Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: MBisanz (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Stephen Bain (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case Opened on 03:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Case modified by motion on 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Case modified by motion on 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

Requests for comment[edit]

Other steps in Dispute resolution[edit]


Statement by Jehochman[edit]

While patrolling WP:ANI I stumbled across a complex multi-party dispute that has been festering for over a month. Tothwolf claims hounding, collusion and malicious deletion nominations by JBSupreme, Theserialcomma and Miami33139. Those parties claim Tothwolf is "delusional" (Miami33139's words). There appears to be intense rancor on all sides with regrettably breaches of decorum by at least two of the involved parties. If you read the linked discussions, you'll notice the paucity of uninvolved editors willing to brave the long screeds and flames. I believe arbitration would help resolve this problem. The parties need structure, and they need uninvolved parties willing to closely review a substantial body of evidence spanning multiple articles and multiple editors. We do not have any other process that would provide suitable resolution. ANI cannot repel drama of this magnitude. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: The parties chose not to engage in formal dispute resolution. Instead, they kept going to ANI, and their comments were so combative, no uninvolved parties want to get caught in the crossfire. RFC is good for disputes involving a single editor, but it cannot effectively handle a dispute where multiple editors are behaving badly. I do not think RFC could help at this point. It does not make sense to start four redundant RFC's that focus on the same events and patterns of behavior. It will be more efficient to hear a single arbitration case. Jehochman Talk 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen Bain: It is not lazy (a regrettable personal attack by you against me) for an administrator to seek arbitration rather than imposing controversial sanctions. Some of the arbitrators have been notoriously wobbly about supporting administrators who undertake hard problems. I'm not keen to have a passel of disruptive editors swarm me with accusations of admin abuse if I try to put an end to their fun and games. After four ANI threads that did not generate any sort of consensus, what measure do you think might be workable in lieu of arbitration? Please do share with me what form of dispute resolution we have that is applicable to multiple users (RFC is only good for one) on an involuntary basis (mediation requires consent of all parties). Jehochman Talk 12:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Coren, thank you so much for offering to sit the parties down and guide them to RFC. I will watch carefully to see whether that works. No longer relevant. Jehochman Talk 03:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Miami33139[edit]

ArbCom does not need to hear this.

Jehochman brings this to ArbCom with a statement that there is no other process that can handle drama of this magnitude. On the contrary, this is not drama of high magnitude. This boils down to a simple case of ownership. In the AN/Incident yesterday I repeatedly asked Tothwolf, or any adminstrator, how one specific diff of a minor edit presented a case of harassment by myself of Tothwolf. After ten repeats of this one question, Tothwolf responded, showing he had made three minor edits to the article in question, eight months before, and in a different section of the list. He did not back down from his claim that these minor edits, on different sections, eight months apart, were harassing him. This is a ridiculous claim on its face.

ArbCom could break this entire incident up into that response from Tothwolf to understand this issue. Wikipedia does have processes that can deal with ownership and false claims of harassment, and that is for any administrator to actually act when they see such obvious displays. Bringing this case to ArbCom will certainly become drama of high magnitude, because there are a dozen more claimants to be heard where Tothwolf has screamed "HARASSMENT!" A simple glance at his talk page shows a years worth of complaints of his etiquette from many editors.

Tothwolf has shown that he believes minor edits separated by eight months are harassment of him. An ArbCom case where he will bring forth hundreds of such diffs, claiming they all harass him, will frustrate everyone to no end. These claims are ridiculous. Send this back to the administrators and tell one of them to figure out how minor edits separated by eight months harass anyone, and tell them to make an appropriate response based on their judgement. Miami33139 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies by Miami33139[edit]

Reply to SoWhy and Elen of Roads
The necessity of blocking the lot of us would require at least some finding that each person did something wrong. Here is your chance. Review the diff below. If there is a credible rationale that the diff below harasses Tothwolf, I will leave the project. I have not commented at, towards, or in reply to Tothwolf in over a month. I have studiously avoided him. Other than followup to pre-existing discussions (where I still avoided any potential showing of conflict with him), I have not touched the precious set articles where he claims ownership. He still claims I am harassing him. His claims are preposterous. This does not require ArbCom attention at all. He says the diff below is part of my harassment. Show the harassment at that diff and I will leave Wikipedia. I want no part of a project so ridiculous that eight months between minor edits on different sections can be harassment. Miami33139 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply 2, to Elen

This is not a case of content. The base issue here is behavior. An RFC about content would not resolve any issue in a timely manner. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) has been discussed for several years and has yet to come to good agreements.

