Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) at 04:32, 23 April 2009 (→‎Arbitrator views and discussion: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

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

Abd and JzG

Initiated by Jehochman Talk 15:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Jehochman

I've been watching this dispute ever since it spilled onto my talk page a few months ago. Abd is incensed concerned with the way JzG has used admin tools at Cold Fusion. (I brought a case here about that article.) After at least one community discussion failed to generate the result Abd wanted, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 was started, and in spite of all guidance, Abd remained at the forefront of the dispute. My advice was that Abd's personal presence was harmful to resolution of the dispute due to the personal conflict between him and JzG. On the other side, I asked JzG to back down a bit, but that was not possible without a loss of face. In the background we have a few editors, such as Jed Rothwell, who continue to play games at Cold Fusion.

I request the Committee help untangle this mess. Nothing the community has done seems to have lowered the temperature of the dispute. We need enforced mediation, but such thing does not exist on Wikipedia, so I come to arbitration as the next best solution. Issues:

  • Were JzG's disputed administrative actions proper, or not?
  • Has Abd engaged in dispute intensification and forum shopping?

The committee, especially you newcomers, should read through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman and try to avoid repeating those blunders. At present, the opinions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 seem to favor JzG's interpretation of matters. The committee should respect community opinions. If we, the community, have gotten it wrong, don't take this out on JzG. Use the opportunity to set down clearer standards. Jehochman Talk 15:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting conversation here for those of you who are diff connoisseurs. Subsequent actions by JzG are understandable in the context that his prior administrative actions in the cold fusion venue were blessed (perhaps incorrectly) by Thatcher and a few arbitrators. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since a few people seem to misunderstand: whether or not JzG's actions were wrong, he has at no point received consensus feedback that he was wrong. A few editors, notably Abd and Durova have stood up and given him criticism. That's fine, but they have not yet achieved a consensus for that position. They seem to be seeking sanctions against JzG. That should be off the table because JzG has not received feedback, to my knowledge, that his action was wrong, nor has he been given a chance to correct himself. Likewise, I think that talk of sanctioning Abd is unhelpful. Editors should not be discouraged from raising complaints, though I think Abd's prosecution has been excessive and unhelpful to a degree. If he is told that, and stops, then nothing further is needed. At this point, there is no consensus on either issue. That's why we are here. Jehochman Talk 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ronnotel, we are not in the business of humiliating people. Even banned users are supposed to be treated politely. We should allow our volunteers to save face whenever possible. Jehochman Talk 02:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To User:Newyorkbrad, yes. If JzG says he will not administrate at Cold Fusion and he will not do controversial things with the spam blacklist, that would settle my concerns. On the other side, I'd like Abd to agree to drop this matter. Jehochman Talk 01:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abd

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 for diffs and detailed listings.

JzG was long involved in editing Cold fusion (64 edits) and Talk:Cold fusion (140 edits).

JzG has used administrative tools with respect to Cold fusion and related articles, including protecting a preferred version (of Condensed matter nuclear science), and blocked an editor involved with Cold fusion, with whom he had long-term dispute and a history of incivility, plus he blocked another IP editor on the unlikely claim that they were the same.

JzG was asked to undo actions or recuse himself by three editors in January, 2009, as shown in the RfC. He denied involvement and refused in all cases but one to recuse.

The last of the actions while involved, covered by the RfC, took place after most of these efforts, and after the RfAr he filed for confirmation was declined, JzG declared that it had confirmed his actions.

In addition, JzG removed a comment in the RfC itself from an IP editor,[3] and the edit summary and his block of the IP referenced an off-wiki dispute, thus showing that even after the RfC was filed, he did not show due caution in avoiding use of tools while involved.

JzG thus continues in violation of admin policy. Arbcom should therefore consider the consequences of JzG's continued administrative status, or clarify the policy on administrative involvement.

I agree with Jehochman that this matter requires arbitration, I understand that my behavior may come under scrutiny, and I appreciate Jehochman's prior efforts to resolve the dispute.

Beyond a few warnings, mostly from involved editors, on my Talk page, there has been no process followed beyond raw complaint to resolve disputes over my behavior. Hence I suggest a focus, at this time, on whether or not the allegations made regarding JzG are true, and the determination of appropriate response, and allow normal dispute resolution to clarify and possibly resolve issues over my behavior before wasting ArbComm time on it; to my knowledge, I have followed WP:DR with care, caution, and minimal disruption, given the seriousness of the violations.

If the editors who are complaining about me have attempted to resolve disputes on my Talk page, and some have, then RfC is open to them. I'd rather not be a distraction from the fundamental issue of recusal, which is more important than my editorship. These issues should be separated, or, if combined, handled sequentially. If JzG did not act while involved, if he did not violate admin policy, then my actions were truly outrageous and I should be topic banned until I come to my senses. But if he did violate, and if this was a matter of import, then I have served the community, by not allowing it to be swept under the carpet, where the lumps could trip us for years. --Abd (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Newyorkbrad

This case is not about Cold fusion, it is about administrative recusal. Cold fusion was merely an example that was researched in depth, so a "tool ban" on the one article does not address the issue at all. It is unlikely that use of tools while involved has been confined to one article or one disliked editor, and a possible new incident took place during the RfC itself, as cited in my comment above. What was suggested in the RfC as a "Desired outcome" was that JzG acknowledge errors (now specified as errors which the community or the committee confirms as such) (which requires that he acknowledge that he was involved, and that he had a duty to recuse) and then that he assure the community he will not repeat the mistake.

Promises without showing an understanding of the error do not leave us with any confidence that he can recognize involvement and the duty to recuse. No allegation has been made of bad faith by me; rather, I continue to assume good faith, but I must then conclude a lack of competence to stay within administrative policy. So, no, neither the assurance suggested about Cold fusion, nor the more general face-saving and vague assurance suggested by Fritzpoll, would be adequate, and would leave unaddressed an attitude among some administrators that admin recusal is technical bureaucratic nonsense and that protesting involvement is wikilawyering and disruptive. There are also major issues raised about the use of blacklists to control content. I had drafted an RfAr confined narrowly to failure to recuse, considering that dispute resolution on all other matters was not mature, but Jehochman beat me to it with something much broader, and I remain at the service of the committee and the community. --Abd (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response re meta discussions

m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2009-01#lenr-canr.org. Includes original blacklist request by JzG, rapid close with little discussion, protest and massive discussion, then close confirming listing by User:Mike.lifeguard. Newenergytimes.com is not meta blacklisted. The lack of a log entry, named discussion, or mention in edit summary, for the en.wikipedia blacklisting by JzG of NET, led to some confusion, hence the discussion there. Note that this was filed as an inquiry by Durova, not a request to blacklist, but it seems to have become a request as a suggestion by Beetstra in the discussion, declined anyway by User:Mike.lifeguard. NET remains locally blacklisted and there is a current request for delisting. The original listing was appealed as a delisting request ("appeal" means asking the same small set of administrators to reconsider, not the escalating process of WP:DR), though in this case there was no primary discussion, delisting was declined after considerable discussion by Beetstra. --Abd (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I'm not sure this is ripe for arbitration; it is, however, not really a bilateral dispute, in that Abd is doing all the work of keeping it going. Possibly relevant: Abd has ADHD (as he states in User:Abd/Rule 0). And yes, I am stubborn.

Is it obstinacy to defend a blacklisting decision reviewed by independent admins at Meta and enWP, or a topic ban reviewed by ArbCom, when the same user keeps making repeated requests for reversal? Is it obstinate to post large amounts of text opposing a blacklisting decision, then to go to the whitelist as soon as the blacklist decision closes against you, then to go back to the blacklist and request removal as soon as the whitelist decision goes against you, each time using exactly the same arguments? Sure, WP:NBD, but eventually the line is crossed into disruptive crusading.

Abd has a history of failing to accept consensus with which he disagrees (see Special:Prefixindex/User:Abd/ for examples. It seems to me that Abd wants to have pages where he controls the medium and the message, and only his POV is reflected, e.g:

All this would probably not be a problem if it weren't for two aggravating factors:

  • WP:DEADHORSE (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG3, where each complaint had already been raised at the relevant noticeboards and dismissed as not requiring action. I was criticised by one arbitrator for asking for review of an "obvious" topic ban on Jed Rothwell; now you know why.
  • Abd's tendency to extreme loquacity, often simply restating arguments already discussed. This is circular argument. Abd also engages in forum shopping.
On Abd

I think that the community could probably handle this by limiting Abd to a certain number of attempts on any given crusade, and to stop keeping laundry lists of grudges and abusing / WP:OWNing user space pages.

On addressing the issue

I addressed the issues at face value in the RfC, as I had previously addressed them at m:Talk:Spam blacklist, mediawiki talk:Spam-whitelist, mediawiki talk:spam-blacklist, WP:ANI, WP:AN, each in multiple iterations. The RfC raised by Abd was a result of his failing to gain traction in any of those venues. WP:STICK.

Admin actions re cold fusion

This is stale, but raises a point worthy of consideration: What is the proper balance between maintaining transparency and fairness, and enabling POV-pushers by allowing them to claim each successive admin who tries to rein them is as immediately being "involved" and therefore prevented from taking further action? I suspect the solution is simply to encourage greater use of the existing functions available for peer review, such as the noticeboards.

