Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ron Marshall (talk | contribs) at 19:36, 14 December 2007 (→‎Statement by Ron Marshall). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/1/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

Current requests

Cold fusion

Initiated by Pcarbonn (talk) at 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by pcarbonn

Wikipedia is based on facts, not opinions. Several editors wants to eliminate many well-sourced statements for the purpose of advancing a personal opinion that is contrary to available evidence. They started deleting well-sourced isolated sentences, well-sourced sections, and they reverted the whole article to the old 2004 FA version that has almost no sources (see the discussions listed above). They have failed to show that the deleted statements or the recent article were violating NPOV, Undue weight or NOR. Thus, deleting them or reverting the article is very disruptive, and done in violation to the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies. Following several edit wars, the page became protected and a wikiquette alert was raised.[15][16][17]

The deleted statements concern "theory vs experiment", the overview section, and the bibliography, among others (see the discussions listed above).

In the discussion on theory vs experiment[18], editors are seen misquoting sources, arguing against the basic tenet of science since Galileo which says that "the lack of a satisfactory explanation cannot be used to dismiss experimental evidence", and, when it all failed, used their personal opinion to justify it. They failed to respond to the request to provide sources to support their personal opinion that "cold fusion is plainly dismissed by the majority of scientists in the know".

In fact, there is considerable support for the statement that cold fusion is a scientific anomaly that begs for an explanation, and that serious, reliable scientists are still investigating it, although with little funding and recognition (see Wired article). Lack of recognition does not mean rejection. This version of the cold fusion article presents this view, and provide reliable sources to support it. While not perfect, that version is a perfectly good basis to continue editing towards FA.

There are now nearly 200 published reports of anomalous power[1] - mostly in non-mainstream publications, with a few in peer-reviewed journals.[2][3] Panels organized by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), the first in 1989 and the second in 2004, did not find the evidence convincing enough to justify a federally-funded program, though they did recommend further research. Scientists at SPAWAR reported further experimental results in a peer-reviewed journal [4], whose reproduction by independent team were discussed at length at the 2007 annual meetings of the American Physical Society (sessions A31 and B31), the American Chemical Society and other scientific meetings (see Wired article). Quoting these reliable sources is not giving them more notability than they have, and thus not a violation of WP:Fringe, nor WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Despite all these evidences, some editors still believe that "cold fusion is essentially abandoned and not developing"[19], that "cold fusion is plainly dismissed by the majority of scientists in the know"[20], that "There seems to be a concerted group of pseudoscientists that have more-or-less co-opted the cold fusion idea"[21]. They are using such arguments to delete well-sourced statements in favor of cold fusion. According to wikipedia policies, the best way for them to defend their case is to provide reliable sources.

As for my own behavior, while I have a favorable opinion on cold fusion, I've been very cautious to keep it out of my edits, and to provide sentences only when supported by reliable sources. I have readily recognized cases where the source was rightly challenged (eg. on Widon-Larsen theory [22][23] or on the overview section [24]), and will continue to do so. I have not deleted well-sourced statements.

References
  1. ^ Storms, Edmund (2007). The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. pp. pp 52-61. ISBN 9789812706201. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  2. ^ For example those cited by LENR researchers in 2004 DoE review:
    Y. Arata and Y-C Zhang, "Anomalous difference between reaction energies generated within D20-cell and H20 Cell", Jpn. J. Appl. Phys 37, L1274 (1998)
    Iwamura, Y., M. Sakano, and T. Itoh, "Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation". Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2002. 41: p. 4642.
    Other:
    Mizuno, T., et al., "Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis in Liquid," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 39 p. 6055, (2000) [1]
  3. ^ For example those cited by LENR researchers in 2004 DoE review:
    M.H. Miles et al., "Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H20 electrolysis using Palladium cathodes", J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99 [2]
    B.F. Bush et al, "Helium production during the electrolysis of D20 in cold fusion", J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99
  4. ^ Szpak, S.; et al. (March 2007). "Further Evidence Of Nuclear Reactions In The Pd/D Lattice: Emission Of Charged Particles" (PDF). Naturwissenschaften. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/s00114-007-0221-7. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

Statement by ScienceApologist

This is a content dispute, pure and simple. As such it is outside of arbcomm purview. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by JzG

Content dispute, as above. Article was demoted from FA status due to relentless POV-pushing, I reverted to the FA version due to the sheer quantity of fringe science, pseudoscience, abject nonsense, and conflicted editing from the "librarian" of a fringe website. The people who spent the last two years (including one previous revert to the FA version for the exact same reason) do not like the fact that their fringe POV is given less weight in the FA version than in the version that was demoted from FA due to excess POV. And this is a problem because?.....

Note the liberal and repeated use of the term information suppression in Ron Marshall's submission below. I know of mo more reliable indicator of frustrated POV-pushing than use of the term information suppression. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Michaelbusch

I concur with Apologist and Guy that ArbCom should not be bothered with this case. However, I also note that Pcarbonn and Ron Marshall have consistently pushed their personal points of view regarding cold fusion onto the article. Since their pro-cold fusion beliefs are in contradiction to the scientific consensus, this may constitute a violation of previous ArbCom decision. Ron Marshall also claims that the activities of other editors to remove POV material constitute deliberate suppression (see Talk:Cold fusion) - which I consider to be conspiracy theorizing and perilously close to personal attacks. Again, I don't think ArbCom is needed here, but I would not object to a senior Admin reviewing the editing history of everyone concerned and deciding if any editors have exceeded the bounds of acceptable editing. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ronnotel

I have been watching this dispute unfold and have intervened as necessary to protect the page when the edit warring became excessive. There are strong personalities on both sides and I believe that this is more than just a content dispute. While some poorly-sourced material was correctly removed, some well-sourced material was as well. For instance, User:ScienceApologist apparently rejects as problematic what by any objective standard is clearly a reliable source simply on the basis that it is published in a different country than where the research was performed. I would like to see a little more flexibility on both sides regarding sources, and I would like to see less use of terms such as scientific consensus and psuedoscience that rely too heavily on one's POV. On balance, I believe there may be some latitude for ArbComm to get involved. Ronnotel (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ron Marshall

At this point two members of the committee have declined arbitration citing "content dispute". If it is a "content dispute", how is it not a NPOV dispute?

This is a conflict about NPOV. The violation of NPOV is through "information suppression". "Information suppression" is achieved through rampant deletion of experimental evidence. Usually the deletion is justified by a made up rule and an insult. Some of my comments have been deleted from the talk page by anonymous users.

If cold fusion really is a low radiation nuclear heat generating process then suppression of information is a major disservice to the public. Pcarbon, myself, and others have worked toward a NPOV article that fairly presents the skeptic and experimental point of view. ScienceApologist uses circular logic. Cold fusion got a bad press in 1989 and a de facto censorship ensued. ScienceApologist uses the de facto censorship to justify more censorship. If the evidence we have today existed in 1989 we would not have this de facto censorship today. According to ScienceApologist's line of reasoning, old censorship justifies new censorship, regardless of new facts. ScienceApologist wants a skeptics only POV. Only strawman counter arguments would be allowed. He was a party in reverting the September 2006 article to the 2004 article. ScienceApologist wants to revert to the 2004 article again. This is blatant suppression of information and censorship.

The skeptics do not seem to have a grasp of the scientific method. In the scientific method, experiment is the reality check of science. Existing theory, consensus, and expertize are not. In science, experiment has the most weight, not consensus.

Even if cold fusion is not a useful nuclear reaction, there should still be a NPOV article and little harm would be done. On the other hand if cold fusion is a useful nuclear reaction then a lot of harm is done. Cold fusion is not a trivial academic issue.

Extracted form the NPOV Tutorial page

Information suppression

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:

  • Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:
    • Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.
    • Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).
    • Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
  • Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
    • Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
    • Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).
    • Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.

Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

ScienceApologist statements extracted from Cold Fusion Talk Page

Most of the time he uses circular logic. He uses the defacto censorship of cold fusion to justify more censorship. Comments appear below the relevant text.

Information Suppression.

These are some pretty shitty peer-review journals you're quoting Pcarbonn. Why not an article from Physical Review? Why not provide some cites to more visible and current physics journals? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to provide a quote, it's my opinion as a professional and I'm certainly not going to ask that the article talk about my opinion. In any case, I think that these journals are a bit out-of-the-way considering how monumental the claim that is being made is. What is clear is that this view is being marginalized even as it tries to mitigate its own marginalization. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insult of peer-review journals and misdirection to support information suppression.

This is relevant to the article, you have not been able to find a mainstream source post 2004 that indicates the non-fringe nature of this subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Non-fringe” implies an insult. The statement is in fact wrong. Once again ScienceApologist is trying to justify information suppression..

The DOE panel did not claim that cold fusion was no suddenly "not fringe". All it said was that further investigation was needed and that careful funding of well-posed projects could be done. The journal articles you quote are, frankly, not in the places I would expect for the claims that they are making. Were these people unsuccessful in their attempts to get them published in more accessible journals? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information suppression.


Nope. A self-published book should only be included if it has notability. There is another self-published book which is established as notable since it is (supposedly) a prime example of pro-cold fusion account of the early controversy. This book has no assertion of notability. Let him publish it at a respectable scientific publishing house and we'll include it here. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a number of self-published books from the reference section. In order to include a self-published book we must establish that it has notability outside of the pro-cold fusion community. Even a negative review will suffice. Please see WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information suppression.

There are plenty of sources in the article that indicate that cold fusion falls under the general umbrella of fringe science. Also, the notability guidelines are a good way to figure out how to evaluate sources in terms of reliability. In particular, self-published sources need to be justified before included so as to avoid soapboxing and original research publications. See also external link guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insult and information suppression.

I don't recommend these books because they are self-published and you have not answered the substance of my complaints. I will now revert your action which I take to be roughly inconsiderate in light of the controversial nature of this subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information suppression.

The "pro-cold fusion community" would be the group of enthusiasts including a few scientists who believe that there has been successful reproduction of cold fusion experiments. Most of these people do not publish consistently in peer-review journals (thus the problem with a number of the websites listed) and many of them are rank amateurs in the field. Even the professionals are often marginalized in the sense that they are clamboring for mainstream recognition. We should focus on sources that have seen impact beyond this particular community. This would include mainstream journal articles, publications from respectable scientific publishing companies, and self-published works that have received recognition from people who dispute the grander claims of cold fusion advocates. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insult in description of community and justification of information suppression.

Just being published in a peer-reviewed journal does not automatically mean that everything else the person does should be included at Wikipedia. We need to take each source individually. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for information suppression.

I argue that Mizuno hasn't been established as an expert in the topic because he hasn't been recognized as such by someone who is outside of the pro-cold fusion community. We should have an extremely high standard for including self-published sources, and I don't think having a single peer-review article on a related subject qualifies. Simply having a single article published doesn't do the trick when the person is ostensibly writing a review. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't seem to lend the rhetorical oomph I would like to see for someone self-publishing a book that reviews an entire subject. He seems to be interested in confirmation of cold fusion, but he hasn't, for example, been recognized as a reviewer by anyone outside of the pro-cold fusion community. If he had been asked by a mainstream publishing company, mainstream periodical, or a respected science review journal to write something along those lines, then I could see an argument for including a book he wrote reviewing the status of cold fusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it this way: Has the book received any notable reviews that would lend support to your desire to include it as a reliable resource for our readers? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is patently not how to apply undue weight. Just looking at papers published about cold fusion shows a deliberate publication bias since negative results rarely get published. Most of the time, the scientific community doesn't take the time to write papers challenging the existence of an idea they find to be dubious, even if they people who support it have managed to publish their "results" in out-of-the-way journals and periodicals. It is plainly fact that cold fusion is not considered viable by the vast majority of physicists, for example. Thus it is a distinct minority opinion in science and emphasizing "positive results" is the actual violation of undue weight. ScienceApologist 16:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal: There are a lot of books out there about a lot of subjects. Let's keep the books that Wikipedia references in controversial articles of the highest quality and published by groups that are univerisally considered respectable. That means avoiding publishing outfits such as Infinite Energy Press, Pacific Oaks Press, and Oak Grove Press as these are simply vanity publishing companies. Such companies have no consistent distribution process, no respect within the reference community, nor is there any real visibility for the books that they publish outside the singular fringe communities that are interested in the subject of cold fusion. ScienceApologist 16:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't had "many publications in scientific journals". I don't think that this reference is good at all since it is published by a very questionable publishing press. If you can find a publication by him in a more respectable outfit then that would be great to include! If you cannot, then why hasn't he published there? ScienceApologist 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing papers on a subject does not mean that a book published by Infinite Energy Press is suddenly worthy of inclusion in our reference section. These journals he published in only establish that the reviewers of those journals thought his papers worthy of inclusion: it does not say anything about his status as an expert in cold fusion or that this particular book is a reliable source. Again, you need to come to terms with the fact that this book is not published by a mainstream company. There has to be a damn good reason to include such a text. That the author published some related papers in some obscure journals is not a good enough rationale. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making up his own rules for information suppression.

