrong with this? As you know, I always follow WP:RS in this area. Do you mean that the guys will follow all my edits to revert them all, no matter what I edit? If something like this indeed happens, I will simply edit something else (as I said above), rather than be again a subject of your sanctions. I am not a fool to repeat my own mistake twice, whatever my political views might be.Biophys (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shell. I made exactly zero reverts that can be interpreted as edit warring during this time. This is a dramatic change in my editing habits. I provided five examples when someone reverted my edits during this time, which did not cause any problems 1,2,3,4,5. In example 1, I left the article and its talk page, because it became a subject of edit warring between multiple parties. In case 2, a discussion was heated, but an editor finally agreed with my argument and himself made changes suggested by me [56]. In cases 3 and 4, we came to an agreement after a brief discussion (3 - another editor suggested that I go ahead and make the changes [57]; 4 - I agreed that another editor is right after looking at the complicated system of relationships between different pages [58]). In case 5 I decided not to make any changes and stop discussion because it fueled an unnecessary conflict and became a subject of AE inquiry filed by Colchicum. What else I suppose to demonstrate?

@SirFozzie. Yes, I understand and share your sentiment. Please tell what should I do to fix the problems, whatever they are. Should I remain in protective custody forever, or it is me who creates danger for others? I can promise not to talk with anyone who edits in this area about anything except improving the content and purely technical questions/requests. Would that resolve the problems? Then fine, I will do just that. In particular, I am going to leave without answer and remove from my talk page comments like this [59]. The only thing I ever wanted was creation of new content. The conflicts may continue to escalate, but I am not going to be involved. I hope you do not mean that I contribute to conflicts by creating new encyclopedic content? Just to clarify, I would be involved in "robust debates" as Ed Johnson said [60] only about improvement of content and only at talk pages of the corresponding articles. Would that be a possible solution of the problem? What else I must do in addition to conflict-free editing?

@Newyorkbrad and Risker. Thank you very much. I have no problem waiting another three months to resubmit this request. Once again, my primary motivation for filing this request was returning to normal editing rather than coming back with vengeance to the conflict area. Biophys (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not want to see me again, as Kirill said. Yes, I do not want this too. Then the simplest and fastest solution would be the following. You remove all editing restrictions, but with the following clause: if I am found guilty by AE administrators of any violation in this area, the indefinite ban is automatically reinstated, without any your involvement. Then, I do not need to make any promises, and you do not need to trust me. If there are any additional recommendations, please tell, and I would be happy to follow. Biophys (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is sufficient reason to believe Biophys would not return to his old disruptive ways if the sanction is lifted. He has made several promises before (e.g.[61],[62]), but these never caused him to alter his behaviour (see here). Biophys also continued to participate in battleground discussions during his topic ban, defending certain editors [63][64], while attacking others [65][66][67][68][69]. Biophys' battleground mentality is still here, as clearly evidenced by diffs like this and this. Anyway, the sanction says that the topic ban is to be reviewed no sooner than after one year, not now. The ruling was pretty clear here, and modifying it now would make the original sanction look strange, even misleading. Offliner (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Offliner's reference of an exchange on my talk page here, Offliner's characterization is a complete misrepresentation as I was attempting to work through some conflicts in the topic area in question (and have received positive responses regarding my participation); Biophys' statement was one that I took as asking why I would seek out some area of controversy that is a known battleground (there was a raging Arbcom going on at the time I took interest to the articles in the area of dispute). Observing that there are battlegrounds and offering the observation that an editor might have better places to spend one's time is hardly exhibiting a "battleground mentality." What is a battleground mentality is Offliner always seeming to be the first to show up at these affairs to denounce those who he considers his editorial opposition. I'll spare diffs on his block shopping with regard to myself. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Biophys is not sincere here. He has a long history of gaming the system, virtuously using the Wikipedia's rules against his opponents. Currently he is involved in a dispute in Communist terrorism trying to re-create this article and push material from a highly biased Black Book of Communism. He cited his topic ban as an obstacle for further discussion about this topic.

Also note that the topic ban imposed on Biophys is very narrow. It does not include Eastern Europe and Communism in general, but only the USSR-related topics. I doubt he is able to contribute constructively in this area judging from previous his contributions.