I have no offsite agenda to pursue and no outside interest to promote, I came to this solely in response to a request for admin intervention due to POV-pushing (which led to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion). The two editors who caused that problem, Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jed Rothwell, are both now topic banned. Other admins are now watching that page. These are the actions I took with respect to this dispute:

  • Blacklist lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.org due to abuse, posted for review at blacklists. Note that lenr-canr.org is now blacklisted at meta, not by me. Both decisions reviewed and endorsed by blacklist regulars.
  • Jan 09: Topic ban of Jed Rothwell, not strictly an admin action but one week sprot of talk:cold fusion referencing [4] in enforcement of same.
  • Jan 1 08: Protected redirect at Cold fusion research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a POV-fork.
  • Dec 12 07: Semiprotected talk:Cold fusion due to disruption by Jed Rothwell
  • Dec 6 07: Semiprotected cold fusion due to threats of disruption from an anonymous editor

I don't think this is evidence of abuse. It is evidence that my dispute resolution skills could do with some work; in the old days one could tell a kook to go away and they would go, these days the profile of Wikipedia is such that the stakes are simply too high for a POV-pusher to be deterred with anything less than nuclear force. I think this is WIkipedia's single largest problem right now.

on meta blacklisting

A red herring, the meta blacklist is outside the scope of the enWP arbitration committee and my meta sysop bit was not used anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Fritzpoll

This statement is made with the disclaimer that I have been in contact with Abd via e-mail in regards to this dispute. I also commented at the RfC that Jehochman has linked to above. This entire dispute appears to be about inflexibility: JzG will not engage specifically with the issue presented by Abd as the result of a personal perception of Abd's motives. In a sense this is understandable, but it gives the appearance of obstinacy when faults are pointed out. Since administrators are not infallible (or meant to be), I don't think we'd be here if JzG just said that he regretted giving the impression of bias, and will strive not to do it again. We could end this drama here and now if he just says that in a statement to this RfAr, and we can all settle back to what we're doing.

For Abd's part, there are some issues. I have no doubt that Abd has the best interests of the project at heart - absolutely none. However, the means by which he goes about defending the project leave a lot to be desired at times, with mentions of arbitration from the get-go, and an apparent unwillingness to compromise on views when faced with overwhelming opposition about them. Such behaviour exists beyond this request, and it may be worth examining so that Abd gets feedback from the Committee and the community on this issue.

Overall, it is worth looking at both parties if neither backs down - but we can end the dispute right now with a single sentence from JzG, which would be preferable.

Statement by Durova

As a certifier of the conduct RfC, I urge the Committee to accept this case to examine the conduct of all parties. Specifically, I encourage the Committee to weigh Abd's concerns about administrative recusal at face value, as I did. I do not edit cold fusion and, if anything, am sympathetic toward JzG's POV on the content dispute--but interpretations of policy must not pass through a filter of personal POV. Administrators must not cut corners for the sake of expedience. Additionally, I strongly object to this assertion made by JzG on April 5. JzG did not attempt to contact me about concerns regarding certification prior to making that serious allegation to third parties, nor did he notify me of it afterward. On April 16 I posted objections to that assertion at the RfC; he failed to respond. It is not the first time JzG has assumed bad faith in a public setting and lent the weight of his reputation to divisive accusations which he neither attempted to support with evidence nor attempted to clarify through normal means.

Followup: now that JzG has commented at this RFAR, it is worth noting that he still refuses to discuss the basis for RfC at face value. He dismisses my input with additional conjecture: Durova seems to have a bee in her bonnet. A bonnet is an item of female headgear; to quote Jane Austen (from an era when women wore bonnets and often had difficulty getting taken seriously), "I would rather be paid the compliment of being believed sincere". DurovaCharge! 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Mathsci: It would have been simple for JzG to have avoided any appearance of impropriety by taking his request to one of the admin boards, disclosing his involvement, and seeking independent review and action. What JzG and Jehochman posit amounts to an argument that WP:UNINVOLVED is dead letter--that only the merit of an administrative decision itself may be subject to review, and that any attempt to question the failure to recuse is presumptively posed in bad faith. If we allow that rationale in one situation (however meritorious the action may otherwise be), then we must allow it in every situation--and that would be an open door to deliberate abuse of power. I took Jossi to ArbCom because he weighed in toward administrative consensus at an AE thread while Jossi failed to disclose a prior history of dispute resolution with the Wikipedian whom he was denigrating. It would be untenable to turn a blind eye to this. DurovaCharge! 18:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Newyorkbrad: I also seek a retraction of the canvassing accusation. DurovaCharge! 04:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request by uninvolved Rootology

If the committee accepts this, can we please, pretty please, pretty please with a heaping of sugar on top, get some clear guidance on what circumstances in the Proposed Decision it is acceptable for "involved" admins to use tools on articles or on people involved with the articles? This is a constant tug of war, with some admins in favor of looser standards, and what always feels like a growing number of us desiring bright-line boundaries.

Statement by uninvolved Jim62sch

While I have made a couple edits on Cold Fusion (I think), I'm still uninvolved in this case.
From what I can see JzG's actions have been appropriate, but Arbcom should be able to decide whether that is true.
The uninvolved mantra is an interesting one, but not always relevant. How many of Guys edits were as an editor and how many as an admin trying to diffuse a problematic issue?

Disclosure: I know Guy personally, but that has nought to do with my above comments. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Verbal

Abd is a problematic editor and I fully encourage ArbCom to review his actions and take action to stop him from continuing his disruption, proxy editing for banned editors, process lawyering, threats, and suffocating verbiage which amounts to ownership of certain pages. From what I've seen of JzGs/Guys edits they have been appropriate - he is certainly a lot less "involved" than certain other admins that get involved in more contentious areas. ArbCom should be able to see the truth in this matter easily. Verbal chat 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of partially involved Beetstra

I have been involved in several discussions on de-listing discussions for two involved external links which were blacklisted (or for which blacklisting was requested) by JzG: lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com, and in some whitelisting requests on specific pages on these sites. Most of the blacklisting requests have been declined (some by me), one is still open. Whitelisting was granted for one, while all others I have been involved in were either declined or withdrawn.

My take on this sites is based partially on a ruling by our Reliable sources noticeboard (for newenergytimes: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#www.newenergytimes.com) which deemed newenergytimes not a reliable source. lenr-canr.org contains mainly copies of articles which are available elsewhere,

When looking at contributions of editors like User:Pcarbonn, I see that they have a huge preference for using sites which are either unreliable sources, or copy-sites like lenr-canr.org. Typical reliable sites are used much, much less (for some accounts, if any).

I have therefore argued lately, that I strongly suspect that these sites were used to give undue weight to the articles they were used in (and basically, that is the thought behind earlier declines as well). Some of the editors, like Pcarbonn, have been banned from these articles just for that reason, giving UNDUE weight. I therefore believe that these sites, when they are used, should be used with a big, red, blinking due care (and maybe it is for the best to keep the sites blacklisted and whitelist specific links after scrutinising them)!

I therefore don't find it unthinkable or far-fetched, especially at the time of blacklisting, that blacklisting these sites could improve the content on Wikipedia (WP:IAR).

De-blacklisting discussions by Abd however have focused on 'procedural errors' and 'JzG is involved, so he should not have added it' (using the latter as another procedural error: delist because he should not have added it). We are, however, not a bureaucracy: "A procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post.". I even question if JzG was involved in the article, or, as an admin, trying to solve the problems with the article in an attempt to improve this article on Wikipedia (or to keep it in good shape). I also still think that the editors who request de-listing (with Abd at the forefront) insufficiently make clear that the site abuse has stopped totally (which would be nice, we don't want abuse to start again), and that we really need these links (or is the article just as good without them), instead involved editors insist in finding scapegoats. Abd's discussion techniques in these (and other) cases is often, to say the least, direct and accusing, seemingly not willing to listen to other arguments, or consider other arguments at least partially valid. It is black ... or white. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of partially involved Dtobias

The spam blacklist has, in my opinion, been abused as a method of enforcing content decisions made by a handful of people without broader community consensus. Intended as a manner of dealing with obvious spam of the "Buy Viagra Now" variety, it's being misused to squelch links to sites judged as too "fringe" or "unreliable" by subjective judgment, removing the ability to decide this from the place it belongs, on individual articles and their talk pages. A tight clique, with JzG a dominant member, decides whether to blacklist or whitelist sites, with a strong tendency to make these decisions with little or no discussion, then insist that a heavy consensus is needed to reverse the decision; and any attempt to bring more than the tiny number of editors who frequent the spam blacklist page into such "consensus" discussions is decried as "canvassing" and "venue shopping". Furthermore, whenever holes are poked in the justifications for any particular spam listing, an ever-shifting set of new rationalizations is concocted to justify keeping sites blacklisted indefinitely. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by outside observer but probably biased Cla68

I'll simply link to my statment in the recent RfC, which statement I stand behind. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I was about to close the RfC later today, given the motion to close I proposed on the talk page. If the case is accepted, then I will include that in the summary of the RfC; the only other place this could have escalated to was ANI. At this point, I have nothing much to add than that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