In fact, all these paragraphs are very close to original research and I have therefore removed them from the article.

ScienceApologist 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information Suppression.

The following is an example of the kind of experimental evidence that was suppressed when the September 2006 version was reverted to the 2004 version.

The cold fusion article as of 06:09, 29 September 2006 is shown in the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=78453163 before it was trashed by ScienceApologist and others.

Nuclear Transmutations

Nuclear transmutations have been reported in many cold fusion experiments since 1992. These reactions (which may be a nuclear fusion or nuclear fission reaction) result in the transformation of a chemical element into another. If one accepts that nuclear transmutations are in fact observed in these experiments, he would have to accept that nuclear reactions take place in cold fusion experiments. He would also have to accept that an apparently enormous Coulomb barrier can be overcome, and that the released energy can be converted to heat.

Tadahiko Mizuno is a prominent nuclear transmutation experimenter, and was among the first to contribute several papers and a book on the subject.[1][2]

Nuclear transmutation experiments have been reviewed by Dr. Miley.[3], a recognized researcher in "Hot Fusion" for his contributions to Inertial electrostatic confinement. [4] He reports that several dozen laboratories are studying these effects. Some experiments result in the creation of only a few elements, while others result in a wide variety of elements from the periodic table. Calcium, copper, zinc, and iron were the most commonly reported elements. Lanthanides were also found: this is significant since they are unlikely to enter as impurities. In addition, the isotopic ratios of the observed elements differ from their natural isotopic ratio or natural abundance. Many elements have multiple isotopes and the percentages of the different isotopes are constant on earth within one tenth of one percent. In general it requires gaseous diffusion, thermal diffusion, electromagnetic separation or other exotic processes of isotope separation or a nuclear reaction to change an element from its natural isotope ratio. The presence of an unnatural isotope ratio makes contamination an implausible explanation. Some experiments reported both transmutations and excess heat, but the correlation between the two effects has not been established. Radiations have also been reported. Miley also reviews possible theories to explain these observations. [5]Ron Marshall (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So far the clearest evidence for transmutation has come from an experiment made by Iwamura and associates, and published in 2002 in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics (one of the top physics journals in Japan).[6] Instead of using electrolysis, they forced deuterium gas to permeate through a thin layer of caesium (also known as cesium) deposited on calcium oxide and palladium, while periodically analyzing the nature of the surface through X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. As the deuterium gas permeated over a period of a week, the amount of caesium progressively decreased while the amount of praseodymium increased, so that caesium appeared to be transmuted into praseodymium. When caesium was replaced by strontium, it was transmuted into molybdenum with anomalous isotopic composition. In both cases this represents an addition of four deuterium nuclei to the original element. They have produced these results six times, and reproducibility was good. The energy released by these transmutations was too low to be observed as heat. No gamma rays were observed. When the calcium oxide was removed or when the deuterium gas was replaced by hydrogen, no transmutation was observed. The authors analyzed, and then rejected, the possibility to explain these various observations by contaminations or migration of impurities from the palladium interior. The experiment was replicated by researchers from Osaka University using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry to analyze the nature of the surface (the Pd complex samples were provided by Iwamura).[7]

In later similar experiments by Iwamura Barium 138 was transmuted to Samarium 150 and Barium 137 was transmuted into Samarium 149. The Barium 138 experiment used a natural isotope ratio of Barium. The Barium 137 experiment used a Barium 137 enriched isotope ratio. These transmutations represent an addition of six deuterium nuclei.[8]

While recognizing the quality of the experiment, a 2004 DOE panelist said that, from a nuclear physics perspective, such conclusions of transmutations are "not to be believed". Fusing 2 deuterons is difficult enough; merging four deuterons with a heavy nucleus such as Palladium [sic] is not to be believed, especially when no evidence is presented for any nuclear products with intermediate atomic mass such as Yttrium, Zirconium, and Niobium. The panelist suggested that the observation could be explained by the migration of the anomalous elements from the interior of the Palladium. [9]

Cold fusion researchers responded that such migration is not possible:

1. Deuterium atoms, flowing from the surface to the interior, would cause diffusion of the anomalous element away from the surface, not toward the surface.

2. Mass spectroscopy done at various depths shows that the anomalous element was not present in the palladium.

3. The element that was originally on the surface disappears at the same rate as the anomalous element appears.

4. The isotopes of the anomalous element are unnatural, and the isotope shifts are exactly what are expected should the missing element transmute into the new element

They say that, since the initial element disappears, the "migration explanation" would imply that the element applied to the surface migrates toward the interior, while the anomalous element migrates in the opposite direction toward the surface. This would violate as many expected behaviors as does cold fusion but in a different field of science: therefore, the Iwamura results justify additional research to understand what's happening. They also said such explanations are mere hand waving, and that this kind of reasoning is typical of most reviews.[10]

Bush and Eagleton have reported the appearance of radioactive isotopes with an average half-life of 3.8 days in electrolytic cells, an observation that is difficult to explain by contamination or migration.[11]

Attempts to find at least partial theoretical explanations are being made by Takahashi and others. One proposal by Takahashi to explain the wide range of elements generated is that fission of palladium is initiated by high energy photons, and suggests potential applications in the treatment of nuclear wastes by transmutation.[12][13]

Statement by JohnAspinall

This is a debate over content and the impression that content creates in the uninformed reader.

Pseudoscience (and I am not expressing an opinion about whether cold fusion is in that category or not) succeeds by dressing itself in the scientific veneer and hoping the reader doesn't look beneath the surface. Pseudoscience reads like a sales brochure. In contrast, real science succeeds by being relentlessly critical of itself. Most of the current debate could have been avoided, had the editors of the reverted version been more critical of what was written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAspinall (talk • contribs)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

No Original Research

Initiated by COGDEN at 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

A prior list of all involved parties was originally included, but this list was too large, and has since been re-factored to include only the most active editors involving the ownership of NOR and blocking good faith edits and moves toward consensus. All the other parties have been notified, and if this request is accepted, they may produce evidence:

Editors most active in ownership and blocking good faith edits
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A full list of links relating to dispute resolution would be a monumental task, given the scope of the dispute and the number of editors involved; however, what follows is a summary of major dispute resolution attempts:

Attempts to resolve the dispute began in July and August 2007. The ensuing months included a flurry of comments (about 50% on either side of the issue) essentially filling ten archive pages and counting,[89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]. There have been several edit wars involving numerous editors, followed by periods of protection. There have been innumerable straw polls, and a number of administrators have taken positions on either side. The dispute has been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment many times, and on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) many times.

In early September 2007, there was a request for mediation; however, this request was rejected because many of the parties positively refused to participate. Despite several attempts to induce some sort of compromise, or to achieve some sort of modest consensus, it is apparent that any move toward consensus will inevitably result in an edit war among numerous editors, and repeated violations of policies such as WP:POLICY, WP:CONS, WP:EP, and WP:OWN. A decision by the Arbitration Committee appears to be the only way to enforce these policies and allow movement toward consensus.

Statement by COGDEN

This request is about the conduct of a very opinionated faction of editors who have assumed ownership of a relatively young and highly controversial section in Wikipedia's foundational No original research page.

Wikipedia has always encouraged the use of reliable sources, and Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy was created in 2003, after consultation with Jimbo, to ensure editors "stick to those sources". It's a simple rule. However, over the course of the NOR article's recent history, a few editors have gradually replaced this simple rule with a complicated framework derived from historiography which—possibly because of its complexity and intractability—has largely has gone unnoticed by the broader community of Wikipedia editors. Under this rather-artificial framework, sources were divided into three historiographic categories of reliable sources: reliable primary sources (like peer reviewed journals, newspapers, interviews, and works of fiction) were deprecated and sometimes prohibited. Secondary sources (like book reviews and reprints) were acceptable, unless they fell into the tertiary source sub-category (like textbooks), which again were deprecated.

This formulation is clearly controversial and demonstrably does not reflect widespread Wikipedia practice. A few of us were first able to demonstrate this in about July and August of 2007, which sparked the subsequent ownership and consensus violations by those involved in crafting the historiographic model and those sympathetic to that model. This formulation simply has too many loopholes and vagaries: it prohibits, or at least strongly discourages, many types of source references that have been the bread and butter of Wikipedia since its inception, including peer-reviewed journal articles, movies, novels, interviews, speeches, and newspaper articles.

After a flood of commentary on the subject from all corners of Wikipedia, it has become perfectly clear that the section at issue is highly controversial. Approximately half of the editors commenting on the NOR talk page oppose it, or think it should be changed. Having a non-consensus section in a policy page, however, is an untenable position, and there have been numerous proposals by many editors for compromise language. The "owners" have not responded to these proposals on their merits, simply because the proposed language is not same as the "owned" language. One well-meaning administrator "owner" has even suggested that ownership is okay in policy pages.(diff) (section)

Since the section is controversial and obviously does not reflect Wikipedia consensus, that section should be changed to match actual Wikipedia practice. Policy pages document consensus, not decree it. Moreover:

(see WP:CONS). It has been impossible, however, to permanently remove or alter the controversial section. Attempts to remove it and replace it with clear, neutral consensus language have been met with improper reversions by those who should not be allowed to own the article.

Statement by Phil Sandifer

This is an absurd case and should not be taken up. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

An RfC was filed about Cogden earlier today, and his response was to file this RfAr. In fairness, the RfC should be given a chance to work as a first step in dispute resolution. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WAS 4.250

I have experienced a severe case of ownership with regard to the status of primary versus secondary sources at our content policy pages. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreadstar

This case is premature, the dispute process has not been allowed to run its course yet. An RfC on this subject is not even a day old, it was opened just today. Dreadstar † 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has cropped up several times, let me add that the RfC on Cogden had nothing to do with his general statement about possibly going to ArbCom, the RfC was in process long before he posted that statement. I had no clue he was putting together an Arbitration case until after the RfC had been filed. Honestly, I think Cogden’s rush to post this RfArb was an attempt to trump the RfC and game the dispute resolution process…similar to his apparent attempts to game policy by his non-consensus changes to WP:CON and, WP:POLICY to support his changes to WP:NOR, so he could then freely use Primary sources as he sees fit. Dreadstar † 01:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheFarix

I'm not exactly sure why I'm being dragged into this other then having posted a couple of comments about an unrelated matter of whether a descriptive plot summary written from the work itself constituted original research, of which the consensus stated that it wasn't. --Farix (Talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statemeny by Amarkov

How, exactly, were sixty-five parties concluded to be involved here? -Amarkov moo! 00:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Avillia

If a review of the diffs, archived discussion, and recent history of WP:NOR is to be believed, this does not at all merit dismissal as an 'absurd case'. To the contrary, it would appear that this is a issue of some true consequence.

Amongst other things:

  • The list of involved users is quite more extensive than the documentation of physical evidence -- it likely includes parties with remote levels of involvement, and I doubt that every party has been informed... this is something to correct, perhaps, COGDEN? Regardless, this makes a quick and painless summary rather difficult, although I am going to go ahead and review the majority of differences tonight -- I've already found a choice few for this statement, and I'll continue to update it.
  • WP:NOR is a crucial policy page and disruption involving it is a serious matter --- it is key to the project's claim of truthfulness, correctness, and verifiability. Additionally, the misapplication, misinterpretation, or misanythingelse of this policy could result in serious issues, up to and including legal issues involving the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • This dispute involves more than just COGDEN -- it involves the community at large's conflicting opinions on one of the key tenets of the project.
  • This dispute has had a long run through multiple attempts to "bridge the gap" by compromise, through multiple attempts to seek various forms of dispute resolution, and etcedra.
  • There is quite some occurence of what could be called incivility in relation to this dispute... I've gone ahead and tried to collect a few diffs --- [99] [100]
  • The Request for Comment regarding the submitter of this request, COGDEN, is related to his personal conduct -- while it may be something the Arbitration Committee needs to take under advisement and issue sanctions regarding, it is by no means inclusive of the issue at hand.
  • By no means does the result of arbitration have to reflect poorly on any given party. COGDEN may face sanctions, the administrators at hand may face sanctions -- this dispute has so polarized a key subset of Wikipedia that it will take careful weighting of multiple viewpoints and opinions to decide carefully -- something the Arbitration Committee was elected to do, and something that the community may be incapable of doing regarding this dispute due to that exact polarizing effect.