  1. The base issue here is behavior.
  2. Tothwolf claims harassment.
  3. Tothwolf provided the diff below as evidence of harassment.
  4. Does the diff below show harassment? Yes or No?

My defense of this claim of harassment is that Tothwolf's claim plainly lacks evidence. Secondarily, I counter that Tothwolf's repeated false claims constitute an attack on myself, a claim backed up by the WP:NPA policy that repeated claims about behavior that lack evidence are attacks. So the diff below is not out of context or pointless. Tothwolf provided this as evidence. Does it provide evidence or not? You are saying that we all deserve some sort of sanction. A sanction has to be backed up by evidence. I have acted, in the last month, as if I did have sanctions. I have studiously avoided direct engagement of Tothwolf. Yet, here I am, still being accused of harassment. If we were under sanctions, and Tothwolf asked for me to be blocked, would you block me based on this evidence provided?

The Diff that can settle the whole thing.[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_portable_software&diff=prev&oldid=324167183

If any Arbitrator can show me how that diff harasses Tothwolf I will leave the project. No need to open the case. If there is no explanation of how that diff harasses Tothwolf, you know what kind of non-evidence you will get if you open the case. Miami33139 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by theserialcomma[edit]

Reply to Jeske Couriano: i've asked jeske couriano repeatedly to leave me alone. his responses have been some of the following: "slot off, fragface. You are not the victim under any circumstance, TSC" and "chummer, shut the frag up", "i am on your ass" "i am 100% disgusted by your behavior towards me", tothwolf is innocent, go after Theserialcomma, i will block you and seek a ban against you for harassing tothwolf. these are just some of the things jeske has said to me, always in relation to tothwolf. i know they collude on irc, and jeske's harassing me to help out his irc friend (tothwolf). but his behavior towards me is atrocious and completely unbecoming of an admin. everything jeske says to me is vile, and he's insistent on harassing me. tothwolf's failure to assume good faith and canvassing IRC are obvious. see User:Mikaey/Tothwolf for an admin's take on this. This deleted page, by the way, is why jeske went to Mikaey's page to tell him 'Theserialcomma is tothwolf's agent provocateur. if you are going after tothwolf, you should go after TSC instead'. Mikaey's response was that Most of the stuff I documented predates their interactions. . Later on at a WQA, Mikaey went on to write FWIW, Tothwolf does have a history of crying "wolf" whenever anyone does something to an article that he doesn't like. If he has ever touched the article, it suddenly turns into "wikihounding", when those users had no such intentions. I think Tothwolf has thrown the words "wikistalking" and "wikihounding" around more than anyone else I've come across on WP. Tothwolf always manages to avoid any sort of rebuff for his actions, because he always manages to paint the user he is after as the bad guy. This instance is just another in a chain of continued behavior which I find completely unhelpful and inappropriate for a Wikipedia user. Honestly, it needs to stop. Yesterday.

here is another gem where jeske goes out of his way to harass me. another editor had a semi attack subpage about me, which i nominated for deletion. jeske suddenly showed up, out of nowhere, having no business on that AFD, just to vote 'keep' on an attack page about me. Can someone tell this guy to stay away from me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:McJeff/BlockLog

Statement by Tothwolf[edit]

Each of the three editors (Theserialcomma, Miami33139, JBsupreme) have a history of harassing and "hounding" other editors and I've unfortunately become their latest target.

Theserialcomma has been party to a number of AN/I discussions and has previously been blocked due to baiting and their behaviour. They also have a history of abusing COI/N and SPI and making false allegations towards others.

Miami33139's last target was User:Ed Fitzgerald, who finally left Wikipedia due to constant hounding. Miami33139 tended to follow Ed Fitzgerald to remove his edits (since Ed Fitzgerald left, Miami33139 continues bulk remove large numbers of his edits).

JBsupreme has a very long history of making personal attacks towards others, especially in his edit summaries. These often contain vulgar language in all caps and have earned him a number of warnings from administrators and other editors.