I have never edited cold fusion, but am aware as a research scientist that the mirror site lenr-canr.org is run by a promoter of fringe science, with no formal scientific training at the required level. It seems quite clear that what is on the site cannot be used for writing encyclopedia articles on a subject which in most professional scientific circles has been declared defunct. Blacklisting the site was one way to proceed, although perhaps this should not have been done by JzG himself. This possible procedural faux-pas has now been used by Abd in a long-planned attack here, backed by Durova. I am very puzzled why this particular issue has been pushed so far (or indeed why it is Jehochman that has initiated this particular request). It could reflect frustration that the editing of fringe science and in particular cold fusion has been reined in on wikipedia, in line with the real world and mainstream science. On the RfC, there were two extremes of behaviour: non-participation and silence from JzG; and interminable screeds of unreadable prose and spurious accusations from Abd on the RfC talk pages. (User:Coppertwig has argued that Abd has ADHD.) ArbCom could presumably rule on blacklisting, but in a very general way, since in this particular case there is a convincing argument that it was warranted. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to NYB: Yes, your proposal seems very sensible. On the other hand, Abd's response to your question - "It is unlikely that use of tools while involved has been confined to one article or one disliked editor" - suggests that Abd's behaviour should probably be investigated by ArbCom. It looks like he's on a mission. Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by partially involved Ronnotel

I was tangentially involved in some ofobserved the original blacklist discussions and have contributed occasionally at the Cold fusion page. I disagree with Guy's assertion that either blacklisting had consensus. In fact, newenergytimes.com is now proposed for delisting, an action that appears to have rough consensus at this time. I accept that neither lenr-canr.org nor newenergytimes.com can generally be considered a reliable source. However, we don't use the blacklist to censor content with which we might happen to disagree, which is what I feel happened in this case. Administrators should be careful to use their tools to sanction behavior, not content.

Jehochman speaks of Guy's "loss of face" being a deterrent preventing him from taking the correct administrative action. Since when are administrators allowed to put their vanity ahead of their duty? I thought the whole point of being an admin was checking your ego at the door. - Further comment: of paramount importance when using the tools is get each and every action correct. Anyone who might feel 'humiliation' at the thought of undoing any such act in order to get to the correct result would probably be better off not using the tools in the first place. Ronnotel (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by "ghost of incivility past" Alecmconroy

I haven't been particularly actively lately on wikipedia (due mostly to fatherhood! yay!!!), so as an mostly-inactive user these days, a grain of salt is in order.

I think it's non-controversial to say that JzG has, in times past, been habitually incivil. I'm not involved in the cold fusion dispute-- no comment for or against Abd or the underlying content dispute. But it seems to me that the "final warning" that was issued to JzG hasn't succeeding in changing his behavior.

Within 30 seconds of seeing this page, I quickly find JzG accusing other users of being ADHD or Autistic. Ad hominem attacks are repugnant; alleging that those you disagree with suffer from developmental disorders is even more disgusting. And if the person he's attacking actually does suffer from ADHD-- that's even more cruel-- to try to use someone's own self-admission of medical problems as a way to try to dismiss the validity of their views by suggesting they are mentally incompetent and unable to participate in rational discourse.

And of course, the autistic & ADHD thing is just one of many many many such personal attacks. I'm a multitude of other examples exist.

Incivility among random users may not be much of a problem-- if two ip address editors start calling each other names, I think the damage is probably pretty limited. But an administrator, in some ways, speaks _for_ the encyclopedia, applies our policies and, theoretically, serves as an example to others.

When an admin, such as JzG, is habitually incivil, I believe that they leave behind them a trail of demotivated wouldbe contributors. It's easy to look at the admin actions and see how many positive things an individual has done in their tenure as admin. Harder to see is the multitude of toes that may have been stepped on along the way. Harder to see is all the good work that would have gotten done, all the positive contributions that would have been made by all the individuals who were bitten by an incivil admin. Harder to see are all the people who read discussions and realized that extreme levels of incivility-- levels that that would get a novice blocked on sight-- such incivility can be condoned and even encouraged if the person is an admin or has the right friends.

Hardest of all to see is the potential for users that, if not disheartened by incivil admins, would have gone on to become admins themselves and dedicated huge portions of their time to the project.

And as always-- JzG is in no way a "bad" person or a "bad editor" and really, his persistent incivility isn't even really JzG's "fault", -- it's our fault for letting it get to this point. JzG has his admin style-- it's combative, some people don't like his style, but thus far it has always served him well. JzG loves Ad Hominem arguments-- so have many of histories greatest orators and leaders. Some people group-hug to resolve disputes, some people hurl insults-- but both instincts are natural.

The question is for us-- do we want our admins to exhibit this level of incivility or not? If we choose to allow the chronically incivil to remain admins, then we implicitly condone that behavior, we should expect more of it in the future.

Alternatively, if we don't want our admins to be incivil, then we should desysop those who continue, despite warnings, to be incivil. If we choose that course, and stick to it, then soon admins will recognize that choice has been made, and in time our admin corps will be free of any chronic incivility.

Incivility or abuse from administrators is , for me, probably the most poisonous single aspect I've encountered of the wikipedia community. I suspect it's a major barrier that prevents people making the jump from "occasional editor" to "hardcore, full-time-editing, foundation-donating, wikimania-attending, wikipedia addict".

Controversial, chronically incivil admins cost us _far_ more than the relatively minor benefit that comes from them having the admin bit. There's plenty of work to do on the project that doesn't require admin tools-- why ask that one of the less civil members of the community attempt the extremely difficult, very frustrating role of admin? Instead, let's leave the adminning to the people who have an easier time fulfilling the role of being a "trusted, unbiased, non-controversial, respectful, and civil member of the community."

--Alecmconroy (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

Screenshot of Talk:Cold fusion in 9 April. Abd's comments are colored in light blue.

I have to say that Abd has good insights and it's good to work with him... until you try to stumble upon something that he doesn't agree with, in which case he will engage in long long looong meandering argumentations that can finish your patience as he examines and twists any argumentation or source put forward. The good points get regretfully lost in walls of text as he tries to push some pre-conceived view of how the world should be.

As others have pointed out, Abd writes too long comments rehashing old arguments, changing topic several times in the same comment, writing as he thinks, etc. My particular complaint is that his comments have filled Talk:Cold fusion, dominating other commenters by sheer size. He also appears to believe that writing a lot means that he is working a lot [5]. Also, insistance that there is no problem with putting very long comments in talk pages because people can choose not to read them[6], despite all the people telling him that it's annoying and that he should try to write shorter comments.

About Jed's ban, Abd doesn't like the ban, he keeps trying to run loops around it, and he keeps trying to insert Jed's comments while insisting that ban is not valid (see latest discussion).

I keep having the disturbing sensation that all this trouble is being caused only by Abd's refusal to accept wikipedia's rules and consensus.

JzG was following the principles of the Fringe Science arb case, he was not imposing any POV because science does not have a POV, so there is not a Scientific Point Of View (SPOV), and find that editors can be disruptive in the absence of "outright grossly violating civility expectations", and disrupting by simply refusing to accept consensus.

Abd's behaviour brings another principle to mind, that of using WP:DR to exhaust other editors. He takes ages to move to the next step while still making long arguments where he repeats the same arguments all the time; this is not helpful and he still believes that his behaviour is totally correct. Very revelant here, it took severe prodding and this MfD to finally get him to post JzG's 3rd RfC. I think that JzG did the correct thing by choosing to disengage from this. --~~

Comment by Spartaz

I have been highly active in the RFC and also closed a lengthy discussion from Abd complaining about JzG and the blacklisting at ANI. In the latter case I tried to engage with Abd and show them that they were beating a dead horse but disengaged when Abd started to attack my motives and engaged in mild personal attacks.

The basic tenet of dispute resolution is that editors who cannot resolve a dispute should disengage and that is exactly what Guy has done. There is no credible evidence that Guy continues to use administrative tools while engaged and, while there might be arguable concerns about the original blacklisting, the action has been de facto endorsed by meta admins, who have decided to blacklist themselves and discussed ad nauseum at ANI. Guy has not acted as an administrator in subsequent black/whitelisting discussions and the topic ban of Jed Rothwell was tacitly endorsed by the committee when Guy listed it for clarification.

While Guy seems to be someone who generates opinions about their actions, the evidence is that this a dispute that is only ongoing because Abd continues to wage a relentless vendetta against Guy and is refusing to see that the horse has been flogged to death. Their actions have now gone way beyond harassment.

Since it is clear that the case is going to be accepted, I hope the committee will seriously consider the real locus of the dispute, which is Abd's refusal to let this go and seriously consider appropriate measures to stop the harassment - including a topic ban preventing Abd from interacting with or discussing Guy in any way. (Similar to Everykings ban from Phil Sandifer).

I strongly urge the committee to pass an immediate injunction requiring Abd to confine all comment and discussion of Guy and his actions to the arbitration pages so that this long running waste of time is consigned to one location and does not spill over to disrupt activity elsewhere on the project.