It would benefit all involved parties as well as the project as a whole if the Arbitration Committee took this case under advisement. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Crum375

I believe that the RfC filed today needs to be completed. Also, I think the number of 'involved parties' here is unwieldy. Crum375 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fullstop

SlimVirgin's statement that Cogden filed this RfAr "in response" to the RfC is not correct. According to the initiating statement of the RfC itself, it was filed in part because (so the RfC filer's own words) "His latest threat is to take the disputing editors to ArbCom." SlimVirgin may however be excused for thinking otherwise since it is in effect his edits that we have to thank for the mess. ;)

Seriously though, and irrespective of whether someone sees deferral to ArbCom as a "threat," if Cogden feels there is something actionable here, then I think it ought to be heard. After N months the fundamental problem needs to be tackled somehow. If for nothing else, then to snap mandate 0RR for the page. Perhaps even a max.-20-words-per-edit rule.

Being a matter of policy it should perhaps even be heard with Jimbo, whose name/comments have sliced/diced and otherwise (mis)interpreted seven ways to Sunday.

Given that the PSTS section is the bone of contention, and the proponents of the section insist that it has "consensus," then I'm sure they won't object if to have this particular section undergo due process, i.e. the same process that any "new" page would go through to become policy. As WP:Consensus states, "Consensus can change."

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Vassyana

There is indeed a long-running dispute at a core policy that has resulted in multiple, often long-term, page protections. I must admit frustration with the process and difficulty in reaching consensus. I even believe ArbCom could be of assistance in resolving this matter. However, I strongly object to this particular filing. From the inaccurate description of the dispute to the grapeshot list of participants, and especially the division of participants into admins and "regular" users, this filing is rife with problems. (That is not to say I am not sympathetic to some of COGDEN's points/claims, but rather that I feel the presentation is inaccurate, including the list of parties.) As frustrated as I am (and believe me anyone looking at WT:NOR knows I'm terribly frustrated), I would suggest that a bit more time be allowed to resolve the dispute outside of ArbCom. If we can resolve it within the next couple weeks on our own, we can save a lot of time and save ArbCom a lot of effort. If ArbCom does accept this case, or an arbitor requests it, I will elaborate on my understanding of the dispute. I would also recommend that if this case is accepted that the list of participants be drastically reduced to only include those who have taken an active part over the past months. This is already a very complicated situation involving more people than usual and it's not fair or helpful to ArbCom, the parties to the dispute or the individuals to include those who've made only passing comments or similarly are not part of the dispute in question. The list of participants should also not be artifically divided into admins and "everyone else". I recently resigned my admin bit, but my participation in the discussion has not been affected one way or the other (because it's simply not relevant to the matter). Vassyana (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of fingerpointing going on, so I would like to take some responsibility here. The recent explosion was (at least in part) my fault. I posted a message of disgust with the frustrating process.[101] I also self-reverted in an openly angry manner.[102] I did strike out some of my comments later.[103] My heated comments and attitude set off something of a powderkeg. Considering my long-running participation at WT:NOR, I really should have known well-enough to wander away for a while to collect myself even if I still would have still (in my eyes) called a spade what it is. Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Cla68

Further evidence of WP:OWN issues with NOR are here: [104]. Perhaps User:TimVickers should also be invited to leave comments on the issue. Before deciding on whether to accept this case or not, I suggest that the arbitrators determine if opening the RfC on COGDEN was an attempt to sabotage his request to open an ArbCom case on this issue. Cla68 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Swatjester

I'm not sympathetic to COGDEN's concerns here, but that being said this is clearly something that ArbCom needs to decide. It's involving a behavior dispute on a policy page, one of our core policies. This is exactly the kind of thing ArbCom should be deciding, RFC or not. With this many people waiting for an RFC to finish is going to be an exercise in futility. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved (?) User:Raymond_arritt

The idea that anyone who edited a certain article or talk page is somehow a party to this dispute is plainly absurd. COGDEN had some points worth considering in his discussion on the policy page. Nonetheless I strongly recommend he be admonished or disciplined for the manner in which he brought this case, lest other editors believe that it is acceptable to waste the Arbitration Committee's time on asinine matters such as this. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by llywrch

It's been a few days to a couple of weeks since I participated in this discussion. I agree with COGDEN that both sides are opinionated. However, I respectfully disagree with him that this matter needs to be brought to the attention of the ArbCom at this time.

Unless things have dramatically changed since the last time I participated in the discussion, all parties are behaving in a civil & proper manner; the information I have seen in the RfC mentioned above does not convince me otherwise. Individuals on both sides are making thoughtful comments, which deserve to be considered in due speed. Unfortunately, as Vassyana mentioned above, this "due speed" is not as fast as people would like. The fact this discussion has been going on for a few months does not mean we should have a consensus soon: a man asked almost two thousand years ago, "What is truth", & people are still arguing over an answer. Speaking as someone who has contributed to Wikipedia for over five years, & has seen a far amount of wikidrama & discussion, improper behavior -- disruption, threats, intolerance, & so forth -- is the only reason why a matter should be brought before the ArbCom. -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved (?) User:Jossi

Codgen needs to get the hint, and hopefully the RfC will help him with this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Dorftrottel

Didn't realise this was such a hotly debated topic. At any rate, for all I know there's no need to rush this and RfAr seems a bit premature. Let's see how the RfC goes. I dorftrottel I talk I 06:33, December 13, 2007

Oh, and I feel so second class, being listed seperately as a non-admin above [now changed, thus adjusting link to past revision]. Is there a particular reason for that? I dorftrottel I talk I 06:37, December 13, 2007

Statement by GTBacchus

I have nothing to do with this case, and I don't know why I'm listed as a party to it, except probably that I've posted to WT:NOR recently. I'd be happy enough to be removed from the list of involved parties. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved User:Ssbohio

I recommend accepting this case for the purpose of examining and commenting/ruling upon user conduct. The question of how NOR relates to primary source, secondary source, or tertiary source sources is not one for ArbCom, but one to be addressed by bottom-up consensus building. IWhile I didn't jump into the kerfuffle at Wikipedia talk:No original research, I've previously been involved in a content dispute with a party to this case in which they used their admin tools to unilaterally enforce their preferred article content([105], [106], [107], [108]) and attempted to create their own standard of requiring multiple-sourcing for content they found personally objectionable.([109], [110], [111], [112]) The novel synthesis of NOR, RS, & BLP has led to problematic editing, particularly to a sort of carte blanche for those who want to delete unpalatable content. For all these reasons, I feel that the users' conduct in editing, interpreting, and administering/enforcing these policies is in desperate need of an authoritative look. --Ssbohio (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by dhaluza

I think that ArbCom should take up this case, because it involves more than a simple content dispute, and the parties have been unable to resolve it through an extended process of normal editing. I was planning to refer it myself, but COGDEN beat me to it. I would have formulated the case slightly differently, however, and may still refer it later if rejected here, since I seem to be late to the party already (I think it's unfortunate that we have arbitrarors making decisions only hours after the case is referred, before involved parties have an opportunity to comment).

Although ArbCom usually rejects simple content disputes, and only takes up matters involving sanctions against users, I think it would be helpful in this case to decide what the ground rules are for future editing of this policy (and by implication all policies) and to identify which types of editing behavior would be sanctioned if continued (but without considering specific sanctions against specific users at this time). The basic issue at hand is stability of policy documents vs. stagnation. Also at issue is how to interpret Consensus, especially implied consensus of historical policy formulations, vs. the current consensus, or lack of consensus of current contributors to the discussion. Dhaluza (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by BirgitteSB

Having previously taken part in discussions at WP:NOR I was asked to comment on the Request for Arbitration. I have been watching this page since before October of 2006. There have always been serious and consistent problems with any editing of this policy, which by sheer repetition with disparate editors, can have nothing to do with COGDEN in particular. (Although I am certain findings could be made against COGDEN if this case was accepted) I personally don't think Arbcom is competent in cases like this one so please reject it rather than oversimplifying this into something where one or two people found to be blatantly in the wrong and "all editors are reminded . . ." Arbcom is not going to help here.--BirgitteSB 15:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by wbfergus

I think that eventually, whether now or later, this 'issue' will need to resolved by the ArbCom. Timing issues aside, there are many different aspects to this 'case' that should be addressed by the ArbCom, as I don't feel the RfC alone can adequately address them. I think at least some 'decision' by the ArbCom (at some point, now or later) is going to have to be made or the core problems will merely continue unabated, though maybe at a less emotional level. As I have stated on the RfC page, both 'sides' have been at fault at various times, sometimes at the same time. At various times, I have agreed with one side or the other, but both of the two main 'sides' are at extremes most of the time as well.

To me, one of the main points points of contentions is that (copied from my comments on the RfC page):

  1. COgden has been a polarizing figure at one extreme for changes (call him 'far-right').
  2. Around 7 or so Admins and a couple non-Admins have been at the extreme other end, no changes whatsover under any conditions (call them 'far-left').
  3. Most participants fall in the middle, casting their 'vote' (stating their opinion) towards either side depending on the issue at hand.
  4. I can clearly see both 'sides' of this argument and also clearly see that neither side is willing to back down or is willing to compromise, and that this issue will not simply go away without COgden, but will instead simply continue.
Regarding the tag on the policy page issue, I have the following comments. It has been stated that this 'destabilizes' policy. The tag wasn't (at least in the final variations of it) at the top of the page, but down in the section were controversy exists. I didn't find it disruptive or destabilizing, but more as a 'flag' that it was being discussed for one reason or another, and if someone wanted to know why, they could go to the talk page to find out why it was so flagged. To me, this mainly was a mechanism for others to actively participate, since previous postings on the Village Pump and other related policies hadn't generated much extra participation. Since the tag first appeared though, there did seem to me to be more people joining in the discussions, so it seemed like the approach worked, though maybe the other 'side' didn't want more participation.
This in itself is one of the issues that seemed to vaguely reflect WP:OWN. At times, the 'anti-COgden' side seemed more interested in keeping the group of participants small.
On Oct. 13, 2006, the NOR policy looked like this [113]. By Oct. 31, 2006, NOR looked like this [114]. This is after 23 different edits by SlimVirgin, 12 edits by other editors, 5 of which were reverts. Further, this seems to be in clear violation of WP:POL that even on Sept. 29, 2006 (before the NOR edits and still exists today), where it explictly states "As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages, but are sometimes forked out if large in scope. One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first." As the before and after versions clearly show, this wasn't just minor editing, but a major rewrite. I have been unable to find anywhere (though I would love to proven wrong) any announcements on Village Pump or any related policy pages discussions about these changes. The only 'discussion' I have been able to find is on the (now) archived talk page in Archive 15 at [115], where one editor questioned the mass edits, and another editor replied back. That is it, no other discussions anywhere.
Since these mass edits, there have been around 700 edits, primarily about these changes, either modifications, changes or reverts. Looking over the edit history and the talk page, it 'seems' like these mas changes to a 'core policy' were done in a vacuum, with maybe 20 or so different editors aware of them. One of the common arguments any change to the policy has been (for the last 4-6 months), that these changes have been long-standing policy and made with wide-spread community consensus. I (and many others) have failed to see how so few editors can make 'widespread community consensus'. Another argument used to show there is (was?) consensus for these changes is that silence equates to acceptance, even though just yesterday, SlimVirgin on the WT:POL page in an argument with COgden explicitly stated "This is not what consensus is when it comes to policy. Silence doesn't mean people agree". This is in context to COgden assuming consensus when no objections to a change were brought forth.
So again, this really raises the specter of WP:OWN, when it seems that there is a protectionist 'group' to keep the status quo, and twists arguments from one policy discussion page around to suit their needs on another policy discussion page.
For right now, I won't even get into the issue of incivility from a few of those supporting any action against COgden, or the actions where a few people have been discussing NOR more or less behind the scenes on User talk pages and trying to solicit support. I don't know if that's allowable or not, but seems to be another pertinent aspect of this whole convoluted mess.