--Dojarca (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the Biophys sanction: Biophys is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the arbitration Committee.

So this application should be dismissed based only on the previous decision, because Biophys currently has no right to request the review of the ban.--Dojarca (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember from my contacts with Biophys, he was very experienced in gaming the system. One of his tactics was moving from his battleground topic area temporalily, only to avoid sanctions, and restart his battle later. He several times declared retirement from Wikipedia during his arbitration cases (recently he asked to delete his userpage to remove traces of this multiple retirements). This recent comment by Biophys: "Besides, what difference does it make if someone follows the rules because he is now a different person or because he does not want to be a subject of sanctions?" gives reason to suspect that Biophys has not really changed his outlook, and only active sanctions keep him from returning to his battleground activity. --DonaldDuck (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys states, "I may have a bias related to human rights issues, no matter if the victims were Russian, German or Korean". Yet in all cases the perpetrators were Communists. He also states, "my edits usually describe mainstream majority views and are referenced to books by the best experts, as in the diffs above". But the sources used include the Mitrokhin Archive, The Black Book of Communism, and The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, all of which are controversial books published outside the academic mainstream (although the Black Book was later republished by the Harvard University Press). A lot of conflict could be avoided if there were tighter restrictions on sources used, as for example in WP:MEDRS. In a Climate Change case, an editor was "prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media...without first clearing the source ...."[70] A prohibition of that nature to all editing on these articles could be helpful. TFD (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the person says he will abide by the rules, and does abide by the rules, there is no reason to iterate accusations that one does not believe him. This applies no matter what the topics are, nor what biases are seen by those who know the "truth" on any topic. And, as always, I find draconian punishmnets to be quite counter-effective. Collect (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Remedy 1

I was involved in the original Russavia-Biophys case, after Russavia continually brought complaints against myself and others forced me to act. Subsequently Russavia was restricted from interacting with former EEML members and this remedy has been remarkably successful, freeing him from the incentive for stalking for violations and allowing us to contribute in a more collegiate environment. This kind of interaction ban does not prevent people from working together on the same topic because it allows for necessary dispute resolution born out of legitimate content dispute, as interpreted by the admins patrolling AE. But it stops the perpetuation of the battleground as it forces people to either work together or ignore each other by taking away the easy option of block shopping. Therefore I request that this interaction restriction be extended to a couple more people.

When User:Offliner accuses Biophys of "battleground mentality", he doesn't come here with clean hands. As I recall, Offliner was previously involved in the harassment and outing of Biophys that was perpetrated by Russavia. Offliner was recently site banned for six months for engaging in the most extreme battleground behavior of posting a link to a freezepage of material he knew to be soon oversighted. Just recently he launched yet another Arbitration enforcement case against Vecrumba [71] in conjunction with User:Petri Krohn. Petri Krohn has also been site banned by both the Committee and the community. Note that Krohn launched a bogus SPI case, and both of them have involved themselves in continuing their battleground having involved themselves in another recent failed AE request against myself[72].

Just as the Committee has grown tired of seeing the same old names over and over again, I am tired of it too. Very tired. We all want to move on. Except that Offliner and Petri Krohn seem to be stuck in the battleground headspace of 2009. Their ugly tactics are not constructive and have no place in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no attempt on their part at building a collegiate environment let alone engage in productive discussion, unlike other editors who have expressed such a willingness to work together. As univolved BorisG stated in regard to Offliner's latest AE case, this needs to stop.

Therefore I ask the ArbCom to amend Remedy 1 to:

• "Russavia (talk · contribs), Offliner (talk · contribs) and Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution."