Comment by Badger Drink

As should be patently obvious to everybody, the success of an encyclopedia is measured in the percentage of people who feel good about themselves during its creation, and not (allow me to repeat for emphasis: NOT) the "quality" of the content within ("quality", mind you, as determined by the oppressive, facist dictatorship-cum-clique of Big $cience). A 9th grader can tell you, quite plainly, that truth is entirely relative - like beauty, truth is in the eye of the beholder, and there is obviously no such thing as objective fact. As such, I recommend ArbCom accept the case with the premeditated intent of permanantly banning JzG, whose rude statements and occasional bending of the rules to suit his nefarious POV threaten to drive off excellent contributors whose only desire in Wiki-life is to make sure that the figurative "child in Africa" knows full-well from reading this magical project that tribal superstition and other such flim-flam is on equal footing with the conclusions of well-trained scientists - and, as a nod to JzG's tyrannical disregard towards bureaucratic process, I urge that ArbCom deliver an eye for an eye, and trump the WP:RfA process by declaring Abd an admin, recognizing his commendable attitude and dedication to the true focus of this encyclopedia project. Badger Drink (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • Several comments in this thread appear to be well over the 500 word limit, could the parties please trim them. Thank you. MBisanz talk 01:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (11/0/1/1)

  • Accept to look at conduct of all involved parties. Wizardman 16:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to look at all involved users. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - I think this is reaching the end of the line, so the buck stops here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. It seems that this is causing disproportionate drama, has exhausted viable resolution options at the community level, and includes a number of potential conduct issues to be examined. It's about as clear as it gets that this is a case needing arbitration and the accompanying detailed examination. --Vassyana (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept; there is a lasting problem, that much is evident. — Coren (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept.  Roger Davies talk 07:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - RfC seems split between different views with no lasting resolution in sight. Am concerned that the line is being blurred between forum shopping and escalating through stages of dispute resolution. The former is bad, the latter is allowed, but it seems they are being confused. Carcharoth (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    John has said "JzG mentions two meta admins who have reviewed this blacklisting; can we please notify them of this case." Neither the RfC or this Request mention the meta admins by name, but I found the following diff at meta (11:57, 10 January 2009, Erwin (Talk | contribs), Adding \blenr-canr\.org\b per Talk:Spam blacklist. Using SBHandler). The discussion is at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2009-01#lenr-canr.org. I will ask the parties to confirm that these are the correct links, and I will contact User:Erwin and User:Mike.lifeguard (both of whom have en-Wikipedia accounts), and ask whether they are the meta admins in question, which will serve as notification if they are. Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Badger Drink, your sarcasm has been noted. Thank-you. Carcharoth (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: JzG and "meta red herring". Could you expand on the relationship between en-Wikipedia and the meta blacklist? I notified one of the meta admins involved in that discussion and he pointed me to meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2009-02#newenergytimes.com. I also see references above to a 'reliable sources noticeboard' discussion on that website, and to a current discussion on delisting this website from the (en-wiki?) blacklist. I also see substantially the same participants in these discussions, so it seems all part-and-parcel of the same behaviour, whether technically in scope or not. Actions at meta can affect the local projects, so actions there can't be totally ignored (even if there might not be much that can be done about it). Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. There has been a lot of heat about this blacklisting, and there is a good argument for this being an inappropriate use of the blacklist. JzG mentions two meta admins who have reviewed this blacklisting; can we please notify them of this case.
    The incoming links can all be reviewed and determinations made on whether they are appropriate for certain articles. I briefly looked into the blacklisting issue a little while ago at Talk:Martin Fleischmann#Status of link in article after this discussion, approaching it solely from the copyright angle, and I couldnt see why it was a copyright problem. There is talk of this website altering the papers it republishes; I think it is crucial that we investigate that claim. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to consider the behaviour and actions of the parties, and issues around the use of the blacklist. --bainer (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to look at all involved parties, if you commented about this request, this means you. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per FloNight. Risker (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. JzG's comments above suggest that while he does not believe his use of administrator tools on Cold fusion was inappropriate, he anticipates that in the future other administrators will be watching the page, with the implication that he will not need to be the admin to take any action that might be required. JzG, are you prepared to make a commitment not to take further administrator action on Cold fusion or closely related articles? Other commenters, if JzG agreed to make such a commitment, would that resolve this dispute in your view and end the need for a case? I would hold off on opening the case until this avenue is explored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not as convinced as some of my colleagues that this case will lead to a productive result, but 11-0 to accept is a pretty impressive majority of the entire committee, so the Clerk should go ahead and open the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

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


Request to amend prior case September 11 conspiracy theories

Request by Jehochman

The sanctions in this case are being gamed. Editors who are banned start new accounts, which then must receive the mandatory warnings before they can be sanctioned. Please modify the warning requirement so that administrators may place sanctions without warnings on disruptive single purpose accounts that edit within the locus of dispute. For further reading see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bov, particularly the checkuser clerk's note on the latter case. Note that I am involved in editing these articles and have been responsible for filing the above two sockpuppet cases as well as a large number of WP:AE requests that have resulted in topic bans. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's often unclear who the puppetmaster is; there are so many alternatives. It's also somewhat time consuming and difficult to make a case for meat puppetry. We have to dig around and find some sort of off site solicitation. I expect that after we found the most recent incident of meat puppetry, those who use that strategy will be more careful not to leave tracks. It is much easier to say here is a single purpose account, repeating the same tired arguments, please ban it from these articles. Good faith editors are getting worn down trying to repel these accounts. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. I'm involved so I'm not blocking anybody. I rely on other administrators, many whom have doubts about blocking somebody unless there is an airtight reason. B. WP:SPA is an essay. In the current climate, any block issued on that basis would have people up in arms. See the Abd and JzG case I filed above as an example of what most admins are fearful of. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen, has Wikipedia descended so far that Arbitrators feel comfortable making rude comments on this page? A checkuser clerk, who seems to be tired of the endless sock cases related to 9/11 asked me to come here for help. So I did. Please address the problem. We have a passel of tendentious sockpuppeteers who can spend 60 seconds to create a new account, while it takes me at least an hour to shut them down via our bureaucratic processes. That's a very unfavorable tradeoff. If you don't like my idea, would you at least investigate what's going on and see if you can propose something helpful or constructive. Blowing me off with a "suck it up" comment is not an option available to you. Jehochman Talk 03:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment Why can't you just block a sock as a block-evading sock? No warning needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: If you can warn based on SPA criteria, why not block on SPA criteria? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suck it up. If you allege sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, then of course you have to provide evidence to support your assertion. If it can be established that someone is evading a block, a ban, or a sanction by way of puppetry, then they can be dealt with in the normal fashion under the sockpuppetry and blocking policies, there is no need for special remedies. --bainer (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Community norms already provide for the blocking of block evading sockpuppets and disruptive single-purpose accounts. The arbitration remedy does not alter those standard practices. Arbitration rememdies must be interpreted within the framework of community norms and with a dose of common sense. All the remedy does is explicitly direct administrators to utilize a full range of sanctions to bring the topic area under control, with basic advice about good admin practices. Generally speaking, giving someone fair warning and some explicit guidance about what to avoid, or how to improve, is hardly controversial as common good pratice before heavy sanctions or blocks. In other words, just follow the usual means of dealing with such potential sockpuppets and SPAs. I have some extended thoughts in a broader context at: User:Vassyana/Splitting Hairs. --Vassyana (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a perennial problem - how to distinguish good-faith SPAs (that need education and pointing to FAQs, and that might become productive editors) from disruptive ones (that need blocking), and how to avoid burnout for those watching an article. The only suggestion I can make is to ask for more assistance in dealing with the topic area, provide the evidence (as bainer says), and to make sure that those appealing blocks are told that this is a contentious area and that they should edit other areas for a set amount of time (probationary topic ban?) before returning to the topic in question (if at all). This might seem like reducing the barrier for new editors to edit, but for contentious topics, this might be needed. Have topic bans restricting editing to the talk page been tried? Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jehochman, could you (or someone else) analyse a week's worth of editing and gets some stats for the scale of the problem? Or failing that, give a rough estimate of numbers of (in your opinion) disruptive accounts? Carcharoth (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, It takes far more than 60 seconds to edit in a way that requires this case to come into play, and the log indicates this decision hasnt been invoked often, which suggests the warnings are doing their job, or people arnt updating the log. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case The Troubles

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

Statement by SirFozzie

The Troubles, are not as contentious as they once were, thanks to the tight lid on edit-warring that was created by User:Rlevse here, that subjected the whole subset of articles covered by The Troubles to a 1 RR. This has blunted a lot of the constant edit-warring. However, six months after the fix was applied, someone wants to rip the band-aid off and let the (metaphorical) blood flow anew. User:Sandstein has stated that he will not act on AE requests regarding this remedy, because it is not an ArbCom remedy. We've already seen several folks using IP's to edit war and then when the IP is blocked, use throw-away accounts. The sanctions are needed.. there are 10+ sections in the archives where this is used since December alone.

So, despite my utter distaste of time-wasting bureaucracy such as this, would the ArbCom please vote in the following as a formal ArbCom remedy, as posted by User:Rlevse:

  • All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
  • All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
    • Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
  • Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
  • As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, I leave it to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: {{Consensus|This article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]]''', as laid out during a previous [[WP:AE]] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.}}

List of times the Rlevse sanctions has been brought up on AE (there are another 5-10 where it's been mentioned in passing, but these are the ones that refer to the 1RR rule itself.)