(end of copied text)

I think the 'last straw' that finally got people motivated enough to begin working on the RfC and this arbitration request were some of the actions and comments of the last week. Another user, Vassyana, has been working diligently for many, many months towards consensus building, etc. so that most people from either of the two extremes could agree on something, even if it did need a few more tweaks. He discussed his changes openly on the talk page, requested comments, and comments about further changes were addressed and made. After a period of inactivity, he re-proposed the changes, waited for further comments and made more changes as noted. Finally, with no further objections to his proposal (in that section of the talk page), he made the change to the policy itself. This quickly reverted in it's entirety, with the comment from a user that they didn't like the word 'raw'. So, instead of working to modify that word or clause, they just simply reverted everything. This has happened numerous times in the last week or two. Instead or addressing the key points (or words) they object to, it is simply a mass revert of everything. This is further complicated that the page has been protected so that only Admins can edit the policy page, and most of those in the 'no-change' camp are Admins. This in itself prevents any attempts at good faith edits by the rest of the community impossible. Since there are Admins on both sides of the issues though, it still hasn't prevented any more edit-warring than there would be without the protection.

That is it for now, I have other things to do (take my wife to a Dr. appointment), but by no means have I (or anybody else) addressed all of the various issues involved. wbfergus Talk 15:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Followup/additional comments)

As even a very cursory perusal of both the talk pages (active and archived) and the edit history of the policy page itself clearly show, the overwhelming majority of all 'activity' has centered around the PSTS section. One of the points I agree with the 'far-left' group (see above term), is that policies should be fairly stable, maybe a few tweaks here and there over time, but fairly consistent, stable, and definately very clear.
Myself and several other editors have suggested that perhaps a viable alternative to keep the policy fairly stable would be by moving PSTS somewhere else, perhaps into another policy or maybe it's own separate guideline. This would remove the controversial section that is causing so many problems from the policy, but could still be used as enforcement of the policy, much like WP:RS helps serve WP:V and many other policies and guidelines interact (WP:CIVIL with WP:EQ, etc.). This proposal has been offered as an alternative several times, but each time summarily rejected by the 'far-left' group as unworkable, a non-starter, or just claims of how it would weaken WP:NOR, without any actual examples given. Sometimes this has also just been met with the accusation that we are actually proposing to eliminate PSTS, which is blatantly untrue. Other policies and guidelines seem to be able to interact with each other well and without confusion, so it very unclear why WP:NOR couldn't have the same interaction with something like a new WP:PSTS guideline (that would start off at least as an exact copy of the current disputed section) or at least the inclusion in something else like WP:V that's more 'source' oriented. These are just ideas that have been submitted as alternatives to end this constant 'bickering' back and forth over one highly controversial section that in itself has been the sole destabilizing factor of the policy, not a 'disputed' tag or any particular editor. The destabilizing 'part' has been this one section created (or more accurately completely rewritten) a bit over a year ago with only the knowledge of maybe 20 or so editors max, and no announcements or discussions, per Wikipedia policy (then and now). wbfergus Talk 12:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of semi but not really involved Wikidemo

The edit war is intolerable and needs some resolution, but I'm not sure ArbCom is the place for that. I do have some opinions on what the WP:NOR policy page should say but they are not that strong. I learned how to edit here by reading the page, which at the time had a version of primary/secondary/tertiary distinction and the admonition to use secondary sources that I found extremely useful for editing purposes. I haven't looked at this from the broader perspective of building the best encyclopedia, but rather on how I can best contribute. The wording I read at the time did the trick, so perhaps I'm biased in favor of that particular version.

What is intolerable is that it keeps changing as two sides edit war over such a fundamental principle as what content is fit for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Thus, my main issues are stability of the policy, and keeping some decorum and civility in such an important, public place. It's disheartening to watch Wikiepdia's best-informed and smartest long-term contributors fighting with each other.

It seems to me that the choice of whether and how to implement a primary/secondary/tertiary source distinction is rather fundamental to what it is to be an encyclopedia - something that goes beyond consensus or policy or even arbitration, and rather goes to what kind of a project this is. Many of the passionate arguments made seem valid, or at least reasonable, but I question whether the issue is really up for negotiation. Currently, NOR is mentioned in the five pillars and the five pillars are officially non-negotiable. How to interpret and implement the five pillars is clearly negotiable on the other hand.

Maybe this will get to the level where we should ask for intervention from Jimbo and/or the Board. They can rule if they want. If they prefer to leave it to the rough and tumble of evolving consensus, ArbCom might want to take that cue and do the same, limiting its involvement merely to handling any misbehavior or procedural bottleneck that occurs. If that means suffering an endless edit war on the policy page, so be it. ArbCom can act to quash the edit war, but it may lack the tools or the authority to decide what the policy page should actually say.

I hope this will be proven wrong but I doubt the RFC will go anywhere, for what that's worth. If the only problem with this RFAR is that it's premature we can put it on ice for a week or so and the issue will likely be there still.

On the other hand, if we keep this to the more limited question of whether there is consensus, and who is resisting consensus, I got the impression that Vassyana's mediated solution does have consensus, and that the nominator and a few others who oppose it are simply refusing to accept the outcome. Wikidemo (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:Gerry Ashton

I view prohibiting the use of legitimate sources as virtual book-burning. Just as fires may be accidental or arson, virtual book-burning may be an intentional attempt to exclude information that is contrary to one's views, or it may be accidental, through the sloppy drafting of policy language. Because there are many sources of information, and the terms used to describe information sources, such as "primary", "secondary", "independent", "third-party", or "self-published" are fuzzy, it is not surprising that many attempts to alter this policy inadvertently lead to excluding legitimate sources. Since this amounts to virtual book-burning, it is not surprising that the response to these alterations is nearly as vigorous as the response of a fire department to a real burning books. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:SmokeyJoe

This is a case of a failing process to find consensus on a small piece of content of a policy page. The dispute is entrenched . The issue is being beaten by so many interested editors with many firmly held opinions that I cannot see a resolution, short of everyone becoming exhausted. I do not feel that any editors have been exhibiting bad faith. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:Minasbeede

NOR is an important part of the core Wikipedia policies and should be followed and respected.

Much of the controversy arises over source typing. I have never seen source typing, as advocated, adequately described. If the advocates cannot describe it then I suggest it is totally improper for inclusion in a policy. Insistence it needs to be there is not description.

I have also seen, in the evidence submitted in the NOR discussion page by an advocate of source typing that his own use of source typing, as seen in the example he submitted, was to unilaterally and without discussion remove edits made by another. Absent the editor/administrator's own testimony that his action was an example of the importance of source typing it is difficult for me to see how anyone could recognize the action (total removal of material without discussion) as arising from any policy.

I have made my own comments, some intemperate, on the NOR discussion page. The issue isn't arbitration nor RFC, the issue is the content of the NOR policy. There are editors acting in good faith to resolve the dispute, there are other editors. I doubt arbitrators can solve this problem. Wikipedia editors acting in true good faith can.

I see at least one other person has looked at the edit history of NOR and has seen that source typing appears to always have been desired by a minority and to not have had the long period of acceptance claimed by its advocates. There were early objections, there have been objections since.

It should be noted that at least some of the support for source typing is explicitly said by one or more of the advocates for it to be intended to "improve" Wikipedia (by making it be more restricted to the research conclusions of secondary sources.) Source typing, as used, attacks the "wiki" nature of Wikipedia. If partially destroying the wiki aspect of Wikipedia improves it - well, go ahead. Does it?

I suggest to the arbitrators, if they take this on, that they request the advocates of source typing to, themselves, come up with a definitive (for the purposes of the arbitration) description of source typing. I suggest that the arbitrators create a list of criteria for policy language, inviting others to participate in formulating the criteria, and then evaluate the definitive description against those criteria. The arbitrators can then determine, using all evidence and available comments, whether or not the source typing language meets the criteria. They could then accept the language, reject it, or at least create a better "starting version" of source typing that could be the basis for further discussion. I am not being benign nor neutral in specifying that the advocates be required to create a definitive (for them) statement of advocacy for source typing. I nonetheless think that it is a good idea.

I say this as a self-described "external observer." This issue, unresolved, is destructive to Wikipedia. I would not have commented had I not received a message informing me of this arbitration request. I have, with good if not perfect success, removed myself from the discussion. I have not looked at NOR nor at the discussion page since my last comment. I don't think I will look.

Good luck. --Minasbeede (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pixelface

I urge the arbitration committee to accept this case. There is some behavior here that definitely needs to be looked at, and it involves one of our 3 core policy pages. I do not believe that the RFCC on COGDEN will resolve the dispute. --Pixelface (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

  • Reject pending the outcome of the RfC; it'll take the community's temperature if nothing else. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Mackensen, and also there's no way in the world am I ever going to accept a case with 65 editors listed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. This is so open-ended that I cannot see an arbcom case defined this loosely as being useful; deciding policy is beyond what we have historically been asked for. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Matthew Brown (Morven). FloNight (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bell

Initiated by Gump (talk) at 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rob_Bell#Arbitration

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[116] [117] [118] [119]

Please note that Gump has not participated in any meaningful fashion in resolution on Talk:Rob_Bell

This arbitration request was issued by me -- the above statement was added afterwards to tip the scales. See my statement below. -- Gump (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gump

I'd also appreciate it if you could review the revert war taking place at Rob Bell.

A group of religious misfits ( here, here, and here have arrived to remove all substantial material content found by them to be even remotely critical in nature. They are now screaming to "discuss" the situation on the article's talk page yet their actions in reverting Alexfusco5, GeorgeLouis and my efforts to preserve critical viewpoints demonstrate their capacity for reasoning with opposition.

Opposing views are not tolerated and are routinely removed by this gang of Preterist buddies. This same group has removed unbiased revisions by many other users over the past year. Any discussions on the article's talk page are dominated by the gang and only accepted terms between these buddies are deemed final, as if a real process of discussion actually took place. I will admit that in my efforts to suppress the weight of their overwhelming presence, I have broken revert rules. For this I apologize and am now motivated to take this issue to the proper channels - namely, you.

You may or may not be familiar with their religious sect, but in sum, they belong to a radical element of Christianity called the "Emergent Church" which holds to a Preterist eschatology whose desire is to bring "justice" to earth by forcing heaven ("the kingdom") to come down in their rendition of social justice.....apparently they view winning this Wiki-war as one part of their war for "restoration" - yep, you read correctly.....please....help.

Statement from Isotope23

I'm not involved in this in any way, but it seems Arbitration is premature here. This should go through a request for comment, mediation, or even possibly be considered for deletion (as the subject doesn't appear especially notable, even if the article is well sourced). Arbitration is the last resort and I don't think it's quite gotten to that point yet.--Isotope23 talk 21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lyonscc

Gump has completely refused to engage in discussion on the article and the need to maintain W:NPOV, W:NOR, W:V and to avoid Wikipedia:Coatrack issues.

It is very clear in W:V that blogs are not to be sources for Wikipedia articles, and that material, like that in apprising.org (the personal blog of Ken Silva) does not even come close to the level of scrutiny required for WP:BLP.

We have tried to include the SOURCE of criticism (which I would suggest is still too obscure, in cases) without trying to lay out a biased case for/against the criticism (in violation of W:NOR). The fact that Gump has not engaged in any meaningful fashion in discussing changes posted to Talk:Rob_Bell, along with his comments in the change log (and above) show a predisposed bias to never attempt coming to agreement on wording that is not in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies.

From the change log:

15:01, 10 December 2007 Gump (Talk | contribs) (15,663 bytes) (Undid revision 176994588 by Thunderbolt2002 There is nothing to discuss with the unreasonable: your crowd opposes ALL criticism. Stop censoring.) 14:57, 10 December 2007 Thunderbolt2002 (Talk | contribs) (14,154 bytes) (Undid revision 176993739 by Gump (talk) Per Recent Edit War - Please discuss changes in talk first.) (undo)

He keeps referring to "your crowd", and defining me as belonging to a religious sect that I certainly do not belong to, and refusing to even consider changes to the criticism section of the article to keep it in line with the W:NPOV guidelines. Please see Talk:Rob_Bell to for evidence of his unwillingness to consense.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

  • Decline - This dispute is only a few days and a few reverts old. Before December 10, Gump had made less than ten edits at all for about eight months. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, premature. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, premature. FloNight (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, premature. Kirill 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method

Initiated by Famousdog (talk) at 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[120] [121]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This has gone to mediation before and nothing came of it.