On an individual basis, each of these editors has embarked on a campaign of wikihounding. It seems as though they are doing this as a form of "retribution" due to my work on other articles at AfD and for tagging prodded articles for the WP:COMP deletion workflow.

Within approximately the last two months, these three editors began engaging in collusion and meatpuppetry. This has taken place both with articles I've edited that they've AfD'd, as well as other articles that they would individually nominate for deletion. They've also used these same tactics against editors involved in other AfD discussions.

Between about September 25th and October 1st they began a campaign of mass AfD/XfD nominations in what appears to have been an attempt to draw the focus off the larger issue at AN/I, which by in large worked as the behavioural issue discussion was derailed. Many other editors at the time also felt their behaviour was harmful to the project. This is largely detailed on AN/I here.

I feel as though I've tried pretty much everything else possible to resolve this situation short of either leaving the project (such as what User:Ed Fitzgerald did and something I've been considering) or having ArbCom review this issue. I've tried taking this to AN/I without resolution and individual administrators have mostly suggested I collect diffs and document things. I really feel as though the community has failed me and left me out in the cold with no way to defend myself against the harassment from these three individuals. I will admit that dealing with these three editors has at times been rather stressful and at times I've made some comments I wouldn't have likely made otherwise, but by in large I've attempted to deal with each encounter without making things worse.

While I personally feel these editors' contribs and the diff links provided in the AN/I discussions above make this an easy WP:DUCK case, I understand that others who have not witnessed these behaviours first hand may not be able to see the issue in the same way without first having spent a considerable amount of time reviewing contribs and diffs.

--Tothwolf (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Elen of the Roads[edit]

It has more to do with the wikihouding and meatpuppetry behaviours than anything related to the notability of individual topics. The mass-AfD campaign initiated by these individuals which mainly took place around September 25th to October 1st seems to have clouded the issue and taken the focus off the behavioural issues. I would not expect any editor to simply ignore the ongoing behaviours of these three editors which includes the monitoring of contribs to "stalk" and follow behind to initiate AfD processes for articles I edit. As I mention above, this seems to be done as "retribution" for my work on improving other articles or bringing up these editors' behavioural issues on AN/I. These behaviours from these three editors seems to be in direct conflict with how the community expects editors to behave and this behaviour is still ongoing as of this very moment.

I currently feel as though I am unable to edit articles in mainspace and I am questioning why I'm even still attempting to be productive here while these behaviours are ongoing. Vandalism reverts, typo corrections, or attempts at article expansion or improvement seem to lead to one of these three editors nominating that article for AfD, often with at least one of the other three editors following to the same AfD. It should also be noted that none of these three editors edited articles in these topic areas at all prior to the wikihouding. Since the wikihouding campaign began, these editors have attempted to involve themselves in more related AfDs or make minor edits to related articles in an attempt to have this stuff "blend in" with their other contribs.

As documented in the wikitable included in the very long AN/I thread linked above (which could stand to be updated), the wikihouding and following of my edits stretched across a wide variety of topics and would even occur when I merely !voted in an existing AfD or tagged an AfD'd article for the WP:COMP deletion workflow. In those cases, usually at least two of these editors would jump into that AfD because they were following my contribs (which two seemed to vary but it was usually two). I'm really not sure how these patterns could be presented to make them any more obvious.

The problem with wikihouding at AfD is also compounded by the fact that they would intentionally make bogus arguments and even outright lie in an attempt to discredit both myself and others. Numerous times I would cite a book as a reference and one of these editors would claim the book didn't actually say what it said or didn't contain what it actually contained.

--Tothwolf (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaxthos[edit]

I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. To the best of my knowledge, I have never interacted with you outside of Wikipedia and if you have actual, verifiable evidence of any "off-wiki stalking and harassment" from myself I would ask that you present it instead of making baseless ad hominem claims. Furthermore, your continued [1] claims of canvassing and votestaking are beginning to get very close to libel territory.

I personally don't really care what sort of disputes you've had with others surrounding all the controversy with bash.org and the volunteer userbase leaving the site and I have absolutely no connection with your bash.org troubles or connections with any of the other online quote database sites that you seem to have a strong dislike for.