[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and the two latest ones on AE. If the Committee would look at the history of AE from archive 30 or so on, usually 2 or 3 or 4 sections per archive will have to do with this series of articles,

I don't believe that a new full fledged ArbCom would do anything more then to spend a couple months of time with the same parties arguing in the same way. Instead, what should be done is apply common sense. Use the Rlevse sanctions, and keep the peace in an area where there will be no peace if not applied.

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

If one admin chooses not to act on a particular enforcement request, it doesn't stop another administrator stepping in. Whilst Sandstein might not agree and therefore decide not to take action, if another administrator believes the editor in question has broken the case remedies (In this case it is enforcement of discretionary sanctions) then that is up to them and they may block for that. From what I can see, Sandstein hasn't said he'll overrule other administrators and I suspect he wouldn't even challenge other administrators if they made blocks as part of Rlevse's restriction. It looks like Sandstein merely doesn't agree and doesn't feel comfortable enforcing the decision - that's his prerogative and feel free to simply block if someone goes against the 1RR restriction. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I'm commenting in my capacity as admin patrolling WP:AE and responding to enforcement requests there. Ryan is right in that I won't (and have no authority to) overrule any admin enforcing the "Troubles" case as he or she sees fit. However, the "Troubles" decision does not, as Ryan seems to believe, provide for discretionary sanctions. Instead, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors, it provides that disruptive editors may be put on Wikipedia:Probation and, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement, that these editors are then subject to 1RR. That is the arbitral decision that can and should be enforced at WP:AE, including by me.

The section entitled Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case, which purports to put all articles in the area of conflict under 1RR, on the other hand, is not an enforceable arbitral decision, since it was apparently never voted on by the Committee. Its author, Rlevse, has confirmed this at [19]. That is why I will not act on enforcement requests concerning it.

I recommend that the Committee:

  • remove the section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case from the case page or leave a comment so as not to cause others to mistake it for an operative remedy, and
  • if it feels that this is warranted (I've too little experience in this area to comment on this), properly amend the case to provide for either a general 1RR restriction on the area of conflict, or for discretionary sanctions as with other comparable cases.  Sandstein  05:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Sandstein has summed up what I was going to say. Perhaps both sanction-schemes would be useful? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Request Could we have links to the 10? related AE threads since Rlevse augmented the case. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like this community-based remedy is doing the trick. I am happy to leave it as Stephen Bain suggests, or write it into the decision as Sandstein suggests. Could someone please notify the regulars who have been affected by this remedy. e.g. Sarah777, Manticore126, Domer48, BigDunc, and Mooretwin. They may have valuable views to share on how this remedy plays out. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I'm flattered something I wrote that I thought was basic has been so useful. I'm willing to make a motion if it looks like enough arbs will support it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein is correct that the 1RR restriction is not part of the decision, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy, established by consensus during this discussion. There is nothing wrong with this. There are a couple of issues though:
  1. the notice of the 1RR restriction on the case page (and on article talk pages) should be altered to describe it as a community-based remedy, or removed to some other appropriate page, to avoid confusion;
  2. there is unfortunately no convenient venue for enforcement requests on such community-based sanctions, personally I have no problem with arbitration enforcement being used just as a matter of convenience, but otherwise ANI would make do.
--bainer (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason for ArbCom to intervene with a community-imposed sanction. (Indeed, I would encourage administrators and the community to impose sanctions as necessary without the intervention of ArbCom.) Additionally, an administrator could simply warn someone who is edit-warring or otherwise disruptive that the topic area has seen a lot of problems and that disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (It would be advisable to be polite and clear about the problem, directing the editor to any relevant policy pages and giving a bit of guidance about how to better work with others on Wikipedia.) Upon a repeat performance of disruption, the person can be sanctioned or blocked, without bureaucratic hurdles or reliance upon the particulars of an ArbCom decision. I have no particular objection to issues being raised at AE for areas subject to arbitration enforcement, but ANI would be appropriate if the AE regulars find this undesirable. --Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing much further to add. Will vote on a motion to write the sanctions into the case if needed, pending feedback from those John asked to be contacted. But leaving as a community-based sanction (per bainer's description) would also work. Carcharoth (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: User:Thomas Basboll

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

Statement by Tom harrison

Last April, User:Thomas Basboll was banned[20] from articles and talk pages related to the September 11 attack. Since then he's hardly done anything else, limiting his work to user pages. He's always civil and articulate; individual edits can seem reasonable. But his goal here has been and remains to get the truth out about the collapse of the World Trade Center. Whatever his motivation, no matter how he describes or intends his edits, their invariable result has been to promote conspiracy theories about 'controlled demolition'. He has shown no interest in contributing in any other area; he's banned from that area; he continues his work in a sandbox, and invites others to edit on his behalf.[21] If encouraging others to apply edits he can't make himself doesn't violate the letter of his topic ban it's at least contrary to its purpose, and continually beating the drum for the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a continuing disruption. Tom Harrison Talk 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thomas Basboll

I'm not sure an all out arbitration is necessary. If the topic-ban applies to user talk pages and my own sandbox then I am in the wrong and will stop immediately. If it does not, I think Tom Harrison needs to provide a bit more evidence that, on balance, the "invariable result [of my edits] has been to promote conspiracy theories about 'controlled demolition'". In the one case where a user has objected to my use of his talk page, I have respected that wish, but otherwise my suggestions have been met with understanding and have been implemented (or not) as the user I contacted chose. I have not asked users to edit "on my behalf"; I have pointed out errors in articles to them and sometimes suggested prose that I believed could express an idea they were defending in talk discussions. I'm really am just trying to help.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John Vandenberg (below): Since I am not site-banned, I have not considered contacting ArbCom by email. Those two public appeals are the only attempts I have made to have the ban overturned.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on MONGO's evidence (below): The puzzling thing about the examples is that the changes I have suggested by (arguably) "proxy" remain in the articles, often made by editors on the "other side". I think the policy is clear here, and since I have not recruited new users, meat-puppetry is not at all involved. I have only contacted people who are already interested in the articles, and I have provided information that they could themselves verify. Most puzzling: in the exchange that led to MONGO asking me not to post on his talk, I actually managed to convince him that I was right, and the article has been correct ever since. MONGO himself corrected the error I was indicating [22]. So even though he himself has confirmed my suggestions (as the rules on proxying require) and implemented them, he is now suggesting that my inquiries constitute a violation of the proxy rules, i.e., rules that he himself, by implication, would have been violating by implementing my suggestion.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. As Mongo notes below, his edit involved more than the change I was proposing. But I had not raised any other issues in my exchange with him. So he implemented my suggestion among others. My point still stands: Mongo introduced an error and I pointed his mistake out to him. He then fixed it. The article was improved by my action. Though I don't think I actually broke a rule here, I think this might at least have been an occasion to WP:IGNORE it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to John Vandenberg 2 (below): Something like what you propose (editing other parts of WP to establish credibility in the community) has been suggested to me many times before, as Mongo also does on this occasion. I have never understood the argument. My editorial judgment has been rejected at the highest level (when ArbCom rejected my appeal). If that rejection stands in this topic area, why do you assume that I would do a fine job elsewhere? Assuming that my topic ban is justified (i.e., that my judgment is defective), then, the current solution of having my suggestions vetted through editors whose judgment has not been similarly impugned seems quite reasonable. But you will have to forgive me for not finding the place I have been assigned in the community especially motivating in regard to contributing to the larger project.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to John Vandenberg 3 (below): Okay, it makes sense when understood as pragmatism. But that's why I have stopped editing: the pragmatic reality of Wikipedia is too far from the principled ideal that originally got me interested in the project. I could spend hours, days and weeks trying to prove people wrong by working in other areas or at Wikisource. But, just as you economize with your time, I economize with mine. In any case, please keep in mind that Tom Harrison is asking whether my current actions (my sandbox page and inquiries on user pages) is a violation of the current pragmatic solution, i.e. the topic-ban. While it would be great of you (generous, actually) to use the opportunity to look into the original ban, my view is that even if the ban had been justified what I am doing now is within the spirit, and well within the letter, of the sanctions. Like I say, if that's not the case, I will delete the page and withdraw altogether.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cs32en

The ban against Thomas Basboll had been based on reasons "described by Jehochman" [23]. However, Jehochman has advised Thomas Basboll as follows: "I think it might be worthwhile to write a crisp version of the article in your sandbox ..." [24]. So this is, in my opinion, best left to the community to sort out, at this point of time. --Cs32en (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

More of the same...Basboll has been topic banned from editing all pages related to the events surrounding 9/11...this includes conspiracy pages, where he has been an advocate. Arbcom may not be familiar with this issue, but I surely am, and our server space is not to be used to sidestep topic bans using personal sandboxes or others usertalk to rally a cause for which one has been topic banned...topic bans should mean just that...one is banned from the topic, regardless of the location. I have stated repeatedly that AFTER Basboll was topic banned that, based on his obvious articulateness, that he must be educated and surely...surely, he could and should help out with other areas that are not related to those he is topic banned from. I tried to encourage him to do so...but instead, he continues his fixation on this subject matter...though of course, outside main article space. WP:MEAT applies in this case...a topic banned editor, especially one who has been known to advocate fringe theories, shouldn't be encouraging others of similar POV [25] and discouraging those that base their work on known evidence...as Basboll did to me here...which resulted in my asking him to avoid my usertalk if he was going to use it for his 9/11 issues. Furthermore, major collaborative pieces should be worked on in article space in my opinion...creating sandboxes pages when we already have working long standing pages that can be improved only allows topic banned people a way to avoid sanction from being topic banned...