Statement by Famousdog

This has been going on for months. Seeyou objects to my edits to the Bates method page and has now resorted to accusing me of sockpuppetry here and here, attacking me personally here and possibly recruiting meatpuppets, or using anon accounts as sockpuppets to make edits to this page details here. In my defense, I am a vision scientist and I have always tried to provide adequate citations for my edits. Seeyou's edits amount to little beyond adding links to the "Visions of Joy" website and cheerleading against me. Things have got a little heated between us in the past, so I am attempting to maintain civility this time.

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

For two prior declined requests concerning this article, see [122] and [123]. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

  • Decline, just as little to arbitrate as the last two times. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, the situation can be handled by the Community; does not need the involvement of the Committee. FloNight (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per FloNight. Kirill 13:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Place new requests at the top.

Requested motions to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

I request that the Committee consider the following motions. It is not clear where request for motions in a prior cases ought be placed, so could the clerks move this to the right spot if this is not it. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: I have moved these requests to the "requests for clarifications" section as probably the best place for them. I agree with Marting that it is not clear from the instructions where a request for relief from a prior decision should be posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of bans for both User:Digwuren and User:Petri Krohn

It is now obvious, after an initial bit of confusion and subsequent clarification, that the remedy 11 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction will be most effective in combating incivility, which was the core issue of this case. No one was calling for year long bans for either party in the original case, in fact most involved and uninvolved were explicitly against any ban, as Alex Bakharev succinctly argued here and seconded by many others including Geogre and Biophys in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Remedies_are_too_harsh. Note too that Digwuren did make a reflective and conciliatory statement aplogising to those he had wronged and forgiving those who had wronged him Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Digwuren. Compare this to the recently banned Anonimu, where there was a clear concensus for a ban and he was defiant and un-remorseful to the end.

While a year is a long time, and shortening it may be useful, I'd like to see those users expressing remorse, telling us what they have learned and promising not to continue behavior that led to their ban before any shortening or suspension of a ban is considered.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in banning these editors, especially Petri, who unlike Digwuren, even sincerely apologized long before the case and was still punished for his actions taken prior to the apology, unlike Digwuren who continued to create "occupation" badwagons, revert war and bait contributors even while his arbitration was ongoing. Still, as far as Digwuren is concerned, I neither proposed nor supported a year-long ban. I have a very thick skin towards incivility and this aspect of his conduct did not bother me much. But if he is unblocked, he must be on the short leash regarding the number of reverts and coatracking.

Overall, I think that case needs a new hearing in light of how editors see it now in the retrospect and by the hopefully wisened up ArbCom as well. Also, there were several new developments, chiefly, editors using the "editing restrictions" to blockshop and vigorously "investigate" each other. This whole matter needs a fresh look, perhaps by a renewed Arbcom after the election which is almost over.

I would object to selective reversals of the original decision. The case was handled badly in a hands-off-by-ArbCom-type way during the entire precedings. Selective return of Digwuren and doing nothing else would just make matters worse. Rehashing that decision overall may be a good thing and hearing all parties in an orderly way by the arbitrators who actually listned and engage would be a good thing though. --Irpen 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber from the Involved parties list

These people were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day. No or little evidence was presented against them and no finding of fact either. In fact they had absolutely no involvement in the issues of this case and were only mentioned because they were included in an earlier checkuser case. Note however it is a finding of fact that Petri Krohn used Wikipedia as a battleground, and the checkuser case against these and other Estonian users was a part of that warfare. We don't want to perpetuate this wrong against these three editors.

Therefore I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact I made a similar motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties during the case and it was seconded by the clerk Cbrown1023 at the time. I know it is a minor issue, but it is an important gesture that ArbCom ought to do to further heal the hurts and encourage them to return, particularly User:3 Löwi who has been an editor of good standing since 2005.

Expand definition of "uninvolved admin" in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

The principle of involved admins not being permitted to issue blocks is founded on the issue of conflict of interest and that trust should be maintained in the impartiality of the blocking admin. Generally "involved" means personal involvement in the immediate issue or article. However, given that the span of this general restriction covers all of Eastern Europe, and the principle that trust should be maintained in the blocking admin's impartiality, and that political issues (the role of the Soviet Union and communism) is the basis for much of the conflict on Eastern Europe; the definition of "involved" should be expanded for this remedy to include admins with overt and obvious political view points or past significant involvment in content disputes within Eastern Europe

The recent episode concerning blocks issued by El_C illustrates this problem. An admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. Note that this is same admin saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors". This fact of questionable impartiality and lack of trust only served to inflame the situation resulting a commited and significant editor and wikiproject coordinator Sander Säde to leave the project.

While one must endeavour to assume good faith, never the less, there would be an issue of trust in the judgement of an admin if, to illustrate with an example, they had a vanity page consisting of images of Osama bin Ladin and Hezbollah on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding Israeli related topic. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved enforcing this remedy.

Good point, but it all boils down to the issue of anonymity. El C at least declares some of his POV on his user page. I, for example, declare quite a few more things. Would you prefer to trust a user who declares nothing? How can we be sure if such declarations are truthful, and not ironic or simply deceptive? Looking back at the Essjay controversy I still think all admins should be required to reveal their identity, education, and POVs... but I am well aware this will not fly. I think "uninvolved admin" should be one that is accepted by the parties; but of course that creates a possibility for the parties to evade judgment by refusing to accept any admin as uninvolved. Perhaps to avoid that but deal with the problem you outlined, we should have a procedure parties can lodge complains about admin's involvement, where this could be reviewed by other admins and if involvement is determined (something like CoI), the admin's action is reverted and warning issued? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is time served included in block time?

Privatemusings [124] was prohibited from editing for 90 days Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision due to an arbitration decision. Does the 90 days start from the time of the decision (December 2) or from the time his block for misbehavior started (November 18th)? Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule is that remedies take effect at the time the decision is finalized and announced. I have suggested once or twice that the time might better run from an earlier effective date based on the equities of a specific case, but the idea has never been endorsed by any of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by some odd twist of fate you should find yourself enjoying the fine fruits of membership of that august body, you might push again for such a position. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge restricted

A user has suggested that editing on presidential candidate Mitt Romney would violate this edit restriction because Romney's an anti-abortion flip-flopper. User specifically opposes Ferrylodge's participation in a debate about including reference to Romney's polygamist ancestors (because, it's argued, polygamy relates to reproduction).[125] Is Ferrylodge in fact restricted from these topics? Is he close to the line? Cool Hand Luke 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not banned from articles about abortion. The ArbCom decision stated: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." First of all, no admin has remotely suggested that I have edited the Mitt Romney article inappropriately. That article has never been reverted by me once, and no admin (involved or uninvolved) has suggested otherwise, much less banned me from the article. Also, of course, the Mitt Romney article is not related to pregnancy or abortion. One could argue that every article is in some sense a result of pregnancy, but such arguments would be absurd. If I were editing an article on polygamy, could an uninvolved admin ban me from that article for editing inappropriately? I think not, but let's plunge off that bridge when we come to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction is meant to be imposed on a case-by-case basis by an admin. Ferrylodge is not under any general ban. Kirill 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my two cents on FL's progress since the ArbCom ruling. During the ArbCom case, it was discussed and proposed that FL, in addition to being banned from abortion/pregnancy articles, also be banned from political articles. The committee in the long run did not add this to their remedies, and based on FL's edits since coming back to WP, I'm not sure that was the right decision. On December 1st, after a bit of incivility ("but Turtlescrubber thinks that false info in Wikipedia artoices is fine?" [126]), FL (and another editor) were warned by The Evil Spartan, being told to "cease-fire"[127]. Because of the content dispute, the article has since been protected, however FL has harassed contacted the admin who protected the article multiple times here, even after a RfC and two separate edit requests failed to accomplish FL's edits. While not clear cut abuse, I believe this added together is disruptive. And to give FL credit, there are other editors on the other side fighting for their POVs (you can't have a content dispute with just one side. there are always two sides). But I am extremely disappointed that after the close of the ArbCom case, FL has not taken the opportunity to prove to the community that he can be productive and increase the encyclopedic value of non-controversial articles, but instead has picked up arguing over petty matters at days length on highly contentious articles. I would suggest to FL to please stop editing presidential candidates articles for the time being, and do some neutral contribution to gain the trust of the community. Getting into such a large (yet in the long run insignificant) content dispute so soon after the ArbCom case just doesn't look good.-Andrew c [talk] 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew c, you are hardly a disinterested party here. For example, you accused me during the ArbCom proceedings of "aching for a fight," among many other things.[128] I politely decline your suggestion that I stop editing certain types of articles. Any objective person would see clearly that my edits to presidential candidate articles are very helpful, such as these edits today to the John McCain article. And there was no ArbCom vote about restricting me from political articles, contrary to what Andrew c suggests. Regarding the Mitt Romney article, there is certainly a dispute there, and I have supported at least one admin in that dispute. That article was certainly not protected due to any revert by me. I have never reverted the Mitt Romney article, not once. I thought that the ArbCom proceedings were over. Alas.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Re-opening the arbcom remedy is another question that I'm not asking. I just want to know whether there's anyway he's barred from editing Mitt Romney. It says that the subject should be interpreted broadly. I would say he's clearly forbidden from editing on a candidate's abortion stance, but editing on the candidate generally seems too weak a tangent to me. I want to know whether ArbCom could have possibly meant to forbid anything like this. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the remedy very carefully. He is not barred even from broad abortion and pregnancy topics, unless an uninvolved admin declares him to be in specific instances, in specific articles. Since no admin, involved or uninvolved, has done so at all, he cannot be argued to be banned from any article or topic at this moment. The mental gymnastics required to interpret the remedy, even in the broadest sense, to apply to presidential candidate articles in general would require facial expressions that I would actually pay to see. - Crockspot (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If FerryLodge were to edit the abortion-related parts of the Romney article in a disruptive fashion, an uninvolved admin could indeed ban him from the article, but he is under no blanket ban. You can ask any uninvolved admin to review FerryLodge's edits or post a request at Arbitration enforcement and if the admin decides a ban is needed, FL will be notified and the ban logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thatcher131 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

I request clarification of this Remedy. El C applied two blocks [129], [130], and over 24 hours later Thatcher131 places a notice of restriction [131]. Is the action of these two admins against the spirit of this particular remedy in that the notice of restriction should be applied first as a warning to that editor that any further violation may invoke an enforcement block, the intent being that the editor is given fair opportunity and chance to cease that particular behaviour? My concern is that the action of an over zealous admin may have driven a very productive editor away [132]. Martintg (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note: What did you expect when this botched ArbCom ended? I mean, here we are, with El_C, admin and Che Guevara (Communist) wannabe considered "uninvolved" when the whole issue here is not "Eastern Europe", but the heritage of Communism and Soviet Russian occupation. Not to mention that you have the same definition of the "conflict area" in the recent Anonimu ArbCom. Just take a look who is defending the Communist and Soviet POV-pusher User:Anonimu. It's the "uninvolved" Communist User:El_C and the Russian User:Irpen. Miraculous, isn't it. :) Dpotop (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the block was issued because of this one single comment on a user's talk page [133], yet there is seemingly no action when grossly more disruptive behaviour is brought to light here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Dr._Dan_inflaming_Eastern_European_topics Martintg (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Action has finally been taken. Martintg (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of the notice (not "warning") clause was to ensure that parties subject to sanctions would be informed of the existence of the general restriction prior to it being applied to them. Editors obviously aware of the restriction—notably, the parties to the case—are not meant to receive additional notifications. Kirill 13:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, so you are basically saying that the meaning of this remedy is that all and every single editor of EE topics, is already subject to this general restriction? So why is it worded "may be made subject to an editing restriction" if this is the case. So as editors of EE topics, we either all are subject to this editing restriction, or we all may be subject to the editing restriction given the appropriate notice, which is it? Most confusing. Should not every single editor of EE articles be now notified on their talk page that they are all subject to this general editing restriction? This need to be clarified. Martintg (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The remedy says that if someone is uncivil, makes personal attacks, or assumed bad faith, then an administrator may make them the subject of an editing restriction (ie, a block). How is that confusing? Obviously not everyone is currently affected by such a restriction, as not everyone is blocked. Kirill already answered your question regarding notification: those that are unaware should be notified, those that are already aware need not be. --Deskana (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification. So who should start with this notification process, I suspect that there are a lot of regular EE editors who may not be aware of this General Restriction. I suppose this notification should be similar to this User_talk:Sander_Säde#Notice_of_editing_restrictions, which warns "future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking". Martintg (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Deskana, I am still confused by this template {{subst:Digwuren enforcement}}, which you and Kirill must admit is structured as a warning notice, which must be logged in the appropriate place to take effect, according to the text below:

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.