--Martin (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shell, sorry perhaps I didn't articulate this clearly above: an associated interaction restriction is related to Biophys' original request. With any relaxation of Biophys' topic ban, as they would not like such an outcome, it is highly likely either Offliner or Petri Krohn would agitate some kind of action or pile on into any future dispute involving Biophys, if their recent track record indicated above is anything to go by. Note that User:Dojarca appears to be associated with Petri Krohn, having proxied for him in the past, I would check his edit history, one of his first edits after an eight month absence was to comment here. Offline co-ordination? --Martin (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ed, Biophys has good cause to feel uncomfortable editing something like Pyotr Chaadayev. To any observer this indeed is unambiguously outside the scope of "articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics", how can anyone seriously argue eighteenth Century Russia is a "former Soviet Republic". Yet we have Petri Krohn arguing precisely that, not only here but back in August on WP:AE when he claimed that Biophys broke his topic ban here and in support to this claim Petri Krohn provided this astonishing argument here. This explemifies why an interaction ban is necessary, boards like WP:AE is the battleground, not the article which just serves as the pretext. This needs to end. --Martin (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not have any problems with debating anything at all with Petri, Offliner and Russavia if needed. I would even suggest lifting the interaction ban for Russavia with myself, rather than imposing new bans. Biophys (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Martintg [73]. Just to clarify, I talked only about my topic ban. If I "feel uncomfortable" editing any article, I will not edit it. That's not a problem. Biophys (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting here as an uninvolved admin. Recently some cases have been filed at WP:AE involving Eastern Europe, so I've had to study the record of some of the EEML editors. Here are my impressions about User:Biophys and on the wisdom of lifting the topic ban imposed on him due to the Russavia-Biophys case in May, 2010.

His multiple retirements are curious. His lack of talk page archiving is a problem for any admin who wants to check out his record. He apparently has a sincere interest in improving Russian articles, but his interests do include a lot of cutting-edge hot-button topics where controversy is inevitable. In many cases he has handled the controversy poorly. (Note the first four blocks in his block log, from early 2007, where he clashed with Vlad Fedorov repeatedly). By joining the EEML mailing list he exhibited bad judgment. Due to the many troubles in Eastern European topics, it would be understandable if Arbcom were to gradually crank up the sanctions in those cases where lighter measures have not stopped the editing problems. The WP:EEML case was closed in December 2009. The submissions in the Russavia-Biophys Arbcom case date from mid-2010 and they don't reflect well on Biophys.

In a recent posting on his talk page BIophys stated "I feel extremely uncomfortable knowing that someone is looking over my shoulder to report me on AE if I quote Landau or Pyotr Chaadaev." He must surely be aware that this is not the type of issue where he got into trouble in the past. He did not get into edit wars for quoting the 18th-century Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadaev. Since Chadaev did not live in a country called the Soviet Union, he is not included in the topic ban anyway. If Biophys wants to work on culture or science related articles that connect to the Soviet Union, and may be covered by his ban, let him present the list for Arbcom's review here. I'd also suggest that Arbcom request him to set up talk page archiving, though not mandate it . I would not favor lifting the interaction ban between Russavia and Biophys, and suggest that Arbcom limit the present request to matters concerning Biophys. The wider picture would need a separate request. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been negotiating with Biophys at User talk:EdJohnston#Your statement to see if he would agree to a revised ban that would still limit the problems that the Arbs saw previously. Though his good faith is evident, I don't see that he has agreed to anything that would address the problem. I recommend declining this request for amendment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys has agreed to automatic archiving of his talk page, and I have set that up. So I struck out that part of my recommendation above EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Biophys has gone back to routinely removing posts from his talk page, even innocuous ones. So I gather he is still very concerned that people outside the wiki will be following his activities here. Under these conditions, it's hard to recommend his return to editing contentious articles about the Soviet Union. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the interaction ban. Russavia is prohibited from "commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case.." per WP:ARBRB#Remedies but you are not banned from interacting with him, at the present time. This is because only the editors that were sanctioned by name in WP:EEML were banned from interacting with Russavia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read the the decision "Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics" would cover anything to do with Russia. Biophys's areas of conflict seem to be communism and the Putin administration.

I would support a narrowing of the topic ban to exclude pre-revolutionary Russia – including her Empire – and other non-political topics. (Note, that in the Soviet Union everything was political.)

An absolute minimal wording for a topic ban for some EE problem editors would be that they should not introduce "any content (edit, section or article) that describes or tries to describe Soviet rule in the Baltics or Eastern Europe as illegal or oppressive or communism as immoral or criminal." As Biophys clearly has a conflict with modern Russia, this wording would not be sufficient. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of Martintg's latest comment I am withdrawing my statement. I cannot see any reason why he had to drag my name into this case earlier and yet again make even more accusations. I am in no way involved with Biophys and have only communicated or commented on him in an earlier WP:AE case.