As far as I'm aware, the only major interaction I've ever had with Blaxthos was with this AfD. It was well documented there that Blaxthos had a very direct conflict of interest with articles related to bash.org and "competing" online quote database sites, many of which he nominated for AfD and others where he played a significant role during the AfD process.

--Tothwolf (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/1/0/0)[edit]

  • Decline, try RFC first. Wizardman 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to Accept per others. Wizardman 20:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept while I would normally say "try RFC or Mediation first", in this particular case I have to agree with SoWhy. I also have a strong suspicion that there is more going on here that we are seeing near the surface of these choppy waves. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. The problem seems to be a lack of engagement by the administrator corps and the community at large with respect to handling this matter in the venues in which it arose, and I do not see why proceeding to arbitration should be the default course of action in such situations. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, not the lazy step. --bainer (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; for now. While I would not go as far as some of my colleagues, I do believe this is still premature; the dispute is protracted but not vastly dramatic and one or two uninvolved experienced editors could help by "sitting down" the parties and guiding an RFC. — Coren (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept; after reconsideration. While I still believe it possible that the solution could be resolved without ArbCom involvement, it appears likely that the committee can help bring faster closure. — Coren (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept The reasons for us accepting the case coming from the experienced admin make sense to me. I don't think it is in the best interest of the Community for us to force users to spend time doing something when they see it as being unproductive. This is far different from situations when an issue is not ripe for arbitration because dispute resolution tools if used have a good likelihood of helping. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Rlevse and FloNight. Risker (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Replacing Risker's vote, which got accidentally removed here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - per Coren and FloNight and Rlevse. Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles[edit]

Harassment[edit]

1) Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hounding[edit]

2) "Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.

An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes of recent changes patrol, WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.

Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavour to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions.

Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with harassment[edit]

3) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themselves to be harassed or attacked – whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment privately to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.

Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest[edit]

4) An editor may have a conflict of interest if their interests in editing Wikipedia, or the interests of those they represent, conflict or potentially conflict with their obligations to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly the neutral point of view policy.

Editors are generally discouraged from editing, creating, or participating in deletion discussions about articles in relation to which they have a conflict of interest, although they are not forbidden from doing so. Instead, they are encouraged to suggest changes on article talk pages and utilize community review processes such as requests for comment.

Passed 5 to 0 with 3 abstentions 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Handling conflicts of interest[edit]

5) An editor dealing with another editor who has or is suspected to have a conflict of interest should politely engage that user in discussion about that conflict, with reference to the conflict of interest guidelines, or where appropriate, engage in other forms of dispute resolution. Suspected conflicts of interest may be discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith and remain civil in such discussions.

Editors handling a conflict of interest situation must always remember the primacy of Wikipedia's content policies. A conflict of interest may explain why an editor is producing problematic content, but the existence of a conflict, properly handled, is not problematic in its own right. Editors dealing with another editor who has or is suspected to have a conflict of interest must always consider the actual quality of their contributions with respect to content policies.

Passed 6 to 0, with 2 abstentions 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fait accompli[edit]

6) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, or performing large numbers of similar tasks, and are apprised that those edits or tasks are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion best practices[edit]

7) While the reasons for which an editor may validly nominate an article for deletion are not exhaustive, Wikipedia's deletion policy and practices generally prefer that nominations express at least one generally accepted reason for deletion, and that alternative courses of action (such as merging, redirection, or curing problems through editing) will often be preferable to deletion.

Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Decorum[edit]

8) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Casting aspersions[edit]

9) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Miami33139[edit]

Deletion nominations[edit]

1) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, over time, nominated a large number of computing-related articles for deletion via proposed deletion or articles for deletion (see contributions).

A number of editors have expressed good-faith concerns about the volume of Miami33139's deletion nominations, and whether Miami33139 has followed deletion best practices in making those nominations (for example: 1, 2).

Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nominations and harassment[edit]

2) In September 2009, Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made several allegations that his contributions were being followed by Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and that Miami33139 was searching for articles that Tothwolf had worked on to nominate for deletion.

While many of the articles Miami33139 has proposed for deletion or nominated for deletion had indeed been edited by Tothwolf beforehand, Tothwolf's edits were often minor (examples: [2] - [3]; [4] - [5]) and had often occurred many months before Miami33139's edits (examples: [6] & [7] - [8]; [9] & [10] - [11]; [12] - [13]; [14] - [15]).