I am not wiki-lawyering here, I just think it is necessary to clarify this mechanism for the benefit of not only us editors at the coal face, but also the admins who have to administer this. Let's have some clarity here to ensure the smooth running of Wikipedia, that is all I ask. Martintg (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, Deskana, not wanting to labour the issue, but there is a distinction between an editing restriction and a block, is there not? You both seem to be implying that that they are the same thing, the block is the editing restriction. But this is at odds with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement_by_block: "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked", an explicit distinction which Kirill himself drafted. I mean, there are all sorts of general editing restrictions in force, 3RR being one for example. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this suppose to operate thus:

  1. Misbehaviour -> Editing restriction placed via notice on user talk page and logged
  2. Further misbehaviour -> block applied and logged.

I know admins are encouraged to ignore the rules, but we do need clarification here before some over zealous admins begin driving good people off the project for the slightest infraction, as in the case of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Estonia coordinator User:Sander Säde. Martintg (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, you're correct. Keep in mind, though, that the main intent of the notification requirement is not to serve as a warning, per se; but, rather, to make sure that editors unaware of the existence of this remedy would not find themselves blocked without finding out about it beforehand. When the editor in question, having been a party to the actual case, is already well aware of the need to conduct themselves civilly, we're not going to crack down on admins for forgetting some of the paperwork. To be quite honest, anyone involved in the case has no excuse for being uncivil at this point; I think that we made it very clear that the poor behavior seen in this area is not acceptable. Kirill 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not looking to have an admin flogged for forgotten paperwork, just clarification and guidance for the benefit of editors and admins alike, because this does apply to the entire Eastern Europe, broadly defined. It must be noted that User:Sander Säde did subsequently apologise in his block review request.
How ever it appears that in his exuberance User:El_C used this remedy (which is aimed at incivility) for blocking User:Alexia Death for basically revert warring [134]. The revert warring was over this comment [135], and to interpret this as incivility is an asumption of bad faith. In fact this comment is a salute to Ghirla for the tough battles of the past with well wishes for the future. Using this remedy for edit warring is an inappropriate, so therefore I request that User:Alexia Death's logging of her enforcement block and associated notification log be removed from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement_2. Martintg (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you, Kirill, please comment on the fact that logging this block as enforcement block happened at least in my case 2 hours after the fact. Is this appropriate? See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel_Case. If logging blocks is allowed with this much delay it opens up venues for block laundry. I propose that blocks that are made as enforcement blocks must be logged immediately.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was apparently a case of forgotten "paperwork". Kirill has confirmed that for those who were not a party to the original case 1. Misbehaviour -> Editing restriction placed via notice on user talk page and logged, 2. Further misbehaviour -> block applied and logged. For those who were a party: both applied at the same time. Martintg (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there seems to have been a fair amount of confusion regarding what exactly the remedy was. For future use, I've created Wikipedia:General sanctions to keep track of these wide-area remedies. I'd appreciate it if people could leave links to it where appropriate. Kirill 06:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about the notice. I was part of the case and I acknowledge it to be unnecessary. I talking about logging the block itself and requesting comment on delay in logging it as an enforcement block, witch I personally doubt it was.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:General sanctions sounds like a good idea. I have taken the liberty to add the second Armenia-Azerbaijan case (with some rewording, for consistency) to it. I submit it to your and other members of the Committee's approval. El_C 09:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, but keeping the actual wording is probably the better approach, to reduce potential confusion. Kirill 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kirill. Please see my refractored comment here. El_C 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kirill, one more clarification needed on applicability. This remedy is only applicable to EE topics right? I mean if it happens in areas outside EE, for example, an editor gets into a discussion with an admin on another admin's talk page and they start revert warring over the editor's comment "So these are "Durova-style" rules! LOL. I cant take Wikipedia seriously any more. This is ridiculous!", [136], [137], [138], [139], and rightly or wrongly that admin ends up blocking this editor as a result [140] (I've searched and searched but cannot find this alleged inflammatory comment "you guys could do with little sunshine in your lives"), is it appropriate that this block be logged under this particular remedy? Martintg (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The remedy, as written, is applicable to any editor working on EE topics, but places no limitations on where the actual incivility would need to occur. Given that a large part of the past problem was EE editors sniping at each other on user talk pages, noticeboards, etc. (often on topics unrelated to EE, but merely continuing personal fights that had started on EE matters months or years before), I think it's appropriate that editors subject to this remedy need to watch their behavior generally, not only on article talk pages or when directly engaged in article disputes.
(The comment is made here, incidentally.) Kirill 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that the initial statement by Alexia on Ghirla's talk page (do we assume good or bad faith here?) was the trigger, it quickly descended into a personal conflict between Alexia and User:El_C spanning across several user's talk pages. I don't believe that Alexia or User:El_C have had any personal fights in the past related to EE. By no means was User:El_C blocking action uncontroversial as another admin overturned the un-noticed block (forgotten paperwork) as evidenced here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case. User:El_C clearly states that the main reason for the block was for this subsequent dispute, not the original triggering event:[141]. Of course the irony here is that User:El_C himself was as much a contributor due to his own combative and inflamatory approach.
In what way inflammatory you may ask? People like us Kirill, who were brought up in comfortable USA or Australia where images of Che may be considered mere t-shirt art, need to be sensitive to the fact that many people suffered under communist rule in Eastern Europe. For example I read that in the Baltic states, almost everyone had some family member who was deported or otherwise repressed. It touched everyone. So when an admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. This was the substance of this dispute that lead to Alexia's block. Would you trust the judgement of an admin with images of Adolf Hitler on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding the Holocaust? This is same admin who saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors", and exhibited continued assumption of bad faith against the unblocking admin in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved resolution of EE disputes, particular given the extra powers afforded by this remedy.
Anyway, thanks again for your clarifications. Rather than continuing on here, I'll be putting together a case to address this issue of involved admins and will putting it before the Committee in due course for consideration. Cheers. Martintg (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These uninhibited attacks by this user, who feels it necessary to link to my user page five times in a single five-sentence paragraph, are nothing more than cheap theatrics. Of course, I am far from being a supporter of the Social imperialist Eastern European caricature-communist regimes, and of course I saw a problem with the the behaviour of Anonimu (still, he was ruthlessly attacked, too; just the Bonparate front, tens of socks). I already responded to many of these other distortions elsewhere at length. El_C 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cite: "far from being a supporter of the Social imperialist Eastern European caricature-communist regimes". Hm, the photo of Lenin on your page seems to say something else. In case you don't know, it was him who presided the imperialistic occupation of Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaidjan by the USSR. But imperialism was not his worst deed: He and his buddies created the Cheka and the widespread famine, and the politicide, a.s.o. Dpotop (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In conclusion, don't pretend to be an honest broker on these subjects. Dpotop (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't know. I have long ago ceased to respond to the crude, intentionally-insulting demagoguery of Dpotop. El_C 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My formulation was based on an assumption of good faith from your part. Otherwise, I can't see how you could state on one side that you don't support imperialist communists, and on the other side support Lenin. Dpotop (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that such accusations of "demagoguery", "combativeness", a.s.o. would have ended in a block for any other Wikipedia users. It's sad to see that some editors (you, for instance) can do whatever they want with impunity. Dpotop (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above, he calls me he a wannabe, a few days ago he calls me a hypocrite. It's all standard practice for Dpotop. El_C 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a suggestion to Dpotop. Why dosen't he make a few edits that are not related to targeting myself or reverting Eastern European articles. It'd go along way toward establishing calm on these two unrelated fronts. El_C 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original question has been asked and answered. In the case of Alexia Death, the formal notice I placed on her talk page was not required as she was a listed party to the case and was informed of the decision at the time it closed. Editors who were not parties to the case should be notified about the editing restrictions before any enforcement action is taken pursuant to those remedies. Are there any points that need additional clarification? Thatcher131 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that doesn't involve targeting me, I'm sure. El_C 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a moment, I just looked at the Case again, and civility restrictions 1 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Alexia_Death_restricted and 10 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Sander_S.C3.A4de_restricted were never adopted, so I don't think El_C was correct in blocking them with enforcement blocks. At most he should have placed the notice of general restriction first. Surely if ArbCom wanted the parties to be blocked without further notice as you suggest Thatcher131, they would have passed those remedies. Martintg (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of ArbCom action does not condone bad behavior nor prevent admins from dealing with bad behavior through the normal means. Since these folks were party to this case, they were well aware of the general restrictions, so there was no need for further notification. The fact that they have been given additional notification subsequently is a courtesy intended to help them comply. - Jehochman Talk 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Note JamesF's vote in opposition, "oppose in favor of the general restriction." As the general restriction applies to all parties upon notice, and the closing clerk notified both Alexia [142] and Sander [143], then the notification requirement has been met. I applied the warning template as a formality and because Sander was listed as a party in the case opening, but he clearly was considered a party when the case closed, as noted on the proposed decision page and as demonstrated by Cbrown's notification. Thatcher131 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And FloNight in support of the general restriction said "I prefer this to keep newer users from gaining the upper hand by bashing our established editors over the head with our decision at the time these established users are trying to adjust their conduct to match our remedies." Didn't the thing that FloNight wanted to avoid just happen in this case, Alexia and Sander were bashed over the head without a chance to adjust by being notified first according to remedy 11? Martintg (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the notices you linked were provided at the conclusion of the case and only mentioned Remedies 2, 5 and 10. There was no mention of Remedy 11 in that notice. I am particularly concerned about the other Involved Parties, User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber, who were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day, returning some time in the future and being clobbered over the head without a chance to adjust. Martintg (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The general restriction is indeed linked in that notice. Thatcher131 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you are correct, I mis-read the notice. However what of FloNight's concern and the issue of the three involved parties I mentioned being potentially bashed over the head without being given a chance to adjust? It's pretty tough on them, isn't it? No finding of fact against them, yet they have this threat of instant block hanging over their heads. Martintg (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I read Flo's comment to mean that she does not want new unnamed editors to have the upper hand on older editors named in specific remedies, hence the general remedy. (Although you are welcome to ask her specifically.) Regarding inactive editors, I can only say that I would hope that they read their talk pages (and indeed, they have an obligation to follow up on an Arbitration case naming them that was pending when they last edited), but even so I personally would issue another warning before issuing blocks. And in any case, the initial blocks are meant to be brief, and only escalate on repeated violations. If you wish to specifically exempt these editors you will need Arbcom to vote a motion modifying the decision. Thatcher131 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you would personally issue them with a warning, but other admins may not. As for your stated obligation that they should follow up any ArbCom case pending since their last edit, the fact is they have been off line long long before this case was ever requested, let alone pending. I have no idea why they were even listed as involved parties, apart from their ethnictiy. It would be bit of a nasty surprise if they ever return to find this notice on their talk page related to a case that they never participated in let alone a finding of fact made against them. And yet they have been singled out for no other reason that they happen to live in Estonia and subjected to harser regime than you or me, we get a second chance because we get a notice only after the first infraction, and they get none. Don't you find this disquieting?
So I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact a motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties was made during the case and seconded by the clerk User:Cbrown1023 at the time, but may have been overlooked in the general noise of the Workshop page. Martintg (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom warnings and reminders

Sometimes, ArbCom will close a case with a remedy, where an editor is warned/reminded not to do something but is not punished. What if the editor ignores the warning/reminder? Is there a process to tell ArbCom that the editor ignored the warning/reminder and should be punished? --Kaypoh (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing a new case, typically. Non-binding remedies are just that: non-binding. Kirill 12:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusings sockpuppet principle

I would like to request clarification on one matter here, namely the restriction that "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." I know I'm not the only administrator to use a secondary account for security purposes while on a public or shared machine. Generally, such secondary accounts are clearly marked as to who they are controlled by, and cannot be used, for example, for circumvention or "bad hand" purposes, as they are clearly linked to their owner. Does the committee intend this ruling to apply even to such accounts? Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This use came up during the Committee's discussion about our understanding of the sockpuppet policy. As long as the accounts are labeled in a way that makes the connection obvious there should not be a problem. Going the extra step of signing these posts with both account names will help if the account names are not obviously the same person. FloNight (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a related thread (from the proposed decision talk page here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, part II

I ask clarification in the application of the enforcement clause (link).