So can arbcom help clarify for Mr. Basboll what a topic ban implies and maybe succeed where I failed and encourage him to find some other topic to edit? I'm hoping that this is the case...--MONGO 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jehochman below...though I surely appreciate that we don't want to suppress beliefs, Basboll is topic banned...that means banned from editing on that topic...as far as I can see, that means we don't allow them to use likewise thinking fellow editor's usertalks to rally support for their POV, especially a POV that is based on fringe theories that undermine the factual encyclopedic integrity of our articles. Furthermore, setting up sandboxes to update sections, write new articles or alter existing ones related to what the editor is topic banned from seems to be a breach of the purpose of the topic ban...so we have millions of other articles...Wikipedia exists for Mr. Basboll as a platform to advocate his fringe beliefs regarding 9/11...he has had almost zero other interest in any other area...if he can't find another area to edit and repeatedly violates his topic ban...why is he here anymore?--MONGO 03:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples where he has been approaching others to alter edits and or comment in articles he is topic banned from...to be fair, some of these are from those he does not share a POV with...[26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [ here he comments at arbcom enforcement regarding the same topic he is topic banned for[32], here he tells one of his fellow (to put it nicely) alternative theorists all about me...[33], here he tries to defend a fellow 9/11 conspiracy theorist that is blocked [34]...I can easily produce more examples of Mr. Basboll violating his topic ban. More needs to be done to tell these single purpose accounts to go find another playground.--MONGO 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Basboll above..the link he provides [35] where he claims I changed wording to reflect, as he puts it, the correct wording, only applies to the word "adjacent"..the remaining red changed text was added by me after great arguments and is reflected in the references provided. Regardless, this was part of the exchange that led me to ask him to cease using my talkpage to violate his topic banning.--MONGO 05:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman (b)

Thomas seems polite and I have been polite in return. If he's not banned from editing is his sandbox, then he is allowed to do so. As I understand, he is free to edit there. Everybody has some sort of POV. We don't ban editors for what they believe; we ban them by how they act. If Thomas supports WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, I see no problems. If however he's playing me the fool, well, that would be a poor idea. Jehochman Talk 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Tossing up some background discussions for everyone; no comment yet. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#Thomas Basboll the thread is closed as "Thomas Basboll banned from 9/11 articles, appealing to ArbCom." Thomas, did you appeal to arbcom via email? We can find the email if you can tell us when you sent it. There was a public appeal at WP:RFAR in May 2008, and a later one at WP:AE in October 2008. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thomas, your article contributions over the last 12 months are extremely light on, your userpage says you are retired, and you're doing a lot of chatting. I am seeing more noise than signal. How about you come out of retirement, focus on some supplementary topics, and then appeal the topic ban in a few months. As an example of how you could remain engaged in this topic productively, despite the topic ban, you could work on Operation Northwoods, World Trade Center (PATH station), Minoru Yamasaki, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, etc; or, for something different you could expand the archives over Wikisource (see s:Template:911). John Vandenberg (chat) 04:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thomas, your editorial judgment has been questioned by editors in the 9/11 topical area, a few admins, and two previous arbitrators (Raul654 and Morven) have found it appropriate to ban you from that topic. The review by arbcom in April 2008 only obtained a single opinion, that of Morven. Morven's motivations may have simply been pragmatic, as the same set of editors opined that they found it advantageous to have you topic banned. Your response to this has been to stop editing; my recommendation is that you prove everyone wrong by editing other areas. If you have problems in another topical area, that would be telling. If you dont have problems in another topical area, that would give us a damn fine reason to re-evaluate your topic ban.
      That said, it is not unusual for a person to have a problem editing in only a limited range of topics; their edits to other topical area's are fine. Even if you did (previously) have a problem editing 9/11 articles, we might decide that we can lift the topic ban because we trust that you are now capable of managing your own POV issues. Note that I am not saying that you do have a problem editing 9/11 topics; I've only spent an hour reading all the comments and looking at a few of your edits.
      Your lack of edits in other area's mean I have no option but to either a) trust the other editors opining here, or b) invest a day (or more) reviewing your edits. Perhaps you can see that pragmatism makes me want to create a third option: you demonstrate that you are able to edit productively in other areas and I will invest the time to review your edits. I do appreciate that you may not want to take this third path; but you cant blame me for trying, right? I also suggested that you come on over to Wikisource for a while, and build our collection of related primary sources. This will give you good reason to collaborate with 9/11 editors here on Wikipedia, and then the comments at the next topic ban appeal will be more favourable to yourself.
      Could someone please notify Raul654 and Morven, as they may wish to comment. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A topic ban is a topic ban as far as I'm concerned. Using a sandbox and other users as a proxy for engaging in discussion is pretty clearly gaming the system in my eyes. Circumventing, or even dancing around the edges of, a ban is a terrible idea. At the absolute best, it shows an inability to walk away from the topic. Under such circumstances, I would strongly discourage the community and administrators from granting any allowances. Additionally, I would be opposed to any ban relief in the absence of complete separation from the topic and positive contributions in other areas. --Vassyana (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I recall correctly, I was one of those suggesting (at some point last year) that Thomas Basboll edit in other areas to demonstrate he is interested in building an encyclopedia, and not just a narrow set of articles. Failing that (and it is Thomas's choice alone), I would endorse John's other suggestions. This is not, however, to endorse making SPAs second-class citizens (that opens the door to experts working on single articles being driven off by opponents who have a more diverse editing history). What matters is, as always, the quality of the sources and arguments any editor brings to the table, their editorial judgment, and their ability to work collaboratively with others. That last one is particularly important for all editors working in any topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following up on what Vassyana said above, I would say that proxying is bad, but a sandbox can be helpful as long as the editor in question doesn't use the talk page as a forum to discuss things with others (who then proxy edit). Carcharoth (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to take a look at : The Alastair Haines situation


Statement by Privatemusings

per this email and this note, I gather arbcom have received some information ahead of this request - but every little helps, right :-)

An OTRS ticket ( #2009040310049955 ) has somewhat divided the OTRS agents, with confusion as to whether or not it constitutes a legal threat. Regardless, because it comes from a publisher of this user's work, a decision has been made to ban the user indefinitely. A simple examination of the ticket by the arbcom would be helpful. You might also like to review this diff noting that it was posted subsequent to the OTRS request, and clearly by the protaganist!

Please review this asap and consider further steps to improve systemic performance in this area - overall it's just been totally unacceptable in my view.

@risker and MB - for what it's worth, the outcome of a good conversation on IRC in the OTRS channel was that the OTRS folk are divided, and unlikely to take any action (it was important to note that this was not an impasse, but it's hard for me to explain why not!) - the simple fact is that two users have been indefinitely blocked over this - one clearly in error, which, despite being fixed after 5 days is still a ginormous stuff up. At the very least, I'd hope the committee might lean towards taking some responsibility towards resolving this situation speedily and smoothly, it would speak well of us, no? Privatemusings (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding Issues

to be explicit, I am swallowing a degree of distaste for this process in asking the committee to attend to the following gigantic boobs outstanding issues;

  • A good faith user was blocked for 5 days based on an administrator's hunch that they might have sent an email. They hadn't, and I would like to committee to strongly underline how inappropriate this bungle was. It's the sort of thing that can cause unnecessary drama, I reckon.
  • Alaistair Haines has been indefenitely blocked, with the stated rationale that someone else sent OTRS an email. I'd like arbcom to examine this interesting reading of site policy.
  • A couple of days after someone else sent OTRS an email, Alaistair posted this diff explaining his current position in regard to legal action. Only a gigantic boob could have missed this - it's linked some 5 or 6 lines up :-)
  • The Pièce de résistance - as a response to another somebody (me) asking a few questions, some people note that maybe it's a good idea to open up Alaistair's talk page, and some people think 'hey, the exact opposite might be just the ticket' - right now the talk page is protected from all editing. Way to go wiki dispute resolution!