It is more likely that Miami33139 has identified articles to propose or nominate for deletion from categories or lists of articles, rather than by any malevolent following of Tothwolf's contributions list (for example: [16], five consecutive deletion nominations of members of Category:Internet Relay Chat bouncers, gateways and proxies).

Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme[edit]

Deletion nominations[edit]

3) JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, over time, nominated a large number of articles (including computing-related articles) for deletion via proposed deletion or articles for deletion (see contributions).

A number of editors have expressed good-faith concerns about the volume of JBsupreme's deletion nominations, and whether JBsupreme has followed deletion best practices in making those nominations (for example: 1, 2).

Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nominations and harassment[edit]

4) Between 29 September 2009 and 1 October 2009, JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominated for deletion nine articles which Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had recently edited or applied WikiProject tags to (see [17] and [18]).

However in the midst of this sequence, JBsupreme nominated an unrelated article for deletion, and participated in a number of unconnected deletion debates. JBsupreme has subsequently nominated for deletion other related articles which have been edited by Tothwolf, but not for many months (examples: [19] - [20]; Special:Undelete/JIRCii - [21]; Special:Undelete/JmIrc - [22]).

It is more likely that JBsupreme has identified articles to propose or nominate for deletion from categories or lists of articles, rather than by any malevolent following of Tothwolf's contributions list (for example, of the sequence of nine nominations referred to above, the last eight were all nominations of members of Category:Internet Relay Chat clients).

Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Decorum[edit]

5.1) JBSupreme has occasionally been uncivil: typing edit summaries in all capital letters [23], using profanity or attacks in edit summaries [24], making edits to form inappropriate "contribution sentences" [25], and refusing to respond to good-faith criticism [26] [27].

Passed 6 to 1 with 1 abstention 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf[edit]

Allegations against other editors[edit]

6) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made allegations of misconduct against other editors without substantiating them, and without pursuing relevant dispute resolution in cases where substantiating the allegations could not be done publicly ([28], [29]).

Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Decorum[edit]

7) Tothwolf has from time to time engaged in uncivil or otherwise undecorous behaviour:

  • Tothwolf has made uncivil comments ([30], [31], [32]);
  • Tothwolf has assumed bad faith on the part of editors with whom he has interacted ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37]);
  • After Theserialcomma argued in favour of deleting an article that Tothwolf had argued in favour of keeping, Tothwolf argued in favour of deleting an article that Theserialcomma had argued in favour of keeping, only a short time after Theserialcomma's original edit, copying exactly Theserialcomma's wording.
Passed 8 to 0, 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Tothwolf restricted[edit]

1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 6 to 0 with 2 absentions 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme warned[edit]

2) JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 5 to 0 with 3 absentions 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Modified by motion at 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Miami33139 and JBsupreme reminded[edit]

3) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing.

Passed 6 to 1 with 1 abstention 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors reminded[edit]

4) The parties in particular, and other editors generally, are reminded to observe at all times Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on dealing with harassed editors and on handling conflicts of interest.

Passed 6 to 0 with 2 abstentions 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Passed 6 to 1 with 1 absention 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Amendments by motion[edit]

Modified by motion[edit]

Remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf ("re JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) is changed to read "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

Passed 7-0 at 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Modified by motion September 2010[edit]

Resolved by [41] at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:
1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · logs), Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) and JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) are banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed. This includes things like not editing each other's userspace, not becoming involved directly with each other in discussions, and not nominating articles for deletion which another one has started. This does not prohibit commenting in the same discussion without directly interacting or editing the same articles so long as they are not directly in conflict. They may request enforcement of this restriction at the Arbitration Enforcement board or by email to the Arbitration mailing list; they may not request enforcement or action against each other for any other reason or at any other venue. Attempts to game this restriction should be treated as a violation of the restriction.

Passed 10-0 with one abstain at 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

2) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or disruptive to deletion discussions, Miami33139 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement portion of the case. The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

Passed 9-0 with one abstain at 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

3) Remedy 2 (already updated once) is changed to "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or disruptive to deletion discussions, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months is reset to start from the day this motion passes.

Passed 8-0 with one abstain at 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf&oldid=1067808976"