The decision says that "[t]hose edit-warring against an administrator following this ruling so as to restore private content without consent of its creator may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator, up to a week in the event of repeated violations". However, as pointed out in this edit by Thebainer (talk), arbitration decisions generally only apply to the case they're made in (exceptions including a number of decisions in the BDJ case, etc.).

So, I ask, does this enforcement apply to the parties/involved users in this case, or all Wikipedians? Naturally, if it is the latter, it should be expected that the user be given a final warning if it can be reasonably assumed that the user wasn't aware of the decision. Daniel 23:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The enforcement applies only to the particulars of this case. Paul August ☎ 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, I think your statement is ambiguous. Does "particulars" mean "particular facts" or "particular parties"? GRBerry 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The general principle is that the principles, findings, remedies and enforcements of a given case apply only to that case. It is not intended that a case decision make new policy or be precedent setting. Thus the enforcement in this case is to be construed conservatively and narrowly, to apply only to the particular parties of this case, and only to the particular private content of this case. It is not intended to apply to other parties or other private content. Paul August ☎ 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm still unclear. Applies only to the parties in this case, and the private information cited in this case? Mercury 00:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Paul August ☎ 17:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova

(Apologies if poorly worded; I'm tired)

Clarification is requested to ensure the community correctly interprets principle #3 in this case. In past cases well-intentioned but unforeseen interpretations of a case principle have led to diverse interpretations and many problems. This one has the same potential so following discussion with Mackensen, I'm requesting clarification early on before any incorrect or assumptive meanings are accidentally drawn. The relevant sentence requiring clarification is:

"If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee."

There are several points of principle that may arise; I'd like to raise them all just to be safe.

  1. In the past, when arbcom has specified a process or a new principle in its cases, that has always been stated or understood to be a proposal, or ad-hoc process, which the community can review or finalize. Or it runs in parallel with the community's view. In other words, it's akin to "this is the starting point, until things get discussed more". Other than asserting Arbcom's right to be involved, rulings don't usually override future consensus by the community at large on the matter. However, a literal reading of this sentence might be taken to mean, "Arbcom has spoken; this is how confidential information is obligated to be handled. All (and future) community discussion futile. Matter decided."
    Evidence of need: posted today on a proposed policy talk page: "I think the "process" section is ... perhaps not necessary. ArbCom expressed in its ruling that all confidential evidence has to go through them, so it wouldn't seem to admit any other [approaches], not even a subset of ArbCom" [144]
    Clarification #1 - Confirmation that in general, when Arbcom makes decision in the form of a process, it's not intended to have a chilling effect on communal learning, or prevent the community considering, finding, and later rethinking, its own ways, over time. (In fact my understanding is that the community is actively encouraged to do so.)
  2. In the past, behavioral evidence has been used against certain sophisticated sockpuppet users. For example, some 60 socks of repeatedly-banned vandal HeadleyDown (AKA. KrishnaVindaloo, maypole, ...) have now been blocked. In proposed policy discussion, more than one person has commented that evidence against well known sockmasters often cannot be placed in public, since its first use would then be to allows the sockmaster to change their "give-away behaviors" ("not a suicide pact").
    Clarification #2 - does Arbcom confirm it now wants all such matters to be its domain now, and no actions of this kind decided by any other user or users?
    Clarification #3 - If so, is this to be a permanent ruling, or more an interim one until the community finds a better proposal that gets consensus. Ie, if the community develops a suitable consensus on an alternative means of handling "confidential information" would Arbcom need to be asked to sanction the communal proposal, before it could replace this ruling?
    Clarification #4 - is it necessary to ask #3? (Not a trivial question, it goes to the heart of how such rulings by Arbcom may be changed or removed, and Arbcom's view on their standing of process rulings it may make)
  3. Finally, if appropriate to ask, does the committee encourage or support the community in developing a more long term policy on handling of confidential information? (One is being developed, but the perceived announcement by Arbcom that it will exclusively handle such matters from now on, has led to question of its merit by a number of users and a diminishing of effort.)

In general what is being requested to be clarified is two things - 1) when Arbcom makes a ruling that will specify what some communal norm, process or conduct should be, how much can the community then develop it own answers going forward, and, 2) in this specific ruling does Arbcom really intend that all administrators who have sockpuppets they can identify via "give-away" behavior, should cease handling these from now on unless Arbcom (as opposed to other people) have reviewed each incident?

I'm fairly sure what Arbcom's ruling means :) and I'm fairly sure it's intended to mean commonsense applies. I feel though that it would be useful to have this sentence re-explained, to ensure no incorrect meanings are drawn causing conflict.

Apologies for presenting a few extreme interpretations. It is because such meanings might be drawn by well-intentioned users, that I'd like this important set of clarifications made asap :)

FT2 (Talk | email) 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me respond to each in kind:
  1. Unless it specifically states otherwise, Arbcom rulings do not preclude the development of new policies. Arbcom rulings reflect policies as the committee understands them at that particular time. Arbcom does not, as a rule, create new policies, although it may reconcile conflicting policies.
  2. No, but the administrator should in those cases be able to state which banned user is being blocked, so that users have a point of reference.
  3. See #1, for the most part. If policy evolves in a different direction then the situation can change.
  4. See #1. Arbcom rulings are not court rulings, nor legislation. Arbcom rulings should not be understood as to prevent the development of new policies.
  • As I've said, this ruling reflects policy as we understood it, and I think there's consensus that only Arbcom ought to handle truly "secret" evidence. On the other hand, if a sock is obvious to one sysop, it'll probably be obvious to another. Common sense applies. Arbcom is not the grand clearing-house of sockpuppet investigations. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The community is entirely free to develop a policy to handle matters involving confidential evidence (within reason); our rulings, in general, speak to what we consider to be the present state of Wikipedia convention and practice, and don't make assumptions about future developments.
As for what the principle itself means, there are really two implicit points:
  1. By long-standing tradition, the Committee has the authority to take actions based on evidence that, for various reasons, cannot be revealed to the community as a whole.
  2. Other individuals or groups do not have such authority (with certain narrow exceptions having to do with WMF-authorized work, and so forth).
Thus, users can't take action based on non-public evidence without consulting us and then refuse to explain their action to the community. The question of what sort of explanation the community considers sufficient is, of course, a question for the community as a whole rather than the Committee. If there is wide consensus to allow or disallow some particular option here, that's perfectly open to discussion.
Does that answer your questions, or did I miss something? Kirill 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan

There seems to be a decent amount of activity. For the sake of convenience the logs of these two cases should be somehow merged, perhaps templatified so that same log is visible on both pages and when a new entry is added it shows on both pages. This is trivially easy to do. {{Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Enforcement Log}} can be created and transcluded on both pages for this task.

-- Cat chi? 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have created the sub page per WP:BOLD. I have not transcluded it yet tho (I am not THAT bold). I'd like to do so per some sort of approval. -- Cat chi? 06:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"For the sake of conveniece" Do you mean for your convenience? If so,why would it be convenient for you, and why should your convenience be a reason to merge two separate and extremely controversial RfC records? Meowy 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? My convenience? I am neither an admin nor an involved party. How does this make it "more convenient" for me? These are two closely RfAr cases and not RfCs at all. The record in question are copies of block logs. Same information is available in the form of block logs. Merge suggestion was to simplify an already complex case with a centralized list as both cases are very closely related. Frankly this opposition baffled me. Yes I am quite surprised. -- Cat chi? 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how it would be "more convenient" for you. You made the "convenience" comment, so you are the one who should know! The case is complex because the second RfA case was exceptional in its outcome, especially in its draconian powers and in (what I believe to be) the unparallelled breadth of its scope which extended the remit of the original RfA far beyond reasonable and normal limits. There should be no move to minimise or disguise that situation. Meowy 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that "draconian" argument relevant to the block log? This is merely merge the block logs, something available in machine generated logs...
It helps distinguish really disruptive users that got regular blocks from others. For example, we had several users that had engaged in disruptive sockpuppetary. Past blocks may be overlooked in a hypothetical situation if a user was blocked per RfAR case 1 and needs to be blocked again per RfAR case 2. The complicated nature of the cases as you pointed out makes review rather difficult which exactly why simplifying that process as much as possible is necessary. Some logs are relentless! Such a synchronized block log would minimize the confusion. Block logs are public data and this suggestion isn't even remotely controversial.
Does you opposition have a reason? If so please state it because I do not see the mention of such a reason so far.
-- Cat chi? 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Will a single arbitrator or clerk comment on this? -- Cat chi? 12:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Short answer: no. The two cases are distinct; merging the logs will merely confuse everyone regarding what exactly each case allows for. Kirill 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status of TruthCrusader block review?

On October 31st User:TruthCrusader was indefinitely blocked for off-wiki harassment of User:Calton. TruthCrusader maintains that he did not make the off-wiki postings he was blocked for and requested that the blocking admin, User:Jpgordon, provide evidence justifying the block. Jpgordon declined to discuss the matter on the grounds that reviewing the material would further aggravate the harassment by making the attacks known to a wider population. The suggestion was made that only ArbCom should review the evidence because of its inflammatory nature and TruthCrusader thus submitted the matter to ArbCom for review. TruthCrusader states that no response has been forthcoming to date.

Generally, I think the less which is done 'behind closed doors' the better. Making the evidence publicly available exposes it to additional eyes who may see things that a handful of arbitrators do not and thus actually prove the truth of the matter one way or the other. We've recently seen how that works in the !! case. We should only be invoking 'secrecy' in the most extreme of cases where personally identifying information, legal complications, or the like are involved... and then only for the smallest portion of those cases which actually must be kept from the public.

Regardless, it has been a past axiom of ArbCom cases (and common sense) that admins must be prepared to explain and justify their actions. If Jpgordon will not publicly discuss how he determined that TruthCrusader was behind the off-wiki actions attributed to him then at the least we need to hear from ArbCom that they have reviewed the matter. As it stands we've got a user blocked for nearly a month for actions he allegedly committed off-wiki. If he is or may be innocent that's unacceptable. If he is guilty then it is well past time to say so and close this matter out. --CBD 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Application of the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies

Can the Arbitration committee please clarify their position on the application of these policies. There seems to be notable general feeling that past rulings by the committee have set precedent that 'Standing', ie history of contributions and administrative work, can be used as mitigation for incivil behavior and personal attacks against other editors. Specifically, I ask if 'Standing' can be used as defense even if past history indicates the editor will continue to make personal attacks and other disruptive incivility, something that policy indicates should result in preventative block. --Barberio (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Standing" should obviously have no effect on findings of fact. Our custom is to allow standing to affect any remedy. If "remedy" is taken literally - the AC actually does try to fix up situations - it should be clear why that is. The process is not punitive, but has regard to the work going on daily on the site. Analogy with criminal proceedings can mislead. If you are asking whether the AC should apply remedies it knows in advance are likely to fail, the answer is "no"; though of course we are allowed to take a more optimistic view than self-appointed prosecutors. And mixing in policy is an odd thing here; certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin, quite independent of what the AC says. But it is true that an AC case ought to be considered to have 'dealt with' past history, given in evidence. After all, blocking productive editors is a loss to the project. Generally it is not that helpful if ancient incidents are brought up against people. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, however I'm not sure you clarified the point I was asking about. I find your statement that "certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin" very confusing.
You also seem to contradict the policy by saying past history of personal attacks should not be considered. To quote WP:NPA : "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered 'disruption'. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." This seems to me clear indication that someone with an obvious past history of personal attacks, who makes no effort or only token efforts to reform, and continues to make personal attacks may be blocked as a preventative measure regardless of their 'standing'.
I'm not entirely sure if you are saying that an editor who habitually makes personal attacks, and thus could be preventively blocked, can be a productive editor. It would seem to me that such an editor is being counter-productive. --Barberio (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement about admins is consistent with what you quoted from policy, no? "Recurring" needs sensible interpretation; once a week, yes, if you go back six months, no. Admins do have some discretion here; blocks for disruption are always in some measure judgement calls. You asked how the AC sees it, and I am of course speaking for myself here. But the AC tends to work from principles, not detailed policy wording (which is always very much subject to mission creep). "Preventive" blocking; I think we'd not be happy to see indefinite blocks, but "cooling off" blocks are within admin discretion, assuming they are proportionate to the situation. On your last point, it seems clear that some productive editors do also indulge in personal attacks. There is no "entitlement"; what actually happens is that the AC is only happy to take cases on this alone (loudmouth stuff) when there is something fairly definite to point to. One final point is that civility paroles are a standard remedy, which the AC will use in cases (and if we don't, it is some indication). Charles Matthews (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This raises the question of someone who after being warned about Personal Attacks, 'cleans up their act' for six months, but then reverts back to making personal attacks with signs they will continue. By your standard, we should not consider their history as it's 'the far past'. It is notable that application of 'civility parole' could lead to cases of this type arising where the editor returns to bad behavior some time after the period of parole is over.
This is explicitly not the standard that is applied to other cases of disruptive behavior such as edit waring. In those cases past history has been considered when an editor reverts to that behavior and appears ready to continue doing so. I'm confused as to why you feel this should not be applied to NPA and civility?
I'm afraid I must strongly disagree with you on your point that 'productive editors' may engage in personal attacks. By definition, productive editors are those who make contributions to the project. Making personal attacks significantly and strongly detracts from the project. Editors who are making personal attacks are not productive members of the project, and shouldn't be treated as if they are. A plumber who unclogs my toilet, repairs my shower, fixes my sink, then smashes all my windows; was not being productive. --Barberio (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) That's anyway not what I said. I said there is no entitlement to be incivil, whatever an editor's contribution. And you were asking about the AC's collective view, which I have tried to explain. Personally I'm a hawk on incivility - I always vote for civility parole remedies, as you could see from my voting record. I would answer your point by saying simply that the AC's real expertise is in the field of editor behaviour. We are expected to take everything into account, case-by-case. Your hypothetical plumber would be a vandalism case, not an incivility case. We are expected to place decisions in some sort of framework. That's what the principles are for. There are some relevant principles, but not what you are saying. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to restate, or link to, those principles you feel express the opinion of the ArbCom on this issue? --Barberio (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I just read what you wrote above about "cooling off" blocks. My thought was that this had generally been regarded as an unhelpful thing to do. Blocks tend to generate heat, not coolness, especially when the person being issued a "cooling off" block is already quite angry. I believe I've seen users blocked for being irritible come back enraged after the block expires. IronDuke 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