Finally, I have to pass a wry comment on Brad's note - it's interesting that the vagaries of this project lead such a wise chap to state that editing under your own name is not a good idea. It took me maybe 30 min.s yesterday to sift through and realise the scale of the boobage in this situation - please try to attend to it, dear arbs :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)hopefully the section title will have captured at least someone's attention.....[reply]

more hmmmmm..... I headed over to Coren's talk page to ask for his rationale for a block, and wondering if he could outline the best next-steps for an unblock, where he mentioned "The matter is currently in discussion within the Committee." - is it? Perhaps I'm wrong to read into that the intimation that arbcom are currently discussing this, but I'm not sure how not to! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
any news? My reading of the below is that the arbcom doesn't consider this an arbcom matter, which is in tension with Coren mentioning that arbcom are indeed discussing it. Are you discussing this?
It's my opinion that there's a systemic problem in how you (arbcom) choose to communicate around requests such as these, right now I (as initiator) have no way of knowing if anyone is actually attending to any of these issues. Meanwhile, while thumb twiddling, head scratching and general procrastination and avoidance continue, a good faith user remains indefinitely blocked. This shouldn't be acceptable to any of you.
If anyone flicks me an email letting me know when we can expect an update (ideally with some explanation as to why) I'll be patient, otherwise cage rattling is the only avenue available, I guess :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well no email (yet), and no surprise there, I guess :-) - as I noted on the administrator's noticeboard thread, several reviewing admin.s are of the opinion that this is now an office and arbcom matter, and are unwilling to take any action. My reading of the arbcom's comments below is that you're not minded to take any action either, which is odd considering Coren mentioned that you were discussing it. Coren, as the blocking admin. is now completely unresponsive, although the good news is he's amused by the situation. Coren notes in her edit summary that 'this does not need to proceed further' - oh good, so it's all sorted out then?
what I have noticed is that it's easier to get a conversation going about a shaven vagina round here than it is to resolve the indefinite blocking of a long standing valuable editor. Come to think of it, that sounds like this wiki :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

The only potential concern I can see here is that Mr Haines apparently can't edit his own talk page, I am always wary of impeding attempts by living individuals to correct inaccuracies about themselves. Mr Haines has contacted OTRS through his representatives, but if we believe that there is a pressing problem with his communications being impeded then there is no reason not to ask Coren to change the block parameters.

A quick look through the history suggests the following interpretation of events: Alastair Haines has a series of blocks for legal threats, and has been warned many times about them. When another comment was made which he considered defamatory, rather than make another legal threat and get blocked, he appears to have asked a colleague to make the threat on his behalf. The colleague was perhaps more moderate than Mr. Haines himself, and in any case the request was a reasonable one and handled to to correspondent's apparent satisfaction. It seems to em that the concern here is that rather than exploring ways of not making legal threats, Mr Haines has decided to explore other ways of making legal threats without consequences. That is plainly unacceptable. That is how I read it from the current comments, anyway; we'd have to ask Coren for his take I think.

The supposed controversy or debate is not evident to me as an OTRS agent and subscriber to otrs-en-l, and I don't see any suggestion that Coren has gone WP:ROUGE on this. It looks like a standard response to legal threats, and it also looks as if all parties are already mindful of the WP:BLP implications. What prior attempts have been made to resolve this dispute? Has it been raised at the admin noticeboards? Has anyone asked Coren about the specific issue of talk page locking?

In any case, I can't see what ArbCom is intended to do here, this seems like the first step in a dispute resolution process, not the last. Attempts to resolve the dispute by argumentation on WR are not, as yet, a part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process are they? That seems to have been the major venue for this debate thus far, by my reading of the comments.

I would also note that the ticket referenced above has been closed as successful, with a comment from the individual who raised the ticket complimenting Wikipedia on our enforcement of policies. Is there any evidence of a continuing issue requiring resolution, other than a user who is blocked and doesn't like it? I'm not seeing anything here which makes this an "OTRS needs ArbComming" type case. There are three tickets relating to Haines, being 2009040310049955, 2007062910002018 and 2007062810015248; all are "closed successful", none are long threads, none show evidence of outstanding issues. On what basis is it claimed that this block is a response to OTRS? Unless I have grabbed the wrong end of the wrong stick, this does not seem to me to have anything to do with OTRS, it looks like a standard case of an on-wiki argument which has generated a single email complaint which was swiftly resolved by removing some talk page text. I think invoking OTRS is a red herring, we should focus on the user himself and his history of inappropriate legal posturing. I think that's what Coren has done. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: Having worked this out from first principles, as it were, I think the best course is to protect AH's talk page as being the locus of the disputed content, and to ensure that he is given the information necessary to request any courtesy blanking that may be necessary. I will do this and post at the admin noticeboards. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coren

Guy has, in fact, nailed the matter with no small amount of precision. While the OTRS ticket itself is closed and has been resolved, the block to AH's account is a matter of continuing pattern of legal and pseudo legal bullying being continued through an agent or proxy. If someone in a clear (and admitted) business relationship with an editor who has repeatedly been blocked for legal threats picks up the same language (and, indeed, much of the same wording) as the previous threats immediately after the editor has been obligated to withdraw them, those threats can rightly be considered as made by proxy.

(There was also another editor blocked by myself, SkyWriter, which has since been unblocked. I had apparently misidentified them as AH's publisher.)

As for the block parameters (that is, excluding editing the talk page), I've simply implemented the specific conditions made by the originally unblocking admin, Theresa knott. I do not feel strongly about it either way, but I do believe that the matter is now best handled entirely off-wiki (either with the Office, or with ArbCom — as a ban appeal, not as anything to do with OTRS). — Coren (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On timing: I realize the email arrived before AH was unblocked; I was referring to it arriving after Alastair had been blocked for making essentially the same claims. — Coren (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

The OTRS ticket was received on April 3rd. User:Alastair Haines made his second unblock request on April 8th. User:Theresa knott left time on WP:ANI for any objections to her proposed unblock on April 8th, posting the strict conditions on Alastair Haines' talk page when she unblocked. Coren blocked Alastair Haines and User:Skywriter on April 9th because of the prior OTRS ticket. There seem to have been various crossed wires here, probably because of different time zones (Europe, Australia, USA). Mathsci (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cailil

I'm not going to add much more since I think everything has already been said. And basically I agree with Guy, Coren and Mathsci. Also as John says below I have asked Alastair to give me a list of diffs - I'm yet to recieve any and am about to ask again.

I have gathered, without being able to see the OTRS ticket, that the publisher was concerned about content on Alastair's talk page but I know that Alastair has issue with other comments elsewhere. Comments including the ArbCom proposal to ban him (a proposal that was rejected). I believe he has sent an email to the Committee - if he has not speciified what diffs / comments are problematic in that message I can ask him to do so. If he does send them - I will pass them on to John and/or the Committee (as long as Alastair doesn't have a problem with that). But that said we can only really judge if it breaks our rules (WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK) not if it is defamatory in a legal sense--Cailil talk 16:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have not been able to locate the specific proposal (from the previous RfAr) that Alastair objects too - so he will need to spell out which one he has issue with. I think allowing him to post to his talk page might help progress matters--Cailil talk 16:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note of Clarification. I page banned User:LisaLiel from User talk:Alastair Haines - I didn't block anyone. Also I don't know if Lisa's or specifically any other user's comments were the issue. Lisa was page-banned per the RfAr for being disruptive and pointy - nothing else--Cailil talk 19:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoety

To Risker: While I agree that this is not the correct method, WP:OTRS does state that any actions by an OTRS volunteer on-wiki are reviewable by the Arbitration committee. Please see [36]. Tiptoety talk 18:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casliber

I feel the 1 week block from JHunterJ which was the initial flashpoint for this dustup was incorrect (however I note my involved status) - mainly as it put a content builder with a genuine interest in the article in question, and a content remover who has been guilty of stalking another user, on the same level. Things have spiralled out of control since then, with other issues being drawn in. This breakdown in communication has become a massive timesink and I can see further confrontation on arb pages as no different. I do think some negotiation is possible in order to defuse the situation, calm it down and return an equilibrium of sorts. I apologise I have had limited time with this but believe we can sort it out by email. Open discussion has drawn a peanut gallery so far which has not been helpful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Had I thought of it earlier, a Request for Clarification on the 1 week block might have resulted in an earlier resolution. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ottava Rima

I was, as far as I know, the first to notice the User:SkyWriter block. I contacted Coren and discussed the matter with a few others. I was glad that others stepped forward and that the matter was handled calmly until Coren's return. I am not a friend of Coren's. Most people will know that Coren and I do not get along. However, Coren proceeding in a fair manner and reacted quickly after he returned.

I am not a fan of NLT related blocks, nor am I a fan of people having their block logged marked up over the matter, let alone from being removed from contributing to the Wiki over it. I believe that these matters can prevented in the future if there is a clear statement about taking something to court and there is a clearly identified person. NLT is to prevent matters from being taken onto Wiki or disrupting the Wiki. Legal matters require individuals, and cannot happen behind pseudonyms in such a way. So, there should be a higher burden of actual legal matters to warrant an indef ban. As for the "threat" part, in casual conversation, they should be taken as a breach of civility in general, as they can be, in their title, threatening and are rude in general. There should be a difference between actual legal matters (indef block until they are resolved) and threats (in extreme cases warranting a block related to civil like disruptions but not an indef block). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SkyWriter

Here is what I understand from information given in discussions:

  • On April 3 someone opened an OTRS requesting that an administrator follow Wikipedia guidelines and remove personal attacks against Alastair Haines.
  • The OTRS administrator Daniel refused on the grounds that they represented [encyclopedic] content.
  • On April 8 Calil page-banned one editor from Alastair's talkpage for 6 months.
  • On April 8 Alastair Haines issued an extraordinarily comprehensive legal waiver that he would never take legal action – covering the past, present, and future.
  • The problem possibly solved by both Calil and Alastair -- Alastair was then unblocked.