Under the present circumstances I see little other ways out of this than reopening EEML and permabans for its members.

Martintg, I ask you remove or strike out your comment. If you do that, I will strike out this comment and restore the previous one. As for now I am not even going tho comment on the Pyotr Chaadayev / David Satter issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, you know very well that your problem is your bias. The hardest bias I ever seen here in Wikipedia. You are not neutral editor. Nothing has really changed since 2007. Your repeated attempts to game the system failed. Just let's return to Stomakhin. So was he really innocent, dissident, prisoner of conscience? You tried to delete repeatedly his paranoid fascist calls to exterminate all Russians, just to see that phrase return to the article again - Boris Stomakhin. You tried to spam the article with undue weight account of so-called human rights defenders, just to support your personal POV. Just compare the current article with your so highly insisted version after you kicked me out of WP with the help of your "friends". Even without me the article returned to what I wrote about him, and even "worse". What was the point of your holy crusade against me, then? Even now, you, most likely, do not understand the point I try to make. You are blind. You just waisted everyone's time here. That is the point. Vlad fedorov (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Biophys Biophys, please do not confuse here anyone about your so called "human rights" bias. I am the winner of international humanitarian law moot court competition organized each year by the International Red Cross Committee - just to let you have some understanding about my "bias" too :-). But I do differentiate, like most of people, between convicted criminals like Boris Stomakhin who call to exterminate other people just because they have some nationality (and Stomakhin failed to sue Russia in ECHR - because he knows he would fail there) and people who really suffered for nothing and who need protection. My problem not was your POV, but the way you pushed your POV in Wikipedia. You always try "to win" at any cost. You were the first who reported me for the violation of 3RR, although you might want to look into the article history to make sure you did it too. Instead of trying to reach an agreement, you suggested me to leave this article, suggestion which you disguised under "you do not edit the articles which were started by me". This is not the way to resolve the disputes. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Biophys. Biophys, your statement demonstrates clearly that you, unfortunately, haven't changed your mind - If you want to describe an imprisoned journalist as an international criminal in his BLP article, then fine, this is none of my business. I thought it was my business prior to these sanctions by Arbcom. Not any more. You just can't free yourself of these disguised accusations of owning the article and appeals that you defend "the light side" against the dark one. You were deleting statements of Stomakhin claiming they were inappropriate for WP, not me. My interest in Stomakhin article was to present clear sourced facts that Stomakhin was imprisoned not by KGB intiative, but by the intiative of old opposition party woman and only second time application was successfull, and to publish his original statements for people to evaluate independently of Biophys or me. This is in sharp contrast to your claims of KGB conspiracy theory, right? You do not respect opinions of other people which are supported by many reliable sources and you still push your agenda in WP. This is your biggest personal problem. When I graduated from Oxford, I understood that I don't need anymore to prove anything to anyone. Unfortunately, although you are older than me, you just never grew to this point. Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• I'm assuming this can be archived soon? NW (Talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should probably not take any action at this time, but I would be willing to reconsider this matter in three months' time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Same as Brad. Statements if any should focus on this narrow issue only, not the broader topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disappointed that it came down to the same faces in the same ways. I think that under other circumstances, this would have a broader chance of success, I think the level of conflicts would continue to be escalated if we took action in this request. SirFozzie (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it possible to please get some views from those familiar with Biophys's editing who were not involved in any of the previous cases? Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This really should stay focused on the amendment made by Biophys; if there are other issues that need to be addressed, please open a separate request. Shell ^babelfish 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't see anything in the past six months that's incredibly worrisome, I also don't see anything that leaves me feeling that Biophys would be successful returning to this topic area. After two cases where problematic behavior was found, I would like to see clear evidence of a major change in the way Biophys approaches editing in difficult topic areas where he has a strong viewpoint. Shell ^babelfish 14:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In light of the ongoing problems in this area, I see no reason to modify the sanction on Biophys at this time. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biophys: I am not convinced that you would be able to edit in this area without becoming involved in conflicts similar to those for which you were originally sanctioned. I have no desire to see you brought before the Committee yet another time. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Newyorkbrad; I am not prepared to move at this time, but would be willing to reconsider in 3 months. Risker (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]