I'm requesting a review on my placement under supervision by User:Ryan Postlethwaite for the following reason. The AA2 remedy #2 states: "Any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions." Ryan Postletwaite claims that "Although I don't see any incivility, the scope of the remedy was supposed to cover disruption via incivility or edit warring". I don't see the word OR, which Ryan felt so strong about that he made it appear bold.

This is what Thatcher131 told me month ago: "So far, no admin including myself has found that you yourself have edited these articles in an "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" and so you have not yet been placed under the restrictions described here. Thatcher131 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)"[145]

Am I being compared to E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Previously indef banned for edit warring, who was simultaneously edit warring with me and another user [146], [147], [148], . Who breached WP:3RR [149], [150], [151], [152], Who kept insisting (by reverting) that its gonna be his way and no other? even by reverting my minor edits [153]. Who generally disregarded the talkpage and is yet to give justification for most of his POV reverts. Was I wrong, when I tried to compromise and only reverted partially? Was I wrong when I tried to keep the article as neutral as possible? As I said before, even though I was not under the restriction and supervised editing, I never reverted without justification, always explained and justified my edits in the talkpage. Most importantly my edits were not marked by incivility.

In fear of turning this board into another "he said she said" I request that only administrators respond to this request. VartanM (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration remedies are not meant to be carte blanche for administrators unless they explicitly provide for such authority. Ryan's interpretation of the decision here is incorrect; the remedy is applicable only to cases where the editor is incivil. Kirill 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about many other users, such as User:Aynabend and User:Baku87, who were placed on parole without any prior warning, while they both had a clean block log and never made any incivil comments? I don't think E104421 was incivil either. Both VartanM and E104421 were placed on parole for edit warring on Shusha article, since they made 3rvs each. VartanM had a previous official warning from another admin to stop edit warring, otherwise he would be placed on parole [154]. So I think we need a clarification here. Can admins place users on parole for just edit warring, or they need to be engaged in both edit warring and incivility to be placed on parole? If the latter, then parole of some users has to be lifted. Grandmaster (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Krill for a super fast reply. Grandmaster the answer to your question is most probably that they need to personally come here and make their case. Assuming good faith on GM's part for ignoring my kind request. Good night to all. VartanM (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to clarify the general principle of application of this remedy. If it applies only for incivilty, then User:E104421, User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 should be all relieved of it, since they never violated any civility rules, and the latter 2 editors have no previous blocks, warnings, etc, unlike User:VartanM. Grandmaster (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, User:VartanM is violating Users national background and neutrality principle by engaging in edit warring and POV pushing across several articles without restriction. We are yet to see how you address that by giving him a green light to continue doing what he is doing. And if VartanM's behavior was not marked by incivility, then how did the ArbCom address these [155], several counts of incivility not ever supervised, restricted or paroled? And if the VartanM's continuous editing conduct allows for interpretation against supervised editing, then how would supervised editing apply in case of the other user User:E104421, whose edits were not incivil. Based on POV pushed by User:VartanM throughout Wikipedia without any review or restriction, and paroles being deliberately applied only to contributors of certain one side, lifting the supervised editing is a delibreate violation of neutrality. Atabek (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why does VartanM cross out administrator's decision [156] when this should be done either by administrator or arbitrator? Atabek (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ArbCom notice reads: "Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page." I edited the Shusha article for the first time yesterday. I did not edited in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. I provided sources, cited the references, commented on the talk pages and edit summaries. On the other hand, VartanM deleted the new section, references and quotatins on "cultural life" added by myself from cited references. VartanM's POV is focused on my previous block-log due to my long term conflicts with Tajik on Nomadic Empires related topics. My last block is dated 1 April 2007. That case was closed. I edited for the first time an Az-Ar related topic in my life (just 4 times + 1 minor spell check), but it's claimed that i have history of Az-Ar related topics. Now, i was placed under the parole, but VartanM's parole is removed. What kind of double standard is this? Deletion of referenced material constantly is not regarded as edit-warring, but addition of "new section and references" are claimed to be edit-warring. What happened to the basic Wikipedia policies: "WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:DR"? Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Kiril for the response here. I was under the impression that this remedy tried to stop disruption in all forms (i.e. edit warring or incivility) due to the history of editing on these pages. Whilst I see that both users here have edit warred on the pages, I fail to see any incivility coming from them, so unless there's evidence of that, I'll remove both names from the supervised editing log. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 were placed under the same parole for a single page edit and without any incivility cited. So please, review their paroles as well. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Baku87 and VartanM for now - I'll wait for a response from the administrators that put E104421 and Aynabend under supervised editing before removing their names. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ryan. Atabek (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, if I get this right, the remedy implies that the editors are free to edit war on topic related articles as long as they remain civil? If not, what the arbcom remedy proposes to stop edit wars, which were the reason to 2 arbcom cases in the first place? Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share a similar concern with this remedy. Given the scale of the disruption on this topic, I don't think it's a good idea that users must be incivil with edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive on its own and this does seem to advocate edit warring on the pages provided that the users remain civil. I think when a case like this goes to arbitration twice, administrators should be given a little bit more freedom to interpret decisions because per the clarification from Kirill yesterday, I've had to remove five names from the supervised editing list that should all most probably have had their editing placed under supervision, but can't because of a technicality. In many ways it seems it's a way to game the system. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last month I requested a RfC on the apparent arbitrary extensions of the powers that the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy created. Being out of the country for 4 weeks, I did not have the opportunity to see its result. Where (if anywhere?) would the archive of that discussion material be stored? I must point out to the initiator of this RfC, that remedy 2 does not actually contain the words he has quoted. The fact that it does not, was the crux of my RfC. Meowy 18:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that one of the arbitrators said that he was happy with the way the remedy was enforced, and that was after a number of editors were placed on parole for edit warring and sockpuppetry. [157] Grandmaster (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but they aren't the ones that have to deal with the situation day in, day out, and might not be fully aware as to the extent of the problems on these pages. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the other 5 arbitrators didn't even bother to respond? Astonishing, especially since I personally asked each of them to do so and also pointed out in some detail the flaws in both the use and scope of the RfA remedy. I am seriously considering making a RfA on the validity of the mess that is the Armenian-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy. Meowy 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was another prior discussion here: [158], and I might be wrong, but the remedy seemed to be interpreted differently at the time. Grandmaster (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone for this initative. I indeed have no problem in coming ahead, stating and being very proud that I have never used any incivility in my communications neither in this page nor somewhere else, and would highly appreciate if this injustice be corrected. Thanks again --Aynabend (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like nobody is going to comment. But I would be really interested to know the opinion of the arbitrators about how the remedies passed under the second Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom are supposed to stop disruption on topic related articles, if they limit the application of the remedy 2 to incivility only, while disruption on topic related articles was never limited to incivility? The Armenia – Azerbaijan 2 case specifically mentions among the principles that edit warring, disruptive editing and sockpuppet abuse are considered harmful, but now it turns out that the editors placed on parole for those specific abuses should be relieved of their parole, because the remedy in fact provides for only one specific form of disruption. It seems like Armenia – Azerbaijan 2 case might not be the last one. It would be nice to get additional comments from the arbitrators with regard to how this remedy is supposed to stop disruption by new users, not restricted by any measures from the 1st case, and who are now free to edit disruptively as long as they remain civil? Thanks in advance for any comment. Grandmaster 11:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An update on the present situation. Since the time a number of editors were removed from the list of users placed on parole, 2 pages got protected due to edit wars, in which those users took an active part. Those articles are Shusha and Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907‎. There are other articles (such as Shusha pogrom (1920)) heading the same way. Note that since the end of the last arbcom case no pages have been protected until now. The activity of User:Andranikpasha I believe deserves special attention. Grandmaster (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

I've been contacted by User:Certified.Gangsta, who left the project in June 2007 in consequence of the sanctions imposed on him in the Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram RFAR. He was finding it impossible to edit under them, and was feeling very frustrated. User:Ideogram is now under a community ban, where he was found to have baited Certified.Gangsta and attempted to drive him off the project (successfully). CG is thinking about returning, and wonders if he might possibly have his editing restrictions revoked, despite the infractions he has indeed committed. Would the arbitrators like to take a look at this case, please? To remind you of how it went, I've written up a short overview of the circumstances here. Other users should feel free to add their views of the matter at that subpage, or at this notification, whichever works. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Committee is discussing this matter. Kirill 13:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I would not personally recommend a lifting of the restriction, since Ideogram was not the only editor that encountered his edit warring and I fail to see a pressing need in the absence of his primary antagonist. Giving such a user the extra wiggle room of two to three non-vandalism reverts seems like a poor idea for an established edit warrior. However, I would not be opposed to the editing restrictions being lifted, since the community tends to take a dim view of continued nonsense from editors with a problematic history. If CG were to relapse towards poor behaviour, I'm fairly confidant it would be handled quite quickly without kid gloves. I doubt great harm would result from allowing him the chance to participate in Wikipedia productively without editing restrictions. Additionally, the endorsement of Bishonen and Jehochman for the lifting of restrictions is a strong point in its favour. A bit of thought on both sides of the coin. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Disclosure: I was the blocking sysop for the most recent parole violation.[reply]

Thank you, Vassyana. Some recent developments: in his edits of today, November 10, Certified.Gangsta points (on request) to his positive contributions to the project.[159]. Please note especially his appeal here, and the new section "Contribution" on his talkpage, which he's in the process of adding to. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Block of Rp2006

The Arbitration Committee assumes the block of Rp2006 (talk · contribs).

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

  1. A consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE recently decided to block Rp2006 for violations of their topic ban coming immediately after the expiration of ArbCom's 1 month block of them. This is an indefinite block, with the first year being Arbitration Enforcement. Given the private evidence we have, I think it makes sense for ArbCom to assume responsibility for this block. I also would like to see extra scrutiny applied to any unblock request rather than having it go through the typical process if Rp2006 were to apply after a year when the AE part of the block expires. Seraphimblade, the blocking administrator (acting on the AE consensus), has no objections to us doing this. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. my personal preference would be to call this a ban and let them appeal in 12 months, but this works too --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Given that there is private information that should be considered when addressing any future unblock requests. - Aoidh (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

Community discussion

As a note, if this passes I'll tack it onto the remedies list for SCE in my notes as the previous block against Rp2006 was also under that case and based on what I can grok from the AE thread this block was levied for pretty much the same reasons as the previous. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=177935172"