NO INTERVENING STATEMENTS FROM ALASTAIR OCURRED

  • On April 9 Coren blocked Alastair for the April 3 OTRS, wiping out the entire talk page (including the personal attacks).
  • Sometime after this the OTRS emailer thanked Wikipedia for its prompt response and praised the site for following its own policies against personal attacks.
  • Both Daniel and Coren have failed to explain:
  1. What threat (i.e. an "or else" statement) was associated with the OTRS.
  2. How a "thank you" after blocking Alastair shows collusion with Alastair.
  3. How a "thank you" constitutes a legal threat.
  4. How a "thank you" prevents arbcom from lifting the Alastair block.
  5. How personal attacks on a talkpage constitute unremovable encyclopedic “content.”
  6. How Alastair’s extraordinary legal waiver constitutes ongoing legal posturing.

I therefore recommend that Alastair be unblocked, and that Coren and Daniel be required to read Wikipedia guidelines regarding personal attacks and unequivocally promise to enforce those guidelines before being allowed to work an OTRS or block a user.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following was moved from the clerk notes section. KnightLago (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • Don't know where to put this -- but Coren has unblocked Alastair.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Yes, please notify Cary Bass on his page at Meta, and he can determine which other OTRS volunteers should be informed. Risker (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notified at m:User_talk:Bastique#en-wiki_RFAR. MBisanz talk 10:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not link statement headings per Arbcom procedure. The correct format is: ==== Statement by Jimbo Wales ==== . KnightLago (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a general note: Please don't edit other people's comments; bring issues to our attention. And Privatemusings, please reword the level five heading in your section. MBisanz talk 06:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done - and for the record, whilst the adding of gigantic boobs, where appropriate, is most welcome, their removal may well be reverted. Take note, lurkers. Privatemusings (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment: OTRS is outside of the scope of the Arbitration Committee and is a creature of the Wikimedia Foundation. Any comment on this situation made by the Committee must obviously exclude any OTRS information, as several Committee members do not have OTRS authorization to see the ticket involved. Risker (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Privatemusings and Tiptoety: The initial request, upon which my comment above was made, was for the Arbitration Committee to review an OTRS ticket and make a decision on what to do about it. That is outside of the scope of the Committee. Each OTRS volunteer is responsible for his or her own actions and, just as with any editorial or administrative behaviour issue, could be reviewed by this Committee. The arms-length relationship between OTRS and the Committee is one that protects the individual who submits information to OTRS; if the person who initiated correspondence with OTRS wishes to send a copy of their email to the Arbitration Committee then we will review it and respond where appropriate, but I do not believe the Committe should muscle its way in to this area without the direct request of the party involved. Risker (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems to be a matter for Cary or a member of the OTRS team to handle, as would be true for most OTRS ticket related situations. What, exactly, is ArbCom being asked to review? (Are we being asked to make a determination about the legal threats, or lack thereof, in the ticket? Are we being asked to review the block? Are we being asked to review the substantive relation between the submitter and Alistair Haines?) Also, please understand that this matter involves an OTRS ticket and private correspondance, which may limit our ability to full explain or comment upon the situation on-wiki (and impede full access to all of the evidence available). --Vassyana (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is being discussed among the arbitrators. However, this situation does involve confidential and identifying information, which may not be appropriate to discuss on-wiki due to its nature. --Vassyana (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In no way is this issue ripe for consideration by ArbCom in this form. I have no reason to think that OTRS agents would not be able to work through the issue as it relates to them. Sensible people disagreeing with each other (if that is the case) is a strength of the system not a concern. IMO, no action needed at this time. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse; I have acted in the matter of the OTRS ticket as an administrator and an OTRS agent. — Coren (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse; I was involved in the last arbitration case and initiated the clarification request. One of the unresolved problems has been that Alastair Haines finds a few comments left around the project to be inappropriate. If he is unblocked, but these objectionable comments are not identified and discussed, I fear we will be back here again soon enough. In case it is still outstanding, Cailil says he is waiting to be advised of a list of problems so that the community members can assess and possibly fix them. He could also send them to arbcom if he prefers, or he could send them to me. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A substantial amount of the problem here involves the fact that Alastair Haines, an editor who has gotten into more than his share of editing disputes, edits Wikipedia under his full name. (Not merely that he discloses his real-life identity, but that his username is actually his name.) This automatically and overtly transforms any dispute involving A.H. the Wikipedia editor into an accusation against A.H. the individual, a fact that has consistently been unhelpful. I repeat the recommendation that has been made in the past that however this particular block is resolved, he consider requesting a rename. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentA mere rename will help but not solve the issues here. I have to pretty much agree with Flo, Coren,and Guy, this is not ready for arbcom and I would be uncomfortable unblocking AH this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse as a non-impartial friend of Alastair. I will add a comment above later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nothing substantive to add, except to say that a full and frank discussion of the grey areas of the 'no legal threats' policy is long overdue, including what to do about legal posturing, and those who are litigious by nature, but still want to edit Wikipedia. At some point, repeated arguments over legal threats and possibilities of legal threats, distracts too much from what we are meant to be doing here - working together to write an encyclopedia. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, agree with Carcharoth. Wizardman 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with JzG that the OTRS aspect here appears to be a red herring. 'No legal threats' is an absolute principle and one with a very clear boundary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per my colleagues; OTRS is within not our bailiwick; however, NLT is and probably could use reviewing.  Roger Davies talk 07:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Motion on Macedonia 2

Statement by Avg

Since the relevant page has not been initiated yet, I put my request here and I kindly ask the clerks to move or refactor if necessary. I would like to ask the Committee if the injunction on renaming articles can be expanded in avoiding renaming how the Republic of Macedonia is referred within an article. Please advise if I have to notify any/all parties involved about this request.

Comment to Statement by ChrisO: The proposed motion clearly mandates to revert any rename, so that would obviously include vandalism, in order to return to the status quo ante. Not only it doesn't prevent, but it encourages reverting any user who unilaterally modifies the name, in order to restore the article's current status, pending resolution of the issue in ArbCom. Its purpose is the exact opposite of what you are advocating.

Statement by Man with one red show

This is a good idea, please extend the injunction. Hope this will also make clear that this issue (which was actually the initial issue) will be examined too and will not be let without a clear resolution. man with one red shoe 03:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question by jd2718

Please clarify: "within an article" or "within the article"? The latter is quite clear, but if the former, could this extension be limited to parties to this arbitration? Jd2718 (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I'm open to such a moratorium, but I ask that if it is enacted, it should be with a clear rule that violations can be reverted. That's because the situation is asymmetrical: most moves to rename, say, an instance of "f.Y.R." to "R.o.M., or an instance of "R.o.M." to plain "M.", have been coming from established users in good standing, who would feel bound by such a rule, whereas renames in the other direction, especially to "FYROM" and variants, come from a shadowy army of hit-and-run single purpose accounts, socks and IPs, who can easily risk a warning or a block. If we couldn't revert those, the wiki-wide situation would be shifted in a matter of few weeks; see the activity registered daily at the abuse log. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the discussion ongoing above, especially Carcharoth: I don't think enforcement is a problem in the sense that you risk having participants blocked by involved admins. Come on, we involved admins may be wiki-suicidal, but we're not that wiki-suicidal. But yes, enforcement is an issue, and I repeat my plea above, when it comes to regulating how reverts to the status quo ante are to be done. If I read Rlevse's motion literally, it would seem that such reverts could be done only by uninvolved admins? That would introduce a huge bureaucratic overhead. Are we going to have to run to ANI for every little piece of everyday semi-vandalism to be cleaned up? Plus, there would also be the issue of where to draw the line between "normal" POV-pushing and true vandalism. For instance, just today I had to revert this: [37]. Now, say what you will, this one I do consider vandalism in the full sense, and there is simply no way on earth I'd accept an injunction that would prevent me from cleaning up this kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Taivo

I agree that a moratorium is good in principle, but completely concur with Future Perfect's assessment that the problems are often one-sided and waged by sock puppets, anonymous IPs, and other hit and run types. As an example, two different anonymous IPs removed a Macedonian alumnus from Staffordshire University within the course of 48 hours. While Staffordshire University would, conceivably, not be included in "Macedonian-related topics", it is indicative of what happens to anything labelled "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" without provocation, without justification, and without any type of control. We must be able to revert these types of nationalistically motivated hit and run anonymous attacks. (Taivo (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by ChrisO

I concur with the above, but I'd like to ask the arbs for a further clarification - does this motion still permit reversion of the anonymous hit-and-run vandalism that is occurring daily, renaming "Republic of Macedonia" as "FYROM" and its inhabitants as "FYROMians"? If not, a lot of our articles are going to deteroriate badly. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(add) This diff is a perfect example of what I am referring to - Greek editors repeatedly deleting any reference of the term "Macedonia" for POV reasons and using the unexpanded acronym FYROM in its place. Note the edit summary. Please also see User talk:Rlevse#Persistent vandalism and disruption for an overview of the problem, which is widespread and fairly intensively ongoing. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment In order to reduce the drama, I'd say yes, it includes the term within the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be left as a stand alone request for clarification, or merged somewhere into the main RFAR above? KnightLago (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it here, and move and start a new motion, in effect a sub motion to the first one. Arbs please continue this discussion/voting above. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=285591225"